tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post515551145441034283..comments2024-03-27T05:14:13.995-04:00Comments on Anthrax Vaccine -- posts by Meryl Nass, M.D.: The FBI's Anthrax Case/ NYTMeryl Nass, M.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-74181278923220090292010-03-09T19:57:01.763-05:002010-03-09T19:57:01.763-05:00Ms. Duley didn't have the credentials to call ...Ms. Duley didn't have the credentials to call herself a social worker, please don't honor her by refering to her as a "therapist." She was an addictions counselor whose credentials did not permit her to act independently of credentialed members of the psychiatrist's team.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-641013816364103532010-03-08T21:08:53.673-05:002010-03-08T21:08:53.673-05:00Boy, a therapist who seeks a restraining order! No...Boy, a therapist who seeks a restraining order! Now THAT'S tough love!......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-57969712758150658542010-03-08T19:06:40.635-05:002010-03-08T19:06:40.635-05:00FBI zealots:
When the truth comes out and Bruce&#...FBI zealots:<br /><br />When the truth comes out and Bruce's name is cleared I can recommend a great therapist.Ellen Byrnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04202223859458862769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-52690366873967124632010-03-08T18:39:41.659-05:002010-03-08T18:39:41.659-05:00To answer Ed Lake's rhetorical query:
Is it j...<b>To answer Ed Lake's rhetorical query</b>:<br /><br /><i>Is it just a coincidence that the single letter designators spell out FNY and four of the five media letters went to NY (New York City)?</i><br /><br />No Ed. It's not coincidence at all. The FBI's own expert on hidden messages emphatically disagreed that there ever was any FNY message in the mailings. The FBI misconstrued the evidence to implicate Ivins. The FBI didn't acknowledge their expert's directly opposite opinion in even so as much as a footnote in the final report.<br /><br />The real questions:<br /><br /><i>Was it just coincidence that the FBI ignored their expert's opinion that there was no FNY message in the Letters?<br /><br />Was it just coincidence that the FBI failed to acknowledge their expert's differing opinion in the final Amerithrax Investigative Summary?</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-69191317572876051392010-03-07T17:57:07.723-05:002010-03-07T17:57:07.723-05:00Ed:
In previous posts, you go into some detail ...Ed:<br /><br /> In previous posts, you go into some detail about how Ivins only used "short runs" to minimize the chances that "mutation would occur" (BTW, Ed, this makes no sense whatsoever!).<br /><br /> Now you state, "I suspect he didn't know about the mutations, and he therefore assumed that the FBI wouldn't be able to distinguish between the sample of Ames he gave them and a real sample of Ames taken from flask RMR-1029."<br /><br /> OK, so Ivins was supposed to be aware of the possiblity of mutants being present, but yet didn't think they could be present?<br /><br /> You are talking in circles, Ed, and really are starting to look foolish here.<br /><br /> Why did Ivins submit a "false sample"?<br /><br /> The most likely scientific explanation:<br /><br /> HE DIDN'T!<br /><br /> The process the FBI was using (isolation from the sample of the 4 known morphotypes) to determine that it did in fact match RMR-1029 is not totally straightforward.<br /><br /> There are at least two scientific explanations for the FBI to conclude the morphs weren't present, and assume the sample was false (when in fact, what their procedure yielded a FALSE NEGATIVE).<br /><br /> The explanations involve basic microbiology, I'll explain in a later post since I am out of time for today.<br /><br /> That is, if you are the least bit interested in actual scientific explanations.BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-33342577525130404002010-03-07T16:23:55.042-05:002010-03-07T16:23:55.042-05:00BugMaster asked, "Ed, seeing as it appears th...BugMaster asked, <i>"Ed, seeing as it appears that you have acquired the supernatural ability of channelling the late Dr. Ivin's thoughts, could you please tell us what he was thinking when he submitted the so called "false sample"?"</i><br /><br />I don't claim any "supernatural abilities." I was merely discussing what Dr. Ivins wrote in an email. The email made it abundantly clear that he believed that the Ames strain came from the USDA.<br /><br />I don't know what Dr. Ivins' thoughts were when he submitted the so-called "false sample." I <b><i>suspect</i></b> he didn't know about the mutations, and he therefore assumed that the FBI wouldn't be able to distinguish between the sample of Ames he gave them and a real sample of Ames taken from flask RMR-1029.<br /><br />The first sample he submitted <b>was</b> from RMR-1029, but that sample was prepared the wrong way. He had no information from that experience that would tell him that mutations in RMR-1029 were the subject of interest by investigators. <br /><br />I don't see how the fact that others had received samples from flask RMR-1029 would mean anything to him. It only means something in hindsight.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-4279717609431450832010-03-07T15:54:55.308-05:002010-03-07T15:54:55.308-05:00Post by Mister Lake:
Is it just a coincidence tha...Post by Mister Lake:<br /><br />Is it just a coincidence that the single letter designators spell out FNY and four of the five media letters went to NY (New York City)?<br />------------------------------------<br />Yes, that's exactly what it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-24559444546861359842010-03-07T15:47:15.656-05:002010-03-07T15:47:15.656-05:00As it happens, I, a non-biologist, disagree BOTH w...As it happens, I, a non-biologist, disagree BOTH with Mister Lake and with Dr Nass on this:<br /><br />1) I think that Ivins was truthful in his email.<br /><br />2) he wasn't as knowledgeable, at that time, about the distribution of the Ames strain as the investigators (and those like us looking over their shoulders) became in subsequent years. But so what?<br /><br />3) Mister Lake seems to think that mutations are something rare, but they aren't ALL strains and substrains have them and Ivins certainly knew that.<br /><br />4) And if you were trying to cast suspicions on another research facility you would certainly use anthrax CRIMINALLY from that very institution, not your own institution, your own lab.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-18310133454161674192010-03-07T14:42:40.335-05:002010-03-07T14:42:40.335-05:00Ed, seeing as it appears that you have acquired th...Ed, seeing as it appears that you have acquired the supernatural ability of channelling the late Dr. Ivin's thoughts, could you please tell us what he was thinking when he submitted the so called "false sample"? He was fully aware of the fact that the FBI had access to the aliquots from RMR-1029 that he sent to Battelle and UMN to compare his sample against. So what did he hope to gain by submitted a false sample that would readily be recognized as false?BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-86281037768180473022010-03-07T10:15:26.817-05:002010-03-07T10:15:26.817-05:00Excuse me, I meant to write "disingenuous&quo...Excuse me, I meant to write "disingenuous"Meryl Nass, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-68848651888556997622010-03-07T10:13:53.764-05:002010-03-07T10:13:53.764-05:00Ed,
Ivins was being ingenuous. He was not spilli...Ed,<br /><br />Ivins was being ingenuous. He was not spilling his guts about Ames in an email.<br /><br />Ames is considered a weapon and people do not talk a lot about it for that reason. <br /><br />Ivins knew plenty about Ames, had worked with it for 20 years. I know plenty about Ames too. I won't be elaborating on it for you in an email, Ed.<br /><br />MerylMeryl Nass, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-17512745534778197412010-03-07T09:36:16.605-05:002010-03-07T09:36:16.605-05:00Meryl,
You are still ignoring the facts when you ...Meryl,<br /><br />You are still ignoring the facts when you write: <i>"Had he wanted to hide its provenance, he would have selected anthrax unassociated with his lab,"</i><br /><br />IVINS <i>THOUGHT</i> HE <b>DID</b> SELECT ANTHRAX UNASSOCIATED WITH IS LAB.<br /><br />Here is what Ivins wrote:<br /><br /><b>I’ve read that the strain was originally isolated in the 1950s at Iowa State University, but we were not given that information when we got the strain. I have also read that the strain is very common in veterinary labs, clinical labs, university bacteriology labs and research institutes all over the country, and that doesn't surprise me. From the literature, it seems that many places have the “Ames” strain or its derivatives. <i>The proper place to find out the details of the strain is the USDA, not us. They sent it to us. It’s their strain, and it's their responsibility to know the details about it.</i></b>"<br /><br />Those are <b><i>Ivins' own words</i></b>. He thought he was using a common strain <b>ASSOCIATED WITH THE USDA</b>.<br /><br /><i><b>"They sent it to us. It’s their strain, and it's their responsibility to know the details about it.</b></i>"<br /><br />He was mistaken.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-38234173775663236062010-03-06T23:39:29.793-05:002010-03-06T23:39:29.793-05:00Speaking of hidden messages... as it turns out, th...<b>Speaking of hidden messages</b>... as it turns out, the FBI included their own hidden message in <a href="http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Amerithrax Investigative Summary</a> (AIS). The FBI's hidden message is found as a single paragraph on page 60 of the AIS, just following the FBI's explanation of how they came up with the "FNY" and "PAT" messages (which they refer to as "translations"). Following is the literal text of the hidden message:<br /><br />"It was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct. However, as the discussion that follows makes clear, the key point to the investigative analysis is that there <i>is</i> a hidden message, not so much what that message is."<br /><br />****<br /><br />I'll take a first shot at the meaning of this hidden message:<br /><br /><i>Despite what we may have said before, we don't have a clue what the hidden message is, or what it means.</i><br /><br /><i>Nevertheless, we're really, really, sure there <b>is</b> a hidden message. The message itself, and whether or not it makes sense isn't important. What's important is that there are darker letters, so there <b>must</b> be a hidden message somewhere. And that means Ivins wrote it. Just trust us on this.</i> <br /><br /><i>And don't forget this; IVINS WAS CRAZY! That's right, CRAZY!</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-25458318504180249612010-03-06T20:31:27.141-05:002010-03-06T20:31:27.141-05:00Ed,
You are incorrigible. Ivins knew there were ...Ed,<br /><br />You are incorrigible. Ivins knew there were many ways to trace anthrax beyond the strain. No knowledgeable microbiologist would make the errors you have attributed to him. <br /><br />Had he wanted to hide its provenance, he would have selected anthrax unassociated with his lab, or, perhaps, mutated some anthrax to hide its origin.Meryl Nass, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-2298123226020476002010-03-06T19:38:15.425-05:002010-03-06T19:38:15.425-05:00About that "F___NY" hidden message. I do...About that "F___NY" hidden message. I do understand that the FBI cited individuals who remembered Ivins saying that he hated NY, and he hated the NY Yankees. Still, I'm having some problems with FNY.<br /><br />The mailer spent a long time growing, purifying, and drying the anthrax powder. If one believes the "hidden message" theory, the mailer also spent a great deal of time constructing the multiple step FNY message. Finally the mailer carefully wrote the letters incorporating the hidden message, photocopied them, addressed them, drove several hundred miles, and mailed them. And through all of this the mailer was driven by a deep hatred for NY and the NY Yankees.<br /><br />Finally the anger would be released.<br /><br />But then... he sent the FNY letters to the media? With all that hatred and the need to strike out at NY, the mailer didn't send a single letter to the the Mayor, or to the Transit Authority or to any other target representative of NY, itself? All that hatred. All those letters. All sent to the media?<br /><br />One unrecovered letter even went to Dan Rather. But Bruce Ivins was said to be "partial to Dan Rather" (page 192, <a href="http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=amerithrax/847547.PDF" rel="nofollow">BEI Section 5</a>). So he was driven by hatred for NY, but didn't send a letter to NY itself; instead, he sent a letter to Dan Rather, who he liked?<br /><br />And what about PAT? Ivins was said to be infatuated with Pat. He had sent her nice gifts in the past. And so, the FNY hatred letter suddenly becomes... a love letter?<br /><br />When things that make no sense at all, that don't add up at all... suddenly start making perfect sense, its probably time to take a vacation, and perhaps spend some time with a counselor. Have a sanity check.<br /><br />Jean Duley, who the FBI agents consider to be of the highest integrity, intelligence, and compassion, would seem to be a perfect fit. And I'll bet she could find an opening in her busy schedule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-50103589144386408702010-03-06T12:32:35.232-05:002010-03-06T12:32:35.232-05:00Meryl,
I don't see how your response addresse...Meryl,<br /><br />I don't see how your response addresses the information I gave you.<br /><br />Ivins THOUGHT that the Ames strain <b>he used</b> would be traced back to the USDA.<br /><br />Ivins THOUGHT that he'd obtained <b>that particular version of the Ames strain</b> from the USDA and that it was a common strain.<br /><br />That has nothing to do with your response about being able to distinguish one Ames strain from another.<br /><br />There is only one version of the Ames strain involved.<br /><br />Ivins was just mistaken regarding a KEY FACT about the Ames strain HE USED, and <b>that's why he used that strain</b>.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-77219444874253412252010-03-06T12:08:36.642-05:002010-03-06T12:08:36.642-05:00Ed,
Ivins had studied dozens and dozens of anthra...Ed,<br /><br />Ivins had studied dozens and dozens of anthrax strains. He was one of the world experts on strain differences. He understood plenty about how to differentiate strains from each other, even Ames strains. The VNTR method, for example, had been discussed at a conference IVINS AND I attended a full 3 years before the anthrax letters were sent.<br /><br />You are way far off the mark, Ed.Meryl Nass, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-61263434011062560632010-03-06T11:50:44.866-05:002010-03-06T11:50:44.866-05:00Meryl,
You wrote:
"Ivins would never have c...Meryl,<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>"Ivins would never have chosen his most famous anthrax, from which many people had received samples (i.e., there was plenty of evidence linking him to the flask) if he were a perpetrator who liked to fool people.</i><br /><br />The answer to that question came to light years ago, but it was recently made clear in an email that Dr. Ivins sent on October 18, 2001. It's on <a href="http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">page 76 of the FBI's summary report</a>. Ivins wrote:<br /><br /><b>"The “Ames” strain of Bacillus anthracis was sent to us in the late 1980-early 1981 time frame from the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Services, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, Iowa. We were told it came from a dead cow. We were not told the specifics of the strain, specifically where it was isolated, or when it was isolated. Basically, we were told it was Bacillus anthracis that had been isolated from a clinical veterinary case. I’ve read that the strain was originally isolated in the 1950s at Iowa State University, but we were not given that information when we got the strain. I have also read that the strain is very common in veterinary labs, clinical labs, university bacteriology labs and research institutes all over the country, and that doesn't surprise me. From the literature, it seems that many places have the “Ames” strain or its derivatives. The proper place to find out the details of the strain is the USDA, not us. They sent it to us. It’s their strain, and it's their responsibility to know the details about it. Thanks!</b><br /><br />Note that <b>Ivins thought</b> that the Ames strain came from the USDA in Iowa. <b>He thought</b> the Ames strain was a common strain used by labs all over the world. <b>He thought</b> that the USDA in Ames, Iowa, was place where everyone would go when they started looking for the source of the anthrax. <b>He thought</b> they would get all the questions.<br /><br />Ivins was WRONG on all counts.<br /><br />Due to a simple mistake, it was ASSUMED that the sample Ivins had came from Iowa, but it had actually come from TEXAS and <b>was shipped directly from TEXAS to USAMRIID</b>. <br /><br />The investigation didn't uncover that critical fact until sometime in January 2002.<br /><br />So, using only 20-20 hindsight it might seem strange that Ivins would use a strain that could be traced back to him, but <b>AT THE TIME he believed it would be traced back to the USDA in Ames, Iowa.</b><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-76661456598619910142010-03-06T10:52:37.384-05:002010-03-06T10:52:37.384-05:00IF Ivins was so enamoured of hidden messages, secr...IF Ivins was so enamoured of hidden messages, secrets, surprises, then why would he have used anthrax from his own flask? He had access to many many other sameples of anthrax from around the world. He also knew that forensic techniques could identify the origin of a sample of anthrax.<br /><br />As I noted in 2008, Ivins had been a reviewer/contributor to my work on Zimbabwe's anthrax epidemic, in which the use of forensic techniques to identify the origins of the very virulent anthrax that killed at least 182 people was discussed.<br /><br />Ivins would never have chosen his most famous anthrax, from which many people had received samples (i.e., there was plenty of evidence linking him to the flask) if he were a perpetrator who liked to fool people.<br /><br />How can the FBI try to have it both ways???Meryl Nass, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07001997291638442225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-33591213654020685202010-03-06T10:36:00.456-05:002010-03-06T10:36:00.456-05:00Anonymous quotes someone as saying, "if the m...Anonymous quotes someone as saying, <i>"if the mailer intended to have a message in the text of the letters it would be clear which letters were part of the message."</i><br /><br />The counterpoint to that argument is that, <b>if he made things too clear, <i>everyone</i> would realize for certain that the highlighted A's and T's meant something</b>. And <b>everyone</b> would begin trying to decipher the meaning.<br /><br />It seems clear beyond any doubt that the writer <b>definitely</b> highlighted A's and T's. Whether he really highlighted any other letters is disputable and depends upon careful examination and interpretation. <br /><br />So, the question becomes: Why did he highlight A's and T's? <b>Why did he do any highlighting at all?</b> If he was trying to highlight the name "ATTA," why didn't he? Why did he highlight more A's and T's than needed to spell "ATTA?" Why didn't he just highlight the four letters in that order?<br /><br />Are we supposed to believe that the highlighting is just <b><i>doodling</i></b> by a fanatical terrorist who was simply bored with the chore of writing a threatening letter? <br /><br />My own analysis provides <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html#100228" rel="nofollow">a very different explanation</a>, which is supported by a LOT of undisputed facts. But that doesn't mean that it's an acceptable explanation for everyone. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-84919109686306448672010-03-05T19:16:49.862-05:002010-03-05T19:16:49.862-05:00It is ironic that the FBI can claim there are nutt...It is ironic that the FBI can claim there are nutty conspiracy theories about Ivins (See "spore on the grassy knoll" remark, and others). Considering their own theories of Ivins' guilt resting on tenuous or nonexistent coded messages in the mailed letters, all their circumstantial evidence, their changed theories on when Ivins "could have" driven to New Jersey, and basically all the "evidence" in their case, who is the nutty conspiracy theorist here? To me, the FBI's behavior represents a cynical sureness on their part, that they can sell any claim they want and the "American Public" will buy it and move on. And, except for tiny eddy whorls of debate in places like this blog and some others, this assumption would be quite correct. End of problem. It makes me sad, but I note that whenever I try to discuss the case of Dr. Ivins with people I know, I'm looked at as an oddball (perhaps I am one). Invariably the responses are, "I don't know anything about that, and I don't care", and/or "Wasn't he guilty? Didn't he commit suicide?" This trying in the media has succeeded as far as I can tell, in selling Ivins' guilt. It has certainly made me more cynical, though I cannot approach the level of cynicism I suspect the FBI of.<br /><br />I firmly believe that no logical person can accept the FBI's case as anything other than a mass of fallacious arguments amounting to blatant deception. If you can't recognize the logical fallacies, spin, and outright deception in every argument the FBI has presented, or at least if you can't see most or maybe some of it, then you are not thinking logically. This stuff is obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-57957715020673669792010-03-05T18:12:33.339-05:002010-03-05T18:12:33.339-05:00--> Ed Lake
The question is whether the 'T...--> Ed Lake<br /><br />The question is whether the 'T' in "NEXT" is highlighted as compared to the full text in the letter. I would direct your attention to the comments of yet another expert who disagreed with the FBI's suggestion that the 'T' in "NEXT" was properly viewed as highlighted. He was of the view that <b>if the mailer had intended to have a message in the text of the letter, the mailer would have made it clear which letters constituted the message</b>. The expert further stated that there were other letters, in addition to 'A's and 'T's, that could be interpreted as being highlighted.<br /><br />You can find the complete discussion of this issue on pdf page 22 of <a href="http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=amerithrax/847547.PDF" rel="nofollow">BEI Section 5</a> (reproduced below). <br /><br /><i>[Redacted] suggested that the average person might not think the 'T' in "NEXT" was highlighted. [Redacted] indicated that if the mailer intended to have a message in the text of the letters it would be clear which letters were part of the message. [Redacted] reiterated that it might be making too much out of trying to find a message in the letter. [Redacted] indicated that it was difficult to differentiate some of the highlighted 'A's and 'T's in the letter and pointed out that there were other letters that might be interpreted as being highlighted, and stated "the more you look the more unclear it is."</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-65866278949174878362010-03-05T13:14:02.825-05:002010-03-05T13:14:02.825-05:00I just noticed that the large copy of the Brokaw l...I just noticed that <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/2a-150.jpg" rel="nofollow">the large copy of the Brokaw letter</a> that I have on my web site is a different picture that <a href="http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-brokaw-letter.pdf" rel="nofollow">the photo you used</a>.<br /><br />Also, the photo you used is in a .pdf file which means it's nowhere near as clear and sharp as the .TIFF file from which I created my large .jpg file.<br /><br />Just FYI.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-78002711349472801632010-03-05T13:05:16.850-05:002010-03-05T13:05:16.850-05:00Anonymous wrote: "there is absolutely no dark...Anonymous wrote: <i>"there is absolutely no darkening of the 'T' in NEXT in <a href="http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-brokaw-letter.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Brokaw Letter</a>."</i><br /><br />I happen to have a much larger and clearer version of the letter as obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act. Click <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/T-in-NEXT.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> to view the word NEXT and to see how the cross bar is thicker and darker than any other stroke in the word NEXT.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6592607595936297457.post-38548372351647692632010-03-04T22:17:50.718-05:002010-03-04T22:17:50.718-05:00Despite the FBI's numerous denials as to the i...Despite the FBI's numerous denials as to the importance of the high silicon content of the anthrax attack powders, it turns out the FBI's document release tells a different story.<br /><br />At least as far back as May, 2004, FBI Agents questioned Dr. Ivins regarding his possible use of "antifoam or any other chemical" (antifoaming agents are typically silicone based compositions) during production of anthrax samples, (pp. 84 and 86 of <a href="http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=amerithrax/847443.PDF" rel="nofollow">BEI Section 1</a>). Dr. Ivins reported that he didn't use antifoaming agents in his anthrax production methods.<br /><br />FBI agents also apparently queried Dr. Ivins on the high silicon content of the anthrax attack powders, since the documents further report that Dr. Ivins telephoned the FBI in August, 2004, to report that a colleague [name redacted] had given him "a scientific article abstract about <i>Bacillus</i> spore suspensions in which the addition of silica to the spore coat was discussed" (see p. 94 of <a href="http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=amerithrax/847443.PDF" rel="nofollow">BEI Section 1</a>).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com