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

* GAO: With regard to this form about the 52 rabbits posted by Dr. Ivins on October 4, 2001 in his lab notebook, the name of the other person should be disclosed; the form attached Animal Protocol B01-11 to be followed.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 16, 2012

******

******

Advertisements

16 Responses to “* GAO: With regard to this form about the 52 rabbits posted by Dr. Ivins on October 4, 2001 in his lab notebook, the name of the other person should be disclosed; the form attached Animal Protocol B01-11 to be followed.”

  1. DXer said

    John Peterson at USMRC just got involved in the FOIA request late last week and is consulting with counsel.

    I have tried to walk him through a few factual issues.

    First, the protocol number B01-11 was given Animal Proposal 01-28 upon approval on or about July 23, 2001 when Bruce Ivins was sent notification of the approval.

    While John calls the copy he has a “draft,” it actually is just an unexecuted copy that was transmitted to Mr. Little by email.

    In this modern world, that’s how much information is conveyed electronically — especially back in 2001.

    Bruce forwards news of the approval of Animal Proposal 01-28 with a YESSSS!!!!

    He was notified by an email that stated: “Bruce – Approved and assigned protocol number B01-11.”

    Counsel should especially understand that is in fact how protocols have been produced, contrary to John’s understanding.

    The Protocol already uploaded under the section titled “Protocols” similarly has no signatures on the signature lines.

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

    Indeed, this copy of an excerpt from Stephen Little’s deposition is unsigned.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217157-stephen-little-deposition.html

    In any event, John is a pleasure to talk the issues through. He has a sister Upstate and at Thanksgiving time I tend to offer him home-cooking. His counsel can study the precedent I’ve forwarded and there is lots more where that came from. I hope counsel will see that in a suit that can be brought either in D.C., Maryland or New York, USAMRIID will be responsible for attorneys fees. Although John thinks of FOIA litigation as protracted, as litigation goes it can be decided on cross-motions for summary judgment. On this issue, it is controlled by the precedent I’ve already forwarded John but that he simply is not taking to heart.

    It is beyond my comprehension that Mr. Peterson would think it makes sense to withhold the document that explains that Bruce Ivins was tasked with monitoring the 52 rabbits. This is why $100 million on a botched investigation — information that should be shared isn’t.

    Much obfuscation and continuing confusion has occurred because lay people simply have not taken time to understand the importance of factual discovery — to include the actual underlying contemporaneous documents and the sworn testimony on those documents.

    Now that the amazing and efficient FOIA officer Sandra is back in Maryland, she may be able to pull up a signed copy by asking the right person. In her absence, I totally understand that John in Texas did not have the benefit of checking with the office that handles protocols (and instead relied upon the copy forwarded by Mr. Little). (I had involved Mr. Little to expedite the process). There is no reason to think that the office in charge of animal protocols would have destroyed the document showing how Bruce Ivins was spending time in late September 2001 and early October 2001. That would have constituted spoliation of evidence and would have been contrary to directive from USAMRIID command. Destruction of and withholding of such highly relevant evidence would constitute serious misconduct.

    John and I also had a lengthy discussion about the processing of the civil depositions. I noted Scott Shane’s and Greg Gordon’s interest in these same issues. He’s picking a much bigger fight than he realizes — when in fact Lew and I are USAMRIID’s biggest fans.

    • DXer said

      B01-11 is what it is. It shows what it shows. But it needs to be produced.to help get people on the same page.

      Anthony Bassett, according to Dr. Ivins in an email, destroyed the animal cage cards in 2004. Perhaps if they hadn’t been thrown out, the country would not have wasted 5 precious years.

      Dr. Ivins could not reconstruct his time because USAMRIID had destroyed the documents or withheld them from him.

      ******

      Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:26 PM … From Bruce Ivins to ??? (not revealed by USAMRIID)

      Hi, Would there be retrievable records for the months of September and October in 2001 for Facilities Management (Building Engineers) events in and such as: 1) Airlock Decons, 2) Suite Decons ( was apparently cleaned and deconned in this timeframe.) 3) Coldroom or Freezer alarms or breakdowns 4) Other events. Any information you could provide us regarding the above would be most helpful. Thanks very much! – bruce

      ******

      Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:03 PM … From ??? (not revealed by USAMRIID) To Bruce Ivins

      We have hard records for the decons for 1) each suite and 2) airlocks. I will see if can pull these together for you. Regarding cold room and freezer alarms, these are not kept this far back. What are you looking for exactly?

      ******

      Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:44 AM … From ??? (not revealed by USAMRIID) To Bruce Ivins

      Bruce, I have to apologize that I forgot. Do you still need this info? Let me know.

      ******

      Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:20:11 PM … From Bruce Ivins to ??? (not revealed by USAMRIID)

      I already went to the grand jury, It’s too late for the information. -bruce

      On information and belief, the protocol USAMRIID is wrongfully withholding on the mistaken grounds it is a “draft” subject to withholding reads:

      “Dr. Bruce Ivins, Ph.D., has had 28 years of experience in biomedical research, including 18 years of research on anthrax. Dr. Ivins has had research experience with several animal species, including mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamster, and rabbits. Dr. Ivins will help immunize and challenge the rabbits, in which he has had considerable experience. He will also help monitor the animals after challenge.

      Mr. Stephen F. Little, M.S., has had 27 years of experience in biomedical research, including 18 years of research on anthrax. Mr. Little has had research experience with mice, rats, guinea pigs, and rabbits. Mr. Little will not be handling the animals. He will be responsible for determining anti-PA ELISA and TNA titers.

      Ms. Patricia Fellows, M.S., has had 13 years of experience in biomedical research on anthrax and 10 years of experience and training in procedures with animals. She is certified by AALAS as a laboratory animal technician. Ms. Fellows will help immunize and challenge the rabbits, in which she has had considerable experience. She will also help monitor the animals after challenge.

      Mr. Anthony Bassett, technician, has had 4 years of biomedical research experience and has had extensive experience with many laboratory animals, including rabbits. He is also AALAS certified as a laboratory animal technician. He will be involved in immunizing, bleeding and challenging the rabbits. He has had considerable training and experience in these techniques.

      Trained Veterinary Medicine Division personnel will help bleed the rabbits, monitor the daily condition of the rabbits, and euthanize the rabbits.”

    • DXer said

      It may be that the FBI’s confusion related to the difficulty of applying the documents to the floor plan — understanding that the keycard entry was used in entering the suite that included the rooms where the 52 rabbits were kept.

      New developments today:

      1. USAMRIID today has provided me a copy of the animal protocol, B01-11, relating to the 52 rabbits in early October 2001 and that Dr. Ivins was tasked with monitoring for the next 7 days. The 52 rabbits had been moved into the two animal rooms in the hot suite B3 on September 24, 2001. The cages were cleaned in-place given the containment that was required. The protocol will be uploaded to the FOIA Reading Room under “Protocols”.

      2. Separately, JAG has copies of the civil depositions from United States v. Stevens for any requestor who wants them (submit a request to Sandra).

      By helping people get on the “same page,” USAMRIID has worked hard to make itself part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

      Sandra J CIV USARMY MEDCOM USAMRMC (US) Rogers

  2. DXer said

    One time you especially don’t exercise your favor of withholding where you allowed the signed copy to be destroyed in contravention of a standing command to preserve documents relating to the use of Ames in September/ October 2001.

    When to Assert the Deliberative Privilege Under FOIA Exemption Five

    http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_I_1/page4.htm

    FOIA Update
    Vol. I, No. 1
    1979

    Policy Guidance

    When to Assert the Deliberative Privilege Under FOIA Exemption Five

    The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Information Law and Policy (OILP) provided new policy guidance to all federal agencies on FOIA Exemption Five, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5), in a memorandum dated June 6, 1979. The full memorandum also appears in 38 F.B.A. Journal Numbers 2-4 (Fall, 1979) as an article by Robert L. Saloschin. The following is a summary of the nine-page memorandum.

    The Deliberative Privilege

    One of the basic principles of the Freedom of Information Act is that an exemption in the Act is merely an option to deny access, not a prohibition against release. FOIA Exemption Five covers internal communications in the Executive Branch that are legally “privileged.” The most commonly encountered privilege under Exemption 5 is the “deliberative” privilege, which covers “predecisional” materials written as part of the decisionmaking process in federal agencies.

    A frequently encountered and often puzzling question in acting on FOIA requests is whether to grant or deny access to “deliberative” materials. The large volume of litigation involving the deliberative privilege has highlighted the policy question whether agencies use this privilege too often. Where material may legally be withheld under the deliberative privilege of Exemption 5, agencies should always consider whether as a matter of policy it should be withheld or released.

    Arguments for the Privilege

    Deliberation means thoughtful review of various views on an issue. The main policy reason in favor of the deliberative privilege is to avoid chilling and distorting the candid discussion needed for optimum decisionmaking inside government agencies. Although there has been much dispute about the importance of protecting full and frank internal debate, many would agree that there are situations where such protection is important.

    In addition, if the material is legal advice, protection may encourage government officials to seek the views of government lawyers on the letter and spirit of the law.

    Arguments Against the Privilege

    On the other hand, a major policy expression against a privilege for deliberation was recently stated by Congress in the Government in the Sunshine Act: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that the public is entitled to the fullest practicable information regarding the decisionmaking processes of the Federal Government.” (Section 2 of Pub. L. 94-409, September 13, 1976, 5 U.S.C. §552b note.) Of course the Sunshine Act provides for open meetings of multi-member agencies and does not control access to agency records.

    On May 5, 1977, then Attorney General Griffin Bell wrote the heads of all federal departments and agencies, expressing concern over the volume of FOIA litigation. He announced four criteria which the Department would consider in consulting with agencies and in determining whether to defend agency denials in court. The third criterion, “whether there is a sufficient prospect of actual harm to legitimate public or private interests if access to the requested records were to be granted,” was primarily aimed at the unnecessary use of Exemption 5. (Emphasis added.) During the two years since this “harm” criterion was established, the Justice Department’s Freedom of Information Committee has often considered its application to various records in agencies. In most cases, the basic problem is to decide whether the claim of risk to the decisionmaking process if the document is released is serious, or whether such risk is remote or imaginary.

    Criteria for Asserting the Privilege

    To decide how to handle difficult cases, it often helps to start with easy ones. To illustrate, an easy hypothetical case at the “remote risk” end of the spectrum would be a 25 year old memorandum recommending an increase from 6 to 8 months between cleanings of agency typewriters. Almost as easy, but at the other end of the spectrum, would be a current staff memorandum recommending a position to be taken on highly controversial issues such as funding abortions for poor women.

    Unfortunately, only a minor fraction of the deliberative records in federal files fall at the ends of the spectrum, where the risk of a chilling effect from release is either obvious or remote. Generally, no simple rule or test exists to measure the probable harm to an organization’s decisionmaking processes from the release of deliberative records. The question of harm is a matter of executive judgment.

    The primary factors to enhance the accuracy of an executive’s estimate of the prospects of harm are his or her common sense and good judgment, along with enough experience in decisionmaking processes to be familiar with the range of motivations and practices of executives and advisors functioning in organizations. Still, judgment may be difficult. The following twelve special factors should serve to stimulate and to make more effective the application of common sense, good judgment, and experience.

  3. DXer said

    If USAMRIID does not provide the copy of animal protocol B01-11, relating to how Dr. Bruce Ivins was spending his time in late September 2001 and October 2001 — even though it claims, rightly or wrongly, only to have an unexecuted copy — USARMRIID will be obligated to pay attorneys fees.

    The District Court applied the four-factor standard that this Circuit [**2] has set forth for considering a substantially prevailing party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees in FOIA cases. See Morley v. CIA, 828 F. Supp. 2d 257, 261 (D.D.C. 2011). Those four factors are: (1) the public benefit derived from the case, (2) the commercial benefit to the requester, (3) the nature of the requester’s interest in the information, and (4) the reasonableness of the agency’s conduct. Applying those four factors, the District Court determined that Morley should not receive attorney’s fees. Id.

    Under these standards,

    (1) There is a tremendous public benefit in having contemporaneous documents from 2001 indicating the work Dr. Bruce Ivins was doing in late September 2001 and early October 2001 when he was tasked under B01-11 with monitoring the 52 rabbits subject that protocol;

    (2) there is no commercial benefit to me;

    (3) I upload all documents produced under FOIA at this blog relied upon for documents;

    (4) USAMRIID should not have destroyed any document relating to work with virulent Ames at a B3 at USAMRIID in September 2001 and October 2001. A district court would be outraged to learn that USAMRIID’s reason for not producing an unexecuted copy is that it destroyed the executed copy. USAMRIID should have been preserved documents relating to work with virulent Ames anthrax in September-October 2001 notwithstanding the operation of any usual document retention policy.

    • DXer said

      The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had not considered the public benefit factor.

      JEFFERSON MORLEY, APPELLANT v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, APPELLEE

      No. 12-5032

      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

      719 F.3d 689; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12243; 41 Media L. Rep. 2328

      CORE TERMS: requester’s, attorney’s fees, public benefit, assassination, fee awards, committee report, reasonableness, prevailing, public-benefit, disclosure, Freedom of Information Act, fees provision, prevailing party, award of fees, news organization’s, meritorious claim, acted unreasonably, legislative history, en banc, entitlement, incentivize, meritorious, predictable, satellite, atextual, wasteful, qualify, vacate

      COUNSEL: James H. Lesar argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

      Benton Peterson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

      JUDGES: Before: KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judges. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.

      OPINION

      [*689] Per Curiam: Jefferson Morley submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA for records related to CIA officer George E. Joannides. Morley believed the records might shed light on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because Joannides had served as the CIA case officer “in charge of” a Cuban group whose officers had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald [*690] in the months before the assassination. After not obtaining documents from the CIA, Morley filed a FOIA suit and as a result subsequently received some documents from the CIA. Morley then sought attorney’s fees as a substantially prevailing party. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i). The District Court applied the four-factor standard that this Circuit [**2] has set forth for considering a substantially prevailing party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees in FOIA cases. See Morley v. CIA, 828 F. Supp. 2d 257, 261 (D.D.C. 2011). Those four factors are: (1) the public benefit derived from the case, (2) the commercial benefit to the requester, (3) the nature of the requester’s interest in the information, and (4) the reasonableness of the agency’s conduct. Applying those four factors, the District Court determined that Morley should not receive attorney’s fees. Id.

      This Court recently elaborated on one of those four factors, the public-benefit factor, which looks to the public benefit derived from the plaintiff’s FOIA suit. See Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155, 384 U.S. App. D.C. 49 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Davy, like this case, concerned a request for records related to President Kennedy’s assassination. In Davy, this Court said that records “about individuals allegedly involved in President Kennedy’s assassination[] serve[] a public benefit.” Id. at 1159. We also noted that the standard for entitlement to attorney’s fees does not “disqualify plaintiffs who obtain information that, while arguably not of immediate public interest, nevertheless enables further research ultimately [**3] of great value and interest, such as here the public understanding of a Presidential assassination.” Id. at 1162 n.3. We concluded, moreover, that “a balancing of the factors can only support the conclusion that Davy is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.” Id. at 1163.

      In this case, the District Court did not consider the Davy Court’s analysis of the public-benefit factor. See Morley, 828 F. Supp. 2d at 262-64. We therefore vacate and remand for the District Court to apply the four-factor standard in a manner consistent with Davy. We take no position here on whether the District Court should award fees.

  4. DXer said

    Bruce was very excited when B01-11, relating to the experiment that was done in the Building 1425 B3 hot suite in late September 2001 and early October 2001, was approved. He received notice by the email below on July 23, 2001 2:55 PM

    On July 23, 2001 he forwarded an email announcing the approval of the protocol to a colleague.

    Why do some people not understand that the rabbits needed to be in the hot suite to be challenged?

    Why do they not understand that the rabbits were shipped on 9/24/2001. (See invoice uploaded in thread summarizing rabbit documents.)

    And challenged (by injection) in early October? (See Lab Notebook 4241 uploaded when finally produced — after summarizing rabbit thread.)

    And monitored by Ivins as required by the animal protocol the terms of which were mandatory?

    Why do people comment on such an important issue without informing themselves?

    Why didn’t AUSA Lieber discuss the rabbit experiment in the Amerithrax Investigation Summary?

    Why did her superiors allow the release of the summary when they knew that it omitted this highly material information? She specifically asserted that there was no experiment.

    Why didn’t Vahid Majidi discuss the rabbit experiment involving the 52 rabbits in the hot suite in his September 2013 book?

    Don’t these folks realize that Amerithrax involves public safety? If they are not sufficiently well-read or hard-working — or distracted by concerns for their career — they should STFU.

    Failure in analysis is not an option when public safety is at issue.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    To: Subject:
    Date:
    YESSSSS!!!
    Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    FW: Animal Proposal 01-28 Monday, July 23, 2001 2:57:05 PM
    (b) (6)

    >—–Original Message—–
    >From:
    >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:55 PM
    >To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    >Subject: Animal Proposal 01-28

    > > >Bruce – Approved and assigned protocol number B01-11. >

  5. DXer said

    In February 2002, the rabbit study in which Bruce immunized with rPA/Alhydrogel with Formaldehyde, and also rPA/Alhydrogel without Formaldehyde. Bruce and colleagues corresponded about an addendum to B01-11.

    https://mrmc-www.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/batch40/20020117_batch40%28redacted%29.pdf

    From: To: Subject: Date:
    Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    rPA/Alhydrogel studies Friday, February 15, 2002 11:09:04 AM
    (b) (6)
    (b)
    (6) We are about to repeat the rabbit study in which we immunized with rPA/Alhydrogel with Formaldehyde, and also rPA/Alhydrogel without Formaldehyde. For the last study you eluted PA off the Alhydrogel and looked at it on SDS PAGE. I think you also looked at the supernatant of the vaccine before desorption. Could you do the same for this next experiment. There will be 50 micrograms of PA per 1/2 ml dose. How much material (5 ml? 10 ml?) of each vaccine would you need?
    Thanks! – Bruce

  6. DXer said

    In this February 2002, Bruce seeks an addendum to protocol B01-11. It notes that it requires 3 weeks total hot space. I believe the failure in analysis occurred when some people did not realize that the parenteral challenge (by injection rather than aerosol) was to be done at USAMRIID and required “hot space”. As the result of being a parenteral challenge, it did not have to be done in 1412 where aerobiology was located. It could be done in 1425.

    I am still seeking to obtain an unredacted copy of the protocol B01-11 as executed. I would very much appreciate assistance on the issue as I have been remiss in not succeeding in previous attempts.

    https://mrmc-www.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/batch40/20020117_batch40%28redacted%29.pdf

    From: To: Subject: Date:
    Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
    Rabbit space Friday, February 15, 2002 10:43:19 AM
    (b) (6)
    (b) (6)
    For an approved addendum to protocol B01-11, we are planning to order 52 New Zealand white rabbits (26 males, 26 females) for a study that will last 10 weeks total (from arrival to euthanasia). We will need 7 weeks total cold space and 3 weeks total hot space. Can you tell me what date we should order these animals for?
    Thank you. – Bruce Ivins

    • DXer said

      There are lots of people who should have a copy of B01-11 if they look hard for it.

      From: To:
      Subject: Date: Attachments:
      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Animal protocol B01-11 – Addendum Monday, February 11, 2002 10:49:04 AM
      (b) (6)
      (b) (6)
      (b) (2)
      (b) (6)
      I am sending you an email copy of an addendum to Animal Protocol who is acting Bacteriology Division Chief this week, has been asked to forward her approval to this addendum.
      – Bruce

    • DXer said

      Bruce would negotiate changes required by the LACUC, which reviewed proposed animal protocols. Here he is making edits required to the addendum of B01-11.

      https://mrmc-www.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/batch40/20020117_batch40%28redacted%29.pdf

      From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:
      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      RE: LACUC Review of Addendum to Animal protocol B01-11 Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:21:48 AM
      (b) (6)
      (b) (6)
      Thanks, . I’ve done the following to the addendum to address concerns: 1) I’ve put the request for 52 animals up in number 1. 2) In the 2nd paragraph, “vaccine” was changed to “group.” 3) Concern number 2 was addressed in number 3.
      4) Concern number 3 was addressed in number 5. I hope this satisfies all concerns. Thanks! – Bruce

    • DXer said

      The Animal Protocol Officer, USAMRIID, identified in this email (but whose name is redacted) kept a copy of B01-11 in his office. He sent out Dr. Ivins’ proposed addendum to that protocol for comment in February 2002.

      https://mrmc-www.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/batch40/20020117_batch40%28redacted%29.pdf

      Animal Protocol Officer, USAMRIID
      (b) (6)
      b
      (b) (6)
      (b) (6)
      >
      6
      > Email:
      )
      > > —–Original Message—– > From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:49 AM > To:
      > Subject: Animal protocol – Addendum > Request that you review the attached memorandum and provide me with your comments/approval within two business days. The protocol is on file in my office if you wish to review it, and/or you may contact Dr. Ivins if you have any questions regarding this addendum request. > > Thanks. > > >

    • DXer said

      https://mrmc-www.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/batch40/20020117_batch40%28redacted%29.pdf

      After receiving comments on Dr. Ivins’ proposed addendum to B01-11, the Animal Protocol officer wrote Bruce:

      > —–Original Message—– >From: >Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:23 AM
      >To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID >Subject: LACUC Review of Addendum to Animal protocol B01-11 > >
      >Bruce, The following comments/questions were received from LACUC members regarding the subject addendum:
      > >1. In paragraph 2, last line, change “vaccine” to “group.”
      > >2. If the presence of formaldehyde substantially (significantly) increases the vacccine’s protective efficacy, isn’t that a good reason to argue with the FDA to keep it in the vaccine?
      > >3. There is some concern about licensure of vaccines via the FDA’s proposed animal rule which is soon to be real. How should this be addressed in this addendum?
      > >Thanks.
      (

    • DXer said

      Sometimes the scientists drafted the prootocols on their laptop. For example, this correspondent of Bruce wrote the draft of the protocol while at the Commanders’ Conference in Baltimore on his laptop. If he still has the laptop from 2002, he could check there for the documents and correspondence. Contemporaneous documents and computer forensics are far more reliable than recollections on this sort of issue.

      From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      To: Subject:
      RE: Isoform animal protocol Date:
      Friday, February 01, 2002 7:25:10 AM
      Sounds good, – Bruce (6)

      > —–Original Message—–
      >From: >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:13 PM
      >To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID >Subject: RE: Isoform animal protocol
      > >Thanks Bruce,
      >I’ll be attending the Commanders’ Conference in Baltimore next week, so that should be a good time for me to finish polishing the protocol on my laptop. – I’ll probably have an electronic draft for you to look at by Wed which we can forward to at the end of the week?
      (>6)

      > > —–Original Message—–
      > From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:07 PM
      > To: > Subject: Isoform animal protocol > >
      (6) When you submit your protocol, it looks as if 0.1 microgram of PA per dose (with two doses for each animal) should give you about 50% protection.
      > Please let me know when you submit your animal protocol. Thanks! > > – Bruce

  7. DXer said

    It may seem that Amerithrax is a complicated case because so much has been written — and it has spanned so many years. But it really isn’t. At least not in debunking an Ivins Theory.

    It is as simple as obtaining some unredacted documents of some key documents — such as this one.

    Or persuading USMRC FOIA person that the (b)(6) document does not apply.

    It is understandable that a person in making redactions will go through and redact proper nouns and room numbers etc.

    But all we need is one of the true FOIA experts — such as counsel in suit against DOJ over the withheld Jdey documents — to encourage their production.

    Or one of the esteemed USAMRIID scientists, both current or former, to make contact with the relevant USAMRIID or USAMRC person, and encourage that unredacted copies be provided.

    Over the years, I was always so thankful that USAMRIID produced the documents that I did not press the issue further than I did.

  8. DXer said

    As indicated by Dr. Ivins’ note on October 4, 2001, the Animal Protocol B01-11 specified the procedures to be followed

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: