Where did I say the September 25 letter DIDN'T contain anthrax? On the contrary, I agree with the CDC official conclusions - there were TWO anthrax letters sent to AMI, one mailed to the Enquirer, and one mailed to Sun.
Okay. That just leaves the question of why all the evidence indicates that the J-Lo letter did not contain anthrax. No significant amount of anthrax was detected in the area where the letters was opened. None of the other people who opened and examined the J-Lo letter came down with anthrax.
"Early in the anthrax outbreak, nasal swabs were being used as an indicator of human exposure to aerosolized anthrax spores. While the intent was right, it became clear quickly that this methodology was highly flawed and was not a reliable predictor of exposure. Several of the individuals that died from inhalation anthrax had negative nasal swabs. The CDC readily acknowledged that a negative nasal swab did not mean that a person was not exposed."
It seems you have difficulty understanding this concept. Read the article I have linked to CAREFULLY!
It means that whilst positive nasal swab tests ARE a reliable indicator of exposure, negative tests ARE NOT a reliable indicator of NO exposure.
Okay. No problem. I suppose it is theoretically possible that everyone who examined the J-Lo letter could have had negative test results on their nasal swabs. But we still have the matter of no one else who examined the J-Lo letter coming down with anthrax. And, of course, the matter of very little anthrax being in the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around. In the area where the actual anthrax letter was opened and then tossed into a waste basket without being passed around the entire area is very contaminated.
Are you still not prepared to tell us why you aren't following Meselson's advice? Here's what he wrote in his personal letter to you:
"You should insist on official confirmation of any claims of additives before believing there are any in the Daschle/ Leahy material."
If there is some "official confirmation" of additives being in the Daschle anthrax I haven't seen it. Are you referring to the AFIP article? It does NOT mention "additives" any more than it mentions "coatings". It merely says:
AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica.
Professor Meselson was referring to that fact when he wrote me. So, I'm still waiting for "official confirmation" of an additive. The AFIP article doesn't mention an additive, and it's been stated by bioweapons experts that the silica could have come from some drying method or from some aspect of the growth medium, the growth environment, etc. So, we don't know the source of the silica.
The fact that people read inaccurate reports in the newspapers that the newspapers and believed those reports is not "official confirmation". It is rumor.
No one who has actually SEEN the anthrax has said that there were additives or that the spores were coated. Everything about "additives" and "coatings" on the Daschle anthrax is just rumor and speculation.
All three messages answered. Time to move on.
Ed