No evidence has been provided to show that Bruce Ivins was monitoring rabbits during this time, either. No evidence has been provided on where the rabbits for protocol B01-11 were kept. No evidence has been provided on when Bruce Ivins handled the animals -- or if he handled them at all. The only items of "evidence" that have been provided are (1) a protocol which just says what was planned, not what actually happened, (2) an email that says Ivins knew some of the results of the challenge, and (3) a notebook which seems to only show that Ivins didn't seem to know when any of the specific animals died.
So, instead of providing solid facts to support a claim that Ivins was innocent and involved in routine work during his "unexplained" hours in Suite B3, an Anthrax Truther has been attempting to ask meaningless questions and to post references to documents that can only be considered to be irrelevant and meaningless. He provides no explanation of what the documents are supposed to represent in the way of evidence. The documents in no way contradict the findings of the FBI which say Dr. Ivins was making anthrax powders in Suite B3. All the EVIDENCE and FACTS clearly show that Dr. Ivins had no explanation for why he was in Suite B3 late at night before the two attacks. The FACTS say he had no explanation because he was committing the crime of preparing the anthrax letters that killed 5 innocent people and injured 17 other in the autumn of 2001.
Meaningless questions and irrelevant documents won't change what the facts and evidence say.
In a Dec. 5, 2013 post, an Anthrax Truther claimed that Ivins didn't work in B3 during the day. Here's a chart of Ivins DAY & NIGHT hours during October 2001:
Ed
"Anonymous" attempted to post more meaningless questions: "GAO, did FBI Agent Edward Montooth and AUSA Rachel Lieber access these records before publicly charging that Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab on those nights? If not, why not?"
ReplyDeleteThe questions are meaningless because he should be asking the GAO directly, not via this blog. There is no reason to believe the GAO reads this blog. And no one here is interested in any questions "Anonymous" has for the GAO.
"Anonymous" is just wasting time and space by attempting to post such a question here.
Therefore, the post has been deleted.
Ed
Under B1-101, for the first 7 days after challenge, investigators on the protocol will observe the rabbits for illness or debilitation.
ReplyDeleteThe protocol specifies the Anesthesia/Analgesia/Tranquilization:
"Anesthesia/Analgesia/Tranquilization: Prior to euthanasia of survivors by administration of Euthasol, rabbits will be anesthesized using a 1:1 (v:v) mixture of ketamine 100 mg/ml) and xylazine (20 mg/ml) at a dose of 0.3 to 0.8 ml/kg body weight (SOP AC-11-12). The ketamine and xylazine mixture will be administered i.m. in a caudal thigh muscle (SOP AC-09-10). Anesthetic agents will be administered using a 22 to 25 gauge, 1/2 to 1 inch need on a 1 to 5 cc syringe. Animals that become moribund following challenge will be anesthetized as above with ketamine and xylazine prior to euthanasia."
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?
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on January 4, 2012
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/
Here is the SOP for observing the rabbits generally.
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/
see also
Requested Standard Operating Procedures Have Been Uploaded To FOIA Reading Room By Ever-Efficient, Multi-Tasking USAMRC FOIA Personnel
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 13, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/requested-standard-operating-procedures-have-been-uploaded-to-foia-reading-room-by-ever-efficient-multi-tasking-usamrc-foia-personnel/
What anesthetic was used in connection with the bleeding?
AC-11-09 governed "Procedure for Observation and Recovery of Laboratory Animals Following Anesthesia."
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/numerous-usamriid-standard-operating-procedures-all-mandatory-controlled-the-animal-husbandry-baseline-services-rendered-the-rabbits-guinea-pigs-and-mice-involved-in-dr-ivins-experiments-in-se/
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.
ReplyDeletePosted 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/
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.
In the case of the rabbit formaldehyde study, however, toward the end of their planning in summer 2001, the number was doubled to 52 rabbits.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/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/
After rabbits are challenged on the hot side, as many as three autoclaves are needed just processing cages and other items from the hotside, and it takes time to disinfect, decon and re-set up a room
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 8, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/after-rabbits-are-challenged-on-the-hot-side-as-many-as-three-autoclaves-are-needed-just-processing-cages-and-other-items-from-the-hotside-and-it-takes-time-to-disinfect-decon-and-re-set-up-a-roo/
Bruce Ivins’ co-authors can explain the rabbit and other animal protocols that applied to the subcutaneous challenges in B3 in Building 1425 conducted in September and October 2001. Mr. Little's civil deposition is not subject to a protective order as were some or all of some other civil depositions.
Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 9, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/bruce-ivins-co-authors-can-explain-the-rabbit-and-other-animal-protocols-that-applied-to-the-subcutaneous-challenges-in-b3-in-building-1425-conducted-in-september-and-october-2001/
Dr. Ivins preferred a parenteral (subcutaneous) challenge because you could fit 60 rabbits in one room whereas an aerosol challenge would require 4 rooms (1 for animals, 2 hood lines, and 1 spore and bacterial plating)
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/dr-ivins-preferred-a-parenteral-subcutaneous-challenge-because-you-could-fit-60-rabbits-in-one-room-whereas-an-aerosol-challenge-would-require-4-rooms-1-for-animals-2-hood-lines-and-1-spore-an/
It would take 1 hour and 50 minutes to autoclave animal pans and cages (90 minute steam cycle and 20 minute drying cycle)
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/
Dr. Ivins could not retrieve his emails from more than two years prior. The FBI had taken the only copy of the most relevant notebooks.
ReplyDeleteAnd when he asked for records that would permit him to reconstruct his activities, he got a negligent response from the USAMRIID person he asked -- the person forgot to turn to the request until after the grand jury.
Dr. Ivins wrote:
"We are looking to see what work was being done in the two suites during that time. That would include not only experimental work in labs, but also things such as preparing a suite or airlock for decon, bringing a suite back up (making it hot again), taking care of freezers or coldrooms that wend down, any water leaks (we've had a few in our lab), etc.
Thanks again, - bruce"
The person at USAMRIID did not turn to the request.
Bruce wrote:
"I already went to the grand jury.... It's too late for the information."
The negligence of some in obtaining the contemporaneous information continued for the next half decade.
For example, Lab Notebook 4241 was withheld by the DOJ/FBI until September 2012. USAMRIID did not have a copy.
Internet poster Ed's confusion was due to his failure to know where the mice and rabbits were challenged and his unfamiliarity with the procedures in such experiments.
The “Animal Manipulations” done in connection with the rabbit / formaldehyde experiment are explained in B01-11 first produced in November 2013
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on December 5, 2013
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/the-animal-manipulations-done-in-connection-with-the-rabbit-formaldehyde-experiment-are-explained-in-b01-11-first-produced-in-november-2013/comment-page-1/#comment-26110
I had planned to just delete all further meaningless posts from "Anonymous." But, since this is a new thread, I decided it would be a acceptable to first allow a batch of his irrelevant and meaningless posts to go through just to show what they look like.
ReplyDeleteThis morning, I found SIX posts awaiting moderation. They are above. Clearly, NONE provide any information of value.
The first post is about "euthanasia of survivors" of the rabbit tests. Since the challenge began on October 1, any "euthanasia of survivors" wouldn't take place until long after Ivins finished making the anthrax powders. So, that first post by "Anonymous" is just meaningless blather.
