Thoughts
and Comments
by Ed Lake
Updates
& Changes: Sunday, February 7,
2010, thru Saturday, February 13, 2010
February 8, 2010 - Someone just
brought to my attention an article by Professor Peter Setlow who
teaches Molecular, Microbial and Structural Biology at the University
of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, CT. The article is on
The American Society for Microbiology's web site, and it's about "Silicate
in Bacterial Spores." It's a review of the Japanese
study which showed that silica accumulates in spore coats to
counter the effects of acid in an animal's stomach. Professor
Setlow suggests an additional
explanation:
Indeed, whereas the spores’
silicate plays no role in spore resistance
to heat, hydrogen peroxide, UV radiation or NaOH, it significantly
increases spore resistance to killing by 0.1-0.4 N mineral acids. This
increased acid resistance might be particularly important in spores of
pathogens such as B. cereus and B. anthracis that
may pass through an acidic mammalian digestive tract. On the other
hand, this would not be important in the alkaline digestive tract of
the insect forms for which B. thuringiensis is pathogenic.
Therefore, it seems likely that
the spores’ silicate layer may serve an
additional function. Since silicate accumulation in other organisms can
impart structural rigidity,
perhaps silicate plays such a role for
spores as well. This leaves us with yet more interesting
questions to
address to these spores.
Either or both
explanations could be valid. They're certainly far more
reasonable than any "weaponization" theory.
February
7, 2010 - Hmm. Again I was
thinking of writing just one word as my comment for today: Waiting.
But, yesterday, "Anonymous Scientist" changed my mind. He
thoughtfully wrote a comment for
me and posted it on Lew
Weinstein's web site:
To save Ed some time this
week-end
I have thoughtfully penned his Sunday comment in this handy
cut-and-paste:
February 7, 2010 – So, we’re
at
“the end of the first week of
February” and the Amerithrax case has not yet been officially closed.
While I haven’t heard anything at all from any of my anonymous sources,
I have to assume that the official closing of the Amerithrax
investigation, which I said was planned for “the end of January or at
the very latest the end of the first week of February,” was delayed by
the sudden scheduling of the Winter Olympics next week.
The President wouldn’t want
the
impact of the Winter Olympics to be
diluted or sidetracked by some unrelated announcement from the DOJ, a
department in his Executive Branch of the government. After all, the
Winter Olympics isn’t just a game. It’s a worldwide event, an
announcement of togetherness, a call to action. It’s followed by
meetings with members of congress, by discussions pundits on the
weekend talk shows and by reviews and comments in the Sunday editions
and in national magazines like Time and Newsweek, which go to press on
the weekend for delivery on Monday. Closing the Amerithrax case in the
middle of all that would be unthinkable. The idea is to get as many
people as possible focused on helping to advance and improve the art of
downhill ski-ing. Discussions of other matters don’t help.
But I do know one thing. The
slight
delay to proving that Bruce
Ivins acted alone in creating the engineered powder sent to Congress,
and the 99% certainty that he coerced a young 6 year old boy from his
wife’s day-care center into writing the envelopes, had NOTHING to do
with the true believer junk science nonsense written by the conspiracy
theorist Ed Epstein in the Wall Street Journal. After all, the FBI lab
director responded to this on the official FBI website – and we all
know that FBI lab directors always respond to junk science preposterous
nonsense written by conspiracy theorists and true believers on the
internet. If what was written by Epstein wasn’t junk science nonsense
the FBI would have completely ignored the junk science nonsense posted
by the conspiracy theorist Epstein.
I’m keeping my ear to the
ground,
with my fingers crossed while I
wait for something to happen – hopefully very soon. My anonymous source
may email me any day now with a new date for closing the case which I
suspect will contain a full confession from Dr Ivins that has been
suppressed by the FBI for the last 2 years.
Actually, I have no solid
information about what is
delaying the closing of the case. But I don't think it has
anything to do with the Olympics.
And, I have some thoughts about the junk science used by "Anonymous
Scientist" and others like him. It's a subject I've mentioned
before, but
I might as well mention it again, since the conspiracy theorists
continue to totally ignore it even though it's the most significant
thing we've learned about the attack anthrax spores in the past eight
years.
Only
some of the attack spores contained silicon
in their spore coats.
124
spores from the Leahy letter were analyzed and only 97 spores (76%)
contained silicon.
111 spores from the
Daschle
letter were analyzed and only 73
spores (66%)
contained silicon.
141 spores from the NY
Post
letter were analyzed and only 91
spores (65%)
contained silicon.
Some other samples contained silicon in their spore coats,
too. And some did not.
304
spores from three flask
RMR-1029 samples were analyzed and no
spores (0%) contained silicon.
113 spores from one flask RMR-1030
sample were analyzed and only 7 spores (6%) contained silicon.
