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

* Is a network analysis that relies on Bruce Ivins’ publications sufficient?

Posted by DXer on April 24, 2010


The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *



Is a network analysis that relies

on Bruce Ivins’ publications



Dr. Heine talks about the missing interviews from 2002 and says they, for example, focused on these experiments that were of the FBI’s keen interest.  He says that the FBI was focused on what happened to the samples.

  • Who was in Henry Heine’s group that did the experimenting with silicon or silicone?
  • When were the experiments done?
  • Who was involved?
  • Did the experiments involve Flask 1029?
  • What was the purpose of the experiments?
  • Were they the encapsulation and aerosolization experiments for which withdrawals were made from Flask 1029?

35 Responses to “* Is a network analysis that relies on Bruce Ivins’ publications sufficient?”

  1. DXer said

    Who is Webster who wrote the email titled “US Secret Weapon” which apparently referred to a “friend in Saudi”?

    10/30/01 from Webster to Ivins, Subject: FW: US Secret Weapon ARMY 03-006979.

    In terms of network analysis, there is a WM Webster that is closely clustered with the scientists who were deposed. Did he write it?

    What was the email about? Was there a news item at the time being forwarded?

    • DXer said

      Maybe the author of the email “US Secret Weapon” referring to a “friend in Saudi” was Wendy Webster, Select Agent Manager at United States Department of Defense.

      According to Linked In, she worked for the DOD beginning in 2000 while she worked on her Master of Science at the Johns Hopkins University.

      That’s where the former assistant to Dr. Ezzell, Joany, left to continue the DARPA-funded work that involved making the anthrax from RMR 1029 into a dry powder. (The research involved using a sonicator and corona plasma discharge in experiments relating to the detecting the PCR of anthrax used in an aerosol attack). I believe the research involved a silicon dioxide substrate — but I just used some big words that are beyond my ken.

      Johns Hopkins is one of the places where the former Zawahiri associate’s decontamination agent was tested, along with USAMRIID, Dugway and LSU.

      But I don’t even have confirmation that this is WM Webster that was co-author on all the various Detrick vaccine studies.

      It would make sense that there is someone at DOD who is involved in the USAMRIID work to develop a vaccine. It also might explain why the regulations relating to the transfer of agents was associated in the deposition with this email from someone named Webster to Ivins.

      Wendy Webster
      Select Agent Manager at United States Department of Defense
      Washington D.C. Metro Area Research

      Select Agent Manager at United States Department of Defense
      Biologist at Department of Defence

      Select Agent Manager
      United States Department of Defense
      Government Agency; 10,001+ employees; Military industry
      February 2012 – Present (2 years 1 month) Fort Detrick

      Department of Defence
      Government Agency; 10,001+ employees; Military industry
      August 2000 – February 2012 (11 years 7 months)

      The Johns Hopkins University
      Master of Science (MS), Biotechnology
      2000 – 2004

    • DXer said

      The October 30, 2001 email “US Secret Weapon” apparently from Wendy Webster to Bruce Ivins the day after an NGAV meeting at the Pentagon needs to be produced pronto.

      Lew gets mighty grumpy when he thinks the sexy documents were culled from production.

      In terms of the timeline, on October 29, 2001, Dr. Ivins was in communication with the New Yorker and stridently objecting the draft story that Ames had been weaponized at USAMRIID.

      Click to access 20011025_batch37(redacted).pdf

      —–Original Message—–
      From: Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:08 PM
      To: Cc:; Subject: New Yorker urgently asks fact-check on one question. Please

      Dear Dr. Ivins),

      Okay, I give. But I have to turn this story in tomorrow night, for publication next week. In the interest of factual accuracy, would one of you be kind enough to answer this question?
      The field tests of the human anthrax vaccine conducted by and his colleagues in the 1950s (testing those workers up in New England who handled goat hair) demonstrated the efficacy of the human anthrax vaccine against inhalation anthrax. Why were y’all still testing it on rhesus monkeys a few years ago?

      We were testing a vaccine that was somewhat different than the 1950s vaccine, with respect to fermentation conditions and absorption onto different aluminum adjuvants.

