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

* Document produced today to DXer discussing shipment of 52 rabbits week of September 24, 2001 for formaldehyde study

Posted by Lew Weinstein on August 31, 2011

******

******

******

Advertisements

19 Responses to “* Document produced today to DXer discussing shipment of 52 rabbits week of September 24, 2001 for formaldehyde study”

  1. DXer said

    Note that the document above is merely a “Statement of Work” relating to B01-11.

    It is my understanding that an actual animal protocol takes this form — such as an example provided under that section in the FOIA Reading Room under the heading “Protocols.”

    https://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/Protocols/animal%20protocol%20B01-08001%20redacted.pdf

    It is my understanding that it a formalized process governed by statute aimed at ensuring the humane treatment of animals being killed.

    An actual Protocol will have the same level of detail of the animal prooposal 1-28 — and for example the actual protocol specifies that Dr. Ivins was tasked with monitoring the rabbits for the first 7 days after parenteral challenge at the start of October.

    That is, an Animal Protocol specifies who does what where.

  2. DXer said

    The 52 rabbits were shipped on 9/24/2001 by “CRP Truck.”

  3. DXer said

    The 52 rabbits were shipped to the B3 on September 24 because the new protocols required a week’s acclimatization before challenge on October 2.

    Imagine how US Attorney Taylor would have fared in his press conference in early August 2008 in arguing that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab the first week of October if if were filled with 52 rabbits — and 12 dying the day of the press conference and needing to be exsanguinated.

  4. DXer said

    For CNN not to get to the merits and question AUSA Rachel Lieber about what the documents really show relating to how Dr. Ivins spent his time and why — or for Paul Kemp not to bear down on the issue — leaves both sides with meaningless sound bytes.

    It’s not complicated. It would take 3 minutes to compare what AUSA Lieber wrote in her Amerithrax Investigative Summary with what the documents show. (Note that key lab notebooks from September and October are still being withheld even though subject to long pending FOIA requests).

    Her conclusions in July 2008 were based on this central factual misapprehension.

  5. DXer said

    check out the date and time that a certain someone signed for receipt of the rabbits.

  6. DXer said

    302 by Ivins

    “IVINS has worked with Covance in Denver, Pennyslvania. USAMRIID wanted Covance to produce antiserum for some spore antibody studies. These studies were performed by _____________. In support of some Ba vaccine studies at USAMRIID, USAMRIID has provided the Ba vaccine to Covance. Covance immunizes the rabbits, and the rabbits are then brought down to USAMRIID for challenge.”

  7. BugMaster said

    Why was there a field trip to Covance for the 4 week bunny poking party on September 18th, 2001.

    The folks at Covance certainly know how to poke rabbits!

    So do those at Fort Detrick, BTW.

    • DXer said

      I believe bleeding was done at Covance rather than USAMRIID due to the issue of space requirements.

      • BugMaster said

        Covance was charging $11.35 for each 28 day test bleed. Covance isn’t a “bleed your own” rabbit serum contract production facility.

        • DXer said

          He and his lab technicians went to Covance at Denver, PA to deliver the vaccine. Amerithax Investigative Summary.

          See generally

          From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
          To:
          Subject: “Old” formaldehyde experiments
          Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:47:56 AM
          Here is the information you requested on the Covance study:
          Five years ago we made rPA vaccine/Alhydrogel with and without formaldehyde added. We tested
          the vaccines after various periods of time of storage and noted (in guinea pigs) that the presence of
          formaldehyde appeared to boost potency of the vaccine. It was unknown whether the boost in potency
          was due to stabilization of the protein, or to an adjuvant effect. (Formaldehyde itself causes local
          inflammation which would draw APCs and other cell types to the site.) The vaccine is now 5 years old
          since it was formulated, and we wished to see (in the rabbit model) if there is any difference in potency
          between the 2 vaccines. (The rabbit model is preferred over the guinea pig model in tests of anthrax
          vaccine efficacy.)
          Twenty-four New Zealand white rabbits (12 of each gender) were immunized with 0.5-ml
          intramuscular doses of vaccine containing 50 micrograms rPA, Alhydrogel (0.5 mg aluminum) and PBS
          (with formaldehyde, 0.02%).
          Twenty-four New Zealand white rabbits (12 of each gender) were immunized with 0.5-ml
          intramuscular doses of vaccine containing 50 micrograms rPA, Alhydrogel (0.5 mg aluminum) and PBS
          (without formaldehyde).
          Four rabbits (2 of each gender) will be controls receiving Alhydrogel and PBS.
          Rabbits will be bled at weeks 2 and 4 for anti-PA antibody titers. They will be challenged
          subcutaneously with virulent anthrax spores 6 weeks after immunization and monitored for survival.
          This experiment will demonstrate whether the presence of formaldehyde in an rPA/Alhydrogel
          vaccine increases or preserves potency.
          – Bruce

        • DXer said

          The Amerithrax Investigative Summary states:

          “After Sunday night, September 16, 2001, Dr. Ivins did not again enter Suite B3 in the evening hours until September 25, 2001, nine days later. However, he took annual leave for four hours on September 17, 2001 – the first day of the mailing window – returning to his office (not the hot suites) at 7:00 p.m. that evening, for only 13 minutes, and then left for the evening. He was back at USAMRIID by 7:02 a.m. on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, and traveled with his lab technicians to Covance in Denver, Pennsylvania, to deliver vaccine. Dr. Ivins had no alibi for this first window of opportunity.”

          Now why did Dr. Ivins first enter the hot suites on September 25, 2001? Well, the 52 rabbits had been shipped from Covance. In her Amerithrax Investigative Summary, Rachel nowhere mentions the rabbits in connection with why Dr. Ivins was in the lab in late September and early October and the omission serves to make it seem that he has no reason to be in the lab. Some reporter should ask her about the rabbits while walking her through the documentation when it is produced (and there is much more yet to be produced).

        • BugMaster said

          “He and his lab technicians went to Covance at Denver, PA to deliver the vaccine. Amerithax Investigative Summary.”

          Amerithrax Investigative Summary!!?? Where!!?? You have to be kidding!

          See item #4 above, as in:

          “Rabbits will be injected i.m. with 0.5 ml of the appropriate vaccine or control material on Tues, 21 Aug 01 (week 0).”

          That’s why they call it “week 0”. The September 18 visit corresponded to the week 4 test draw, as in 4 weeks after vaccination.

          Does the Amerithrax team really think Ivins delivered the vaccine 4 weeks after it was needed?

        • DXer said

          Are you assuming that was the only Covance study being done? Dr. Ivins emails are online at a newly formatted USAMRIID website.

        • BugMaster said

          “Are you assuming that was the only Covance study being done? Dr. Ivins emails are online at a newly formatted USAMRIID website.”

          Ivins and his group didn’t need to take a field trip to deliver a vaccine. There’s FEDEX. Is there any indication that a similar field trip occurred on Tue, 21 Aug O1?

          What you are suggesting (and I suppose it is possible) that week 4 of one study was week 0 of the next. But still, did Ivins and his group travel to Covance and personally poke the rabbits on the Tue, 21 Aug 01 day zero?

          They know how to immunize rabbits with antigens at Covance. Its what they do.

        • DXer said

          Notebook 4240 “Immunization of rabbits at Covance for antiserum – 18 SEP and 16 OCT” is indicated on this document to be “gone” (removed from USAMRIID by FBI).

          As is, for example, Notebook 4241 re “Receipt of 30 vials of rPA from _________ on 30 SEP”

          https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/the-lab-notebooks-marked-gone-are-the-lab-notebooks-that-the-fbi-took-relating-to-dr-ivins-activity-in-september-and-october-without-leaving-a-copy/

        • BugMaster said

          “Notebook 4240 “Immunization of rabbits at Covance for antiserum – 18 SEP and 16 OCT” is indicated on this document to be “gone” (removed from USAMRIID by FBI).”

          Now there’s a surprise.

        • DXer said

          I believe the wonderful USAMRIID FOIA person is making arrangements as we speak with her FOIA contact at the DOJ to upload the 9,000+ pages of Ivins Laboratory material that was produced in 2009 to Marc Gold.

  8. DXer said

    In a lengthy interview, AUSA Rachel Lieber recently affirmed her confidence to Frontline interviews in Dr. Ivins guilt.

    Yet when you go to the February 2010 Amerithrax Investigative Summary that she wrote — which reflects her understanding of the facts — there is no mention whatsoever of the 52 rabbits over which Dr. Ivins had charge and which were the reason he was in the lab. The rabbits delivered on September 25 and subject of the experiments in early October 2001. The word “rabbit” nowhere appears in her lengthy report! Instead, at page 32, in a footnote, she refers to only some mice needing his attention and says that they would not have explained all his time. Rather than relying on a review of the documents, she relied on Pat Fellows’ self-serving characterizations.

    In short, in the rush of events in July 2008, it is understandable that Rachel had not mastered the facts — alleged to Ivins’ counsel that Dr. Ivins used a lyophilized etc. Heck, she had the private knowledge of what the first counselor, Judith (who reports she feared nasty astral entities were trying to kill her) had said about what the murderous Dr. Ivins had told her in July 2000 about his murderous plans. With that fueling their suspicion of Dr. Ivins, who wouldn’t be suspicious? And the first counselor’s delusions are explained quite clearly in her 2009 book that was available to Rachel to read before issuing her 2010 report.

    But what’s her excuse for failing to explain the real reason Dr. Ivins lab in February 2010? What’s her excuse for telling me that we would never get the lab notebooks showing how he had spent his time under FOIA? After Dr. Ivins killed himself, there was no meaningful reassessment of the case. Ken Kohl was busy dealing with the aftermath of the botching of the Blackwater murder prosecution.

    The Amerithrax Investigative Summary is an unsourced and unmitigated crock — not supported to any documentary evidence for good reason. An analysis sourced to the documentation tells a quite different story. As an example, the letters claimed by Rachel to have been double-lined in fact were not.

    Isn’t the country sick and tired of the CYA motivation of federal officials potentially putting the country at peril?

    The Amerithrax Investigative Summary should have been sourced to the documents which should have been provided in an Appendix. They now should be uploaded under FOIA — before 9/11 please.

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: