Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I thought the same after reading the TIME rehash (in Glenn's updates). There is no need for FAKE anthrax, as the government controls all the real anthrax from beginning to end.
Even if the victims of this case where killed by anthrax is there hard independent evidence that their contamination occurred on the job. Could it have happened at another time – such as when they were under quarantine?
Sure it’s preposterous! But we must eliminate the possible and what remains no matter how improbable is the truth.
The problem is most don’t have the time or resources to do so.
Not quite up to the present. Ivins and co-workers from USAMRIID but also from HHS and FDA, were working at least since 2003 on a different type of anti-bioterrorism vaccine, one which would provide a temporary boost in a general way to the immune system, fending off a large array of different possible biological threats (they listed ebola, anthrax, smallpox, and others). The method could be used in combination with a traditional vaccine or without it.
The Phase I ( tolerance ) study of the recombinant vaccine showed it was well tolerated. After the third dose, it was found that antibody response ( resistance to infection ) was better for the rPA102.
Interpretation
No clinically serious or dose-related toxicity or reactogenicity was observed. The TNA response after two injections of the 75 μg dose of rPA102 was similar to the response after two injections of AVA. The third rPA102 vaccination substantially increased the antibody response.
http://tinyurl.com/vax-phase-1
As to the Zeitgeist if the incident, I offer something from that guy Suskind in a 2004 New York Times Magazine article..
"The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” ...
Hey, no argument from me that the administration would "create reality" by scaring the population to death. Many even think we do not know the whole story about what happened on 9-11.
My point is that if they were "creating reality" they would use real anthrax. We have it; and we have intelligence officers that would use it without hesitation. I have no illusions that government operatives give a damn about morality or law. I once worked with a fellow who was an army grunt that was marched out to watch a nuclear test --- he later realized he had been a guinea pig.
I just can't see faux anthrax when so much of the real stuff was being shipped all over the damn country Fedex. Hell, it is sounding like all a third world country needed to do to get in the bio-warfare business was to intercept a few packages! Why have an expensive program?
Profiling the 9/11 Anthrax Attackers (Plural!)
You knew there was something fishy about the FBI investigation of the 9/11 anthrax attacks from the moment the focus was narrowed to a single individual rather than to a conspiratorial group of individuals. The default assumption in this case should be that the attacks were committed by a group, not an individual.
Based on what we know about these attacks, what is the most likely profile of the attackers?
1. pro-Israel militants
2. anti-Muslim and anti-Arab militants
3. share neoconservative and Christian Zionist views of Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Lewis Libby, Michael Ledeen, David Horowitz, John Hagee, etc. about the Global War on Terror, the Clash of Civilizations, World War IV, etc.
4. strong supporters of an Iraq War, an Iran War and a total war against Islam worldwide.
5. history of harassing Arabs, Muslims and political opponents that verges on the criminal or crosses over into the criminal.
6. history of using dirty tricks and false flag methods
7. fanatical hatred of Democrats and "leftists" -- a hatred so intense that it motivated them to try to murder Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy with anthrax
8. access to the most advanced technologies for processing anthrax
Bruce Ivins was a reasonable and moderate Democrat -- he doesn't come close to fitting the profile.
So: which individuals from the global population fit this profile? The FBI could have data mined their way to the truth within months of the 9/11 anthrax attacks. As of August 2008, we are still no closer to learning the identity of the 9/11 anthrax attack conspirators than we were during the month the attacks occurred. I smell a cover-up.
But we must eliminate the possible and what remains no matter how improbable is the truth.
Alimentary, Dr. Watson.
(From Truthout's "Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant", which is well-sourced)
Bruce E. Ivins's intriguing role as Fort Detrick's leading vaccine researcher and his work with the Ames strain deserves careful and complete public scrutiny.
Back in 1999, his colleague Dr. Meryl Nass, M.D., testified in Congress that Bruce Ivins was "the lead vaccine researcher" at Fort Detrick. Ivins was a key developer of the second-generation anthrax vaccine to combat the dreaded "Ames strain" that was used to poison Americans during those fateful days in 2001. Ivins's work is the focus of a 2004 book by Gary Matsumuto, "Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers." Matsumoto is not shy about making controversial statements, which only adds to the aura of intrigue around both Ivins and himself.
The premise of "Vaccine A" is that since the 1991 Gulf War US soldiers have been unwittingly exposed to a "second-generation" experimental anthrax vaccine designed by Ivins and his colleagues, which improperly contained an oil-based substance known as squalene. Matsumuto and others claim squalene is the main cause of the autoimmune disorder known as "Gulf War Syndrome." From 1991 to the present day, many soldiers have refused to submit to military vaccinations for anthrax for fear of contracting Gulf War Syndrome. There are strong arguments on both sides of the squalene dispute, and this is an ongoing controversy.
The work of Bruce Ivins is known to many of these vets - especially those who suffered Gulf War Syndrome, or those who were court-martialed for refusing to use the vaccine in fear it was tainted. It is intriguing that Matsumoto paid special attention to Ivins, claiming that Ivins knew that the experimental oil-boosted vaccine "can provoke toxic, allergic, ulcerative, or lethal reactions."
Matsumoto's 2004 book focuses on Ivins as the man with the motive to be pushing to get approval for the new second-generation vaccine.
"Only one paper at the workshop reported near perfect results - 100 percent protection from the Ames strain with just one or two shots ... As an old Marine Corps expression goes, this particular paper shined 'like a diamond inside a goat's ass.' USAMRIID's Bruce Ivins had reported at this very same workshop that his "one-shot wonder" - protective antigen or mere fragments of it combined with oil additives - protected every animal challenged with Ames with a single injection." Matsumoto, Vaccine A page 87.
The BioThrax vaccine was approved by Homeland Security in 2006. It is currently the only anthrax vaccine approved for use. Made by the BioPort corporation, the new vaccine is derived from Ivins's experimental second-generation vaccine - however, BioPort maintains that no squalene is involved in its manufacture. The controversy continues - and Matsumoto's role in controversy will return later on...
Greenwald noted the role of Gary Matsumoto, who offers a good case study of how the Iraq-blamers never let go. On November 1, 2001, Matsumoto wrote a second article for ABC that backs off the bentonite story just a bit as "unproven," but continues to hammer the "possible Iraq connection." A year later, on October 28, 2002, with a possible war with Iraq in the offing, Matsumoto wrote an article in The Washington Post offering a fallback argument for Iraqi involvement based on silica instead of bentonite.
In late 2003, Matsumoto reiterated his argument that Saddam Hussein must be investigated as a suspect, publishing an article in the prominent journal Science. This piece amplified his claim that anthrax powders contained silica and added a crucial new argument - that the grains had a "coating" that indicated that the anthrax was industrially processed.
Matsumoto protested too much about the silica, as no one disputed its presence in the Senate anthrax. Matsumoto's controversial claim was about the alleged "coating" - his evidence was based on a graph created by a spectrograph. Ed Lake, a meticulous author who has been chronicling the anthrax case on a daily basis, lost his patience with Matsumoto. He spelled out a ten-point refutation of Matsumoto's argument for an industrially-created coating, with these high points:
"Professor Matthew Meselson of Harvard and former bioweaponeer Ken Alibek have both seen large, clear electron micrographs of the Daschle anthrax. They have reported that they saw NO coating on the spores.
"There is virtually no way an experienced scientist can make a mistake and not notice coatings of fumed silica or a silica coating or glass particles or anything like that on a micrograph - particularly if they were specifically looking for such things - which Meselson and Alibek almost certainly were ...
(Matsumoto) did not ask the key scientific question: How can a spectrograph detect silicon if there is no silicon-based material visible in the micrograph images? There are many possible explanations ... (Lake cites a few.)
"The Matsumoto article simply ignores or discounts the alternative explanations and says that the spores were coated - without any true proof that they were coated ...
"Why is this important? Because, if the spores were coated, that would indicate a large state-sponsored manufacturing facility probably made them. If the spores were not coated, then they could have been made in almost any microbiology lab."
Lake points out that it took three more years, until July, 2006, when Dr. Douglas Beecher, a scientist at the FBI labs, released a scientific report, which resulted in headlines. On page six, it stated it was a "misconception" that the anthrax spore powders contained additives and/or that "sophisticated engineering" was required to make the powders. Beecher specifically referred to Matsumoto's 2002 Washington Post article in his rebuke.
From then on, it was not necessary to show the 2001 anthrax was created in the course of military weapons production - a big step in narrowing the focus of the investigation.
Beecher's evidence does point to a facility such as Fort Detrick where Ivins worked, due to the purity of the anthrax material, but it eliminates the need to look for a suspect who had access to engineered anthrax with special additives as a "coating."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