      That IS why you all requested what you called the “Ames strain” in 1980, isn’t it? Or, were those for different tests?
      In late 1980 and early 1981, when anthrax research had dramatically picked up as a result of learning of the Sverdlovsk incident, we began writing to scientists, laborataories and culture collections to gather sample strains for the impending vaccine research. The strain sent to us by the NVSL at the USDA in Ames, Iowa, was one of them.

      More than anything, I really need to know, even if it’s only in the most general terms, why y’all needed that strain from the NVSL in 1980.
      We were not seeking that specific strain, (which did not come with a specific designation) nor at the time did we know anything about its virulence. We asked for strains from other laboratories as well. That strain was not singled out for us to obtain by anyone. It just so happened that it was one strain that we obtained through our many requests.

      It really does help to be as factually accurate as possible in moments such as this, especially given the fact that, for example, the New Scientist now reports that USAMRIID had weaponized the “Ames” strain.

      You have GOT to be kidding me!!!!!! This is scurrilous, egregious, outrageous, as well as completely wrong.

      It’s my understanding that the “Ames” strain was not weaponized by the U.S.
      That is correct.

      But I’d really, really love to know if I’m going to be correct in explaining that USAMRIID asked for this bloody isolate from that unfortunate bovine in 1980 because it was challenging the human anthrax vaccine. ***********************************************************************************
      In late 1980 and early 1981, when anthrax research started up again here at USAMRIID, we had no virulent strains in the institute to use for challenge in vaccine studies. We eventually were sent the Vollum 1B strain from Dugway Proving Ground. We also obtained strains, including the Ames strain, from other laboratories. We intended to test the human vaccine against various virulent strains to hopefully demonstrate in the guinea pig model that AVA was protective against all strains. The “Ames” strain was one of those tested, and it was found to be highly refractory to AVA in the guinea pig model.

      Thank you very much,

      Then on October 30, 2001 there were emails about a meeting at the Pentagon on October 29. That meeting was held in the Pentagon, Room 3C257. But I don’t see the email by the subject “US Secret Weapon” or any mention of a friend in Saudi. I am guessing Wendy Webster was at the NGAV meeting on October 29 but would have to look to see if I have the minutes of the meeting listing attendees.

      From: To:
      Subject: Date:
      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Meeting at Pentagon with Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:17:04 AM
      has asked me to send to you this information from yesterday’s NGAV (New Generation Anthrax Vaccine) meeting in office at the Pentagon.
      was asking me about the status of tech-base research on the new vaccine. I informe(6d)her of what we were doing and told her that we were extra busy because of being in Florida and because of our efforts in support of DSD. She expressed strong concern that researchers on the anthrax vaccine mission were being pulled away to do work that technicians could do, and that this could impact on the research mission. She told me to get back to before Thursday with respect to who and how many are needed to do what in support of the DSD mission. She also said that she will go to if necessary to see that people are assigned to the DSD mission, so that there is no “bottleneck” in the NGAV work. When I returned to USAMRIID yesterday, I relayed this information to
      Bruce Ivins

      From: To: Subject: Date:
      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      NGAV meeting at Pentagon – 29 OCT Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:59:02 PM
      (b) (6)
      Summary of NGAV meeting at the Pentagon on 29 OCT
      1. were not present to present. was not present, replaced her.
      2. Bruce Ivins presented the postexposure prophylaxis study plan. informed him that the second part of the experiment involving penicillin, Augmentin, and another antibiotic would not be done. Dr. Ivins was told by to have a budget and time frame by the next meeting, and to have identify who would do the work. It was suggetsted that Battelle could do the work, or a TORP could be advertised.
      3. Bruce Ivins presented data on rPA vaccine stability in the presence or absence of formaldehyde. He also discussed the work to assess the stability of the vaccine. expressed strong concern that researchers on the anthrax vaccine mission were being pulled away to do work that technicians could do, and that this could impact on the research mission. She told Dr. Ivins to get back to
      before Thursday with respect to who and how many are needed to do what in support of the DSD mission. She also said that she will go to if necessary to see that people are assigned to the DSD mission, so that there is no “bottleneck” in the NGAV work.
      4. talked about human clinical trials with vaccines based on RIID PA and Avant PA. It was suggested that both products be tested in parallel and that efficacy bridging studies be done, since most of the efficacy studies have been done with the RIID (B. anthracis) PA product.
      5. It was stated that rPA vaccine efficacy will have to meet the current relative potency test, as well as any future new potency assay.
      6. It was brought up that the FDA had suggested efforts directed toward obtaining human anti-PA antiserum so that antiserum and antibiotics could be used post exposure for confirmend cases of anthrax.
      7. More tech-base update information was not presented by Bruce Ivins. Instead, he was asked to send
      the information by email to – Bruce Ivins

