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

* Analysis of Environmental sample from the American Media Inc. Building, Boca Raton, Florida

Posted by DXer on March 21, 2011





3 Responses to “* Analysis of Environmental sample from the American Media Inc. Building, Boca Raton, Florida”

  1. BugMaster said

    Note the wording:

    “A hemolytic non-anthracis bacillus species that was previously isolated from the New York Post material was also observed in the AMI sample”.

    What kind of nonsense is this! One will, of course, in virtually any environmental sample isolate non-anthracis bacillus species. They are everywhere. There is no way the above claim “that was previously isolated from the New York Post material” can be made without genetic analysis.

    A bacillus species that was hemolytic and LOOKED like the bacillus cultured from the NY Post material? OF COURSE YOU ARE GOING TO FIND THAT (what, did the individual that produced this report skip some labs in their intro micro class?).

    The only way one could state that the strain referred to here is the same as that isolated from the NY Post material is by genetic analysis, not just by looking at some colonies on a plate!

    And indeed, the next line:

    “Samples were prepared for genetic confirmation”.

    O.K., were is that “genetic confirmation?”. It is my understanding that the subsequent “genetic confirmation” was never performed. If so, where are the results?

  2. Zicon said

    Boca Raton… Sure sounds familiar.. Too bad that people already know things before calls are placed.. By the DOJ Dir.R.M

  3. DXer said

    This logically does not bear on the JLo letter.

    The NAS nowhere cites the CDC studies that held that there likely were two letters with anthrax delivered to two different AMI publications, in light of the two routes discerned through Florida post offices. NAS should have cited the CDC journal articles in the Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases and explained why it was not adopting the finding. Peer-reviewed official findings are like precedent — if the Supreme Court wants to overrule a precdent, it should at least acknowledge it is aware of the precedent and explain why it disagrees and is overruling.

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 )

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: