“In a telephone call, I first told Ken about the AFIP finding that silica had been detected. He had not known that.”
Can you remember when you had the telephone call? Was it before or after Monday, March 31, 2003?
Because he knew about AFIPs finding of silica on that date, unless he forgot about it.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_iraq_alibek033103.htm
Dallas, Tex.: A published analysis of the anthrax mailed to government and media in Oct. 2001 shows unambiguously that silicon dioxide was present on the surface of the spores. The work was performed by the AFIP and the results can be seen here.
Does this mean, in your opinion, that the anthrax was made in a state-sponsored bioweapons lab?
Ken Alibek: We paid to much attention to the silicon oxide on the surface of the spores. I haven’t seen any silicon presence on micrographs of this anthrax. We shouldn’t forget that silica would be a natural component. In this case, in my opinion, silica was a natural presence in these spores. There was no special need to add silica to this anthrax.
It seems to me unlikely that he would forget learning of AFIPs results on Monday, March 31, 2003.
After all, he had gone to considerable lengths in November 2002 to emphasize that “Until knowledgeable government investigators announce their results, statements attributed to anonymous sources or from persons who have not examined the actual evidence should be greeted with caution.” He did this by writing a letter to the Washington Post.
I assume you will agree with me that AFIPs report is by “knowledgeable government investigators” - after all they were the lab charged by the FBI to analyze the powder.
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxundermicroscope.html
I don’t know. But I told you, Mr. Lake and our friend Richard at the time. So your inbox would have it. I don’t keep emails.
I believe I first became Ken’s biggest fan in June 2002 on a Washington Post chat on Amerithrax (not Iraq). (So it definitely was after that Amerithrax chat). You questioned him about silica — and as I recall he said that whether it had silica or not wasn’t the be-all, end-all. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t — but he couldn’t see any. I questioned him about whether he thought a spray dryer was used. At the time, he did. But over the years he came to think, he tells me, a fluidized bed dryer was used. There’s a couple chapters in BIOHAZARD 2 (draft) on the subject. I still think a min-spraydryer was used, because the Bucchi rep told me there’s no way to get rid of the charge. (It’s from the velocity coming through the nozzle). Ken thinks the charge came from the mail sorting machines. And you think it was intentionally added — such as by a corona discharge.
I believe the device used was a US Army funded device that was in prototype in 2001 that through repeated centrifugation and sequential filtration concentrated anthrax samples. It was tested in the summer of 2001. That is what would serve well in concentrating the spores and removing the silica from the surface.
The government contact worked for the Navy - UNMC.
The maling label I have from the ISU professor (the one with the prototype device) actually was faxed to ISU from doctor Knudson at UNMC (as they tried to figure out after 9/11 the route that Ames took from the dead cow) Knudson is the one who originally collected the Ames strain.