tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post5613916505951371272..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Illogical Logic (Part 2)Ed Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-69672524049780964802013-11-14T13:50:02.893-08:002013-11-14T13:50:02.893-08:00"Anonymous" wrote: "USAMRIID today ..."Anonymous" wrote: <i>"USAMRIID today has provided me a copy of the animal protocol, B01-11, relating to the 52 rabbits in early October 2001 and that Dr. Ivins was tasked with monitoring for the next 7 days ...." yada yada yada. </i><br /><br />So what? Let us know if you find something that <b>proves something.</b> You've been trying to prove something for over TWELVE YEARS without ever accomplishing anything at all. So, there's no reason for anyone to think that you can find anything meaningful now.<br /><br />The protocols mean NOTHING unless you can (1) prove the protocols were followed, (2) prove <b>when</b> items on the protocol were done, (3) prove <b>where</b> they were done, and (3) prove <b>who did them.</b> And, even then they wouldn't prove anything if completing the protocol tasks still leaves enough time for Bruce Ivins do what he needed to do to make the anthrax powders. <br /><br />You can collect all the documents you want, but unless you can prove they mean something, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's time who reads this forum. <b>You've never been able to prove any document means anything toward proving your theory.</b><br /><br />I'm looking forward to you trying to EXPLAIN something meaningful with all these documents you've now got available to you. But, I'm assuming that you're just going to argue that because you've read them, that makes you more knowledgeable than everyone else, and therefore you are right and everyone else is wrong. I.e., standard Anthrax Truther blather.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-91079208613931206712013-11-14T12:08:43.737-08:002013-11-14T12:08:43.737-08:00It may be that the FBI’s confusion related to the ...It may be that the FBI’s confusion related to the difficulty of applying the documents to the floor plan — understanding that the keycard entry was used in entering the suite that included the rooms where the 52 rabbits were kept.<br /><br />New developments today:<br /><br />1. USAMRIID today has provided me a copy of the animal protocol, B01-11, relating to the 52 rabbits in early October 2001 and that Dr. Ivins was tasked with monitoring for the next 7 days. The 52 rabbits had been moved into the two animal rooms in the hot suite B3 on September 24, 2001. The cages were cleaned in-place given the containment that was required. The protocol will be uploaded to the FOIA Reading Room under “Protocols”.<br /><br />2. Separately, JAG has copies of the civil depositions from United States v. Stevens for any requestor who wants them (submit a request to the wonderful Sandra J CIV USARMY MEDCOM USAMRMC (US) Rogers).<br /><br />By helping people get on the “same page,” USAMRIID has worked hard to make itself part of the solution rather than part of the problem.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-7655576624755863112013-11-13T12:57:16.717-08:002013-11-13T12:57:16.717-08:00My records show that I read and saved that CDC fil...My records show that I read and saved that CDC file on November 21, 2009. It just didn't contain anything of value to make it memorable to me.<br /><br />Looking it over again, however, I see that there is a chart at the bottom of page 5 and into page 6 that says the anthrax letter to AMI was mailed on the same day as the other media letters, September 18. It says nothing about any second letter. In fact, <b>it says there was only ONE letter to AMI.</b> And, the facts say a letter or package postmarked on September 18 in Trenton could not have been opened by Bobby Bender in Boca Raton, Florida, <b>the next day</b>, particularly if it traveled by truck and left a trail through post offices. <br /><br />Thank you, "Anonymous," for bringing this document <b>which supports my position</b> to my attention. It helps confirm that there was only ONE anthrax letter, that letter was the one opened by Stephanie Dailey, and the CDC never provided any proof of a second letter containing antrhax.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-62182938989787157662013-11-13T12:38:03.091-08:002013-11-13T12:38:03.091-08:00"Anonymous" inexplicably quoted a CDC &q..."Anonymous" inexplicably quoted a CDC "Review of Fall 2001 Anthrax Attacks" which says: <i>"<b>Unconfirmed</b> reports suggest that the source was a letter received in late Sept. addressed to singer Jennifer Lopez.</i><br /><br />And, <i>"Two suspected terrorists in the 11 Sept. attacks rented an apartment in Delray Beach from the wife of the Sun's editor, although <b>this is believed coincidental</b>."</i><br /><br />This document CONFIRMS my contention that "Anonymous" has no facts to support his beliefs about the J-Lo letter.