172 spores from one Dugway
sample were analyzed and only 50 spores (29%) contained silicon.
In addition, Sandia Labs did some tests on what the FBI described
only
as "evidence" spores:
1,051
"evidence" spores were analyzed and only 197 spores (18.7%) contained silicon.
982 "evidence" spores were
analyzed and only 88 spores (8.8%)
contained silicon.
986 "evidence"
spores were
analyzed and only 40 spores (4.4%)
contained silicon.
476 "evidence" spores were
analyzed and only 7 spores (1.5%)
contained silicon.
989 "evidence" spores were
analyzed and only 12 spores (1.2%)
contained silicon.
NEVER
100%! The goal of any military "weaponization" process using
silica would be
to affect 100% of the
spores. Any process where Silicon is deliberately added would presumably
also want 100% of the
spores to be affected.
Another key fact: An Ames
strain spore from the attack anthrax that contains silicon in the spore
coat cannot be
distinguished from an Ames strain spore containing silicon in flask
RMR-1030, which we know that Dr. Ivins created.
Therefore, if a spore
in the
attack
anthrax is to be considered "weaponized" because it contains silicon in
its spore coat, then all the spores that Dr. Ivins created in flask
RMR-1030 which contained silicon in their spore coats must also be considered
"weaponized." And Dr. Ivins
"weaponized" them. The
only difference would be that the attack spores were dried and the
RMR-1030 spores were still suspended in a liquid. But drying is
NOT a complex or secret process. Wet spores will dry out all by
themselves if placed in a dry area. Any microbiologist would know
that.
In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins swabbed down more than 20 areas in
his lab which he claimed were contaminated by a sloppy lab
technician. Did he really do it to remove any trace of evidence
of his
crime? Or did he do it because he knew that spilled spores would
dry out and might aerosolize? Both
explanations would be incriminating.
In recent months we've also learned more about the "naturally
occurring" silicon found in many spores, which the conspriracy
theorists dispute. We learned why Bacillus bacteria incorporate
silicon into their spore coats. It's a result of evolution, giving the spores protection against the acids
that would be found in an animal's stomach.
We also learned from work
done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories that simply using
a growth medium that contains silicon (or deliberately adding silicon
to a growth medium) does not by
itself determine what percentage
of the spores will form with silicon in their spore coats.
In other words, putting more silicon in the growth medium does not automatically produce a higher
percentage of spores containing silicon.
So, there's really only one unanswered question. The question is
unimportant to the Amerithrax investigation, since the answer tells us
nothing about the culprit. But it would answer all remaining
microbiology questions about the silicon found in the attack
spores. The question is: What causes Bacterium
A in a batch to incorporate silicon into the spore coat it is creating
while Bacterium B in the same batch does not
incorporate silicon into its spore coat? Scientists at Dugway
working on the Amerithrax investigation produced spores with silicon in
their spore coats just like those in
the attack anthrax, but not
the same percentage.
29% of the spores created at Dugway contained silicon just
like the attack spores, but 29% is less than half the
percentage of spores in the attack powders that contained silicon.
The work done in Japan which answered the question of why Bacillus bacteria utilize
silicon also seems to suggest that the temperature
at a specific point in the spore forming process might be one factor
which determines how many
bacteria utilize
silicon, but there seem to be other factors, too.
The answer cannot have anything to do with "weaponization" since the
silicon in the spore coat has no "weaponization" benefit toward
aerosolization. It seems
to have something to do with not following standard lab
procedures. And someone producing anthrax spores in secret
cannot be expected to follow standard lab procedures.
So, why did the
FBI respond to "the
true believer junk science nonsense written by the conspiracy
theorist Ed Epstein in the Wall Street Journal?" That's easy
to answer. It was
nonsense printed in The Wall Street Journal
and repeated by others who were foolish enough to believe what Dr.
Epstein wrote. It wasn't
just routine conspiracy theory nonsense on the Internet. Dr. Hassell didn't respond to the nonsense
point by point because
that would get into the findings of the Amerithrax investigation, which
is still officially open and the evidence is therefore still mostly
confidential. Instead, Dr. Hassell merely pointed out that the
FBI
scientists did not work on the scientific aspects of the case all by
themselves. The FBI scientists worked in "consultation with
numerous
subject matter experts in technical panels," and they worked in
"collaboration with partner laboratories in government, academia and
the private sector throughout the course of the investigation."
Furthermore, the science that was utilized in the Amerithrax
investigation is being thoroughly reviewed by the National Acadamies of
Science to
verify that it was solid, reliable
and accepted science.