    • DXer said

      This is the New Scientist article that the New Yorker article mentioned. I would have thought it was mistaken — based on what I thought was a longstanding consensus that the US had weaponized Vollum. But on the other hand, it is interesting that it is Ken Alibek who Deborah M. quotes as her source. Alibek shared a suite with convicted seditionist Al-TImimi. Al-TImimi was coordinating with 911 imam Anwar Awlaki.

      Anthrax bacteria likely to be US military strain
      24 October 2001

      From the article:

      “It is a good choice for a terrorist. Ames is more likely than other strains of anthrax to cause disease in animals immunised with the standard US anthrax vaccine, which is now being given to US troops. It also has proven virulence and is not traceable to one particular country, says Ken Alibek, former deputy head of the Soviet bioweapons programme.

      The Soviets did not mass-produce Ames, says Alibek. Iraq favoured the Vollum strain, which has been identified in samples from its Al Hakam bacterial fermentation plant. The anthrax mass-produced for weapons in the US was destroyed after 1969.

      But samples were kept in the US and elsewhere. “The South African collection had hundreds of different strains,” Alibek points out.”

      Alibek told me that Russia had Ames. (Serge Popov confirmed to me and publicly that the researchers there could request whatever they wanted and then their intelligence apparatus would obtain it for them.)

      But it is quite fascinating that the leading DARPA researcher Alibek was saying that the US had weaponized Ames. He had a multi million dollar contract for his work with the Ames strain. How could he possibly be mistaken on such a thing?

      Alibek himself was working with Ames, with SRI doing the work with virulent Ames under a subcontract under the DARPA contract.

      More from article:

      But “you can use readily available equipment to do this,” says Alibek. “It isn’t rocket science.” The attacks have caused relatively few inhalation cases so far, which suggests that the spores were not blended with anti-caking chemicals to promote airborne spread, which Alibek calls the real secret of weaponising anthrax. He suspects the attackers don’t have much material to work with.

      We could soon know. Paul Keim’s team at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff has pioneered the genetic analysis of anthrax bacilli. Team member Kimothy Smith says they have found that some DNA regions mutate frequently, as often as once in every 1000 cell divisions.

      By comparing the amount of mutation, says Smith, “you can say with a high degree of confidence how many bacterial generations separate an unknown strain from closely related reference strains”. This can help pinpoint the exact strain the unknown anthrax came from.

      It is also a way of counting the number of cell divisions the bacilli have been through since they parted company with the most closely related strain. And a small batch of anthrax will have undergone many fewer cell divisions than a big batch.

      So the analysis could reveal whether the anthrax came from a 50-litre fermenter, such as a small-scale terrorist could obtain, or the huge vats of a state-sponsored bioweapons facility.”

  2. DXer said

    In this article about DARPA’s work on a biological detection system by Joany Jackman and someone at DARPA, in Figure 1, there is a continuum. At the far side is engineered pathogens.

    One type is genetically engineered.

    The other type is microencapsulated.

    Rather than focusing on the word “weaponized”, I think it is fruitful to consider whether it has been “engineered” as a weapon. Semantics to be sure, but under the definitions being used by the FBI scientists, it is a distinction with a difference.

    Click to access donlon.pdf

  3. DXer said

    Withdrawals from Flask 1029 were made for Dr. Heine’s experiments of 50 ml, 50 ml, 10 ml, 8 ml from Flask 1029… including one 10/4. What did his experiments involve?

  4. DXer said

    Let’s consider the article provided by the DOJ in its disclosures. It is from The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1999;180:1939–1949
    © 1999 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.

    A Novel Surfactant Nanoemulsion with Broad‐Spectrum Sporicidal Activity against Bacillus Species
    Tarek Hamouda,1 Michael M. Hayes,1,a Zhengyi Cao,1 Richard Tonda,1 Kent Johnson,2 D. Craig Wright,3Joan Brisker,3 and James R. Baker, Jr.1
    1Center for Biologic Nanotechnology and Department of Medicine, and 2Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; 3NOVAVAX, Inc., Rockville, Maryland

    “Presented in part: 98th general meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Atlanta, May 1998 (poster A49); 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, September 1998 (late‐breaker slide session II, LB‐9); 99th general meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, May 1999 (poster A300).”

    “Financial support: Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (contract MDA 972‐1‐007 of the Unconventional Pathogen Countermeasures Program).”


    We thank Shaun B. Jones, Jane Alexander, and Lawrence DuBoise (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 Pamala 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 preparations; and G. Morris and A. Shih for their technical assistance with manuscript preparation.”

    If Art Friedlander (or someone using his telephone number) did not provide the FBI the 20 pages until February 2005, were these DARPA people even ever interviewed? If so, where are the 302 interview statements?

  5. DXer said

    What was the microscopic examination/encapsulation study on 3/98 study about? See notebook pages 73-78 in Lab Notebook 4010

    What were the aerosolization studies in 9/98 and 10/99?

    Did any of these studies relate to the experiments Dr. Heine says were of the FBI’s keen interest relating to use of antifoam in creating an aerosol? He says a year’s worth of 302 interview statements were not provided and that is where the issue was addressed.

  6. Ike Solem said

    It also looks like the original DIA-Battelle “Project Jefferson” aimed at creating new immune-system resistant strains of anthrax has entered the academic arena – likely to give it respectability – but make no mistake, this is clear offensive biowarfare research:

    Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation given $14.5M for anthrax research; Additional $11.8M grant to assist in recruiting more scientists

    The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation also won an $11.8 million grant to recruit and train new scientists.

    The five-year grant, awarded under the Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence program, will help build infrastructure to boost the foundation’s research capacity and competitiveness for National Institutes of Health grants. Mentoring scientists will work with up-and-coming researchers to study autoimmune diseases — illnesses such as lupus and multiple sclerosis in which the body turns the weapons of its immune system against itself.

    “Competition for these grants is fierce,” Foundation President Dr. Stephen Prescott said. “For our scientists to win not just one, but two, grants of this caliber is a tremendous achievement. It speaks highly of OMRF’s research excellence, and we are very proud of the success our researchers have had in securing these awards.”

    The grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases will finance a team of seven scientists, who will spend the next five years exploring natural immune response to Bacillus anthracis, the infectious agent that causes anthrax.

    Out of control and quite insane to boot.

  7. Ike Solem said

    Note also that the only people who has access to the weaponized material produced by the biological threat assessment program were from Battelle, the CIA and the DIA – the overseers of the program. Now, if you want to claim that Al Qaeda infiltrated one of those outfits and stole the weaponized material, you better come up with some solid evidence – otherwise it’s just a fairy tale told by a political activist.

    • DXer said

      “Note also that the only people who has access to the weaponized material produced by the biological threat assessment program were from Battelle, the CIA and the DIA – the overseers of the program.”

      I recommend you call “Tawfik Hamid” who wrote the book INSIDE JIHAD. He describes his recruitment by Ayman Zawahiri. I called him one day and asked him if he knew Tarek Hamouda, the scientist working alongside Bruce Ivins using virulent Ames. Dr. Hamouda is the scientist that Arthur Friedlander faxed 20 pages of documents (or someone using his telephone number) to the FBI in February 2005. I have posted many of the documents. I was looking for background to article on nanoemulsions later produced by the DOJ in the documents.