<br /><br />Evidently this is just some kind of attempt to throw up a smoke screen to cover over the fact that the CDC never said there was any evidence from post office samplings that there were TWO anthrax letters. All there is is a CDC chart <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/mailchrt.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> which Anthrax Truthers have <b>ridiculously interpreted</b> as indicating there were two anthrax letters.<br /><br />It would greatly help if Anthrax Truthers would EXPLAIN their case instead of simply presenting documents and IMPLYING that the document contains something worthwhile, and that anyone who can't see what is worthwhile just isn't looking hard enough.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-67350294963010998212013-11-13T10:37:16.139-08:002013-11-13T10:37:16.139-08:00Review of Fall 2001 Anthrax Bioattacks
http://www...Review of Fall 2001 Anthrax Bioattacks<br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nas/rdrp/appendices/chapter6/a6-45.pdf<br />also <br /><br />http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/anthrax.html<br /><br />Boca Raton, Florida: Robert Stevens, 63, a photo editor at the AMI tabloid newspaper Sun, died of inhalation anthrax. He was apparently exposed prior to departing on vacation 26 Sept. 2001 and fell ill 30 Sept. Stephens was brought to JFK Medical Center in Palm Beach at 0230 on 2 Oct.; four hours later he was comatose. Anthrax was suspected the same day by hospital staff and confirmed by the CDC on 4 Oct. Stevens died the afternoon of 5 Oct. Tests found anthrax at AMI offices at 5401 Broken Sound Blvd. in Boca Raton, FL; the building was subsequently quarantined. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the source was a letter received in late Sept. addressed to singer Jennifer Lopez. Two mailroom workers tested positive for exposure to anthrax. One of these workers, E. Blanco, 73, was hospitalized and subsequently diagnosed with inhalational anthrax 15 Oct.; he recovered and left the hospital about 24 Oct. Two hospitalized co-workers turned out to have pneumonia and recovered. On 13 Oct. five more employees were found to have been exposed to anthrax. Traces of anthrax were found in a Boca Raton post office on 15 Oct. and later in two additional post offices (in Boca Raton and Lake Worth). Two suspected terrorists in the 11 Sept. attacks rented an apartment in Delray Beach from the wife of the Sun's editor, although this is believed coincidental.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-41186877037993769652013-11-13T10:29:02.427-08:002013-11-13T10:29:02.427-08:00"Anonymous" wrote: "And yet you don..."Anonymous" wrote: <i>"And yet you don't cite the CDC published finding"</i><br /><br />You're the one who is using it as evidence of something. That makes it your chore to provide the link to the source.<br /><br />I just provided a link to the CHART <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/mailchrt.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> which can be <b>interpreted</b> to mean there were two letters. But, such an <b>interpretation</b> would be <b>STUPID</b>, since there is nothing to show any letter moved between the Blue Lake PO and the Boca Substation, only an ASSUMPTION. <br /><br />The FACTS suggest that the Blue Lake PO was contaminated by a bag or cross contaminated mail from the ONE anthrax letter that passed through the West Palm Beach Post Office. The are NO FACTS which say any anthrax letter traveled between Blue Lake and the Boca Substation. That would just be an Anthrax Truther assumption and belief. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-45404150966337627742013-11-13T10:19:06.739-08:002013-11-13T10:19:06.739-08:00Looking at the CDC chart HERE which shows the rout...Looking at the CDC chart <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/mailchrt.jpg" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> which shows the route the anthrax letters took, the only question would be why the Blue Lake Post Office tested positive for anthrax spores. <br /><br />One <b>guess</b> could be a second letter. But a far more likely explanation would be cross contamination. A second letter theory would require some explanation for why 2 letters bound for the same place went different routes between the West Palm Beach Post Office and the Boca Raton Substation. There doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for that. Logic says Blue Lake got exposed due to cross contamination. <br /><br />The CDC's chart might show two routes, but they have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of two letters leaving behind the spores. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-30548068412315751202013-11-13T10:17:43.954-08:002013-11-13T10:17:43.954-08:00And yet you don't cite the CDC published findi...And yet you don't cite the CDC published finding -- remaining content in your confusion and mistake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-84278172185624320682013-11-13T09:56:02.424-08:002013-11-13T09:56:02.424-08:00"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed Lake isn'..."Anonymous" wrote: <i>"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."