Therefore, when conspiracy theorists attack the science used in the
Amerithrax case, they are also attacking everyone in the partner
laboratories in the government, in the laboratories run
by academia and the laboratories run by the private sector who assisted
in the scientific investigation. The conspiracy theorists
are saying that all of the hundreds of non-FBI scientists who worked on
the
case must either be incompetent or part of some vast conspiracy because
their findings do not support what the conspiracy theorists
believe as a
result of their own junk science
fantasies.
|
Updates
& Changes: Sunday, January 31,
2010, thru Saturday, February 6, 2010
February 1, 2010 (B) - I just received a copyrights-related
threat regarding the information about the Hatfill v
Ashcroft deposition material that I posted yesterday. The demand
(which is not
from Lew Weinstein)
is
that I remove the detailed information. I've done so. The
link to the
exact same material on Lew Weinstein's web site remains
intact. I looked
through some of the deposition material, and I couldn't find anything
that is any
longer of any significance, anyway.
February 1, 2010 (A) - In this
morning's
Wall Street Journal, Dr. Chris Hassell from FBI's labs in Quantico, VA,
responds to Edward Jay Epstein's opinion piece with a brief letter to
the editor titled "Anthrax
Case: FBI Used Good Science." Here's the letter in its
entirety:
Regarding Edward Jay
Epstein's "The
Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved"
(op-ed, Jan. 25): From the outset, the FBI's scientific work in the
anthrax case has had a foundation in validation and verification of its
approach and conclusions. This process began within weeks of the
initial events of 2001 and has included: consultation with numerous
subject matter experts in technical panels; collaboration with partner
laboratories in government, academia and the private sector throughout
the course of the investigation; ongoing efforts to publish our work
and that of our partner labs in peer-reviewed technical journals;
analytical data and reports provided to the National Academy of
Sciences, so it can evaluate the scientific analysis applied to the
evidence in the anthrax investigation.
The FBI is confident in the
scientific
findings that were reached in this investigation. We utilized
established biological and chemical analysis techniques and applied
them in an innovative manner to reach these findings.
D. Christian
Hassell, Ph.D.
Quantico, Va.
Unfortunately, facts
won't override any of the beliefs of the conspiracy theorists and True
Believers. But, if enough facts are made public, at least it will
make it more difficult for them to find followers.
January
31, 2010 - So, we're at "the end of
January" and the Amerithrax case has not yet been officially
closed. While I haven't heard
anything at all from any
sources, I have to assume that the official closing of the
Amerithrax investigation, which I said was planned for "the end of January,"
was delayed by the sudden scheduling of the President's State of the
Union
address for Wednesday in the last week of January.
The President wouldn't want the impact of his State of the Union
address to be diluted or sidetracked by some unrelated announcement
from the DOJ, a department in his Executive Branch of the
government. After all, the State of the Union Address
isn't just a speech. It's a plan, an announcement of goals, a
call to action. It's followed by meetings
with members of congress, by discussions pundits on the weekend talk
shows and
by reviews and comments in the Sunday editions and in national
magazines like Time
and Newsweek, which go to press on the weekend for delivery on
Monday. Closing the Amerithrax case in the middle of all that
would be unthinkable. The idea is to get as many people as
possible focused on helping to advance and improve The State of The
Union. Discussions of other matters don't help.
I don't know if The National Geographic Channel had any inside
information when they rescheduled a rerun of "Hunting
the Anthrax Killer" from this the last weekend in January to next
weekend, the first weekend in February, but there
are certainly a lot of "vibes" indicating that could be the
case.
I'm keeping my ear to the ground, with my fingers crossed while I wait
for something to happen - hopefully very soon.
|
Updates
& Changes: Sunday, January 24,
2010, thru Saturday, January 30, 2010
January 30, 2010 (C) (UPDATED January 31 & February 1)
- Lew
Weinstein's web site contains links to 12 volumes of
deposition materials
from the Hatfill v Ashcroft civil lawsuit. It's going to take
time to find out if there's anything of significance or importance in
them.
January 30, 2010 (B) - According to BusinessWeek,
there have now been 10 deaths from anthrax contaminated heroin in
Europe. The article doesn't give
any details about the two additional cases that weren't in
previous reports except to suggest that one was a case in Scotland
which occurred before the first correctly
diagnosed
case. So, they could both be old cases which were
previously
mis-diagnosed.
January 30, 2010 (A) - Another
opinion about the Amerithrax case appeared in The
Washington Examiner's blog today. It's from the Examiner's
"senior
political analyst" Michael Barone, and it's another rehash of the
Edward Jay Epstein WSJ opinion piece, except that Barone suggests that
it
could mean that he's been right all along:
It seemed to me in
September 2001 and it seems to me today, eight years
and four months later, that there is a high likelihood that a state
actor was behind the anthrax attacks.
As I stated a few days
ago, nothing spreads faster than incorrect
information - particularly if it
confirms some belief.
January 28, 2010 - I don't know why
we're suddenly getting this new flood of conspiracy theory material
arguing that Dr. Ivins' was innocent and that the anthrax attack spores
were "weaponized" in some secret way that only a government -run
bioweapons program could accomplish. This morning I was advised
that a new feature documentary called "The Killer Strain" is currently
in production. It's supposedly based upon Marilyn Thompson's book
from 2003. There's a YouTube video
about it. It seems to be nothing but opinions from friends and
conspiracy theorists who believe Ivins was innocent because he was
incapable of making such a supersophisticated weapon. And it
seems clear that no amount of proof that the spores were NOT "weaponized" in any military
way will change their minds.
More examples of the blind leading the blind can be found HERE
and HERE.
January 27, 2010 - The opinion piece
by Edward Jay Epstein in the Wall Street Journal seems to be catching
on in the blogs, first on Right Wing blogs then on others: PrisonPlanet.com,
antiwar.com,
FreeRepublic.com,
lewrockwell.com,
armchairgeneral.com
and even ProMedMail.org.
It was even on radio. You can listen to it on the
John Batchelor Show, where another badly misinformed expert, Henry
Miller
of the Hoover Institution, gives his
opinion. Nothing spreads faster than incorrect
information - particularly if it
confirms some belief.
January 25, 2010 - If you had any
illusions that junk science has been quelled by the real science of the
Amerithrax investigation, I suggest you read this morning's edition
of The Wall Street Journal. It contains an opinion piece by
Edward J. Epstein titled "The
Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved - The FBI disproved its main theory
about how the spores were weaponized." It repeats a lot of
the junk science used by conspiracy theorists, plus total inaccuracies
and various other nonsense to argue that the presence of silicon in the
attack spores proves that the attack spores were "weaponized" and Dr.
Ivins could not be the culprit. Example:
The FBI's six-year
investigation was the largest inquest in its
history, involving 9,000 interviews, 6,000 subpoenas, and the
examination of tens of thousands of photocopiers, typewriters,
computers and mailboxes. Yet it failed to find a shred of evidence that
identified the anthrax killer—or even
a witness to the mailings. With
the help of a task force of scientists, it found a flask of anthrax
that closely matched—through its genetic markers—the anthrax used in
the attack.
A witness to the
mailings? If you mail letters in the middle of the night, how
many witnesses can there be? And who in their right mind thinks
that witnesses are always right and always present?
Another example:
Eventually, the FBI zeroed
in on Ivins. Not only did he have access to
the anthrax, but FBI agents
suspected he had subtly misled them into
their Hatfill fiasco.
Whaaaa??!! Dr. Ivins
misled the FBI
into "their Hatfill fiasco"!!?? What evidence does Dr. Epstein
have of that? He doesn't say. Any examination of the facts would clearly
show who was to blame for that "fiasco."
More nonsense from the
opinion piece:
Silicon was used in the 1960s
to weaponize anthrax. Through an
elaborate process, anthrax spores were coated with the substance to
prevent them from clinging together so as to create a lethal aerosol.
But since weaponization was banned by international treaties, research
anthrax no longer contains silicon, and the flask at Fort
Detrick
contained none.
Yet the anthrax grown from it
had silicon, according to the U.S.
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This silicon explained why, when
the letters to Sens. Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax
vaporized into an aerosol. If so, then somehow silicon
was added to the
anthrax. But Ivins, no matter how weird he may have been, had
neither
the set of skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores.
At a minimum, such a
process would require highly specialized
equipment that did not exist in Ivins's lab—or, for that matter,
anywhere at the Fort Detrick facility.
The attack anthrax did NOT vaporize into an
aerosol. No one was injured by opening the Daschle letter, and
most of the spores inside the letter remained inside the letter. All of the Leahy
powder that hadn't sifted out was recovered. Click HERE to view a picture of the
Leahy powder. The Leahy letter may have been opened in a
biosafety cabinet, but that wouldn't prevent
"vaporization." Stephanie Dailey opened the AMI letter and
suffered no ill effects.
There was nothing special about the attack anthrax other than it was
dried in a way that allowed it to crumble easily. The repeated
claim that Dr. Ivins couldn't have created it is absolute junk science nonsense.
More nonsense from the
opinion piece:
Natural contamination was an
elegant theory that ran into problems
after Congressman Jerry Nadler pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller in
September 2008 to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a missing
piece of data: the precise percentage of silicon contained in the
anthrax used in the attacks.
The answer came seven months
later on April 17, 2009. According to
the FBI lab, 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. "This
is a shockingly high proportion," explained Stuart Jacobson, an expert
in small particle chemistry. "It is a number one would expect from the
deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable
accidental contamination."
Nevertheless, in an attempt
to back up
its theory, the FBI contracted
scientists at the Lawrence Livermore
National Labs in California to conduct experiments in which
anthrax is
accidently absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon. When the
results were revealed to the National Academy Of Science in September
2009, they effectively blew the
FBI's theory out of the water.
Dr. Jacobsen was also the
authority cited in the infamous
2003 Science magazine article.
The scientists at Lawrence Livermore did NOT
do their work as a
result of any request by the FBI. The work was funded by a Department of
Homeland Security program to study microbial forensics. The work that
was done was very limited in scope and proved very little regarding the
anthrax attacks.
The Livermore scientists had
tried 56
times to replicate the high silicon content without any success. Even
though they added increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media,
they never even came close to the 1.4% in the attack anthrax. Most
results were an order of magnitude lower, with some as low as .001%.
What these tests
inadvertently demonstrated is that the anthrax
spores could not have been accidently contaminated by the nutrients in
the media.
Just plain nonsense. The tests at
Lawrence Livermore demonstrated no such thing. They just
demonstrated that there were likely other
factors involved in getting
Bacillus
bacteria to take in silicon for incorporation into spore coats.
I could go on and on, but I'd have to quote nearly the entire article,
and The Wall Street Journal doesn't like me doing that.
Suffice to say: The Wall Street Journal opinion piece is the opinion of
a VERY misinformed person.
Most of what he wrote is just rephrasing of what he wrote on his
own blog. I commented on that a month ago, on December 22.
And to make matters worse, Right Wing organizations are picking up on
this nonsense and reporting it as news from The Wall
Street Journal. Click HERE
or HERE
or HERE.
Maybe it's time to quote from the Bible - Matthew 15:14:
“Let them alone. They are
blind leaders of the
blind. And if the blind
leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.“
January
24, 2010 - When the Amerithrax case
is officially closed and everyone gets the opportunity to read the
reports and supporting documentation that the FBI and DOJ will be
releasing to the
public, I wonder how many new books will be written about the
case. I might contact some agents and publishers to see if I can
get them
interested in a revised version of my book. (I definitely won't self-publish any kind of new
edition. It's just too expensive.)
At the moment, however, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what "approach" to
take when writing a new version. It would have to be my unique
perspective, a book that no one else could write. I doubt that
any publisher would want a history
of the anthrax attacks written by me. A half dozen newspaper
reporters will probably doing that sort of thing. Even if I could
do a better job, selling books is about marketing. It's simply easier
to sell a history book written by a respected, well-known reporter,
even if that reporter got virtually everything wrong for the past 8
years.
Besides, the best history books are those written by insiders.
There'll probably be a half dozen books written by people who were
actually part of the investigation.
The current edition of my book is essentially a "working
hypothesis." I laid out all the known facts as of December 2004
and analyzed them to see what the facts had to say about the
case.
The facts said that
Dr. Steven Hatfill was innocent.
The facts said that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks.
The facts said that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the
attacks.
The facts said that the attack spores were not coated with silica.
The facts said that the attack spores were not "weaponized" in any military
sense of the term.
The facts said the attack spores could have been created by a lone
knowledgeable individual.
The facts said the culprit was an American scientist.
The facts said the culprit was motivated by fears of Muslim terrorists
using biological weapons.
The facts said the the J-Lo letter was unrelated to the anthrax
attacks.
The facts said that Kathy Nguyen was killed by spores from the first
mailing, not the second.
The facts said things about the handwriting that haven't yet been
confirmed or disproved.
The facts also said that the media and
countless scientists were misled by simple human
errors made by scientists during the first days of the examination
of the attack spores. Those errors are still having an effect. We
have no way of knowing how many scientists read the incorrect
information printed in the media (including Science magazine) and never
read any of the reports which clearly showed that the initial
information was totally incorrect.
The bad information was reported for just a few weeks before it was
realized it was bad information. But no amount of solid good
information for the next eight years seems to have been able to wipe
out those first statements. First impressions are
definitely lasting impressions.
The facts also showed that aggresive conspiracy theorists and True
Believers can greatly complicate an investigation if the conspiracy theorists and/or
True Believers have credentials which impress people - particularly
people in the media. People in
the media tend to believe sources, not facts. But sources can
have
personal motives. Sources can have political agendas.
Sources
can be mistaken. Sources can lie. Facts do not lie.
But, facts can be misleading if you do not have all the facts.
For years the publicly
known
facts seemed to indicate that the anthrax mailer most likely
lived and worked in Central New Jersey. It was where the FBI's
Amerithrax investigation seemed to be focused. It didn't make
much sense
that a person would drive great distances to mail the letters, since he
might have to explain his absence from his home turf
during the time spent traveling. On the other hand, the "typical"
criminal doesn't commit crimes on his home turf. He wants to
throw suspicion elsewhere. Plus, there were unconfirmed reports that the copy
machine used to produce the letters was found in New Jersey. But,
unconfirmed reports
aren't facts.
And there was absolutely nothing
to suggest that the culprit was a diagnosed sociopath who made a practice of driving long
distances to mail letters and packages so they cannot be
traced back to their actual source. New facts can quickly turn
seemingly
unbelievable deeds into something very believable. In my book, I stated that
in Chapter 22 - "A Working Hypothesis" which ended with this:
All the pieces fit. But, I also know that I probably do not have all the relevant information. Some solid piece of evidence that I’ve
failed to find or properly
evaluate could easily change things. That’s what a “working hypothesis” is all about: to
present it for others to tear apart with new
facts which the hypothesis cannot explain.
But, after three
long years of fielding challenges, this working hypothesis has remained virtually
unchanged. Furthermore, the theories of the challengers have mostly proven to
be largely based upon bad science or no science at all.
Very little of my book is about who did
it - for good reason: I didn't know
who did it. Somewhere I think I stated that I had
no more than a 20% confidence level in who the known facts indicated most likely did it.
The problem was: No other potential suspect generated even a 1%
confidence level. Yes, I had read Dr. Ivins' name in various
papers, but he was just a name - like dozens of other names. I
had absolutely no evidence
pointing to Dr. Ivins.
Interestingly, that appears to have been the FBI's situation for a long
time, too. It was years
before the science of the case truly started to point to flask RMR-1029
and the man who controlled it.
I'm not the best person to write a biography of Dr. Ivins,
either. That's another kind of book best left to reporters and
historians. I don't really have any interest in writing that kind
of book.
The
biggest mistake I made with my current book was to call it " Analyzing
The Anthrax Attacks - The First 3
Years."
I should have omitted "The First 3 Years." It automatically dated
the book, even though almost nothing
changed between the time I published it in March of 2005 and Dr. Ivins'
death, over three years later.
My "unique perspective" seems to be primarily one of standing between
scientists
who had solid facts and scientists and others who had only beliefs and
theories. I doubt that there's another person on this planet
who's spent more time talking with scientists who argue only beliefs
and who totally ignore facts which do not support their beliefs.
The scientists on the other side - the ones with the solid facts - do
not seem to have the patience or interest to argue with scientists who
rely almost totally on beliefs based upon junk science.
Most of my current book could still be used if I revised it to be
primarily about
the battles between real scientists and junk scientists. I might
even call it: "Analyzing the
Anthrax Attacks - Real Science vs
Junk Science."
That's something I'll have to think about. A more marketable
title might be: "Analyzing the
Anthrax Attacks - Facts vs Beliefs." I wish I'd used that
title on the current edition! The first words in the current
Introduction are:
Arguing About Anthrax
This book didn’t come about in any of the normal ways. There was
no assignment from an editor. There was
no sudden inspiration. I had
no passion about any “cause”. There
wasn’t even a mission or goal –
unless wasting time can be considered a
“goal”.
It came about as the result of three
years of arguing.
To revise and update that, all I need to do is to change "three years"
to "eight years."
But first I want to see how the junk scientists react to the closing of
the Amerithrax investigation and to the releasing of all the new
information that was previously confidential and accessable only to the
FBI and DOJ, the information which will presumably confirm what the FBI
and
DOJ have previously stated: Dr. Bruce was the culprit and he acted
alone.
|
Updates
& Changes: Sunday, January 17,
2010, thru Saturday, January 23, 2010
January 24, 2010 (B) -
<{(%@#%$*&$^%^!!!! If it's not one thing it's
another! I just spent 3 hours
analyzing why I got 711 visitors yesterday, about 200 more than
normal. There's some kind of new spider called "80legs" which crawled
through my web site yesterday for 16
hours. Unlike Google, Cuil, Yahoo and all the other
search engines which send "spiders" through web sites in order to build
up their indexes,
80legs uses a different IP address
for every file it accesses on my site. So, instead of just
logging as one visit, as I'd
get from Google or Yahoo, my statistics show I got about
200 visits from all sorts of hosts
and countries! -- and they're all
seemingly from IP addresses which have never visited me before!
How can that not violate some Internet rule!!
&@#((#!@^*%%^&!!!!! Here's a sample of the
IP addresses and what they
mean:
12.187.135.130 - 12-187-135-130.att-inc.com
12.187.246.2 - 12-187-246-2.att-inc.com
24.7.33.102 - c-24-7-33-102.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
(California)
24.14.105.168 - c-24-14-105-168.hsd1.il.comcast.net
(Illinois)
24.34.82.62 - c-24-34-82-62.hsd1.ma.comcast.net
(Massachusetts)
24.42.203.135 - dynamic-24-42-203-135.knology.net
24.58.229.13 - cpe-24-58-229-13.twcny.res.rr.com
(New York State)
41.27.25.12 - vc-41-27-25-12.umts.vodacom.co.za
(South Africa!)
41.220.127.142 -41.220.127.142.accesskenya.com (Kenya)
58.6.92.60 - dsl-58-6-92-60.act.westnet.com.au
(Australia)
60.52.148.150 - 52.60.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my (Malaysia)
62.127.216.2 - 62-127-216-2.telenor.se (Sweden)
64.22.37.204 - dsl-64-22-37-204.bbr0.crpnny.cptelco.net
(New York State)
64.125.222.16 - 64.125.222.16.available.above.net
70.181.38.158 - ip70-181-38-158.ri.ri.cox.net
74.128.37.203 - 74-128-37-203.dhcp.insightbb.com
80.13.222.250 - LRouen-152-81-31-250.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr
(France)
94.23.18.153 - mirror.bitshit.org (France)
(bitshit.org???!!)
96.227.188.188 - pool-96-227-188-188.phlapa.fios.verizon.net
(Philadelphia)
149.150.237.60 -Seton Hall
University, 400 South Orange
Ave., South Orange, NJ
216.206.165.132- E.E. Bedding, Inc., Chelsea, MA
218.186.11.11 - cm11.omega11.maxonline.com.sg
(Singapore)
I'll have to wait and
see if this was just a one-time thing or if they're going to visit
that way frequently. Checking back on the past week, I find that
they've visited on other days, but only 2 to 4 accesses per day.
They provide an address for questions and
complaints. *%^##@%&&*%!!! I planned to
waste my time on other things today!
Ah! With help, and after spending another couple hours on it, I've
learned that 80legs contracts with the owners of all those IP addresses
to use the addresses and
their computers during idle hours. "80Legs
partner Plura Processing, which aggregates the cycles, pays affiliates
to sign
up users to volunteer their idle processing time in exchange for
services like
virtual gifts."
(*(*$%$#^#^%$)#@!!! The
world is getting too complicated!! Interesting,
though.
Groan! After spending another couple hours on the problem, with
the help of others I
learned that I can just block 80legs with a robots.txt file. And,
while I'm at it, I'll also block Google's
image search. From what I can tell, 99% of the visitors who
come to my site via Google's image search aren't really looking for
information about the anthrax attacks of 2001. They're just
looking at pictures. So, it may have been a productive day after
all.
January
23, 2010 (A) - I don't know if
it means anything, but the repeat showings of the National Geographic
program "Hunting
The Anthrax Killer" have been rescheduled for Saturday February 6.
January 19, 2010 - I don't know if
it would have any effect on closing the Amerithrax case "at the end of
January" or not, but President Obama's first State Of The Union Address
is now
scheduled for Wednesday, January 27.
January 18, 2010 (B) - According to one
report, the number of deaths in Scotland from anthrax contaminated
heroin is now seven, up one
from the last report. Plus there's just been a death from anthrax
contaminated heroin in Germany.
January 18, 2010 (A) - I know it's
probably just a coincidence, but someone just advised me that the
National Geographic Channel program "Hunting
The Anthrax Killer," which first aired on July 26, 2009, might
air again "at the end of January." One
source source says it will air three
times: on Saturday January 30, 2010 at
10:00 PM ET, on Sunday January 31, 2010 at 1:00 AM ET and on Monday
February 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM ET.
However, another
source just mentions the February 1 date. And a third source
doesn't currently show the program airing on any
of those dates. Could it be that they haven't yet had time to
change
everything on their web site?
January
17, 2010 - For awhile, I was very
tempted to
write just one word as my comment for today: "Waiting."
The past week started out very
quiet. I
had to wonder if everyone might be waiting to see if I was right or
wrong when I
mentioned that the Amerithrax case may be officially closed "at the
end of January." I was certainly wrong when I thought the
case might be closed before the end of December, but that date was
based more on hope and "signs" than on facts. The "end of
January" time frame
is based upon actual statements made by people who would know.
But, it's still just a planned
time
frame. And, as we all know, real life is what happens while
we're making plans. The best laid plans of mice and men oft
go astray. Etc.
As an example, the President's State of the Union address, which is
normally planned for "late January" was delayed until February 2, but
then delayed again. It's apparently being delayed a second
time to allow
the Health Care Bill to get farther along, but February
2 is also the day that the final season premiere of "Lost" is
scheduled to air. There are dozens
of news stories asking if the
schedule change was made to avoid preempting the premiere of
"Lost." Could be. One of the most difficult tasks in the
world can be to try to figure out what's going on in someone else's
mind.
I pondered long and hard before even mentioning the "end of January"
time frame for closing the Amerithrax case. It would certainly
just have been safer to just wait
for
it to happen or to wait for some regular news outlet to mention the
planned time frame. They probably know a lot more of the details
than I
do. They're waiting. Maybe they're waiting because they've
been so totally wrong about so many other things related to the anthrax
attacks of 2001. The anthrax attacks could go down in history as
one of the most inaccurately reported events in history.
But, most likely they're just taking an "I'll believe it when I see it"
position.
My saying the Amerithrax case could be closed at the end of January
isn't quite
the same as The New York Times or The Washington Post saying it.
Many intelligent people consider them to be "the final word" on the
Amerithrax case. If
I say something that is wrong or that does not fit the facts, some
expert will usually
tell me about it so I can make the necessary correction as soon as
possible. The fact
that no one has corrected me about the "end of January" date
might/could/should
mean something, but some kind of confirmation
would mean a lot more.
I received an email from a well-known scientist who will have a book
about the case published later this year. The email contained a
nice complement for keeping everyone informed about the case for the
past eight years or so. It was the first time I'd been contacted
by that particular scientist. It was someone who might have inside
information about closing the case. I tried to read between the
lines, but there wasn't
anything there that I could reasonably discern.
On Friday, another scientist sent me an article which very vaguely
relates to the anthrax attacks of 2001. It says on the cover
page of the article that I'm supposed to refer to it as: G.
Chen, et al., Bacillus anthracis and
Bacillus subtilis spore surface properties and transport,
Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces (2010),
doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.12.012 The article is even
more complex than that description suggests. Complicated
mathematical formulae tend to give me brain-lock. But,
fortunately, one of the authors graciously helped me get through
it. The article is about how and why wet Bacillus
anthracis spores stick to surfaces. The attack spores were
dry, of course,
but
there was a time when a conspiracy theorist was bombarding me with
scientific articles about how wet Bacillus spores stick to
surfaces. The conspiracy theorist argued that those articles were
proof that dry Bacillus spores would also
stick to surfaces and to each
other due to van der
Waals forces if they weren't coated with silica particles as described
in that infamous 2003
Science magazine article that I've probably mentioned a thousand
times. His arguments were pure junk science, and I told him
so. And I wrote about it.
I don't know if any of the authors of this new article read those
comments, but the article actually sorts through and analyzes the three
components which could potentially cause spores in a wet solution to
stick to surfaces. Those three components are: (1) Electrostatic
forces, (2) Chemical forces (i.e., acid or base chemistry related) and
(3) van der Waals forces (a specialized, short range electrostatic
charge). The report suggests that only #2 (chemical force) is
significant when
talking about wet spores clinging to the walls of a hospital or a
person's lungs or to each other in a solution. Here are the
opening sentences of the abstract for the article:
Effective
decontamination of environments contaminated by Bacillus spores remains
a significant challenge since Bacillus
spores are highly resistant to killing and could plausibly adhere to
many non-biological as well as
biological surfaces. Decontamination of Bacillus spores can be
significantly improved if the chemical basis of spore adherence is
understood. In this research, we investigated the surface
adhesive properties of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus anthracis spores.
The
hope behind the research is that, after having determined that chemical forces are the significant
binding forces utilized by spores, further work
can be done to develop new methods of decontamination and, perhaps, new
medicines. Here's part of the "conclusion":
A major conclusion from our work was that,
under our conditions, both B. subtilis and B. anthracis spores were monopolar
and negatively charged, in spite
of their divergent surface composition and architecture and, apparently, natural
ecology. We speculate that significant
evolutionary pressures direct these spore surfaces towards similar chemical properties
because, despite their differences in lifestyle, B. subtilis and B. anthracis spores benefit from relatively similar adhesive
characteristics. This may point towards important similarities in the survival in
the otherwise differing niches inhabited by
these organisms.
That's deep. My head hurts.
I certainly appreciate all the help that
knowledgeable, well-known and respected scientists from many different
fields have
provided to me over the years.
It's been an intense eight year course in chemistry, physics,
biology,
microbiology, psychology and probably a half-dozen other ologies.
The lessons have given me the confidence to act as an unofficial
referee in arguments between
scientists with solid facts and scientists with opinions and conspiracy
theories. But I'll be very happy when the NAS publishes the
results of their review. It should mean that the scientific
arguments are formally resolved. The conspiracy theorists and
True Believers will continue to argue forever, of course, but only in
the far distant background. From the Lunatic Fringe.
If the eight year Amerithrax investigation is actually officially
closed at the
end of January as planned, we should also learn a lot more about how
the
non-scientific aspects of the mystery were
solved and what kind of actual proof of Dr. Ivins' guilt was assembled
and evaluated. And, at
around the same time, but in a totally unrelated area, the answers to a
very different six
year scientific mystery might also be provided - one in which a lot
more people seem to be interested. Although I don't see it being
quite as important as the Amerithrax mystery. Like so many
others, I, too, really want to
know how
time travel explains the presence of the "smoke monster" in the TV
series "Lost."
All things come to he who can wait.
|
|
anonymous scientist said