Who contributed to this thread. I am going to print it out, and if I ever have to explain the word schmendrick to someone, I'll have it at hand.

kaycees - Is the FBI claiming that Bruce Ivins sent anthrax and a Star of David (there is Mideast politics again) to Jennifer Lopez? And their proof is? Perhaps NOTHING? Does this even remotely make sense?

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.

Matsumoto implicated the vaccine in Gulf War Syndrome back in 1998 .. that controversy never died... I do not know Matsumoto's intevening publications or activism in this area ... however, America was not prepared for bio-terrorist anthrax attack.

Ivins (who I think was likely innocent) was one of a handful of anthrax go-to guys. He took pride in his work. His work was unfinished.

As far as I can tell, Ivins and Detrick did NOT have the capacity to produce the antrax found -- particularly the last sample.

I find the differences BETWEEN the sample to be quite confounding... however reports of findings about each same and between samples have been so contradictory I don't know what to think. {I remain partial to my own theory that the antrax was pilfered -- however, that appears less likely daily.)

My post was in response to why the "wake up america / get more funding" theory was the most popular in light of the fact we had a vaccine.

The vaccine we had (while safe) remained extremely controversial. The new vaccine was needed.

I keep thinking of Richard Clarke describing himself as running around with his hair on fire trying to get someone, anyone in the Bush white house to listen to his concerns about Bin Laden in the spring of 2001. The chatter and airline warnings began, irrc, in early June, peaked in July, and tapered off some in August (or simply didn't register or weren't reported).

Truthout link at my sig: The Anthrax Attacks: Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant

US News and Weekly Report (emphasis added):

"WASHINGTON - FBI agents probing anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins took his guns, body armor, disguises and "anger checklist" in two searches, records show.

Recently unsealed files from searches last Halloween and in July of the Army germ war expert's Maryland house suggest he may have been considering a bloody killing spree.

Ivins wasn’t bluffing when he angrily blurted out in therapy he owned guns and body armor."

They found disguises last Halloween in his house!

Did he "angrily blurt out" in therapy that he owned guns and body armor? Do we have any accounting of that from anyone other than the shameful Jean Duley's testimony?

Have any actual legitimate psychologists or psychiatrists come out on the record and provided their assessment of the degree of his paranoia? I'm actually not asking rhetorically. Everything I read is either his own emails acknowledging his condition or assumptions of definitiveness based on Duley's statements.

It strikes me that all of Ivins' communications I have seen to date have been marked by calmness, coherence, rationality and sanity. I have known several paranoid schizophrenics, and their communications have been anything but calm, coherent, rational and sane. Ivins seems to have had his demons under control. And he doesn't sound like a political or religious fanatic of any kind, even though he may have had some leanings toward conservative Christian evangelism.

Bruce Ivins does not fit the profile of the 9/11 anthrax attacker or (more likely) attackers. Is there anyone today, from anywhere on the political spectrum, who finds the FBI case against Ivins to be very credible? The mainstream media have already cataloged the many problems with the case.

despite the govenment/MSM's insistence that "terrorists" are crazy extremists.

So they are making a mountain out of Ivins "molehill" of psychological problems and distress (prior to this last year -- he was relieved of meaningful duties at Detrick I think November 2007 and being deprived of meaningful work must have been devastating to him).

The anthrax letters were methodical and calculated but their purpose is unknown.

Was the intended arc of letters (which might have made their point clear) aborted when things began to go very wrong?

Anyone with the expertise to manufacture the most pure anthrax imho would have appreciated it's potential lethality and the potential for the envelopes to leak. Did they not know or did they not care?

Or was this just a general "pulling the fire alarm" wake up call intiated by a "prankster"?

The "truthout" article you link to isn't very good. I actually own Matsumoto's book, and he only mentions Bruce Ivins in the context of his attempts to prepare "one-shot" anthrax vaccinations:

Dr. Bruce Ivins informed the workshop gathering in the old Cathedral of Winchester that he had added three different adjuvants to his one-shot wonders."

That, by the way, is a discussion of events that took place in 1989, in the pre-Gulf War period. It has absolutely nothing to do with this current case, and why would anyone claim that it does, unless they wanted to divert attention from the real issues?

The book is titled "Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers." I'm not sure if his explanation is entirely right, but it's not a book about the anthrax attacks - it's about the US Army anthrax vaccine program. The book also has one serious flaw, in that it extensively discusses Bioport and Vaxgen, while ignoring the fact that Battelle in West Jefferson Ohio was a major subcontractor for both Bioport (renamed Emergent Biosolutions, same group) and Vaxgen (whose anthrax vaccine is now owned by Emergent).

The claim that we need a new "one-shot" anthrax vaccine is highly debatable. In fact, it might be best if the U.S. government itself takes over all anthrax vaccine production from private companies - because Emergent Biosolutions is now threatening to halt anthrax vaccine production entirely if they aren't awarded the massive DHHS anthrax vaccine contract a few months from now. The old recipe is safe and takes six month.

Pharmaceutical companies do like to hire people to whip up support for their proposals - Emergent and Battelle both have teams of registered lobbyists in Washington, they've had Senators like Mike DeWine (R-OH) on their side, and they probably have hired more than a few PR companies to promote their agenda, which can be summed up as

"Responding to bioterror requires new drugs and vaccines"

Actually, expansion of public health infrastructure (backup emergency rooms, networks of public health professionals, pubic education programs) and expansion of transparency and compliance obligations in international biowarfare treaties are the two most effective methods of preventing biowarfare attacks - but that does not involve billion-dollar handouts to private companies with close ties to Cheney and Rumsfeld, does it? (think asian bird flu virus and Tamiflu - patent owned by Gilead, where Rumsfeld was CEO before the 2000 Presidential Selection.)

Anyway, susan, what do you think of Matsumoto's article on the anthrax spores? That seems to prove this was a high-tech, weaponized silica coated preparation, right?

http://cryptome.org/anthrax-powder.htm

Ike Solem