* Governmental lack of transparency relating to dangerous pathogens includes facts relating to the murder of 5 people in 2001

 

***

DXer writes in a recent post:

Newly disclosed CDC biolab failures ‘like a screenplay for a disaster movie’

Alison Young, USA TODAY 5:43 p.m. EDT June 2, 2016
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/02/newly-disclosed-cdc-lab-incidents-fuel-concerns-safety-transparency/84978860/

Comment:

USAMRIID turns out to be suffering the lack of transparency.  In a May 26, 2016 email I copied to Alison Young (USA Today) and Richard Ebright (quoted in the title of today’s article), I wrote:

“Sandra,

It’s been a couple of weeks I asked about these (b)(6) redactions.  Has there been time for a decision on whether the names can be unredacted given the public interest involved on the precise issue of inventory control of virulent anthracis Ames during the period leading up to the five murders in 2001?”

In an earlier May 13, 2016 email copied to Alison Young and Professor Ebright, I wrote:

“USAMRMC FOIA Officer:
Sandra Rogers

Sandra, Dr. Ivins told a superior that he would not have the Ames that he should have.
If there is someone who knows of a justification for the missing virulent Ames (see produced emails) used to kill 5 people in 2001, doesn’t the public have a right to know?
In balancing the interests, why would it be an unwarranted invasion of privacy? The disclosure, instead, is clearly warranted.

DOJ gives guidance:

“Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” …

In order to determine whether Exemption 6 protects against disclosure, an agency should engage in the following two lines of inquiry: first, determine whether the information at issue is contained in a personnel, medical, or “similar” file covered by Exemption 6; and, if so, determine whether disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” by balancing the privacy interest that would be compromised by disclosure against any public interest in the requested information.”

The emails at issue have been uploaded here.

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/dxer-says-adnan-el-shukrijumah-son-of-saudi-missionary-was-the-fall-2001-anthrax-mailer-and-fbi-is-withholding-relevant-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-44642

In case you cannot access the web link, the dates and times of the 3 emails are as follows:

(1) December 18, 2006, 9:06 a.m.
(2) December 17, 2006  7::39 a.m.
(3) December 18, 2006   9:14 a.m.

If you, John Peterson or anyone else would further briefing of the applicable precedent, let me know.

It seems an issue that warrants appeal and litigation if necessary given the public interest.”

* GAO: Who is responsible for withholding this notebook showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the lab the first week of October 2001?

******

NOTE from DXer: it was FBI and not USAMRIID

doing the withholding of these notebooks

******

Anonymous … Nice FBI tactic. Confiscate the only copy of the notebook – then ask someone what they were doing in the lab on the evenings of early October 2001, 8 years after the fact. Then claim that since they couldn’t provide an explanation from memory (without the help of a confiscated notebook) they must be guilty of capital murder. Case solved. People should go to jail for this.

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

* Three notebooks from the FBI have now been released on the FOIA website

UPDATE 

heads up – Notebook 4241 is a blockbuster

– recounting his work on the rabbits – first week of October

… the formaldehyde experiment

DXer … Go directly to Notebook 4241.  Recounts the work with the rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment the first week of October 2001.  GAO needs to get to the bottom of how this notebook came to be withheld and how there was no mention of rabbits in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.  There is a very serious issue raised by the withholding of this notebook that absolutely must be addressed.  The FBI’s stupid “Ivins Theory” was premised on its claim that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab.

******

******

 Three additional notebooks from the FBI have now been released on the FOIA website

 

 

Link: https://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/index.cfm?pageid=foia_reading_room.overview

******

* from Anonymous Scientist … documents are being withheld that are exculpatory to Dr. Bruce Ivins … the FBI has simply fabricated an important part of its case

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

research at Ft. Detrick

Anonymous Scientist writes …

This is but one example of documents being withheld that are exculpatory to Ivins. The breadth and depth of this is almost breathtaking, and belongs in the former Soviet Union – not America. It seems Detrick personnel are still under a gag order.

Read the below documents very carefully.

The FBI basically fabricated out of whole cloth that Bruce Ivins worked nights in suite B3 without adequate explanation.

The explanation is hidden in plain sight. His calendar REQUIRED him to enter B3 on the exact nights that the FBI characterized as “unauthorized”.

Read all of this very carefully and imagine you were one of the other 2 persons assigned to checking the animals on that study (there were 3 daily checks).

• Who are these other 2 persons and why have they not been allowed to come forward?
• Why is Bruce Ivins’ lab notebook where he recorded the health of the animals on these nights not been released?

