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

* Dugway used live anthrax in decontamination studies in the late 1990s at the same time it make one-pound quantities of Bacillus subtilis

Posted by DXer on October 19, 2015

Screen shot 2015-10-18 at 5.46.37 PM

17 Responses to “* Dugway used live anthrax in decontamination studies in the late 1990s at the same time it make one-pound quantities of Bacillus subtilis”

  1. DXer said

    Re: “Biosecurity in the age of Big Data: a conversation with the FBI”

    FBI Special Agent You:

    Great article. Can you help FOIA work by obtaining from the bowels of the beast any record the 2000 and 2001 shipments of virulent Ames from Dugway’s Special Pathogens Branch was irradiated?


    I realize that no one asked, but here is my current hypothesis:

    DXer’s current Amerithrax hypothesis …
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 2, 2015

    Background about Agent You’s WMD domain.

    Biosecurity in the age of Big Data: a conversation with the FBI
    • Keith G. Kozminski1


    • Department of Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904; Department of Cell Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908
    • David G. Drubin, Monitoring Editor

    • Accepted August 5, 2015.

    SSA You: I sit at headquarters at the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Directorate in the Biological Countermeasures Unit. The WMD Directorate is one of the newest divisions of the FBI. It was born out of the events of September 11, 2001. On the heels of that terrorist event, we had the anthrax mailings. It was a serious wake-up call for the U.S. government and the FBI in particular. Since then, as a law enforcement service, our priority has become one of prevention rather than being reactive, just going in and investigating a crime or incident. Now our number one priority is to prevent in particular a 9/11 from happening again. …

    SSA You: The anthrax mailing in 2001 was a huge seminal event. Security discussions in the past tried to overlay security structures that were used in the nuclear or chemical realm. Completely locking down certain areas of expertise or materiel is completely antithetical to how the life sciences operate. If our mission is one of preventing the misuse, exploitation, or abuse of the life sciences, how do we approach security without becoming a hindrance to the life science enterprise?


    Individuals, no matter where they are in the world or when they enter the life sciences, always start with the premise, “Do No Harm,” taking a page from the Hippocratic Oath. Unfortunately there are groups and individuals who do not subscribe to the same ethics and norms and agreements to integrity that we all take for granted and are almost innate for us. How do we graduate from “Do No Harm” to “Not On My Watch”? It means you take an active role in being sentinels for what you are doing and preventing the abuse, misuse, and exploitation of the life sciences. If you are not fully aware what the security vulnerabilities are, then that becomes a true vulnerability for all of us.

    We also have a Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). It is amazing to me that we have an international treaty to which we are all beholden, yet there are very few programs, if any, in which incoming biology students are exposed to it or the fact that the BWC exists because biology had been absolutely used and exploited for offensive purposes, even by the United States. If we do not teach that little bit of history and other security aspects, then it becomes really a challenge in the future on how to better protect biology. It is not about ethics; it is not about responsibility; it really is about having a healthy appreciation of some of the security concerns.

    MBoC: How real is the threat? The aforementioned AAAS report read, “very little, if any, information exists about the theft, manipulation, or exploitation of Big Data in the life sciences.”

    SSA You: That is the key question. One of the goals of generating this report was to galvanize people to start thinking about security because quite honestly I do not think we really appreciate how deep or how wide the security vulnerabilities are in leveraging these large data sets or Big Data in general.


    MBoC: How should life scientists, faculty members at universities, respond to the worries of the FBI in terms of biosecurity? What do you see people doing to improve the situation?

    SSA You: To me, the strategy is that once we build trusted partnerships with the scientific community, first with the FBI reaching out and providing the security awareness and education, something really profound happens.


    You see the scientific community doing their own assessments of their technologies, self-identifying potential security vulnerabilities and then providing notification to the FBI—to my unit or other partners at the FBI. So the tables have turned. The scientific community educates the FBI on emerging vulnerabilities. They do us a favor, helping us to be better informed to better protect the life sciences, universities, and communities. Even better, the community will then develop security solutions based on their expertise, which is the best of both worlds. How powerful would that be when the experts, who are developing these powerful tools and applications of the future, immediately, on the front end, start developing and implementing security measures within these applications? That is where we want to be; that is where the future has got to be. So there is absolutely a very necessary and important partnership between law enforcement and the scientific community. It is just not a one-way street.


    MBoC: How do people find the WMD Coordinators should they ever need one?

    SSA You: They can just call the FBI field office in their jurisdiction and ask to be referred to the WMD Coordinator. Should any suspicious or criminal activity be observed that puts personnel, institutions, or materials at risk, contact your local FBI WMD Coordinator to help with any assessments. Think of them as being a resource to the scientific community. If you call them, it is not immediately the opening of an investigation. They are someone specifically within the FBI who is familiar with the life sciences community and with whom you can just touch base to see if something passes the sniff test.

    MBoC: Although many readers of Molecular Biology of the Cell are gaining a greater awareness of Big Data, their own research does not take them into the realm of Big Data. For those readers, does the FBI have biosecurity concerns that lie with small data or is the focus really on Big Data?

    SSA You: The focus on Big Data is because it is an emerging area. If you see all of our activities, the overall theme is safeguarding science, whether you are working in large data analytics, with select agents, yeast, or Escherichia coli. We are not honing in on a specific subgroup or subtopic of the life sciences. It is really preventing the misuse of the life sciences in general.



    MBoC: It is clear there is a lot of work ahead, not just for the scientific community, but for the FBI as well. What are the career opportunities for cell biologists in the FBI, whether they have Big Data experience or not?

    SSA You: We are most definitely hiring. You can be a Special Agent like me, or there are support positions such as the scientists who work in our laboratory division. These are individuals who develop the tools for forensic analysis. A key piece of our mission is looking at intelligence; that is an analyst position. There will absolutely be a need for folks with a biology background. You do not need to have law enforcement experience. I did not.

    I will be completely candid, upfront—our hiring is a very competitive process. Prior to 9/11, the FBI’s focus was on hiring individuals with law enforcement or military experience, lawyers, or accountants because the primary mission was tackling organized crime. In this day, when our number one priority is prevention, there is an absolute critical need for hiring individuals with background in computer science, foreign languages, and especially the natural sciences. If you have a chemistry or biology background, you are in the running. The minimal criteria are a bachelor degree and at least three years of real-world experience. More than anything else, if you can articulate and show how you excelled in your specific field, then you are a good candidate. Your field does not necessarily have to be Big Data. You need to be passionate about what you do because in doing so, you inherently excel. The key is to set yourself in a position where you can really excel so when we begin talking to your coworkers and managers about who you really are, you have put them in a position where they can say you are an integral part of the team and made significant contributions. That will be a good selling point for a future career in the FBI.


  2. DXer said

    USAMRIID announced yesterday that it has no records evidencing that the missing 340 ml. was every irradiated. Was it intended to be used in decontamination studies? Decontamination studies that would test detection in a soil matrix? Was it then diverted? Was the diversion/ misshipment not reported?

    The claim made by the top United States Army brass that there would be transparency and accountability has been turned into the punchline of a bad joke by the former FBI officials now in charge of the DOD Laboratory Review, Dr. Christian Hassell and Dr. Vahid Majidi. The FBI, according to the lead Amerithrax investigator Rick Lambert, has intentionally concealed a staggering amount of information exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.

    Hypothesis: What is being intentionally concealed is that the 340 ml.of virulent Ames sent from Dugway to USAMRIID is both missing and never was irradiated. I submit that a key scientist with information was the USAMRIID scientist who was part of the FBI’s Hazardous Materials Response Unit for the years leading up to 911 — the one working regularly with scientists who then would work on Amerithrax and make key decisions.

    The Army should produce the Form 11s showing where the Ames was shipped without further delay.

    People are either part of the solution or part of the problem. The FBI has definitely been part of the problem by its continued withholding of documents that should have been produced under FOIA many years ago, to include Notebook 3655.

    Army brass, if transparency and accountability were more than an empty slogan, would demand that the FBI return all Army documents taken by the FBI and not returned.

    Dr. Ayman Zawahiri is urging another 9/11. Do you really want to revisit these issues — Army, CDC and the FBI — AFTER the next 9/11?

    It wouldn’t be pretty. Right now, safe harbor can be offered anyone proving part of the solution.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    • DXer said

      Note that the records to “Biological Warfare Decontamination Efficacy Study” (the subject of a July 30, 1999 abstract) are missing.

      But in terms of what is public, how much bG was used in the December 1999 decontamination experiments at Dugway involving the stimulant Bg? How much Vollum was used in the decontamination experiments mentioned by the Dugway spokesman?

      A 2004 EPA report explains:

      “In December 1999, the U.S. Army tested a broad spectrum nanoemulsion and nine other biodecontamination technologies in Dugway, Utah, against an anthrax surrogate, Bacillus globigii. Nanoemulsion was one of four technologies that proved effective and was the only nontoxic formulation available. Other tests against the vaccine strain of B. anthracis (Sterne strain) were conducted by the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and by the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research.”

      As Fortune magazine explained in November 2001 about NanoBio: “Then bioterror struck…. It moved to a bland corporate park where its office has no name on the door. It yanked its street address off its Website, whose hit rate jumped from 350 a month to 1,000 a day.” NanoBio was part of the solution: “in the back of NanoBio’s office sit two dozen empty white 55-gallon barrels. A few days before, DARPA had asked Annis and Baker if they could make enough decontaminant to clean several anthrax-tainted offices in the Senate. NanoBio’s small lab mixers will have to run day and night to fill the barrels. ‘This is not the way we want to do this,’ sighs [its key investor], shaking his head. ‘This is all a duct-tape solution.’ ” James Baker, founder of Ann Arbor’s NanoBio’s likes to quote a Chinese proverb: “When there are no lions and tigers in the jungle, the monkeys rule.”

      What did the tests involving nano emulsion agents at Aberdeen in 2001 involve?

      from DXer … infiltration of U.S. Biodefense? … virulent Ames anthrax at the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in Utah?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 20, 2010

      Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    • DXer said

      Here is an October 8, 2001 article describing one decontamination agent that was being tested by DARPA in 2001.

      “Tests by the U.S. Defense Department have shown that NanBio’s emulsion acts as a decontamination agent.”


      By Tom Henderson
      Small Times Senior Writer

      “ANN ARBOR, Mich., Oct. 8, 2001 — A startup company spun off from the University of Michigan (U-M) has created an emulsion it says will help protect civilians and troops from biological terror attacks.

      Ted Annis, chief executive of NanoBio Corp., says its patented antimicrobial substance, a white creamy

      “Because of the events of Terrible Tuesday, we expect the Department of Defense will come to us with emergency funding to get this to market,” said Annis. “We have been contacted by the Department of Defense and asked to deliver an estimate of the cost and the timing to accelerate the technology.”

      He declined to say which branch of the Defense Department had approached him.

      NanoProtect is the result of a five-year, $11.8 million grant by the U.S. Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) to University of Michigan researcher Dr. James Baker Jr., director of the school’s Center for Biologic Nanotechnology.

      “The nanoemulsion developed by Dr. Baker has had good initial results,” said a DARPA spokesman, adding that it is undergoing further evaluation by the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston in Texas.

      Tests by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, under the Department of Defense, have shown that the emulsion acts as a decontamination agent.

      NanoBio’s second product, a vaccine that can be sprayed in the nose to provide immunity for chemical and biological agents, is still undergoing university research and is at least two years from the marketplace, said Annis.

      Annis said that so far he has been unable to find a competitor for NanoBio’s biological decontaminants.

      Nanoscale Materials Inc., of Manhattan, Kan., says it will have two nanocrystal products — a skin cream and a spray applied from a fire extinguisher-type canister — on the market in the first quarter of next year that will give protection against chemical agents.

      NanoProtect is a water and oil emulsion, with droplets in the 200- to 400-nanometer range. According to Annis, the size of the droplets’ molecules allows them to bond to and destroy surface membranes of a wide range of agents, including anthrax spores, and the smallpox and Ebola viruses.

      “On a small scale, it sort of blows up the microbe,” said Annis.

      The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington has changed the company’s market focus from civilian to military applications. Because of DARPA’s role, Annis said, he first approached potential military funding sources a year ago. Funding is needed for further toxicity tests to win approval for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

      “But there was no particular timeline we could determine, with the exception of the Army, which planned on rolling out a de-con product in 2006. I knew then that the government was not a marketplace,” he said.

      But since Sept. 11, that has all changed.

      Annis said he expects government funding will accelerate the time to market from at least 18 months to less than a year.

      In September, the U.S. General Accounting Office said that the federal government will spend $156.8 million this fiscal year on technology to fight biological agents. That is up more than 11 percent from the $141.2 million spent last year.

      NanoBio’s patent covers applications for antiviral, antisporicidal, antifungal and antibacterial applications. Annis said there are about 300 different product formulations, most of which still have to undergo toxicity studies.

      The generally agreed upon qualification of a nanomaterial is 100 nanometers in diameter or smaller. While NanoProtect doesn’t quite qualify, Annis said other products will have eventually have droplets as small as five nanometers.

      Annis said the company will license its technology to pharmaceutical companies and makers of a wide variety of consumer products. “We’re a technology company. We have no plans to manufacture,” he said.

      The company claims its formulations can be used in acne products, mouthwash and toothpaste, as a spermicide, for treatment of herpes 1 and 2, on nonporous kitchen surfaces, in detergents, to purify water, in food processing and in medical labs.

      “It’s a platform technology. There are so many applications, it will keep us busy for a while,” said Annis.

      According to research by Baker’s team at U-M, the emulsions have a shelf life of two years and virtually no toxicity.

      NanoBio has received a $900,000 grant to investigate applications for food safety by the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor, a $1 billion consortium of research organizations, including U-M. It was organized the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.”

    • DXer said

      See generally ”A Comparison of Decontamination Technologies for Biological Agent on Selected Commercial Surface Materials—Summary Report,” Laurel E. O’Connor, U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, May 2001

    • DXer said

      [In December 1999] Phase I testing at Dugway involved the deployment of the DF-100 formulation onto a series of 16 ” x 16 ” test panels consisting of a variety of materials that might be found in a typical office building. Based on the results of the Phase I test, Sandia was invited to participate in Phase II testing. In Phase II, the DF-100 formulation was deployed in an 8’ x 8’ x 8’ room that was constructed with a variety of building materials. The room was contaminated by B. globigii spores by a simulated explosion. …

      The testing using the Ames-RIID spores was done at the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI).

    • DXer said

      United Press International

      October 11, 2001, Thursday

      Biotech firm has anthrax decontaminant

      DATELINE: ANN ARBOR, Mich., Oct. 11

      A small biotechnology company says it could produce a non-toxic anthrax decontaminant that could be generally available to U.S. citizens and the military over the next six months.
      Nanobio of Ann Arbor said it would use nanotechnology and would also need government funding to work on this decontaminant.

      The company also said it can produce nasal sprays that could be applied as a preventive measure before a bioterrorism attack — attacking any deadly anthrax spores as they arrive in nasal passages.

      With substantial federal support, the nasal spray could be available to the civilian population in about 24 months, Ted Annis, Nanobio’s CEO, told United Press International.

      “We are talking to various parts of the federal government, including the military,” said Annis, who declined to offer details about the talks. “We are seeking two things. First, we need direct financial assistance to run animal and human trials. Then, once we have data, we need expedited processing of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) applications.”

      The company said both the decontaminant and the nasal sprays would be based on the company’s patented microbe-killing agent known as anti-microbial nanoemulsions.

      Nanoemulsions are water and oil mixtures containing nano-sized droplets that kill anthrax spores, as well as a range of viruses, including HIV and herpes, and bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella. The droplets are 200 to 400 nanometers in size. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.

      The emulsion, which is described a milk-like substance, arose from military-funded research by Dr. James R. Baker Jr. at the University of Michigan. Because the emulsion is non-toxic and non-corrosive, the company said, it can be delivered in gels, creams or liquid products.

      “If this is true, it is very impressive,” said Lou Chiodo, a pharmacologist at Texas Tech’s Institute of Environmental and Human Health in Lubbock, Texas. “The key is that it is non-toxic and non-corrosive. We can make corrosive decontaminants that kill anything, but you can’t use them on the body.”

      In spray form, the anti-microbial nanoemulsion is applied to the mucosal membranes. There it remains, for a period of time measured in hours, the company said, to inactivate spores, viruses or bacteria that are breathed through the nose. The company said proteins belonging to the inactivated micro-organisms then spark an immune response.

      According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, inhaled anthrax is usually fatal if not treated with antibiotics quickly, before serious symptoms begin.

      Nanobio said the U.S. military in December 2000 tested the nanoemulsion and confirmed its efficacy as a decontamination agent against an anthrax surrogate, B.globigii.

      The company also said the Defense Threat Reduction Agency or DTRA demonstrated that the nanoemulsion works as a chemical decon agent.

      “Right now the program is under review and is being compared to other technologies for possible use in DOD (Department of Defense) but determination has not been made yet,” said Capt. Bob Bennett, spokesman for DTRA.

      “The bio-decon application is closer to implementation than the human protective (nasal spray) treatments,” Annis said. “The decon is used on skin clothing and surfaces so it requires EPA and FDA approval. The human protective treatment requires primate testing and human clinical trials for purposes of FDA approval.”

      Annis said the company has no data on the nasal-spray treatment other than that it works on mice.

      Despite that situation that only laboratory animals have been tested with the nasal spray, the company’s Web site includes a link where individuals can sign up to take part in human trials.

      “They’re a long way off, but we wanted to take people’s names. When we run human trials, we obviously won’t test against real anthrax,” Annis said. “We’ll run them against a surrogate that might give you a cold or the flu. We would use the real stuff on primate tests, but that is extraordinarily expensive. And that’s why we need the government.”

      “If it’s everything they say, it’s truly a wonderful thing to come along,” said Dr. Mohammad Akhter, executive director of American Public Health Association in Washington. “Of course there needs to be careful reviews by FDA so people can trust that it works.”

      When asked if he thought the FDA should expedite nanoemulsion trials, Akhter said, “I think we are in extraordinary circumstances. I’d say let’s expedite this and go through a quick process to see about these claims.”

      “Upon brief inspection, this appears to be a novel approach that looks very promising. I think research should go forward,” said Pamela Nagami, an infectious disease specialist at Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Los Angeles.

  3. DXer said

    For example, Sandia’s decontamination agent was first tested against “real anthrax” (rather than simulants) in April 1999. Results against the AMES-RIID spores can be gleaned by googling.

    The leading decontamination agent, Sandia’s product, was tested against AMES-RIID spores.

    Labs’ decontamination foam may be tomorrow’s best first response in a chem-bio attack
    Sudsy brew neutralizes viral, bacterial, nerve agents in minutes

    By John German

    More tests planned for April [1999] will pit the foam against real anthrax and other bacterial spores.…533901.540770.0.541256.….0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..24.0.0.OqTxQeIFQfU

    See also, The Future of Decontamination Operations— An Analysis of Decontamination Foam 200
    By Captain Michael C. Firmin

    “The effectiveness of DF-200 for military use was proven in October 2000 when it was tested on three different chemical agents—soman (GD), VX, and mustard (HD). The foam was also tested against one biological agent, anthrax, which was chosen because it is considered to be the hardest biological agent to kill. The table at right shows the test results of these agents.

    With anthrax, the results were just as impressive. After 15 minutes of exposure, a seven-log kill (99.99999 percent) of all anthrax spores was recorded. This is in contrast to DS2, which only recorded a one-log kill with anthrax.”

    DF-200: An Enhanced Formulation for Decontamination and …‎
    Biological kill tests were conducted at IITRI in Chicago, Illinois. Results of tests … 7. 100±.00004. Figure 1: Kill rates for B. anthracis AMES-RIID spores in a solution of DF-200. … This testing utilized Sandia’s original decon formulation (DF -100).

    Technical Study –…/full-technical-background-study -from-modec.pdf‎
    materials has been developed at Sandia National Laboratories. The foam ….. Table 3-1: Percent decontamination in ECBC reaction rate tests for Df-100. Data … The table below summarizes test results from IITRI on live chemical agents. … Figure 6: Kill rates for B. anthracis AMES-RIID spores in a solution of DF-200HF.

  4. DXer said

    In October 2001, the New York Times, reported that Walter Busbee [JHU-APL], a retired brigadier general who was chief of the Pentagon’s chemical and biological defense program from 1996 to 1998 and had seen decontamination foam demonstrated against live spores in 1999.

    Mr. Busbee in October 2001 was with the counterproliferation program at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University.


    A NATION CHALLENGED: DECONTAMINATION; Foam That Kills Anthrax Is to Be Used in Mailrooms
    Published: October 26, 2001

    Cleanup workers are preparing to apply a new type of foam that kills anthrax spores and bacteria to contaminated mailrooms on Capitol Hill, officials said yesterday.

    Surfaces in the mailrooms are to be covered with two to three inches of the foam, which would be vacuumed off like carpet cleaner after an hour or so, said officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and a company that makes the foam.

    It is the first use of the foam outside a laboratory on areas contaminated with a biological weapon.

    The foam — developed over the past several years as part of the nation’s program to defend against biological and chemical attacks — was chosen ”because it’s so effective against bacteria and spores,” Bonnie Piper, a spokeswoman for the agency, said.

    Officials are also considering using the foam in other contaminated buildings like post offices and in the office of Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, in the Hart Senate Office Building, said Lt. Dan Nichols, a spokesman for the Capitol Police.


    ”It is not toxic; it is not corrosive,” Dr. Bustard said. ”The ingredients are sort of similar to toothpaste and hair conditioner.”

    Dr. Bustard refused to elaborate on the makeup of the foam.

    But despite those harmless-sounding ingredients, it is highly toxic to biological agents, said Dr. Bruce Gingras, a research microbiologist at the I.I.T. Research Institute, which is affiliated with the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

    In 1999, Dr. Gingras said, he tested the foam against live anthrax spores in a laboratory and found that they were virtually wiped out — their numbers reduced by a factor of 10 million — in an hour.

    ”It was extremely effective,” Dr. Gingras said.

    The foam has other advantages, said Walter Busbee, a retired brigadier general who was chief of the Pentagon’s chemical and biological defense program from 1996 to 1998 and who has seen the foam demonstrated.

  5. DXer said

    “The process, Mr. Patrick told officers at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, was not as refined as the one used in the heyday of the government’s germ warfare program, but it worked. “We made about a pound of material in little less than a day,” he told the officers. “It’s a good product.”

    He did not say what strain of anthrax was used in this work.

    But Ms. Nicholson, the Dugway spokeswoman, said workers there “never produced more than a few grams” of powdered anthrax in any given year. There are 454 grams in a pound.”

    • DXer said

      Have you noticed the public relations spin is not consistent with the transcribed remarks of the expert witness with personal knowledge?

      Ali Al-TImimi worked on a classified project for the Navy while at SRA in 1999. He got a commendation from the White House. Ames researcher and Al-Timimi suitemate Charles Bailey was at SRA in 1999 also. Both Bailey and Alibek were consultants for Battelle in 1999. By 2001, Alibek and Bailey had secured the largest DARPA biodefense award in history — about the time they filed a patent for concentrating anthrax by using silica in the growth medium.


      What did the classified project at SRA involve, Dr. James Burans? Being a Navy man biodefense yourself, you surely know.

      U.S. Recently Produced Anthrax in a Highly Lethal Powder Form
      Published: December 13, 2001

      As the investigation into the anthrax attacks widens to include federal laboratories and contractors, government officials have acknowledged that Army scientists in recent years have made anthrax in a powdered form that could be used as a weapon.

      Experts said this appeared to be the first disclosure of government production of anthrax in its most lethal form since the United States renounced biological weapons in 1969 and began destroying its germ arsenal.

      Officials at the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah said that in 1998 scientists there turned small quantities of wet anthrax into powder to test ways to defend against biowarfare attacks.

      William C. Patrick III, a scientist who made germ weapons for the United States and now consults widely on biological defenses, told a group of American military officers in February 1999 that he taught Dugway personnel the previous spring how to turn wet anthrax into powders, according to a transcript of the session.

      “We made about a pound of material in little less than a day,” he told the officers. “It’s a good product.”

      He did not say what strain of anthrax was used in this work.

    • DXer said

    • DXer said

      A Comparison of Decontamination Technologies for Biological Agents on Selected Commercial Surface Materials
      Prepared by: Laurel E. O’Connor

      Dr. Bruce Harper Dr. Lloyd Larsen Dugway Proving Ground
      April 2001

      Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010

      In response to growing concerns regarding domestic terrorism, the 104th Congress passed Public Law 104-201, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. In addition to providing our nation’s first responders with training regarding emergency response to weapons of mass destruction, this legislation required that the Secretary of Defense develop and implement a program for testing and improving the responses of federal, state, and local agencies to emergencies involving biological and chemical weapons. As a result, the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command of the Department of Defense, in partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy, developed the Biological Weapons (BW) Improved Response Program (IRP). This partnership was formed to assist all agencies with their responsibilities in responding to a biological incident.

      The BW-IRP is a multi-year program designed to identify, evaluate, and demonstrate the best practical approaches to improve BW domestic preparedness. Through the use of multi- agency workshops on bioterrorism response the BW-IRP developed a response template that could function as a model for cities to use when developing their own bio terrorism response plan. Along with the medical response template, 28 gaps in biological warfare response were identified. One response gap identified was how do you decontaminate a public building after a bio terrorism attack. This test and associated report address the gap of how to decontaminate a building that has been contaminated with a biological agent.
      This study evaluates available technologies (mostly research-scale) on the basis of to what level these technologies reduce the spore contamination on panels of different materials, which represent office environments. The testing platform consisted of six vertical surfaces, each made of a different material which could be commonly found in a typical civilian office environment. These test surfaces were uniformly contaminated with the bacterial agent simulant, bacillus globigii, BG and then sampled to determine the concentration level of the contamination at time zero (t=0). The test participants decontaminated the panels using their technology and procedure. The following day, the test panels were sampled again by swabbing to check for surviving BG spores.

      Performing best in the overall rankings were University of Michigan (U.Mich.), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLNL). The data suggest that the material surfaces most receptive to decontamination of agent simulant BG are Painted Metal, Painted Wallboard and Panel Fabric. The decontamination technologies were less effective on the porous surfaces. No technology was able to fully-decontaminate all surfaces in this test.

      To address the issue of what level of biological decontamination is achievable in a civilian office-type situation, the Life
      Sciences Test Facility (LSTF) at West Desert Test Center (WDTC), Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), was tasked by SBCCOM’s Domestic Preparedness Office to provide a technical testing platform for the evaluation of a variety of approaches to biological decontamination.

      Compare the efficacy of eight decontamination technologies and/or systems to maximally reduce the level of Bacillus globigii (BG)) spores (a BW agent anthrax simulant) on six types of materials commonly used in office environments.


      4.4 University of Michigan Nanotech
      The University of Michigan, Center for Biological Nanotechnology has developed a novel broad-spectrum antimicrobial nanoemulsion. The emulsions kill Anthrax spores first by initiation of germination without complete outgrowth, which weaken the spore wall. This is followed by spore disruption and disintegration. This process starts in about 30 minutes and the complete killing will be achieved in 2-3 hours. The nanoemulsions are non-irritant, non-toxic and environmentally friendly. They have a prolonged action, with a shelf life of 2 years. They do not require any special storage except avoidance of freezing and drying.


      5.2 Contamination Process
      BG contamination was applied inside a chamber in Building 2026 of the LSTF. A BG aerosol spray, from a “Badger® Airbrush 100CL” with a fine nozzle, was directed from a distance of about 0.46 m (18 in) perpendicular to the surface of vertically suspended panels. Each panel received four passes with the aerosolspray. The target value for BG deposition densities was in the range of 107 to 108 colony forming units (CFU)/sample area (4 in2). The contamination level on each panel was determined as described below.
      This test evaluated surfaces contaminated by a sprayed aerosol directed at surfaces and did not consider heavier contamination that might be found in containers or in spills.


      5.5 Anthrax Simulant
      The surrogate organism used during this test was the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus globugii (BG). This bacterium closely simulates Bacillus anthracis. BG is gram positive, durable spore-forming, common in certain soils, non-infectious, easily grown in culture and easily detected. BG grown in trypticase soy agar (TSA) grows into a distinctive colony, which is easily identified visually with the naked eye.

  6. DXer said

    Dr. Ayman Zawahiri (Vanguards of Conquest) planned to use universities and charities as cover to develop anthrax for use against the U.S.
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 13, 2011

    from DXer … infiltration of U.S. Biodefense? … virulent Ames anthrax at the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in Utah?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 20, 2010

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    • DXer said

      Was virulent Ames genetically identical to the attack anthrax at Dugway Proving Ground at Utah? Yes. Stocks were grown from both Ivins Flask 1030 and Flask 1029.

      340 mls. of Ames then shipped to USAMRIID on June 27, 2001.

      Safe harbor is offered for all those who, moving forward, are associated with producing the relevant unclassified documents. God help the careers of all those who continue to play this game of hide-the-ball.

      Was the 340 ml. of Ames anthrax sent on June 27, 2001 from Dugway to USAMRIID for irradiation the anthrax that reportedly went missing?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 6, 2015

      Was the 340 ml. of genetically matching virulent Ames shipped from Dugway to USAMRIID in June 2001 tested for the genetically distinctive subtilis contaminant — Or did it go missing?
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 9, 2015

    • DXer said

      The 340 ml. spores were NEVER irradiated. Were they? Weren’t they, in fact, ordered by Bruce Ivins and a colleague? See May 21, 2001 document that I’ll upload. Didn’t Dr. Ivins send Dugway the four vials for seed stock for their production?

      Weren’t the spores then produced by Dugway and shipped to Bruce Ivins and a colleague on June 27, 2001? Again, they weren’t ever radiated, were they? So where did the spores go?

      Whose signature is that on SCOPE OF WORK – Bacillus anthracis “AMES SPORES — With the title “Chief, Research Plans and Programs” on May 21, 2001. Carol Linden had the position up until 2000. Who took over for Dr. Linden in 2001?

      Can he or she tell us where the 340 ml. Ames spores made by Dugway from the 4 vials of seed stock supplied by Bruce Ivins went?

      The 340 ml. of Dugway grown Ames likely would be genetically matching the anthrax used in the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings and so it seems important to locate what happened to them — that is, how they were used.

      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Ames spores Sunday, May 06, 2001 4:33:32 PM
      (b) (6)
      (b) (6)
      I believed that you handled the contract with Dugway a few years ago, when we had them produce several lots of Ames spores for us. Do you still have the contract, or do you know who would have it. It would be very helpful to refer to it, because we will soon be needing more Ames spores to replace those which we have been using. Another contract with Dugway would provide us with those spores.
      Thanks for the information. I hope you have the contract or can get a copy of it. – Bruce

      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Spore contract with Dugway Monday, May 07, 2001 12:48:23 PM
      (b) (6)
      (b) (6)
      Do you have a copy of a contract between us and Dugway, about 1996 or 1997, in which they made several lots of Bacillus anthracis Ames spores for us? I think we paid them about $50,000, but I’m not sure. Anyway, if you could find it and I could have a copy of it, it would be great. We are in need of more spores and they could make them. If there is something to pattern a new agreement after, it would be very helpful. Thanks!
      – Bruce

      Monday, May 07, 2001 7:16 PM To: Ivins (E-mail) Subject: spores
      Bruce, Got your callback too late in the day to get back with you. On the
      paperwork for the spore production: I will FAX some documents that I have located tomorrow for your use in putting together the appropriate request. My boss says let’s (DPG) go ahead with the production when you’re ready. So it looks good from this end if and when you’re good to go.

      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Ames spore – production Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:51:49 PM
      (b) (6)
      (6)Thanks again for your information that you faxed to me. I’m going to start rewriting a new statement of work based on the old one. I’ll forward it to you and your people for their comments, additions, price, etc.
      – Bruce

      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Contract Tuesday, May 08, 2001 10:56:06 AM
      (b) (6)
      (6)I received your FAX. Thanks! Perhaps you could talk to the appropriate people there and ask if the agreement (Contract? CREDA?) would be acceptable as written, with whatever increase in funds is deemed appropriate. I’ll take this to the contract people here and get started.
      Hope you have had a nice spring. – Bruce

      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Ames spore – production Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:51:49 PM
      (b) (6)
      (6)Thanks again for your information that you faxed to me. I’m going to start rewriting a new statement of work based on the old one. I’ll forward it to you and your people for their comments, additions, price, etc.
      – Bruce

      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      Spores Monday, May 21, 2001 3:57:39 PM
      (b) (6)
      (b) (6)
      Hi, Enclosed is a statement of work for Ames spore production based on the one you sent me recently, which was used in 1997. Could you please look it over, then have whoever there needs to go over it do so? Of course, the dollar amount will have gone up, and if there are other changes, please make them. Then if you could send it back to me, I’ll turn it over to who will probably go ahead and OK it as is, since it’s based on the previously approved one.
      Thanks, and hope you’re having a great spring! – Bruce

      [In a subsequent email Dugway corresondent asked if the December 2002 was a mistake — given that Dugway would be able to complete the spores in 2001.]

      What did Bruce Ivins do with these 340 ml. of Ames spores? Who told Bruce to shut up when he expressed concern about missing stocks — and said that if the issue came up, justifications could be provided for any missing samples.

      • DXer said

        I’m now skeptical the June 27, 2001 relates to the Dugway-USAMRIID, 21 May 2001 SOW based on these June 25, 2001 emails I just don’t know.

        I saw BRIDGE OF SPIES tonight, starring Tom Hanks, when I should have been figuring out the Dugway Ames Statement of Work that USAMRMC produced today under FOIA.

        I liked the movie. I especially liked how it seems that every scene in the trailer was actually filmed differently in the movie. Same lines, often delivered in a different setting.

        Subject: Dugway spore contract
        Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 8:28:31 AM
        I’m sending you both the electronic copy of a statement of work for a new contract by Dugway to
        make more Ames spores for challenge for us to use in anthrax studies. They are needed to replace the
        current Ames spores which we are using for our present challenge studies. The Statement of Work is
        virtually the same as the approved SOW from a 1997 contract between USAMRIID and Dugway for
        producing Ames spores for us. As written, it is acceptable to Dugway and to me.
        – Can you please tell me (and ) what the best APC fund cite would be to take the
        $30,000 from for this? 6EDJ? 6IDT? other? Since it is in support of our rPA studies, it could come out of
        several APCs.
        – What would the TECOM Project number be? (See Number 2 on the SOW.) What needs to
        be done by us/me to get this in place, get funds transferred, get Dugway started producing and
        sending us spores, etc.?
        Thanks for your help on this. If we could get this in place and Dugway could get started before the end
        of the summer, it would be great.
        – Bruce

        From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
        Subject: RE: Dugway spore contract
        Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 8:48:10 AM
        This was already gone over by at Dugway, who will make the spores for us, and the
        contract people there. It’s already understood that he will use the same method as before. They are
        already ready, willing and able to make spores for us just as they did before. Perhaps we could put into
        the contract the following: “Spores will be produced according to technical procedures followed
        previously in TECOM Project Number 8-CO-410-000-048.” That basically says that they’ll make the
        spores just as they did before.
        – Bruce

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: