Looks like I can waste that last 10 minutes, too.
I found the Fox story to be amusing. It didn't make me uncomfortable in any way. Your beliefs to the contrary don't change that.
Beecher’s paper has been discredited
Beecher's paper has been criticized for not including supporting documentation for statements he made. That does not make him wrong. It only means that people who have contrary beliefs won't accept anything until they see all the evidence that exists. And if it cannot be publicly released, to them that just proves a conspiracy.
TTFN
No, Beecher’s paper has been discredited. A paper get’s discredited when the editor states that it should not passed peer review. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. As I said, it would not last 2 seconds in court now.
It was a stupid stunt in the first place.
Ed, I asked Dr. Beecher for a copy of the article so I could distribute the two sentences and corroborate them or debunk them, explore his source for the statement etc. It prompted Kay Mereish’s letter based on the presentation by Dorothy Small who actually examined the anthrax for the FBI.
So now let me pass on to you a key sentence from this article: “In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a “fluidized” form (defined here as having fumed silica added).”
But I really do think you should be at least doing library research if you are going to presume to address the issue.
Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthracis Spore Particles on …
PA Baron - Aerosol Science and Technology, 2008