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

* questions for Congressman Holt’s anthrax investigation … Dugway + Battelle = ???

Posted by DXer on March 16, 2010

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

Old Atlantic asks some questions for a new review of anthrax and foreign countries.

  • Did Dugway make powdered spores? Did they make them to aersololize easily for some clients?
  • Did Battelle order the aerosolized powder version to use in challenge experiments?  Was such delivered prior to September 18, 2001?
  • Was this treatment to make the anthrax more realistic and rigorous for battle field conditions or use by a foreign power on the United States?
  • Was a seed stock from RMR-1029 used to manufacture this anthrax?
  • Did al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Pakistan  have an asset inside Battelle?
  • Or someone with links to any of these countries or organizations?
  • Did they count on the US blaming domestic terrorists to avoid admitting that it had possibly violated bioweapons conventions or treaties?
  • Did this come up in any discussion involving Saudi Arabia,Pakistan, or United Arab Emirates and any US government employee?  Any other country and the US?  Or between another country and a US ally?
  • Did the US pick up information of any communication of such a nature using its intel resources at some point in time?
  • What persons not originally from the US were at Battelle, Ft. Detrick, Dugway or similar installation from 1997 to 2001?
  • What amounts of powdered anthrax were at which sites at which dates?  Were they manufactured to more easily aerosolize?  If so how?
  • Did they contain silicon as part of that manufacturing in the spore coat or on the surface?
  • Could silicon have been removed from the surface by the means used to prepare it for testing?  Can other anthrax from the letters be tested without removing silicon from its surface?  Can this be checked by lab methods first on other powder with silicon on its surface?
  • Does the US have such anthrax or subtilis so treated for use in such experiments?
  • Did a foreign power or foreign organization realize that it had a free shot on the US because the US would blame domestic terrorists instead of admitting it had made easily aerosolized powder for use in challenge experiments at Battelle or other sites in the quantity of 10 to 30 grams or more?

******

3 Responses to “* questions for Congressman Holt’s anthrax investigation … Dugway + Battelle = ???”

  1. DXer said

    Office paper can be differentiated. It is very wrong for the United States Department of Justice to accuse the late Bruce Ivins of murder — and go so far as to say he was copying the letters at the Building 1425 library on the specified dates — without disclosing that the Department of Justice knows that the paper used in that library machine does not match the paper used in the anthrax letters. (It is a simple matter to identify copies made on the machine during the time period as well as divine the paper used from invoices and photocopy exemplars made by the FBI in late 2001). The DOJ attorneys have withheld the information due to careerist motivations rather than the furtherance of justice. When the FBI Director Mueller and the US Attorney say the “buck stops here,” and yet these forensic findings are not disclosed, it then becomes an injustice perpetrated by those officials, and all officials in the chain of command with the relevant responsibility.

    Forensic differentiation of paper by X-ray diffraction and infrared spectroscopy
    Forensic Science International, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 15 January 2010
    Valerio Causin, Carla Marega, Antonio Marigo, Rosario Casamassima, Giuseppe Peluso, Luigi Ripani

    The possibility to discriminate between sheets of paper can be of considerable importance in questioned document examinations. 19 similar types of office paper were characterized by infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction to individuate the most discriminating features that could be measured by these techniques. The discriminating value associated to them was also assessed. By using a sequence of these two techniques, all the samples could be differentiated.

  2. Any test of a vaccine against anthrax in an aerosol challenge of lab animals is a joint test of

    1) the vaccine
    2) the strain of anthrax
    3) how the anthrax is prepared
    4) how the anthrax is delivered.

    If for one animal the spores of anthrax are not of the right size to go into the lungs and be absorbed, and for another they are, then the experiment becomes about which animals got the right spores as much as the vaccine.

    How many spores suitable to be absorbed did the animal get into its lungs? This is another factor.

    If one has a powder of anthrax of the right size and which is treated to aerosolize easily, then one can more easily administer the anthrax to know each animal got at least a minimal lethal dose. This makes the experiment more about the vaccine and strain of anthrax.

    In a series of experiments, one wants to have the anthrax be a constant. So the lethality of the strain would be the same, the size of the spores, their ability to aerosolize. If one has a large supply of anthrax powder of one strain that is prepared to aerosolize easily and is of the right size, then its a good benchmark for use in vaccine trials for several years.

    This is why Battelle would want to have gotten 30 grams or more of anthrax powder from Dugway that was treated to aerosolize and that was of a uniform size for absorption in the lungs.

    They would also want to use the same as Fort Detrick to be comparable to Fort Detrick experiments.

    If they used RMR-1029 as the seed to grow their anthrax at Dugway, then they wouldn’t have to do their own experiments to check some other anthrax if it had the same lethality, etc as what Ft. Detrick was using.

    They could piggy back on the work of Ft. Detrick if they used the same Ames as Ft. Detrick to seed their growth. So they would have wanted to send some of the RMR-1029 they got in May 2001 from Ft. Detrick to Dugway to produce their supply of anthrax. That would mirror Ft. Detrick even more since they also had Dugway produce their anthrax supply for animal challenge experiments.

    Battelle wanted to have a business of doing animal challenge experiments with anthrax. Researchers at other institutes could prepare vaccines but leave the work of handling aerosolized anthrax to Battelle. Battelle is operating this business model a little before 2008 as seen in the paper:

    “A single immunization with a dry powder anthrax vaccine protects rabbits against lethal aerosol challenge”
    S.D. Klas,1* C.R. Petrie,1 S.J. Warwood,1 M.S. Williams,1 C.L. Olds,1 J.P. Stenz,1 A.M. Cheff,1 M. Hinchcliffe,2 C. Richardson,1 and S. Wimer1

    published 2008.

  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742988/

    Published online 2008 August 12. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.062.

    PMCID: PMC2742988
    NIHMSID: NIHMS74817

    A single immunization with a dry powder anthrax vaccine protects rabbits against lethal aerosol challenge
    S.D. Klas,1* C.R. Petrie,1 S.J. Warwood,1 M.S. Williams,1 C.L. Olds,1 J.P. Stenz,1 A.M. Cheff,1 M. Hinchcliffe,2 C. Richardson,1 and S. Wimer1

    “The rabbits were transported to the Battelle Medical Research & Evaluation Facility (West Jefferson, OH) eight weeks after the initial immunization. After one week of quarantine, rabbits were aerosol challenge with a mean dose of 278 LD50 of Ames B. anthracis spores based on a benchmark LD50 of 105,000 cfu [15] delivered via a muzzle-only inhalation exposure chamber. ”

    “This work is supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command under Contract No. DAMD17-01-C-0040. “

Leave a 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: