tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post1107205448237502238..comments2024-02-26T22:44:34.925-05:00Comments on Anthrax Vaccine -- posts by Meryl Nass, M.D.: Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect killer?/ McClatchyMeryl Nass, M.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-76711637893881020362011-05-27T16:44:58.340-04:002011-05-27T16:44:58.340-04:00Again,the anonymous of April 26th and yesterday (M...Again,the anonymous of April 26th and yesterday (May 26th). Another strong indicator that Mister Lake is, well, all wet when it comes to evaluating the relevance, reliability, and admissibility of evidence is in the comment section of his website where he unloads this beaut:<br />--------------<br />In reality, evidence of guilt that points to multiple people is still evidence of guilt in any court.<br />----------------------------------<br />But typically courts try INDIVIDUALS, not 'multiple people', and certainly nothing as large as the readership of THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.<br /><br />It boils down to specificity. If it did not, then a court really WOULD rule admissible the fact that Ivins (probably) watched NBC/ABC/CBS for decades. Can Mister Lake really be saying that this is relevant to a hypothetical)courtroom trial of Ivins?!?!? I think not! (and if I'm wrong then an Ed Lake on a jury would be putty in the hands of any prosecutor).<br />----------------------------------<br />The fact that Ivins liked to drive at night MIGHT be of some probative value if IT COULD OTHERWISE BE PROVED he drove to New Jersey on the night of Sept 17-18th and/or the days/nights prior to the October 9th letters. But without that, it's totally irrelevant (and likely inadmissible). Because the fact that Ivins could drive is not in dispute, only the fact that he drove to Princeton on two occasions to mail letters poisoned with anthrax. THAT question won't be settled by citing his mailing bona fide PRESENTS, even if the mailings took place near Princeton (and this----the Princeton location for the gift-mailing(s)---was never alleged by the government).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-42685574463841204422011-05-26T16:46:46.178-04:002011-05-26T16:46:46.178-04:00I'm the "anonymous" of April 26th an...I'm the "anonymous" of April 26th and I just looked at this blog entry again.<br /><br />Mister Lake posts (ostensibly addressing me):<br />-------------<br />Here's a hypothetical case:<br /><br />Some evidence points to suspects A, B, C and D.<br /><br />Some evidence points to suspects A, C and G.<br /><br />Some evidence points to suspects C, E and F.<br /><br />Some evidence points to suspects A, C and F.<br /><br />Some evidence points to suspects C and G.<br /><br />Conclusion: ALL the known evidence points to Suspect C as the culprit.<br /><br />Carrying the hypothetical case a bit further:<br /><br />It's not possible for anyone but A, B, C, D, E, F and G to have committed the crime.<br /><br />A, B and E have solid alibis ("exculpatory evidence").<br /><br />D is physically handicapped and incapable of doing what was necessary to commit the crime ("exculpatory evidence").<br /><br />F and G are unskilled and have no knowledge of the required techniques used in the crime ("exculpatory evidence").<br /><br />Final conclusion: Suspect C did it beyond any reasonable doubt.<br />=================================<br />Well then, your hypothetical evidentiary reasoning is just as faulty as your concrete evidentiary reasoning (Ivins and Amerithrax).<br /><br />Reasons:<br /><br />1)there is no such thing concretely as "some evidence". If there were then the fact that Fay Resnick had a drug problem and was a friend of Nicole Brown would tend to indicate that the key to the death of Nicole Brown Simpson was "to be found in the drug world of Fay Resnick". It was never established that that ever had anything to do with the murder.<br /><br />There are only PARTICULAR instances of 'evidence', with widely varying levels of reliability, relevance etc.<br /><br />2)concretely in Amerithrax we don't know a)how many and who were/was in the original pool of suspects b)how they arrived at that pool (ie why some people weren't included). This ALONE raises reasonable doubt, especially given the geographical spread (ie Fort Detrick to Princeton NJ).<br /><br />Even if we could agree with the government that ALL the people should be there, that doesn't preclude someone with marginal/temporary access to the lab(s) containing the Ames anthrax from having stolen it.<br /><br />3)We don't know on what basis people in the original pool were eliminated. To be COURTROOM evidence, that would all have to be presented. And it would almost certainly be found wanting. (You can't convict someone for lack of a better suspect).<br /><br />Said another way, this part:<br />--------<br />It's not possible for anyone but A, B, C, D, E, F and G to have committed the crime.<br />-----------<br />is, in the given case (Amerithrax), just not the case. The Amerithrax perps will prove to be persons unknown to the US public. Unknown to federal investigators.<br /><br />And outside of Agatha Christie novels where all the suspects attended the same dinner party, were in the same locked room when the murder took place, this A, B, C, D, E, F and G stuff almost never happens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-62292437724128544752011-05-23T12:10:13.971-04:002011-05-23T12:10:13.971-04:00Dr. Nass,
I agree that there doesn't seem any...Dr. Nass,<br /><br />I agree that there doesn't seem any way to discuss facts about B subtilis contamination.<br /><br />Click <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103503002008" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> for an article about the danger of B subtilis contaminating the surface of a space craft sent to Mars and thereby also contaminating the entire planet.<br /><br />There's another article <a href="http://plantpath.ifas.ufl.edu/People/Faculty/Schuerger/Publications/Schuerger_2003_Icarus.pdf" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />Here's an interesting quote:<br /><br /><b>"B. subtilis is a common contaminant of laboratory cultures (it plagued Louis Pasteur in many of his experiments) and is often found on human skin."</b><br /><br />Source: <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/47965/bacillus" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />But, if people want to believe that Ivins lab was cleaner than the surface of a space craft sent to Mars, there's no point in continuing to argue.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-56493385173555513322011-05-23T11:21:30.913-04:002011-05-23T11:21:30.913-04:00Thanks, Atlantic Lighthouse.
You are exactly righ...Thanks, Atlantic Lighthouse.<br /><br />You are exactly right. Either there was so much B. subtilis outside that it would have been tracked in, in great quantity, to achieve 0.3% of the total spore load, and been easily found on surface samples, OR it was part of the seed spore prep from which the spores were grown.<br /><br />Does everyone agree this thread has gone on long enough and there is little left to pick over?Meryl Nass, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-10240873591953675992011-05-23T11:03:01.925-04:002011-05-23T11:03:01.925-04:00If there was a dense subtilis patch at Ft. Detrick...If there was a dense subtilis patch at Ft. Detrick on the parade ground that Ivins stepped in, then presumably others would have as well.<br />If Ivins' shoe had millions and billions of spores before he entered the building, with most rubbed off as he walked around, then this subtilis would have been everywhere in the complex from others stepping in it.<br /><br />If somehow a single bit of strange subtilis floating in the air outside at Ft. Detrick had stuck on Ivins face or clothes or shoes, then by the time he got to preparing a flask or plate inside the BSL3, there would have been almost nothing left. <br /><br />If there was enough strange subtilis on the outside that after all the losses to go inside, change clothes and shoes it still ended up as .3 percent of the first letter anthrax, then there was enough on the outside to get into everything at Ft. Detrick from others tracking it around as well. It would then still be there.Old Atlantic Lighthousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851308758539648628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-58546847732557678502011-05-22T16:55:12.889-04:002011-05-22T16:55:12.889-04:00BugMaster wrote: "It isn't a fact the the...BugMaster wrote: <i>"It isn't a fact the the GAO is currently investigating the investigation and is hopes to release its report in September?"</i><br /><br />Yes, but there is absolutely <b>NO</b> reason to believe that the GAO is going to find that Ivins was innocent. That's just plain absurd. <b>The GAO isn't going to change the FACTS, and the FACTS say Ivins was guilty.</b><br /><br />All the GAO can do is fill in some details and, perhaps, suggest how the investigation of Dr. Hatfill could have been done differently. <br /><br />I hope they also make some recommendations about how to handle conspiracy theorists and the media when they try to interrupt or mislead future investigations, as Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and the New York Times did with the Amerithrax case.<br /><br />The Amerithrax case is OVER. The GAO report is NOT going to reopen it just because some skeptics have irrational doubts about the findings. That's beyond absurd. It's a fantasy.<br /><br />The facts say Ivins was the anthrax killer. Click <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Evidence-vs-Beliefs.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> for a list of the evidence against Bruce Ivins. The list is side by side with the arguments from skeptics. <br /><br />It is preposterous to believe that the GAO is going to ignore the evidence just because conspiracy theorists and True Believers don't believe the evidence.<br /><br />All the GAO can do is add to the Evidence List. David Willman's book produced a couple items I plan to add to the list as soon as his book is published.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-56840822005372387012011-05-22T16:36:48.775-04:002011-05-22T16:36:48.775-04:00BugMaster wrote: "Ivins was prescribed medici...BugMaster wrote: <i>"Ivins was prescribed medicines to quell his murderous thoughts? You know this as a fact, and have information supporting your conclusion?"</i><br /><br />The Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel (EBAP) report uses information from confidential files kept by Ivins various psychiatrists. You can attack the people who wrote the report because you don't like what they wrote, but that doesn't change the fact that they are using <b>actual psychiatric reports</b>, and you are arguing only your beliefs.<br /><br />The EBAP report has a lot of redacted information, but David Willman's new book contains a lot of the redacted material - including the names of all of his psychiatrists and therapists.<br /><br />Ivins started visiting psychiatrists around 1976, while he was doing post-doctoral work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. That was the time when he was also fixated on Nancy Haigwood, and he thinking of ways to do harm to her or her career - apparently because he couldn't control her. There are no records from that psychiatrist. <br /><br />Ivins wasn't suffering from depression in 1978, when he first visited Dr. Naomi Heller. He was having thoughts about <b>murdering</b> Nancy Haigwood.<br /><br />Dr. Heller's first thought when she heard about the anthrax attacks and the connection to USAMRIID was that Ivins could have done it.<br /><br />In early 2000, Ivins was thinking about murdering Mara Linscott because she'd quit working for him to go back to medical school. He couldn't control her, either.