In the second post, "Anonymous" just asks more meaningless questions:
"how long did it take to bleed the 52 rabbits involved in the formaldehyde study?"
"What anesthetic was used in connection with the bleeding?"
Who is he asking? Why ask such questions here? And why wouldn't the bleeding of the animals be done DURING THE DAY? It is STUPID to even suggest that it could only be done at night by Bruce Ivins.
These questions are just another attempt by "Anonymous" to put up a smoke screen to cover the fact that he has NOTHING that shows Ivins was not making anthrax powders during his "unexplained" evening hours.
In the third post, "Anonymous" wrote: "After rabbits are challenged on the hot side, as many as three autoclaves are needed just processing cages and other items from the hotside, and it takes time to disinfect, decon and re-set up a room"
Why wouldn't this be done during the day? And why wouldn't this be done by animal caretakers? It would seem to be totally ridiculous to have an investigator cleaning cages and decontaminating rooms. We KNOW that OTHERS did that work at USAMRIID. Ivins was looking for their records to show those others could have gotten into flask RMR-1029.
The fourth post is same-old, same old: "It would take 1 hour and 50 minutes to autoclave animal pans and cages (90 minute steam cycle and 20 minute drying cycle)"
The fifth post is ENTIRELY about what OTHERS did in Suite B3: ""We are looking to see what work was being done in the two suites during that time. That would include not only experimental work in labs, but also things such as preparing a suite or airlock for decon, bringing a suite back up (making it hot again), taking care of freezers or coldrooms that wend down, any water leaks (we've had a few in our lab), etc."
The sixth post is just more meaningless blather about things that are done at USAMRIID.
NONE of these posts provide ANY evidence which even remotely PROVES that Ivins was not making anthrax powders in his lab during his "unexplained" hours there.
The posts do not show WHERE Ivins did anything.
The posts do not show WHEN Ivins did anything.
Anonymous just ASSUMES that if Ivins had ANY WORK AT ALL TO DO, he must have done it during the "unexplained" hours. "Anonymous" doesn't even try to explain why Ivins wouldn't or couldn't have done the work during the day.
So, from this point on, all further posts by "Anonymous" will be DELETED if they do not provide CLEARCUT EVIDENCE in support of his claim that Ivins was doing normal work during his "unexplained" hours in Suite B3.
No more meaningless questions asked just to create a smoke screen.
No more meaningless documents mentioned just to create a smoke screen.
Ed
Ed writes:
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" doesn't even try to explain why Ivins wouldn't or couldn't have done the work during the day."
He entered the B3 at night, Ed. The key card entries show when he did the work.
As for the mice, Pat and the FBI expressly say that he was checking the mice.
You may disagree with Pat and the FBI but who cares what you think.
You didn't even know the mice were in the Bacteriology Suite B3 -- and STILL deny it! Ha!
"Anonymous" wrote: "He entered the B3 at night, Ed. The key card entries show when he did the work."
ReplyDeleteThe key card entries do not show WHAT work he did at night. Ivins also worked during the day. Click HERE for an analysis of his DAY & NIGHT hours.
On October 1, 2001, for example, his B3 in-out records HERE show Ivins entered the B3 airlock at 8:12 AM and stayed in there until 12:30 PM. That's over 4 hours of DAYTIME work.
On Oct. 2, he entered at 8:44 AM and left at 9:40 AM. He reentered at 2:34 PM and left at 3 52 PM.
On Oct. 3, he entered at 10:54 AM and left at 11:42 AM.
On Oct. 4, he entered at 2:33 PM and left at 3:05 PM.
On Oct. 5, he entered at 1:35 PM and left at 2:08 PM.
So, contrary to your inexplicable FANTASIES, Ivins also worked in B3 during the day.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "As for the mice, Pat and the FBI expressly say that he was checking the mice."
The In-Out logs say that when the mice were being checked Ivins as NOT in Suite B3, DAY OR NIGHT. That is UNDENIABLE. You may FANTASIZE that he could be in two places at once and work with the mice while also being outside of Suite B3, but the FACTS say otherwise.
The FBI's statement just says that he was in Suite B3 at night "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."
Anonymous wrote: "You didn't even know the mice were in the Bacteriology Suite B3 -- and STILL deny it!"
I do NOT still deny it. I was arguing that the mice couldn't be in Suite B3 when you were claiming that the "Passive Mouse Expt" chart showed IVINS checking on the mice. Because Ivins was NOT IN SUITE B3 when the mice were being checked.
The FACTS now say the chart shows that PAT FELLOWS was checking on the mice. So, the mice CAN be in Suite B3 while Ivins is ELSEWHERE.
We could easily clear up your misunderstandings if you would just stick to one subject instead of putting up a smokescreen of nonsense.
I deleted your other two comments because the first one was just another meaningless reference to a meaningless document. The second appears to show your MISTAKEN BELIEF that Ivins only worked at night in B3. So, I don't want to embarrass you by showing you believe things which would make NO SENSE AT ALL.
Ed
"On October 1, 2001, for example, his B3 in-out records HERE show Ivins entered the B3 airlock at 8:12 AM and stayed in there until 12:30 PM. That's over 4 hours of DAYTIME work."
ReplyDeleteYes, Ed. He was making spores on October 1 in advance of the October 2 challenge. See his notebook 4241
.
Ed deleted documents because he couldn't understand them. As I recall, one related to the bleeding and anesthetizing the rabbits the week of September 24, 2001. But I'll stop commenting or posting here given his failure to link that excerpt from the B01-11. I will upload the unredacted documents and civil depositions on Lew Weinstein's blog. Lew was head of a lab that contained B3 "hot suites" in Manhattan and so understanding animal experiments likely comes a little more easily to him.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote; "He was making spores on October 1 in advance of the October 2 challenge. See his notebook 4241."
ReplyDeleteA CLAIM without evidence that appears totally ABSURD.
Where in notebook 4241 does it show what you claim?
How could Ivins make enough spores in one day to challenge 52 rabbits? It might be possible to grow enough spores in one day, but the spores would still have to be PURIFIED, the doses would have to be MEASURED OUT, they'd have to be PLATED, etc. That cannot be done in a day.
You are just making things up because you have NO FACTS to support your BELIEFS. And you show once again that you have no understanding of the FACTS or what Ivins did.
"Anonymous" also wrote: " I'll stop commenting or posting here"
That seems like an EXCELLENT idea. If you cannot argue intelligently, run away.
BTW, I added a chart of Ivins DAY & NIGHT hours in October 2001 to the text at the top of this thread.
Ed
It appears that "Anonymous" will now be doing his arguments from Lew Weinstein's web site, where he posts as "DXer." This afternoon, "DXer" posted a message HERE which says:
ReplyDelete"For the first three days of October, the chronology relating to rabbits in the B3 broadly included:
October 1 spores
October 2 challenge
October 3 plate count.
As I recall, the chronology is provided at page 14 of Lab Notebook 4241 which should be accessible here: http://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/Lab%20Notebooks/20000216_LabNotebook%204241_B01-11(redacted).pdf
There's no indication in notebook #4241 that the rabbits WERE housed in Suite B3. So far, that appears to still be just an assumption by "Anonymous."
