There's a guy who posts to this forum as "Anonymous" who seems to believe that he is more knowledgeable than everyone else about the anthrax attacks of 2001 because he obtains documents no one else has bothered to collect or read. The problem is, he's never been able to find anything in those documents that means anything toward supporting his theory about the attacks. Mostly he just argues that there are still
more documents that the government hasn't yet released, and if they'd just release those other documents, then he'd have proof of everything he claims.
Ed
Ed didn't realize that the 52 rabbits needed to be injected with the virulent anthrax under B3 containment. That's because he doesn't obtain or read the documents, interview the fact witnesses, or obtain their sworn testimony. When Mara reported that checking on the animals was a one-person, two hour job, he started talking about commute time! He is a True Believer determined to prove some evil man manipulated some young First Grader into doing something evil.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous
March 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM
As an example of your confusion, Ed, you thought the rabbit work was not done in the B3.
You were just uninformed.
When your mistake was pointed out to you, you just persisted in your view.
There was no excuse for you not to know that the work with the rabbits was done in the B3. You just don't bother to study the documentary evidence on the subject.
Ed Lake
March 9, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Anonymous wrote: "When your mistake was pointed out to you, you just persisted in your view."
Well, we all make mistakes."
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteWhy do you persist in making a fool of yourself? You just endlessly post about things you believe I did wrong instead of showing evidence that your theory is better than the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. If you want to prove your theory, you need to EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE.
You rant like a lunatic about the "52 rabbits" as if it means something, but you appear to be totally incapable of EXPLAINING how anything related to the 52 rabbits could be used in court to prove anything.
Everyone can see YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, all you have is meaningless blather.
Look at your posts this morning to Lew's blog:
1. You post a protocol dated "11 Feb. 2002."
What does a protocol dated in February of 2002 have to do with events that took place in August, September and October of 2001?
2. You post a document about "attending veterinary care."
Ivins wasn't a veterinarian. The document says that VETERINARIANS would be doing much of the work you appear to claim was done ONLY by Ivins.
3. You claim that the rabbits were housed in B3.
The document you provide says no such thing. When you provide a document to support a claim, the document should say SOMETHING in support of your claim. When the document does NOT support your claim, it just shows you know NOTHING about evidence.
And in your comment above you wrote: "When Mara reported that checking on the animals was a one-person, two hour job, he started talking about commute time!"
Right. That's because in FBI file #847425 it says:
Linscott perceived the normal laboratory hours to start between the morning hours of 7:00AM to 9:00AM and last through 5:00PM, although there would be occasions when someone would come in later. If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take
approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job.
In no way does it take two hours to "look at the animals/count the dead animals."
On what planet does it take two hours to count to 52? And why does it take two hours on a weekend? Is it because on a weekend it takes two hours out of your time off? Is it because it takes two hours to drive to USAMRIID, to get into the B3 area, to count the live and dead animals, to make notes, to leave the B3 area and to return home again?
The FBI said it takes only a few minutes to check on the animals.
You fantasize that Ivins would be doing all sorts of things that logic and reason says he would NOT be doing.
If you BELIEVE he would be cleaning cages instead of leaving that chore to the animal caretakers, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE.
If you believe he was performing necropsies even though he wasn't a veterinarian, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE.
If you believe he was destroying dead animals as soon as they were found to be dead without any veterinarian doing a necropsy, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE.
Instead, you just make a fool of yourself by arguing over and over and over that I didn't know that the rabbits were housed in B3 as if that is somehow more important that providing evidence to support your theory.
You need to start providing evidence and explaining your theory instead of just ranting about things I've done that you disagree with.
You're just making a fool of yourself.
Ed
Ed, you perpetuate errors on a daily basis -- over the course of years. You have no interest in sworn depositions or linked and uploaded documents? Fine. But then STFU and go back to studying your cable bill.
ReplyDeleteYou have hopelessly confused for years on the subject.
"November 23, 2011 - This morning, I received an email from an Anthrax Truther advising me of an error I had made:
Email Subject:
Ed, there were no rabbits in the passive mouse study (duh)- it is normal rabbit antiserum that is being injected in the 10 mice in the fourth group - you endlessly compound your errors with each post - instead, consult experts and rely on documents ... stop your BS
Email Text:
You constantly misrepresent the documents which it appears you don't even read. ... and on the rare occasion you have read a relevant document, you totally misunderstand it. Instead, consult experts and obtain and quote documents. Thx.
Email Attachment (partial):
1. What should be done. a) Passive studies in mice - I would prefer that these studies be contracted out. We can provide
the challenge spores and antiserum. 1) Mice = CBA/J females, 10 per group, about 20 g. Inject intraperitoneally on days -1, 0, 1,
2 and 3 with one of the following: rabbit anti-rPA antiserum; rabbit anti-AVA antiserum; human anti- AVA IgG; Normal rabbit serum;
normal human IgG. On day 0, challenge subcutaneously with 10LD50s of V1B spores. Check mice 3X daily for deaths and note differences
in survival as well as time to death differences. If protection is seen, repeat experiment with 10 LD50s of Ames spores. If no protection is seen,
drop the challenge dose down to 3-5 LD50s of Vollum 1B spores. Enough animals should be ordered to repeat experiments.
Total number of animals = 400
I always welcome corrections to things I may have posted in error. It definitely makes a lot more sense that a "Normal rabbit serum" was injected into 10 mice than that rabbits were included in a mouse experiment. I misinterpreted the heading "Grp 4 normal rabbit." So, I've gone back and changed my comment for November 20 (and the version I put on my new supplemental page) to correct that error.
Correcting the error, of course, has absolutely no effect on the conclusion that Ivins was NOT in Suite B3 when the animals were checked. It merely clarifies what kind of animals were being checked. Therefore, checking on animals is definitely NOT an alternative explanation for Dr. Ivins' evening hours in Suite B3 when the FBI alleges that he was making lethal anthrax powders.
I appreciate being advised of the error."
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteAre you totally incapable of providing EVIDENCE to support your theory that someone other than Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters?
Why do you persist in posting IRRELEVANT CRAP?
"Anonymous" wrote: "You have no interest in sworn depositions or linked and uploaded documents? Fine. But then STFU and go back to studying your cable bill."
I have interest in RELEVANT sworn depositions and uploaded documents IF they are accompanied by some EXPLANATION of why they are relevant and HOW they fit your theory that some Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.
But, mostly all you've done for the past 12 years is discuss IRRELEVANT documents and complain that the government won't provide you with other documents which may or may not be relevant.
Who gives a damn whether you misinterpreted some heading on some document to mean something it didn't IF IT MEANS NOTHING TO THE AMERITHRAX CASE?
Yesterday, you provided links to a CDC document written by Dr. Wm. Robert Johnston without providing any explanation for why you posted the links. The quote you included tended to DISPROVE your theory that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax. And the links were to a web page and a document which seemed to further disprove your theory about the J-Lo letter.
What were you hoping to accomplish? Were you admitting that you made a GROSS MISTAKE in believing that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax? Or were you trying to show that even though the CDC has a document on its web site which says the J-Lo letter did NOT contain the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building, you're going to continue to believe it anyway? If you do not explain yourself, everyone is just going to assume you cannot understand anything you read. And you're just posting meaningless documents because you have no facts or evidence to discuss.
Also, don't forget that this is MY blog. You are posting messages to MY blog which I created to generate discussions about the anthrax attacks of 2001. If you do not want my VIEWS about what you post, don't post.
Ed
Ed Lake's confusion over all these years -- which continues to this day -- is easy to understand. On November 6, 2011, Ed explained:
ReplyDelete"There's no reason to believe he went into the animal rooms. There's no reason to believe entering the animal rooms required getting into BSL-3 mode.
However, it's clear that he needed to get into scrubs to go into room B313.
And the facts say that Ivins LEFT Suite B3 when it was time to check on the animals. The animals were NOT in Suite B3."
The protocol EXPRESSLY states that the animal rooms required getting into BSL-3 mode and required protective clothing. The protocol makes clear the animals were REQUIRED to be in B3 containment from their arrival on 9/24/2001. Ed simply is an internet poster who never bothered to interview the scientists and expressly rejected my suggestion that he obtain the deposition of the FBI scientist who shared the B3 suite with Dr. Ivins -- or the scientists who worked on the experiment with Dr. Ivins. If he had -- as I did years ago -- he would not have been so confused all these years.
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteYes, there was a time when I didn't know that the entire B3 suite was a BSL-3 area. There was a time when I thought the animal rooms were not in a BSL-3 area. There was even a time when I thought Ivins could routinely go in and out the B3 "crash" door.
Contrary to your beliefs, I have discussed the layout of the Bacteriology Division and the whole of Building 1425 with people who worked there. I just cannot name them because Anthrax Truthers will contact them and harass them for talking with me.
Arguing about things that happened long ago seems to be just your way of avoiding discussing anything RELEVANT.
If you have EVIDENCE that someone other than Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters, PRESENT IT. EXPLAIN IT. SHOW US HOW YOUR EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN THE FBI'S CASE AGAINST IVINS.
If all you want to do is rant about how I once believed something that later on turned out to be untrue, you are wasting your time and mine. I KNOW there are lots of things I once believed about this case that later turned out to be untrue. That's because, unlike you, I ACCEPT WHAT THE FACTS SAY. I looked at the facts and the facts said I was wrong. So, unlike you, I adjusted my thinking and proceeded accordingly using the new and better facts.
You appear to be arguing IRRELEVANT CRAP because you have nothing relevant to say.
If you have nothing RELEVANT to say, then you shouldn't be here posting to MY blog.
Ed
The purpose served by your blog, Ed, is to chronicle the basis for your confusion.
ReplyDeleteYou discussed the report that dealing with the animals was a ONE PERSON, TWO HOUR job thusly:
"If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job."
Ed, you spun this statement in a 302 report, which you attribute to Mara LIscott as follows:
"when someone asks how long it takes to do something on a weekend, the usual response is about the time it takes away from a normal weekend. That time includes driving in to work. It includes showering and changing into lab clothes. It includes showering and changing back into street clothes. And it includes driving back home again. In other words, it takes two hours out of her weekend to check on the animals.
Third, it's ridiculous to believe it takes two hours to just check on animals, when the task only involves looking at a few dozen animals to see if they are still alive, and making a note if one or more of them is dead. All other test animal-related chores are done by other people (animal caretakers and veterinarians)."
Rationalization, spin, rationalization, spin. Repeat cycle. Oh, and a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters!
On June 11, 2012, Ed Lake posted this opinion poll:
ReplyDelete"Ed Lake
As far as I know, there has never been an opinion poll on who
Americans think MAILED the anthrax.
Who do you think MAILED the antrhax?
1. An al Qaeda member?
2. An agent of Iraq?
3. A right wing American extremist group?
4. An American scientist acting alone?
5. The CIA?
6. Someone else?
If you are not an American, please mention your country in your response.
Ed"
When Frederick News-Post posted a similar poll
"Do you still believe Bruce Ivins was responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks?"
and results were over 60% "no" and almost 20% "not sure," Ed suddenly is no longer interested in polling results.
0% think agree with Ed that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings!
http://m.fredericknewspost.com/news/news_regular_features/daily_poll/poll_71ab3fa6-f70d-11e2-84e7-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm
"Anonymous" wrote: "The purpose served by your blog, Ed, is to chronicle the basis for your confusion."
ReplyDeleteThat's only partly true. You miss the KEY part: My web site and blog also chronicle how learning the facts cleared up the confusion. And the web site and blog ALSO chronicle how Anthrax Truthers like you do not learn from the facts but just continue to spout their beliefs and confusion as if facts mean nothing.
For example, yesterday, you wrote: "The CDC documents explain that the reason they knew there were two letters is because they took different routes through the post offices." and "Ed Lake isn't even aware of the CDC finding that the fact that there two letters was evidence by its extensive sampling of the post offices showing two distinct trails."
Was that a LIE or were you WRONG?
I've asked you to provide evidence of your claim that the CDC somehow claimed there were two letters because there were "two distinct trails" of anthrax through post offices. You did not respond. Or if you did, you provided PROOF that you were WRONG by providing links to the Wm. Robert Johnston report.
Are you still confused? Or was it a LIE?
You demonstrate your inability to understand things by your claim that I asked people about that poll on June 11, 2012. In reality, I asked it on June 11, 2002. Ten years earlier than you claim. The poll question is HERE along with the numerous interesting responses. (I assume your response is among them.)
Note that I am EXPLAINING my claim that you were wrong about the date by providing a link as EVIDENCE to where I asked it. You did not provide such a link, evidently because you either KNEW the date was wrong or you didn't want people to know where the poll as located. Maybe you wanted to feel you are smarter than everyone else because you knew where that poll was located.
Or were you just confused?
The idea of taking a poll to find out who people believe is guilty is a good one, but it would ONLY work if the poll was taken by asking people selected at random on the street. If you ask bloggers, you get the opinions of bloggers. Bloggers do not represent the average American. The average American is NOT a blogger -- as far as I know.
So, the Frederick News-Post poll only represents people who had the time to waste reading that poll page. Plus, statistics show that people who are angry with the government are more likely to respond to a poll about the government than people who are satisfied with the way the government handles things.
Ed
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteNote that the title of my web site is "Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks."
An "analysis" is an attempt to figure things out.
Note that the title of this blog is "Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001."
A "debate" is an attempt to resolve issues.
Note that the blog where you regularly post is titled "CASE CLOSED - What really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks."
That is a claim what "REALLY" happened is KNOWN and that there is no need for an analysis or a debate. People should just go to that blog for all the answers - and "the truth."
My web site and blog are for trying to resolve issues. You really belong on a blog where people believe the issues are all resolved and the only problem is how to convince the rest of the world that what they believe is the "only truth" and that the government is either lying or too ignorant to figure things out.
Ed
Let's see what the results of poll I took in June 2002 were:
ReplyDeleteQUESTION: Who MAILED the anthrax letters?
Michael Newton --- 1 vote
The Roswell aliens --- 1 vote
A right wing former CIA extremist now working as an Iraqi
scientist w/ties to the al Qaeda. That, or Gary Coleman.
A right wing extremist or someone connected to right wing extremists --- 2 votes
An Israeli national --- 1 vote
Carl Rove --- 1 vote
Bill Clinton --- 1 vote
Al Qaeda
Al-Quaeda member --- 2 votes
My mother --- 1 vote
A US scientist recruited by Zawahiri in 1980 who then worked for the US Army where he obtained the Ames strain, who had the means, motive and opportunity.
An American scientist
Some lone American mope --- 3 votes
The band "Anthrax" --- 1 vote
A Republican researcher --- 1 vote
An anti-abortion terrorist --- 1 vote
The CIA --- 1 vote
So, it appears that there are 3 votes for an American Scientist, 2 votes for Al Qaeda and 2 votes for Right Wingers. The others got only one vote each.
And the poll thread gives this as the conclusion:
The only conclusion reached so far is that on the Internet when people are asked for their opinion the vast majority prefer to just make wise cracks.
Ed
Ed, Dr. Patricia Worsham shared that B3 suite with Bruce Ivins in late September 2001 and early October 2001. If wilful ignorance of the sworn deposition by FBI expert Patricia Worsham was hair, you would be a wookie. You will recall she led the presentation to the NAS.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Patricia Worsham shared that B3 suite with Bruce Ivins in late September 2001 and early October 2001." and "You will recall she led the presentation to the NAS."
ReplyDeleteSO WHAT!?
Are you totally incapable of explaining anything?
(1) Pat Worsham was Ivins' boss in September and early October 2001.
(2) As Ivins' boss, Worsham was the person directly responsible for Ivins and for letting him do what he did. So, if she admitted Ivins could have done it, she'd also be admitting she let him do it.
(3) Worsham was NOT working during the hours when Ivins was working alone in his lab.
(4) Worsham mostly worked in B4, not in B3, although there were connecting doors.
(5) She was NOT an "FBI expert" any more than Ivins was "an FBI expert." They both worked for the Army, not for the FBI.
Why do you even bring her up? What's your point?
Are you just trying to change the subject? Are you changing the subject because you do not want to admit you were WRONG in claiming that the CDC said that there were two trails of anthrax through post offices and therefore there were two anthrax letters sent to AMI?
Or is it because you don't want me to mention that "Maurice" in the poll you brought up is apparently YOU. Do you deny it? It certainly SEEMS to be you. He writes the same kind of rambling, incoherent, meaningless blather that you do.
The poll can be viewed by clicking HERE. In it, "Maurice" writes that the anthrax mailer is:
"A US scientist recruited by Zawahiri in 1980 who then worked for the US Army where he obtained the Ames strain, who had the means, motive and opportunity."
It's bad English, but "Maurice" appears to be arguing that he believes that the anthrax letters were MAILED by a US scientist who worked for the US Army in 1980, who had the means, motive and opportunity.
When "Maurice" wrote that comment in 2002, do you think "Maurice" believed that someone like Ivins or Worsham was the US scientist who was recruited by Zawahiri in 1980?
Or do you think "Maurice" was WRONG in what he wrote in 2002?
Ed
See the floor plan for the location of Dr. Worsham's office in the B306 in the B3 directly across from Animal Room 305 and Animal Room 310.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Dr. W's office was closer to the animal rooms than Ivins' office. You had to pass the key card entry to reach Room 305 and Room 310 -- something which took you years to figure out.
For years, you didn't realize the rabbits needed to be in B3 containment which caused your confusion. As if there were exercise wheels for mice in the room that rabbits being killed couldn't use them during lunch hour.
See the September 27, 2001 for the email evidencing Dr. Worsham's personal knowledge what Dr. Ivins was doing in the lab. (GAO, the FBI had this John Peterson cull this from USAMRIID's production. See Electronic Reading Room and look at computer forensics re sequential numbering of emails).
It states:
"Dear Queen of the Universe, Ruler of All that you Survey, Supreme and Grand Magisterial Potentate of Kindness and Favours to your Loyal Subjects (expecially those who clear [redacted] ...)
You asked me what I've done so far...
Tuesday evening... removed the light covers from the ceiling lights
Wednesday - cleaned the door jams where the doors hit them (and trap dirt), took the pans out of the hoods (haven't cleaned them yet), picked up the junk from the floor of the ____ lab ____), cleaned the floor of _____. BY the way, teh sink in ______ is completely stopped up. Do you want to call a plumber? Maybe ____ should.
____ worked his butt off Wednesday mroning cleaning in ___. Does ___ know who is "cleaning nicely in the sandbox" and who isn't? Perhaps he should remember who worked willingly and who refused (or worked with only the greatest reluctance) when approaisal time comes around next year. (!!).
Your ever humble servant,
-Bruce Badger
P.S. The fermentor rooms look the aftermath of an earthquake."
What he was doing that evening? He was doing tasks he had been instructed to do.
You characterize facts and make inferences while wilfully ignorant of what Dr. Worsham said in her deposition. For example, rather than ask Dr. Worsham or obtain and read her sworn testimony, you characterize the email as angry when Dr. Worsham understood it to be joking. Indeed, at his funeral she held up a T-shirt "The Queen Is Not Amused."
BTW, as a general matter, you routinely don't understand that FBI's experts are very commonly employed by someone else -- such as in this case Dr. Worsham was employed by USAMRIID.
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteAnd: What he was doing that evening? He was doing tasks he had been instructed to do."
Now you're just being silly.
The FACTS (and common sense) say Ivins was (and would have been) VERY BITTER over having a woman with less experience than he had be promoted to be his boss. Pat Worsham's point of view is IRRELEVANT.
That demotion is very likely what pushed Ivins "over the edge" and caused him to start thinking (once again) about sending out some kind of anthrax letter or letters.
Your screwball interpretation of that cleaning job shows you do not understand FACTS. In my web page about "When and Where Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders" (click HERE to read it) I explain:
"after mailing the media letters, Ivins suddenly no longer had any reason to go into his lab. He was evidently in "wait mode," waiting for the letters to Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, The New York Post and The National Enquirer to be delivered and for the letters to create the panic and news broadcasts that he assumed would result from their delivery.
But, nothing happened. The only time he went into his lab during the ten days from September 17 through September 27 was on Tuesday, September 25, when he was apparently instructed by Patricia Worsham to clean up his lab. An email Dr. Ivins wrote on the evening of September 26th indicates that he had been in Suite B3 cleaning the ceiling light covers on the previous evening "
Click on the chart of Ivins' B3 hours HERE and you will see his overtime hours doing that cleaning stands out like a tree in a desert as being the only time he worked at night between the time he mailed the media letters and the time he started thinking about sending out MORE letters to the senators.
You need to stop thinking only about people's opinions and start looking at what the FACTS say. You bring up the cleaning job and "Dear Queen of the Universe" letter like it means something toward Ivins' innocence, when the FACTS say it clearly shows that, except for that evening of cleaning ceiling lights, Ivins had no reason to be in B3 during the time between the mailings.
He didn't need to tend to any rabbits and he didn't need to make anthrax. He'd already sent out the media letters. When the media letters didn't do what he wanted, then he started working long evening hours again to make the powders for the senate letters.
If you'd just look at the FACTS instead of relying on people's beliefs, you'd see that Ivins was the anthrax killer and that your beliefs are ridiculous.
Ed
Can you upload the Little deposition? Thanks.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteYou may not realize this, but when you ask for something it's best if you give as much information as you have in order to save the other person some time.
I had to do a Google search to find the file number (154-15).
Then I had to check to see if it was already on my site. It is. Click HERE to view it.
Or, you can click HERE to view a version Google has in .TXT format.
If that isn't what your looking for, then you need to provide more information. I think that's the only Stephen Little deposition I have. If you want to get the complete deposition because you fantasize it will prove something, you'll need to get that from the DOJ or Maureen Stevens' lawyers yourself.
Ed
The reason to obtain documents is to see what they say. USAMRIID has all the civil deposiitons. Attorney Jeffrey Miller attended from JAG.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "The reason to obtain documents is to see what they say."
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are VERY DESPERATE to find something somewhere that validates your personal theory that Ivins was innocent and that Muslims did it. You've been trying for 12 years to prove that Muslims did it, and for five years to prove that Ivins was innocent, without proving anything.
So, you would be the best person to go through those documents looking for something to use to support your theory. There's no reason for me to do it, too.
If or when you find something to support your theory, I suggest you post your findings here along with the links to the sources of your evidence.
Then I will be happy to discuss the pros and cons of what you claim.
Meanwhile, I'm writing a novel and don't really have time to waste on digging through documents which logic says would not contain anything of any value to proving or disproving Ivins' guilt.
It's going to be YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you read that might be worth discussing. You would be claiming something IS there. I'm arguing that there's no reason to believe there is anything of significant value in the documents. So, it's your magnificent opportunity to prove me wrong.
Good luck.
Ed
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
ReplyDelete― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
― Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Indeed, if you had obtained the documents and depositions, you would not have wrongly argued for years that the 52 rabbits were not challenged under B3 biocontainment conditions -- or that Dr. Ivins was not required to come in over the weekend.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteThose quotes pertain to your ignorance of the facts, NOT to my lack of desire to hunt for new facts where there is no reason to believe there are any new facts.
"Information is not knowledge."
-- Albert Einstein
You ignore facts and pretend they do not exist, preferring opinions instead.
"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."
-- Plato
You invest in ignorance out of a need to feed your illusions.
"To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge."
-- Confucius
You are unwilling to learn because you prefer to stick with your screwball beliefs.
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
You seem to want to compel me to read documents that by all logic will not contain anything of value.
Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."
-- Plato
You repeat your mantra about the 52 rabbits as if it has meaning. If it has meaning PROVE IT. Don't just make the same idiotic claim over and over and over like some mindless robot.
You just made a total FOOL of yourself by arguing that there was some meaning to the fact that Ivins did some housecleaning during the period between the mailings. The FACTS showed that he did NOT work any overtime hours between September 17 and 27 - except for that cleaning session - because he was waiting for the results of the first mailing. He did NOT have to take care of any rabbits, AND he did not have to make any anthrax powders during that period. But you seemed to use the cleaning session as a proof of YOUR theory without any explanation why it proves anything other than that YOUR THEORY IS NONSENSE.
Reading irrelevant material will NOT increase your understanding of the Amerithrax investigation. If you want to understand the Amerithrax investigation, you need to start learning the importance of FACTS. Relying on OPINIONS (like those which might be in Stephen Little's deposition) just illustrates your ignorance of the case.
Ed
As another example, if you had obtained the documents and sworn testimony, you would have realized that the animal rooms across from Dr. Worsham's office were WITHIN the B3 suite.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteAre you so desperate to create some kind of argument that you need to point out errors I made and corrected YEARS AGO?
You argued 12 years ago that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks and you still do not see the error in your beliefs. You cannot see the mountain of evidence that says Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. You cannot see that IN TWELVE YEARS you haven't found a SINGLE ITEM OF EVIDENCE to PROVE your mistake filled theory. All you can do in your attempts to justify your erroneous beliefs is ask silly, endless, meaningless questions that no one answers.
Why not talk about YOUR ERROR from less that a week ago when you argued that I didn't know that Ivins was cleaning up his lab on the night of September 25. In reality, I not only knew it, I wrote about it in detail on my web site and in my book. I also knew it showed it was the only time from September 17 to September 27 when Ivins did work at night in his lab. He did cleanup work that Pat Worsham told him to do. OTHERWISE HE HAD NO REASON TO GO INTO HIS LAB. HE WAS NOT TENDING TO ANY RABBITS. And,he was NOT making anthrax powders at that time.
I could go back and point out other silly mistakes you've made in the past few months. But, that's the kind of argument one could expect from an obnoxious 12-year-old, not from an adult. So, it's your kind of argument, not mine.
Ed
The civil depositions taken in US v. Stevens include but are not limited to the sworn testimony of Gerard Andrews, Jeffrey Adamovicz, Arthur Friedlander, Patricia Fellows, Mara Linscott, Russell Byrne, and Patricia Worsham.
ReplyDeleteEd, the information about the availability of the US v. Stevenes depositions is not for you but is for people interested in writing or updating books about the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. This form merely provides a convenient opportunity to pass the information on. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteEd, in your recent internet post, you asked what reason Dr. Ivins had to be in the lab on September 28, 29, and September 30, 2001.
ReplyDeleteAs previously explained to you, the mouse experiment involved night checks.
As previously explained to you, this September 12, 2001 email explains that the passive mouse protection study would require postponement of a planned decon because Dr. Fellows had time points that had to be done at night
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 23, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/dr-ivins-september-12-2001-email-explains-that-the-passive-mouse-protection-study-would-require-postponement-of-a-planned-decon-because-dr-fellows-had-time-points-that-had-to-be-done-at-night/
As previously explained to you, checking mice, according to the record evidence, was a one man, two hour job.
FBI interview statement: If someone came in off hours it was to work on the animal experiments – this could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/hickory-dickory-doc-the-mice-ran-up-the-clock-and-dr-ivins-time-in-the-bl-3-lab-in-late-september-2001-but-not-as-much-as-the-rabbits-did-in-early-october-2001/
As previously explained to you, the greatest number of mice done that week died on September 28, 29 and 30, 2001.
Dr. Ivins’ lab notebook establishes that there were lots of dead mice and dead rabbits on the precise dates that the prosecutors and investigators speculate, without basis, that Dr. Bruce Ivins was making a dried powder out of Flask 1029 — such as the FBI anthrax expert had done in August 2000 at the request of DARPA
Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 3, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/dr-ivins-lab-notebook-establishes-that-there-were-lots-of-dead-mice-and-dead-rabbits-on-the-precise-dates-that-the-prosecutors-and-investigators-speculate-without-basis-that-dr-bruce-ivins-was/
If you have any additional questions, please refer to the other documents that were uploaded by Lew and the civil depositions -- or just be patient while someone publishes a book based on those depositions.
In civil depositions, documents are presented by the examining attorney and then the deponent is asked questions based on the documents.
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteThis is from page 32 of the Amerithrax Investigation Summary:
"It bears mention that during the first five days of this second phase, Dr. Ivins did make notations regarding the health of some mice involved in a study being conducted by another colleague – thus justifying his presence in the lab for a short time on each of those days (Friday, September 28 through Tuesday, October 2). However, the first three of those days, he was in the hot suites for well over an hour, far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead. And for the three nights before each mailing window, Dr. Ivins was in the hot suites for between two and four hours each night, with absolutely no explanation."
So, according to FBI investigators, while Ivins may have checked on the mice on Sept. 28, 29 and 30, he was in the B3 suite for far longer than was necessary to check on the mice. He had plenty of time to work on other things. In fact, he could easily check on the mice WHILE making anthrax powders. The making of anthrax powders involved running centrifuges. He could turn on the centrifuge and then go check on the mice while the centrifuge was spinning. Ivins didn't have to sit there and watch it spin. The work also involved drying spores. He did not have to sit and watch the spores while they dried.
And, has also been pointed out to you many times, your BELIEF that it took "approximately two hours" to check on animals is your interpretation of a comment made by Mara Linscott.
It obviously does NOT take that long, UNLESS you look at the entire sentence. According to the FBI report, Linscott said on page 23 of FBI pdf file #847425:
"If someone came in on the weekend it was to look at the animals/count the dead animals. This could take approximately two hours and was usually a one-person job."
So, ON THE WEEKEND it takes two hours and is a one person job. You inexplicably interpret this to mean that it ALWAYS takes two hours. Your interpretation makes NO SENSE at all. Obviously, it doesn't take that long to just walk down a row of cages and make notes on which mice have died.
When you look at the entire sentence, however, Linscott was obviously saying that, on a weekend when a person doesn't normally go in to work, it would take two hours OUT OF THE WEEKEND to drive to USAMRIID, to get into B3, to check the animals, to decontaminate, to leave B3, and to drive home again.
I realize you prefer to argue opinions versus opinions, but relying on your personal interpretation of one sentence to build your entire argument is just plain silly.
According to the FBI, working "well over an hour" would be "far longer than necessary to check to see if any mice were dead." Fantasizing that it would ALWAYS take TWO HOURS is also just plain silly.
So, (1) Ivins could check on the mice while ALSO making anthrax powders, and (2) it did NOT take anywhere near the entire time he was in B3 to check on the mice. It would only take a few minutes.
Plus, "for the three nights before each mailing window, Dr. Ivins was in the hot suites for between two and four hours each night, with absolutely no explanation." In other words, working with the mice doesn't provide ANY reason for him to have been working unusual hours in his lab on October 3, 4 and 5.
Your fantasies do not alter the FACTS. Your fantasies to not even explain key points showing Ivins was making powders, NOT checking on animals.
And the FACTS also say that the plates Ivins made to check the dosages for the mice inoculations were the same plates he used to make the anthrax spores used in the letters.
Your beliefs are nonsense and are contradicted by the FBI, the Department of justice, by solid facts and by common sense.
Ed
In your internet post, you now ask what he was doing the first days of October. Quoting the prosecutor rather than the record evidence, you write:
ReplyDelete"And for the three nights before each mailing window, Dr. Ivins was in the hot suites for between two and four hours each night, with absolutely no explanation."
In an Oct 5, ’01 email among the materials provided by USAMRIID this week, Dr. Ivins explains the results 3 days after the challenge of [the 52] rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment; the word “rabbits” has never passed the prosecutor’s lips
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/in-an-oct-5-01-email-among-the-materials-provided-by-usamriid-this-week-dr-ivins-explains-the-results-3-days-after-the-challenge-of-rabbits-in-the-formaldehyde-experiment-the-word-rabbits/
Hickory Dickory Doc: The mice ran up the clock and Dr. Ivins time in the BL-3 lab in late September 2001 but not as much as the rabbits did in early October 2001.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/hickory-dickory-doc-the-mice-ran-up-the-clock-and-dr-ivins-time-in-the-bl-3-lab-in-late-september-2001-but-not-as-much-as-the-rabbits-did-in-early-october-2001/
Now if you want to know why he spent the long hours in November and December 2001 -- or why he spent twice as many late hours in the 10 days before 911 than he did in the 20 days after 911, I refer you to the documents and civil depositions. You appear not to have even read the B01-11 protocol involving the 52 rabbits that was produced this month.
"Anonymous" wrote: "In your internet post, you now ask what he was doing the first days of October."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. I asked no such thing. It's just another one of your fantasies.
The FACTS say Ivins was making anthrax powders, but we he was also helping a colleague do some testing on mice for the first three evenings in October.
The FACTS suggest that Ivins may have volunteered to work on a colleague's project in order to have a REASON to work alone in B3 at night. The work required only a few minutes, so he'd have plenty of time to make the anthrax powders.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "In an Oct 5, ’01 email among the materials provided by USAMRIID this week, Dr. Ivins explains the results 3 days after the challenge of [the 52] rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment"
Maybe you do not understand: Ivins WORKED at USAMRIID. He had a job there. He NORMALLY worked during the day. And very often his work involved tests with animals. So, the fact that he was doing work at USAMRIID should NOT be a major news item for anyone.
The fact that he sent out an email about some rabbit tests in NO WAY indicates that those tests account for ANY of his overtime hours. Why should they? He'd done many tests before, and NEVER had he done so much work in his lab at night that he couldn't explain. If the rabbit tests had caused his overtime hours, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SAY SO AND PROVE IT. But, he couldn't explain his overtime hours -- except for the brief times he tended to mice on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of October.
You talk about the rabbits as if you have EVIDENCE of some kind. But YOU HAVE NOTHING. You just have a BELIEF that the work with rabbits somehow explains something. And you apparently want the DOJ and the FBI to prove that the work with rabbits does NOT explain his overtime hours. If they don't prove it to your satisfaction, then you're just going to believe what you want to believe.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "Now if you want to know why he spent the long hours in November and December 2001 .."
Why on earth would anyone care what Ivins was doing in November and December of 2001?
If you believe you have an explanation for something, PROVIDE THE EXPLANATION. No one is going to play any childish game of "Guess What I Know That You Don't Know?" with you. I've got better things to do.
Ed
Ed, leave the analysis of the documents to the folks who have actually bothered to obtain and read them. I posted the documents and discussed them yesterday on Lew's blog.
ReplyDeleteFor example, among other things, on October 1 he was making spores for the October 2 challenge of the RABBITS and on October 3 he was doing the spore count.
You haven't even read the B01-11 protocol relating to the experiment that first week of October involving the 52 rabbits is in the B3. Thus you mistakenly think that someone was in the B3 at night checking the animals when the documents show that it was Dr. Ivins. He went in that weekend because he was REQUIRED to do so under the mandatory animal protocol relating to the rabbit experiment. The DOJ's failure to disclose the fact of the rabbit experiment as the reason he went in that weekend constituted prosecutorial misconduct (if they knew of it). If they didn't know about it, it just constituted sloppy work in the rush of events. Your failure to obtain and read B01-011 or the other animal protocols relating to earlier in September similarly constitutes very sloppy research. You confuse prosecutorial assertions -- not supported by any citation to the record -- as evidence.
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteDo you know what a "protocol" is? You seem to believe it's a history of what was done in the past.
Have YOU read it?
Note the date. It is 11 FEB 02. That is months AFTER the attacks.
Note that item #4 begins this way: "The following describe what is to be done experimentally with the 52 rabbits."
So, the document is dated months after the attacks and describes what is PLANNED to be done in the future. It provides NO information about what Ivins did during August, September and October 2001.
Don't you understand anything you read?
You make claims about what you BELIEVE Ivins was doing, but you show NO EVIDENCE to support your claims. You point to a protocol as if it was some kind of evidence, but it ISN'T. IT IS MEANINGLESS.
Your failure to understand even this BASIC fact shows you understand nothing about the evidence against Bruce Ivins.
It also confirms that, since you know nothing about evidence, you could not possibly have BETTER evidence showing that someone else sent the anthrax letters.
All you have are mistaken beliefs and preposterous claims.
Ed
Mr. Lake, you are very seriously confused. You are referring to an Addendum to the protocol. The protocol B01-11 was approved on July 23, 2001. The email on July 23, 2001 when animal proposal 1-28 was approved is online. On that date, Dr. Ivins was informed that the protocol as executed was numbered B01-11. I offered you a copy of the protocol provided me under FOIA (which is not uploaded) but you didn't want it -- just like you weren't interested in the civil depositions (and they are not uploaded). You will see on the protocol it starts with all the signature lines. I have interviewed a member of the committee that approved the protocol too and he too thinks Dr. Ivins is innocent. That protocol is admissible evidence. See Federal Rules. I was trained by Nesson at Havard Law on what constitutes admissible evidence. Rachel's assertions are not evidence. They constitute a prosecutor's assertions. An assertion that there was no animal experiment in early October 2001 of course is contradicted by the notebook and emails and other documents showing that there was. That notebook (4241) and the emails were withheld from Dr. Ivins -- thus preventing him from reconstructing his time. I have uploaded the documents showing his attempts to obtain the documents. The FBI took the only copy of 4241 from USAMRIID and would not return it. The FBI similarly kept the only copy from USAMRIID from years until Lew forced the issue by exposing the issue. You might try pressing to obtain the contemporaneous documents rather than posting your lay opinion and endlessly confusing the issue. It's not like USAMRIID is charging requestors. For years you confused the issue by arguing the animal experiments were not done in that B3 and now you are confusing the issue as to when the experiment was done -- when the documents show that the first 52 rabbits were killed the first week of October. The challenge was on October 2. Dr. Ivins made the spores for the experiment on October 1. He did the spore count on October 3. He went in to the B3 that weekend because he was required to monitor the 52 rabbits and the protocol was mandatory. The animal protocol committee member reports to me that Ivins was very conscientious about the well-being of the animals.
ReplyDeleteHere is some of the contemporaneous evidence (all of it admissible evidence) that the DOJ/FBI withheld from both Dr. Ivins and the public for years. The former DOJ paralegal could confirm to the GAO, if interviewed, when the documents were entered to the DOJ database and confirm the description contained in the index of documents. The interview of that paralegal then could be disclosed pursuant to GAO rules.
ReplyDeleteBy email dated July 23, 2001, Dr. Ivins received notice of approval of an animal protocol that then was assigned protocol number B01-11; that protocol also should be obtained under FOIA. Relatedly, where is the passive mouse protocol implemented in September 2001?
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 9, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/by-email-dated-july-23-2001-dr-ivins-received-notice-of-approval-of-an-animal-protocol-that-then-was-assigned-protocol-number-b01-11-that-protocol-also-should-be-obtained-under-foia-for-example/
GAO: With regard to this form about the 52 rabbits posted by Dr. Ivins on October 4, 2001 in his lab notebook, the name of the other person should be disclosed; the form attached Animal Protocol B01-11 to be followed.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 16, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/gao-with-regard-to-this-form-about-the-52-rabbits-posted-by-dr-ivins-on-october-4-2001-in-his-lab-notebook-the-name-of-the-other-person-should-be-disclosed-the-form-attached-animal-protocol-b0/
12 rabbits then died on day 3 and 4 and more on day 5; Ivins time then spent the extra time on those nights; AUSA Rachel Lieber got her facts seriously wrong in the investigative summary; DOJ should have required citations to the record.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/12-rabbits-then-died-on-day-3-and-4-and-more-on-day-5-ivins-time-then-spent-the-extra-time-on-those-nights-ausa-rachel-lieber-got-her-facts-seriously-wrong-in-the-investigative-summary-doj-should/
In response to Dr. Ivins’ October 5, 2001 email discussing the rabbit deaths over the last three days, the participants in the study that day discussed by email the implications for further study
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/in-response-to-dr-ivins-october-5-2001-email-discussing-the-rabbit-deaths-over-the-last-three-days-the-participants-in-the-study-that-day-discussed-by-email-the-implications-for-further-study/
The 52 rabbits at issue was shipped from Covance to Detrick on September 24, 2001.
ReplyDeleteDocument produced today to DXer discussing shipment of 52 rabbits week of September 24, 2001 for formaldehyde study
Posted by Lew Weinstein on August 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/document-produced-today-to-dxer-discussing-shipment-of-52-rabbits-week-of-september-24-2001-for-formaldehyde-study/
He of course was also surfing the internet at night. Some people waste lots of time surfing the internet.
ReplyDeleteOn October 4, 2001, at 9:57 P.M., a time when the FBI speculates that Bruce Ivins was making a dried powdered anthrax, he sent an email explaining he had been reading the news on the internet; he offered a possible explanation about Mr. Stevens’ illness identical to that accepted by the CDC regarding a recent case of inhalation anthrax contracted in 2011 by another man from Florida
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 7, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/what-dr-bruce-ivins-was-doing-on-1042001-at-10-p-m/
As previously pointed out to you, at an October 11, 2001 NGAV meeting, Dr. Ivins presented preliminary results (data after 3 days and after 1 week) from the study involving the 5 year old preps of rPA vaccine w/ and w/o formaldehyde.
ReplyDeleteHere is an uploaded memo from the meeting.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/not-for-public-distribution-10-days-after-the-rabbits-had-been-challenged-on-october-1-2001-dr-ivins-presented-preliminary-results-from-the-battelle-study-involving-the-5-year-old-preps-of-rpa-v/
As previously pointed out to you...
ReplyDeleteIn regard to this October 5, 2001 lab notebook entry, GAO should publish its interview of AUSA Lieber in which she explains when she thinks the numbers referred to on the next page were created and why she didn’t mention the 52 rabbits in her Investigative Summary — why she claimed he had no reason to be in that lab at night that week.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 16, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/in-regard-to-this-october-5-2001-lab-notebook-entry-gao-should-publish-its-interview-of-ausa-lieber-in-which-she-explains-when-she-thinks-the-numbers-referred-to-on-the-next-page-were-created-and/
Dr. Ivins explained the experiment with the 52 rabbits on September 12, 2001. The FBI and DOJ prosecutors were aware of this email.
ReplyDeletehttp://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/Batch35/20010912_batch35(redacted).pdf
After the parenteral challenge in early October 2001 and his first report on October 5, colleagues continued to discuss the date with Dr. Ivins.
In the October 5, 2001 email, he had explained that there had been 12 deaths, and he broke it down by group.
Colleagues discussed the study with him. One colleague writes:
"If all or most of the rabbits die in the without formaldehyde group, then this would more strongly suggest that you need a stabilizer. Still, the vaccine is 5 years old; and if the rPA did degrade, we don't know anything about the rate of degradation or how this correlates to efficacy. For the licensed vaccine, the ORD says it needs to be stable for 2 years."
Another colleague writes:
"This could figure into the upcoming stability/efficacy study, for which I specifically asked about an concurrent set with an excipient but DVC considered this too early. Should we meet?"
He responds: "It's up to everyone else. It does strongly appear as though we will need a stabilizer, however."
In another email on October 5, 2001, a colleague writes Bruce:
"Subject: RE: Stabilizer in a new rPA vaccine
You will still need the protein data to confirm that it is a stability problem and not an adjuventing affect.
(yeah, I know, I always have to play devil's advocate)."
If you want to learn more of what the USAMRIID scientists say, please see the sworn testimony in their civil depositions.
If you want to learn more of what the emails say, by all means read those that have been uploaded.
Similarly, if you want to see the B01-11 protocol, please obtain it and read it. USAMRIID last I looked had not uploaded it but John at USAMRC did shoot me an electronic copy in wishing me a happy Turkey Day.
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada
ReplyDeleteAnd "That protocol is admissible evidence."
Evidence of what? That they had a protocol? Who denies that they had a protocol?
"Rachel's assertions are not evidence."
What you call "assertions" are, in court, called "summarizing the EVIDENCE."
"Anonymous" also wrote: "An assertion that there was no animal experiment in early October 2001 of course is contradicted by the notebook and emails and other documents showing that there was. That notebook (4241) and the emails were withheld from Dr. Ivins -- thus preventing him from reconstructing his time."
So, what does notebook 4241say that would help Ivins? I have a copy, and I see nothing that would help his case one bit. The same with all the emails you cite.
"Anonymous wrote; "the documents show that the first 52 rabbits were killed the first week of October.
But AT WHAT TIME OF DAY were they killed, and WHO killed them? WHERE were they killed. Logically, it would be done during NORMAL WORK HOURS and it would be done by a VETERINARIAN. You just assume that if there was work to be done, Ivins did it and he did it in the evenings. That is NUTS.
Where is your evidence that Ivins did work that logically (and probably legally) would HAVE to be done by a veterinarian?
"Anonymous" also wrote: "He of course was also surfing the internet at night."
Ivins generally did his "web surfing" using his computer in his office.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "On October 4, 2001, at 9:57 P.M., a time when the FBI speculates that Bruce Ivins was making a dried powdered anthrax, he sent an email explaining he had been reading the news on the internet"
The FBI speculated NO SUCH THING. You just do not check your FACTS.
If you checked the FACTS, you would see that he left the B3 lab and went to his OFFICE to surf the net and write that e-mail.
He left the B3 suite at 9:34 p.m. and returned at 10:07 p.m.
So, at a time when YOU CLAIM he was in his lab, he was actually in his office. The FBI was aware of that. I was aware of that. YOU were clearly NOT aware of that.
The data is on my web site HERE.
You do not check your beliefs against the facts.
You make unwarranted assumptions.
You claim Ivins did things he would not logically or LEGALLY do.
You use the beliefs of friends instead of facts.
You have no meaningful argument.
You either do not read the documents, or you do not understand what you read.
Ed
Correction: Ivins went through the airlock to exit the BSL-3 part of Suite B3 at 9:24 PM. He must have spent 10 minutes in the locker room changing clothes, since he didn't leave the Bacteriology Division until 9:34 PM.
DeleteThen he evidently browsed the Internet using the computer in his office, and he sent out an email at 9:57 PM.
When he returned to the Bacteriology Division at 10:07, he didn't go through the airlock, so he must have spent five minutes in the locker room before exiting the building at 10:12 PM.
That is what THE FACTS say.
Ed
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteI received the three emails you sent to my newsguy address. They say NOTHING of value. They do not PROVE that Ivins was the person who did anything. They do not show WHEN anything was done.
What they DO imply is that an "animal care staff" worked with the "investigators" when caring for animals.
You just assume Ivins did everything. Logic says that "the animal care staff" would be doing much of the work you believe Ivins' did.
Ed
The protocol expressly says that Ivins was required to monitor the animals and the page I sent sets forth what is involved in monitoring the animals. You didn't even know the mice and the rabbits were in the B3! Ha! But not to worry - Lew previously uploaded the page.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "The protocol expressly says that Ivins was required to monitor the animals."
ReplyDeleteDoes it? If so, why don't you QUOTE where it says that the monitoring work MUST BE DONE BY IVINS PERSONALLY? Does it say he personally has to do the monitoring 24 hours a day?
Are you concerned that whenever you try to get specific about FACTS, you are shown to be totally wrong?
You were totally wrong about the email Ivins sent on October 4.
You were totally wrong about what the FBI thought Ivins was doing on September 25.
Provide specifics, and tomorrow I'll see if I can show you where you are wrong.
Ed
I upload and address the documents on Lew Weinstein's blogs. Having to explain to you over two years that that the animals were challenged in the B3 was boring. People know to rely on the USAMRIID scientists and documents for their understanding of operation of the B3.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the 2-person rule implemented January 2002 caused a stop to one-person late night checks. But then the rule was deemed impractical.
For example, in January 2007, Dr. Ivins had more mouse challenges and late nights planned.
www.fbi.gov/about-us/...amerithrax/USAMRIID%20Section%204.pdf
Jan 22, 2007 - This week IVINS had more mouse challenges and late nights planned.
As explained in the sworn depositions and in the contemporaneous documents, Dr. Ivins was incredibly busy.
ReplyDeleteFrom: To: Subject: Date:
Hi,
Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID “(b) (6)
RE: MPL Investigations Friday, October 12, 2001 7:50:23 AM
(b)(6)
Yes, we are incredibly busy here. Our work with anthrax vaccine development is continuing at a rapid pace, as are experiments on other vaccines. At this point, it appears that the very next anthrax vaccine (scheduled soon for Phase I human clinical testing) will contain protective antigen and aluminum hydroxide, but not any other adjuvants. The reason that this decision was made – not by me – as I understand it, was that MPL and other adjuvants were not yet part of any fully FDA approved vaccines, although they have certainly been in humans with very promising results. I do want to tell you that we will be still working on improving the anthrax vaccine even more after the new vaccine comes out – it’s just that there was an incredible push to turn out a new vaccine as quickly as possible. A new plague vaccine may contain MPL (or other adjuvant) in an aerosol formulation to stimulate lung mucosal immunity.
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that it is impossible to hold any kind of intelligent discussion with "Anonymous."
I asked him to provide a QUOTE for when it says in the protocol that the animal monitoring chores MUST BE DONE BY IVINS PERSONALLY. And, instead, he changes the subject and posts nonsense about:
1. The 2 person rule, which has nothing to do with the case against Bruce Ivins.
2. Some mice challenges in 2007, which have nothing to do with anything.
3. An email where Ivins said they were "incredibly busy" on October 12, 2001, when the in-out logs show IVINS WAS NOT WORKING ANY SIGNIFICANT OVERTIME. Between October 5 and October 12, Ivins worked only 14 minutes in Suite B3. So, one can conclude that when Ivins wrote that he was "extremely busy," he was either lying or being "extremely busy" does NOT require working in the Suite B3.
It appears the "Anonymous" does not know what a "protocol" is. Click HERE for an explanation.
A protocol is "a predefined written procedural method in the design and implementation of experiments. Protocols are written whenever it is desirable to standardize a laboratory method to ensure successful replication of results by others in the same laboratory or by other laboratories.
So, rather than being a statement of what Ivins was personally doing, as "Anonymous" seems to believe, it is a PROCEDURE that anyone (or any GROUP) is supposed to be able to follow and get the same results.
"Formal protocols are the general rule in fields of applied science, such as environmental and medical studies that require the coordinated, standardized work of many participants."
Click HERE for the CDC's rules for developing a protocol.
All "Anonymous" is doing is demonstrating that he does not understand what he reads. He appears to have believed that a "protocol" is like a diary or a journal which someone writes afterward to describe what he personally did. No, it's a PROCEDURE that is written to describe what is done to achieve a specific result. A protocol can be followed by one person or by a group of people. It says "Do A and you get B. If you do not get B, then either you did something wrong, or the protocol is invalid."
It's the way things are done in scientific fields, which "Anonymous" doesn't seem to understand at all.
A protocol would NOT have been admissible as evidence in the Ivins case UNLESS it was accompanied by OTHER EVIDENCE which showed the protocol was followed, when it was followed and by whom it was followed.
By the way, the police (and FBI) also have protocols. One of them is called "Chain of Custody."
"Anonymous" complains that "The FBI took the only copy of 4241 from USAMRIID and would not return it."
That is because it was EVIDENCE that Ivins had no reason to be in his lab on the nights before the mailing of the anthrax letters. "Chain of custody" does not allow evidence to be turned over to a suspect. It can be shown to the suspect as long as there is no possibility that he can alter it or damage it in any way.
"Anonymous" claims to read a lot of documents. However, the FACTS show he does not UNDERSTAND what he reads.
Ed
Animal Protocol B1-011 (Produced Today) Required Ivins Observe the 52 Rabbits For Illness Or Debilitation For The First Week Of October 2001
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on November 15, 2013
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/animal-protocol-b1-011-produced-today-required-ivins-observe-the-52-rabbits-for-illness-or-debilitation-for-the-first-week-of-october-2001/
The description of the investigators I've uploaded explained that Stephen Little would not be handling the animals at all. In that regard, the language in the protocol incorporates the language of the animal proposal 1-28. By all means, if you have any additional questions, either obtain and read the civil depositions or I can address your remaining questions after the holiday. If you think animals can be humanely killed with anthrax by people punching the clock 9-5, it's good you don't have any pets. Your confusion begins and ends with you not knowing that the rabbits were challenged in the animal rooms in the B3 in 1425. Your failure to understand such a basic issue illustrates why you should not be addressing the subject.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteDo you even READ the stuff you post? How many times can you post INCORRECT information without seeing that is it incorrect?
You wrote, "Animal Protocol B1-011 (Produced Today) Required Ivins Observe the 52 Rabbits For Illness Or Debilitation For The First Week Of October 2001"
And the document at the link HERE says something VERY DIFFERENT:
"If the rabbits exhibit signs of atypical illness or debilitation, Veterinary medical Division personnel will be consulted and the appropriate care provided. The animals will be observed daily by trained Veterinary Medical Division personnel ... etc. etc. For the first 7 days after challenge, investigators on the protocol will OBSERVE the rabbits for illness or debilitation.
Notice that it does NOT say Ivins will do the "observing." It just says it will be done by "investigators." And it is illogical that ONLY Ivins would be observing animals 24 hours a day.
Notice, also, that it just says "investigators" will observe. It says nothing about performing necropsies or exsanguination or anything that would involve actually TOUCHING the animals.
And, page 16 (pdf page 2) of Notebook 4103 says this about a 1998 test:
"Trained Veterinary Medicine personnel will bleed the rabbits, monitor the daily condition of the rabbits, and euthanize the rabbits.
Other investigators will not handle the living animals."
"Anonymous" wrote: "If you think animals can be humanely killed with anthrax by people punching the clock 9-5, it's good you don't have any pets."
It is YOU who is claiming that animals can be killed by people who punch the clock 9 to 5. NOT ME.
I'm questioning whether someone who is NOT a veterinarian, LIKE IVINS, who punches a clock 9 to 5 (except when he was making anthrax powders), would be allowed to touch the animals at all.
Where are the documents which say that Ivins did anything except OBSERVE any animals?
Ivins was a bacteriologist, not a veterinarian. It appears that the only thing he did well was grow spores. Allowing him to inoculate animals, exsanguinate animals or perform necropsies seems ABSURD. I'm not saying he wouldn't be allowed to do it, but I've never seen any document where he says he TOUCHED any animal, and it makes a lot more sense that all the touching of the animals would be done by veterinarians.
You make assumptions that Ivins would do a lot of things that the facts indicate would ONLY be done by a trained veterinarian.
I'm not saying he didn't do them. I'm just saying I look at FACTS, and I don't see any FACTS which PROVE that he actually handled animals.
If Ivins handled animals, where's the evidence? Where are the emails which say he exanguinated animals or even inoculated them? All I see is your assumptions that he did everything. That is NOT something I would assume.
Ed
Ed,
ReplyDelete(1) please list for me the names of the investigators on B01-11. You seem not to know who the investigators are. Thanks.
(2) please list for me anyone -- whether investigator or not -- who entered the B3 on those nights.
Thanks. I'll make it easy for you. Patricia Fellows, Stephen Little and Bruce Ivins were the investigators. Stephen Little, as explained by the protocol, did no handling of the animals. The only investigator who entered the B3 on those nights was Bruce Ivins.
As indicated by the protocol first page uploaded by Lew, the Principal Investigator was Ivins and his Co-Investigators were Fellows and Little. The protocol states Litte "will not be handling the animals." Ivins entered the B3. Fellows did not. That is because he was the investigator monitoring the animals then. Please upload the excerpt I am emailing now. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteStandard Operating Procedures for Animal Assessment and Monitoring: the beautiful Amerithrax AUSA did not appreciate that Dr. Ivins was tasked to do this the first week of October with 52 rabbits.
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/standard-operating-procedures-for-animal-assessment-and-monitoring-the-beautiful-amerithrax-ausa-did-not-realize-that-dr-ivins-was-tasked-to-do-this-the-first-week-of-october-with-52-rabbits/
The B01-11 protocol expressly notes that "Dr. Ivins will help and challenge the rabbits." I have sent the excerpt and have asked that you upload it.
ReplyDeleteI have always pointed to the importance of obtaining the relevant documents. The DOJ refused to give Ivins his Lab Notebook 4241 -- and failed to provide him his emails -- so he was not able to reconstruct his time from 5 years earlier. No one would without the documents.
He asked USAMRIID for his emails but he was advised they couldn't be retrieved more than two years back.
The FBI first coughed up Lab Notebook 4241 (giving it to USAMRIID) in September 2002. The FBI had removed the only copy and Dr. Ivins was unsuccessful in his attempts to get it back.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/three-notebooks-from-the-fbi-have-now-been-released-on-the-foia-website/
He asked USAMRIID for his emails but he was advised they couldn't be retrieved more than two years back.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/a-truly-pathetic-interchange-of-emails-between-dr-bruce-ivins-and-a-colleague-name-withheld-by-usamriid-in-the-spring-of-2007/
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteI really don't have time to respond to your blather. All you do is demonstrate that you do not understand what you read.
Your best example yet: " 2) please list for me anyone -- whether investigator or not -- who entered the B3 on those nights."
You seem to believe that B3 contained only Ivins' lab.
You seem to believe that because the in-out logs provided by USAMRIID only show Ivins going in and out, that only Ivins WENT in and out. In reality, it's because the logs are IVINS' LOGS, not logs for everyone.
Ivins' lab was ROOM B313 WITHIN Suite B3.
Patricia Worsham HAD TWO LABS within Suite B3. She had labs in rooms B306 and B309. Plus, they had to cut a door in the back of room B309 so that she could also use room B406 in Suite B4 as a lab.
AND, there were evidently scientists working on a vaccine for Glanders in room B312. They may or may not have been doing tests on animals.
Patricia Worsham had a whole staff of assistants. One of them spilled some anthrax once and caused a major cleanup. Don't you remember? They all worked in B3.
The work Ivins did with the mice was to help a "colleague." Remember? Who was the colleague? Where did he work?
Any one or more of those "investigators" could have entered B3 at night and we wouldn't have any record of it because ONLY in-out log data for Ivins has been released.
AND all those other people were working on SOMETHING. So, they could have had animals that needed checking. AND, the FACTS say that ANIMAL HANDLERS and probably veterinarians came and went in and out of B3 routinely. We just do not have the in-out logs for them or their names, since they were not part of the FBI's case against Ivins.
You point out that Stephen Little did not handle animals. Okay. That was what I thought was the case, anyway.
You wrote: "The B01-11 protocol expressly notes that "Dr. Ivins will help and challenge the rabbits."
In reality, B01-11 says, "Dr. Ivins will help immunize and challenge the animals.
The key word is HELP. Who was Ivins HELPING if his assistants couldn't handle the animals? And wouldn't the immunizations be done during the day?
The answer appears to be Ivins would help ANIMAL HANDLERS AND VETERINARIANS. And, if the rabbits were in Suite B3, then those people would have had to go in and out.
Here is another misunderstanding of yours: "He [Ivins] asked USAMRIID for his emails but he was advised they couldn't be retrieved more than two years back."
In reality, Ivins deleted all of his emails from his computer for the time of the crime. That was part of the evidence against him.
The link you provided is about Ivins asking for "1) Airlock Decons, 2) Suite Decons ( was apparently cleaned and deconned in this timeframe.) 3) Coldroom or Freezer alarms or breakdowns 4) Other events."
He was NOT asking for emails. He was asking for data about decontaminating airlocks and spaces in Suite B3 outside of the labs, like hallways and the cold room. And people who FIXED things that broke down. Who did that work? Since Ivins didn't have the information, it wasn't him. Didn't they also have to go in and out of Suite B3? And, it is not logical that they would decontaminate airlocks during the day, so it was most likely done at night. If a freezer broke down, it would have to be fixed IMMEDIATELY. It couldn't wait for morning. Who would fix it?
It appears Ivins was looking for other people he could finger as being possible suspects for the anthrax killings, other people who went in and out of B3, mostly at night.
The FACTS say that a LOT of people other than Ivins COULD have entered B3 at night. And the FACTS say that animal handlers and veterinarians were most likely among those who entered.
You just do not understand what you read.
Ed
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeletePlease don't try to change your argument to claim that because a lot of people could have gone in and out of Suite B3 at night, someone other than Ivins could have been the anthrax killer.
What the FBI was doing for FIVE YEARS before Ivins became their main suspect was try to figure out who could have done it. EVERYONE BUT IVINS was eliminated as a suspect because they didn't have the ability, they didn't have access at the right time or they had an alibi for the times of the mailings. ONLY Ivins had means, motive and opportunity.
Ed
Ed, the decon records were not unavailable. The fellow simply forgot Dr. Ivins request for them until after his appearance before the grand jury.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/a-truly-pathetic-interchange-of-emails-between-dr-bruce-ivins-and-a-colleague-name-withheld-by-usamriid-in-the-spring-of-2007/
Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:44 AM … From ??? (not revealed by USAMRIID) To Bruce Ivins
Bruce, I have to apologize that I forgot. Do you still need this info? Let me know.
Paul Kemp has explained that the FBI's review confirmed that Dr. Ivins had in fact never tampered with his computer -- though that never finds it way into the "fun with facts" that the prosecutors had in their press conferences.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWseM_R-V5Q
As I repeatedly have indicated to you (with cited and linked authority), Dr. Ivins did not have available his emails from 2001 that reflected what he was doing. He was told by IT that "If more than two years have passed, it is not possible to retrieve email.”
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/a-truly-pathetic-interchange-of-emails-between-dr-bruce-ivins-and-a-colleague-name-withheld-by-usamriid-in-the-spring-of-2007/
DXer said
March 13, 2011 at 7:29 am
“3/25/2004 interview
IVINS consulted with _________ at USAMRIID Computer Services and learned that electronic mail (email) can be retrieved for a two year period, however it is expensive to do so. If more than two years have passed, it is not possible to retrieve email.”
Even without the benefit of the emails, in Fall 2007 and January 2008, Dr. Ivins explained his projects at the lab. Paul Kemp thought that Dr. Ivins did well in explaining his hours. His presence in the lab in the lab, Attorney Kemp says, is a red herring. When they asked him about his hours, the focus, according to Kemp, was on August and September 2001. (As I mentioned, Dr. Ivins spent more time at night in the lab in the 10 days BEFORE 911 than the 20 days after 911.)
After his death, when focus turned to the first week in October 2001, the DOJ continued to withhold for many years the only copy of his Lab Notebook 4241 that addressed the challenge to the 52 rabbits that week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWseM_R-V5Q
You are the one who did not realize that the animals were in the animal room within the B3 suite.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Mice Protocol, The Animals Were Challenged In B-305 (which is in Suite B3) ; Under This Protocol, Dr. Ivins Was In The B3 Those Nights The AUSA And Investigators Mistakenly Suggested He Had No Reason To Be In That Biolevel-3 Lab
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-mice-protocol-the-animals-were-challenged-in-b-305-which-is-in-suite-b3-under-this-protocol-dr-ivins-was-in-the-b3-those-nights-the-ausa-and-investigators-mistakenly-suggested-he-h/
The pool of individuals with access to the matching Ames "included 131 individuals with hot suite access in Building 1425, and another 246 individuals with hot suite access in Building 1412, though these numbers may included some duplication, as some individuals had access to both hot suites."
ReplyDeleteEd argues, in contrast to the mandatory protocol, that others were in the B3 lab that first week of October 2001 who conducted the daily monitoring of animals at night and on the weekend that first week of October 2001.
(According to the 302 interview statement, checking on the animals was a one-person, two hour job.)
To the contrary, the DOJ and FBI explained in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary: "Except for Dr. Ivins, all of these individuals visited the lab during standard work[] hours, with a few limited exceptions."
Hmm. It appears that when I'm using WORD to write my book and not using any other software for an hour or so, the email program that tells me that there is a comment for this blog that is awaiting moderation stops working.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably a good thing. Maybe the Fates are telling me I shouldn't be wasting my time responding to the ridiculous posts from "Anonymous."
While I was working on my book this morning, "Anonymous" posted FIVE messages. All are same-old same old.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, the decon records were not unavailable."
Did anyone say they were unavailable?
"Anonymous" wrote: "Paul Kemp has explained that the FBI's review confirmed that Dr. Ivins had in fact never tampered with his computer"
Did anyone say that Ivins "tampered with his computer?" All of his emails from 2001 were missing. Is deleting emails considered to be "tampering?" Do you think Ivins didn't send out any emails during that period?
"Anonymous" wrote: "As I repeatedly have indicated to you (with cited and linked authority), Dr. Ivins did not have available his emails from 2001 that reflected what he was doing. He was told by IT that "If more than two years have passed, it is not possible to retrieve email.”
He didn't have his emails in his computer BECAUSE HE DELETED THEM. You're talking about him trying to get COPIES from the server. He checked and found that server COPIES were not retained for more than two years. So, the FBI had to hunt down all of Ivins' emails from the people to whom he SENT the emails.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Under the Mice Protocol, The Animals Were Challenged In B-305"
And, no one said otherwise. What is your interpretation of the word "challenged?"
"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed argues, in contrast to the mandatory protocol, that others were in the B3 lab that first week of October 2001 who conducted the daily monitoring of animals at night and on the weekend that first week of October 2001."
"In contrast to the mandatory protocol?" You make no sense. You're misunderstanding something, as usual.
And, "Anonymous" wrote: "the DOJ and FBI explained in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary: "Except for Dr. Ivins, all of these individuals visited the lab during standard work[] hours, with a few limited exceptions."
Why do you ignore the rest of that statement from the Summary:
"Each person who went into the lab at off-hours had legitimate and demonstrable reasons to be in the hot suites at the times they were there. None of these people was alone in the lab for the lengthy period of time required to grow, harvest, purify, and dry the spores and to load the letters under a protective hood. A comparison of the off-hours of Dr. Ivins to those of these other researchers reinforces the conclusion that Dr. Ivins’s hours were suspicious."
Ed
Ed Lake wrote:
ReplyDelete"It doesn't appear that the animal rooms were BSL-3 rooms at USAMRIID ...."
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2011/10/oct-23-oct-29-2001-discussions.html
Ed was wrong and everyone but Ed knew that. Ed wrote:
"The only suite of labs in the Bacteriology division that didn't have keycard locks was B5. So, the evidence indicates that is where the rabbits were. It was a BSL-2 area. But, there are also indications that some animals were kept in the basement."
Ed was wrong and everyone but Ed knew that. The very most basic understanding of challenges to animals using virulent anthrax -- and the documents available to Ed -- pointed to the challenge of the animals being challenged in the animal rooms that he should have known were in the B3.
Ed wrote:
"I don't know any details about the mice and rabbits Ivins checked on during the time he was allegedly making the anthrax other than that the logs say they were NOT located in Suite B3 In October 2001, Ivins had to LEAVE suite B3 to check on the mice AND the rabbits.
So, as far as I can tell, the mice and rabbits have nothing to do with anything and weren't in Suite B3."
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2011/10/oct-23-oct-29-2001-discussions.html
Ed was wrong and everyone but Ed knew that.
Ed doesn't correct his mistakes. He just likes arguing -- he merely recasts his argument based on equally unsupported suppositions and assertions.
The fact that Ed did not even know that challenges to animals at USAMRIID were done under B3 containment conditions was a tip-off that he is not qualified to address the subject.
Instead documents, the sworn civil depositions of the USAMRIID scientists with personal knowledge of the animal experiments at USAMRIID, and interviews with those scientists is the appropriate guide.
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteHe's still complaining that I didn't know the details about Suite B3 back in 2011. And uses a comment I wrote in a thread in this blog from late October 2011, which can be viewed by clicking HERE
In that thread, I wrote, "I don't know any details about the mice and rabbits Ivins checked on during the time he was allegedly making the anthrax other than that the logs say they were NOT located in Suite B3 In Oct. 2001, Ivins had to LEAVE suite B3 to check on the mice AND the rabbits.
So, as far as I can tell, the mice and rabbits have nothing to do with anything and weren't in Suite B3."
Looking at my web site comments for that same period (click HERE, I see that in my Oct. 19, 2011 comment I have a floor plan for Suite B3 that has a big black rectangle over it that says"This image is wrong! See my comment for Nov. 13, 2011." Another image from Nov. 5 says something similar.
So, I was correcting my mistakes.
I originally thought that Suite B3 was a BSL-2 area, and that only Ivins lab in room B313 and maybe some other lab/room WITHIN B3 was a BSL-3 area. But, on Nov. 13, 2011, I learned I was wrong. Here's part of my comment for Nov. 13:
On Thursday, I exchanged several emails with, and then had a long talk with someone with direct knowledge of the location of things in Suite B3 in Building 1425 at USAMRIID. We also exchanged several emails on Friday. It took awhile, but my confidential source was very patient in getting new information to sink into my thick skull.
The person I talked with explained to me that I was mistaken about the locations of the card readers and the key pad. And in my comment I list 10 things I learned from that discussion.
But, looking over my comments from that period I see something I'd totally forgotten about. Here's the data comparing Ivins' in-out logs (click HERE and view pages 55 & 56) to the time he said he was checking on mice and rabbits from Sept. 28 thru Oct 2 (click HERE:
September 28, 2001:
10:05 PM - CORR TO AR OUT
10:00 PM - Claimed to check mice & rabbits
10:40 PM - CORR TO AR IN
September 29, 2001:
9:58 PM - CORR TO BACTI OUT
10:00 PM - Checked mice & rabbits
11:18 PM - 1425 REAR DR OUT
September 30, 2001:
10:06 PM - CORR TO AR OUT
10:00 PM - Claimed to check mice & rabbits
10:34 PM - CORR TO BACTI IN
October 1, 2001:
9:19 PM - CORR TO BACTI OUT
10:00 PM - Checked mice
10:13 PM - CORR TO BACTI IN
October 2, 2001:
9:39 PM - 1425 REAR DR OUT
10:00 PM - Claimed to check mice
The data says that Ivins did NOT check on rabbits at night in October, only at 8:30 in the morning and 1:30 in the afternoon.
This data also STILL says that, either the rabbits and mice were NOT in B3 OR Ivins would claim to check them at 10 p.m. but really did it whenever he felt like doing it.
Notice that when Ivins says he checked on the rabbits on Sept. 28 & 30, he went into the Animal Resources Division (AR).
Notice that when Ivins just needs to check on the mice he leaves the Bacteriology Division and goes somewhere that either doesn't require a keycard or doesn't show up on these in-out logs.
During the discussions with the USAMRIID "confidential source," I was told that Ivins could get into AR without using a keycard by going through a door from B5, which had a normal lock and key
I'd be happy to discuss this further. If I'm wrong about something, just show me solid evidence that says I'm wrong.
Ed
6. In an Oct 5, ’01 email among the materials provided by USAMRIID this week, Dr. Ivins explains the results 3 days after the challenge of rabbits in the formaldehyde experiment; the word “rabbits” has never passed the prosecutor’s lips
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/in-an-oct-5-01-email-among-the-materials-provided-by-usamriid-this-week-dr-ivins-explains-the-results-3-days-after-the-challenge-of-rabbits-in-the-formaldehyde-experiment-the-word-rabbits/
In response to Dr. Ivins’ October 5, 2001 email discussing the rabbit deaths over the last three days, the participants in the study that day discussed by email the implications for further study
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/in-response-to-dr-ivins-october-5-2001-email-discussing-the-rabbit-deaths-over-the-last-three-days-the-participants-in-the-study-that-day-discussed-by-email-the-implications-for-further-study/
7. 12 rabbits then died on day 3 and 4 and more on day 5; Ivins time then spent the extra time on those nights; AUSA Rachel Lieber got her facts seriously wrong in the investigative summary; DOJ should have required citations to the record.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 3, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/12-rabbits-then-died-on-day-3-and-4-and-more-on-day-5-ivins-time-then-spent-the-extra-time-on-those-nights-ausa-rachel-lieber-got-her-facts-seriously-wrong-in-the-investigative-summary-doj-should/
8. NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION: 10 days after the rabbits had been challenged on October 1, 2001, Dr. Ivins presented preliminary results from the Battelle study involving the 5 year old preps of rPA vaccine w/ and w/o formaldehyde.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 24, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/not-for-public-distribution-10-days-after-the-rabbits-had-been-challenged-on-october-1-2001-dr-ivins-presented-preliminary-results-from-the-battelle-study-involving-the-5-year-old-preps-of-rpa-v/
9. The page 55-56 you cite discusses the keycard records of aerosol expert Patricia Fellows. She was the other investigator on the rabbit experiment. They show that she did not enter the lab at night in connection with the rabbits. Her civil deposition was shredded by the DOJ.
10. Under the B1-11 protocol relating to the rabbits, the investigator was required to check the rabbits for the first week after challenge.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/protocol-b01-11-produced-last-week-specified-the-pain-assessment-guidelines-bruce-ivins-was-required-to-follow-in-monitoring-the-52-rabbits-in-the-b3-that-first-week-of-october-2001/
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/rabbit-challenge-first-week-of-october-2001-the-principal-investigator-was-ivins-and-his-co-investigators-were-fellows-and-little-little-will-not-be-handling-the-animals/
11. The 52 rabbits needed to be moved into the B3 for the purpose acclimatizing them a week before -- on or about September 24, 2001 when they arrived from Covance. Animals were required to be put in the B3 a week before challenge to acclimatize them to the surrounding and reduce their stress level.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/animal-protocol-b1-011-produced-today-required-ivins-observe-the-52-rabbits-for-illness-or-debilitation-for-the-first-week-of-october-2001/
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/document-produced-today-to-dxer-discussing-shipment-of-52-rabbits-week-of-september-24-2001-for-formaldehyde-study/
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/in-week-9-the-week-september-24th-2001-the-rabbits-were-shipped-from-covance-to-usamriid-building-1425-suite-b3-how-long-did-it-take-to-bleed-the-52-rabbits-involved-in-the-formaldehyde-study/
12 The lyophilizer discussed by US Attorney Taylor at the early August 2008 press conference was in Suite B5, not Suite B3 where Dr. Ivins was on the nights in question (where he was doing the study with the 52 rabbits)
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 11, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/the-lyophilizer-in-building-1425-was-in-suite-b5-not-suite-b3-where-dr-ivins-was-on-the-nights-in-question-where-he-was-doing-the-study-with-the-52-rabbits/
13. It would take 1 hour and 50 minutes to autoclave animal pans and cages (90 minute steam cycle and 20 minute drying cycle) The last person in for the day would tend to operate the autoclave.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/it-would-take-1-hour-and-50-minutes-to-autoclave-animal-pans-and-cages-90-minute-steam-cycle-and-20-minute-drying-cycle/.
Be sure to turn out the lights on when you are done. The lights are on but no one is home.
Hmm. I just noticed something else.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the chart that "Anonymous" uses to argue that Ivins was checking on mice and rabbits during the "unexplained" time he was in B3 at night, it appears that Ivins was ALSO NOT in B3 during the DAY when it was time to check on the rabbits and mice.
Compare the times on the mouse/rabbit check sheet HERE with Ivins B3 access roster HERE
27 Sept. Rabbit check at 1:30 p.m.
In-out log says Ivins left B3 at 12:03 p.m.
28 Sept. Rabbit check at 8:30 a.m.
In-out log says Ivins did not use keypad to enter B3 until 1:48 p.m.
29 Sept. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 11:30 a.m.
In-out logs says Ivins doesn't use keypad to enter B3 until 8:22 P.M.
29 Sept. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 10 p.m.
In-out logs say Ivins left B3 at 9:42 p.m.
30 Sept. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 11 and 11:30 a.m.
30 Sept. Ivins again checks MICE AND RABBITS at 3 p.m.
30 Sept. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 10 pm.
In-out log says Ivins doesn't use keypad to enter B3 until 10:45 p.m.
01 Oct. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 8:30 a.m.
In-out logs say Ivins doesn't enter B3 until 8:40 a.m.
01 Oct. Ivins checks RABBITS at 1:30 p.m.
In-out logs say Ivins left B3 at 12:30 p.m. and didn't return until 10:19 p.m.
02 Oct. Ivins checks RABBITS at 1:30 p.m.
In-out logs say Ivins left B3 at 9:40 a.m. and returned at 2:34 p.m.
02 Oct. Ivins checks MICE at 10 p.m.
In-out logs say Ivins left B3 at 8:29 p.m.
03 Oct. Ivins checks MICE at 9 a.m.
In-out logs say Ivins didn't enter B3 until 10:50 a.m.
03 Oct. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 1:30 p.m.
In-out logs says Ivins left B3 at 11:42 a.m. and didn't reenter until 7:32 p.m.
04 Oct. Ivins checks RABBITS at 1:30 p.m.
04 Oct. Ivins checks MICE at 2:30 p.m.
In-out logs says Ivins entered the B3 area at 2:32 p.m.
05 Oct. Ivins checks MICE at 10 a.m.
05 Oct. Ivins check Rabbits at 1:30 p.m.
In-out logs say Ivins first entered the B3 area at 1:35 p..m.
Why does it appear that whenever Ivins needs to check on the animals HE NEEDS TO BE OUTSIDE OF SUITE B3?
Ed
CORRECTIONS: Since I cannot change the above comment except by deleting it and replacing it with a new comment (which would put it in a different place in this thread), this is what is incorrect in the above comment:
Delete1. The FACTS now indicate that the check sheet HERE does not involve any rabbits, only 4 groups of mice.
2. The FACTS now indicate that Ivins did NOT do ANY monitoring of the mice. (1) His in-out logs say that he was NOT in Suite B3 at the time of the mouse checks. And (2) a form supplied by "Anonymous" HERE implies that Ivins would not do any monitoring. HOWEVER, it is possible that Ivins made some entries on the check sheet based upon information obtained some other way.
So, where it says this above:
01 Oct. Ivins checks MICE AND RABBITS at 8:30 a.m.
In-out logs say Ivins doesn't enter B3 until 8:40 a.m.
it should say this:
01 Oct. - check MICE at 8:30 a.m.
In-out logs say Ivins doesn't enter B3 until 8:40 a.m.
Ed
"Anonymous" wrote: "1. The link to the graphic of mine you link is a notebook pages relating only to mice, not rabbits. (They were entirely different experiments).
ReplyDeleteYes, but the form says "GROUP 4 NORMAL RABBIT" in the right-most column. The form says one of the "rabbits" died from non-anthrax causes on Sept. 27. And, the animals in that column are clearly treated differently.
"Under the Mice Protocol, The Animals Were Challenged In B-305 (which is in Suite B3)"
I know where B-305 is, but why did Ivins have to leave B3 to check on the mice if the mice were in B-305?
"Here are sample pages from Lab Notebook 4241 relating to the rabbit experiment. You do not upload Lab Notebook pages 4241 when you should.
I have the Notebook and so does USAMRIID's site. Click HERE to view it. All it has is question marks under the column which says when the rabbits died. It provides no useful information.
"The 52 rabbits needed to be moved into the B3 for the purpose acclimatizing them a week before -- on or about September 24, 2001 when they arrived from Covance."
The protocol says the animals have to be in a location for a week to acclimatize them. But it says NOTHING about where they were actually kept.
What FACTS do you have which PROVE that the mice OR rabbits were in Suite B3?
All the FACTS I see say that Ivins WAS NEVER IN B3 when it was time to check on the animals. He was always somewhere else.
The facts seem to indicate that the rabbits were kept in the Animal Resource Division. It's unclear where the mice were kept, but the FACTS very clearly say they were NOT kept in B3. (Yes, I know that B-310 was a room for mice and it was in B3, but that's irrelevant if the FACTS say that is NOT where the mice in question were kept. )
Ed
Ed, again, the graphic you link has a chart for mice, not rabbits. The rabbits were challenged by injection on October 2, with the spores created on October 1. The rabbits, however, were moved into the B3 on September 24 upon being shipped from Covance.
ReplyDeleteEd writes:
ReplyDelete"it appears that Ivins was ALSO NOT in B3 during the DAY when it was time to check on the rabbits and mice."
Note that his checking on the rabbits was during the first week of October 2001. He was obligated to monitor the animals the week after challenge. The animals were in B3 containment. Dr. Ivins went to the B3 containment at night, Ed writes, rather than day. (For years Ed has argued that Ivins monitored the animals during the day rather than night -- when the keycard entries show otherwise.) As he now points out, the time records show he visited the B3 at night. His assistant reports that checking the animals was a one person, two hour job. (And here the number of rabbits was doubled to twice the number that had been planned.
Coincident with dealing with the dozens of animals, Dr. Ivins would have to sometimes go to the Animal Resources area. Although the documents make clear that the animals were in the B3 hot suite (for example, mice were in Rm. 305), additional resources were kept in the animal resources room. see floor plan.
Did AUSA Lieber and Agent Montooth understand Dr. Ivins’ trips to the “AR” from the hot suites as trips to a locked cabinet in “Animal Resources” to get the Ketamine and Euthasol needed to anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits? See DEA (part of DOJ) Controlled Substance log.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 11, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/did-ausa-lieber-and-agent-montooth-understand-dr-ivins-trips-to-the-ar-from-the-hot-suites-as-trips-to-a-locked-cabinet-in-animal-resources-to-get-the-euthasol-needed-to-euthanize-moribun/
"Anoymous" wrote: "Ed, again, the graphic you link has a chart for mice, not rabbits."
ReplyDeleteSo you SAY, but where's the evidence? YOU highlight that the 4th column is for RABBITS and the other columns are for mice, AND the form actually says the 4th column is for RABBITS.
I can't take your word for it that "rabbits" really means "mice."
And where is your EVIDENCE that the rabbits and/or mice were kept in B3?
The FACTS indicate that Ivins LEFT B3 whenever it was time to check on the rabbits AND/OR mice.
If that form is not for the rabbit experiment, where is the form for the rabbit experiment? Where is the DATA which shows when Ivins was checking on rabbits if it is not the one you've been showing for years? It is NOT part of lab notebook 4241.
Ed
You were confused by the word "rabbit" in the chart relating to the passive mouse experiment.
DeleteThe word "Grp 4 Rabbit" on the chart followed the phrase "Grp 3 Human."
To put it lay terms, Grp 3 did not involve humans as subjects and Grp 4 did not involve rabbits as subjects.
In both groups mice were the study subjects. But I don't want to go all scientific on you.
As explained on the page immediately before, the chart represents "Results from the second passive mouse expt."
http://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/Lab%20Notebooks/20010809_LabNotebook4383(redacted).pdf
These issues have all been often addressed.
ReplyDeleteYour confusion on the word "rabbit" was previously addressed. The page is from the mouse experiment that has been uploaded and linked on Lew's blog.
And it was pointed out years ago that Anthony Bassett threw out the animal cage cards for the rabbit/formaldehyde experiment by 2004 -- to Dr. Ivins' great frustration. (There are document retention policies that apply ; I don't know the details of such recordkeeping policies at USAMRIID). Dr. Ivins similarly did not have the benefit of his emails because the IT said that it could not retrieve them after two years.
Please refer to civil depositions or contact the scientists to clear up any of your remaining confusion. Dr. Adamovicz, Dr. Andrews, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Heine and others have given public interviews. Dr. Andrews, for example, has pointed out that Dr. Ivins was working on 19 projects during this period. As Dr. Ivins repeatedly points out in his emails from October 2001, it was an incredibly busy time.
"Anoymous" wrote: "Please refer to civil depositions or contact the scientists to clear up any of your remaining confusion."
DeleteIn other words, you HAVE NO FACTS to support your beliefs.
Yes, these issues were addressed years ago, and you were shown to be wrong then. You just don't pay attention. So, you're still arguing the same nonsense.
"Civil depositions" aren't going to resolve any of the issues in question. That's just a FANTASY of yours.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF WHERE THE RABBITS WERE KEPT OR STOP BLATHERING NONSENSE THAT THEY WERE KEPT IN BACTERIOLOGY DIVISION SUITE B3.
You're entire argument seems to be based UPON TOTAL NONSENSE.
Ed
"Anonymous" wrote: "The animals were in B3 containment. Dr. Ivins went to the B3 containment at night."
ReplyDeleteI think you are confusing BSL-3 containment with Bacteriology Division Suite B3. There are lots of other BSL-3 containment areas within Building 1425. They even had at least 1 BSL-4 containment area. Why couldn't the rabbits have been kept in a BSL-3 area in the Animal Resources Division? That would make much more sense, since it seems logical that animal handlers and veterinarians would do a lot of the animal handling tasks that YOU BELIEVE were done by Ivins.
And why couldn't the mice be in the BSL-3 area in Suite B4? If Pat Worsham was performing experiments on mice that were in room B-310, would they allow someone else to use the same room for a different experiment? And why do you say the mice were in B-305 when that is supposedly a room for guinea pigs, not mice? Mice are kept in B-310.
Please clarify your claims and provide sources.
Ed
You call Rm. 305 the "guinea pig" room but I have known many a mouse to have died in Room 305.
Deletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/under-the-mice-protocol-the-animals-were-challenged-in-b-305-which-is-in-suite-b3-under-this-protocol-dr-ivins-was-in-the-b3-those-nights-the-ausa-and-investigators-mistakenly-suggested-he-h/
My guinea pig Lucy asks that I tell you that so long as it is a nonsmoking room, she would be willing to be housed in the room you think of as the room for mice.
Ed writes:
Delete"I think you are confusing BSL-3 containment with Bacteriology Division Suite B3. There are lots of other BSL-3 containment areas within Building 1425. ... Why couldn't the rabbits have been kept in a BSL-3 area in the Animal Resources Division?"
The passive mouse protocol, which I have cited to you many times, expressly states that they will be challenged in Bacteriology Suite 3.
You don't post links that contradict your most recent confusion -- and don't read or obtain the underlying documents. You have maintained the same state of confusion throughout 2011, 2012 and now 2013. Every time you it looks like you take a few steps forward, you slide back down the hill into a swamp of confusion.
The Protocol "Passive protection of CBA/J mice from Bacillus anthracis infection with specific antiserum expressly states that the mice will be challenged in "Bacteriology Suite 3."
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/the-passive-mouse-study-involved-up-to-320-mice-and-required-observation-for-14-days-it-seems-that-the-prosecutor-and-investigators-did-not-understand-this/
The fact that you remain as confused as you were in 2011 and 2012 doesn't matter. But thank you for making that clear. I was afraid you would prove me wrong and correct your mistakes.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteOkay, I concede that the 4th column is not the rabbit test. It's another group of mice. So, the column headings mean nothing. You just confused the situation by highlighting the word "RABBITS" on the fourth column of your graphic as if it actually meant rabbits.
However, the point remains: Ivins was NOT in Suite B3 when all the mouse checks were done. So, Ivins' time CANNOT be accounted for by any imagined checking on mice in Suite B3 as represented by that chart.
And,all this is MEANINGLESS to the case against Ivins, except in your imagination.
I'm only looking at it to try to figure out how you can be so wrong about Ivins. The idea that none of this was figured out by the FBI is just plain preposterous.
The idea that you can figure things out that the FBI working at USAMRIID and with the scientists involved could not figure out is preposterous.
It's as absurd as Mr. Rowley's belief that there are Hebrew characters in the letters.
You're taking your interpretations of things and putting them together in ways that would make no sense to anyone else.
My problem is to try to explain to you where you got so ridiculously wrong. But, to do that, I'm going to have to study some of these documents a bit more.
I really don't have the time for such nonsense, but I'll try to find some time tomorrow afternoon.
Ed
"But, to do that, I'm going to have to study some of these documents a bit more."
ReplyDeleteThe highly efficient and responsive FOIA officer at USAMRIID will shoot you unredacted copies of any document naming animal room numbers. The building has been renovated. Identification of the two animal rooms in the BL-3 -- 305 and 310 -- do not involve privacy concerns warranting redaction under (b)(6). Heck, I've known guinea pigs to undress in the same room as mice.
Usual Principles Governing Exemption (b)(6) of FOIA Do Not Warrant Redaction of Room Numbers (e.g., Rm. 310 and Room 305 in B3) From the Protocols Describing Dr. Ivins Work Under the Animal Protocols in September and October 2001
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 27, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/usual-principles-governing-exemption-b6-of-foia-do-not-warrant-redaction-of-room-numbers-e-g-rm-310-and-room-305-in-b3-from-the-protocols-describing-dr-ivins-work-under-the-animal-protocol/
The documents were explained at Lew's site here yesterday. The documents are hyperlinked and uploaded.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/rabbit-challenge-first-week-of-october-2001-the-principal-investigator-was-ivins-and-his-co-investigators-were-fellows-and-little-little-will-not-be-handling-the-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-26052
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteI have no interest in looking at meaningless documents. And I have no interest in arguing with you about how I know they're "meaningless" if I haven't read them. They're meaningless until you PROVE otherwise.
I think we need to set some new rules.
You have NO EVIDENCE which PROVES that Ivins was working with rabbits during the time the FBI says that he was making anthrax powders.
From now on, you need to (1) make your claim, (2) provide evidence - including links - in support of your claim, and (3) explain how the evidence supports your claim.
Otherwise, you are just wasting my time.
Ed
I have asked the highly efficient FOIA officer at USAMRIID for an unredacted copy of the paragraph "Study Room" that identifies the room in the Bacteriology Suite where it was conducted. (The paragraph is in the passive mouse protocol).
ReplyDeleteUnder (b)(6) the public interest in knowing where Dr. Ivins was those nights when Pat Fellows says he was with the mice outweighs the privacy of the furry little critters.
Regardless whether the number is 305 or 310, it does not affect analysis -- both are within Bacteriology Suite B3 ("the hot suite"). But the elimination of unnecessary redaction will lend clarity to you if you are finding events from 2001 difficult to reconstruct because of your unfamiliarity with USAMRIID SOPs. We will have you dealing animal cage cards in your sleep in no time.
Thank you for so quickly correcting your post yesterday on your website in which you mistakenly claimed that it was Mr. Little's notebook. In the future, I'll just post the documents on Lew's blog and you can correct your mistakes as you go.
"Anonymous" wrote: "I have asked the highly efficient FOIA officer at USAMRIID for an unredacted copy of the paragraph "Study Room" that identifies the room in the Bacteriology Suite where it was conducted."
ReplyDeleteWhat is your claim? You seem to be claiming that Ivins was tending to the mice, when the in-out logs clearly show that Ivins was NEVER in Suite B3 when the mice were being checked. Since, as you say, B-305 and B310 are both in Suite B3, that means that Ivins was not in those rooms, either.
The in-out logs are automated and override any human memories. Ivins in-out logs are HERE on pages 19 -21.
Instead of running around gathering more IRRELEVANT information which proves nothing, you need to explain how Ivins could be tending to the mice (IF that is your claim) when the in-out logs say he was NOT in Suite B3 when the mice were being checked.
Also, as your information HERE says, the mice would be "MONITORED" by the person with 12 years experience (presumably Pat Fellows). Ivins would NOT "monitor" the mice. He would only vaccinate them with the vaccine and challenge them by injecting them with spores.
Checking on the mice would be "monitoring" them.
So, please (1) state your claim, (2) provide evidence to support your claim, and (3) explain how you evidence supports your claim.
Providing IRRELEVANT information won't solve any dispute.
NOTE: I am making NO claims. I am just trying to determine what YOUR claim is and to see if it is true or false.
The in-out logs say that Ivins was NOT in Suite B3 when, according to the chart, the mice were being checked.
That is NOT a claim. That is what the FACTS seem to say. I welcome any solid evidence in the form of ADDITIONAL FACTS which would show that the KNOWN FACTS can be interpreted differently.
Ed
"Anonymous" wrote: "I have asked the highly efficient FOIA officer at USAMRIID for an unredacted copy of the paragraph "Study Room" that identifies the room in the Bacteriology Suite where [the passive mouse study] was conducted."
ReplyDeleteEd asks:
"What is your claim?"
My claim is that have asked the highly efficient FOIA officer at USAMRIID for an unredacted copy of the paragraph "Study Room" that identifies the room in the Bacteriology Suite where it was conducted. You will be able to compare the location of the mice relative to his in-out logs at night. (One passed the B3 key-card entry to reach Rm. 305 and Rm. 310. I expect that you will find that the FBI and Pat were correct that the mice were in the "hot suite" (e.g., Rm. 305 or Rm. 310) on those days (doing the animal checks for the mice, the bleeding, autoclaving etc.) No one else entered the B3 daily at night (where the mice were). The key card entries show that Bruce Ivins was the one doing the work that needed to be done at night. Those rooms are in Bacteriology Suite B3, and not the Animal Division as you suggested as recently as yesterday. (Supplies were kept in the Animal Division). You also suggested the mice were in the BL4 suite. No, Ed. The mice were in one of the two animal rooms in the B3 "hot suite". The unredacted paragraph -- if the room number is Rm. 305 or Rm. 310 -- will be the stake in the heart of your continued willful ignorance.
Once the short-lived two person rule implemented in January 2002 was abandoned, Bruce resumed such "night checks". See, e.g., 2007 302 interview statement (Dr. Ivins had more late nights planned as part of a mice experiment). Dr. Ivins, as explained in Dr. Adnrews' civil deposition and publicly, worked similar hours in Building 1412. Indeed, he worked similar hours in November and December 2001 which without more destroyed the FBI's argument based on hours.
For 3 years, including as recent as yesterday, you have disputed the location of the mice. You have suggested Bldg. 1425, B5; Building 1412; the Animal Division etc. When the documents available to you since 2011 (if not 2009), to the contrary, show that the mice were in the B3, "the hot suite."
Separately, as to the chart, you appear not to have read the SOPs relating to animal observations or summarizing animal cage cards. I've urged that you are not qualified to address these issues -- your unfamiliarity with animal experiments at USAMRIID leads to a daily new confusion. I recommend you read more and post less.
For example, you say that Ivins would not "monitor" the mice even though the protocol requires that. I can't fix stupid, Ed.
"Anonymous" wrote: "My claim is that have asked the highly efficient FOIA officer at USAMRIID for an unredacted copy of the paragraph "Study Room" that identifies the room in the Bacteriology Suite where it was conducted."
ReplyDeleteThat is NOT a claim. It's just something you are doing for purposes of your own. You need to get yourself a dictionary.
This is a claim: "The key card entries show that Bruce Ivins was the one doing the work that needed to be done at night."
The FACTS from the in-out logs say your claim is WRONG.
Here is another CLAIM: "For example, you say that Ivins would not "monitor" the mice even though the protocol requires that."
You evidently do not know what a "protocol" is, either. A protocol CANNOT say who will monitor the animals, because a protocol needs to repeatable by someone else.
The fact that the word "protocol" is used on a document does NOT mean that it is a "protocol," it may just mean that it RELATES to a specific protocol.
For example, the document on Lew's blog HERE makes it VERY clear that Ivins would NOT be monitoring the mice.
You need to understand what words like "claim" and "protocol" mean before attempting to argue that you know more about the Amerithrax investigation than the FBI does.
Ed
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteWhy are you trying to find out whether the mice were kept in room B-305 or B-310 WHEN IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO ANYTHING? Both rooms are in Suite B3 and the in-out logs would not show which room was used. So, why waste people's times doing research on matters that MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.
If you would focus on things that MEAN something instead of constantly arguing over IRRELEVANT matters, you might learn something and see how your CLAIMS are preposterous.
Ed
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteFYI, the information that mice were kept in room B-310 comes from BRUCE IVINS.
Page 26 in FBI pdf file #847443 HERE describes a tour of Bacteriology Suite 3 (B3) that Ivins gave to some FBI agents in February 2003:
Ivins pointed out the B3 cold room as being on the right side of the hallway when looking through the crash door, with a black box on the door. Room 308 is the pass through to suite B4. The mouse animal room is the third door down on the right when looking through the crash door. The guinea pig room is across the hall with the cleaning supplies for the suite located to the right of the door as the room is entered."
Looking through the window in the "crash door," the first door on the right inside suite B3 is B-308 which connects to Suite B4, as the FBI report says. The second door on the right is B-309 which was Pat Worsham's lab. The third door on the right is B-310, which according to the FBI recalling what Ivins told them, is the mouse room.
So, when I said that the mouse room appeared to be B-310, I was just stating what the known FACTS were. No beliefs, no opinions.
Wasting time to show that on some point in time mice may also have been kept in B-305, or that the FBI was incorrect in their field report, OR that Ivins may have been incorrect in what he told the FBI agents seems to be IRRELEVANT AND A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.
Ed
With respect to bleeding, the passive mice protocol that Dr. Ivins was working on in the B3 in late September 2001 states:
ReplyDelete"Biosamples. Ten mice from each study group which have been designated for serology studies (not challenged) will be bled at the approximate time of challenge and 30 hours post-challenge. Blood (200 ml) will be drawn from the retroorbital sinus of anesthesized animals with a capillary tube.
Animal Identification: Animals will be identified by cage cards."
"Anonymous" wrote: "With respect to bleeding, the passive mice protocol that Dr. Ivins was working on in the B3 in late September 2001 states..."
ReplyDeleteSO WHAT?! WHO CARES!? WHAT IS YOUR CLAIM?!
Why post meaningless information? You are just wasting my time.
Ed
I have also sent you the ELISA data from the rabbit experiment from October 5, 2001, 3 days after challenge. There is a fuller set of data that included October 9, 7 days after challenge. The scientists, such as S. Little, who understand such data and procedures are then in a position to explain the data. His civil deposition was not subject to any of the various protective orders.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, those who may think retro-orbital refers to vintage spacecraft may recognize that they are not qualified to address the documents.
"Anonymous" wrote: "I have also sent you the ELISA data from the rabbit experiment from October 5, 2001, 3 days after challenge."
ReplyDeleteYes, more MEANINGLESS and IRRELEVANT material. Just a "smoke screen" to cover the fact that you have nothing relevant so say.
Why didn't you just provide the link here, instead of sending me the link via an email with a screen shot of page 16 of the pdf file? Do you HAVE to do everything in the most meaningless, ridiculous and complicated way?
People reading this blog can click HERE to view the entire document AND page 16 of the document.
"Anonymous" obviously cannot explain any significance to this link or how it proves anything about anything. All he said in his email was that he obtained the document. So, I challenge anyone else who might read this blog to try to explain what "Anonymous" is trying to say.
It appears he is just putting up a smoke screen because he has NO EVIDENCE and NO FACTS to support his obsessive belief that Ivins was innocent.
The FACTS say that Ivins was NOT IN SUITE B3 when the mice were checked. And "Anonymous" has NO EVIDENCE to show that Ivins' work with the rabbits explains ANY of the "unexplained" time Ivins was in Suite B3, the time when the FACTS say Ivins was making anthrax powders.
He is just making it clear that he cannot discuss anything intelligently. He can only produce meaningless documents without explanation as if doing so somehow proves something. And, if others do not see what it proves, then he believes it is because he can see things that others cannot see - even though he cannot explain what he sees.
All "Anonymous" can do is waste time, since he cannot find any evidence or facts to argue against the evidence and facts provided by the FBI showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Ed
Ed's got the ball.... he's looking around... he starts running and oh no! ... He's running the wrong way down the field. The crowd is going wild! Ed throws the ball down in a victory bounce.
ReplyDeleteOr then again, maybe it is "Anonymous" who is just viewing things from the wrong direction.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, I have FACTS to support my claims. He only has beliefs.
Ed
Did AUSA Lieber and Agent Montooth understand Dr. Ivins’ trips to the “AR” from the hot suites as trips to a locked cabinet in “Animal Resources” to get the Ketamine and Euthasol needed to anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits? See DEA (part of DOJ) Controlled Substance log.
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on December 11, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/did-ausa-lieber-and-agent-montooth-understand-dr-ivins-trips-to-the-ar-from-the-hot-suites-as-trips-to-a-locked-cabinet-in-animal-resources-to-get-the-euthasol-needed-to-euthanize-moribun/
In a rabbit protocol provided by USAMRIID today, there is familiar discussion of drugs to be administered to the rabbits – for the Sept/Oct 2001 period, is there a contemporaneous log relating to the administration of drugs such as there is in a hospital?
ReplyDeleteEuthasol is a Schedule III due to pentobarbital/phenytoin mix.
Under the regulations for Controlled Substance Usage Records, the registrant for each registered location must maintain complete, current, and accurate usage and administration records if controlled substances are stored, delivered, or administered at that location.
Title 21 CFR, Section 1304.22: Records for manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, researchers, importers and exporters is the controlling regulation provides:
Usage and administration records of controlled substances listed in Schedules I and II shall be maintained separately from all other records of the registrant. The use of the word “shall” is mandatory.
Usage and administration records of controlled substances listed in Schedules III, IV, and V shall be maintained either separately from all other records of the registrant or in such form that the information required is readily retrievable from the ordinary business records of the registrant.
All usage and administration records must be maintained for at least 2 years from the date of such records and be readily retrievable for immediate inspection and copying by authorized employees of the DEA. Five years is recommended for record retention.
Here, however, with Dr. Ivins having the largest repository of Ames in the world, records relating to activities in the B3 at Building 1425 counseled preservation of the records. Indeed, didn’t the FBI obtain those documents during the legal 2 year retention period? The hot suite was used regularly for small animal experiments and so the dispensation of the controlled substance were an excellent source of information on the use of the lab.
Under the regulation, readily retrievable means that certain records are kept in such a manner that they can be separated out from all other records in a reasonable time and/or records are kept on which certain items are asterisked, redlined, or in some other manner visually identifiable apart from other items appearing on the records.
All usage and administration records must be stored in a secure location at the registered site preferably locked in a cabinet or safe.
In other words, the registrant should not ever be in the position of arguing that they keep the records but cannot find them.
Under Usage Records, controlled substances must be tracked from acquisition to administration (to a research subject or usage in an in-vitro or chemical process) or disposal.
It is recommended to keep all usage and administration records in standard binders (Schedule I and II records separated from Schedule III-V records) and to securely store the binders in a locked cabinet or drawer.
A separate usage form should be used for each unique vial or container
Registrants may develop their own forms or logs to document administration or usage provided a controlled substance can be tracked from acquisition to research subject, experimental endpoint, transfer, or disposal.
The animal protocol B1-11 produced to me on November 14, 2013 states that:
ReplyDelete“Rabbits that become moribund after challenge will be sedated with ketamine and zylazine and euthanized with Euthasol via i.v. injection.”
Please see Standard Operating Protocols
ReplyDeleteAC-11-02 Euthanasia of Rabbits
also AC-11-14 Disposition of Rabbit and Rodent Carcasses (addresses Risk Assessment)
"Anonymous" wrote: "Did AUSA Lieber and Agent Montooth understand Dr. Ivins’ trips to the “AR” from the hot suites as trips to a locked cabinet in “Animal Resources” to get the Ketamine and Euthasol needed to anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits?"
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point in asking such an idiotic question? Do you expect someone here to be able to read their minds? If you BELIEVE Ivins euthanized or anaesthetized the rabbits, provide EVIDENCE of WHEN AND WHERE Ivins did it. The idea that he would do such things at night seems preposterous.
Ask your idiotic questions on Lew Weinstein's blog, not here. This blog is for CLAIMS and for providing EVIDENCE in support of claims.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "In a rabbit protocol provided by USAMRIID today, there is familiar discussion of drugs to be administered to the rabbits – for the Sept/Oct 2001 period, is there a contemporaneous log relating to the administration of drugs such as there is in a hospital?"
Another idiotic question. What is our point in asking such questions here? You obviously do not expect any answers. I'm certainly not going to do your research for you.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "The animal protocol B1-11 produced to me on November 14, 2013 states that ..."
So what? Who cares? What is your CLAIM? And what evidence do you have to support your CLAIM? Protocols mean NOTHING. Only what was ACTUALLY DONE and WHEN it was done would be evidence.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "Please see Standard Operating Protocols"
What is the point of looking at protocols if they PROVE NOTHING?
The FACTS say without ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that Patricia Fellows did the monitoring of the mice, NOT Ivins as you've been claiming.
You have provide NO FACTS OF ANY KIND which show that Ivins was tending to rabbits during his unexplained time in Suite B3. Asking idiotic questions is not proof of anything --- other than that you cannot participate in any kind of intelligent debate.
If you have a CLAIM, state your claim. Don't just ask meaningless, idiotic questions here the way you do on Lew's site.
And don't post MEANINGLESS, IRRELEVANT material here the way you do on Lew's site. If you have something you believe is relevant, EXPLAIN HOW IT IS RELEVANT.
If you continue to post idiotic questions here, or if you continue to post irrelevant references to meaningless documents without any justification or explanation, I'll just delete them.
Ed