I agree with you that new-age water therapy nearly eliminates all credibility, but the piece ennealogic linked is actually quite thoroughly cited, with over 60 references. As an example, it mentions "Project Jefferson", which when googled lead me to the New York Times piece I linked in my previous post.

As reported in the LA Times...

"At a Pentagon ceremony on March 14, 2003, Ivins and two colleagues from USAMRIID were bestowed the Decoration of Exceptional Civilian Service, the highest honor given to nonmilitary employees of the Defense Department."

Man this just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

Those are pretty strong endorsements. I did want to put it out there that anyone referencing this article in any discussion will have to prepare themselves for the drubbing to come when the guy's name is googled. The source, unfortunately, is sometimes just as important as the info.

And still I'm one hell of a lot more scared of terrestrial monsters.

Anyone else felt an uptick in that type of hysteria?

Anyone you know want to keep the population scared?

The lead search warrant affidavit deepens the questions about Matsumoto. Matsumoto fingered Ivins as the one who created

"Gulf War Syndrome", which had Ivins very angry just three weeks before the anthrax attacks began. Within 60 days, Matsumoto is claming that Iraq's anthrax has bentonite. What gives?

Before the warrant, here's some of the public evidence:

1. Ivins was described by Dr. Nass in her 1999 report to Congress as "the leading anthrax vaccine researcher" at Fort Detrick.

2. Matsumoto blamed Ivins for causing Gulf War Syndrome with his work on the anthrax vaccine in the period prior to 2001.

3. After the anthrax attacks, Matsumoto joined ABC News' Brian Ross and others in the bentonite story blaming Iraq on October 26.

4. Matsumoto backed off this story only slightly in another story on November 1, but continues to emphasize the Iraq connection.

5. During the run-up to war in October 2002, Matsumoto continued to point squarely at Iraq in his Washington Post article, while shifting from bentonite to silica as the additive in his Washington Post article.

6. In late 2003, Matsumoto wrote a big article for Science Magazine - still looking at Iraq - and claiming that the spores were coated with silica, which proved military engineering from an "industrial source".

7. Ed Lake seriously criticized Matsumoto for ignoring the findings of Professor Matthew Meselson and former "bioweaponeer" Ken Alibek, who looked at the Daschle anthrax and said that there was NO coating of the spores.

8. Matsumoto didn't consider what Meselson and Alibek had seen, relying solely on a graph from a spectrograph.

9. FBI forensic scientist Beecher's article in 2006 named Matsumoto as the man who had it wrong that there was any coating with silica. This would indicate that almost any microbiologist could have done it, rather than military engineering by either Iraq or Dugway or Battelle. This marked a big shift in the FBI's handling of the case, and I believe new chief investigators came into play at about the same time. (I do realize that Beecher was later criticized in the same journal for not adequately sourcing his statement). I'm still waiting to see real evidence of "coating".

Now, the search warrant affidavit shows that Matsumoto was working with NBC in August, 2001, and that Ivins was furious at Matsumotio in August 28, 2001 for attempting to ferret out details about his vaccine work. Keep in mind that both ABC and NBC were two of the five media outlets known to have received anthrax in the first wave of mailings dated Sept. 18, 2001:

“Beginning shortly after the first Gulf War and through 2001, USAMRIID and Dr. Ivins was the focus of public criticism concerning their introduction of a squalene adjuvant (or additive) to the AVA anthrax vaccine, which was blamed for the Gulf War Syndrome. In 2000 and 2001, as evident by the e-mails above, that same anthrax vaccine was having problems in the production phase at Bioport, a private company in Michigan responsible for manufacturing the vaccine. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had suspended further production of Bioport, and the U.S. government, specifically the Department of Defense, was running out of approved lots of the vaccine. The situation placed pressure on select staff members at USAMRIID, including Dr. Ivins, who were part of the Anthrax Potency Integrated Product Team (IPT). The purpose of the IPT was to assist in the resolution of technical issues that was plaguing Bioport’s production of approved lots of the vaccines.

“In the weeks immediately prior to the attacks, Dr. Ivins became aware that an investigative journalist who worked for NBC News had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on USAMRIID seeking detailed information from Dr. Ivins’s laboratory notebooks as they related to the AVA vaccine and the use of adjuvants. On August 28, 2001, Dr. Ivins appeared angry about the request providing the following response in an e-mail: “Tell Matsumoto to kiss my ass. We’ve got better things to do than hsine his shoes and pee on command. He’s gotten everything from me he will get.”

In early 2002, shortly after the anthrax letter attacks, the FDA re-approved the AVA vaccine for human use, production at Bioport resumed, and anthrax research at USAMRIID continued without interruption. As mentioned previously, one of the anthrax letters postmarked on September 18, 2001 was addressed to Tom Brokaw, NBC News in New York. Dr. Ivins thereafter received “the highest honor given to Defense Department civilians at a Pentagon ceremony on March 14, 2003" for his work in “getting the anthrax vaccine back into production”.

Someone should get Matsumoto's side of these stories - that date both before and after the crucial events of late 2001. You can see my analysis and sources (and my call to support Glenn) at my article in Truthout http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anthrax-attacks-sunlight-is-best-disinfectant

The snake has swallowed its tail right up to its head down here. Hope you have a new post for tomorrow. Or, maybe, like Atrios, you can put up a link for a fresh thread with some admonishment like Be excellent to each other., or something.

I did want to put it out there that anyone referencing this article in any discussion will have to prepare themselves for the drubbing to come when the guy's name is googled.

Don't reference him. Just read the article (if you want) and take the good points away with you. Then use what you want in your own analysis and even his citations if you want.

Even a guy "crazy over water" may be stumble over some truth. At the end, he does ask a few questions that are worth a few minutes of your time. Unfortunately it takes forever for him to build his case -- a long read. I hate long introductions like that.