Er, Beecher, supposedly at the “center of the investigation”, uses the Science article as his ONLY source there were no additives. The Science article says there WERE additives. Beecher, I believe, was duped into adding this sentence by his reviewer, Meselson, who we all know has an agenda.
This fact has been noticed by many others.
http://www.bepast.org/docs/washington%20newsletter/17%20October%202006%5B1%5D.htm
The August 2006 by Beecher provides great detail on the forensic examination of the letter to Senator Leahy, including the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) contamination while personnel were investigating the Leahy letter (Table 1, page 5307), and the anthrax contamination studies of 20 letters also postmarked October 9, 2001 in Trenton, New Jersey close in time to the “Daschle and Leahy letters” (Table 2). Of note, however, no new data is provided in the “Results” section of the paper regarding the presence or absence of any additives to the anthrax spores in the letter.
In the “Discussion” section of the paper (page 5309) however, Mr. Beecher states that ”Individuals familiar with the composition of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents (6)”. This single reference # 6 is from an article titled “Anthrax powder: State of the Art?” published 28 November 2003 in Science (volume 302, pages 1492-1497) by Gary Matsumoto, described at the end of the five-page article as an investigative journalist.
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/view/index8.html
Beecher’s article is very oddly sourced, his reference to the scientists familiar with the sample who say it was just spores is to Gary Matsumoto’s article in Science, which discusses the controversy, and pretty much sides with the pro-silica people.
It does so because government scientists from the Army who know how to weaponize anthrax to the state of the art were asked by the FBI to do so attempting to replicate a guy with lots of knowledge working in the basement, and failed — because of clumping characteristics unlike the samples from the letters. Gary Matsumoto is double cited by Beecher in the part you quote, he is reference (6).
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html
This is the FBI’s first public statement on the investigation since it began analyzing the material in the Leahy letter and the first time the bureau has described the anthrax powder. Beecher, however, provides no citation for the statement or any information in the article to back it up, and FBI spokeswomen have declined requests to interview him.
“The statement should have had a reference,” says L. Nicholas Ornston, editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation,” he says.
Nonsense. He works for the FBI labs. The FBI's labs examined the spores. Beecher's entire article is about handling and examining the spores. He was doing original research. He and the FBI scientists are the main source for the article. Beecher is saying they examined the anthrax spores as part of original research and there were no additives.
Do you really expect him to cite the article he wrote as a source for the article he wrote?
The news article in Science magazine had no original research and was cited as an example of bad and misleading information.
Even Science Magazine says that the Matsumoto article is not science. Here's part of the letter I received from Don Kennedy, the editor of Science Magazine back in January of 2006:
Dear Mr. Lake:
First, your suggestion that we "retract" the Matsumoto piece is inapplicable. That was a News article; it didn't report original research, and the authors of News articles report views of the science as they have found it following investigation. This often sparks disagreements.
He went on to say that he wouldn't censor Matsumoto's views.
Some people might be dumb enough to believe that a "news article" by a reporter with "views" is more reliable than original science reported in a scientific report by an FBI scientist, but some people are dumb enough to believe almost anything -- particularly conspiracy theorists.
You wrote:
Beecher, I believe, was duped into adding this sentence by his reviewer, Meselson, who we all know has an agenda.
No, I don't think that "we all know" that Professor Meselson has some kind of "agenda" and is duping the FBI.
What is that agenda? Please tell us.
I can see that Doug Beecher may have been asked or persuaded by Professor Meselson to add the comments about the attack spores having no additives. He should be applauded for doing so. We're all complaining that the FBI isn't releasing enough information about the attack anthrax. Let's hope he persuades or "dupes" the FBI into releasing MORE information.
My discussions with people at the FBI indicates that they feel they cannot get in the middle of idiotic arguments generated by conspiracy theorists and True Believers. They know from experience that it would just generate MORE idiotic arguments from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers. It just causes the media to distribute more widely the idiotic theories from these conspiracy theorists and True Believers.