The main topic this week is the silly way the Anthrax Truthers argue. One Truther argued that an FBI/DOJ statement that Ivins NEVER spent the same amount of long hours alone in his lab in the evenings after October 2001 is "specious" because new rules were implemented in 2002 that no one could work alone in a lab. You had to have a "buddy" there, too.
So, the statement by the FBI is true, but the Anthrax Truther considers it to be misleading. It doesn't point out that the reason Ivins NEVER spent any long hours in his lab at night in 2009 was because he was DEAD.
That's the kind of silly argument the Anthrax Truthers constantly use.
Another example: The FBI/DOJ pointed out that Ivins knew how to dry anthrax spores because he was an expert in the use of the lyophilizer, a freeze dryer that Ivins arranged for USAMRIID to purchase. But, the Anthrax Truthers claim that means the FBI and DOJ are saying that Ivins used the lyophilizer to dry the attack spores. The FBI and DOJ never said any such thing - except in an erroneous statement in a document in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit, which was quickly corrected.
The fact that Ivins knew how to dry spores using the lyophilizer does NOT mean he dried the attack spores using the lyophilizer. The fact that Ivins knew how to dry spores using chemicals does not mean he dried the attack spores using chemicals. It just means Ivins had all the expertise needed to make the attack spores.
The method Ivins used was air drying, which is far easier than the other methods, but it still requires being careful and cleaning up afterwards.
Okay, then let's get to some of the silly arguments from the OTHER side:
ReplyDelete(Mister Lake is the writer): (first 3 complete paragraphs):
----------------------------
The main topic this week is the silly way the Anthrax Truthers argue. One Truther argued that an FBI/DOJ statement that Ivins NEVER spent the same amount of long hours alone in his lab in the evenings after October 2001 is "specious" because new rules were implemented in 2002 that no one could work alone in a lab. You had to have a "buddy" there, too.
So, the statement by the FBI is true, but the Anthrax Truther considers it to be misleading. It doesn't point out that the reason Ivins NEVER spent any long hours in his lab at night in 2009 was because he was DEAD.
That's the kind of silly argument the Anthrax Truthers constantly use.
================================================
This is almost certainly Mister Lake caricaturizing a critic's argument(but since I didn't see the original I'm inferring that).
That Ivins was dead by 2009 no one disputes.
But was he dead in 2002? No, (but the buddy-system inaugurated in that year all but precluded him working ALONE in the hot suites in that year, the supposedly 'suspicious' activity of 2001).
Was he dead in 2003? No. (Ditto from above)
Was he dead in 2004? No. (Ditto fror above)
Was he dead in 2005? No. (Ditto from above)
Was he dead in 2006? No. (Ditto from above)
Was he dead in 2007? No. (Ditto from above)
So there were reasons, other than his death (and by the way, Ivins lost his clearance to work in his lab some weeks or months before he committed suicide, so even his work 'record' of the first half of 2008 would be atypical in just about every way imaginable, this without bringing in Ivins' death).
So for 7 consecutive years, Ivins would have been all but incapable of working alone in the hot suites because of the new regime installed post-Amerithrax.
So why IS his death brought in? To ridicule the 'Truther's' argument.
I certainly wouldn't try to vouch for the argument(s) made by anyone--------on Amerithrax or any other topic--------------but that comparing Ivins' working-alone-in-the-hot-suites-in-the-off-hours record in 2001 is NOT comparable to his hours those 7 subsequent years, for reasons that have NOTHING to do with Ivins' subsequent death seems indisputable.
Put me down as someone who thinks that on THIS POINT TOO the FBI is being deceptive (because no one but a 'Truther' or a quasi-Truther is going to even know that there was such a buddy system inaugurated post-Amerithrax) meaning that the less knowledgeable reader of the FINAL REPORT will nod his head and say 'Yeah, that IS suspicious!'
And back to Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-------------
Another example: The FBI/DOJ pointed out that Ivins knew how to dry anthrax spores because he was an expert in the use of the lyophilizer, a freeze dryer that Ivins arranged for USAMRIID to purchase. But, the Anthrax Truthers claim that means the FBI and DOJ are saying that Ivins used the lyophilizer to dry the attack spores. The FBI and DOJ never said any such thing - except in an erroneous statement in a document in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit, which was quickly corrected.
The fact that Ivins knew how to dry spores using the lyophilizer does NOT mean he dried the attack spores using the lyophilizer. The fact that Ivins knew how to dry spores using chemicals does not mean he dried the attack spores using chemicals. It just means Ivins had all the expertise needed to make the attack spores.
The method Ivins used was air drying, which is far easier than the other methods, but it still requires being careful and cleaning up afterwards.
=============================================
What Mister Lake omits is that the method he refers to in his last paragraph is HIS (Mister Lake's ) conclusion, not necessarily that of the task force, the FBI, the DoJ. And CERTAINLY not their original hypothesis.
When those official entities have referred to creation of the powder(s), a lyophilizer invariably is mentioned:
I in the press conference of August 8th (no mention of any other method THEN):
----------------------
Second, as a renowned expert in the production and purification of anthrax spores, Dr. Ivins was one of a handful of scientists with the capability to create spores of the concentration and purity used in the attacks. The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine.
---------------
II in the FINAL REPORT (bottom of page 36):
---------------------------------------------
5.
Dr. Ivins’s considerable skill and familiarity with the necessary equipment
As discussed above, the spores used in the mailings were of a very high quality, very
pure, and very concentrated. The production of spores of such quality would require both
appropriate laboratory equipment – the kind found at universities, military research facilities, or other research institutions – and extensive experience in the purification process. Culturing anthrax and working safely with dried anthrax spores requires specific training and expertise in technical fields such as biochemistry or microbiology. It also requires access to particular laboratory equipment such as a biological safety cabinet or other containment device, an incubator, a centrifuge, a fermentor or a shaker with appropriate flasks, a lyophilizer or other
drying device, and various personal protective gear, all of which Dr. Ivins had readily accessible to him through his employment at USAMRIID.25 Further, in order to be permitted key-card[...]
-------------
And that footnote 25, in full (but with my emphasis added) is
-----------------
End Part One)
(Continuation)
ReplyDelete------------------------
25
[b]Each of these various devices plays a particular and critical role[/b] in the production of Ba spores. As a general matter, work on a pathogen of this type must be performed in a laboratory equipped with special safety devices and negative air pressure, so that any spills can be contained. With respect to spore production, generally speaking, a researcher would obtain a very small sample of spores from another source and transfer this sample to a growth medium, such as a Sheep’s Blood Agar (“SBA”) plate or a liquid preparation, that contained a nutrient source for the spores. An SBA plate could then be incubated to foster growth of spores. After an appropriate period of time, 12 to18 hours was the standard protocol, the newly-grown spores would be harvested through an elaborate process, washed, and then spun down in a centrifuge to concentrate the spores. A fermentor can be used to grow large quantities of spores in a liquid preparation. Finally, as set forth supra in the Opportunity and Access section, a lyophilizer can be used to dry spores once they have been washed.
-----------------------------------------------
So I set in bold the section "each of these various devices plays a particular and critical role" to emphasize that that first phrase "each of these various devices" INCLUDES the lyophilizer "or other drying device". Moreover, since this was written in February of 2010, ie a year and a half after the August 8th news conference, we can be sure that they (DoJ) are claiming that the lyophilizer 'played a critical role' (unless it was something else, but this gets short shrift until the law suit forces hedging).
Anonymous asked: "So why IS his death brought in? To ridicule the 'Truther's' argument."
ReplyDeleteYes.
Anonymous also wrote: "Put me down as someone who thinks that on THIS POINT TOO the FBI is being deceptive"
Okay.
Anonymous also wrote: "When those official entities have referred to creation of the powder(s), a lyophilizer invariably is mentioned"
I think the FBI/DOJ would have been better off if they had never mentioned the lyophilizer. But they mentioned it quite often, evidently because Ivins lied about his knowledge of the machine. On page 38 of the FBI Summary report it explains:
For example, in an interview on January 29, 2002, Dr. Ivins said he had no involvement in the anthrax mailings and had no training in how to make powders. Similarly, in an e-mail to an international anthrax expert, dated February 7, 2002, he stated: “We work with anthrax spore suspensions here and have neither the expertise nor the equipment for generating ‘spore powder.’” When asked about the lyophilizer again a year later, in April 2003, Dr. Ivins stated that he had been trained on how to use it, but had not actually done so since the mid1990s.
In truth, not only had Dr. Ivins used it, but he also was the actual custodian of the B-5 lyophilizer, as noted on his hand-receipt. In addition, “Property of Dr. Ivins” was written on the front of the document folder and on the manual and supporting documentation inside the storage compartment of the lyophilizer. He also was relied upon to train those who had no experience with it.
Throughout the Summary Report, whenever they mention the lyophilizer they mention it as just ONE of the ways to dry spores. At no time do they say that Ivins used a lyophilizer to dry the attack spores.
You may consider this "misleading," but that appears to be because the facts say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and Ivins' supporters have nothing left to argue except perceived "deceptions" in FBI/DOJ statements and personal interpretations of words used by the FBI and DOJ.
It's clear that the DOJ did not intend to specify in court exactly which method Ivins used to make the attack anthrax. They only planned to demonstrate that Ivins could have used any one of a variety of methods to make the powders - each of which would produce identical results. Their argument would be that Bruce Ivins had the means to make the anthrax powders. The DOJ could thoroughly PROVE that in court. They just couldn't prove exactly which method Ivins used, because various methods produced IDENTICAL results.
Mentioning the lyophilizer would only show that Ivins lied about his expertise in using such a machine. It shows Ivins was lying about anything that would prove he had the MEANS to make the anthrax powders.
Ed
Anonymous also wrote: "What Mister Lake omits is that the method he refers to in his last paragraph is HIS (Mister Lake's ) conclusion, not necessarily that of the task force, the FBI, the DoJ. And CERTAINLY not their original hypothesis."
ReplyDeleteActually, I made that point very clearly in my November 28 comment on my site.
The DOJ operates by a different set of rules. Their rules require they use evidence that can prove guilt in court. They can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivins had the MEANS to make the anthrax powders.
I'm not in court. I'm not pleading a case to a jury. I'm analyzing data.
So, while there are various growing methods and various drying method Ivins could have used to get the end results, I look at the data and determine which methods he most likely used. My analysis doesn't conflict with the FBI/DOJ findings. It just "fills in the blanks."
I cannot prove to a scientific certainty that Ivins grew the spores on plates, nor can I prove to a scientific certainty that Ivins air dried the spores. But, the facts say very clearly that is how he most likely did it.
I'm presenting the case to readers who want details because they are interested in understanding how and why Ivins did what he did.
There are countless fascinating details about the case that would never be mentioned in court, but which make terrific reading. I'm interested in finding and explaining those details.
Ed