CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Rudy Giuliani … the FBI has never been able to figure out who did the anthrax attacks

Posted by DXer on January 14, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s an early discussion by the (fictional) DIA team investigation the FBI anthrax investigation …

“Let’s start with the assumption the Bureau is not dumb,” Sowickey began. “So that can’t be the excuse for the lamebrain way they conducted this supposedly high priority investigation. Nor can it explain the way they failed to establish links between pieces of information they clearly had. Nor why they hinted for years that Farmer was the perp and then gave him $5.8 mil to go away. There was, by the way, even less evidence implicating Dr. Farmer than there was on Dr. Ingram, which is close to nothing. After seven years.”

Click here to …  buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Rudy Giuliani …

the FBI has never been able to figure out

who did the anthrax attacks

******

Wolfe Blitzer, The Situation Room, Jan. 8, 2010 … interviewing form NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani

BLITZER: There — there was at least one terror attack on U.S. Soil that happened after 9/11. I’m referring to the anthrax attacks in New York and in elsewhere. What that a terror attack, do you believe?

GIULIANI: Well, as far as I know, the FBI has never been able to figure out who did it and has never designated it as a terror attack. I mean, I lived through that. I — there was…

BLITZER: But whoever was trying to do it was trying to terrorize a lot of people.

GIULIANI: Yes, but that was not done in the name — as far as we know, that was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism any more than, you know, serial killers who…

BLITZER: Right. It could have been a domestic terror attack, too, and we don’t know, as you correctly point out, who was responsible…

GIULIANI: That’s right. So you’re — so…

BLITZER: …for that anthrax attack.

GIULIANI: …so you can’t — you can’t describe something as a terrorist attack if it hasn’t been investigated and there’s no — no proof. And the best thinking on the part of the FBI is that it wasn’t involved with Islamic terrorism.

But, again, that’s pretty — we’re on pretty shaky grounds there because they’ve never been able to solve that.

BLITZER: And you — you don’t have any inside information on who was responsible?

Who do you believe was responsible — because I know it happened in New York. We remembered what happened…

GIULIANI: Gee, Wolf, it not only happened, there was — there was anthrax found in the office right next to mine. There was attack on city hall as well as on the major networks and Governor Pataki’s office. I mean, I as directly involved in that.

At the time — at the time, I thought it was probably all connected to — to the terrorism that was attacking us. In retrospect, it seems to me, from what I know of it, that it wasn’t. But, again, that’s unresolved and it would be irresponsible to come to a conclusion about it.

Read the entire transcript at … http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/08/sitroom.02.html

LMW COMMENT …

Rudy Giuliani was at one time a very capable prosecutor. He knows when there’s a case and when not.

The FBI has not made its case, at least in its public disclosures. Is that because …

there’s more evidence the FBI hasn’t made public?

the FBI has solved the case but are covering up the real perpetrators?

the FBI hasn’t (as Rudy suggests) solved the case?

******

29 Responses to “* Rudy Giuliani … the FBI has never been able to figure out who did the anthrax attacks”

  1. DXer said

    Dillon filed his final brief last Tuesday.

    We’ve come a long way since Rudy Giuliani bought the AMI building in Florida contaminated with anthrax — the one where David Pecker kept his files and photographs that needed to be retrieved.

    Now why would anyone think that New York City or the country was safe with Mr. Giuliani the Mayor of New York City? Did we mistake confidence for competence?

    Why would anyone think our country is safe when the people in charge of the country’s finances thought that it was not a conflict of interest for the President to participate in the decision to host the G7 summit at a resort he owned?

    United States District Court Judges — and the hard work they put in parsing and applying the rule of law that applies — remain the bulwark of our democracy.

  2. DXer said

    ‘I wonder what Pecker has to say about Giuliani’: Ex-FBI agent recounts crazy National Enquirer story involving Batboy and Elvis
    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/wonder-pecker-say-giuliani-ex-fbi-recounts-crazy-national-enquirer-story-involving-batboy-elvis/

    Bob Brigham
    13 Dec 2018 at 00:00 ET

    “My history with A.M.I. and David Pecker goes back to the fact that I was the on-scene commander back in October of 2001 at the scene of the first anthrax murder in U.S. history, at A.M.I. headquarters, Boca Raton, Florida,” former FBI agent Frank Figliuzzi revealed.

    ****

    Then he explained the connection with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s defense lawyer.

    “I’ll bring up something that raises the question of another Trump attorney who might be just wondering tonight, and that is Rudy Giuliani,” Figliuzzi said. “Because you know who David Pecker called to decontaminate his anthrax-filled building? Rudy Giuliani and a company called Bio-ONE [Solutions LLC].”

    “So when you need toxic waste removed, you call Mr. Giuliani. That’s way back, years ago, that that relationship existed,” he continued.

    “And I wonder what Mr. Pecker has to say and knows about Rudy Giuliani,” Figliuzzi wondered.

  3. Anonymous Scientist said

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/08/20/grassley/index1.html

    August 20, 2008 – 17 months ago and still no answers

    Glenn Greenwald: My guest this morning is Charles Grassley, the Republican Senator from Iowa, who, among other things, is a member of the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees, and we’re speaking today about the numerous question surrounding the anthrax investigation. Senator Grassley, thanks very much for joining me this morning.

    Charles Grassley: Thank you very much. Glad to be with you, and thank you for your interest in this issue.

    GG: Absolutely. You’ve been very persistent in demanding answers from the FBI about the anthrax investigation – answers which haven’t really been forthcoming. I want to begin with a general question. There are lots of unsolved, garden-variety cases that the FBI works on. Do you look at the anthrax attacks as being of greater significance than the ordinary crime, meriting more accountability, more Senate oversight, and if so can you talk about why you see it that way?

    CG: Yeah, I think it is very much more important because, one thing, as a member of Congress and an attack on an institution of our government, through which the anthrax was when senators were attacked, ought to be something that has high priority, because if people get away with that, there’s other things that can be done, even other anthrax things that can be done, and consequently somebody might do it, and it could have the effect of shutting down a branch of government, which has an impact on the entire nation as a whole. And also I see it from the stand-point of a test of the FBI’s credibility.

    GG: Speaking of that, on August 7th, just a couple weeks ago, you wrote a letter to Attorney General Mukasey, and FBI Director Mueller, in which you stated:

    This has been a long investigation, full of missteps and mistakes. There’s been too much secrecy up to this point, and it deserves a full and thorough vetting. There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions, and it’s time to start a dialog so we get answers.
    And you then listed 18 questions that you have about the investigation, the last one of which was, quote: “What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?” Now, first of all, have you received a response from either the Justice Department or the FBI to that letter?

    CG: No, and I assume one of the reasons I haven’t is because in the meantime, the FBI has consented to a hearing that Senator Leahy’s having, and a hearing is one instrument of doing it. At the time I wrote the letter, I didn’t know whether there’d be a hearing or not, and I wanted to make sure, as one individual senator who’s not chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that I would do my own oversight and get answers to questions. It could be that the forum for answering my letter would be the hearing, but I want to make sure my 18 questions are answered one way or the other, and I want to ensure that every document’s out.

    If this case is solved the way the FBI wants us to believe that it’s been solved, is it closed? And if it’s closed, then everything ought to be brought out into the open. One of the problems we have right now is, with the FBI, there’s just too much secrecy. Getting all the documents out, getting all the information out is important.

    I just recently read where Senator Daschle, who is one of the people hit by anthrax, was briefed and news reports seem to indicate some level of satisfaction. We’re all entitled to a level of satisfaction; the entire country wants to know that the FBI is doing its job, and that their lives, from anthrax being in letters, is not in danger. So, getting all this information out, less secrecy – there’s no reason for any point not to be answered.

    GG: Absolutely, and that’s interesting about the hearing that will be before the Judiciary Committee; I hadn’t read about that. Two questions about that: will that be a hearing designed to fully examine both the circumstantial and scientific aspects of the FBI’s accusations against Bruce Ivins, and is it your expectation that that hearing will be a public hearing, so that not only Senators but also the American people can learn about whether or not this is a really credible case that the FBI has put together?

    CG: Obviously, I think it should be, but I can’t really answer your question whether that’s what’s intended by Senator Leahy, and I probably ought to refer you to Senator Leahy on that issue. But it would be my intent to get all that information out, either through the hearing, or through answers to my letters.

    GG: One of the big unanswered questions that I think a lot of people have been asking – and you’re right, Senator Daschle said he found some of the evidence convincing, though he and others, including scientific experts and Congressman Holt, who were briefed on the same material, said there were a lot of questions still.

    And one of the big question marks you allude to in your letter is: could an anthrax researcher, working at Fort Detrick like Bruce Ivins, really have, on his own, created what the FBI originally said was this high-level, weaponized anthrax, coated with silica, that they had trouble for years even creating themselves? Do you have some thoughts about whether or not someone like Bruce Ivins would have been able to create anthrax like that? And aren’t there a lot of other private and public institutions that do research into very high-grade anthrax that ought to be looked at carefully?

    CG: I don’t have the information to answer your question, but that information, now that the case is closed, ought to be available to the entire public. At the very least it ought to be entitled to anybody that’s got oversight of the FBI if there’s some reason that the entire public should not be notified of it. And I can’t think of any interest other than national security interest that it should not be totally open to the public, that same information.

    One of the things that we have a problem here with, considering information that our staffs have gotten in briefings, or Congressman Holt got in briefings, compared to what Senator Daschle got in briefings – we’re finding that the people that have come to the Hill may not be fully informed to answer all of our questions, and that’s why maybe there’s a difference between what Senator Daschle got reported to him, and what my staff got reported to me, and Congressman Holt. It’s just stupid for the FBI to be sending people to the Hill that can’t answer any question that’s been asked.

    GG: Now, one of the hallmarks of the government’s campaign against terrorism over the past seven years has been to use fairly aggressive techniques against suspected terrorists, many of which have been controversial. They’ve done things like detain US citizens without charges, of course there are some “enhanced interrogation techniques” that have been highly controversial. Very aggressive maneuvers on the part of the federal government whenever there’s suspected terrorism involved. And yet here you have a case where there’s clearly terrorism, that’s clearly what the anthrax attacks were, no matter who did them, and yet the government seems to have gone to the opposite extreme; that is, to almost have been very lax.

    They claim now that they’ve had this mountain of evidence compiled against Dr. Ivins for several years at least, and yet there’s no indication that they switched their focus away from Steven Hatfill to him, they didn’t even detain him or cut off his access for quite some time to the most dangerous pathogens at Fort Detrick.

    Do you have any insight as to why the FBI, by their own claims, seem to have had this evidence against Ivins for so many years and yet did very little if anything to remove him from access to the lab, or even detain him?

    CG: Pure speculation on my part, but in the middle of this investigation, they set up a whole new team to look at it. And probably the answer to your question is the incompetence of the first team, and presuming the competence of the second team if they’ve solved the case, and in between a lot of lost time.

    GG: That new team was a team that was put in at the end of 2006 or early 2007, is that the change that you’re talking about?

    CG: I don’t know whether it’s… it could have been 2005 and 2006, so I don’t know for sure.

    GG: Right. The last issue I wanted to ask you about – you’ve complained, and I think rightfully so, that the FBI has been very secretive about this investigation, hasn’t answered inquiries, hasn’t revealed very much at all, even still about the evidence that they possess. A lot of the controversies over the last seven years have been very similar in nature – that the executive branch has done things in secret, refused to really account to the legislative branch for what they’ve been doing, and both and Republicans and Democrats have seemed to have gone along with that.

    Do you agree that over the last seven years there’s been a significant increase in executive power and executive secrecy at the expense of Congress, and isn’t that part of why the FBI feels like it can just ignore inquiries from Congress, and keep such important matters to itself?

