I believe I looked at it the first time you brought it up.
But there's no reason to believe that such a process was used to create the attack spores. And there's every reason to believe the attack spores were created using standard techniques -- perhaps with a few tricks from the pesticide industry.
Just like TrebleRebel, you just look for things which you can twist to support your beliefs. If you want to believe that Alibek's process was used to create the attack spores, that's up to you. But, to convince anyone else, you need more proof than just your beliefs. You need to PROVE that that process resulted in some "signature" in the spores that wouldn't be there with any other process.
Scientists detected silicon in spores as a result of lab contamination back in 1980. That's still the best explanation for why AFIP detected silicon and oxygen via a energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light), even though no silica could be seen under a Scanning Electron Microscope.
Okay, so Ed is on the record saying he did not consult any biodefense expert and just concluded there was no reason to think it applied.
That proves Debra’s thesis about the importance of making such determinations based on knowledge of the microbiology, and not one’s lay preconceptions.
Perhaps in an era when our enemies wish the destruction of major metropolitan centers like NYC and DC, folks already choosing to spend inordinate time following Amerithrax can at least inform themselves with the opinon of a bioweapons expert on such questions. There are some microbiologists and friends of microbiologists who follow these threads. Perhaps they could review the patents and give their opinion. I’m not looking for folks to agree (or not) — I’m just soliciting expert opinions. I’m being guided by a military scientist who knows enough about aerosol science to have had his lab raided by the FBI in Amerithrax. Unlike Ed, he is qualified to render an expert opinion on the science.
The technique is a commercially available technique — and represents a few tricks for the concentration of agents. It is deemed “bio-friendly.” And so there is nothing in Ed’s response that indicates they are not applicable. His failure to consult a bioweapons expert before reaching his conclusion demonstrates what Ed calls “cognitive rigidity.” Indeed, as indicated on the face of the patent, the method can be used to concentrate bio-pesticides.
So Ed wrote:
” there’s every reason to believe the attack spores were created using standard techniques — perhaps with a few tricks from the pesticide industry.”
Indeed. That’s precisely what Ken explains in his patent:
” cell culture method that substantially increases the yield of products produced from ... for example, ...biopesticides ...”
It all goes to illustrate Ken’s point that a sophisticated (highly concentrated product consisting of “pure spores”) can result from a relatively simple process.
Ed doesn’t get Ken or Matthew M. to say the method of the patent is not indicated for a reason. I’ve asked them both this precise question. Victor too.