My "Sunday Comment' for my web site was a somewhat rambling essay on how a lot of the controversy about the anthrax attacks of 2001 can be resolved.
There are people who think Ivins was a cold-blooded killer, and there are people who think Ivins was innocent. My new book shows him to be neither a cold-blooded killer nor innocent. He was a mentally ill man on that famous road to Hell that is paved with good intentions. He tried to do something that he thought would benefit America, but he didn't understand all the dangers involved in what he was doing. And, he ended up killing 5 innocent people and injuring at least 17 others.
Those who think Bruce Ivins was innocent ignore the facts. They even claim the facts are not evidence. They insist on examining each item of circumstantial evidence individually and discarding each item because - by itself - the item of evidence does not conclusively prove that Ivins was guilty.
When you explain to them that that is not the way circumstantial evidence is viewed in court, they don't seem to care about how circumstantial evidence is viewed in court. It's the way they view circumstantial evidence.
It seems to me that the people who truly believe Bruce Ivins was innocent are aided by the conspiracy theorists who believe that the attack spores were "weaponized" with some super-sophisticated form of silicon as part of some secret and illegal U.S. government bioweapons program. Those conspiracy theorists claim that Bruce Ivins could not possibly have made such a super-sophisticated bioweapon all by himself.
To a non-scientist, their claims seem scientific, even though they're really just distortions of the facts, bogus claims and junk science.
My book explains how easy it was for Ivins to create the attack spores, and how the silicon in the spore coats formed naturally as a result of how the attack spores were grown. Ivins didn't know that the silicon was there. The facts (and my book) show there were lots of things about anthrax bacteria and anthrax spores that Bruce Ivins didn't understand, even though he was considered to be a "top expert" on the subject.
The FBI and DOJ didn't show the world how easy it was for Ivins to create the attack spores with their "silicon signature." In court, they would only have proved that Ivins had the means to make the attack powders. The way Bruce Ivins most likely made the spores would be considered "speculation," because there were other ways Ivins could have gotten the same results. The defense could argue against what was "most likely," but they could not argue that Ivins didn't have the means.
My Sunday comment suggests that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) could show how easy it would have been for Ivins to create the spores and their "silicon signature." They aren't bound by the Official Criminal Court Procedures. Their task is to review the case and inform the public.
If they explain how Ivins "most likely" created the anthrax spores, all the conspiracy theorists will have to change their arguments that it was "impossible" for Ivins to do it. And, the people who think Ivins was innocent because it was "impossible" for him to make a super-sophisticated bioweapon all by himself will have to reconsider their positions.
One simple experiment would shoot down the the main claim by the conspiracy theorists and show the world that Ivins could have done what so many other facts say he did. It would turn a "scientific" claim that Ivins was innocent into a nonsensical belief about science. Those who believe Ivins was innocent might continue to believe what they want to believe, but they would no longer be able to argue that it was "impossible" for him to have committed the crime by himself.
Once you accept that it was possible for Ivins to do it, then all the other facts which show he did it seem a lot more important and believable.
Ed
Ed, you are the one arguing issues from 2002. You need to create a "straw man" so you can put and post your argument from 2002 against a particular article.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Kiel, head of the Air Force lab, performed controlled experiments on the issue of the silicon issue a couple years ago and reported the findings.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, you are the one arguing issues from 2002."
ReplyDeleteIt's not me who's arguing issues from 2002. You do not seem to be aware of it, but the issue of silicon in the attack spores was argued again on July 10, 2012, in an article in "Bioterrorism & Biodefense." Click HERE to view the article.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the silicon "weaponization" nonsense can be put to rest by the GAO if they would just get someone to perform a few simple experiments and report the results.
And, if the GAO can show how easy it was for Ivins to create the attack spores, that should put an end to all the nonsense about how it was "impossible" for Ivins to have made the spores.
My book explains the procedure.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "Jonathan Kiel, head of the Air Force lab, performed controlled experiments on the issue of the silicon issue a couple years ago and reported the findings."
So what? He obviously didn't prove anything worthwhile. If you believe he proved something of value, why don't you explain to us what it was? Why just say he did experiments and reported his findings. That doesn't mean anything. He certainly didn't prove that Ivins couldn't have created the attack spores. So, why should anyone care about some experiments that do not seem to have proved anything?
Ed
"All I'm doing is pointing out that the silicon "weaponization" nonsense can be put to rest by the GAO if they would just get someone to perform a few simple experiments and report the results."
ReplyDeleteI agree that GAO should interview Dr. Jonathan Kiel, who as head of the Air Force lab at the time, conducted such controlled experiments. Thank you for highlighting the valuable work that lab did on the issue. We can leave the science to the scientists, including the scientists at Lawrence Livermore.
"Anonymous" wrote: "I agree that GAO should interview Dr. Jonathan Kiel, who as head of the Air Force lab at the time, conducted such controlled experiments."
ReplyDeleteUntrue. And you are just agreeing with yourself, not with me.
You are just distorting things and playing games to cover up the fact that you have no facts to support your beliefs.
Dr. Kiel did NO experiments that explain anything significant about the way Bruce Ivins made the attack spores.
Dr. Kiel's 2000 report "Rapid recovery and identification of anthrax bacteria from the environment" is about culture techniques that can be used to rapidly identify anthrax in an environment. That has nothing to do with how Ivins created the attack spores.
Dr. Kiel's 2002 report "Basis for the extraordinary genetic stability of anthrax" is about genetics. Genetics tells us nothing about how Ivins created the spores.
The New York Times also quoted Dr. Kiel:
Johnathan L. Kiel, a retired Air Force scientist who worked on anthrax for many years, said that the spores “pick up everything” and that the silicon might be residue of a commercial product used on laboratory glassware to keep spores from sticking. He said tin might even be picked up from metal lab containers, though he has not tested that idea.
“It doesn’t have to be some super-secret process,” Dr. Kiel said. Other experts suggested that the tin might have come from anti-foam products, disinfectants or water.
The trouble with such conjecture is that the F.B.I. spent years testing for tin in microbiology lab supplies — and reported none, according to bureau documents.
Conjecture and speculation isn't science. Conjecture and speculation explains NOTHING about the way Ivins created the attack spores.
So, since you cannot explain how anything Dr. Kiel said is relevant to how Bruce Ivins made that attack powders, your comments are meaningless. And distorting things in an attempt to argue that there IS some relevance in what Dr. Kiel has said or written is just another example of how you cannot discuss the facts rationally. You have to distort things to create arguments out of irrelevant material.
If you have nothing of value to contribute, you really shouldn't endlessly try to make it appear that irrelevant material is somehow relevant. It just proves you have nothing of value to contribute. You only have BELIEFS, you have no facts.
Ed
The experiments done by Dr. Kiel lab, which is expert at making anthrax aerosol simulants for biodefense purposes, related to explaining the silicon signature. The work has been extensively discussed online and images of the product circulated.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot that you choose not to read.
"Anonymous" wrote: "The experiments done by Dr. Kiel lab, which is expert at making anthrax aerosol simulants for biodefense purposes, related to explaining the silicon signature."
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't. Dr. Kiel's experiments resulted only in SPECULATION about possible sources for the silicon in the attack spores. But such speculation doesn't even attempt to explain why only SOME of the attack spores contained silicon.
Dr. Kiel's speculation may relate to some 1980 papers which also speculated about the source of silicon in spores, but Dr. Kiel's speculation does NOT relate to the way Ivins created the spores and the way the silicon ACTUALLY got into the spores.
There's a lot you choose not to understand.
The facts say that the silicon in the attack spores came from the agar nutrients via natural processes. That's been known since 2001.
However, while it is "known," it has not been scientifically DEMONSTRATED.
What I'm proposing are three simple experiments:
(1) Scientists should grow one set of anthrax spores using agar known to have been used by Dr. Ivins, and letting inoculated plates remain in an incubator for three weeks. They should then test the spores for silicon. There should be little or no silicon in the spore coats.
(2) Scientists should then inoculate a second set of plates and place those plates in an autoclave bag to remain somewhere at room temperature for three weeks. And then test the spores for silicon. There should be silicon in most or all of the spore coats.
(3) Scientists should then inoculate a third set of plates and place those plates in an incubator for 24 hours. Then they should remove the plates and put them into an autoclave bag and let them set for three weeks at room temperature. When they test the spores, a small fraction (perhaps 25%) of the spores should have no silicon the spore coats and most (perhaps 75%) should have silicon in the spore coats.
This should demonstrate exactly how the attack spores were created.
Nothing Dr. Kiel has suggested would even attempt to do that. All he has done is expressed some theories that do not relate to what Dr. Ivins was doing in August, September and October of 2001 nor to the fact that only SOME of the attack spores contained silicon in their spore coats. His speculation indicates he isn't even AWARE of the fact that only SOME of the attack spores contained silicon in their coats.
Ed
"No, they don't. Dr. Kiel's experiments resulted only in SPECULATION about possible sources for the silicon in the attack spores. But such speculation doesn't even attempt to explain why only SOME of the attack spores contained silicon."
ReplyDeleteWhat is your sourcing on that? Dr. Kiel reported his empirical findings and did not engage in speculation.
You could have submitted a FOIA for documents relating to the controlled experiments relating to determination of the origin of the silicon signature but chose not to do so.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Kiel reported his empirical findings and did not engage in speculation."
ReplyDeleteFALSE! I provided you with the link to the New York Times article which quoted Dr. Kiel and his speculation, which the Times called "conjecture." Click HERE to read it.
Maybe you don't realize that when someone says "silicon might be residue" and "tin might even be picked up from metal lab containers" and "tin might have come from anti-foam products," he isn't stating any scientific findings, he is SPECULATING ABOUT POSSIBILITIES.
Ed
You are referring to some newspaper article.
DeleteI am referring to Dr. Kiel's experiment in which he put silanizing agent in the slurry -- his lab made the anthrax aerosol simulant with and without the silanizing agent. The simulant without the silanizing agent performed just as well in terms of floatability -- floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee.
Added silica absorbed by natural processes (see Dr. Majidi's comments) increases resistance to destruction by sunlight. See relatively recent Japanese study.
Dr. Kiel says that the iron makes it more lethal in the lungs.
Expert Dr. Kiel can best report on his lab's findings -- and he can do that in an interview with the GAO.
"Anonymous" wrote: "You could have submitted a FOIA for documents relating to the controlled experiments relating to determination of the origin of the silicon signature ..."
ReplyDeleteWhich "controlled experiments" are those? The ones where tests were done to see what PUBLISHED LAB PROCESSES for growing anthrax spores produced?
Since only established procedures were used, those tests could be considered as step #1 in what I am proposing. But, growing spores in autoclave bags is NOT A STANDARD PROCEDURE. Therefore no one did steps #2 and #3 in my proposal.
No tests were done to see what the results of growing all and some spores at room temperature would be. THAT IS WHAT I AM PROPOSING. The results of all three tests should prove for once and for all time how Ivins made the attack spores.
Ed
"Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Kiel says that the iron makes it more lethal in the lungs." etc.
ReplyDeleteSo what? Dr. Kiel's experiments have NOTHING to do with PROVING ANYTHING about the attack spores.
All his work does is help explain why the FBI didn't dig very deep into the various methods of producing spores. What one process could produce could also be produced by a different process. So, such tests are educational but nearly MEANINGLESS to the anthrax investigation.
What I'm proposing would follow what the FACTS say Ivins did.
What Dr. Kiel did was test some possibilities that prove nothing about what Dr. Ivins actually did.
Ed