I discussed the article with Dr. Beecher. I KNOW why he hasn't responded to the criticism. So, there's no need for me to wonder.
As to why he didn't provide support for statements about things that any microbiologist should know, is it really necessary to include an explanation of elementary microbiology in a paper about ways of detecting anthrax in mail bags?
It’s necessary to provide evidence that there were no additives when an unsupported statement given as fact is made like that. As Carl Sagan said - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Hmmm, could it be he couldn’t provide the data - because he’s NEVER SEEN IT and doesn’t even have access to it?