<br /><br />Ivins contacted Dr. Heller to try to start seeing her again. However, Dr. Heller had retired, so she sent Ivins to Dr. David Irwin. Dr. Irwin determined that Ivins was "sociopathic" and prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for him.<br /><br />Then, because Irwin was too far to drive for Ivins, and too expensive, Ivins was sent to see Dr. Allen Levy. Dr. Levy prescribed different drugs. It was in June of 2000 that Ivins was talking with his therapist - Judith McLean - about his plans to <b>murder</b> Mara Linscott by giving her a bottle of poisoned wine. McLean called the police, but there wasn't anything the police could do.<br /><br />All the real depression started after the FBI started focusing on Ivins as the key suspect in the case. That wasn't until 2004 or so.<br /><br />Ivins may have been "depressed" because he couldn't control the various women around him, but it was his <b>plans for murder</b> that caused him to see help.<br /><br />The EBAP says this on page 195 about Ivins failing to tell USAMRIID about his mental problems:<br /><br /><b>"Dr. Ivins did not fully disclose his past and current psychiatric treatment on screening forms and he did not report the use of prescription antipsychotic medications, which were prescribed by his treating psychiatrist in 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2008. He also failed to report to the doctors treating him in 2000 and beyond that he had been prescribed antipsychotics in the late 1970s. Nor did he report his increasing substance abuse."</b><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-68556543343644443602011-05-22T15:39:59.703-04:002011-05-22T15:39:59.703-04:00Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: "If the FBI do...Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: <i>"If the FBI doesn't know all those things why are they saying they know Ivins did it? Don't you have to prove a person could have done it to say you know they did it?"</i><br /><br /><b>There are <i>MANY</i> different ways that Ivins could have made the anthrax.</b><br /><br />He was an <b><i>expert</i></b> in making spores. He knew <b>many</b> ways to create spores, and he knew <b>many</b> ways to dry spores.<br /><br />It's not necessary to try to figure out <b>exactly</b> which method he used to create the powders in the attack letters. It's only necessary to determine that he did indeed have means. Asking that the investigators determine the exact method Ivins used is like demanding that the FBI determine exactly what roads Ivins traveled when he drove to Princeton to mail the letters. <b>What difference does it make?</b> He <b>COULD</b> do it. He had the means and the ability. That is all that is necessary to prove.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you want to prove that Ivins could NOT have made the attack anthrax, then you need to explain why he couldn't have used <b>any</b> of the many methods available to him.<br /><br />Old Atlantic Lighthouse also wrote: <i>"... doesn't make sense for Ivins to have brought it in from the outside on a dust molecule on his nose, since he has to change his shoes and clothes before he can come in the lab?"</i><br /><br />I already responded to that. You are imagining different conditions than actually existed in Ivins lab. <br /><br />Click <a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/16/article-1357574-0D359568000005DC-726_468x351.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> for an picture of Bruce Ivins handling plates in his lab. <br /><br />You can see that it is apparently a BSL-2 lab. He has no hairnet. He has no mask. He's just wearing a smock over his street clothes. His shoes cannot be seen, but they are almost certainly the same shoes he arrived at work wearing.<br /><br />Ivins almost certainly inoculated plates in his BSL-2 lab, not in his BSL-3 lab.<br /><br />Plus, Ivins was notorious for how sloppy his labs were.<br /><br />Plus, as stated in a previous post, the biosafety cabinet behind Ivins in the picture <b>sucks room air into the cabinet</b>. So, the dust containing the B subtilis can come from anywhere in the building or from outside.<br /><br />Contaminating a growth plate is VERY easy to do - particularly in a BSL-2 lab, but also in a BSL-3 lab. It happens every day. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-29189996579474211092011-05-22T13:07:34.151-04:002011-05-22T13:07:34.151-04:00Ed:
"Actually, it's the other way arou...Ed:<br /><br /> "Actually, it's the other way around: Ivins was prescribed medicines to quell his murderous thoughts."<br /><br /> Ivins was prescribed medicines to quell his murderous thoughts? You know this as a fact, and have information supporting your conclusion? (medical records, exact medication being prescribed, indications for prescribing the medication, who prescribed it, for how long, notes in his medical record specifically mentioning the indication, etc.).<br /><br /> It is my understanding that Ivins was treated with medication for depression and insomnia. So you must have some new info here, right? If so, can you show us?<br /><br /> Or, is it another "entity multiplication" on the part of either yourself or that so-called "independent think-tank" in Virgina that normally meets in someone's living room and obsesses about Somali pirates?<br /><br /> "Fact: It is far from over, Ed. This CAN be stated as fact!"<br /><br /> It isn't a fact the the GAO is currently investigating the investigation and is hopes to release its report in September?<br /><br /> O.K., Ed, we all know that like any other True Believer, you are only going to believe in what you believe, regardless of any known facts or recent new information.BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-37808935501014888742011-05-21T22:45:50.196-04:002011-05-21T22:45:50.196-04:00Ed Lake:
"You do not know how much time Ivin...Ed Lake:<br /><br />"You do not know how much time Ivins spent on growing spores.<br />You do not know how many plates he used.<br />You do not know how many anthrax spores were put on each plate.<br />You do not know how many plates were contaminated with B subtilis.<br />You do not know how many B subtilis spores were on the contaminated plates.<br />You do not know the comparative growth times. "<br /><br />Would the FBI know these?<br /><br />I recall at an earlier time before you went with plates in garbage bags, you argued that anthrax grows faster than subtilis because the paper I cited on subtilis growth times indicated more like a week as the time to grow 1 gram from a liter and that about half the time or so (I don't quite recall the percentage), there was very little after two weeks.<br /><br />If subtilis grows slower than anthrax, then even more subtilis than .3 percent would be needed at the start. So the Ivins brought it in from the outside would have more of a hurdle to overcome.<br /><br />If the FBI doesn't know all those things why are they saying they know Ivins did it? Don't you have to prove a person could have done it to say you know they did it? Didn't the FBI leave out that part in the case of Ivins?<br /><br />Also, aren't you going on this you don't know bender because the numbers come out that .3 percent strange subtilis in the first mailing doesn't make sense for Ivins to have brought it in from the outside on a dust molecule on his nose, since he has to change his shoes and clothes before he can come in the lab? And getting that dust molecule off his nose and into the growth flask/plate would be difficult?Old Atlantic Lighthousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851308758539648628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-72564571583161267512011-05-18T10:18:05.981-04:002011-05-18T10:18:05.981-04:00BugMaster,
Fact: Ivins had no verifiable alibi.
...BugMaster,<br /><br />Fact: Ivins had no verifiable alibi.<br /><br />You argue or assume that an alibi <b><i>might</i> someday be found.</b><br /><br />Fact: Ivins had multiple motives.<br /><br />You argue that no one knows which <b>specific</b> motive drove Ivins to do what he did. That's a different argument.<br /><br />I wrote the Ivins believed that the Ames strain was untraceable. He stated in several emails what his thinking was regarding the Ames strain and where it came from.<br /><br />You distort my statements to suggest I was mind-reading.<br /><br />I wrote the Ivins had <b>control</b> of the murder weapon. It was <b>his</b> flask.<br /><br />You argue that Ivins did not have <b>absolute</b> control over the murder weapon. That's a different argument.<br /><br />I wrote that Ivins had a history of thoughts of committing criminal acts.<br /><br />You argue that the thoughts could be the result of taking medicines. <b>Actually, it's the other way around: Ivins was prescribed medicines to quell his murderous thoughts.</b><br /><br />I wrote that all other suspects were investigated and cleared.<br /><br />You argue or assume or speculate that the investigators could have missed a possible suspect.<br /><br />I talk facts, you talk assumptions, theory and speculation. And you distort my arguments to create new arguments.<br /><br />You wrote: <i>"Fact: It is far from over, Ed. This CAN be stated as fact!"</i><br /><br />No, you are stating that as your <b>belief or assumption.<br /><br />Everything you argue is either a belief, an assumption or a distortion.</b><br /><br />Click <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Evidence-vs-Beliefs.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> to go to a list of 50 <b>facts</b> showing Ivins to be guilty - side by side with 50 <b>assumptions</b> used by people who think Ivins was innocent to argue against the facts.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-28867333953721576822011-05-17T17:47:18.160-04:002011-05-17T17:47:18.160-04:00Facts, Ed:
