[EdLake]

“The statement should have had a reference,” says L. Nicholas Ornston, editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation,” he says.

I guess that's the difficulty with information that relates to an on-going criminal investigation, isn't it?

You can provide facts, but you cannot back up those facts with supporting information that is evidence in an on-going criminal investigation.

You might see it as proof of a "non-massive" conspiracy to cover up an illegal U.S. government bioweapons program, but I see it as just a matter of releasing important information to scientists while not providing details which could be used as evidence in an on-going criminal investigation.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

I guess it means you shouldn’t even be mentioning evidence in an “on-going criminal investigation” in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the first place.

[TrebleRebel]

The bottom line here is that Beecher’s article is NOT a source of what the FBI know or do not know. It was an irresponsible thing to write in a scientific journal - the reviewer should never have allowed it, not without documented proof. Who was the reviewer again? Oh, yes, it was Matthew Meselson, wasn’t it?

Have you read about his involvement in Sverdlovsk? Or do you need remimded - yet again?