Replies

Your wild conspiracy theories are based on the ravings of a madman ...

My conspiracy theories?

Perhaps our problem here is that you do not understand the meaning of the word "conspiracy."

The legal dictionary definition of a "conspiracy" is:

"When people work together by agreement to commit an illegal act."

An example of that would be your belief that the attack anthrax of 2001 was created via some supersophisticated process that could only be part of some secret and illegal bioweapons program. Or, as Francis Boyle put it:

the culprits are US government related scientists involved in a criminal US government biowarfare program that violated both the BWC and US domestic legislation implementing the same.

While you avoid using the word "conspire," you endlessly theorize that respected scientists, FBI agents and other agencies have conspired to mislead the American people about coatings on the anthrax spores. Whether you use the word or not, that makes you a "conspiracy theorist."

When you call me a conspiracy theorist, you just blather on about your belief that the FBI and many others are being misled by some "madman." That doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist. That makes you a nut case.

I'm saying what the facts say: The spores were NOT coated with silica. And, except for lab contamination, the spores were "pure spores," just as General Parker stated repeatedly. There was no illegal act by anyone except the anthrax mailer.

Understand?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"While you avoid using the word "conspire," you endlessly theorize that respected scientists, FBI agents and other agencies have conspired to mislead the American people about coatings on the anthrax spores."

Hardly. I just state facts. Ari's book clearly communicates Ari's assertion that SILICA was found as an additive despite your perverted twisting of how it is written.

And Meselson's manipulations as a reviewer of Beecher's paper pales into insignificance compared with his DOCUMENTED manipulations of the media over Sverdlovsk. Do we need to cite ALL of your buddy Matthwew's gross scientific misconduct all over again?

If Meselson can fool the media for 10 years after >100 inhalational anthrax deaths he can certainly fool them for longer after 5 deaths from inhalational anthrax.

Are you denying that Meselson was able to fool the media for 10 years over Sverdlovsk? Are you saying the exerept below is a lie? Have you actually read Plague Wars? Or do you only read books that you WANT to believe?

CHAPTER NINE Incident at Sverdlovsk
Page 76:

The Soviets now went to extraordinary lengths to buttress their lies and make them supportable and credible worldwide. What had begun as a local cover-up in Sverdlovsk, now became an international fairy tale, a fiction of breathtaking audacity.

Page 77:

Throughout the rest of the 1980s, Matthew Meselson, a respected Harvard professor of microbiology and longtime arms control activist, unwittingly helped the Soviet caravan of deception and disinformation gain acceptance in the West.
Meselson emerged as the leading scientific expert to oppose his own government's interpretation of Sverdlovsk in favour of the Soviets' old tainted-meat cover-up. He defended the Soviets' case publicly and doubtless from the most honest of beliefs. President Reagan was now in the White House and, no matter how forcefully his administration complained about Sverdlovsk, Meselson remained utterly convinced that there had been an accident with bad meat and it had nothing to do with any secret biological weapons plant.
.........
With his well-deserved and impressive academic/scientific credentials, his views were usually sought and carefully listened to. He also became an important figure for the US media to consult. His opinions about Sverdlovsk were widely quoted in the serious press, books, and prestigious scientific journals. The record shows that after 1980 his publicly stated views on Sverdlovsk broadly agreed with the explanations issued by the Soviets themselves.

Page 81:

But the guilty involvement reached even higher. Next, it emerged that Boris Yelstin himself also must have known about the cover-up. In May 1992, Yeltsin's new Russian government formally acknowledged what was now well known, but still had no official imprimatur. The man who had been the powerful communist party chief of the Sverdlovsk region in 1979 was none other than President Boris Yeltsin. He now admitted that the outbreak had been caused by an accident at the biological weapons facility, and not by natural causes. This presumably correct version became the official position of the Russian government, and remains so to this day.
Meselson, however, remained unfazed. In the face of Yeltsin's admission and the Russian and US press disclosures, the professor assembled a team of expert American scientists and went with them to Sverdlovsk in June 1992 to see for himself. They interviewed two outstanding Sverdlovsk doctors Faina Abramova and Lev Grinberg who participated in the 1979 autopsies at Hospital 40. For thirteen years, these brave pathologists had secretly hidden incontrovertible medial evidence from the KGB including preserved tissue samples, slides, and autopsy reports which proved that the victims had died from breathing in the anthrax.
Meselson later claimed that he and his team had made the discovery of the new truth from these important witnesses, but again, the facts were against him. The two Russian doctors had previously spoken to Soviet reporters and the Wall Street Journal, so Meselson was simply taking credit for being the final arbiter who had authenticated the evidence.
After making a second trip to Sverdlovsk, Mesleson finally published his results in 1994 in the journal Science; the article accepted that the tainted-meat story was bogus. But, perversely, he still would not admit that the US government had been right for fifteen years, or that he had been wrong. Rather, he trumpeted the fact that he anf his team had finally uncovered the "defenitive proof" that the true cause of the outbreak was pulmonary anthrax. "This should end the argument about where the outbreak came from," Meselson somewhat pompously told the New York Times "Right up until now, people have still been debating the matter."
Yet, to the bitter end, Meselson still clung to a benign interpretation of Soviet motives. He noted that the cause of the accident was still not determined, which implied that it may have involved only a Soviet research centre, one for finding an antidote to an anthrax attack, and not a military production centre for biological weapons. By clinging to this position, he could still argue that the Soviets were not violating the BWC, but were conducting permissable research under the treaty.