The real anthrax crimes of Ft. Detrick
Mark Anderson
August 07, 2008
As the webmaster of NoAnthraxVaccine.net, I have followed both the anthrax vaccine issue as well news of the anthrax mail attack over the last several years. For having captured my interest in the latter, I thank the work of that sleuth, Dr. Len Horowitz (www.tetrahedron.org).
Pursuant to the latest news about the unsealed court documents in the case of Bruce Ivins, the case seems to be very circumstantial. Making a dead guy the scapegoat itself raises questions.
From what I can tell, the "case" against Bruce Ivins is based upon a profile, and the profile raises even more questions. The profile looks to me like a deliberate construction of confusion. Is Bruce Ivins the one deliberately constructing this confusion, posthumously?
From the Associated Press:
Q: What motive would Ivins have had to unleash an attack?
A: It's not clear, but the documents mention the stress of his job and his poor mental state. Documents say Ivins was under pressure at work at the time of the attacks to assist a company that lost its federal approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed. Ivins believed the vaccine was essential for the anthrax program at his facility. He was criticized for his work with a vaccine additive that was suspected of causing Gulf War syndrome. Also he had said he had "incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times."
So Bruce Ivins was "under pressure" to assist a company that lost its federal approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed? What company this was, there is no explicit mention, although it is pretty easy to infer that this was BioPort (now called Emergent BioSolutions).
While I certainly wouldn't put it past the same people behind the anthrax vaccine to be involved in a bio-attack, I find this to be breathtaking for a plurality of reasons.
1) If being associated with the anthrax vaccine/BioPort is enough to garner suspicion, I can come up with a long list of suspects. How about looking higher up than the guy who works in the lab? How about looking inside of the Pentagon itself? How dare the government try to fix all blame on the lone lab worker.
2) What is the exact nexus between Bruce Ivins' work on an anthrax vaccine and BioPort? On this I am slightly confused, because--other than the criminal financial fraud--the anthrax vaccine has less to do with BioPort than it does with Ft. Detrick itself.
Certain documents--viz., the indemnification of the anthrax vaccine maker documents--reveal that the anthrax vaccine administered to troops at least up to the year of 2001 had been manufactured in the early 90's at Ft. Detrick on behalf of Program Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of DynCorp, paid for with your tax money. Those anthrax vaccine lots were then shipped to the then-state-owned lab in Michigan for procedural work--e.g., bottle labeling.
Shortly before the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program was inaugurated during the later years of the Clinton administration, the MDPH lab was practically given away to BioPort, which was linked to the Carlyle Group, which was linked to the bin Laden family. As far as my research shows, the Pentagon then awarded BioPort a contract to re-supply some of the very same lots of the anthrax vaccine that had been manfucatured at Ft. Detrick, paid for with your tax money twice. Now there's a real scandal and crime that needs to be investigated.
What are government lab workers doing getting into bed with vaccine makers to begin with? Is this not quintessential fascism?
Bruce Ivins was "criticized" for his work with an anthrax vaccine "additive" that was suspected of causing Gulf War Syndrome. This is implying the squalene, which was used as an adjuvant in at least some of the lots of the anthrax vaccine. No doubt this is a serious, serious issue--a crime, in fact. Here is another real crime committed by the government against its own troops, but it won't be treated like a crime, because it is carried out as a matter of policy. Is the inference supposed to be that Bruce Ivins is a bad person for doing what the government is doing as a matter of policy? Incredible.
What a peculiar part of the government's case against Mr. Ivins this is, and it seems like it could be intended to drive a wedge between opponents of the anthrax vaccine and opponents of the government's latest lie about Bruce Ivins. You see? Now we have to defend an anthrax vaccine proponent in order to rebut the government's lie.
The argument also implies that somehow Bruce Ivins was operating outside-the-box, or as an anomaly, when the status quo has all been for vaccination promiscuity. Personally, I joke around by saying that we need to try reverse psychology on politicians to get them to stop doing bad things, because it seems like the more we oppose things, the more the problems metastasize. It is like the government dependably does the exact opposite of what we want it to do. Most people are against the war, so the politicians want war with Iran, too. Most people are opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act, so lawmakers come up with even more draconian measures to pass. The same has been true of the anthrax vaccine issue and Gulf War Syndrome. The more we catch the government in lies, the more it persists in its misfeasance.
According to the news article, supposedly Bruce Ivins said that he had "paranoid" and "delusional" thoughts. How ironic it is that the very scientists involved in the anthrax vaccine program are suffering from the very same thing that the government, through the abomination called the Department of Veterans' Affairs, has been saying veterans who have objectively verifiable health problems secondary to the anthrax vaccine suffer from. What the VA is doing is yet another real crime being carried out as a matter of policy.
The similarity between the government's label for anthrax vaccine protestors and its characterization of Bruce Ivins made me wonder: Who is Bruce Ivins? Maybe there is more than what meets the eye here. Did he really say that he had "paranoid" and "delusional" thoughts about himself, or was he describing what somebody else said? Having seen how incompetent doctors and nurses can be when it comes to charting information into medical records, I could see why such a contortion.
After looking around on the web, I came across this little gem from Dr. Meryl Nass' blog (see #7). Apparently, Bruce Ivins was himself an anthrax vaccine skeptic. Apparently, Bruce Ivins felt that he had some health problems secondary to the anthrax vaccine. It all makes sense to me now. Did Bruce Ivins "leave the reservation" of official wisdom & orthodoxy? Did he get labeled by somebody else as "paranoid" and "delusional" for this reason? Is that the real reason why he became an easy target and scapegoat?
On a peripheral note, I would like to add the disclaimer that I do not agree with Dr. Nass' harsh assessment of Gary Matsumoto. I appreciate very much the work Gary Matsumoto has done on this issue. That said, I do appreciate Dr. Nass' argument that squalene shouldn't be the exclusive focus. I hold an eclectic view--i.e., the squalene in the anthrax vaccine is a problem, but so is the entire Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. By focusing exclusively on the squalene factor one can miss a greater problem. Anti-squalene anti-bodies on a test proves correlation, but not causation. While it is true that people who got the squalene-laced lots have health problems, so do people who got the squalene-free lots (such as myself).
Also from the Associated Press article:
Q: Why target media organizations and politicians?
A: Ivins was angry when an investigative reporter sought information from his notebooks on the vaccine additive. He said in an e-mail, "We've got better things to do than shine his shoes and pee on command." He also said he was anti-abortion, and the Catholic anti-abortion movement has criticized Catholic lawmakers who voted for abortion rights. The documents pointed out that two prominent lawmakers in this category were former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., both recipients of the 2001 anthrax mailings.
The investigative reporter was none other than Gary Matsumoto, which turns the answer into an absurdity. That is, unless Gary Matsumoto was an intended target of Bruce Ivins. Gary, you better phone home.
Did Bruce Ivins botch the anthrax investigation? Was Bruce Ivins at high-level meetings in the White House discussing how a bio-attack would open up the funding spigot for the military/medical-industrial complex? I'm afraid this transcends Bruce Ivins.
Pursuant to the latest news about the unsealed court documents in the case of Bruce Ivins, the case seems to be very circumstantial. Making a dead guy the scapegoat itself raises questions.
From what I can tell, the "case" against Bruce Ivins is based upon a profile, and the profile raises even more questions. The profile looks to me like a deliberate construction of confusion. Is Bruce Ivins the one deliberately constructing this confusion, posthumously?
From the Associated Press:
Q: What motive would Ivins have had to unleash an attack?
A: It's not clear, but the documents mention the stress of his job and his poor mental state. Documents say Ivins was under pressure at work at the time of the attacks to assist a company that lost its federal approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed. Ivins believed the vaccine was essential for the anthrax program at his facility. He was criticized for his work with a vaccine additive that was suspected of causing Gulf War syndrome. Also he had said he had "incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times."
So Bruce Ivins was "under pressure" to assist a company that lost its federal approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed? What company this was, there is no explicit mention, although it is pretty easy to infer that this was BioPort (now called Emergent BioSolutions).
While I certainly wouldn't put it past the same people behind the anthrax vaccine to be involved in a bio-attack, I find this to be breathtaking for a plurality of reasons.
1) If being associated with the anthrax vaccine/BioPort is enough to garner suspicion, I can come up with a long list of suspects. How about looking higher up than the guy who works in the lab? How about looking inside of the Pentagon itself? How dare the government try to fix all blame on the lone lab worker.
2) What is the exact nexus between Bruce Ivins' work on an anthrax vaccine and BioPort? On this I am slightly confused, because--other than the criminal financial fraud--the anthrax vaccine has less to do with BioPort than it does with Ft. Detrick itself.
Certain documents--viz., the indemnification of the anthrax vaccine maker documents--reveal that the anthrax vaccine administered to troops at least up to the year of 2001 had been manufactured in the early 90's at Ft. Detrick on behalf of Program Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of DynCorp, paid for with your tax money. Those anthrax vaccine lots were then shipped to the then-state-owned lab in Michigan for procedural work--e.g., bottle labeling.
Shortly before the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program was inaugurated during the later years of the Clinton administration, the MDPH lab was practically given away to BioPort, which was linked to the Carlyle Group, which was linked to the bin Laden family. As far as my research shows, the Pentagon then awarded BioPort a contract to re-supply some of the very same lots of the anthrax vaccine that had been manfucatured at Ft. Detrick, paid for with your tax money twice. Now there's a real scandal and crime that needs to be investigated.
What are government lab workers doing getting into bed with vaccine makers to begin with? Is this not quintessential fascism?
Bruce Ivins was "criticized" for his work with an anthrax vaccine "additive" that was suspected of causing Gulf War Syndrome. This is implying the squalene, which was used as an adjuvant in at least some of the lots of the anthrax vaccine. No doubt this is a serious, serious issue--a crime, in fact. Here is another real crime committed by the government against its own troops, but it won't be treated like a crime, because it is carried out as a matter of policy. Is the inference supposed to be that Bruce Ivins is a bad person for doing what the government is doing as a matter of policy? Incredible.
What a peculiar part of the government's case against Mr. Ivins this is, and it seems like it could be intended to drive a wedge between opponents of the anthrax vaccine and opponents of the government's latest lie about Bruce Ivins. You see? Now we have to defend an anthrax vaccine proponent in order to rebut the government's lie.
The argument also implies that somehow Bruce Ivins was operating outside-the-box, or as an anomaly, when the status quo has all been for vaccination promiscuity. Personally, I joke around by saying that we need to try reverse psychology on politicians to get them to stop doing bad things, because it seems like the more we oppose things, the more the problems metastasize. It is like the government dependably does the exact opposite of what we want it to do. Most people are against the war, so the politicians want war with Iran, too. Most people are opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act, so lawmakers come up with even more draconian measures to pass. The same has been true of the anthrax vaccine issue and Gulf War Syndrome. The more we catch the government in lies, the more it persists in its misfeasance.
According to the news article, supposedly Bruce Ivins said that he had "paranoid" and "delusional" thoughts. How ironic it is that the very scientists involved in the anthrax vaccine program are suffering from the very same thing that the government, through the abomination called the Department of Veterans' Affairs, has been saying veterans who have objectively verifiable health problems secondary to the anthrax vaccine suffer from. What the VA is doing is yet another real crime being carried out as a matter of policy.
The similarity between the government's label for anthrax vaccine protestors and its characterization of Bruce Ivins made me wonder: Who is Bruce Ivins? Maybe there is more than what meets the eye here. Did he really say that he had "paranoid" and "delusional" thoughts about himself, or was he describing what somebody else said? Having seen how incompetent doctors and nurses can be when it comes to charting information into medical records, I could see why such a contortion.
After looking around on the web, I came across this little gem from Dr. Meryl Nass' blog (see #7). Apparently, Bruce Ivins was himself an anthrax vaccine skeptic. Apparently, Bruce Ivins felt that he had some health problems secondary to the anthrax vaccine. It all makes sense to me now. Did Bruce Ivins "leave the reservation" of official wisdom & orthodoxy? Did he get labeled by somebody else as "paranoid" and "delusional" for this reason? Is that the real reason why he became an easy target and scapegoat?
On a peripheral note, I would like to add the disclaimer that I do not agree with Dr. Nass' harsh assessment of Gary Matsumoto. I appreciate very much the work Gary Matsumoto has done on this issue. That said, I do appreciate Dr. Nass' argument that squalene shouldn't be the exclusive focus. I hold an eclectic view--i.e., the squalene in the anthrax vaccine is a problem, but so is the entire Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. By focusing exclusively on the squalene factor one can miss a greater problem. Anti-squalene anti-bodies on a test proves correlation, but not causation. While it is true that people who got the squalene-laced lots have health problems, so do people who got the squalene-free lots (such as myself).
Also from the Associated Press article:
Q: Why target media organizations and politicians?
A: Ivins was angry when an investigative reporter sought information from his notebooks on the vaccine additive. He said in an e-mail, "We've got better things to do than shine his shoes and pee on command." He also said he was anti-abortion, and the Catholic anti-abortion movement has criticized Catholic lawmakers who voted for abortion rights. The documents pointed out that two prominent lawmakers in this category were former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., both recipients of the 2001 anthrax mailings.
The investigative reporter was none other than Gary Matsumoto, which turns the answer into an absurdity. That is, unless Gary Matsumoto was an intended target of Bruce Ivins. Gary, you better phone home.
Did Bruce Ivins botch the anthrax investigation? Was Bruce Ivins at high-level meetings in the White House discussing how a bio-attack would open up the funding spigot for the military/medical-industrial complex? I'm afraid this transcends Bruce Ivins.