</i><br /><br />I recall that there was some dispute about that. I thought it was resolved when it was realized that the one and only anthrax letter opened at AMI was addressed to the National Enquirer's <b>FORMER</b> location in Lantana, Florida. It then had to be <b>forwarded</b> to their new address at the AMI building in Boca Raton. That made it appear that there were two letters containing anthrax, but there was really only one.<br /><br />"Anonymous" also wrote: <i>" He has a singularly incurious mind and consciously avoids citing the CDC's published findings and the medical expert."</i><br /><br />I'm interested in resolving disputes between OPINIONS and FACTS. If the FACTS say that the CDC or some "expert" is wrong, then they are <b>wrong</b> and will remain <b>wrong</b> until NEW facts can be found which prove otherwise. PERIOD.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-85166472739664299562013-11-13T09:44:31.140-08:002013-11-13T09:44:31.140-08:00Ed Lake isn't even aware of the CDC finding th...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. I offered him the hundreds of pages of documents obtained from FOIA relating to the CDC's published finding -- the documents relating to the actual sampling -- and he declined them. He has a singularly incurious mind and consciously avoids citing the CDC's published findings and the medical expert. Ed, you need to read more -- it would help you avoid wasting time making very basic mistakes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-40223919987822848322013-11-13T09:34:53.118-08:002013-11-13T09:34:53.118-08:00"Anonymous" wrote: "a key expert ev..."Anonymous" wrote: <i>"a key expert evidence on this issue of the Jennifer Lopez letter is found in the New England Journal of Medicine in which Stevens’ doctor concludes that the letter, opened 9/19 and resulting in symptoms appearing 9/30, evidenced an incubation period consistent with inhalational anthrax."</i><br /><br />So what? No one said it would be "impossible" for Stevens to have been exposed on the 19th and first show symptoms on the 30th. <br /><br />The doctor is NOT any definitive source on WHEN Stevens was exposed. <br /><br />All I'm saying is that it is MORE LOGICAL and MORE LIKELY that Stevens was exposed to anthrax after Stephanie Dailey opened the letter that THE FACTS say contained the anthrax.<br /><br />You endlessly argue OPINIONS against the FACTS. <b>OPINIONS DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE FACTS.</b> Ten million opinions are not equal to one solid fact.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-10000670134624381642013-11-13T09:27:18.217-08:002013-11-13T09:27:18.217-08:00"Anonymous" wrote; "5 days was the ..."Anonymous" wrote; <i>"5 days was the low end of the range. 11 days was on the high end of the range found by the CDC."</i><br /><br />You seem incapable of understanding basic reasoning. According to The Mayo Clinic,"In most cases, symptoms develop within seven days of exposure to the bacteria." <br /><br />According to the CDC, <b>in the Amerithrax case</b>, the times between exposure and the onset of symptoms were in the 5 to 11 day range.<br /><br />Those are two different kinds of statistics. One is general, the other is about a specific series of cases.<br /><br />The Mayo Clinic data is used to define what is "normal." The CDC data shows that some of the Amerithrax cases fell <b>beyond</b> of what would be considered "normal."<br /><br />So, the fact that an eleven day incubation period for a MASSIVE exposure is outside of the norm does NOT mean that it is impossible. It just means that <b>there is reason to look for another source for the exposure.</b><br /><br />"Anonymous" also wrote: <i>"Dude, it's not your job to settle anything."</i><br /><br />No, it's not a "job." It's a hobby. It's what I've been trying to do for 12 years: Settle the disputes between BELIEFS and FACTS.<br /><br />"Anonymous" also wrote: <i>"You claimed that Stevens' incubation period was 4 days -- when that is in fact outside the range."</i><br /><br />It is NOT outside of any range for the "normal" time between exposure and the onset of symptoms.<br /><br />Stephanie Dailey opened the anthrax letter on the 24th or 25th. I used the 26th as a likely exposure date since Stevens worked late on the 26th and could have been exposed to the cleaning crew blowing spores into the air as they vacuumed the rugs. It's just a "likely" scenario. He could have been exposed on the 24th or 25th. <br /><br />"Anonymous" also wrote: <i>"It's your job not to misrepresent the CDC's findings."</i><br /><br />Wouldn't that also mean it your job to not misrepresent the FBI's findings? Isn't that what you do every day?<br /><br />I see it as my "job" to show the CDC was wrong <b>IF THE FACTS SAY THE CDC WAS WRONG.</b> I would like to see any dispute resolved with solid facts. There's a dispute between what the CDC says "most likely" happened and what the FACTS say "most likely" happened.<br /><br />You keep saying, the CDC drew some kind of conclusion that there were two anthrax letters based upon different routes through different post offices. I don't recall where that "conclusion" was documented. If you want me to comment on it, you need to provide a reference. I don't have the time to hunt for it. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-48725615327628743242013-11-13T09:08:20.347-08:002013-11-13T09:08:20.347-08:00Ed,