    CG: I think that throughout the executive branch of government, not just in this administration, but in too many administrations, Republican or Democrat, there has been an effort to not fully cooperate with Congress on hearings. Now, that would tend to be a statement on my part, blaming the executive branch entirely, but I also, as a person who’s been very aggressive in oversight myself, feel that all of Congress has come up short of doing the proper checks and balances of government that our Constitution requires, and doing that through more aggressive oversight.

    So, it could look like the executive branch under both Republicans and Democrats has been more aggressive assuming power etc. etc., but it could be as well, and from my standpoint it is, an issue of Congress not being aggressive enough doing its job and protecting its own prerogatives.

    GG: Absolutely. Do you perceive that that sense exists among your colleagues, and that trend is starting to reverse a little bit, that Congress is willing to reassert itself a little bit more in terms of compelling cooperation with its own prerogatives?

    CG: Yeah, and some of that’s because there’s a Democratic Congress and we have a Republican president. Now the real test of that is, and you will remember this next year if we have an Obama presidency – we’re surely going to have a Democratic Congress – are they going to be as aggressive in oversight of the new administration as they are of a Republican administration?

    Now, if we have a McCain presidency, and a Democratic Congress, I expect not a whole lot of change to be made. But I found after twelve years of Republicans, through Reagan and Bush, I was doing a lot of oversight, being applauded by Democrats, and when we had a Clinton presidency, I found that the Democrats were a little less willing to oversight their own party’s president.

    GG: Well, how about during the five years the Republicans controlled the Congress during the Bush presidency – would you say there was any form of meaningful or aggressive oversight when the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House?

    CG: The criticism that I’ve just given to Congress as a whole applies to the five years that the Republicans held the Congress. I hope it doesn’t apply to Chuck Grassley, because I think I’ve been fairly consistent in my oversight whether we had Republicans or Democrats.

    GG: Right. Well, you’ve certainly been outspoken and a leading member of the Senate in demanding what I think are very needed questions regarding this anthrax investigation, and I’m glad to hear there’s going to be a hearing before the Judiciary Committee and I certainly hope you keep up your efforts to demand from the FBI a genuine and full accounting of what they claim took place here with these attacks, and I really appreciate your taking the time today.

    CG: I think your interest in this and the publicity that you help give to it along with other journalists helps the process along.

    GG: Thanks very much, Senator. I appreciate it.

  4. DXer said

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/20/2796364.htm?section=world

    Alarm over anthrax-tainted heroin
    Posted 41 minutes ago

    The health ministry in France has issued a warning after eight people died and seven fell sick in two European countries from using heroin contaminated by anthrax.

    “Since December 6, there have been 15 confirmed cases of anthrax among heroin users, 14 in Scotland and one in Germany,” the ministry’s General Directorate for Health (DGS) said in a statement.

    “Eight people died,” it said. “The likeliest source is heroin contaminated by anthrax spores.”

    Most of the casualties had injected the heroin, but others also inhaled it or smoked it.

    Anthrax is a potentially lethal bacterium that exists naturally in the soil and can also occur among cattle. It is also, more notoriously, a potential bio-terror weapon.

    The ministry said the contaminated drug may also be circulating in France and other European countries.

    “There is no outward sign or colour enabling the user to tell whether the heroin has been contaminated by anthrax, and contaminated heroin dissolves or is used in the same way as uncontaminated heroin,” it said.

  5. DXer said

    http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2010/01/when-scientific-evidence-isnt-.html

    Monday, January 18, 2010

    When “scientific” evidence isn’t …

    For years, the FBI used a forensic technique called comparative bullet lead analysis. When lead bullets are made, they absorb trace elements like copper, bismuth and silver. Theoretically, bullets from the same box would have similar levels of those elements.

    So … investigators decided they could match a bullet found at a crime scene with one possessed by a suspect, based on whether they had the same amounts of trace elements. The FBI used this in hundreds of cases.

    Until a few years ago, when the National Academy of Science explained that, yes, the stuff about the trace elements was true. But there’s nothing to stop another bullet in a different box from a different factory to have similar levels of trace elements. The “scientific proof” wasn’t very scientific. Since then, the FBI has been reviewing all of those cases. Three people, once convicted of murder, have been freed as a result.

    Comment:

    US Attorney Jeff Taylor drew the analogy between the flask 1029 and a gun. He said the flask was “effectively the murder weapon.”

    This problem with the FBI’s bullet lead analysis would be analogous to the FBI’s accusation that Ivins was the processor and mailer except that there was no tin, iron or silica in the flask.

    So it is analogous to a situation where the bullet lead analysis showed that the trace elements were not the same and thus was exculpatory.

    • DXer said

      “FBI reviewing thousands of court cases where flawed agency evidence has been used,” Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2010
      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-discredited-bullet-evidence,0,4074986.story

      ***

      Nearly five years after the FBI abandoned its so-called comparative bullet lead analysis, the FBI has yet to complete its review of nearly 2,500 cases where law enforcement used such evidence to investigate a case.

      So far, the agency has found 187 cases where so-called comparative bullet lead analysis evidence was not only used in the investigation, but came into play at trial where FBI experts provided testimony. It has notified prosecutors in those cases where testimony from its experts “exceeds the limits of the science and cannot be supported by the FBI,” one agency letter says.

      At least three convictions — that of a Colorado man who served 12 years in prison for a double slaying, a Florida man who served 10 years after being convicted of killing his wife, and an Oregon man convicted of a triple slaying — have recently been overturned.

      • anonymous scientist said

        Dwight Adams, former FBI lab director and co-inventor (along with Matthew Meselson) of the “naturally occurring” silica in the anthrax Junk Science, can be seen on the below video clip stuttering and stumbling as he answers questions on the FBI’s lead in bullets Junk Science:

        http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3518359n&tag=related;photovideo

        • DXer said

          What story were these reporters working on at the time of the telephone record requests?

          FBI broke law for years in phone record searches

          By John Solomon and Carrie Johnson
          Special to The Washington Post
          Tuesday, January 19, 2010

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html

          “Separately, Kopistansky in the FBI general counsel’s office learned in mid-December 2004 that toll records were being requested without national security letters. She handled a request that originated from then-Executive Assistant Director Gary Bald, who had “passed information regarding numbers related to a terrorist organization with ties to the US” and obtained toll records, the memos show.

          The communications analysis unit asked Kopistansky to “draw up an NSL” to cover the search, but she was unable to get superiors to tell her which open terrorism case it involved. The request “has to specify why the numbers are relevant to an authorized investigation,” she said.

          An employee in the communications analysis unit wrote back that most of the emergency requests he received “come from upper mgmt. I don’t always receive documentation or know all the facts related to the number, which is a problem for me when I try to get the NSL.”

          ***

          The e-mails show that they conceived the idea to open half a dozen “generic” or “broad” preliminary investigative (PI) case files to which all unauthorized emergency requests could be charged so a national security letter could be issued after the fact.

          The generic files were to cover such broad topics as “threats against transportation facilities,” “threats against individuals” and “threats against special events,” the e-mails show.

          Eventually, FBI officials shifted to a second strategy of crafting a “blanket” national security letter to authorize all past searches that had not been covered by open cases.

          ***

          A November 2006 e-mail chain indicates that then-FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Joseph Billy signed the blanket national security letter. But when FBI lawyers raised concerns about it, he wrote back that he did not remember signing.

          “I have no recollection of signing anything blanket. NSLs are individual as far as I always knew,” Billy wrote Caproni on Nov. 7, 2006.

          Billy did not immediately respond to a message left at his office on Monday. Kopistansky and Bald, reached by phone Friday, said they could not comment without FBI approval.

          ***

          Among those whose phone records were searched improperly were journalists for The Washington Post and the New York Times, according to interviews with government officials.

          The searches became public when Mueller, the FBI director, contacted top editors at the two newspapers in August 2008 and apologized for the breach of reporters’ phone records. The reporters were Ellen Nakashima of The Post, who had been based in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez of the Times, who had also been working in Jakarta.

  6. anonymous scientist said

    How can Rudy Guiliani’s bizarre statements be understood?

    Either:
    (1) He has been living in a bubble for more than a year and did not hear the FBI’s announcement of August 2008 that they had solved the case and the attacks were carried out by USAMRID’S Dr Bruce Ivins acting alone.

    or

    (2) He let his guard down during the interview and revealed what is common knowledge among those in the types of circles to which he belongs – namely that the FBI has not solved the case at all, and that the Bruce Ivins theory is about to be permanently retired, probably by the newly appointed FBI DC head.

    • BugMaster said

      I am sure Ed will get ahold of Rudy and set him straight. That must be why Ed did’t post anything about this on his website today, as he clearly doesn’t want to respond to this issue until after he is done talking to Rudy!

      • Anonymous Scientist said

        His latest ravings are particularly hilarious. Not only did he fail to mention the Rudy Guiliani statement that the FBI have not solved the case, he raves about some scientist contacting him concerning how wet spores adhere to surfaces. That’s been a major obssession of his for years.
        He ignores the hundereds of scientific articles that van der Waals forces are the primary mechanism for dry spores adhering to surfaces and clumping.

        http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA507622&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
        One of the properties that distinguishes aerosols from gases is that of adhesion. Aerosols tend to stick to surfaces they touch due to van der Waals forces.

        http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/publications/papers/Lit_Review.pdf
        Micron-sized aerosol particles may firmly adhere to the surface, with adhesion force exceeding the gravitational force by orders of magnitude (Hinds 1999). Thus adhesion force is the major force that prevents surface particles from resuspension. Main adhesion forces include van der Waals force, charge-induced electrostatic force, and surface tension induced by adsorbed liquid films. Van der Waals is usually the greatest in magnitude.

        http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?chapselect=yo&page=96&record_id=11324#
        Once small particles adhere to a surface, van der Waals forces are usually strong enough to prevent their resuspension by air currents.

        • BugMaster said

          Actually, Ed, what struck me as interesting about what Guiliani said is that he seems to have stated it in a “matter of fact / these are the facts as I know them” manner.

          Since Guiliani was mayor of NYC at the time of the attack, and had some involvement with a company that played some role in clean-up operations, it is safe to assume that at least for a little while, he was more in the loop than you have ever been.

          “then that overrides anything that the people actually doing the investigating might say”.

          Actually doing the investigation? I though you said all investigation has been concluded.

          And what person or persons involved in the “actual investigation” would talk directly to you anyway?

          Perhaps the only ones left that believe they were right.

          In otherwords, true believers, like yourself.

        • anonymous scientist said

          “And what person or persons involved in the “actual investigation” would talk directly to you anyway?

          Perhaps the only ones left that believe they were right.

          In otherwords, true believers, like yourself.”

          You nailed him good !!!

          Taylor and Persichini have been disposed of, but there are surely a couple of true believers left. They may be on their way out in the very near future. Communicating with Ed Lake sort of tells you the level of their desperation.

        • Anonymous Scientist said

          “As usual, your beliefs are in total conflict with reality.”

          Hardly. The REALITY is that Guiliani stated repeatedly that the case has not been resolved. You can twist his words in your usual perverse manner to your hearts content and continue to expose yourself as an FBI shill. But the FACTS are that Guiliani stated the case is not resolved.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

          “Shill” can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.

        • BugMaster said

          It appears to me that one of your “FBI confidants” who has been leaking information to you was set up.

          In otherwords, by leaking, he has identified himself as a leaker.

          Remember, Ed, you yourself stated that you know the identity of this person.

          Just be careful what you say when interviewed. You don’t want to be indicted for making false statements!

        • DXer said

          Biodegradable Nanoparticle Flocculates for Dry Powder Aerosol Formulation
          Lianjun Shi, Carl J. Plumley, and Cory Berkland*
          Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, and Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047
          Langmuir, 2007, 23 (22), pp 10897–10901
          DOI: 10.1021/la7020098
          Publication Date (Web): September 26, 2007

          Uncontrolled agglomeration presents a formidable encumbrance to nanoparticle formulation as a dry powder for inhalation therapy. Spray-drying and freeze-drying of nanosuspensions has demonstrated some success in creating dry powders composed of agglomerated nanoparticles with appropriate aerodynamic properties. These controlled drying processes, however, may require an undesirable amount of excipient to maintain an active therapeutic while generating dry powders and may not offer the desired control over agglomerate size and aerosolizability. As a potential alternative approach, a method for flocculating nanoparticles in solution followed by freeze-drying is reported. Biodegradable poly(dl-lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles were self-assembled into flocs via electrostatic interactions between nanoparticles coated with oppositely charged polyelectrolytes. The size of the nanoparticle flocs was readily controlled by manipulating the mixing ratio of charged nanoparticles. Freeze-drying the flocculated nanoparticles produced dry powders exhibiting low density (0.1 g/cm3), a weblike morphology, and desirable aerodynamic properties suited for dry powder aerosols.

        • DXer said

          Nanoparticle formulations in pulmonary drug delivery
          Mark M. Bailey 1, Cory J. Berkland 1 2 *
          1Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047
          2Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047
          email: Cory J. Berkland (berkland@ku.edu)

          *Correspondence to Cory J. Berkland, Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering, University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Drive, Lawrence, KS 66047.

          Keywords
          nanotechnology • pulmonary medicine • nanoparticle formulations • nanoparticle toxicity

          Abstract
          The advent of nanotechnology has reignited interest in the lungs as a major route of drug delivery for both systemic and local treatments. The large surface area of the lungs and the minimal barriers impeding access to the lung periphery make this organ a suitable portal for a variety of therapeutic interventions. Nanoparticles provide new formulation options for both dispersed liquid droplet dosage forms such as metered dose inhalers and nebulizers, and dry powder formulations. Nanoparticle formulations have many advantages over traditional dosage forms, such as enhanced dissolution properties and the potential for intracellular drug delivery. Specifically, pure drug nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, polyelectrolyte complexes, and drug-loaded liposomes offer some encouraging results for delivering drugs to and through the lungs. Methods are also being investigated to produce nanoparticles with properties suitable for improving access to the peripheral lung. Traditional techniques such as spray drying and grinding, and more recent advances in supercritical fluid extraction, precipitation, and solvent extraction have been employed to produce nanoparticle formulations for pulmonary delivery. Here, the benefits of nanoparticle formulations and current progress are compared in light of the practical encumbrances of producing formulations, and possible toxicological effects of these materials. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Med Res Rev, 29, No. 1, 196-212, 2009

        • DXer said

          Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery
          Characterization of Stability and Nasal Delivery Systems for Immunization with Nanoemulsion-Based Vaccines

          1Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
          2Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
          3Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
          4Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
          5Next Breath, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland.

          Abstract

          Background: Many infectious diseases that cause significant morbidity and mortality, especially in the developing world, could be preventable through vaccination. The effort to produce safe, thermally stable, and needle-free mucosal vaccines has become increasingly important for global health considerations. We have previously demonstrated that a thermally stable nanoemulsion, a mucosal adjuvant for needle-free nasal immunization, is safe and induces protective immunity with a variety of antigens, including recombinant protein. The successful use of nanoemulsion-based vaccines, however, poses numerous challenges. Among the challenges is optimization of the formulation to maintain thermal stability and potency and another is accuracy and efficiency of dispensing the vaccines to the nasal mucosa in the anterior and turbinate region of the nasal cavity or potentially to the nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue.

  7. DXer said

    “Review of Fort Hood shootings says military not well-suited to flag internal threats,” Washington Post, January 15, 2010
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011502010.html

    Exhibit A: Ali Mohammed.

  8. DXer said

    At least some of the typed pages excluded in Aafia Siddiqui’s trial ongoing this week were mass-produced documents from “how-to” terror manuals. One such terror manual had instructions for sending lethal pathogens by envelope. It said wipe the inside of the envelope with a silicone sealant so as to avoid killing the mailman ( to avoid leakage en route ). Silicones are polymers that include silicon together with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen. More precisely called polymerized siloxanes or polysiloxanes, silicones are mixed inorganic-organic polymers with the chemical formula [R2SiO]n, where R is an organic group such as methyl, ethyl, or phenyl. These materials consist of an inorganic silicon-oxygenbackbone (…-Si-O-Si-O-Si-O-…) with organic side groups attached to the silicon atoms, which are four-coordinate. The most common siloxane is linear polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a silicone oil. I mention it in brainstorming alternative hypotheses about the Si-O absorbed into the spore coat. In some cases organic side groups can be used to link two or more of these -Si-O- backbones together. By varying the -Si-O- chain lengths, side groups, and crosslinking, silicones can be synthesized with a wide variety of properties and compositions. They can vary in consistency from liquid to gel to rubber to hard plastic. The most common siloxane is linear polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a silicone oil.

    So let’s review the hypothesis that “Death to Jews” flowed more naturally from someone like Aafia, who says she was tasked to study biological weapons, rather than Dr. Ivins, who liked singing in the church choir and juggling and much liked and respected by co-workers.

    1. The anthrax attack samples did contain silicon and oxygen, the elements of silica.

    2. The silicon and oxygen were not located on the outside surface of the spores. They were on an internal structure. Spore coats have a natural tendency to absorb silicon.

    3. Michael and colleagues used a powerful electron microscope to probe the specific location of chemical elements in thin samples of spores from the attack envelopes.

    4. Dr. Michael has tested material from the flask that the FBI says the anthrax materials came from, the mailings came from, and Sandia found that there was no silicon signature in these spores.

    5.

    6. Paul Kotula explained “We looked at over 200 samples in our lab that were various attempts to reverse-engineer the process under which these powders were made and did not find a match.”
    http://www.nae.edu/nae/pubundcom.nsf/weblinks/NKAL-7M9KTU?OpenDocument

    7. Sergeui Popov, a bioweapons expert at GMU’s Center for Biodefense, reports: the Silicon Signature “could have come from the use of foam suppressant agents, typically employed in the process of large scale fermentation of bacteria.”

    8. As a food additive, it has the E number E900 and is used as an anti-foaming agent.

    9. As Randy Atkins explained it, the anthrax attack samples did contain silicon and oxygen, the elements of silica which can make spores more readily float – and be inhaled – says Joe Michael, a Sandia National Labs materials scientist. But, Michael says, those elements weren’t found in the most likely place for a biological weapon.

    10. Catherine Herridge interviewed Joe Michael here where Joe explains that Ivins flask did not contain the chemical signature of the attack anthrax.
    [audio src="http://www.wtop.com/emedia/146817.mp3" /]

    oxygen
    silicon
    tin
    iron

    11. Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) belong to a group of polymeric organosilicon compounds which are commonly referred to as silicones]. PDMS is the most widely used silicon-based organicpolymer, and is particularly known for its unusual rheological (or flow) properties. PDMS is one of several types of silicone oil (polymerized siloxane).

    12. Before Ivins death, my friend who heads a military lab that makes aerosolized anthrax made anthrax using a silicone oil in the slurry and it showed the same spike for silicon and oxygen.

    13. Many people are indirectly familiar with PDMS because it is an important (4%) component in Silly Putty, to which PDMS imparts its characteristic viscoelastic properties.[PDMS is also used as a component in silicone grease and other silicone based lubricants, as well as in defoaming agents.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydimethylsiloxane

    14. Dimethicone is also used widely in skin moisturizing lotions, listed as an active ingredient whose purpose is “skin protectant.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydimethylsiloxane

    15. After the anthrax mailings, the DARPA-funded researchers to which Bruce Ivins had supplied the virulent Ames, pitching the handcream or skin protectant to postal workers. They explained that their DARPA-funded product was a “great moisturizer.”

    See This Goop? It Kills Anthrax And the tiny biotech startup that …
    Nov 12, 2001 … “Plus, it’s a great moisturizer,” he says, grinning, as he rubs the lotion into his hands. … nanoemulsion–forms these bubbles at the supertiny nano level. … NanoBio’sproduct isn’t the only promising anthrax killer. …
    money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/11/12/313292/ index.htm

    16. The invention related to a nanoemulsion where the particles are so small they go INSIDE.
    Nanoemulsion Vaccines – Patent – methods and compositions for the …
    … emulsifiers, gelling agents, moisturizers, stabilizers, surfactants, wetting agents, preservatives, time release agents …… Patents by James R. Baker …
    http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080254066

    17 They had received $12 million in investment from DARPA in the late 1990s. After the mailings, DARPA reportedly asked for some of their product them to decontaminate some of the Senate offices. NanoBio received a $3,150,000 defense contract in 2003. Dr. Hamouda graduated Cairo Medical in December 1982. He was there at a time when Ayman Zawahiri openly recruited on Friday evenings in a room set aside for the Egyptian Islamic Group, which was legal at the time. See “Tawfiq” Hamid’s book. A former Egyptic Group member, “Tawfiq” Hamid consults with intelligence agencies and has known Dr. Hamouda since childhood, when they would go to the comic book store with “Tawfik’s” brother when Tarek would visit from Khartoum. Tarek’s mother was working as an accounting professor in Khartoum. Tarek married in 1986. His wife was on the Cairo University dental faculty for 10 years. Upon coming to the United States in 1994 after finishing his microbiology PhD at Cairo Medical, Dr. Hamouda was a post-doctoral fellow at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in downtown Detroit. Dr. Hamouda’s immunology department biography at Wayne indicates that he then came to the University of Michigan and began work on the DARPA-funded work with anthrax bio-defense applications with James R. Baker at their company NanoBio. Did he know some of the Egyptians in Ann Arbor like Bassem Khafagi? Bassem Khafagi was President of IANA and was Al-Timimi’s friend who kept his personal papers for safekeeping in Al-Timimi’s townhouse. The personal papers were found upon the raid of Al-Timimi’s residence. Perhaps someone accessed the NanoBio offices — which is why it needs to be confirmed where all the research using the virulent Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins was done to confirm that it in fact never reached Ann Arbor. Kimothy Smith, the scientist who typed the attack anthrax and then had a leading position at Homeland Security in biodefense, provided the space used for the DARPA-funded research by Dr. Hamouda and likely could tell us where the research was done. Aafia Siddiqui was associated with Ann Arbor addresses (at her brother’s and sister-in-law’s residence).

    Ann Arbor lab technician Michael Hayes has reported on research using virulent Ames that he did, as did Dr. Hamouda. Michael refused to answer any questions when I called last week to ask him again for a copy of his presentation before ICAAC describing what they observed when they tested their biocidal agent against virulent Ames supplied by Dr. Ivins in a petri dish.

    18. The University of Michigan researchers presented in part at various listed meetings and conferences in 1998 and 1999. The December 1999 article titled “A Novel Surfactant Nanoemulsion with Broad-Spectrum Sporicidal Activity of against Bacillus Species” in the Journal for Infectious Diseases states:

    “B. anthracis spores, Ames and Vollum 1B strains, were supplied by Bruce Ivins (US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases [USAMRIID], Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD) and were prepared as described elsewhere. Four other strains of B. anthracis were provided by Martin Hugh-Jones (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.”

    In the acknowledgements section, the University of Michigan authors thank:

    Shaun B. Jones, Jane Alexander, and Lawrence DuBois (Defense Science Office, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) for their support.
    Bruce Ivins, Patricia Fellows, Mara Linscott, Arthur Friedlander, and the staff of USAMRIID for their technical support and helpful suggestions in the performance of the initial anthrax studies.
    Martin-Hugh-Jones, Kimothy Smith, and Pamela Coker for supplying the characterized B. anthracis strains and the space at Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge).
    Robin Kunkel (Department of Pathology, University of Michigan) for her help with electron microscopy and a couple of others for technical assistance and manuscript preparation.
    The researchers found that their nanoemulsion incorporated into the growth medium completely inhibited the growth of the spores. Transmission electron microscope was used to examine the spores.
    The authors explained that “The nanoemulsions can be rapidly produced in large quantities and are stable for many months *** Undiluted, they have the texture of a semisolid cream and can be applied topically by hand or mixed with water. Diluted, they have a consistency and appearance similar to skim milk and can be sprayed to decontaminate surfaces or potentially interact with aerosolized spores before inhalation.”

