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

* USAMRIID reports that it has an inventory of all documents taken by or provided to the FBI – Has the GAO obtained copies of all those documents?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on August 21, 2011

******

******

Advertisements

12 Responses to “* USAMRIID reports that it has an inventory of all documents taken by or provided to the FBI – Has the GAO obtained copies of all those documents?”

  1. H1: Centrifuge and apply heat while air drying the result is like the Daily Post letter anthrax, clumpy and doesn’t go into the air.

    H2: Centrifuge and apply heat while air drying the result is like the Senate letter anthrax, it aerosols, shuts down a building, requires million dollar clean up using helium on the entire building and seems volatile when taken to Ft. Detrick and examined by experts.

    H12: Prior to Sep 18, 2001, when you centrifuged and applied heat during air drying it produced NY Post anthrax. After Sep 18, 2001, it produced Senate letter anthrax.

    I am an H2 man myself.

    • Sorry that is H1. I think. Or maybe I am H12. I might change my mind by the next post. You know after I see it. Or maybe not.

      • DXer said

        H3 Lyophilize it. Apply a sonicator or a Corona Plasma Discharge to it. And see how the real thing flies. This is what DARPA did using virulent Ames from RMR 1029 according to the documentary evidence that has been uploaded.

  2. It has been suggested recently that Ivins air dried the spores after centrifuging and applied heat to them while drying to hurry the process. This would likely produce large clumps of spores that would not go through the air as in the Senate office building or as observed at the lab.

    Ordinary grinding with an ordinary object would not reduce the clumps sufficiently. For example grinding with a spoon say would not produce many individual spores on the order of microns. Perhaps the microbiologists could comment on this.

    • DXer said

      Jonathan Tucker shortly before his death wrote a lucid explanation suggesting it was feasible.

      But clearly the aim, then, should be to obtain the evidence that shows what he was doing on the nights that the DOJ mistakenly said he had no reason to be in the lab.

      The documents have been uploaded to the website and the media and authors just haven’t addressed the issue.

      Tucker looks at the DOJ’s claims and finds that Dr. Ivins could have done it — relying on the DOJ’s claim that he had no reason to be the claim… without addressing the argument that the DOJ’s claim is directly contradicted by the documentary evidence. (See AUSA Lieber’s footnote for her claim; always look to the footnotes to see the issues an attorney cannot handle).

      • DXer said

        Here is Dr. Tucker’s essay.

        cns.miis.edu/wmdjunction/110822_fbi_anthrax.htm

      • Anonymous said

        He did not write any lucid explanation. He just repeated what Majidi said.

        A lucid explanation would have described how air drying was able to create microparticles, overcoming the laws of physiscs and thermodynamics.

        • DXer said

          You are right that Dr. Tucker wasn’t a microbiologist. In forthcoming articles, we can look forward to quotes from named microbiologists and USAMRIID scientists explaining that animal handlers worked in the same space etc. The DOJ claim can be viewed like the Federal Eagle claim, claim that it was exclusively stored in Building 1425, that a lyophilizer was used (see Taylor’s Aug. 6, 2008 press statement), etc.

          When did evidence that something was possible become a substitute for evidence that something was done?

          The pundits who use the word “hard-core” in front of skeptic are the same people who have never submitted a FOIA on the issue and who unfamiliar with the documentary evidence.

          The people who find the evidence regarding mental instability persuasive (or even relevant) are the people who have not seen the evidence relating to the credibiliity of the central witness regarding the events in July 2000 etc.

        • BugMaster said

          Also note that at the time of his death, Dr. Tucker was reported to be awaiting security clearance for a position within the Department of Homeland Security.

          Of course he would toe the company line!

  3. DXer said

    Last year Bob Coen submittted a FOIA to DIA about Dr. David Kelly. Thus, the information likely is processed and ready to be obtained by a follow-up processor with no fuss, no muss.

    (Reference No. FOIA 00091-2010)

    And if you haven’t seen DIA’s Amerithrax documents, you are really missing the boat.

  4. DXer said

    Among the many attachments to emails we should be getting, we should be getting is a document Bruce forwarded on September 20, 2001. Metadata from the original document perhaps will show when it was edited.

    From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    To:
    Subject: Research Progress report
    Date: Thursday, September 20, 2001 9:52:09 AM
    Attachments:
    I have enclosed my research progress report, with changes made as required by the Anthrax Steering
    Committee.
    – Bruce

    We can also expect an Excel file on the rabbit bacteremia data. My computer expert can tell us what might be gleaned from the original file as to the dates it was edited.

    From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    To:
    Cc:
    Subject: B98-03 rabbit bacteremia data
    Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 9:13:34 AM
    Attachments:
    Here are the B98-03 rabbit bacteremia data in an EXCEL file.
    – Bruce

    Another attachment expected to be forthcoming was forwarded on October 5, 2001 email re “Stabilizer to new fPA vaccine”

    Dr. Ivins is saying that they will need one.

    A correspondent by email October 5 says:

    “This could figure into the upcoming stability/efficacy study, for which I
    specifically asked about an concurrent set with an excipient but DVC
    considered this too early. Should we meet?”

    We will also be obtaining a copy of the Attachment that Bruce sent on October 22, 2001 on this same subject.
    He forwarded an attachment that we will be getting on ELISA DATA RABBITS. I believe this was forwarded to him on October 10, 2001.
    This data relates, I believe, to the rabbits that died on the days that the DOJ mistakenly claimed that he had no reason to be in the lab.

    I believe we can expect to get 3 documents sent by a separate email on October 22, 2001 titled “Read Ahead Info.”

    From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    Subject: FW: ELISA DATA RABBITS
    Date: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:33:26 PM
    Attachments:
    >—–Original Message—–
    >From:
    >Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 5:11 PM
    >To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    >Subject: ELISA DATA RABBITS

    Many of these documents relate to the experiment he summarized in an October 5, 2001 email.

    Computer meta data can also, I believe, identify the computer he was using at the specific time.

    But this is all beyond my ken and requires consultation with an expert and examination of the original


    From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
    Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:53 AM
    To:
    Subject: Stabilizer in a new rPA vaccine
    The data we are getting from our with formaldehyde/without
    formaldehyde experiment in rabbits is giving us VERY strong evidence that we
    should incorporate a stabilizer in with rPA and Alhydrogel.
    weren’t some FDA-acceptable stabilizers going to be identified? If
    (b) (6)
    (b) (6)
    (b)
    (6)
    (b) (6)
    (b)
    (6)
    (b) (6)
    (b) (6)
    there some out there, maybe we should start thinking about them now.
    Basically what we have as far as the experiment:
    1) Five years ago rPA/Alhydrogel/PBS vaccine was made with or
    without 0.02% formaldehyde (the level that’s in AVA) and stored at 4C. With
    these vaccines we immunized groups of rabbits as follows (0.5 ml per
    intramuscular dose):
    Group A – 24 rabbits (12 males, 12 females) get PA (50
    ug)/Alhydrogel (0.5 mg)/PBS/0.02% formaldehyde at 0 weeks. Challenge
    (subcutaneous) at 6 weeks with about 100 LD50 Ames spores.
    Group B – 24 rabbits (12 males, 12 females) get PA (50
    ug)/Alhydrogel (0.5 mg)/PBS/No formaldehyde at 0 weeks. Challenge
    (subcutaneous) at 6 weeks with about 100 LD50 Ames spores.
    Group C – 4 rabbits (2 males, 2 females) get PBS/Alhydrogel
    (0.5 mg) at 0 weeks. Challenge (subcutaneous) at 6 weeks with about 100 LD50
    Ames spores.
    2) Results so far, 3 days after challenge:
    Group Survived/Total
    A – Vaccine plus formaldehyde 24/24 (no deaths)
    B – Vaccine minus formaldehyde 16/24 (8 deaths)
    C – Controls 0/4 (4
    deaths)
    Note: We originally studied the effect of formaldehyde on rPA
    vaccine potency/stability in guinea pigs. The cumulative data indicated that
    stability/potency was enhanced by the presence of formaldehyde.
    – Bruce

    • DXer said

      B98-03 rabbit bacteremia data
      Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 9:13:34 AM

      With respect to the Excel document re “B98-03 rabbit bacteremia data” that we expect to be produced, here is

      “HOW TO: Retrieve Metadata from Excel by Using the GetOleDbSchemaTable Method in Visual Basic .NET”
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318373

      But we will need to rely on someone who knows how to do this sort of thing to tell us whether any information is gleanable.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: