Replies

I notive you conveniently ignored being proven wrong once again when I pointed out that the lead Dugway author of the CDC/Dugway paper has been making coated simulants for years. He has supplied just about every lab in the US with them:

“And what if that “expert” has probably never actually made weaponized anthrax or anthrax simulants? The main author of the Aerosol Science article probably hasn’t. He got the simulants from scientists at Dugway.”

Whilst I’m not going to waste time correcting the numerous science mistakes you have made in the last few dozen posts I will point out that the new paper is a joint Dugway/CDC study.

The lead author from Dugway, Lloyd Larsen, has been Dugway’s top simulant specialist for years. He’s been making silica coated simulants for years - and he made silica coated Bacillus Anthracis especially for this joint study. As the authors clearly stated - this was to simulate the spores used in the 2001 attacks.

I've admitted that I was wrong about that. I've admitted it here and on my web site. It's in the "horse and buggy" analogy.

But that doesn't change the fact that your absurd conspiracy theories are also shown to be wrong.

When it suits your purposes, you claim the silica was glued to the spores with "polymerized glass."

When it suits your purposes, you claim the silica was glued to the spores with "organic resin."

When it suits your purposes, you claim there was some process involved which dipped the spores in liquid nitrogen to get the silica to stick to the spores.

When it suits your purposes, you claim that the silica sticks to the spores from van der Waals forces.

All you really care about is that there MUST be some illegal conspiracy involving the FBI and countless scientists where the sole purpose seems to be to prove you wrong in your beliefs.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com