"Fact: Ivins had no verifiable ...Facts, Ed:<br /><br /> "Fact: Ivins had no verifiable alibi for the time of either one of the mailings."<br /><br /> As it stands today, yes. But that may change if more information (timing of emails he set to others) comes out. Still, for the sake of argument, let's accept this as a fact.<br /><br /> "Fact: Ivins had means, motive and opportunity."<br /><br /> Far from fact, Ed. It can be suggested, but not stated as a fact that Ivins mailed the letters because of a specific motive. Means? Since it is still not known how the material was grown and processed, you cannot claim as an absolute fact that he had the means. Opportunity? Still up for debate, cannot be stated as fact.<br /><br /> "Fact: Ivins had control of "the murder weapon," and he thought the Ames strain was untraceable."<br /><br /> Wrong, Ed, Wrong! He did not have absolute control of the "murder weapon". And its a fact that you knew what he was thinking regarding the anthrax being untracable? Next time you channel Bruce Ivins, ask him who he thinks mailed the letters! (You are starting to disappoint me again, Ed!)<br /><br /> "Fact: Ivins had a history of actual criminal acts and thoughts of committing murderous acts."<br /><br /> To have thoughts of committing murderous acts and not actually commit them is quite common. Go to Wikipedia, Enter "homocidal ideation" (BTW: homocidal ideation has been reported as a side effect of taking Ambien)<br /><br /> As far as criminal acts, yes, it appears at times he was a real creep.<br /><br /> "Fact: All other suspects were investigated and cleared"<br /><br /> How do you determine who should have been considered a suspect? This cannot be stated as fact.<br /><br /> Fact: It is far from over, Ed. This CAN be stated as fact!BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-16144905515419178242011-05-17T15:54:52.176-04:002011-05-17T15:54:52.176-04:00Old Atlantic Lighthouse,
Earlier today, I wrote t...Old Atlantic Lighthouse,<br /><br />Earlier today, I wrote that you were using mathematics to argue something that cannot be defined with mathematics.<br /><br />After thinking it over, I have a better way to describe your method of arguing.<br /><br />In the computer business it is called "garbage in, garbage out."<br /><br />You do not know how much time Ivins spent on growing spores.<br />You do not know how many plates he used.<br />You do not know how many anthrax spores were put on each plate.<br />You do not know how many plates were contaminated with B subtilis.<br />You do not know how many B subtilis spores were on the contaminated plates.<br />You do not know the comparative growth times. <br /><br />So, you simply pick numbers that suit your purposes, and you perform calculations that get the results you want.<br /><br />Garbage in, garbage out.<br /><br />Your mathematics cannot be shown to have anything to do with what really happened.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-82201693184602379792011-05-17T11:14:16.346-04:002011-05-17T11:14:16.346-04:00Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: "Looked on as ...Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: <i>"Looked on as a continuous variable, we can ..."</i><br /><br />You are using mathematics to argue a case that cannot be defined by mathematics. <br /><br />Old Atlantic Lighthouse also wrote: <i>"Also as Bugmaster has pointed out, the Florida mailing seems to be shown to be a separate mailing distinct from these two in production origin"</i><br /><br />She distorted the facts. There is no published evidence showing whether or not the B subtilis found at AMI was or was not a match to the B subtilis in the Brokaw and NY Post letters.<br /><br />The facts show that the AMI letter was mailed at the same time and from the same place as the Brokaw and NY Post letters. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-24225361389974037322011-05-17T11:03:51.854-04:002011-05-17T11:03:51.854-04:00BugMaster wrote: "So Mr. Ed and the FBI say t...BugMaster wrote: <i>"So Mr. Ed and the FBI say the following is ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ivin's guilt"</i><br /><br />If you start by distorting the facts, you cannot expect to come to any kind of valid conclusion.<br /><br />Neither I nor anyone in the FBI has ever used the term "absolute proof" when discussing the evidence against Bruce Ivins.<br /><br />Occam's razor says <b>the correct hypothesis is usually the one that requires the fewest assumptions.</b><br /><br />Fact: Ivins had no verifiable alibi for the time of either one of the mailings.<br /><br />Fact: Ivins had means, motive and opportunity.<br /><br />Fact: Ivins had control of "the murder weapon," and he thought the Ames strain was untraceable.<br /><br />Fact: Ivins had a history of actual criminal acts and thoughts of committing murderous acts.<br /><br />Fact: Ivins was mentally unstable.<br /><br />Fact: All other suspects were investigated and cleared. <br /><br />There are NO assumptions here. Just facts. When the facts are viewed together, they show beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.<br /><br />Theories about al Qaeda, on the other hand are <b>all assumptions.</b><br /><br />The 9/11 hijackers were DEAD for nearly a week at the time of the first mailing, and DEAD for over three weeks at the time of the second mailing. So, any theory must <b>assume</b> that they had a fantasy associate who was never caught and who left no clues to his existence anywhere.