Available from BarnesAndNoble.com
Click here.

Also available from Amazon.com
Click here.

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2010 Edition)

Commentary
& Analysis
by
Ed Lake

IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR SEE ANY ERRORS ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT:
detect@newsguy.com



Available from BarnesAndNoble.com
Click here.

Also available from Amazon.com
Click here.  


My original analysis and working hypothesis,
and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 

can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
All the information gathered and analyzed from
January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008,
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.


 CONTENTS
(click on the Section to go to it)

Overview
Thoughts and Comments
  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

KEY SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES
(click on the name to link to the page)
The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters
The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
Reviews of my book
My comments about other anthrax-related books

Overview

This web site was started on November 22, 2001 to keep track of facts related to the anthrax attacks which had become a major news event during the previous month.  I found that most people only wanted to discuss beliefs, opinions and conspiracy theories.  I wanted to see what the facts said.  Plus, news stories were appearing and then being deleted, and I needed a place to retain the articles which contained new information.  So, for the next seven years I accumulated facts and references and analyzed all the data I could find.  In March of 2005, I even self-published a book describing what the first three years of my analysis had found. 

On August 1, 2008, the news broke that the person the FBI believed to be the anthrax mailer had committed suicide.  His name was Dr. Bruce Ivins, and he worked at the USAMRIID labs at Ft. Detrick, MD.

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers who had argued their beliefs and opinions for the prior seven years were not persuaded by the FBI's evidence.  They continue to argue their beliefs and opinions, claiming that the FBI cannot prove Dr. Ivins was guilty.  After all, if the FBI was right, that would mean they have been wrong for seven years.  And that couldn't be, even though they don't even agree with each other about key facts:

Some still believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
Some still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks
Some still believe a vast Jewish conspiracy was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the Bush administration was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the CIA was behind the attacks.
Some still believe pharmaceutical companies were behind the attacks.
Some still believe a writer was behind the attacks in order to sell books.
Some still believe Dr. Steven Hatfill was behind the attacks.
Some still believe a different scientist was behind the attacks.
Some still believe that a military person was behind the attacks.
Some still believe their next door neighbor was behind the attacks.

Some still believe the attack spores were "weaponized" with silica or silicon and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or incompetent.  They still believe there must be some vast criminal conspiracy to cover up the real facts, because they simply do not believe anything the government - and particularly the FBI - says.

Some still believe that Dr. Ivins did not have the ability to make the attack anthrax. 

And, perhaps most bizarre of all, some still believe that there is some similarity between the "investigation" of Dr. Hatfill (who was eventually exonerated) and the investigation of Dr. Ivins.  The facts show that the two cases could not be more different.  The Hatfill "investigation" was purely political and based upon "tips" from conspiracy theorist scientists who claimed the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill when the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings.  The Ivins investigation, on the other hand, was the result of years of detailed scientific analysis followed by an equally detailed criminal investigation.

The Case Against Dr. Ivins

The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.

2.  The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects.  Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

3.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.

4.  He accessed the locked room (lab B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

6.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

7.  In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins secretly swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas in his lab that he said he suspected were contaminated by a sloppy lab technician. 

8.  Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

9.  It was not commonplace for him to work long evening hours in lab B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.


10.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

11.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

12.  He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

13.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

14.  He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.

16.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold those envelopes was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

17.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

18.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

19.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

20.  People commit suicide to escape justice.  People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

There may also be other facts pointing to Dr. Iving which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI.  The case has not been officially closed.   It is expected to be closed early in 2010.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.

Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers 

Because they often support each other in opposing the FBI's official findings, it is sometimes difficult to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a True Believer.  But, there is really are very distinct differences:

Conspiracy theorists often do not know or care who sent the anthrax letters, they only know that "the government" cannot be trusted, "the goverment" is lying about something, and they want to expose it.

True Believers feel they know beyond any doubt who sent the anthrax letters, and anyone who does not believe as they believe - including the FBI - is just not looking at the right facts.

Both will do anything and everything they can to get the undecided and uncertain to join with their cause.  And there are differences in their tactics as the go about their recruiting: 

The #1 tactic used by conspiracy theorists is junk science.  They wildly misinterpret facts about the case, they claim their bizarre misinterpretations prove something, and they demand that those misinterpretations and baseless claims be either accepted or disproven.
 
The #1 tactic used by True Believers is to accuse the non-believer of being "closed minded" and to wear down the non-believer as he tries to prove he is not "closed minded."

There's really no point to arguing with a True Believer.  Back in 1951, Eric Hoffer published his landmark book "The True Believer" in which he stated that the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  So, unless you are prepared to do that, it's best to just avoid them.  They will bury you in irrelevant facts if you don't avoid them, they'll claim that if you do not read everything they read and interpret everything the way they interpret them, then you are ill-informed and your opinion is worthless.

Conspiracy theorists, however, appear ready to debate some of the relevant facts of the case.  They just move on to different facts if they are proven wrong about their first set of facts.  Example:

The initial theory about the anthrax being "weaponized" was that the attack spores were coated with bentonite and the government was covering up that fact.  That theory was quickly shown to be false.  When the next theory that the attack spores were coated with fumed silica was also disproven, they moved on to a new theory that the attack spores had tiny particles of silica glued to them to defeat van der Waals forces.  When that was shown to be nonsense, they moved on to a theory that the spores were treated with a waterproofing substance that would coat the spore coat without leaving any trace on the exosporium. 

Time will tell what 2010 has in store.  Hopefully, the FBI will very soon close their case against Dr. Ivins and release all or nearly all the evidence they accumulated against Dr. Ivins.  The conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem to have a few followers in Congress.  Perhaps there will also be some Congressional hearings.  I hope so.  Congressional hearings seem to be the only way to clarify certain details about others caught up in the investigation. 

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

anonymous scientist said

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.

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."

T
he 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.  

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2010.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2008.

Click HERE for year 2007.
Click HERE for year 2006.
Click HERE for year 2005.
Click HERE for year 2004.
Click HEREfor years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

References:

HistoryCommons.org - Timeline of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks
Edited version of the Hatfill v Ashcroft et al lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v Foster/Vanity Fair/Readers Digest Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v The New York Times Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs The United States lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket

Click HERE to view references from 2005 through 2008.
Click HERE to view pre-2005 references.

2009

The New York Times - Jan. 3, 2009 - "Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life - (X)
Scientific American - Jan. 5, 2009 - "A steady stream of clues pointed to Ivins during FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
CNN - Jan. 6, 2009 - "'Let me sleep,' anthrax suspect wrote before suicide" (X)
Associated Press - Jan. 6, 2009 - "Records reveal anguish of anthrax suspect's wife" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 23, 2009 - "
Army releases some Ivins e-mails" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 4, 2009 - "Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs" (X)
Science Magazine - Feb. 7, 2009 - "
U.S. Army Lab Freezes Research on Dangerous Pathogens" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 9, 2009 - "Army Suspends Germ Research at Maryland Lab" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Biodefense lab starts inventory of deadly samples" (X)
WTOP.com - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Lawer: Evidence against Bruce Ivins 'Undercut'" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Most Research Suspended at Fort Detrick" (X)
Scientific American - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Army anthrax lab suspends research to invertory its germs" (X)
Nature - Feb. 25, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation still yielding findings" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 27, 2009 - "Revealed: Scientific evidence for the 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Rush Holt - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt Introduces Anthrax Commission Legislation" (X)
MyCentralJersey.com - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt seeks congressional anthrax commission" (X)
FBI Press Release - Mar. 6, 2009 - "FBI responds to Science issues in Anthrax case" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 7, 2009 - "FBI's Evidence in Anthrax Case Leaves Puzzling Scientific Questions" (X)

Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2009 - "Ruling lets anthrax suit go forward" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Mar. 8, 2009 - "Anthrax hoaxes pile up, as does their cost" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 10, 2009 - "15,300 government workers have access to agents of bioterror" (X)
The Times of Trenton (Opinion by Rush Holt) - Mar. 12, 2009 - "Preventing Bioterrorism" (X)
New Scientist - Mar. 13, 2009 - "Columbus innocent over anthrax in the Americas" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 14, 2009 - "Tracing anthrax's American roots" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 24, 2009 - "Letters mimicking anthrax scare sent to Congress" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 31, 2009 - "Judge dismisses lawsuit over anthrax letter" (X)
The Scotsman - Apr. 4, 2009 - "Dorothy H. Crawford: World waits for ground-breaking anthrax evidence" (X)
Seed Magazine - Apr. 14, 2009 - "The Anthrax Agenda" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 15, 2009 -
"Judge urges settlement in 'National Enquirer' anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist/Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Cold Comfort" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Deadly Pathogens May Have Gone Missing at Fort Detrick" (X)
Sciencemag.org - May 6, 2009 - "FBI Anthrax Investigation Under Scientific Review" (X)
The New York Times - May 7, 2009 - "F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - May 14, 2009 - "End Of Story?" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (commentary by Barry Kissin) - May 24, 2009 - "The Lynching Of Bruce Ivins" (X)
Associated Press - May 28, 2009 - "Prosecutor in anthrax, Blackwater cases resigns" (X)
Frederick News-Post - June 17, 2009 - "USAMRIID finds more than 9,200 unrecorded disease samples" (X)
Associated Press - June 17, 2009 - "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found At Army Biodefense Lab" (X)
The Washington Post - June 18, 2009 - "Inventory Uncovers 9,200 More Pathogens" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 2, 2009 - "Committee to review FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
Microbe - July 2009 - "Questions Linger over Science behind Anthrax Letters" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Amerithrax debate lives online" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Seeking an Ending" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Studies scrutinize lab security, shy away from federal investigation" (X)
Associated Press - July 26, 2009 - "US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years" (X)
The Washington Times - July 30, 2009 - "Lessons learned from the anthrax letters" (X)
Associated Press - July 30, 2009 - "Review begins of FBI science in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 31, 2009 - "Group begins scientific review of FBI's anthrax investigation" (X)
Frederick News-Post (editorial) - July 31, 2009 - "Dubious study" (X)
Nature - July 31, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation probe undeway" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Experts urge panel to deepen forensic understanding" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Lawmaker 'Skeptical' of Anthrax Results" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2009 - "Anthrax case not closed: Panel reviews Bruce Ivins, mail probe" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2009 - "A Shocking Mockery" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2009 - "Fort Detrick passes national accreditation" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 25, 2009 - "Panel continues study of anthrax mailings" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 26, 2009 - "Expert: Anthrax spore coatings not unique" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2009 - "Behind the scenes, system sniffs for biological attacks" (X)
BBC - Dec. 17, 2009 - "Anthrax found in dead heroin user from Glasgow" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 19, 2009 - "A Conspiracy-Theory Theory" (X)
Newsweek - Dec. 21, 2009 - "Red Mind, Blue Mind" (X)
Digital Journal - Dec. 27, 2009 - "NH Woman Critically Ill With Anthrax" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 27, 2009 - "Drums a possible source of anthrax in N.H. woman" (X)
Medical News Today - Dec. 29, 2009 - "Anthrax Found in Drums Linked to Infected Woman" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 30, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Drum suspicions are detailed" (X)

2010
Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 1, 2010 - "Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks?" (X)
The Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2010 - "Fed panel wants more scrutiny of biolab workers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Jan. 24, 2010 - "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved" (X)
The Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 29, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks still unexplained" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Letter to Editor) - Jan. 31, 2010 - "Anthrax Case: FBI Used Good Science" (X)
  

© 2001-2009 by Ed Lake
All Rights Reserved.