      Dr. Hamid told me that yes, he was a lifelong friend of Dr. Hamouda. He says that Dr. Hamouda would come from Khartoum as a child where his mother was an accounting professor. Dr. Hamid, his brother (an MD in St. Louis), and Dr. Hamouda would go to the comic store. They then were at Cairo Medical together. The brother from St. Louis and Dr. Hamouda were in the year ahead (and graduated in December 1982). Ayman Zawahiri would come and speak in the room set aside by the Egyptian Islamic Group, which was legal at the time and dominated the student body. Ayman recruited Dr. Hamid but Dr. Hamid later withdrew when he was asked to bury a security officer near the mosque.

      This was the same time Ali Mohammed would recruit at the medical school. That is where he recruited Dahab, a US operative who would join Ali Mohammed in recruiting (according to what they told Bin Laden) 10 US sleepers.

      Now after spending 10 years in the area — or at least his wife was on the Cairo dental faculty — Dr. Hamouda went back to get his PhD in microbiology. That was the department where one of Ayman’s two sisters on the faculty taught. Her name is Heba. She is the one who, like Ayman Zawahiri, was distraught at the rendering of her brother Muhammad in 1999. The Zawahiri family had hired attorney Mahmoud Ismail to represent them in connection with the rendition; attorney Ismail later was indicted as Zawahiri’s conduit to jihadis in Egypt, Yemen and Iraq. If you think I am mistaken, Dr. Heba Zawahiri’s email is also online and is reachable for inquiries.

      Of course, Dr. Hamouda is also available and it would be a simple matter for him to correct any of my facts (if any were mistaken).

      Now after graduating in 1994, Dr. Hamouda came here, and did post-doctoral work at Wayne State, he did his MBA at Michigan State (that where one linked in type profile says he was head of vaccine research; it is where Bioport was). So one question I have is whether Dr. Ivins knew Dr. Hamouda through his travel to Michigan to help Bioport. He first told the FBI that he was tasked with helping NanoBio but later explained that it was his idea. See interview statement.

      Within 3 years of coming here to the US, Dr. Hamouda was put in charge of a DARPA anti-infective project.

      From talking with people who grew up down the street down from Ayman Zawahiri or walked the halls of medical school with him, I credit the portrait of Ayman by Lawrence Wright in his September 2002 New Yorker article.

      He is a master strategist who has 40 doctors in the family. One friend who grew up down the street from Ayman tells me that Ayman’s uncle gave him Qutb’s koran (received from Qutb on his deathbed).

      When I read his booklet COVERT OPERATIONS, I think of someone who may be a fanatic, but he takes a long view. When I read the one-page memorandum COCKTAIL seized from Ali Mohammed, I see an organization who aspires to operating under strict principles of cell security.

      And most of all, and although I share many of your political views, I would never impose my political views on a true crime analysis. A true crime analysis should be informed on the documentary evidence relating to means, motive, modus operandi and opportunity.

      Dr. Hamouda has repeatedly (in patents) thanked Bruce Ivins for supplying virulent Ames. He thanked Kimothy L. Smith (the FBI genetics expert who typed samples) for supplying BL-3 space at LSU for his research with virulent anthrax.
      He thanked Patricia Fellows (Colleague Number 2) for providing technical assistance. He thanked Arthur Friedlander (perhaps the Army’s most highly-skilled anthrax expert) for providing technical assistance.

      I’ve had numerous exchanges with Dr. Hamouda’s co-founder, Dr. Baker but was unable to get Dr. Hamouda to respond to inquiries. For example, I had wanted to know whether he knew IANA President Bassem Khafagi and GRF Rabih Haddad — both of Ann Arbor. Bassem Khafagi’s personal papers were found in Al-Timimi’s townhouse being kept for safekeeping and it was Rabih Haddad’s counsel who arranged for the pro bono representation of the Virginia Paintball defendants. The daughter of the Amerithrax prosecutor represented Al-Timimi pro bono. He was the one who pled the Fifth about the Hatfill leaks.

      I also have attempted to inquire of Michael Hayes. Although very polite, he declined to answer any questions when I called him — and had not responded to emails.

      By all means, Ike, learn something, read the 20 pages on the subject in the documents disclosed, and show me wrong.