<br /><br />The theory that "the government" was behind the anthrax attacks is entirely based upon the <b>assumption</b> that because "the government" did secret acts in the past, they must also have done this as a secret act.<br /><br />Another <b>assumption</b> is that, because the FBI investigated innocent men in the past and thought they might be guilty, they <b>must</b> have done the same thing with Bruce Ivins. <br /><br />All the <b>assumptions</b> (or "entity multiplication") are done by people who have theories about al Qaeda or theories about "the government" being behind the attacks. <b>Their beliefs are based <i>entirely</i> on assumptions.</b> <br /><br />The case against Bruce Ivins consists <b>entirely</b> of facts and evidence. <b>NO assumptions.</b><br /><br />The jury would have viewed the evidence in its entirety, and would almost certainly have found Bruce Ivins guilty. <br /><br />You might consider such a verdict to be an <b>assumption</b> on the part of the jury, but it would have been recorded as <b>a verdict or a finding</b>, not as an assumption.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-29039671936002964372011-05-16T20:05:21.167-04:002011-05-16T20:05:21.167-04:00The strange subtilis should not be thought of simp...The strange subtilis should not be thought of simply as a 0 1 variable, it is there or not. Although this view is useful, it is not everything.<br /><br />We should think about the percentage of strange subtilis in the sending. On this basis, it is a continuous variable that starts at 0.<br /><br />The level of .3 of 1 percent found in the first mailings is too high for a particle of dust carried on Ivins' nose from the outside to float into a flask or dish and then result in .003 ie .3 of 1 percent of the first letters being the foreign subtilis.<br /><br />The second mailing shows a level of the strange subtilis that is much lower.<br /><br />Also as Bugmaster has pointed out, the Florida mailing seems to be shown to be a separate mailing distinct from these two in production origin by yet another subtilis and the absence of the subtilis in the NY Post and Brokaw letters.<br /><br />Looked on as a continuous variable, we can <br /><br />1) reject that Ivins caused the contamination by simply picking up a stray bit of dust outside and transporting it on his person despite switching clothes and shoes and possibly putting on gloves.<br /><br />2) reject that the second letters were prepared in the same lab, if the source of contamination in the first letters was a contaminated lab. This may also exclude the dry run with subtilis scenario as well, since that should have left the lab contaminated.<br /><br />We thus either have an intentional dry run with the strange subtilis, which should have left traces in the BSL3 and likely the second run, or we have a work place thoroughly contaminated with the strange subtilis.<br /><br />So we get separate labs in separate places as the most likely answer. Any reasonable analysis excludes Ivins on this evidence.Old Atlantic Lighthousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851308758539648628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-73792367294760918692011-05-16T18:11:07.095-04:002011-05-16T18:11:07.095-04:00So Mr. Ed and the FBI say the following is ABSOLUT...So Mr. Ed and the FBI say the following is ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ivin's guilt:<br /><br />Sorority obsessions.<br /> <br />Davinci-code clues in the letters.<br /> <br />"Marmot Junction" zip code is Ivin's signature!<br /><br />Unexplained activity in his lab when he had documented reason for being there.<br /><br />Handwriting of letters doesn't even come close to a match (oh right, it was that damn kid!).<br /><br /> This isn't entity multiplication!!??<br /><br /> How about some actual physical evidence that doesn't require additional entity multiplication?<br /><br /> Perhaps, Ed, you should rename your website to:<br /><br /> "Ed's Layperson Guide to the FBI's Entity Multiplication Tables"BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-55883216339636421322011-05-16T17:49:25.258-04:002011-05-16T17:49:25.258-04:00BugMaster wrote: "To a scientist or anyone el...BugMaster wrote: <i>"To a scientist or anyone else that understands the fundamentals of logic, the most probable explanation for this:<br /><br />The FBI is wrong!"</i><br /><br />No. You are ignoring the facts, and <b>you are misinterpreting Occam's razor.</b><br /><br />The facts say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. <br /><br />There is a mountain of facts which say that Ivins sent the letters. There are NO significant facts which say someone else did it or that there is a vast conspiracy.<br /><br />All the "entity multiplication" must be done to justify a belief in a vast conspiracy or a belief that al Qaeda send the anthrax letters. You have to do the "entity multiplication" in order to ignore and dismiss the facts pointing to Ivins so that you can believe as you want to believe.<br /><br />Occam's razor says that <b>the correct hypothesis is usually the one that requires the fewest assumptions.</b><br /><br />No assumptions are needed to view Ivins as guilty. <br /><br />Vast conspiracies require countless assumptions.<br /><br />Notions that al Qaeda was behind the attacks require countless assumptions. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-78841412668073820772011-05-16T16:36:46.726-04:002011-05-16T16:36:46.726-04:00BugMaster wrote: "Database, nonsense, just co...BugMaster wrote: <i>"Database, nonsense, just compare strains isolated from specific locations.<br />...<br /><br />We really have a problem here!"</i><br /><br />Yes, there would be a problem because the data is <b><i>meaningless</i></b>. You have no frame of reference or database to determine what finding a match (or not finding a match) means.<br /><br />BugMaster also wrote: <i>"Note also Ed, that the genetic analysis of the contaminating strain indicates that is in fact quite unique."</i><br /><br />No, it doesn't. The genetic analysis only indicated that it didn't match the few other samples they tested. That does NOT mean it's unique. By itself, it means next to NOTHING.<br /><br />What you are saying is like arguing that, if a Zagnut candy bar wrapper was found at the scene, and there were no Zagnut bars in the USAMRIID cafeteria vending machine in 2006, then it's unique candy bar wrapper and probably came from a vending machine at Battelle in Ohio.<br /><br />No, it could have come from ten thousand other places, and they may have had Zagnut bars in the vending machine at USAMRIID back in 2001.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-28838023804076541582011-05-16T16:23:50.124-04:002011-05-16T16:23:50.124-04:00From Wikipedia, subject: Occam's Razor
Occ...From Wikipedia, subject: Occam's Razor<br /><br /> Occam's razor is attributed to the 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (d'Okham) although the principle was familiar long before. The words attributed to Occam are "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).<br /><br /> The FBI's so-called case against Ivins IS NOTHING BUT ENTITY MULTIPLICATION!<br /><br /> To some, that may not mean anything. To a scientist or anyone else that understands the fundamentals of logic, the most probable explanation for this:<br /><br /> The FBI is wrong!BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-76908189230391823642011-05-16T14:32:20.126-04:002011-05-16T14:32:20.126-04:00"B subtilis is too widely distributed and too..."B subtilis is too widely distributed and too varied to make developing such a database worthwhile."<br /><br /> Database, nonsense, just compare strains isolated from specific locations.<br /><br /> As in:<br /><br /> Genetically equivalent strain isolated from soil samples in Fredrick, Maryland:<br /><br /> Supports the Ivins theory.<br /><br /> Genetically equivalent strain isolated from soil samples not from Fredrick, but Columbus, Ohio istead:<br /><br /> We may have a problem here!<br /><br /> O.K., add a few soil samples from several cities chosen at random, and if then no match:<br /><br /> We really have a problem here!<br /><br /> Creating a database would not be neccessary, Ed. Note also Ed, that the genetic analysis of the contaminating strain indicates that is in in fact quite unique. Just like a fingerprint is unique, Ed.BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-28937666120736685832011-05-16T12:54:35.448-04:002011-05-16T12:54:35.448-04:00BugMaster wrote: "'But what would it prov...BugMaster wrote: <i>"'But what would it prove to find the B subtilis in the dirt on the parade ground or in the dirt in the lawn between buildings 1412 and 1425?'<br /><br />It would identify the geographic area from within which the attack material was produced."</i><br /><br />No, it wouldn't. There is no database for B subtilis like the one which Paul Keim created for B anthracis to determine geographical locations.<br /><br />B anthracis is a fairly rare bacteria. <br /><br />B subtilis is too widely distributed and too varied to make developing such a database worthwhile.<br /><br />It would take many years (possibly decades) to develop such a database to the point where you <b><i>MIGHT</i></b> be able to state with some authority that the B subtilis in the attack anthrax could ONLY have come from location A and not from location B.<br /><br />B anthracis can be used as a <b>weapon</b>, so there was a NEED for such a database. The only need for a similar B subtilis database is to quell arguments from conspiracy theorists. Public money is better spent on other things. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-58639837484800007222011-05-16T11:58:31.638-04:002011-05-16T11:58:31.638-04:00"But what would it prove to find the B subtil..."But what would it prove to find the B subtilis in the dirt on the parade ground or in the dirt in the lawn between buildings 1412 and 1425?"<br /><br /> It would identify the geographic area from within which the attack material was produced. <br /><br /> Dr. Keim published an article on the geographic distribution of different b. anthracis strains. He even identified the county in Texas from which the highly virulent Ames strain was first isolated. (Perhaps too much information?). One would expect a similar genetic variation in subtilis strains isolated from different regions.<br /><br /> So, a genetically identical strain (or close) from soil samples in Fredrick? Supports the FBI's case.<br /><br /> A genetically identical strain (or close) from soil samples in Columbus, Ohio? OOPS!BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-86414827492670421212011-05-16T10:49:58.891-04:002011-05-16T10:49:58.891-04:00Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: "The two lette...Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: <i>"The two letter batches thus imply that they were prepared in two separate labs."</i><br /><br />You are taking one fact and building a case upon that fact while ignoring all the other facts which say your case is totally false.<br /><br />1. The media anthrax was 90% matrix material, i.e., dissolved mother germs. It was <b>CRUDE and unpurified</b>. <br /><br />2. Considerably more care was taken in preparing the senate batch. All the matrix material had been removed. <br /><br />3. The culprit evidently took care to not used any contaminated plates for the second batch.<br /><br />4. The morphs show that the inoculations of the plates for both mailings came from material taken from flask RMR-1029.<br /><br />5. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that al Qaeda had access to the Ames strain, much less to flask RMR-1029. <br /><br />6. The Ames strain is easily killed with antibiotics and a bad choice for making bioweapons. Other strains are better for making bioweapons and are more available for terrorists to use. Ivins used the Ames stain because he thought it was <b>untraceable</b>.<br /><br />7. There is no data to support any suggestion that the attack anthrax was made in Afghanistan. Getting a second batch into America so quickly after learning that the first batch didn't work properly is unrealistic.<br /><br />8. There is no data to support any suggestion that the attack anthrax was made by al Qaeda in America.<br /><br />Your idea is that they made one CRUDE batch, shipped it to America, and mailed it. Then, when the first mailing didn't accomplish what they wanted, they made a second batch that was much more sophisticated, shipped it to America and mailed it. All in the space of three weeks?<br /><br />If al Qaeda had the ability to make sophisticated anthrax, <b>why did they make a CRUDE batch for the first mailing?</b><br /><br />If al Qaeda was behind the mailings, <b>why did they take so much care to avoid killing anyone?</b> They had just killed <b><i>thousands</i></b> of Americans with the hijacked planes. But with the anthrax they didn't want to kill anyone? Why?<br /><br />The facts say that the two batches of anthrax were made in the same lab. The difference is simply that first was CRUDE and the second was purified. <br /><br />The first letter gave medical advice: TAKE PENACILIN NOW.<br /><br />The second letter told the recipient that the powder was anthrax so that they'd seek immediate medical help. <br /><br />Why would al Qaeda code the name of Ivins's co-worker "PAT" in the media letter?<br /><br />Why would al Qaeda use a false return address on the senate letters? Why would they use a ZIP Code for the town where Ivins' father's family lived for over a hundred years? <br /><br />The facts do not support any theory that al Qaeda was behind the attacks. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-78546767300447765542011-05-16T10:07:05.532-04:002011-05-16T10:07:05.532-04:00Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: "But a plate w...Old Atlantic Lighthouse wrote: <i>"But a plate wit 1/1000 subtilis added to 100 plates with no subtilis, gives a ratio of 1/100,000 of subtilis to anthrax."</i><br /><br />The subject is <b>microbiology</b>. In this instance, there are too many variables for <b>mathematics</b> to provide any meaningful answers.<br /><br />If someone began with a fresh pack of media-ready plates, they might find a plate that is already contaminated with B subtilis. It would get tossed away, i.e., it would get tossed into an autoclave bag where it could continue to grow more B subtilis until the plate was totally covered.<br /><br />Or, they might find TWO plates that are already contaminated. Or they might find ten.<br /><br />Or they might inoculate ten plates to do a dilution sampling of B anthracis, and, when cultured, they might find that several of the plates have B subtilis colonies in addition to B anthracis colonies.<br /><br />Or, they may have been doing a nearly infinite number of different tasks which would produce a nearly infinite number of different results.<br /><br />It is not realistic to assume that some specific method of contamination is the only possible method of contamination because mathematics work better that way, while ignoring an infinite number of other possibilities that haven't been computed.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.com