However, page 14 of notebook #4241 (page 13 of the pdf file) does indeed say:
"Sub Cu Challenge
2 Oct-01
Spors on 1 Oct
Plate counts 3 Oct"
The challenge on Oct. 2 seems to agree with the October 5 email which reported on results "3 days after challenge."
The question is: What does "Spors on 1 Oct" mean?
Since the spores for the rabbit tests could NOT POSSIBLY have been MADE on October 1, what it must mean is: "The spores will be (or must be) ready BY October 1 for the challenge on October 2."
Making spores from scratch requires:
1. Seeding flasks with a tiny sample of Ames.
2. Allowing the spores to germinate into bacteria
3. Allowing the bacteria to multiply to sufficient numbers
4. Causing the bacteria to run out of food
5. Allowing the bacteria to form spores. (Total: 1 day, minimum)
NOTE: NONE of the above require the constant presence of an investigator. The process of growing spores is taken care of by Mother Nature.
6. Purifying the spores to get rid of debris, etc. (At least 1 day, probably more due to the need to test the results overnight on plates.) This is labor-intensive work. This (and the growing of the spores) probably accounts for his long DAYTIME hours in Suite B3 on Sept. 26, 27, & 28 (Wed., Thurs., Fri.)
He did NOT work any daytime hours on Saturday the 29th or Sunday the 30th. (There is still no explanation for his NIGHTTIME hours on Sept. 28, 29 & 30.)
7. Preparing the right amount of spores per dose. This is probably what was done on Monday, 1 October, during the day.
On 2 October the rabbits were injected with the spores.
Remnants in the syringes were then plated and left in an incubator overnight. The "plate counts" would be ready the next day (Oct. 3) to check the likely number of spores per dose. I.e., get the "Plate counts."
So, there's nothing in this that requires Ivins to work anything but regular hours. It's what he did for a living. And, he did not normally work late hours in B3.
And, as the FBI and DOJ stated, there is NOTHING in this that explains his overtime hours on the nights of October 3, 4 and 5.
Ed
"Anonymous" responded to the above comment by sending me an email at 5:06 AM this morning that said: "Pretty impressive handwriting analysis Mr. Lake. You can't even read Dr. Ivins' handwriting when he writes the word "spores"."
ReplyDeleteI concede that if one enlarges the word "spores" on page 14 of notebook #4241 it can be seen that there is an "e" in there somewhere. So, I should have spelled the word with an "e." We both understood what the word was, "Anonymous" just didn't understand what the sentence meant. He preposterously believed it meant that Ivins made all the spores for the rabbit tests on October 1.
Yesterday, in another post to Lew Weinstein's blog HERE, "DXer" repeated a screwball question originally asked on December 11, 2011:
"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?"
Perhaps a better question would be: Does "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer') believe that Ivins sneaked into the Animal Resources Division at night to STEAL drugs from a locked cabinet to "anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits?"
Why wouldn't Ivins get these drugs during the day?
Why would Ivins go into AR through a door that no one was supposed to use?
Why would Ivins go into AR twice on Sunday, Sept. 30?
Why did Ivins need to go into AR to get those drugs on August 20? Here's what the logs show:
7:43 PM - Ivins enters Building 1425.
7:58 PM - Ivins enters the Bacteriology Division corridor.
8:04 PM - Ivins exits the AR corridor via the door next to his office.
8:05 PM - Ivins again enters the Bacteriology Division corridor.
8:05 PM - Ivins enters the Men's locker room in room B-301.
8:07 PM - Ivins leaves the Men's locker room in room B-301.
8:07 PM - Ivins exits the Bacteriology Division corridor into the lobby.
He almost certainly went to his office for awhile.
8:53 PM - Ivins leaves building 1425.
The FACTS indicate to me that Ivins sneaked into the AR corridor so he could look into Suite B3 to see if anyone was working in there. He saw that someone WAS working there, so he just went into the Men's locker room to get something, then he worked in his office for about 45 minutes before leaving the building.
If he stole drugs to ""anesthesize and euthanize moribund mice and rabbits," why didn't he use those drugs? What did he do with them?
Unfortunately, we don't have the in-out logs for others who worked in Suite B3, so we can't figure out WHO was in Suite B3.
And, what happened to the rabbit experiment? Why didn't Ivins log the time of death of any of the rabbits in his notebook? Why do we only know the DAYS on which some of the animals died through an email he sent on October 5?
Is it because on October 5 it was learned that the strain of anthrax that killed Bob Stevens was the Ames strain, and (on that day) the only known place where Ames was used was at USAMRIID?
When did the FBI show up at USAMRIID to start investigating details about the Ames strain?
Did the rabbit experiment "go down the tubes" when it was shown that Stevens died from the Ames strain and Ivins became a "basket case" when the FBI started looking for the cause of Stevens' death? Could Ivins even focus on his work when it was clear he had MURDERED Stevens?
Those are far more interesting questions than why Ivins sneaked into AR to steal drugs he didn't use to kill animals.
Ed
Yesterday, on Lew Weinstein's blog, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" on this blog) posted a message a thread HERE titled: "DXer: The USAMRIID today formally refused to disclose where the mice were kept in the Bacteriology Suite B3 pursuant to this passive mouse experiment that Bruce Ivins worked on in September 2001 on the grounds that “the public interest consideration in the disclosure of such information does not outweigh preventing the disclosure of such information.”
ReplyDeleteAccording to "Anonymous,": "The detailed B3 key card access records from September 28, 29 and 30 cannot be understood without knowing what animal room within the Bacteriology Suite B3 the mice were in."
Really? Maybe it cannot be understood by "Anonymous," but it can CERTAINLY be understood by everyone else. What possible difference could it make if the mice were kept in B-305 versus B-310?
Also, the protocol HERE which says the mice would be in B-305 is a project Steven Little was working on, and there's no reason to assume that the mice in Pat Fellows' "Passive Mouse Experiment" would use the same room.
"Anonymous" also refers to a post from 2001 on Lew's site HERE which says "The Passive Mouse Protocol Produced Today Under FOIA Confirms Dr. Ivins Was The Scientist Who Vaccinated And Then Challenged The Mice Under BSL-3 Level Conditions"
Anyone looking at the document can see that the person with 12 years experience (Pat Fellows) is the one who will "vaccinate, challenge and monitor the mice," while Bruce Ivins will only "vaccinate and challenge the mice."
The mice were presumably vaccinated with the test vaccine about a month before they were "challenged" on September 27.
There would be no reason to vaccinate the mice at night. So, the DAYTIME hours Ivins spent in B3 on August 27 could be when Bruce Ivins AND Pat Fellows vaccinated the mice.
And, the "challenge" on September 27 would also be done during the day. It probably explains the three DAYTIME hours Ivins spent in Suite B3 on September 27. That is when Bruce Ivins AND Pat Fellows were "challenging" the mice, i.e., shooting anthrax spores into their veins.
After that, Ivins' responsibility for the mice was over. The protocol clearly says that the person with 12 years experience (Pat Fellows) would MONITOR the mice, and Ivins WOULD NOT.
"Anonymous" just doesn't understand what he is reading. He looks at a protocol for an experiment by Steven Little and ASSUMES it applies to everyone everywhere. He looks at a protocol for an experiment by Pat Fellows and he BELIEVES it says Ivins will monitor the mice, when the protocol clearly says he will NOT.
And, "Anonymous" inexplicably continues to argue that Ivins was checking on the mice in Pat Fellows experiment when the IN-OUT LOGS PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT that Ivins was NOT in Suite B3 when the mice were being checked.
If only "Anonymous" would spend some time trying to UNDERSTAND what he is posting, he probably wouldn't continue to make a fool of himself.
Ed
"Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer" on Lew Weinstein's blog) sent me FOUR emails while I was off doing some shopping this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteThey are typical of his nonsense.
#1 said: "Colonel Eitzen, the Commander, testified at civil deposition that a two-person rule prior to October 2001 would have been impractical because of the need for work on weekends and nights"
Why not just say "Paris is the capital of France"? So what?
#2 said, "Dr. Gerard Andrews, Chief of Bacteriology, testified at deposition that lots of scientists worked after hours during that September - October 2001; Dr. Andrews has even pulled all-nighters"
Again,SO WHAT? Their times were accounted for. Ivins' time could NOT be accounted for.
#3 said, "Dr. Stephen Little provided a sworn statement at his deposition held at Ft. Detrick that Dr. Ivins was coming into the lab late and on weekends in late September of 01 and into early October 2001 to check the animals"
Again, SO WHAT? Do Dr. Little's BELIEFS override what the FACTS say? The FACTS say Ivins was making anthrax powders.
#4 is just titled "Mr. Little transcript" and has no further comment, just three attached pages of parts of Little's deposition, as if that by itself is supposed to mean something.
It appears "DXer/Anonymous" is incapable of making any kind of intelligent argument. So, he just sends me meaningless material and undoubtedly believes it is enough to make his point --- whatever his point is.
The only point I see is that he cannot make any intelligent or meaningful points.
Ed
On Lew Weinstein's blog HERE the Anthrax Truthers have really gone NUTS with postings today. Some are really STUPID. Examples:
ReplyDelete"Susan Welkos testified at civil deposition that “We don’t have any way to produce the massive amount of material that would have been necessary to grow up and dry in a way that wouldn’t have killed everybody in the institute.”
In other words, Susan Welkos doesn't know how Ivins did it. So what? FBI investigators know how Ivins did it. So does anyone who reads my web page on how Ivins did it HERE.
"Dr. Gerard Andrews, Chief of Bacteriology, explained at his civil deposition why the silicon signature in the anthrax was exculpatory of Dr. Bruce Ivins"
In the REAL world, scientists at Sandia National Laboratories found that Ivins created spores for flask RMR-1030 that had the IDENTICAL SILICON SIGNATURE. So, the facts say just the opposite of what Dr. Andrews said is true.
"At his civil deposition, Dr. Jahrling explained “I think there’s some questions to be asked about if that was a lyophilized powder how come the lyophilizer wasn’t contaminated.”"
DUH! IF it was a lyophilized powder? It was NOT a lyophilized powder. So, it's a meaningless point.
"Leading anthrax expert Arthur Frieldlander viewed the reported genetics evidence as definitive only as to the strain being Ames"
If you read what Freidlander actually said, he said he hadn't "seen the data or anything close to the data." So, he merely believed that because the anthrax that came out of the anthrax patients (a.k.a. victims) was the Ames strain, that was the only "definitive evidence" of something. He doesn't say what. It certainly isn't "definitive" of who sent the letters. Presumably, he meant it was a "definitive" finding that the victims were infected with the Ames strain. Nothing else in the case was "definitive" by his standards. It's generally realized among most scientists that virtually NOTHING is "known with absolute certainty." But, we can still make intelligent deductions.
When dealing with Anthrax Truthers who are incapable of explaining anything, it appears all you can do is show how ridiculous their arguments are BECAUSE they cannot explain anything.
Ed
Ed writes:
ReplyDelete""At his civil deposition, Dr. Jahrling explained “I think there’s some questions to be asked about if that was a lyophilized powder how come the lyophilizer wasn’t contaminated.”"
DUH! IF it was a lyophilized powder? It was NOT a lyophilized powder. So, it's a meaningless point."
The FBI's assertions about the lyophilzer served as part of the premise for the FBI's conclusion when they concluded Ivins was responsible.
The FBI's formally stated position has remained that liquid anthrax spores can be easily dried in a lyophilizer without causing any contamination and that, in any event, that filtration can be used during the drying process to contain any particulars, thereby obviating the necessity to clean afterward. Of course, that was just the FBI's assertion. The record is bereft of any scientific support for the claim. Moreover, the FBI's conclusion lies in stark contrast to the numerous statements in the civil depositions.
The conclusion overlooks the fact that the lyophilzer was BL-2 and not BL-3 where the FBI showed to be Dr. Ivins' location at the times in question.
"Anonymous" wrote: "The FBI's assertions about the lyophilzer served as part of the premise for the FBI's conclusion when they concluded Ivins was responsible."
DeleteNONSENSE.
The FBI's formally stated position was given On Aug. 18, 2008, by Dr. Majadi at the Roundtable discussion. Click HERE to read it. It says:
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about the equipment and what was used to make this, potentially, and whether it was at Fort Detrick? Was it just a lyophilizer or something more sophisticated?
DR. MAJIDI: You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them. I think that a lot of folks focus on the issue of lyophilizer. You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways. lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate. You can --
The FACTS say that a lyophilizer was NOT used. The spores were most likely AIR DRIED. The problem is that, in court, the prosecution cannot state with absolute certainty how the spores were dried. So, they would ONLY have said (and PROVED) that Ivins had the means.
Ed
In his sworn written September 2001 affidavit, FBI Agent Vincent Lisi articulately explained the FBI's position:
Deleteliquid anthrax spores can be easily dried in a lyophilizer without causing any contamination and that, in any event, that filtration can be used during the drying process to contain any particulars, thereby obviating the necessity to clean afterward.
But I understand that you are saying
"The FACTS say that a lyophilizer was NOT used."
You therefore have emphatically and repeatedly debunked the position of the head of the investigation who was explaining the FBI's premise for its conclusion that Ivins was guilty (as to this issue of drying).
Vince of course is a better judge of what he based his conclusion on in August 2008 than you.
"Anonymous" wrote: "But I understand that you are saying"
DeleteYou appear to understand NOTHING about the Amerithrax investigation, least of all what I'm saying about it.
You twist information to make if fit your views, and you ignore solid FACTS which disprove your views.
All Agent Lisi said was that "liquid anthrax spores can be easily dried in a lyophilizer without causing any contamination."
He's saying all the people believe otherwise are WRONG.
He is NOT saying that Ivins used the lyophilizer. His comment just says that Ivins using the lyophilizer cannot be ruled out.
That's why Dr. Majidi said drying with a lyophilizer was just one of the ways Ivins could have dried the spores.
The FACTS say Ivins most likely air-dried the spores. That is ANOTHER one of the ways Ivins could have dried the spores.
All that really matters in a court of law is that IVINS HAD THE MEANS TO DRY ANTHRAX SPORES.
Ed
Ed, as to whether it was also stored in Building 1412, as Henry Heine explained in his fourth interview on the Frederick radio station, the genetically matching Ames was stored on an ongoing basis in 1412 -- he kept undiluted samples of RMR 1029 there on a continuing basis. So it wasn't just there initially as reflected by the Andrews civil depo testimony or the inventory itself, but the genetically matching Ames was kept there on an ongoing basis for years. See wfmd interview of Henry Heine that is currently online and linked at Lew's website. You apparently have not listened to the interview.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "the genetically matching Ames was stored on an ongoing basis in 1412"
ReplyDeleteNONSENSE. Ivins himself said that is NOT true. Plus the FBI checked and said it wasn't true.
They may have stored samples that were identical to the Ames strain that came from Texas, but they did NOT store undiluted samples of the Ames strain that had all the mutations that were in flask RMR-1029.
If Henry Heine says so, then he needs to PROVE IT. His claims are just claims. It appears he doesn't know the difference between basic Ames and the Ames with mutations that was in flask RMR-1029.
For one thing, if there were undiluted samples from RMR-1029 stored in building 1412, WHERE AND HOW DO THOSE SAMPLES SHOW UP ON THE RMR-1029 CONTROL SHEET?
Ed
Ed, it is clear that you haven't listened to Henry Heine's October 2001 radio interview.
DeleteIt is clear that you haven't Agent Lisi's September 2001 affidavit.
Please link both. Thanks.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, it is clear that you haven't listened to Henry Heine's October 2001 radio interview."
ReplyDeleteActually, I've played it several times this morning. (It's from 2011, NOT 2001.)
I just needed time to write explanations to show the Dr. Heine didn't know what he was talking about it - AND TO PROVE IT.
You can just post meaningless blather and irrelevant documents to the people who read Lew Weinstein's blog, but I prefer to provide my readers with FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS. It takes a lot longer to provide FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS than it does to simply post meaningless blather the way you do.
Check my web site for my comment which EXPLAINS very clearly that Dr. Heine didn't know what he was talking about when he spoke about flask RMR-1029 in that October 12, 2011 interview on WFMD radio.
Ed
Ed writes:
ReplyDelete"But I never debunked this second WFMD interview (which appears to be from October 12, 2011."
Ed, Dr. Heine gave 4 interviews. This was his fourth. The fact that you haven't listened to them helps explain why you are so wildly off the mark.
Ed writes:
"Those aerosol experiments had NOTHING to do with Dr. Heine, so Dr. Heine would have no reason to have access to spores from RMR-1029."
Ed, Dr. Heines did aerosol experiments using virulent Ames from RMR-1029. I have explained the nature of his experiments with antifoam and antibiotic resistance and uploaded relevant documents.
For example, as recent as email dated December 15, 2013 -- three days ago -- I forwarded you an excerpt from Stephen Little that mentioned one of the withdrawals for Dr. Heine.
The particular one mentioned was dated October 4, 2001. You failed to upload it.
That's the difference between your blog and Lew's blog. His focus is on uploading the source documents while your focus is on ad hominem schtick.
Please link the Little depo excerpt if you are going to falsely claim that Dr. Heines did not have the matching Ames from RMR 1029. Thanks.
It is Dr. Heine who is qualified to address the issue. A PhD microbiologist, he has personal knowledge of the issue.
His claim that he did is proved by extensive documentary evidence.
You need to go back and correct years of mistakes because you have been wrong on these issues over and over.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Heine gave 4 interviews. This was his fourth. The fact that you haven't listened to them helps explain why you are so wildly off the mark."
ReplyDeleteActually, the fact that you listen to people's BELIEFS instead of looking at the facts is why you are "so wildly off the mark."
However, checking out what you wrote above, I see that there is a comment in Steven Little's transcript that says a sample was taken from flask RMR-1029 and given to Henry Heine on October 4, 2001. It checks out with the Reference Material Receipt Record.
So, I suppose it is possible that Heine still had samples from RMR-1029 when the FBIR started collecting.
But, how does Heine know those samples didn't contain the morphs?
They found 8 samples that DID contain the morphs, but I don't recall seeing any list of where those samples were found.
I'll have to check this out some more.
Thanks for the info. I just wish you wouldn't do everything so cryptically.
Ed
Just upload the documents, Ed. It's not important you understand them.
ReplyDeleteAnd please upload lead investigator Vincent Lisi's sworn affidavit from September 2011 if you are going to continue to misrepresent the premises re drying of the FBI Task Force conclusion in early August 2008 that Dr. Ivins was responsible. Please go back and correct your years of misstatement on the issue.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Just upload the documents, Ed. It's not important you understand them."
ReplyDeleteThat may be the way you do things, but it's not the way I do things. It IS important to me that I understand things in order to explain those things to people who read my blog.
I don't have the link to "Vincent Lisi's sworn affidavit from September 2011," or if I do have it, I don't know where to find it at the moment.
It would make things easier if you would provide links to documents and page numbers in the documents instead of just sending screen shots. I can't use your screen shots on my web site. They're too big to fit the comments column. And, I see no reason to use screen shots when it is much better to just quote from documents and then supply the link if people want to get further details.
Ed
Ed writes:
ReplyDelete"Those aerosol experiments had NOTHING to do with Dr. Heine."
Dr. Henry Heine has said there are things that he can’t talk about — unless he wants the FBI to show up and take him away in handcuffs.
He says that under condition Delta, in the days after 9/11, not only would Dr. Ivins likely been checking on everyone’s animals, but he would have been on the internet. In addition, to the computer outside the BL-3, there were two computers inside the BL-3. For example, at the Fab Lab I use printing 3-D Christmas presents, I surf the internet in the lab but have to go outside the lab to send the way it is configured.
Dr. Heine's theory as to the silicon signature is that the spores were “grown in a situation where probably antifoam was present.” He says in a series of experiments with a colleague he would use an antifoam in creating an aerosol. Ed did not to correct his claim that Dr. Heine did not do aerosol work in Building 1412 -- all the while purporting to have corrected his mistake. Dr. Heine explained that they use a small amount and bubble air through and would have foam develop so they introduced antifoam. The FBI was very keen on why they did that and what happened to that material. Now the FBI says “oh, that’s just an anomaly” but back then there was keen interest in what was done as to the use of antifoam.
Dr. Heine says all the USAMRIID scientists were interviewed in mid-October 2001 and where they were on the dates of mailing. (Comment: What did Dr. Ivins say when asked within 2 weeks of the mailing? Why wasn’t his response at the time provided?)
Dr. Heine says that the drying equipment that would be needed was not available — and not protected — in Dr. Ivins’ workspace.
He says Dr. Ivins did not have the knowledge or expertise to grow up large amounts of bacteria — it would have been impossible for Bruce to do.
Dr. Heine says a lot of his own work with his animals was done with material from Flask 1029 and his office was in 1412.
(Note: from the unredacted version HH took out 50 ml, 50 ml, 10 ml, 8 ml.)
In Building 1425, it was kept in the cold room freezer. With access to the suite, anyone could walk in and take it. (Note: this is why the FBI estimates that up to 377 had access required elimination (allowing for some duplication who had access in both 1425 and 1412)
Dr. Heine had some of the good stuff was used to grow up for antibiotic work. He says even just opening up that zip lock bag… like when you open up a talcum powder and twist the top, it was like that. They were working around the clock. His task was to identify the antibiotic that should be used — and to consider whether it was resistant to antibiotics.