    19. An article in the Summer of 2000 in Medicine at Michigan explains:

    “Victory Site: Last December [December 1999] Tarek Hamouda, Amy Shih and Jim Baker traveled to a remote military station in the Utah desert. There they demonstrated for the U.S. Army Research and Development Command the amazing ability of non-toxic nanoemulsions (petite droplets of fat mixed with water and detergent) developed at Michigan to wipe out deadly anthrax-like bacterial spores. The square vertical surfaces shown here were covered with bacterial spores; Michigan’s innocuous nanoemulsion was most effective in killing the spores even when compared to highly toxic chemicals.”

    20. As Fortune magazine explained in November 2001 about NanoBio: “Then bioterror struck…. It moved to a bland corporate park where its office has no name on the door. It yanked its street address off its Website, whose hit rate jumped from 350 a month to 1,000 a day.” NanoBio was part of the solution: “in the back of NanoBio’s office sit two dozen empty white 55-gallon barrels. A few days before, DARPA had asked Annis and Baker if they could make enough decontaminant to clean several anthrax-tainted offices in the Senate. NanoBio’s small lab mixers will have to run day and night to fill the barrels. ‘This is not the way we want to do this,’ sighs [its key investor], shaking his head. ‘This is all a duct-tape solution.’ ” James Baker, founder of Ann Arbor’s NanoBio’s likes to quote a Chinese proverb: “When there are no lions and tigers in the jungle, the monkeys rule.”

    21. It’s naive to think that Al Qaeda could not have obtained Ames just because it tended to be in labs associated with or funded by the US military. US Army Al Qaeda operative Sgt. Ali Mohammed accompanied Zawahiri in his travels in the US. (Ali Mohamed had been a major in the same unit of the Egyptian Army that produced Sadat’s assassin, Khaled Islambouli). Ali Al-Timimi was working in the building housing the Center for Biodefense funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (”DARPA”) and had access to the facilities at both the Center for Biodefense and the adjacent American Type Culture Collection. Michael Ray Stubbs was an HVAC system technician at Lawrence Livermore Lab with a high-level security clearance permitting access. That was where the effort to combat the perceived Bin Laden anthrax threat was launched in 1998. Aafia Siddiqui, who attended classes at a building with the virulent Vollum strain. She later married a 9/11 plotter al-Balucchi, who was in UAE with al-Hawsawi, whose laptop, when seized at the home of a bacteriologist, had anthrax spraydrying documents on it. The reality is that a lab technician, researcher, or other person similarly situated might simply have walked out of some lab that had it. What was NanoBio’s old street address? Why is Aafia Siddiqui associated with an address at 1915 Woodbury Drive in Ann Arbor? An Assistant United States Attorney has claimed in open court (in the opening argument in United States v. Paracha) that Aafia was willing to participate in an anthrax attack if asked.

    22. Among the documents found in Afghanistan in 2001 were letters and notes written in English to Ayman Zawahiri by a scientist about his attempts to obtain an anthrax sample. One handwritten letter was on the letterhead of the Society for Applied Microbiology, the UK’s oldest microbiological society. The Society for Applied Microbiology of Bedford, UK, recognizes that “the development and exploitation of Applied Microbiology requires the maintenance and improvement of the microbiological resources in the UK, such as culture collections and other specialized facilities.” Thus, Zawahiri’s access to the Ames strain is still yet to be proved or disclosed, but there was no shortage of possibilities or recruitment attempts by Ayman. One colleague of his estimates that he made 15 recruitment attempts over a many year period. Dr. Keim observes: “Whoever perpetrated the first crime must realize that we have the capability to identify material and to track the material back to its source. Whoever did this is presumably aware of what’s going on, and if the person is a scientist, they can read the study. Hopefully, the person is out there thinking: When am I going to get caught?”

    23. Dr. Michael’s work supports Ivins’ innocence whether he appreciates it or not (he is not privy to investigative information). I hope those who think Ivins is innocent will keep an open mind and embrace the FBI’s finding that the source of the Silicon Signature could have been in the culture medium. The DARPA-funded patent was coinvented by the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy USAMRIID commander who shared a suite with Ali Al-Timimi. The patent used silica in the culture medium as part of what is described as a microencapsulation patent. Dr. Al-Timimi was actively coordinating with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik. On the First Anniversary of the anthrax mailings, he arranged for a letter in Bin Laden’s sheik’s name to be hand-delivered to every member of Congress — the letter threatened dire consequences if Iraq was invaded. The scientists joining the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense international patent application were long-time government consultants in anthrax and aerosol experts.

    24. Al-Timimi’s lawyer has described Ali as an “anthrax weapons suspect” and the proceedings are ongoing and highly classified. Not even opposing counsel or the judge’s clerk are being allowed to read the government’s filings. The federal eagle envelope was also sold in Virginia contrary to the incorrect suggestion by the US Attorney that it was uniquely sold in Dr. Ivins’ Maryland post office used by the other USAMRIID scientists.

    25. There is no fiber evidence that points to Ivins. His wife and kids lived with him in the small house. His son hadn’t yet left for college. The private note by his wife to Dr. Ivins indicates she sincerely believed that he had nothing to do with the mailings. There was no contamination with the genetically distinctive subtilis that pointed to Ivins. No match with the tin found in the anthrax. No credible motive (IMO). But this is a situation where the FBI is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, they haven’t closed Amerithrax yet and it remains a confidential criminal and national security investigation. The genetics only points to a stream of isolates with the same profile, not to Ivins. Given originally 1,000 were known to have access, even under the FBI’s view of the genetics, the genetics only served to narrow things to 100-300.

    I think critics of the FBI should ask themselves a few basic questions:

    Who did Rauf Ahmad consult with about the tricks relating to processing that he mentions in his correspondence with Ayman Zawahiri?

    Why did Ali Al-Timimi have a high security clearance for work for the Navy for which he reportedly received (see old defense committee webpage) a letter of commendation from the White House?

    What did the handwritten pages in the possession of Aafia Siddiqui say about anthrax?

    Why aren’t the answers to questions material to your analysis? Why do you blow right past them? Even under your thinking, know-how travels in the minds of individuals. Avoiding material questions, without more, leads to a flawed analysis.

    • DXer said

      And I didn’t mean to rule out other hypotheses just by not including them. For example, I always liked, as a possibility, contamination from use of a spraydryer used in researching rice hulls. It’s just that Aafia is on trial and the handwritten notes are due to be admitted into evidence next week so I thought I’d mention the silicone sealant / Polydimethylsiloxane hypothesis.

      But what does the difference in color suggest in choosing between the possible alternatives? (brown —-> white)

      • Dxer said

        As another brainstormed hypothesis, why doesn’t the Silicon Signature merely point to the source being virulent Ames from a soil suspension (by analogy, the Delta Ames supplied by Dr. Ezzell to Edgewood researchers was in a soil suspension)

        Detection of Bacillus anthracis spores in soil by PCR
        Anders Sjöstedta, *, Ulla Erikssona, Vincent Ramisseb and Henri Garrigueb

        a Department of Microbiology, National Defence Research Establishment, S-901 82 Umeå, Sweden

        b Laboratoire de Biochemie Immunochemie, Centre d’Etudes du Bouchet, 91710 Vert-Le-Petit, France

        “The deposition of anthrax bacteria in soil has been examined in detail in several studies. After the deliberate contamination of the Gruinard Island during the Second World War, sampling was regularly performed during 40 years [4]. The spores were originally deposited on the soil surface, but despite natural redistribution during 4 decades, the spores were, almost without exception, isolated from the top 6 cm of soil [4]. Similar observations have been made in anthrax endemic areas, e.g. Kruger National Park, South Africa [6].”

  9. DXer said

    From July 2005-
    Second Decontamination Set For Boxes At Former AMI Building (anthrax)

    BOCA RATON, Fla. — A second decontamination is scheduled for thousands of boxes at the former headquarters of a supermarket tabloid that was the first target in a series of anthrax attacks, officials said.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has approved a plan by MARCOR Remediation Inc. to disinfect the exteriors of more than 8,500 boxes with bleach over a seven-week period, said EPA project director Terry Stillman.

    *** Bio-ONE originally planned to incinerate the boxes, containing 4.5 million tabloid photos and 305,000 pounds of press clippings and periodicals once owned by AMI, but began decontaminating the photos April 14.

    *** Bio-ONE was founded by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

  10. DXer said

    Lady Al Qaeda’ trial: Suspected terrorist Aafia Siddiqui tossed from courtroom after outburst

    BY ALISON GENDAR
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

    Thursday, January 14th 2010

    Suspected terrorist Aafia Siddiqui was temporarily thrown out of court for another outburst – a day after demanding that Jews be thrown out of the jury pool in her trial.

    A jury was chosen Thursday in the “Lady Al Qaeda” trial – but not before the defendant interrupted the process with more outbursts and was tossed from the courtroom.

    A day after she demanded Jews be excluded from the jury, Aafia Siddiqui went to deliver more rants about Jews and the 9/11 terror attacks.

    “I have nothing to do with 9/11,” she said when a potential juror who cited her personal experience on Sept. 11 was dismissed.

    Siddiqui is on trial in Manhattan federal court for attempted murder.

    She was arrested by Afghan police after being caught in July 2008 with two pounds of sodium cyanide, a list of New York targets, and instructions for chemical and biological weapons, prosecutors say.

    When an American team tried to question her, she allegedly grabbed an unsecured M-4 rifle and opened fire.

    Siddiqui has repeatedly said she is boycotting her own trial and has attempted to make her case directly to prospective jurors and the judge.

    On the first day of jury selection, she asked Judge Richard Berman to exclude any panelists with “Zionist or Israeli background.”

    A Daily News report of her outburst became an issue Thursday when the defense team said it could taint the jury pool.

    Meanwhile, as Berman quizzed the jury pool on whether their 9/11 experiences would influence their deliberations, Siddiqui piped up from the defense table.

    “The next question will be on anti-Semitism, Israel was behind 9/11. That’s not anti-Semitic,” she said before being escorted out.

    Berman later said that anyone who disrupts proceedings will be removed, but that Siddiqui has a right to be present for her trial and would be allowed to return.

    Comment: Aafia’s husband was a 911 plotter, helping the hijackers from UAE as they transited. He worked with Al-Hawsawi who had the anthrax spraydrying documents on the laptop when he and KSM were arrested, with the arrested allegedly at the home of bacteriologist Abdul Qudoos Khan.

  11. DXer said

    The truth perhaps will come out 30 years from now in the course of FOIA litigation.

    ‘Scottish Civilian Army’ in anthrax scare

    Published Date: 15 January 2010
    By MARK SMITH
    A SHADOWY group called the Scottish Civilian Army was behind an anthrax terrorist attack in 1981, according to secret files.
    The attacks, which received worldwide press coverage, involved the dumping of soil from the anthrax-infected island of Gruinard at key sites, including the Scottish Office in Edinburgh, Porton Down chemical research lab and the Blackpool hotel staging the Conservative Party conference.

    Gruinard, off the west coast of Scotland, was infected with anthrax by the army in 1941 as part of a test on the spread of the spores, amid fears Hitler was about the unleash the chemical on the UK.

    A group calling itself Operation Dark Harvest claimed to have taken soil from the island for use in a terrorist campaign.

    It was never made clear at the time whether the soil actually contained anthrax spores, but the files released yesterday showed the samples did test positive for the deadly infection.

    A letter from the Scottish Health Department to Mr HC MacMillan, deputy chief constable of Northern Constabulary, said samples were “confirmed as containing anthrax spores”.

Leave a Reply to Dxer Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: