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

* Where are the necropsy records relating to the rabbits that died on October 3 -5, 2001 as mentioned in an October 5, 2001 email? Who performed the necropsies?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 12, 2011

******

 

******

******

Advertisements

11 Responses to “* Where are the necropsy records relating to the rabbits that died on October 3 -5, 2001 as mentioned in an October 5, 2001 email? Who performed the necropsies?”

  1. DXer said

    FOIA Update today re necropsies:

    I am advised that this information can be queried by investigator, by agent, by biosafety level, by building, and by type of animal among others.

    The anthrax necropsies, I am told, were conducted in building 1412. I have revised my request to be limited to the agent “anthrax.”

  2. Zicon said

    This is just (“my opinion only”so that there are no issues with whats said/known) through the strange spontaneous rainstorms.. It was Bruce himself who did the necropsy’s, he was alone during the nights speculated and was there till the early am on those nights.. But there is still no way in “H” even with the most by the book techniques or poor-mans spray can there’s no way still that he could have done any of this without “someone” finding out that works in the what I would call a “mildly” secure facility that he was employed at… I also believe strongly that he was having some family problems during those months and from June to November and worked a lot.. This did subject to protocol issues, but since he had a strong track record from all the years of hard work and dedicated outstanding service, this was overlooked by most all usamriid commanders that were in-charge of the base and were aware of the basic medical studies, to the classified studies that came from domestic & international agencies along with many govs. military and not to forget even the cia/darpa too, which they would have higher interest with the international studies of bio warfare and military defense with/against bio agents/esp. toxins/stimulants. A bigger question is did the FBI provide the (DOJ) us district attorney with “all” known Intel? I very seriously doubt it…. Since the entire case is based on “SPECULATION”
    All just my hypothetical opinion at this time that I am “Very strongly sticking to…”
    Hopefully someone will submit anonymously any of the very important info that the FBI won’t release or any that USAMRIID can’t release, but a lot of people there want it released, (because it shows facts, not speculations) that the DOJ doesn’t want anyone to see, (that can take the decade speculation case and rip it to shreeds.. Even down to anyone that knows facts that just might be able to get the one piece of information to the GAO that will ultimately show that Bruce is innocent and was set up from the very beginning “even before” the FBI ended up having to pay out a small settlement to another usamriid employee for ruining his life… Again just my opinion. Bruce was overall a good man, but was seen as more of a liability to the FBI, and their motives were already set in stone from the start…

    [ It’s like the theory of if your the average person and you mess up, the gov will rip you a new one, and they don’t care if you die in the process as Bruce did, but if the gov makes a mistake, its ok, and it goes ignored and they go F up something else and hope they get it right based on circumstantial evidence that couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket, and yes they’re still messing up while people still get away with crimes/millions!<-This isn't opinion This is Fact! (Sourced ME) ]
    It is time for those to be held accountable for their actions.. And the best statement for those who have done wrong, is YOU'RE FIRED! Without a few million in getting fired benifits for screwing up small or bigtime! Starting with B.O.

  3. DXer said

    On the subject of formaldehyde, I will post this November 2002 email by Bruce on the subject without studying how it ties in with the experiment involving formaldehyde in the first week of October 2001. But I include it to illustrate that Dr. Ivins was commonly faced with a lot of dead animals. He had come to be disappointed that his work more and more involved duties of a lab technician. Only through the insights of his co-workers will we be able to clarify his practical responsibilities when performing the daily third check on animals. While I wait to see if USAMRIID has any necropsy records for the first week in October 2001, I can only note that flopsy deserved tremendous attention under the animal welfare act — and would need to be euthanized whenever found moribund.

    From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    To:
    Subject: Formaldehyde experiment – Revised data
    Date: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:51:01 PM
    Here are revised data as of Day 8. Sorry for the inaccuracy of the first set of data

    Group 1 (rPA + Alhydrogel + formaldehyde) – 9 of 24 dead
    Group 2 (rPA + Alhydrogel without formaldehyde – 13 of 24 dead
    Group 3 (PBS + Alhydrogel controls) 4 of 4 dead
    Group 1 and Group 2 are NOT significantly different. Animals were immunized at 0 weeks
    with 50 micrograms rPA + ALhydrogel with or without formaldehyde. They were challenged sc at 6
    weeks with 125 LD50.

    The data suggest strongly (since this is a zero time sample) that formaldehyde is exerting an
    immunostimulatory effect as an adjuvant, rather than stabilizing the vaccine.
    Bruce Ivins
    :
    ************************************************
    > : Formaldehyde experiment
    >>>
    As of Day 7 post-challenge, here are the data from the Formaldehyde experiment:
    >>
    Group 1 (rPA + Alhydrogel + formaldehyde) – 8 of 24 dead – Incorrect!
    > Group 2 (rPA + Alhydrogel without formaldehyde – 17 of 24 dead – Incorrect!
    > Group 3 (PBS + Alhydrogel controls) 4 of 4 dead
    >>
    Group 1 and Group 2 are significantly different. Animals were immunized at 0 weeks with
    50 micrograms rPA + ALhydrogel with or without formaldehyde. They were challenged sc at 6 weeks
    with 125 LD50.
    >>
    The data suggest strongly (since this is a zero time sample) that formaldehyde is exerting an
    immunostimulatory effect as an adjuvant, rather than stabilizing the vaccine.
    >>>>>
    Bruce Ivins

    • DXer said

      More on formaldehyde given Bugmaster’s expertise in the field:

      From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      To:
      Subject: RE: Formaldehyde experiment
      Date: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:15:42 AM
      I THINK I recall that the FDA said that formaldehyde CAN’T be employed as an adjuvant. If that’s the
      case, in view of all the data we have with it, it appears that we may can drop it from the formulation.
      That would be great as far as diminishing vaccine reactogenicity goes. All of the monkey data with rPA
      vaccine have been performed WITHOUT formaldehyde. That vaccine protects quite well, so that would
      be good news.
      – Bruce
      > —–Original Message—–
      >From:
      >Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:43 PM
      >To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      >Subject: RE: Formaldehyde experiment
      >
      >Looks like just that (so far). Of course, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings, “smile, smile give a big
      USAMRIID smile, so turn that frown…”

      • DXer said

        Old Atlantic has discussed practical chores in a lab involving animal experiments. An October 2002 email by Dr. Ivins titled “rabbit space” as in its thread a discussion of practical issues involved in a study involving rabbits:

        “We will need the room early enough to remove the film isolator units and install adequate rabbit caging. The problem may be that the study for may need to slip long enough to turn around the caging and get the room set up again.
        Five work days between 8-14 January are not sufficient time to set the room up for the next study. At the same time will need to be emptied, cages autoclaved, cages & racks cleaned, and set up fo the next study of…”

        • DXer said

          Often large numbers of animals were involved.

          “From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
          To:
          Subject: RE: rabbit study
          Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 7:29:59 AM
          How about vaccinating the 300 microgram group and the 800 microgram group about 2 weeks
          (respectively) after the others. The reason is that we may get 100% survival at the 100 microgram
          level, and we wouldn’t need to challenge the 300 and 800 microgram groups. Or…to save PA and
          rabbits (19+ mg of PA is A LOT OF PA!!), wait until we’ve challenged 100, 25 and 5 microgram groups,
          and then, if there is not 100% protection with 100 micrograms, do 300 and 800 micrograms.
          Remember…in the monkeys, we got 100% protection with 1 shot of 50 micrograms PA + Alhydrogel.
          That would mean we would have an initial total of 58 rabbits to challenge, and we could do 29
          rabbits on Tuesday and Thursday. At any rate, I think it would be wise to delay the 300 – 800
          microgram part, since it will save rabbits, PA, time, animal holding space, and it won’t significantly delay
          the time.
          – Bruce”

        • DXer said

          From:
          > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:43 AM
          > To:
          > Subject: Anthrax Rabbit bleeds
          >>>>>
          > The schedule for the rabbits is:
          >>
          1st Bleed 10-12 SEP 01
          > 1st inoc 13 SEP 01
          >> 2nd Bleed 8-10 OCT 01
          > 2nd Inoc 11 OCT 01

        • DXer said

          The rabbit work continued into December:

          From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
          To:
          Subject: RE: Next Generation Anthrax Vaccine (NGVA) Assay Development Symposium
          Date: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:47:54 AM
          I will be unable to attend the Symposium on December 13. During that week we are aerosol
          challenging rabbits for in an experriment specifically designed for support of the NGAV.
          Thank you for the invitation.
          – Bruce

  4. Dxer said

    Note that although the email from march 2000 illustrates that the first animal begin dying the next day –as happened on October 3, 2001 — in October 2001 rabbits were the subjects, rather than guinea pigs. I submitted a FOIA to the nice, efficient person at USMRC today.

  5. Old Atlantic said

    New Media cycle.

    Blogs do the research.

    MSM plagiarizes blogs.

    Blogs repost what MSM reports as authoritative.

    • Old Atlantic said

      Sorry, I posted this on the wrong thread. But reporters will probably read it here as they are looking for their new material.

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: