* Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects … do you agree?

Dr. Bruce Ivins

see related post … * Old Atlantic in response to Jim White

Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects

• Substantial flaws still remain in the FBI’s explanation of the technical analysis on which they concluded that Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks of 2001.
• I have found what appears to be an error in the analysis of how much material from RMR-1029 would have been required to produce the spores used in the attack letters.
• The result of this error is an overestimate, by a factor of 100, of how much material from RMR-1029 would have been needed to be used for each letter.
• Partially because of this overestimate, the FBI excluded as suspects other researchers who received samples from RMR-1029, claiming that they lacked the expertise both to produce such a large volume of material and to then prepare it as attack material.
• With the smaller estimate, most of the basis for excluding these individuals goes away, as simple procedures could be used to dry such a small amount of material.
• In doing his microscopic analysis, Ivins states clearly that he is working with a 100-fold (or, 1:100) dilution of material from the RMR-1029 flask. He also states that this dilution is at an approximate concentration of 3 X 108 spores per mL. From the information present on this page of the notebook, it is clear that the concentration of spores in RMR-1029 is approximately 3 X 1010 per mL.
• Ivins recovered 0.013 grams of powder from the envelope. He suspended this powder in water and then plated it out to determine the concentration of bacteria. He then computed a concentration of 2.1 X 1012 colony forming units per gram of powder. For spores that are perfectly viable, one spore corresponds to one colony forming unit. That means that 0.013 g of the powder contains 2.7 X 1010spores.
• A leading anthrax researcher who assisted the investigation expressed his expert opinion that 100 ml would have been required to create sufficient material to be used in one letter, for a total of 500 ml for the five letters. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty how much material was used in the letters.
• One hundred mL of RMR-1029 would be 3 X 1012 spores, 100-fold more than Ivins recovered from the envelope he analyzed. The only way the opinion of the anthrax researcher makes sense is if they mistakenly took Ivins’ 3 X 108 notation in the notebook as the concentration of spores in RMR-1029, when Ivins clearly states that is the concentration of the diluted material he analyzed.
• The lower concentration makes no sense as the spore concentration of RMR-1029 for several reasons.
  • First, the description of how many large cultures were produced at Dugway and small cultures in Ivins’ lab to produce RMR-1029 would suggest that the purification process resulted in the loss of most of the spores produced, if the lower concentration of RMR-1029 is correct.
  • In other words, the lower concentration for RMR-1029 would mean that the final concentration of RMR-1029 was approximately at or below the concentration of spores one achieves in a standard bacterial culture, even though over a hundred liters of culture were used to produce the one liter purified material in the RMR-1029 flask.
• An alternate explanation for the discrepancy would be if Ivins collected only one percent of the material in the envelope for his analysis, but that would mean that there was so much material in the envelope that it would appear overly stuffed.
• The bottom line, then, is that only one mL, not 100 mL of RMR-1029 would be required to produce the material in one envelope.
• I can see that statement being accurate for someone drying 100 mL of RMR-1029 five times (or 500 mL once), but most of the concerns about equipment and space go away if only 5 mL needs to be dried to produce the attack material without a need to grow and purify a large new culture using the RMR-1029 material as inoculum. Rather than a lyophilizer, simple vacuum filtration or air drying could be used on such a small amount of material, and the procedure could be carried out without attracting much attention.

It appears to me that the FBI has excluded hundreds of potential suspects on the basis of a math error.

Read more at …http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30737

see related posts …

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; more questions for UM and LSU researchers

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

* Dr. Bruce Ivins … email correspondence June 2001

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s the (fictional) DIA Director setting up a fresh look at the failed FBI anthrax investigation …

“Those FBI bastards hounded a Defense Department employee until he committed suicide, if it was suicide. After seven years the FBI hasn’t come close to making a case that could convict the lowest grade criminal, let alone an internationally respected scientist. And they think they can say ‘case closed’ and sweep their incompetent investigation under the rug?”

“I’ve already spoken to Secretary Morgan,” General Drysdale continued. “The Secretary agrees that the Defense Department is taking an unwarranted hit from the FBI, and we don’t know why. At my request, the Secretary has authorized us to find out what really happened.

“You’re the team I’ve selected. You’re authorized to go where you need to go, ask what you need to know. You’ll have whatever resources are necessary.

******

excerpts from Dr. Bruce Ivins’

June 2001 emails

courtesy of DXer

******

Dr. Bruce Ivins

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:06 PM
To: ‘Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL‘
Subject: Spores and Foaming

Bruce,

thought it would be easier if I contacted you directly. With regard to the foaming issue.

When I go back to the original suspension you sent in the 50 ml conical tube and vortex it the same foaming phenomenon occurs. So I do not believe it is a glassware problem or washing problem.

If you will/could go back to one of your 10E10 stocks of the same spore prep. And also make a 10E9 dilution and vortex it to see if you get the same thing.

As described before, it’s like whipped cream on top of the water and will not go back into suspension unless it sits for a day or more. When I enumerate the suspension under the whipped cream it is 0.5-1 log lower than what is expected (i.e. what should be 10E9 is 5 x 10E8 to 1 x 10E8).

In the mean time do you have any ideas on a defoaming agent?

*** REDACTED ***

******

More of Dr. Ivins’ June 2001 emails can be found below.

See more materials like this in these posts and related comments …

* more source materials regarding the FBI’s science in the anthrax investigation

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; more questions for UM and LSU researchers

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

* why have Dr. Ivins’ emails concerning his whereabouts when the anthrax letters were mailed in Princeton not been released? who is withholding this information?

******

Here are more of Dr. Ivins’

June 2001 emails

******

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 7:29:36 AM
When we mix the spores at that concentration, we don’t vortex. I should have said that. I think the
reason that it may foam is that the spore suspension is so pure. In the Vollum 1B spore suspension from
1965 which is about 4 – 5 X 10^10 per ml, and MUCH dirtier, there is no foaming upon vortexing. The
spores you have were twice purified with Hypaque gradient centrifugation. The spores are very
hydrophobic, I believe. I suppose you could try to add a little Tween 80 to the spores to see if that
helps. I’ve heard that in the “OLD DAYS” back in the 50s and 60s here at Detrick, they would soemtimes
add a little Tween 80 to the spores to be aerosolized. We haven’t added any because we didn’t want to introduce another variable into the challenge. If you add something else to the spores being aerosolized,

you may have to be able to demonstrate that the “anti-foam” has no effect on spore LD50, the infection
process, or the specific immune response to the infection. As I said, when we mix the spores at that
concentration, we just rock back and forth or gently swirl. If you want to add something to the spores
before challenge, I think you should first run it by the IPT for their comments.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:06 PM
To: ‘Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL’
Subject: Spores and Foaming
Bruce,
thought it would be easier if I contacted you directly. With regard to
the foaming issue. When I go back to the original suspension you sent in
the 50 ml conical tube and vortex it the same foaming phenomenon occurs. So
I do not believe it is a glassware problem or washing problem. If you
will/could go back to one of your 10E10 stocks of the same spore prep. and
also make a 10E9 dilution and vortex it to see if you get the same thing.
As described before, it’s like whipped cream on top of the water and
will not go back into suspension unless it sits for a day or more. When I
enumerate the suspension under the whipped cream it is 0.5-1 log lower than
what is expected (i.e. what should be 10E9 is 5 x 10E8 to 1 x 10E8). In the
mean time do you have any ideas on a defoaming agent?

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:04:29 AM
, these spores are exactly the same spores used for the other rabbits for BioPort. We do get some
foaming, but still get a high dose with 3 X 10^9 per ml. Would it help to use more suspension in your
container? We’ve used these spores for quite awhile with success. As I said, maybe it’s because they
are so clean that they clump. If there were some cell material stuck to the outside, perhaps they would
perform a little more like the old Vollum 1B spore suspension or like some of the less pure Ames spore
suspensions we have used in the past.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:24 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Bruce,
One other question. Is were the spores that you sent to us prepared the
same way as the ones RIID used on the BioPort rabbit studies or the same
spore prep.? Or did you use different AMES spores? Looks like even though
I’m a log low on the AGIs than expected I can still hit the targeted LD50
range and will use These spores and mix by inversion. Thanks for answering
my questions

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 7:30 AM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
, When we mix the spores at that concentration, we don’t vortex. I should
have said that. I think the reason that it may foam is that the spore
suspension is so pure. In the Vollum 1B spore suspension from 1965 which is
about 4 – 5 X 10^10 per ml, and MUCH dirtier, there is no foaming upon
vortexing. The spores you have were twice purified with Hypaque gradient
centrifugation. The spores are very hydrophobic, I believe. I suppose you
could try to add a little Tween 80 to the spores to see if that helps. I’ve
heard that in the “OLD DAYS” back in the 50s and 60s here at Detrick, they
would soemtimes add a little Tween 80 to the spores to be aerosolized. We
haven’t added any because we didn’t want to introduce another variable into
the challenge. If you add something else to the spores being aerosolized,
you may have to be able to demonstrate that the “anti-foam” has no effect on
spore LD50, the infection process, or the specific immune response to the
infection. As I said, when we mix the spores at that concentration, we just
rock back and forth or gently swirl. If you want to add something to the
spores before challenge, I think you should first run it by the IPT for
their comments.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:20:04 AM
,
We usually spray at a concentration of 3 X 10^9 per ml. That gives us an aerosol inhaled dose of about
100- 200 LD50s in a 10-minute spray. You can try a test run with some Tween 80 and see if that helps.
I seem to recall they used some concentration between 0.01% and 1%, but I don’t remember exactly,
since it was given to me by word-of-mouth. I still recommend getting the IPT’s opinion. If there’s no
other way to aerosolize than using anti-foam, you may have to do so, but I would hesitate to do it
unless absolutely necessary.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
True but when I nebulize a 10E9 conc. the foaming happens. Do you not
nebulize that high of a conc.? Also even at lower dilutions my AGI
enumerations are approx. 1 log lower than what I expect. Thus I appears
that even al low conc. they foam out of suspension and I’ll have to add some
type of defoaming agent.

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:32 AM
To: ‘
Cc: ‘bruce.ivins@det.amedd.army.mil’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
: I believe we are resolving our questions regarding the foaming and
we won’t be vortexing anymore. Bruce has helped us out immensely (see
below). Could you please provide information regarding the anti-foam
formulation that your staff uses – if any – for these high concentration
anthrax aerosols.
Thanks

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:22 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Spores and Foaming
—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:20 AM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
We usually spray at a concentration of 3 X 10^9 per ml. That gives us an
aerosol inhaled dose of about 100- 200 LD50s in a 10-minute spray. You can
try a test run with some Tween 80 and see if that helps. I seem to recall
they used some concentration between 0.01% and 1%, but I don’t remember
exactly, since it was given to me by word-of-mouth. I still recommend
getting the IPT’s opinion. If there’s no other way to aerosolize than using
anti-foam, you may have to do so, but I would hesitate to do it unless
absolutely necessary.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
True but when I nebulize a 10E9 conc. the foaming happens. Do you not
nebulize that high of a conc.? Also even at lower dilutions my AGI
enumerations are approx. 1 log lower than what I expect. Thus I appears
that even al low conc. they foam out of suspension and I’ll have to add some
type of defoaming agent.

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:57 AM
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
We need to look at your spray factor and adjust accordingly – we do NOT want to change anything
from what we do here – I know Bruce is being helpful – BUT——
Can I see the numbers and starting conc. etc.????
Thanks,

–

From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:02 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
True but when I nebulize a 10E9 conc. the foaming happens. Do you not
nebulize that high of a conc.? Also even at lower dilutions my AGI
enumerations are approx. 1 log lower than what I expect. Thus I appears
that even al low conc. they foam out of suspension and I’ll have to add some
type of defoaming agent.

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: Spores
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 1:49:25 PM
Attachments:
Hi,
I reworded the Statement of Work for the anthrax spores according to what you said. I’ve
enclosed the file here. Please let me know if this looks OK. When it meets your OK, I’ll send it over to
Thanks, and see you in Annapolis!!
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spray factor data
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:54:43 PM
– Does this mean that you and perhaps others (me? ? etc.?)are headed to Battelle to work on
the spore/aersol/foaming/clean or dirty glassware problem? Let us know!
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:08 PM
To:
Cc: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spray factor data
Enclosed is a representative sample of what I typically see. Are these
spray factors more in line with what you see or are they still not as
efficient? Some time during the conference can you, myself and
get together to discuss this? Also, thought it might be worth
while if after the conference on Wed. or the IPT on Friday if it might be
possible for me to come to USAMRIID and see if your spores look similar
(they should) and react the same why after making a 10E9 suspension and
vortexing and a 10E9 suspension then nebulizing to see if the foaming
occurs. Assuming you have the time and it is allowable. As you saw from
the spay factor calc. you determined, I can not achieve the targeted aerosol
conc. to reach 100-200 LD50s for the BioPort study.

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:23 AM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spray factor data
Attached to spread sheet is my recalculated spray factors – the way we
calculate etc.
By my calculations – an aerosol concentration of around 5 X 10(6) cfu/l is
needed for the animals to get around 150 LD50s
Your spray factors are in the low range compared to ours – we usually get
better efficiency
Are you going to repeat this???

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 4:24 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Spray factor data
Here is the spray factor information that you have been waiting for.
Limited reps. because we had the foaming problem. It looks like I would
have to start with a neb. conc. of approx. 2.9 X10E9 to hit 100-200 LD50s.
Do you usually a larger drop in AGI conc. from the initial neb. 10E9
concentration as compared to the lower dilutions?

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: Animal protocol
Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:22:59 PM
Attachments:
Here is an animal protocol for submission to the LACUC.
Thanks!
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: – Stability Indicating Assay sub-team
Date: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:06:45 AM
Hi,
telephone number and email address are:
I think that you will find him a very competent and knowledgeable individual, with a
great deal of personal experience with respect to fermentation, production of antigen, adsorption onto
Alhydrogel, analysis of antigen product, and desorption from Alhydrogel.
Sincerely,
Bruce Ivins

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:52 AM
To: ‘Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL’
Subject: – Stability Indicating Assay sub-team
Dear Bruce,
I am wondering if you could provide me with telephone number and his
E:mail address so that I can contact him. I do not have USAMRIID directory
with me.
Regards,

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:21:39 PM
Sure, When would you like the material? How many doses of each? Should I drive it down to
you, or is there someone here that can get it to you?
Regards,
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The monkeys are arriving for the anthrax study. Any chance I can get the
vaccines (both the new and the old) from you to start the immunizations?

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
I forgot to add that I wasn’t sure of the final approved groups for
vaccination, and if some of the groups received reduced levels of PA.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:32 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The ACUC has approved our anthrax vaccine study in rhesus macaques. We
should be getting the animals in within a month. We have approval to test
the effect of our CpG ODN on both the old and new vaccines, if you can
provide them for immunization.
Hooray.

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:58 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Hi,
I’ll be happy to provide you with the information. The current,
FDA-approved human anthrax vaccine consists of supernatant material,
primarily anthrax protective antigen (in undetermined and varying amounts),
from fermentor cultures of a toxinogenic, non-encapsulated strain of B.
anthracis, V770-NP1-R. Each 0.5-ml dose of the vaccine delivers about 0.725
mg of metallic aluminum (from the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant), protective
antigen in the range of about 0.5 to 20 micrograms, and other material such
as lethal factor, some edema factor (in certain lots but not others) and
other cellular material. The proposed new vaccine will contain less aluminum
(0.5 mg/dose), no lethal factor, no edema factor, and no other B. anthracis
material other than a specified and constant, defined amount of protective
antigen. We are tentatively targeting 50 micrograms as that amount. Use of
the proposed new vaccine in rabbits and rhesus macaques has demonstrated
efficacy against challenge, but has not demonstrated any observable
morbidity, mortality, or local or systemic reactogenicity. (Formal toxicity
studies are scheduled, but have not been conducted yet.) Thus, there is good
evidence of protection, but no evidence of adverse reactions associated with
the product. I should point out that the original vaccine contains
formaldehyde, which may contribute to some of the reactogenicity seen in
humans with the current vaccine. The vaccine you will be testing will not
contain formaldehyde. We have not yet published our findings with respect to
toxicity/reactogenicity of the new vaccine. Unfortunately, the studies
describing efficacy of the new vaccine are in abstract form, but have yet to
be put into a formal publication. I would suggest the following references
are pertinent to the concerns of your ACUC:
1. Comparative efficacy of experimental anthrax vaccine candidates
against inhalation anthrax in rhesus macaques. B. E. Ivins, M. L. M. Pitt,
P. F. Fellows, et al. 1998. Vaccine 16:1141-1148.
2. Comparative efficacy of a recombinant protective antigen vaccine
against inhalation anthrax in guinea pigs, rabbits, and rhesus monkeys. M.
L. M. Pitt, B. Ivins, J. E. Estep, et al. 1996 Abstracts of the Annual
Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. E-70, p. 278.
3. Comparison of the efficacy of purified protective antigen and
MDPH to protect non-human primates from inhalation anthrax. M. L. M. Pitt,
B. E. Ivins, J. Farchaus and A. M. Friedlander. 1996. Salisbury Medical
Bulletin Special Supplement, # 87, p. 130.
I hope this has been helpful.
– Best regards,
– Bruce
—–Original Message—–

From:
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:54 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
Hope all is well.
Our protocol was reviewed this morning by the ACUC. They’ve tentatively
approve it, with the caveat that I need to provide more background on the
safety of the vaccine immunogen. Specifically, they want to know about the
PA-based vaccine as well as the original vaccine (which I hope to include as
a positive control). What can you tell me about the safety of these agents?
Can you provide some background on how they are manufactured, how pure they
are, and what other studies have been done that support going into monkeys?
All the best,
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:26 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Yes, I can get you both the current vaccine and the new candidate
vaccine. Please email the protocol when it is in final form. Also, please
let me know what you’ll need, when you’ll need it, and how much you’ll need.
Also, We were going to do ELISAs and TNA assays. The mouse passive
protection may be a bit dicey as far as getting conclusive results, since
mice aren’t a very good model for anthrax and specific protection against
anthrax. Good luck on the protocol.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:29 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
I submitted the ACUC protocol this morning. Wish us luck. Do you have
access to both the PA vaccine and the old approved vaccine? I’m wondering
whether it would make more sense to study 5 monkeys/group, and immunize
different animals with one or the other type of vaccine +/- CpG ODN. Since
you’re transferring the serum to mice, and can study a large number of mice
per donor monkey, this may allow us to precisely characterize which vaccine
is better, and whether CpG’s work.
What do you think?
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:18 PM
To:
Subject: Suggestions for study
Hi,
I’m including a Word document with suggestions for the CpG/monkey
study. Please feel free to modify it as much as you wish. If you have any
questions, please ask them, either by email or phone.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:44:16 PM
,
We usually make up the vaccine for use no more than about 2-3 days ahead of schedule,
although we’ve not done the stability studies to see whether we can go longer or not. (My guess is that
we could. I just don’t.) Rather than ship it, I would rather carry it down to you on gel ice in person.
That way, nothing could happen en route with the third-party shipper/handler. I could get it down to
you the first part of next week if needed, or later if desired. I’ll get you extra amounts of each vaccine.
It’s no problem to make the vaccine, and it will only take a couple of hours to drive down, give it to
you, and come back. I’m quite excited about the experiments.
– Bruce

From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:37 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
I believe the protocol calls for a prime/boost, just as planned for use in
humans. We will have 10 animals/arm, and thus need 20 doses each of the new
vaccine and the old vaccine. As I recall, they are already in alum, ready
for administration. We’ll just add our ODN and go. Naturally, we need a
bit extra since there’s some wastage.
In terms of timing, that depends on how stable the vaccine is. I assume its
made up in advance and stored in the fridge? If so, we could accept it
immediately, and start the injections as soon as we can get on the animal
handler’s schedule. If it’s perishable, we’ll have to plan 5the timing and
then let you know. In terms of getting it here, can you ship it on ice?
Seems a shame to make you drive all the way down. If you or a colleague are
coming this way, we’d be happy to wait or a hand delivery.
Let me know, or perhaps we should chat by phone?
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:22 PM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Sure, When would you like the material? How many doses of each?
Should I drive it down to you, or is there someone here that can get it to
you?
Regards,
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The monkeys are arriving for the anthrax study. Any chance I can get the
vaccines (both the new and the old) from you to start the immunizations?
—–Original Message—–

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
I forgot to add that I wasn’t sure of the final approved groups for
vaccination, and if some of the groups received reduced levels of PA.
– Bruce
—–Original Message—–

From:
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:32 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Suggestions for study
Dear Bruce,
The ACUC has approved our anthrax vaccine study in rhesus macaques. We
should be getting the animals in within a month. We have approval to test
the effect of our CpG ODN on both the old and new vaccines, if you can
provide them for immunization.
Hooray.

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: Thanks again!
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:17:29 AM
I just wanted to tell you once again how much we appreciate all your efforts on the 4th
International Conference on Anthrax. We enjoyed working with you both immensely. The comments that
we heard from many other attendees point to the meeting having been a great success, in large part
due to you. You are both very competent and very personable, and you are a credit to the ASM. Take
care, and many thanks again!
Sincerely,
Bruce Ivins
Research Microbiologist
USAMRIID Bacteriology Division

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:16:15 PM
,
I am sending you on Monday, 3 15-ml polypropylene tubes of Ames spores, each of which
contains about 10-11 ml of spores at 3.9 X 10^10 per ml. Here are suggestions as to how to handle
them to minimize foaming. This is how we handle them, by the way.
1) To resuspend the spores, don’t shake or vortex the tube. Instead, GENTLY tip the tube back
and forth until the spores are suspended. If spores are in a bottle or flask, then you can GENTLY swirl
to resuspend the spores.
2) We dilute the spores 1:13 (1 ml spores into 12 ml Sterile water for injection) for spraying
rabbits. I would suggest taking spores not from the very top of the tube and adding them to water. To
mix the new suspension (about 1.3 X 10^9 per ml) gently tip or swirl the container.
3) Before spraying, gently tip or swirl the spore suspension before gently pouring into the collison.
If you have any questions, please call me at . If you are still having technical problems
with the spores you should get next Tuesday, please let me know. will come up the following
week (what day is best for you?) If you think my presence would be valuable, let me know, and I’ll also
come. Otherwise, it will just be her. (I don’t mind coming at all – I would just like my presence there to
serve a useful purpose, and not be just a warm body.)
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:26:09 PM
We shock the dilution that we are going to spray.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:20 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Thanks,
When you heat shock do you shock the stock or the dilution or both?

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:28:38 PM
OK,
Again, let and me know about whether or not she, or both of us need to come up the week
after next.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:22 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
Thanks! I’ll let you know what happens next week.
—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:26 PM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and Foaming
We shock the dilution that we are going to spray.
– Bruce

From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:01 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: Spores and counting
Dr. Ivins,
A question on how you enumerate. Our SOPs say a plate should contain from
25-250 spores per plate (we do 5 plates per dilution). Do you have criteria
for rejecting low or high numbers? Say I get a plate that has 12 colonies
and all remaining plates are within the 25-250 range. Do you reject that
plate and average the 4 remaining, use all 5 and average, reject all 5 and
re-enumerate with 5 more etc. I ask this, because it could potentially be a
GLP issue. I apologize if this is any SOP that you have sent but
I have not seen them yet.
–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
Date: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:08:24 PM
We don’t have a specific number. When we are counting AGI’s, after plating, we put the samples back
into the cold until the next day. We examine all of the plates. If one group is contaminated or out of
range, we will go back and redilute and replate from the AGI sample. We have had to do that only a
handful of times out of thousands of samples. We usually do AGIs at 3 per set, 10-4 and 10-5 dilutions
(3 plates for each dilution). If you are getting low counts, you might do 10-3 and 10-4 dilutions. If we
get at least 2 of 3 readable plates, we go ahead and count the set and average the counts.
– Bruce

—–Original Message—–
From: ]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:56 PM
To: ‘Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID’
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
How many have to be low or high before you reject the whole set?
—–Original Message—–
From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Bruce.Ivins@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:20 PM
To: ‘
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
We count 15 – 150 colonies per plate. Because of the large size of the
colonies, it’s next to impossible to accurately count over 150 colonies on a
single plate. I have told many times that 15 – 150 is a more
realistic value than 25 – 250 or 30 to 300. If one plate is over count,
under count, or contaminated, we take note of it and disregard it in the
count and averaging.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: FW: Spores
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:18:57 AM
Attachments:
Hi,
I’m sending this to you again. I just wanted to make sure you received it. When I hear from you
about it, I’ll send it forward here. I think if you send us material about every 2-4 weeks, that would be
good. That will give us the time to purify each batch. Hope you enjoyed Annapolis! I thought there
were some good talks there.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: ” Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:33:51 PM
,
The spores were sent to this morning by Federal Express. Please let me know when you
get them. Also, keep me posted on your tests with them, so, if we need to, we can plan a trip up there
for next week. Remember, avoid vortexing and vigorously shaking them. If it seems as if the spores I
sent you are clumped a bit at the top, then take the spores you need from about midway down into the
suspension after you resuspend them.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
Cc:
Subject: RE: Spores and counting
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:33:51 PM

The spores were sent to this morning by Federal Express. Please let me know when you
get them. Also, keep me posted on your tests with them, so, if we need to, we can plan a trip up there
for next week. Remember, avoid vortexing and vigorously shaking them. If it seems as if the spores I
sent you are clumped a bit at the top, then take the spores you need from about midway down into the
suspension after you resuspend them.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: FW: Spores and counting
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:39:40 PM
Hi, If Battelle still has trouble with the new spores I sent them this week, I think that there will be
a trip up there next week, with definitely, probably – he wants to see the facilities where
the rPA studies will be done – me maybe, and you if you’d like. I’ll let you know how things go.
– Bruce

From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
To:
Subject: FW: – Stability Indicating Assay sub-team
Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 4:14:22 PM
Could you please include on your list of individuals to receive information about
conference calls, IPT meetings, etc.? Thanks.
– Bruce Ivins
telephone number and email address are:

* DXer … observations on the FBI anthrax investigation

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case? Here, the (fictional) DIA team considers the role of the President and Vice-President in the early days of the FBI’s anthrax investigation …

“Then a curious thing happens. A second attack is made against the great country, this time with lethal anthrax powder mailed in envelopes.

“The very best police force in the land is assigned to track down the person or persons who prepared and mailed the lethal anthrax envelopes.

“But even before any evidence is obtained, the great leader announces the desired result – there may be some possible link to Saddam, he says; I wouldn’t put it past him. The great vice-leader also chimes in, saying that ‘Saddam had henchmen who were trained in the use and deployment of these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together.’

“I would ask you to note that these instantaneous, unsupported allegations are directed at Saddam; Osama, who sent the planes, is not mentioned.”

Click here to …  buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

in paperback or kindle

******

DXer … observations on the FBI anthrax investigation

******

these comments are extracted from DXer’s comment to the post … * DXer … Keith Olbermann, who has strongly questioned the FBI’s “Ivins did it all” conclusion about the 2001 anthrax attacks, needs to talk more with his frequent guest Jonathan Turley about Turley’s client Al-Timimi

access

• it once had been estimated that 1,000 were known to have access.  16 labs.  Perhaps a few more abroad where there no cooperation or where it had been obtained surreptitiously.  That was narrowed, depending on whose estimate you rely on, to 100-300.  At just a few labs rather than 16+.
• On this central issue of access, the US DOJ committed the most fundamental misdirection imaginable — with no mention at all of Building 1412 where the virulent Ames was often used and appears even to have been stored the first full year when it just sat unused in an unlocked refrigerator.
• They used the phrase “sole custody” as if it had practical meaning when applied to an unlocked refrigerator or a package left overnight on a desk for shipping — or that was available any time it was used from contamination.

*** see related post … * USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

genetics

• In terms of criminal attribution, the genetics … points away from the fellow who was the “go-to” guy for the strain because he would not want to use a weapon with his name on it.

forensic evidence

• we’ve not heard anything about the failure to associate Dr. Ivins with any copy machine that produced the forensic signature.  Hair, fiber, Tin Signature, Iron Signature, alibi… everything points away from Dr. Ivins, not toward him.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)

• Had there been compliance with FOIA by USAMRIID, EPA and the University of Michigan and Louisiana State University, an Ivins Theory could have been flushed down the toilet many months ago.

*** see related post … * a few of the critical pieces of information the FBI/DOJ are still hiding in apparent violation of FOIA requirements to disclose

Silicon signature

• When the DOJ gets around to triumphantly explaining that the Silicon Signature was due to a “microencapsulation process,” rather than post-production addition of an additive for the purpose of aiding floatability, will it constitute anything more than admitting to their unproductive obfuscation of the issue by their withholding of the AFIP data?

LMW COMMENT …

It seems clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the “Ivins did it” theory presented by the FBI simply does not hold water. So who really did commit the worst bio-terrorist attack in the history of the U.S.?

• Does the FBI have more evidence that it is not making public?
• Has the FBI in fact solved the case but is covering up the real perpetrators?
• Has the FBI simply failed, after its largest investigation in history, to solve the case?

******

* a just released U.S. government report casts serious doubt on the FBI’s assertion they have proven Dr. Ivins to be the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks, or even involved at all

click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“Lew Weinstein is a meticulous researcher and a determined storyteller.”

“This book will keep you up at night — reading, then worrying.”

“This scary scenario is as close to truth as fiction can come.”

******

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just issued a report on High Containment Laboratories which contains several devastating passages as to inventory controls at the Ft. Detrick USAMRIID lab before October 2001.

These portrayals of inattention and incompetence at Ft. Detrick cast serious doubts on the FBI’s contention that they have proven Dr. Bruce Ivins to be the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks, or even involved at all.

******

******

Extract #1  from the GAO report …

• It hardly seems necessary to point out that this frightening description applies not only to Dr. Ivins but also to all of the others at Ft. Detrick, and perhaps elsewhere, who had access to flask RMR-1029.

******

Extract #2 from the same page …

• It seems clear from this extract that the GAO does not support the FBI’s conclusion that Dr. Ivins has been proven to be the SOLE PERPETRATOR of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

******

a third extract is even more devastating to the FBI’s case …

******

So … the FBI has no science, no witnesses, and no physical evidence.

… where is the FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins?

… what is the FBI hiding?

… why?

*

Here are the complete pages from which the first two excerpts above are taken …

* perhaps the NAS needs to pursue its mandate more broadly than the FBI wishes

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

Dan Vergano writes in USA Today (8-3-09) …

• “The committee will only review and assess the scientific information,” said Alice Gast of Lehigh University, head of the review panel. “We will offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person or persons.”
• US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated … The first evidence listed against Ivins was the genetically unique RMR-1029 flask of Ames strain anthrax spores, created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID.
• “We thoroughly investigated every other person who could have had access to the flask, and we were able to rule out all but Dr. Ivins,” Taylor said.

read the entire article at … http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-03-anthrax-ivins_N.htm

LMW COMMENT …

The NAS, according to its contract with the FBI, is not permitted to render any view on the guilt or innocence of Dr. Bruce Ivins, who the FBI has charged (in a press conference, not a court of law) as the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

But since there is no physical evidence linking Dr. Ivins to the crime and no witnesses against Dr. Ivins, the FBI’s entire case therefore rests on their conclusion that the attack anthrax came from flask RMR-1029, and that no other individual who had access to the contents of that flask, besides Dr. Ivins, could have been the perpetrator.

It is the primary task of the NAS to determine the validity of that conclusion.

Here are some questions I think the NAS should consider at the most detailed level …

• How did the FBI determine that the attack anthrax had to come from flask RMR-1029, and was this a valid determination?
• Was the process of identifying specific markers from the attack anthrax and linking these markers to the RMR-1029 flask in Ivins’ possession a valid process?
• Was the science carried out in a manner that insured proper validation of the results?
• Was the science uniformly applied to all of the samples tested?
• Were all possible samples tested?
• How many people had access to the contents of flask RMR-1029 and who were they?
• How did the FBI determine who had access, was this a thorough and reliable process, and did any potential suspects remain off the list?
• Did the FBI systematically account for the use of all RMR-1029 anthrax in the hands of all those who had it legitimately in order to assure that none was stolen or lost or in some other way passed into the hands of persons not on the primary list?
• Were the inventory records and physical control procedures of all those who had legitimate access to RMR-1029 anthrax thoroughly checked and what did those checks reveal?
• How exactly did the FBI eliminate each of the potential suspects other than Ivins?

The NAS should also pursue the rather obvious hints in the first two days’ testimony, all of which by the way came from FBI scientists who worked on the anthrax case, that suggest the answers to the above questions will not support the FBI’s conclusion regarding Ivins’ culpability …

• we may have missed mutations
• test methods may not have been validated before the test was applied to the evidence
• there is a great likelihood of false positives and false negatives
• there may not be a clear and provable chain of custody
• samples may have been contaminated
• did anything change as data moved? (that is a fascinating question; is the implication that there was accidental change in data due to sloppy handling, or purposeful change in data for some more sinister purpose?)
• did intel needs override the protocols of science, thus invalidating any scientific conclusions based on hurriedly prepared, incomplete or otherwise inadequate protocols?
• Brady material in use of the science by the FBI should be sought (suggesting that there is evidence in the FBI’s science that either supports  Dr. Ivins’ innocence or damages the FBI’s case against him)

On a more general level …

• The NAS committee has already shown it recognizes the inextricable links between the science and the traditional investigative approaches; the committee needs to insist that it be allowed to explore those links thoroughly.
• The NAS has the authority to get whatever materials it needs to pursue its tasks; it needs to exercise that authority broadly.
• The NAS committee needs to resist being bullied by the FBI and needs to go in whatever directions their perceptive and inquiring minds point them

Dr. Bruce Ivins

******

As I have stated before, I suspect that complete answers from the NAS will demonstrate clearly that the FBI has not made its case against Dr. Ivins.

Which will then lead to the questions of “why the FBI failed” that I raise in my novel CASE CLOSED.

******

.

.

SEE RELATED POSTS …

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

* LMW: The end of the NAS trail, I suspect, will be that the FBI’s anthrax science was a mess that couldn’t convict Bruce Ivins or anyone else

* What does a novel have to do with the real anthrax case?

******

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

* Bruce Ivins’ emails … “we can’t make any assurances … that we have exactly what we’re supposed to have”

Dr. Bruce Ivins

“… we can’t make any assurances

… that we have exactly what we’re supposed to have”

******

documents received from DXer …

.

ref …  http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com/

******

******

* buy CASE CLOSED

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

WHY did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

WHO had the power to divert the FBI from the truth?

CASE CLOSED offers a fictional scenario that answers those questions

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon

.

******

USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029

two documents don’t match

******

I have now received new documents, from DXer, in addition to the previously redacted copy of the RMR-1029 records that I posted here (* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request) on June 26.

One of the new documents is an unredacted copy of the above, showing names and locations of where aliquots of RMR-1029 were shipped to.

The other document is the ORIGINAL working document of 1997 when there was still 1000ml in the flask and no aliquots had yet been removed.

Curiously this ORIGINAL document is DIFFERENT than the other document. It gives a different location. The new RMR-1029 document has been altered. But by whom?

The New York Times partially reported some of these details previously:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080907/znyt02/809070303
“Laboratory records obtained by The New York Times show that the anthrax supply labeled RMR-1029, which the F.B.I. linked to the attacks, was stored in 1997 not in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, in Building 1425, but in the adjacent Building 1412. Former colleagues said that its storage in both buildings at different times from 1997 to 2001 might mean that the bureau’s estimate of 100 people with physical access to it was two or three times too low.” NYT.

But this new document fills in new details. Apparently the document has been altered with white-out. If Bruce Ivins did this why would he not just score out the old location and hand-write in the new location? Why would he seek to obscure the original location?

The location of the flask was vital to the FBI’s case against Ivins. The FBI claim the flask was in cold room B3 during the time of the attacks. But was it?

NEW DOCUMENT … p 1 of 2

NEW DOCUMENT … p 2 of 2

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT … p 1 of 1

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … Here’s an excerpt from the CASE CLOSED story; the (fictional) DIA team reviews the connection between the anthrax attack and the subsequent invasion of Iraq …

“After the nationwide panic caused by the anthrax mailings settled down, pretty much nothing happens in the FBI’s anthrax investigation. The next we hear about anthrax is in February 2003, when Secretary of State Abner Grant goes to the United Nations and holds up a vial of something – it wasn’t actually anthrax – claiming that Saddam can deliver biological weapons of mass destruction to the eastern seaboard of the U.S. Of course, we learn later that Saddam had neither WMD nor any way to reach our shores. U.N. arms inspector Blix said something much like that a few days before we invaded Iraq.”

*** click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records,

from 1997 to 2003,

pursuant to a FOIA request

******

One of the CASE CLOSED bloggers asked for USAMRIID lab records regarding RMR-1029 anthrax, and received the following response …

Attached is the response to your FOIA request for USAMRIID lab records
of individuals accessing or otherwise using the anthrax research
flask(s) designated Reference Material Receipt Record “1029” (RMR-1029)
from 1996 to 2008.

Redactions are pursuant to the privacy concerns under 5 U.S.C. 552,
exemption (b)(6).

Please call upon me if I can be of any further assistance.

Respectfully,

jpp

John P Peterson
Chief, Freedom of Information/
Privacy Act Office
HQ, U.S. Army Medical Command
COMM: 210-221-7826

The USAMRIID RMR-1029 Inventory Documents, covering the period October 22, 1997 to November 18, 2003,  follow …