“No one except the attacker knows for sure how things were done and therefore which technique was effective. We haven’t been allowed to do the required testing (to support theory) in the USA since the end of the offensive component of our BW program in 1969.”
Extensive attempts to recreate the product have been conducted at Dugway.
If you go back to message #109 in this thread, you'll see that that is NOT true.
Here's what I posted from Chemical & Engineering News:
Daniel Martin, a microbiologist in Dugway's Life Sciences Division, tells C&EN that Dugway was asked "to produce materials to see how they compared with the materials the FBI had in its possession." But, Martin says, Dugway did not reverse or back engineer the attack powder. "Back engineering implies that you know exactly what the material is and can replicate the material exactly, step by step." That isn't what Dugway did, he says.
Instead, Martin says, Dugway used the Leahy powder as the culture starter to "produce several different preparations using different media, and different ways of drying and milling the preparation" that the FBI could use for comparison purposes. Dugway, he says, never analyzed the Leahy powder and did no comparative analyses between the preparations made and the Leahy powder.
In other words, what Dugway did was create a variety of samples made in different ways so the FBI could use the samples for comparison purposes. DUGWAY MADE NO ATTEMPT TO RECREATE THE ATTACK ANTHRAX, AND THEY DID NO OFFICIAL COMPARISONS. They simply used some of the attack anthrax to culture more anthrax and more spores to be used for the variety of tests.
The purpose of the samples was evidently to produce statistics and scientific data which could be shown in court to illustrate how different techniques result in different products, and how the different products can be distinguished from one another.
I should have added that "testing to support theory" is not the same as testing to support legal arguments in court.
So, Biodefense student is technically correct in what she wrote.