      The company he co-founded, NanoBio, gained $80 million in investment, including $50 million from Perseus, a DC venture capital firm that once was headed by Richard Holbrooke, #3 at the Department of State (search “the ego has landed” and you may come up with a Wash Po story). He was head for $30 million of the $50 million in investment. Now the investment of course is not evidence of wrongdoing — that’s just business. But it points to the people financially interested in not seeing things go south. Fortunately, they are aided by a political activist who knows how to play but can’t read music.

  8. Ike Solem said

    Obviously, the anthrax letters were sent from the biological threat assessment program as part of a deliberate ploy to boost biodefense spending – as well as provide a causus belli for invading Iraq:

    A “Dark Winter” for Public Health: Meet Homeland Security’s New Bioterror Czarina

    by Tom Burghardt / August 24th, 2009

    In the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, successive U.S. administrations have pumped some $57 billion across 11 federal agencies and departments into what is euphemistically called “biodefense.” Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader William Frist, a Bushist acolyte, baldly stated that “The greatest existential threat we have in the world today is biological” and predicted that “an inevitable bioterror attack” would come “at some time in the next 10 years.”

    Later that year, Frist and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) covertly inserted language into the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) that granted legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers, even in cases of willful misconduct. It was signed into law by President Bush.

    • DXer said

      “Obviously, the anthrax letters were sent from the biological threat assessment program as part of a deliberate ploy to boost biodefense spending – as well as provide a causus belli for invading Iraq:”

      Archibald Cox once said that in advocacy always avoid words like “Obviously” because if it was obvious to everyone it wouldn’t be the subject of the debate.

      Now you keep saying that but you appear not to know who was involved in the biological threat assessment program.

  9. Ike Solem said

    Who do you think you’re fooling with this repetitive nonsense?

    FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

    BY James Gordon Meek

    Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM

    WASHINGTON – In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

    • Ike Solem said

      Wow, that’s the very same theme that certain people on this blog harp on over and over – coincidence?

    • DXer said

      You rely a lot on what you read in the newspaper, Ike, don’t you? An alternative I recommend to you are the original documents such as the transcript of the National Security Council meeting where the issue is discussed.

      Given that the White House had been told by the leaders of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and supporters of blind sheik Abdel-Rahman that anthrax would be used if the bail of Mahmoud Mahjoub was denied, and it was denied on October 5, 2001, then it would have been pretty reasonable to think Al Qaeda was responsible.

      Now the source of the New York Post story was a former Department of Justice official. Do you know who the source was?

      • DXer said


        I’ve been open and disclosed my great admiration for Bones and posted numerous Bones-Booth tribute videos. I’ve been called an FBI “fan-boy” I’m such a strong defender of the FBI. So, if you would, help me understand where you are coming from. Who do you think was responsible for 9/11? The 1998 embassy bombings? London? Madrid? Bali? 1993 WTC?

        You’ve read the announcement by Ayman Zawahiri’s colleagues that they intended to use anthrax to retaliate for the rendering of senior Egyptian jihadists. You’ve seen the correspondence between him and one infiltrator that the DIA gave me under FOIA. See Science article on the perils of scientific openness. You’ve read the lead CIA analyst saying that Zawahiri had compartmentalized cells developing anthrax that did not know about each other (Sufaat and Rauf Ahmad).

        Is it that you think Ayman Zawahiri was an underachiever and someone who did not achieve his goals?

        Do you know what lab Rauf Ahmad visited on his second visit, the one described in the typed letter? That is the letter that starts by announcing the targets had been achieved. What do you think Rauf Ahmad meant when he said the targets have been achieved. (His email is online).

  10. DXer said

    Who was his colleague with whom Dr. Heine would use antifoam in creating an aerosol?

    And what happened to those samples?

    Is that the person who could not then attend his retirement party?

    • Anonymous said

      The antifoam agent used at Detrick, or potentially discussed to be used from Ivins released emails is “Tween”. Tween does not contain silicon.

      Also don’t forget that the aerosol being created was a wet aerosol.

