Journalists, their lying sources, and the Anthrax Investigation

www.salon.com...

# If -- as was publicly disclosed as early as 2004 -- Bruce Ivins' behavior in 2001 and 2002 in conducting unauthorized tests on anthrax residue was so suspicious, why was he allowed to remain with access to the nation's most dangerous toxins for many years after, and why wasn't he a top suspect much earlier? [USA Today, 10/13/2004];

# If it's really the case -- as principal Ivins antagonist Jean Duley claims -- that Ivins, as far back as 2000, had "actually attempted to murder several other people, [including] through poisoning" and had threatened to kill his co-workers at his Fort Detrick lab, then why did he continue to maintain clearance to work on biological weapons, and why are his co-workers and friends, with virtual unanimity, insisting that he never displayed any behavior suggestive of being the anthrax attacker? [Washington Post, August 3, 2008];

Just a quick snippet of a very interesting article that everyone interested in the war on terror should read. I've been following the death of Ivins story for a few days now, and this article actually mentions quite a lot of points that occurred to me - why, if this man was so unstable, so dangerous, and so likely to be the man behind terror attacks in 2001, how did he pass a background check, how did he maintain security clearance, and why, if he was so homicidal, did he only commit suicide?

Someone with severe psychological instability who threatens homicide regularly, who apparently attempted it more than once, and who supposedly succeeded killing a few people with anthrax, how is it possible that this person was still working with substances that could destroy life as we know it? It simply does not make sense, does not fly. Like many conspiracies surrounding the present administration, we are left with two choices: either they are completely and utterly inept at every level, and in every sense, or they are complicit, and guilty. Ivin's death ties up all the ends in a neat little box - if he's dead, he's no longer a danger, and nobody has to go to all the trouble of a time consuming and expensive trial, or with that so difficult to obtain evidence.

Amongst the "He was a homicidal psycho" stories, there were also suggestions that he had developed a vaccine which he wanted to bring to human trial, and mailing the envelopes of anthrax out were his method of doing so. To anybody with any kind of a head for science this is clearly implausible, and completely insane.

Here's a snippet from this page about how vaccines are tested before release to the public.

There are four phases in the production of vaccines to make sure they are safe and effective. There are clear guidelines on conducting clinical trials through all phases.

Phase 1 - Safety These initial trials are done on a small number of healthy adult volunteers (about 10-12 people). This phase tests the safety of doses and the volunteers are monitored for short-term side effects.

Note the last sentence - volunteers are monitored. Even if, as the articles I read suggested, Ivins mailed out the anthrax as a way to test it, or some vaccine, or any other kind of trial, it simply makes no sense to do so without some way to monitor the effects - let alone such other controls as dosage, etc.

Sending out anthrax as a way to provoke moving rapidly into human trials makes little sense, also, as a scientist, Ivins would know that the genetic strain mailed out would be traceable back to his lab. It would make more sense to send out non-weaponised anthrax. Not as dangerous to the random victims, harder to trace and would achieve the same effect, if pushing human trials forward was the motivation.

This whole thing smacks of conspiracy, lone nut, and coverup. Sometimes I really wish that the government would come up with a new way of covering up their evil doings, just for originality's sake.

I am sure this guy , who was under survalience, was a crazy person, stalked several people, and apparnetly was violent enough to get a restraining order filed by his shrink, was given security clearence to a bio weapons lab 50 miles from DC. Lets think about that fact for a minute. He was absolutely freakin nuts, and had access to the worst of the worst bio weapons and they let him stay 50 mile from the most powerful people in America. It would make more sense that he knew too much and didn't aggree with the way things were so he was removed and his name was destroyed to punish the family. That is your reward for being a loyal patsy. It is things like this that make it clear that the CIA and the NSA have waaaaaaayyyyyyy too much power.

Yeah, that does seem to be the conclusion one is led to by looking and thinking here.. Even if he didn't know too much, it's clear a scapegoat was needed - and with the death before trial, he's as good as convicted, regardless of the actual nature of the facts. All of a sudden, he's definitely guilty, can't defend himself, and there's "no need" to investigate further.

One dead body, case closed, and one more example of injustice..