Sunday, September 2, 2012

Sept. 2 - Sept. 8, 2012 Discussions

I received a response from an agent I queried on August 20.  It was a rejection.  She couldn't see why anyone would buy a book where the information was already available on a web site.  And, why would anyone buy a book about the anthrax attacks of 2001 if they weren't already fascinated by the case?

I would think that the first people to buy the book would be people who read my web site.  And the rest of the world should be totally fascinated by the facts of the case, since it was one of the most complex cases in the history of law enforcement and helped start a war with Iraq.

But, the agent wasn't interested.  So, now I'm waiting for responses from some other agents I queried earlier, and from two BOOK PUBLISHERS I queried on Monday.

Meanwhile, I've been arguing with Richard Rowley on this blog.  He seems to believe it's okay to allow mentally ill people to work with deadly pathogens in high-security government laboratories.  I believe that is just plain NUTS. So, we don't seem to have any way to find any common ground.

Mr. Rowley also argued endlessly that there must be PROOF of motive in a criminal case.  I showed him sources which said they don't even have to mention motive to prove a person guilty.  So, he changed the argument to be that if motive is mentioned in a criminal case, then PROOF of motive must be provided.  And, he provided a link to a site that says he is wrong and I am right.  Why he didn't first read what is on that site, I don't know.  He didn't cite anything from it, he just posted the link - as if that was enough to win the argument.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can argue that "PROOF OF MOTIVE" is necessary to convict someone when all the facts say that idea is just plain preposterous.  But, as everyone knows, Anthrax Truthers don't care about facts.  They believe their beliefs override all facts.



  1. "Anonymous" keeps trying to post here, even though he's been told that his posts will be deleted. I deleted his latest post to last week's thread, but I'll quote it and answer it here.

    "Anonymous" began by quoting what I wrote on my web site this morning:""In spite of what the [literary] agent wrote me this morning, I think there are lots of people who would want to read a book about the anthrax case that clarifies all these issues."

    Ed, how can you be the one to clarify all these issues when you didn't even read the book on this subject by Dr. Ivins' counselor? I would be glad to send you a copy, as I've often mentioned.

    1. The book by "Dr. Ivins' counselor" does NOT address the anthrax attacks of 2001. Therefore, it's irrelevant.

    2. The fact that "Anonymous" read it and thinks it has some significance to the case is totally his belief and has nothing to do with reality.

    3. The statements by "Dr. Ivins' counselor" were all verified by other health care professionals who talked with Ivins after the counselor had talked with him, AND there were SUPPORTING statements about Ivins' murderous impulses by other health care professionals (Dr. Heller & Dr. Irwin) who did their own evaluation of Bruce Ivins.

    4. Reading the book by "Dr. Ivins' counselor" would mean reading a book about a subject of no interest to me. It's clear that the only reason "Anonymous" read the book was so he could endlessly attack "Dr. Ivins' counselor" personally along with anyone who doesn't also attack her the way he endlessly does.

    So, I'm using this post to show why comments from "Anonymous" are being deleted. They are the comments of someone who is out to attack people personally, instead of discussing valid issues regarding the anthrax attacks of 2001.


  2. I just deleted another post by "Anonymous" where he continues to personally attack "Dr. Ivins' counselor" and anyone who doesn't also attack "Dr. Ivins' counselor."


  3. Bioterrorism & Biodefense
    Review Article J Bioterr Biodef 2012, S3:007
    doi: 10.4172/2157-2526.S3-007

    Microbial Forensics: A Powerful Tool for Pursuing Bioterrorism Perpetrators and the Need for an International Database
    Ruifu Yang and Paul Keim

  4. Dr. Anthrax,

    It would help if you would provide a link.

    Doing the research, I find it's another article from the Journal of BioTerrorism & BioDefense. People can click HERE to go to the article, or they can copy and paste the link from here:


  5. Here's the abstract for another article "Anonymous" just brought to my attention:

    Duties and Difficulties of Investigating and Prosecuting Biocrimes

    "Anonymous" didn't have anything intelligent to say about the article, and I don't think it's worth $47 to read it. But, I'm posting the link in case someone else might find it useful.


    1. "In Duties and Difficulties of Investigating and Prosecuting Biocrimes," ournal of Biosecurity, Biosafety and Biodefense Law. Volume 3, Issue 1, Lisa Danley summarizes:

      "In 2010, the FBI formally closed the Amerithrax investigation. After a decade of investigation, the FBI failed to conclusively the Amerithrax attacks to a perpetrator. Despite the clearly extensive investigation, there have been no convictions in connection with the attacks."

  6. Hmm. "Merriam Webster" posted a lengthy quote from an article in the Huffington Post titled "Where Is the Path Forward for Forensics? Part II." Here's the link:

    I responded with a comment about how it didn't have anything to do with the Amerithrax case.

    Then, "American Heritage" attempted to post more of the Huffington Post article. That made it clear that I might be in violation of copyrights if I let that second part go through. And, even the long first part might be enough to be in violation. So, I deleted both parts, and that caused my response to be deleted, too.

    Both posts may have been just childish attempts by "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") to post things here which he believes somehow support his arguments. Or they may have been a pathological attempt by "Anonymous" to cause me to violate copyrights.

    The fact that he didn't explain anything or comment upon the Huffington Post article would have made it even more of a violation of copyrights, since it was purely copied material.

    I'll be more careful in the future to delete any attempts by "Anonymous" to post things here that are just repeating things already posted elsewhere.


  7. The Amerithrax Investigative Summary makes no mention of the 52 rabbits. Indeed, in fn. 21 it specifically states that there were no animal studies during the 3 days prior to the October mailing -- that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab. You do not link to those lab notebook pages from Dr. Ivins' recently produced notebook relating to the rabbits the three days prior to October mailing. Why don't you link them? They were withheld for 4 years and recently obtained by Frontline pursuant to an appeal at the DOJ. DOJ had removed the only copies of the notebook from USAMRIID.

  8. Bee Scripps wrote: "You do not link to those lab notebook pages from Dr. Ivins' recently produced notebook relating to the rabbits the three days prior to October mailing."

    "Dxer" on Lew Weinstein's web site has some kind of obsession with rabbits, yet he cannot produce anything relevant about them. So, there's no reason to believe I could find anything relevant about them, either.

    Dxer's premise appears to be that, if Ivins had any work to do at all, he must have done it at night and on weekends. That's just plain ridiculous.

    There's no evidence in anything I see in the notebooks or in anything else that shows that Ivins needed to work NIGHTS and on WEEKENDS to accomplish his tasks with the rabbits. And I see nothing that says he DID work nights and on weekends with those rabbits.

    And, clearly Dxer cannot find anything relevant in the materials he obtained that confirms his beliefs. If he could, why doesn't he say so, instead of just producing meaningless material that just shows Ivins had some work to do during that period?

    Maybe DXer doesn't understand that scientists CAN do work during their normal work hours. It's certainly absurd to assume that they have to work at night and on weekends if they have any work of any kind to do at all.

    The fact that the notebooks were withheld for 4 years may be what is upsetting DXer. He wants his requests filled immediately, no matter how meaningless and irrelevant the requests are. And, if his requests are NOT filled immediately, he immediately seems to ASSUME there is some kind of coverup going on.

    He grumbled for a long time about a missing page from a report. When it was finally produced, he couldn't find anything in it of any significance. I don't like to waste people's time the way DXer seems to take pleasure in doing.


  9. This morning, I deleted a post from "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") because it did nothing but ask me questions about the rabbits, illustrating that "DXer" has no facts supporting his belief that Ivins was working with rabbits during those October evenings.