Compare pages 8 and 9 of the affadivit for search warrant here:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/anthrax/SearchWarrant-08-431M-05.pdf

To pages 123 and 124 of http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847447.PDF

The first document ominously (almost with drum rolling) states on page 9:

“Beginning on September 28, Dr Ivins worked eight consecutive nights which consisted of the following times in Building 1425 with time spent in Suite B3″:

Friday September 28
Saturday September 29
Sunday September 30
Monday October 1
Tuesday October 2
Wednesday October 3
Thursday October 4
Friday October 5

After October 5, Dr Ivins did not enter Suite B3 in the evening again until October 9, for 15 minutes, and then October 14, for 1 hour and 26 minutes.

But then look at his calendar on pages 123 and 124 at http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847447.PDF !!!

That’s precisely what his calendar called on him to do – work these very eight consecutive nights checking on the animals. Good statistics need to be obtained to see exactly when animals died in order to properly analyze the effectiveness of vaccines – hence he did it at the same time every evening.

The affidavit is therefore deliberately misleading and does not mention that his work schedule was followed to the letter.

******

* from anonymous scientist … Dr. Ivins’ plate counts showed why the Daschle powder made headlines

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

from anonymous scientist …

Dr. Ivins’ plate counts showed

why the Daschle powder made headlines

******

From Anonymous Scientist …

• The FBI’s posted FOIA documents give a fascinating insight into why the alarm bells went off inside the Beltway when the extraordinary properties of the Daschle anthrax powder were discovered. Now, for the first time, we are actually able to see the data behind these properties.
• The conclusion is that it is beyond the realms of possibility that Ivins could have created a powder that exhibted these numerical parameters all on his own, covertly, having never made a dry powder before in his life. Numbers cannot be argued with (which is why the FBI don’t reveal the % silicon they found in the Daschle, New York Post or Brokaw powders. Thus far they have only admitted to finding an enormous 1.45% silicon in the Leahy powder).
• After Bruce Ivins showed that the Daschle powder dispersed into single spores upon plating (>10^12 colony forming units per gram), that was alarming enough. But then the government quickly gathered a collection of dry spore simulants they had availiable in house. These dry spore simulants are ALWAYS weaponized with silica – that’s standard procedure.
• When Bruce Ivins plated these, the alarm bells really went off – the Daschle powder dispersed into single spores at least 2 orders of magnitude more effectively than the weaponized simulants – in most cases much more than 2 orders of magnitude more.
• And we are supposed to believe he made a product orders of magnitude more effective than the simulants all on his own covertly when he had never made a weaponized dry powder preparation before in his life?
• The numbers don’t lie – and the science doesn’t lie if you understand it.

It’s all documented in page 121- 130 … at http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847545.PDF

Analysis of samples from REDACTED …  Date analyzed – 24 October, 2001 … Date of report – 25 Ocxtober, 2001

Samples:

1. VIII-B  21 June 95 – Dried BT powder – 0.01322g

2. VII-B   Spray drier BT – 0.01722g

3.  I-B   Dried Powder – 0.00470g

4.  IX-B   Spray dried BT – 0.01118g

5.   VI-B   Dried powder from fermentor run – 0.00659g

6.  V-B    21 June 95 – Dried powder from spray drier – 0.00639g

7.   IV-B   Bentonite feed stock – 0.00865g

I received the REDACTED samples (in small cryotubes in a ziplock bag) from REDACTED on the afternoon of 24 October, 2001. The tubes were weighed and estimated to contain  about REDACTED of material each. To each tube REDACTED of sterile water for injenction was added to the material. After thorough mixing, the material was added to a second tube. The original tube was disinfected with bleach, dried and weighed. The net weight of the granular material was then determined and listed above. Ten fold dilutions of the suspensions were plated out onto TSA, then incubated overnight. Plate counts were made and the following concentrations were determined for the material.

Samples:

1. VIII-B  21 June 95 – Dried BT powder … 1.1×10^9 cfu per gram

2. VII-B   Spray drier BT … 2.2×10^10 cfu per gram

3.  I-B   Dried Powder … 1.0×10^7 cfu per gram

4.  IX-B   Spray dried BT … 9.5×10^9 cfu per gram

5.   VI-B   Dried powder from fermentor run … 1.3×10^10 cfu per gram

6.  V-B    21 June 95 – Dried powder from spray drier … 5.0×10^9 cfu per gram

7.   IV-B   Bentonite feed stock – 0.00865g … no growth seen (<1.2×10^5 cfu per gram)

Visual inspection of suspensions of the material under phase contrast microscopy demonstrated very poor preparations of spores. The preparations were all highly granular and did not easily go into suspension.

Interpretations and conclusions:

If these are preparations of bacterial spores they are all very poor preparations. The CFU per gram are very low. This preparation is less pure than the SPS02.88.01 preparation [Daschle powder] preparation examined on October 23, 2001 which had a count of 1.3X10^11 CFU per gram. This preparation is much less pure than the SPS02.57.03 [Daschle powder] preparation examined on October 17, 2001, which had a count of 2.1×10^12 per gram.

******