* Ed Lake’s credentials

Those of you who have followed this blog in recent days have seen several posts from Ed Lake. These have been detailed, full of scientific terms and concepts, and with conclusions vastly different from postings and comments from Dr. Jeffrey Adamovicz, Dr. Stuart Jacobson and others.

I wrote to Mr. Lake … Thanks for your comments. I welcome your input on our blog. I wonder if you could give me a little biographical information to establish for my blog readers your credentials regarding the scientific details you are discussing.

Mr. Lake responded …  

My primary background is in business systems analysis, although I once ran a small hydraulics company for a year (and patented an hydraulic bi-directional flow meter).  I’m primarily an analyst by nature and profession.   But I also write for pleasure and profit (I have a weekly feature in an Australian magazine).  I’ve written a number of unproduced screenplays and one self-published book.  Time Magazine published an article about me and my work in 2002: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Time-02.jpg

I knew nothing about anthrax prior to the attacks of 2001.  But, when scientists began arguing with each other on the subject in late 2001, I became interested and started doing research to see which scientists were right and which were wrong.   That’s what my analysis is all about – figuring out what is correct when “experts” disagree with each other. 

I’ve interviewed ALL the top anthrax scientists – Bill Patrick (who wrote a great review for my book), Ken Alibek, Matthew Meselson, Martin Hugh-Jones, Sergei Popov, Joe Michael, etc.  If I have questions that cannot be answered by searching the Internet, I go to them for the answers.  If I have questions about a scientific paper, I contact the author.  I also have contacts within the FBI.  I began my web site in November of 2001, and since then I’ve accumulated every bit of information about the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I can find.   

My objective is to figure out which “experts” are right and which “experts” are wrong.   It’s not that difficult if you look at the facts instead of just listening to opinons.

I have written papers for my web site which explain details about van der Waals forces, about how Dugway weaponized spores, etc.  And those papers were all reviewed and approved by top scientists.   If anyone points out errors, I correct the errors.  It states at the very top of my web site that I WANT people to show me any errors I’ve made so that I can check them out and correct them if they are truly errors.

My credentials won’t impress anyone with a PhD, but I’ll match my knowledge of the subject of anthrax against any conspiracy theorist or True Believer any day of the week.  

When conspiracy theorists and True Believers lose arguments, they often attack my credentials.   It just shows that they have no real arguments or facts.   I may not have “the proper credentials” to do what I’m doing, but the top experts who provide me with accurate information about anthrax and the anthrax attacks of 2001 do have proper credentials.