      • DXer said


        Yes, that is the antifoam that Bruce Ivins discussed using. But are you saying that is what Dr. Heine was referring to when he talked about using an antifoam to create an aerosol — sparking the FBI’s interest as to the location of the samples? Why would Dr. Heine have had the theory that the silicon signature that the spores were probably grown where antifoam was present if he was not referring to a silica-based antifoam (not Tween). Dr. Heine is aware that Tween does not contain silicon. Who was the colleague? When were the reference experiments he did with an antifoam done? What was used as the antifoam?

        April 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm

        “His theory as to the silicon signature is that the spores were “grown in a situation where probably antifoam was present.” He says in a series of experiments with a colleague he would use an antifoam in creating an aerosol. They use a small amount and bubble air through and would have foam develop so they introduced antifoam. The FBI was very keen on why they did that and what happened to that material. Now the FBI says “oh, that’s just an anomaly” but back then there was keen interest in what was done as to the use of antifoam.”

        • DXer said

          As I recall his emails, note that Ivins would avoid using any antifoam (whether Tween or any other) in his vaccine experiments because he was concerned that it would invalidate the experiment — be something that needed to be taken into account. He had quite an extensive exchange with a Battelle scientist on the subject — who was having problem with a lot of foaming in getting the concentration up.

      • DXer said

        Did Dr. Heine’s experiments with his colleague instead use Sigma Antifoam A, consisting of 100% active silicone polymer?

      • DXer said


        Antifoam C is a silicone emulsion the subject of the November 2001 patent is designed to control foam in aqueous systems.

        The “Inventors” of Asporogenic B anthracis expression system included Patricia Worsham, Arthur M. Friedlander, and Bruce Ivins. It issued on November 13, 2001 and states:

        Fermentation Reproducibility: The reproducibility of the cell growth parameters, biomass and PA production in fermentations carried out with the Bio-Flo 3000 under the conditions described above have been summarized in Table I below. Two fermentations were carried out at 75% of the maximum dissolved oxygen concentration in a strict batch mode with no pH control or additions other than antifoam C.”

        Antifoam C is:


        For use in:

        30 percent active, food-grade silicone emulsion designed to control foam in aqueous systems.”

        Was Arthur Friedlander the colleague with whom Dr. Heine did the experiments concerning an antifoam?

      • DXer said

        In “Method of making a vaccine for anthrax” antifoam C (DOW) is once again indicated.
        United States Patent 6387665

        Ivins, Bruce (Frederick, MD)
        Worsham, Patricia (Jefferson, MD)
        Friedlander, Arthur M. (Gaithersburg, MD)
        Farchaus, Joseph W. (Frederick, MD)
        Welkos, Susan L. (Frederick, MD)

        Publication Date:
        Filing Date:

        The agitation was activated at 150 rpm and aeration was adjusted to 1-1.2 volume/volume/min (vvm) and antifoam C (DOW), that had been diluted 10-fold into H 2 O and autoclaved, was added to a final concentration of 200 ppm.

    • DXer said

      Jim White addressed these issues.

      Most Likely Source of Silicon in Anthrax Attack Spores Argues Against Production byIvins
      By: Jim White Saturday March 20, 2010 9:16 am

      To which RHE forcefully responded:

      “Simple Google searches on “Ivins fermenter” or “Ivins antifoam” yield these patents as top hits. Other simple Google searhes yield other patents in which the USAMRIID anthrax group describes fermenter production of B. anthracis on tens-of-liter volume scales. In view of the fact that this information is so easy to locate, and in view of the fact that this information has been known for some time, it is bizarre that persons continue to argue, risibly, that the presence of silicon in the attack material rules out the possibility that the attack material could have been prepared at USAMRIID.

      (One would hope that persons would at least perform a Google search before posting analyses of technical capabilities…but apparently this is par for the course for the blogosphere. Blogger Jim White proposes that the “Most Likely” source of silicon is antifoam, even naming a specific brand of antifoam, Dow, and then goes on to assert that this exonerates USAMRIID and Ivins…apparently without having performed simple Google searches that would have yielded USAMRIID and Ivins patents specifying use of antifoam, indeed the same specific brand of antifoam, Dow, in fermenter preparation of B. anthracis. Incredible.)


      So it seems that the latest spate of articles and discussion has us moving backwards rather than forwards.

      Let’s pick up the debate where Jim White and RHE left off.

    • DXer said

      Dr. Art Friedlander co-invented those patents with Ivins that used an antifoam containing silicone. He was the one who in February 2005 faxed 20 pages involving the visit by the former Zawahiri associate. The former Zawahiri associated thanked Dr. Friedlander for providing technical assistance. What technical assistance did AF provide?

      December 2001 –

      Col. Arthur Friedlander, senior military research scientist at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, said the Ames strain was distributed by the military for research purposes under strict controls to “legitimate workers in the field.”

      “This is not a cavalier thing that one does,” Friedlander said. “When anyone isolates strains, they are shared through the scientific community. That’s how research gets done. It follows a long tradition of collaboration with people that we are well familiar with.”


      How familiar was Art with Tarek given that when he arrived Bruce didn’t even know that he was not a US citizen?

    • DXer said

      As for Patent number 6,387,665 mentioning the silcone-containing antifoam and issuing in 2002, Dr. Ivins wrote by email dated July 22, 2002: “I don’t know who put my name first on THIS one, but it wasn’t my idea!!!””\

      • Method of making a vaccine for anthrax – Patent 6387665
      by B Ivins – 2002 – Related articles
      May 14, 2002 … United States Patent 6387665. A method of making a vaccine for ….. no pH control or additions other than antifoam C. The variation in the …

      • DXer said

        In a July 23, 2002 email, says of the patent:

        “I think I remember this from awhile back. This was going to be a patent separate from the strain patent. No, to my knowledge, we’ve never received money, recognition, a piece of paper, or anything with respect to the patent. Oh, well, at least the Command is concerned with our being potential spies and terrorists. Who cares if we actually DO something worthwhile?”

    • DXer said

      His email on “Tween and High Concentration Spore Question” is relevant not because Tween is one of the antifoams used at USAMRIID (see Ivins patents from 2001 and 2002) that contain silicone but because it has Dr. Ivins describing the reason an antifoam would be used.

      He is writing someone at Battelle.

      “Defoaming agent (0.1% Tween 80) can be added if you see lots of foam is being created that interferes with the aerosol. What happens is that when the spore suspension is forced against the sides of the collison chamber, instead of coming down to the bottom as a liquid suspension, the material foams, and you get much less delivered in the aerosol. Two things can hep the situation. One is increasing hte amount of suspension that you put in the collison. The second is to add some (0.1%) Tween 80 to the final suspension to be aerosolized. This will drastically cut down on foaming without messing up the spore concentration.

      If you do use Tween 80, add it to your spore suspension (0.1 ml per 100 ml of suspension to be aerosolized) and mix. Then you can put the suspension aliquots into your collisons. For example, if you use 10 ml of suspension per aerosol, and you want to do do 20 aerosols, you’ll have 200 ml of suspension. To this master suspension add 0.2 ml of Tween 80. Mix thoroughly and you are ready to go.

      If you want to see the difference that Tween 80 makes, run two or three samples without Tween 80 and run the same number with Tween 80. See what the collison looks like and also note what you see as far as an increase in your AGI counts.

      There is no SOP as such. I added with a Pipetman, making sure that all of the Tween 80 is added to the spores. Then I swirl the suspension until the Tween 80 is dissolved into the suspension.

      Hope this helps.

      – Bruce”

  11. DXer said

    “His theory as to the silicon signature is that the spores were “grown in a situation where probably antifoam was present.” He says in a series of experiments with a colleague he would use an antifoam in creating an aerosol. They use a small amount and bubble air through and would have foam develop so they introduced antifoam. The FBI was very keen on why they did that and what happened to that material. Now the FBI says “oh, that’s just an anomaly” but back then there was keen interest in what was done as to the use of antifoam.”

  12. DXer said

    Frederick News-Post:

    “Heine replied that many antifoams added to anthrax to be put in a fermenter contain silicon. So if the anthrax was grown in a fermenter, then “you can achieve the kind of percentages (of silicon) found in the letters with this process.”

    But if the anthrax was grown in a flask, “you absolutely wouldn’t expect it” to have picked up any silicon naturally.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: