Replies

Arguing with Ed lake, whose claim to fame is uncovering fake nude celebrity pictures ( http://www.fake-detective.com/ ), is like trying to persuade the Pope that god is a protestant.

Lake claims that weaponized anthrax spores (and weaponized simulants) are NOT coated with silica. His claims are based on what he was told by Ken Alibek. Apparently the rest of the world disagrees with this. There are numerous pictures and descriptions of weaponized simulants in the Volume “Microbial Forensics”. They are are all coated with silica nanoparticles, as they should be.

Of course that doesn’t deter Lake from his conspiracy theories. He simply says all the scientists who wrote this volume deliberately pretented these were weaponzed spores in order to fool people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

In February 2005, Stephan P. Velsko of Lawrence Livermore National Labs published a paper titled “Physical and Chemical Analytical Analysis: A key component of Bioforensics”.[14] In this paper, Velsko illustrated that different silica coating processes gave rise to weaponized anthrax simulants that look completely different from one another. He suggested that the difference in the look of products could provide evidence of what method the lab that manufactured the 2001 anthrax used, and thus provide clues to the ultimate origin of the material.

In May 2005, Academic Press published the volume “Microbial Forensics” edited by Roger Breeze, Bruce Budowle and Steven Schutzer.[15] Bruce Budowle is with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Forensic Science Laboratory. Although the volume does not directly discuss the silica coatings found in the senate anthrax of 2001, the contributors to the chapters discuss in detail the forensics of silica coated weaponized bacterial spores. Pictures are shown of silica weaponized bacillus spores that are both mixed with silica and fully coated with silica. Pictures of weaponized Clostridium spores coated with colloidal (spherical) silica are also shown. Again, the aim of these studies is to define the forensic fingerprints of silica weaponization processes.

Lake claims that weaponized anthrax spores (and weaponized simulants) are NOT coated with silica.

I don't claim it. I state it as a FACT. No one who examined or viewed the anthrax spores mailed to the two senators in 2001 saw any coating on the spores.

The idea of coating spores to make them more "flyable" is absolute and total nonsense. It's beyond that. It's ridiculous and absurd. It's just plain STUPID. As "Biodefense student" said, coating spores makes them HEAVIER, and therefore LESS FLYABLE.

Silica is not used to COAT spores. It's MIXED WITH SPORES as a drying agent to keep the spores from absorbing moisture. If spores absorb moisture, they'll clump, just the way your instant coffee crystals will clump if you leave the jar open and they absorb moisture from the air.

His claims are based on what he was told by Ken Alibek.

My statements are based upon SCIENCE. I interviewed Dr. Alibek, Bill Patrick, Matthew Meselson and many others to understand the SCIENCE of spores and bioweapons. It was clear that some irresponsible reporters were ignoring the scientists who would know the facts - microbiologists specifically - and instead were going to "scientists" who would be totally ignorant on the subject of spores, like chemists and pharmacists, to find the "experts" who would tell them what they wanted to hear.

Of course that doesn’t deter Lake from his conspiracy theories.

TrebleRebel believes that if microbiologists agree about microbiology and agree that the chemists and pharmacists are wrong about the microbiology of coating spores, then it must be a conspiracy.

He doesn't like being called a "conspiracy theorist" and claims he doesn't see any conspiracy when he rants endlessly that the FBI is covering up the facts about a "supersophisticated" coating, when he claims that Meselson and Alibek are in on the plot to mislead the American people, when he claims that Doug Beecher is lying, etc.

TrebleRebel spins everything to support his beliefs. He cites a book which shows pictures of coated spores which PROVE that coating spores is ridiculous, but he sees those pictures as some kind of proof that spores are coated when turned into bioweapons. Obviously, the pictures were intended to INSTRUCT first responders and others what coated spores would look like, so they won't make the same mistakes that were made with the anthrax in the Daschle letter and FALSELY ASSUME there was a coating even though no coating was visible to ANYONE. The pictures in the book show that such a "coating" would be clearly visible to EVERYONE.

Just look at these pictures: Could anyone possibly look at those spores and miss the fact that they are coated? Could anyone believe that spores coated in such a way would be more "flyable" than pure spores which have been flying around and killing people for thousands of years?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

In a telephone call, I first told Ken about the AFIP finding that silica had been detected. He had not known that. All he had ever said prior to that call was that he could not see it on the SEMS images he saw.

With the advancement of silica nanoparticles about the time of the mailings, it is not surprising he did not see it on the SEMS images he was shown.

After using silica in the cuilture medium to permit greater concentration of the biological agent, (see Alibek/Bailey patent dated March 14, 2001), the silica can then be removed through repeated centrifugation or an air chamber. See Bailey/Morozov patent. (Morozov inherited al-Timimi’s phone number).

I would like you to put yourself on record as to why those patents are not indicated by the forensics. The government bioweapons expert I consulted has told me that the patents would serve this purpose — and are indicated by the forensics. While you are not a microbiologist, and neither is Ed, perhaps Debra, too, could put herself on the record as to why use of the method is not indicated by the method described in the patents. it would be especially helpful if Ken did also.

Meanwhile, ATCC should put itself on the record and say it did not have the Ames strain (if that is the case). Presently, they refuse to deny that they had it.