".......CLARIFIED via scientific reports"
I hate to tell you this, but an unattributed footnote in a paper saying there were no additives without a scrap of evidence is not a "scientific report".
Eleni P. Kalisch now says the FBI have known almost from day one exactly what they were dealing with. Kind of strange that two years later the head of the Washington field office would admit that they had failed to reporouce the powder. Yeah, they knew what they were dealing with, but they couldn't reproduce it!
As always, you are twisting what facts you aren't simply making up.
It was NOT a footnote. It was part of a scientific report written by a top scientist at the FBI labs, a report that was PEER REVIEWED and printed in a top microbiology magazine.
Instead, you choose to believe a self-serving, self-congratulating statement made in an AFIP newsletter.
Kind of strange that two years later the head of the Washington field office would admit that they had failed to reporouce the powder. Yeah, they knew what they were dealing with, but they couldn't reproduce it!
Another example of twisting facts. The article you cite states that, if they hadn't been able to reproduce a powder that can be easily reproduced, that could only mean that they were trying to reproduce it exactly, meaning they needed to reproduce the lab contamination process, too.
Ed