You have failed to note the medical opinion ...Ed, <br /><br />You have failed to note the medical opinion by the examining doctor who published in the Journal of New England of Journal Medicine. <br /><br />On the JLo letter, don't misrepresent the expert conclusions published in the journals. For example, a key expert evidence on this issue of the Jennifer Lopez letter is found in the New England Journal of Medicine in which Stevens’ doctor concludes that the letter, opened 9/19 and resulting in symptoms appearing 9/30, evidenced an incubation period consistent with inhalational anthrax. Mrs. Stevens explained: “They get strange letters sometimes, and the consensus seems to be that if Robert wasn’t wearing his glasses and if it was something funny, he would hold the letters up to his face. They think perhaps that’s how he got it. Just bad luck.” <br /><br />If you think a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters based on the "FACTS" as you imagine, you go for it, guy. You approach "FACTS" in a very unique way. It's been 10 years and you haven't persuaded a single person -- good luck on the next 10. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-1305278798729808982013-11-13T08:45:28.004-08:002013-11-13T08:45:28.004-08:00You claimed that Stevens' incubation period wa...You claimed that Stevens' incubation period was 4 days -- when that is in fact outside the range. On your page on this subject, the letter was opened on the 26th. 30-26 = 4. 4 days is OUTSIDE the range of incubation period found by the CDC. There is no point in trying to explain things to you Ed because basic math eludes you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-89861528461012873102013-11-13T08:41:22.374-08:002013-11-13T08:41:22.374-08:00Ed writes: "In other words, taking LONGER th...Ed writes: "In other words, taking LONGER than 7 days to show symptoms is NOT NORMAL."<br /><br />Your use of the word "normal" suggests you don't know anything about statistics or the calculation of means, mean or mode. 5 days was the low end of the range. 11 days was on the high end of the range found by the CDC. You could take the incubation periods and identify the mean, median and mode. "Typical" and "normal" has led to your confusion and distortion -- your outright misrepresentation -- of the CDC findings. Now you can disagree with the CDC findings if you like. And we won't hold you to understanding math from the 7th grade. But don't misrepresent the CDC findings. <br /><br />And if you disagree with the CDC's conclusion that there were two letters based on the routes through the different post offices, that's fine. Who cares? You don't even seem aware of it. But don't pretend it doesn't exist. Dude, it's not your job to settle anything. It's your job not to misrepresent the CDC's findings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-42149422423033119862013-11-13T08:27:10.797-08:002013-11-13T08:27:10.797-08:00"Anonymous,"
Think about it. According..."Anonymous,"<br /><br />Think about it. According to your theory, Bob Stevens held the J-Lo letter in front of his face and sniffed it. Yet, it took ELEVEN DAYS for him to show symptoms of anthrax exposure. <br /><br />With the MASSIVE exposure you fantasize, he should have been in agony within THREE days.<br /><br />Plus, the facts say that the OLDER a person is, the <b>easier</b> it is to become infected with anthrax. Stevens was 63. He should have become infected very quickly. There is NO explanation or logic for why it took ELEVEN days. The FACTS therefore say that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. Stevens was infected by the letter Stephanie Dailey opened on the 25th, his exposure was NOT massive, and it took Stevens just FIVE days to show symptoms.<br /><br />No matter how you look at the FACTS, the FACTS say that Stevens was infected by the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-18890587801280585542013-11-13T08:12:49.257-08:002013-11-13T08:12:49.257-08:00"Anonymous" wrote: "For example, pa..."Anonymous" wrote: <i>"For example, part of your confusion stems from you not realizing that the range of incubation periods, according to the CDC, was 5-11."</i><br /><br />You are just grasping at straws, trying to create some issue where there is no issue. The Mayo Clinic says that "<b>In most cases</b>, symptoms develop <b>within</b> seven days of exposure to the bacteria." In other words, taking LONGER than 7 days to show symptoms is <b>NOT NORMAL</b>.<br /><br />The range of incubation periods for the victims of the attacks just shows that some were <b>within the normal range</b> and some were not. Blanco and Stevens were <b>WITHIN</b> the normal range if they were infected by the Stephanie Dailey letter, they were <b>NOT WITHIN</b> the normal range if they were infected by the J-Lo letter. <br /><br />"Anonymous" also wrote: <i>" It took you years to realize that there were two letters."</i><br /><br />Two letters? I'm not sure what you mean. I could have known about the J-Lo letter before I learned about the Stephanie Dailey letter. I don't recall that to be the case. What difference does it make? <b>There was only ONE letter which the FACTS say contained anthrax: the Stephanie Dailey letter.</b> The FACTS say the J-Lo letter did <b>NOT</b> contain anthrax. <br /><br />"Anonymous" also wrote: <i>"The difference between September 30 and September 19 is 11, not 12."</i><br /><br />Good point. I'll make the correction to my web page about the J-Lo letter. The time between exposure and the onset of symptoms should have been 11 days for Stevens, 9 days for Blanco.<br /><br />I state on the J-Lo Letter page that it is "not impossible" for it to take that long after exposure to show symptoms. The point I was making was that - <b>IF</b> there were two anthrax letters, based upon the length of time between exposure and onset of symptoms, their infections <b>MORE LIKELY</b> resulted from exposure to the Stephanie Dailey letter than exposure to the J-Lo letter.<br /><br />11 days is not out of the question, but 5 days would be more "typical."<br /><br />The onset dates are just one of SIX facts I use to show that the Stephanie Dailey letter contained the anthrax, NOT the J-Lo letter.<br /><br />I'm looking for MORE FACTS which would SETTLE the issue one way or the other. You, as a True Believer, seem to feel that facts do not matter, all that matters is what you BELIEVE. You BELIEVE that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax. And you do not care that the FACTS say that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. You ignore FACTS which say you are wrong, and only consider OPINIONS and BELIEFS which say you are right. <br /><br />Ed <br /><br />Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-52592534428857519952013-11-13T07:24:52.467-08:002013-11-13T07:24:52.467-08:00Update: Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anth...Update: Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax and Interim ...<br />www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5043a1.htm<br />Nov 2, 2001 - Update: Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax and Interim .... to onset of symptoms when known (seven) was 7 days (range: 5--11 days).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-75207181698542652022013-11-13T07:20:30.808-08:002013-11-13T07:20:30.808-08:00Note that the minimum time for onset was 5 days --...Note that the minimum time for onset was 5 days -- further demonstrating your error. <br /><br />If you hadn't misrepresented the CDC finding on the incubation periods observed you could have avoided your confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-87782945378853906242013-11-13T07:18:13.941-08:002013-11-13T07:18:13.941-08:00Ed writes:
One key source of information about th...Ed writes:<br /><br />One key source of information about these two letters is a report by the CDC dated October 2002 which says this about the so-called "J-Lo letter":<br /><br />The index patient’s [Bob Stevens'] infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox.<br /><br />Then rather than citing the CDC that the range of exposure was 5-11 days, he argues:<br /><br />"According to the Mayo Clinic, "In most cases, symptoms develop within seven days of exposure to the bacteria." That fits with BOTH anthrax cases at AMI and the opening of the letter by Stephanie Dailey."<br /><br />Ed writes: "The onset date for Bob Stevens' symptoms was September 30, ...<br /><br />Exposure to the J-Lo letter on September 19 would mean an incubation period of 11 days for Blanco and 12 days for Stevens."<br /><br />No, Ed. Your confusion also was due to a basic math error. The difference between September 30 and September 19 is 11, not 12.<br /><br />Now do I really also have to tell you that there is zero reason to think a First Grader wrote the letters? We try not to run over squirrels crossing the street but we don't bother to get out of the car and given them traffic safety lessons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-4811273246084136342013-11-13T07:08:53.578-08:002013-11-13T07:08:53.578-08:00You might start with Jeanne Guillemin's chroni...You might start with Jeanne Guillemin's chronicling of the CDC investigation in American Anthrax. Or Leonard Cole's book on the subject. Both conducted in-person interviews with named sources. The CDC documents explain that the reason they knew there were two letters is because they took different routes through the post offices. It took you years to realize that there were two letters. Two letters, two AMI publications. Then you just proceeded to engage in spreading errors about the JLo letter -- such as your error as to incubation period found by the CDC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-7912104912263974092013-11-13T07:02:32.965-08:002013-11-13T07:02:32.965-08:00Ed asks "Am I confused?" If you had acc...Ed asks "Am I confused?" If you had accepted my offer of the 2000 pages CDC produced under FOIA -- or relied upon the CDC reports rather than news articles or internet posts by third parties not involved in the investigation -- you would not be so confused as to what the CDC found.<br /><br />For example, part of your confusion stems from you not realizing that the range of incubation periods, according to the CDC, was 5-11.<br /><br />The incubation period from the time of exposure to onset of symptoms when known (seven) was 7 days (range: 5--11 days).<br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5043a1.htm<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-91882111517204696322013-11-12T13:33:24.134-08:002013-11-12T13:33:24.134-08:00"Anonymous" wrote: "You seem not to..."Anonymous" wrote: <i>"You seem not to understand that the nature of the civil depositions was precisely to explore the factual issues relating to the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings and the FBI's "Ivins Theory."</i><br /><br /><b>NONSENSE.</b> You seem not to understand that they were <b>NOT</b> looking at <b>EVIDENCE</b> in the case against Bruce Ivins. They were <b>NOT</b> looking at the <b>FACTS</b> of the case against Bruce Ivins. They were ONLY looking at <b>whether or not the U.S. Government was responsible for Bob Steven's death.</b><br /><br />They were looking at (1) whether the U.S. Government <b>failed to secure</b> the materials SOMEONE used to kill Bob Stevens.<br /><br />They were looking at (2) whether the U.S. Government was <b>responsible for securing</b> the materials used to kill Stevens.<br /><br />They were looking to (3) determine if the U.S. Government was <b>liable under the law</b> in the death of Bob Stevens.<br /><br />They were looking to (4) determine how much the U.S. Government should <b>pay in damages</b> IF it was shown they were responsible and liable.<br /><br />They didn't even care if the anthrax that killed Stevens came from USAMRIID. They didn't even care who sent it. They only needed to show that the U.S. government was "engaging in ultra-hazardous activities," and as a result of failing to control those activities, <b>someone</b> sent anthrax to the AMI building in Florida where it killed Bob Stevens. <br /><br />I am always interested in finding new FACTS. But, I am not interested in wild goose chases to dig through IRRELEVANT documents to see if they might somehow provide information to support <b><i>YOUR</i></b> theory. <br /><br />If after <b>TWELVE YEARS</b> you haven't been able to find <b>ANY</b> real evidence to support your theory, maybe you should start considering the idea that <b>YOUR THEORY COULD BE NONSENSE.</b> Don't ask me to try to help you prove your theory. I work with the FACTS. And the FACTS say your theory is nonsense.<br /><br />You may <b>believe</b> the FBI made a mistake and that someone other than Ivins sent the letters, but without PROOF to support your belief, you are just a "True Believer" who believes what he wants to believe, who believe he knows "the TRUTH," and who doesn't care about any facts which say he's wrong. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-57128622603278478702013-11-12T11:16:37.157-08:002013-11-12T11:16:37.157-08:00Why would anyone bother to correct the confusion o...Why would anyone bother to correct the confusion of a fellow who has spent 10 years arguing a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters? I only asked you to request copies of the depositions because I knew you wouldn't -- thus revealing that it is you who is not interested in learning the facts. You seem not to understand that the nature of the civil depositions was precisely to explore the factual issues relating to the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings and the FBI's "Ivins Theory." You may think them irrelevant because the DOJ and Stevens counsel and FBI counsel and USAMRIID counsel did not have the same interest in First Graders that you do -- but that's because you are a True Believer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-28996846099599909862013-11-12T10:16:25.823-08:002013-11-12T10:16:25.823-08:00"Anonymous,"
Am I confused? Why don..."Anonymous,"<br /><br />Am I confused? Why don't you cite the FACTS and show me were I'm confused. I am ALWAYS open to new FACTS.<br /><br />You do not seem to understand. <b>The AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION IS OVER. BRUCE IVINS WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE KILLER.</b><br /><br />I'm only interested in filling in the blanks. <b>I rely on YOU to find any evidence which says the FBI is wrong, and in the FIVE YEARS since Ivins was shown to be the culprit, YOU HAVE FOUND NO FACTS WHICH SAY OTHERWISE.</b><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.com