ReplyDeleteHe says the mailed anthrax was 1, 000, 000, 000, 000 per gram. (He posits an 8 rather than 7 letters; suggests the possibility of one shredded in the machinery at Brentwood explaining the contamination). He says “We still need to get 4 more powers of ten beyond what Dr. Ivins could do.” It would take a fermenter run. Problem with a fermenter run you still need to get rid of the liquid. None of these things were available at USAMRIID, he says.
He says lyophilizer was in non-containment area and could not have been used. FBI Agent Lisi disagrees but the record is bereft of any support. Ed is delaying uploading the Lisi Affidavit as an early Christmas present but will upload it before long.
Dr. Heine's theory as to the silicon signature is that the spores were “grown in a situation where probably antifoam was present.” He says in a series of experiments with a colleague he would use a silicone-based antifoam in creating an aerosol. They use a small amount and bubble air through and would have foam develop so they introduced antifoam. The FBI was very keen on why they did that and what happened to that material. Now the FBI says “oh, that’s just an anomaly” but back then there was keen interest in what was done as to the use of antifoam.
On the government having it all rely on Flask 1029, he analogizes it to the situation of the guy at the Walmart and blaming him for a shooting in town because he had control of the bullets at one point under the counter. He says that’s all they have — and implies that is ridiculous.
If you think his first interview was good, you'll understand why Ed doesn't link -- and apparently hasn't even listened to -- his third interview. Heck has Ed even listened to the second interview?
Yesterday I pointed out Dr. Heine's October 12, '11 and gave the entry for the show on the index for the link.
ReplyDelete"Dr Henry Heine
Oct 12, '11, 10:45 AM
PBS's Frontline show did an follow up to the Anthrax killings the FBI has said were committed by Dr. Bruce Ivins. Former USAMRIID PHD Dr. Henry Heine explains the flaws in the FBI findings and his part in the Frontline story. He also talks about how he had the same strain the Dr. Ivins had and they tested negative."
Ed still apparently has not listened to and nowhere links Dr. Heine's articulate explanations in his radio interviews wfmd interviews with Bob on
Feb 16, '11, 10:21 AM
Apr 21, '10, 10:49 AM
These are separate from the 3-part interview HH did on February 25, 2010.
If Ed wants to avoid continued mistakes on the subject, he should inform himself and then link the source documents by the experts who have the personal knowledge.
Ed does the same thing on all the subsidiary scientific and legal issues what he did for handwriting when he came up with his theory a First Grader wrote the letters.
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDeleteExample #1: "Dr. Heine's theory as to the silicon signature is that the spores were “grown in a situation where probably antifoam was present.”
Example #2: "Dr. Heine says that the drying equipment that would be needed was not available — and not protected — in Dr. Ivins’ workspace."
Example #3: "He says Dr. Ivins did not have the knowledge or expertise to grow up large amounts of bacteria — it would have been impossible for Bruce to do."
Who cares about Henry Heine's UNINFORMED OPINIONS? The FACTS SAY HE IS WRONG!?
Sandia National Laboratories PROVED that the silicon came from the media in which the spores were grown. It was absorbed NATURALLY into the spore coats.
The FACTS and the FBI say Ivins could have dried the spores in a number of different ways. If Dr. Heine says otherwise, he is just saying HE doesn't know how to do it.
The FACTS and the National Academy of Sciences say that Ivins would have needed 463 plates to grow all the spores in the letters. The FACTS also say that Ivins grew spores on 546 plates for a guinea pig experiment just prior to the attacks. Those plates were supposed to be throw away. The FACTS say Ivins most likely used the spores on those plates (after allowing them to sit in his lab for weeks) to make the spores in the letters.
I corrected my mistake about Henry Heine not having a sample from RMR-1029.
I haven't the time to hunt down Dr. Heine's other radio broadcasts. I've already debunked two of them. There doesn't seem much point in debunking two others.
If you think Dr. Heine's UNINFORMED OPINIONS override all the SOLID FACTS, then you have no comprehension of reality or how things work in court.
Ed
In a second interview, held April 21, 2010, Dr, Heine says at 13:55 there are missing FBI interviews that have not been disclosed. This is an extremely important issue for the GAO to pursue.
ReplyDeleteThe early interviews from late October 2001 -- a little over a year or a year and a couple of months that are completely omitted from what was released.
He discusses the silicone issue and the work they were doing in Building 1412 after about 17.00 mark. The FBI wanted to know what happened to those samples.
Please upload the radio interviews if you are going to purport to characterize Dr. Heine's work with silicone -- given you didn't even know he was doing the aerosol work.
One of the questions in the FBI polygraph was is there anything in your past that you could ever be blackmailed about. They asked the question about 7 times.
I discuss the second and third interviews on Lew's blog given that you don't bother to obtain or link the relevant source material.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to work on a novel. I don't have time to mess around trying to find links to radio interviews you feel are important. If you think they are so important, you should provide the links. And stating that there are missing documents or missing interviews is just an Anthrax Truther's way of claiming that "the truth is out there SOMEWHERE," but you do not have any evidence to prove it. You want the government to provide it.
You are just wasting my time.
Ed
ReplyDeleteThe Ames from RMR 1029 was in Building 1412 registered as 2290.
It is enough that we have established that it is not at all HH's uninformed opinion
that there are missing FBI interviews that have not been disclosed. He knows because he has personal knowledge. You were just unaware of that. The early interviews from late October 2001 -- a little over a year or a year and a couple of months -- were completely omitted from what was released.
It is enough that we have established that you were the one uninformed about the aerosol work and related work done with silicone.
"Anonymous" wrote: The Ames from RMR 1029 was in Building 1412 registered as 2290."
ReplyDeleteThat is a CLAIM. Where is your evidence to support that claim? I don't have the time to search for evidence that you cannot be bothered to provide.
"It is enough that we have established that you were the one uninformed about the aerosol work and related work done with silicone."
I've told you that the evidence about the "silicon signature" comes from Sandia National Laboratories. It's not something I made up. Click HERE for their article on the topic.
The silicon was inside the spore coats. That means it could only have gotten there when the dying bacteria was creating the spore. It could not get there from any "weaponization" technique involving completed spores or by any processing of completed spores that might involve silicone.
I also summarize the subject on my web page about how Ivins made the powders. Just click HERE to view it and go to the section on "Silicon in Spore Coats."
Ed
The source consists of a document on the subject that I recently was provided pursuant to FOIA. I send you documents and you refuse to link them because they demolish your speculations. Rather than linking them you mischaracterize them and then don't link them. So Lew can upload the documents and you can turn to something else.
ReplyDeleteDid the FBI search the Aerobiology suites in Building 1412 where dry aerosol studies involving simulants were done and in Room 212 where dry powder was made by FBI anthrax expert from Flask 1029?
ReplyDeletePosted by Lew Weinstein on April 22, 2011
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/did-the-fbi-search-the-aerobiology-suites-in-building-1412-where-dry-aerosol-studies-involving-simulants-were-done-and-in-room-212-where-dry-powder-was-made-by-fbi-anthrax-expert-from-flask-1029/
The researchers in Building 1412, Room 212 received virulent Ames from RMR 1029 on August 28, 2000. It was for a DARPA-funded project. It was used to make a dried powder.
ReplyDeleteAmerithrax inventory control sheet … 3/17/98 to 10/4/01
Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 25, 2010
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/amerithrax-inventory-control-sheet-31798-to-10401/
"Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous,"
I'm willing to help you resolve your manic obsessions, but I'm not willing to do your research for you. I've got a novel to write.
I've told you before that this is NOT the place to ask questions of the GAO. The same applies to the FBI. If you have a question for the FBI, ASK THEM.
Who cares if researchers in Building 1412 "received virulent Ames from RMR 1029 on August 28, 2000"? If you have a CLAIM, make the claim and provide evidence to support the claim. Don't just post mindless blather here.
If you continue posting IRRELEVANT comments, I'm going to have to start deleting them again.
Ed
Yesterday, "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") posted three identical messages to Lew Weinstein's blog in three different threads which mention DARPA. They are HERE, HERE, and HERE.
ReplyDeleteThe thought processes behind posting three identical messages are unknown, but here's what he posted:
"Building 1412 , Rm. 212 was where the FBI’s expert made a dried powder out of Ames supplied from RMR 1029 as part of a DARPA-funded program. No sample was submitted initially to the repository and it was later seized. JE’s assistant then went on to Johns-Hopkins. The Ames seized from Building 1412, Rm. 212 had 3 mutations."
"DXer" appears to be connecting unrelated matters in order to imply something is wrong with the FBI findings. That's a typical Anthrax Truther tactic. Insinuate that something is wrong, but don't provide any explanations or statements that can later be proved to be nonsense.
"DXer" cannot prove that the dry powder tests that John Ezzell did with HARMLESS, IRRADIATED spores had anything to do with anything.
And, "The Ames seized from Building 1412, Rm. 212 [with] 3 mutations" was sent over to Building 1412 AFTER the attacks. So, it has nothing to do with the attacks.
When it was first discovered by Terry Abshire that there were numerous mutations in the anthrax spores in the anthrax letters, the investigating scientists were unsure about how to use that discovery.
In February, 2002, Abshire asked Bruce Ivins for a sample from RMR-1029 to use as a "standard" by which they would compare all other samples.
But, the idea of using such a "standard" was abandoned when a better technique was decided upon. So, the sample Ivins gave to Abshire just sat in Building 1412, room 212, until years later when someone found it again and realized it needed to be part of the FBI Repository collection.
Of course, it turned out to be one of the samples that contained the morphs they were testing for.
Anthrax Truthers argue that if Ivins was trying to cover up his crime, he wouldn't have given such a sample to Abshire. The problem with that argument is, at the time Ivins gave the sample to Abshire, Ivins didn't know anything about the mutations. It was only AFTER Ivins learned about the mutations that he gave INVALID or MISLEADING samples to the FBIR.
I wrote about all this in my October 18, 2011 (B) comment. My October 11, 2011 (B) comment explains where I got the information. It came from Lew Weinstein's blog. The link to my October 2011 comments is HERE.
Ed
The Amerithrax Investigative Summary states:
ReplyDelete"Aerosol challenges in Building 1412: Dr. Ivins kept a record of the times that he sent RMR-1029 over to Building 1412 for aerosol challenges. Agents thoroughly investigated each of these transfers via interviews with the recipients and a review of their laboratory notebooks and confirmed that all of the material was used in experiments, with any residual material autoclaved. Dr. Ivins’s Reference Material Receipt record supported the investigators’ findings. There were times, however, that Dr. Ivins sent the tubes of RMR 1029 over to Building 1412 the night before the experiment, so there were a handful of occasions when an isolate of RMR-1029 was left in the hot suites of Building 1412 overnight. Thus, another scientist could theoretically have stolen a small amount from the tube. However, since they were working with such small quantities for these challenges, researchers likely would have noticed if even a small sample was missing – something no one recalls."
This claim in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary is contradicted not only by the civil deposition of Dr. Andrews and others; the RMR inventory before it was whited out; Dr. Heine's detailed explanation in the WFMD radio interview (in which he explains he kept samples of RMR 1029 in Building 1429); but also by the filmed statements of the FBI's own anthrax expert John Ezzell and the 302 statement I linked.
That 302 statement explained that Ames from RMR 1029 was stored in Building 1412 in the cold room and the scientist interviewed did not know of any inventory that was kept.
Moreover, by your account, the Ames seized in 2003 that had 3 of the morphs was a different sample entirely that had been provided by Bruce. Terry gave at least three different accounts (and there are no corroborating records in the record in support of one or the other).
What we do know from more than one interview is that Terry did not submit any sample of Ames from 1029 to the repository. There was only the sample seized in 2003.
The FBI's claim that the genetically matching Ames was not stored in Building 1412 is wrong -- it was stored in the lab by the FBI's anthrax expert. He had been given 40 ml. in August 2000. See FBI inventory based on records of transfers.
"Anonymous" wrote: "The FBI's claim that the genetically matching Ames was not stored in Building 1412 is wrong -- it was stored in the lab by the FBI's anthrax expert."
ReplyDeleteYou're playing a game of semantics, and making stuff up. The FBI never made any such claim.The FBI's (and BRUCE IVINS') claim was that FLASK RMR-1029 was never stored in Building 1412.
The quote from the Amerithrax Summary just mentions samples Ivins created. It says NOTHING about samples other scientists may have had in their possession in Building 1412.
The whited out notation on the RMR inventory sheet was whited out because the flask was originally planned to be stored in 1412, but it never actually was stored there. The change in plans probably had something to do with Ivins once having a lab in Building 1412, but that lab was turned over to someone else at about the same time flask RMR-1029 was being created.
Yes, it appears that Terry Abshire "stored" a sample (FBIR #053-070) taken from flask RMR-1029 in room 212, Building 1412, but it wasn't there for people to use. It was just there for something she planned to do with it. But, then they did things a different way and the sample was simply forgotten about. The fact that that sample was created AFTER the attacks makes it IRRELEVANT, except for arguments over semantics.
If Henry Heine kept aliquots taken from RMR-1029 in Building 1412, that is also meaningless except to argue semantics. It's my understanding that there were HUNDREDS of Ames samples store in Building 1412. If someone wanted to steal a sample of the Ames strain, there were plenty around. But why would they want to specifically steal a sample from RMR-1029? And, if they just took a sample at random, the odds are that they wouldn't have gotten a sample from RMR-1029.
Plus, the aliquots people had were so small that if someone were to take part of it, they missing quantity would be easily noticed.
The material related to FBIR #049-016 was also kept in "Bldg. 1412, 1st Floor Cold Room." But, it's unclear where that sample came from and when it was created.
So, what exactly is your argument? That the FBI doesn't phrase things the way you want them phrased?
Or are you claiming that it was POSSIBLE for someone to steal part of a sample that came from flask RMR-1029 and use it to create spores like those in the anthrax letters?
If that is your claim (and it appears to be), no one has said it was IMPOSSIBLE. All they are saying is (1) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM and (2) THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE SAY BRUCE IVINS WAS THE ANTHRAX KILLER.
"Possibilities" do not change the facts. Possibilities just provide material that conspiracy theorists and True Believers can use to argue that their own personal theory is POSSIBLE. That allows them to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of what the facts say.
Ed
Ed, at Lew's blog, I have linked a 302 about the 40 ml. that was stored in Building 1412 in Dr. Ezzell's lab. it was provided in August 2000. At Lew's blog, I have uploaded and linked the entry. That 40 ml. is different than any sample you say was provided after 9/11. On the FBI inventory, it is listed as the JHU- DARPA experiment. The withdrawal/ transfer was August 2000. The Ames preparation was stored in Dr. Ezzell's lab as he confirmed at the filmed conference. The strips he described in the Q and A involving the powdered Ames was stored at the same location in a tupperware container.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "That 40 ml. is different than any sample you say was provided after 9/11."
ReplyDeleteOkay. So what?
The "powdered Ames" was irradiated when it was still wet. So, it was a HARMLESS powder. And, the entire "virulent Ames" batch of spores was evidently all used up in 2000 to make the HARMLESS powder.
You can't grow anything from DEAD spores. You can't even tell if there are morphs in DEAD spores, because you have to grow the spores to detect the morphs.
So, what is your point? What are you claiming?
Providing a sample of DEAD spores to the FBI repository would have been pointless. The protocol didn't require anyone to provide samples of DEAD spores.
Ed
I'm saying the liquid Ames spore preparation from RMR 1029 was stored in Building 1412. Which is why as a matter of logical analysis one would want to exclude the "up to 377" -- and that is just at USAMRIID.
Delete"Anonymous,"
DeleteSorry, but you are not making much sense.
I'll have to try to guess what you are saying.
I think you're saying that there were some samples from RMR-1029 stored in Building 1412. Everyone knows that. So what? Haven't I been saying that in other messages today?
The rest is just gibberish, but you might be saying that you think the FBI should have investigated and checked out more people at USAMRIID and elsewhere than they did.
You don't think the FBI did a good job. You would have done a better job. You've made that pretty clear. What else is new?
Ed
Yes, Ed. Some samples from RMR -1029 were stored in Building 1412.
DeleteAnd there was a sample in Room 164 at Battelle. So what?
DeleteEd
"Anonymous" also wrote: "Ed, at Lew's blog, I have linked a 302 about the 40 ml. that was stored in Building 1412 in Dr. Ezzell's lab. it was provided in August 2000. At Lew's blog, I have uploaded and linked the entry."
ReplyDeleteI'll take your word for it. It's next to impossible to find anything on Lew's site. And I don't have time to do Google searches to try to figure out where it is. I don't see it as part of any recent post.
When you make such a statement, are you playing some kind of game? Are you trying to see if I can find it?
I don't have time for such games.
Ed
I'll take your word for it. It's next to impossible to find anything on Lew's site. And I don't have time to do Google searches to try to figure out where it is.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/2003-receipt-for-ames-received-from-usamriid-from-someone-other-than-bruce-ivins-from-building-1412-room-210/
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteThanks. But is that what "Anonymous" was referring to?
It doesn't appear to be a "302"? One document is form #4137.
It's not from August 2000. It''s from March 2003.
It appears to be a receipt for a container of samples created in 1992, 1998, 1999 etc. of the Ames strain, but NOT Ames from flask RMR-1029.
Ed
I'm not referring to that URL. Richard is referring to that URL. I'm referring to a 302 about the 40 ml. that was stored in Building 1412 in Dr. Ezzell's lab. The Ames from RMR 1029 was provided in August 2000.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "I'm referring to a 302 about the 40 ml. that was stored in Building 1412 in Dr. Ezzell's lab. The Ames from RMR 1029 was provided in August 2000."
ReplyDeleteYes, I know. And my response was:
I'll take your word for it. It's next to impossible to find anything on Lew's site. And I don't have time to do Google searches to try to figure out where it is. I don't see it as part of any recent post.
When you make such a statement, are you playing some kind of game? Are you trying to see if I can find it?
I don't have time for such games.
And, once again, SO WHAT? What is your claim? What is it you are trying to argue?
That sample was irradiated. All the spores were killed. So, what do you think can be done with DEAD spores?
Ed
Please see the filmed Q and A I had with John Ezzell for the details of where the Ames was stored etc., how it was processed etc. The filming was done by a professional in the booth. I think there is also audio although I don't recall the origin of the audio offhand. Thx.
ReplyDeleteMy colleague who travelled to the conference with me painstakingly made a transcript, as I recall. And when I have a chance I can search my computer looking for it.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Please see the filmed Q and A I had with John Ezzell for the details of where the Ames was stored etc., how it was processed etc."
ReplyDeleteWhich "filmed Q & A" are you talking about? If it's the one at the November 29, 2010, seminar. The video is HERE and I've seen it many times.
If it's some other "filmed Q &A," you're going to have to tell me which one you're talking about and where it is.
And, most of all, WHAT'S YOUR POINT? You seem to be claiming something, but you also seem incapable of explaining what you are claiming.
Ed
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/screen-shot-2010-12-01-at-5-14-08-pm.png
ReplyDeleteInitially, a commercial mass spectrometer was used to obtain the biological signature of the agent -- e.g., Ames. That work was done in JE's lab space in 1412.
An extension of the project required the construction of special equipment. The name of the lab in 1412 used to conduct that aerosol work is redacted.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/screen-shot-2010-12-01-at-5-14-08-pm.png
Bruce provided the Ames for the experiment -- both the work with the mass spec work using the strips and the aerosol work. The Ames spore preparation was stored in the walk-in cooler in the containment facility in JE's lab in 1412.
The tape samples containing deposited dried samples for the mass spec work were stored in a Tupperware container in the same location.
The scientist interviewed in this 302 linked above did not recall the maintenance of a log or inventory for the walk-in cooler.
Ed, after preliminary equipment was bought for the dry aerosol project (which needs to be distinguished from the mass spec work), the project was stopped and moved elsewhere. To follow the potential access to Ames, one needs to know where the dry aerosol work then was done.
ReplyDeleteDo you know where Project Jefferson was done?
"Anonymous" wrote: "Initially, a commercial mass spectrometer was used to obtain the biological signature of the agent -- e.g., Ames. That work was done in JE's lab space in 1412."
ReplyDeleteSO WHAT? What's your point? Weren't those spores irradiated? No one could have used irradiated spores in the letters.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "To follow the potential access to Ames, one needs to know where the dry aerosol work then was done."
WHY? 15 different laboratories in the US and 3 overseas had "access to AMES." They supplied the FBI Repository with 1,070 samples of AMES.
But, only 8 of the 1,070 samples matched the letters. ALL 8 ORIGINATED WITH FLASK RMR-1029.
Access it AMES means nothing.
Access to the Ames in RMR-1029 is the key.
Wasn't the sample given to Ezzell for the dry powder experiments IRRADIATED? If so, why is that sample of any interest?
"Anonymous" also asked: "Do you know where Project Jefferson was done?"
According to Wikipedia, "The 2001 book, Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, and the [New York Times] article are the only publicly available sources detailing Project Jefferson and its sister projects, Bacchus and Clear Vision."
Ed
"Access [to] AMES means nothing.
ReplyDelete"Access to the Ames in RMR-1029 is the key."
The dry aerosol project also used the virulent Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins from RMR 1029.
It appears that you don't know where Project Jefferson was done.
"Anonymous" wrote: "The dry aerosol project also used the virulent Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins from RMR 1029."
ReplyDeleteYes, I KNOW THAT. But, SO WHAT? You keep mentioning that as if it MEANS something.
"It appears that you don't know where Project Jefferson was done."
And it appears you are incapable of explain why I should care where it was done.
Ed