Slashdot Mirror


Colleague Comes Forward To Defend Anthrax Suspect

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times writes about Henry S. Heine, a former Army microbiologist who worked for years with Bruce E. Ivins, whom the FBI has blamed for the anthrax letter attacks that killed five people in 2001. Heine told a 16-member National Academy of Sciences panel reviewing the FBI's scientific work on the investigation that he believes it is impossible that the deadly spores could have been produced undetected in Ivins's laboratory, as the FBI asserts. Heine told the panel that producing the quantity of spores in the letters would have taken at least a year of intensive work using the equipment at the army lab, an effort that would not have escaped colleagues' notice. Lab technicians who worked closely with Ivins have told Heine they saw no such work. Heine adds that, in addition, the biological containment measures where Ivins worked were inadequate to prevent the spores from floating out of the laboratory into animal cages and offices. 'You'd have had dead animals or dead people.' Asked why he is speaking out now, almost two years after Ivins's suicide, Heine says that Army officials had prohibited comment on the case, silencing him until he left the government laboratory. Although Heine does not dispute that there was a genetic link between the spores in the letters and the anthrax in Ivins's flask, Heine says samples from the flask were widely shared. 'Whoever did this is still running around out there. I truly believe that.'"

164 comments

  1. Anthrax... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...is generally not that deadly. My uncle used to deal with cattle with black leg all the time. This story is ONCE AGAIN blown out of proportion--thanks, FBI.

    1. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.. I read the wikipedia about anthrax and it appears that almost no one has even HEARD of it.

    2. Re:Anthrax... by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...is generally not that deadly. My uncle used to deal with cattle with black leg all the time. This story is ONCE AGAIN blown out of proportion--thanks, FBI.

      Depends. I'm not a microbiologist but you know there are different strains (89 I think) of anthrax and it is delivered many different ways. I believe the concern here is spore anthrax or aerosol anthrax which is probably a bit more problematic than black leg. If you think it isn't deadly, there are about a hundred graves in Russia you could visit for an interview.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Anthrax... by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Informative

      That stuff your uncle used to deal with wasn't a weaponized aerosol either. I'm sure the people that died from the anthrax attack would take issue with your statement about it being blown out of proportion.

    4. Re:Anthrax... by areusche · · Score: 1

      ...is generally not that deadly. My uncle used to deal with cattle with black leg all the time. This story is ONCE AGAIN blown out of proportion--thanks, FBI.

      This isn't wild anthrax that cows get from the prairie, this is anthrax that was designed to facilitate infection by the easiest means possible (breathing). I'm not a scientists, but this strain came directly from an Army research facility designed to research and produce biological weapons. I'm pretty sure it isn't the same as naturally occurring anthrax.

      On top of that according to Wikipedia the FBI closed the case on the 2001 Anthrax Scares back in February http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#2010 . So whatever this guy says isn't going to change what the investigators found.

    5. Re:Anthrax... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure they would. But the other 299,999,950 of us need to decide if such attacks warrant as much attention as, say, car accidents.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Anthrax... by chill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, all 5 of them out of a country of 330,000,000.

      An Anthrax Epidemic?

      Killed in car accidents 42,116*
      Killed by the common flu 20,000*
      Killed by murders 15,517*
      Killed in airline crashes
      (of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
      Killed by lightning strikes 90*
      Killed by Anthrax 5

      (1) Annual average over 19 year period.
      *Average annual totals in United States.

      While their deaths were tragic, putting it in perspective puts death by Anthrax WAY down the list of things to really worry about. Somewhere way down after the 58 / year by lightning, 57 by tornadoes, 48 by hurricanes, etc.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    7. Re:Anthrax... by thms · · Score: 3, Informative

      That stuff your uncle used to deal with wasn't a weaponized aerosol either.

      Even a very dedicated and professional group couldn't properly weaponize anthrax: The Japanese Aum sect, which later opted for sarin gas to attack the Tokio Subway, tried that twice and didn't kill anyone with it.

    8. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the FBI investigates car accidents?

    9. Re:Anthrax... by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who in the hell said it was an epidemic? It was a targeted attack, and people died at the places it was sent.

      Who said you should spend your time worrying about it?

    10. Re:Anthrax... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The Anthrax found in the letters was allowed to float around in the air in crowded places, too. How many people died?

      This guy is giving second-hand and speculative "evidence", and it's not holding up to scrutiny.

    11. Re:Anthrax... by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "blown out of proportion" aspect of the story was the "threat of terrorism". The anthrax attacks hit the Capitol at the same time legislators were being pressured to pass the PATRIOT Act. The anthrax attacks delivered the unspoken message to our representatives that "nobody is safe from terrorists".

    12. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know there are different strains (89 I think) of anthrax

      Nonsense. There is only one Anthrax

      If you think it isn't deadly, there are about a hundred graves in Russia you could visit for an interview.

      Hey, it's not a good concert unless there are a few fatalities.

    13. Re:Anthrax... by trurl7 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I agree. Douchebag moderation certainly appears* to be on the rise.

      --
      * yes, plural of anecdote is not data, blah, blah
       

    14. Re:Anthrax... by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure "this guy" is more qualified than you to make the call.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Anthrax... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The anthrax attacks hit the Capitol at the same time legislators were being pressured to pass the PATRIOT Act. The anthrax attacks delivered the unspoken message to our representatives that "nobody is safe from terrorists".

      I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney was involved in any way, but you've got to admit that his agenda, formed long before September of 2001, got a big boost from the attacks.

      Obviously though, he's far too nice of a guy to ever do anything underhanded.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Anthrax... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "Our surgeons did what they could, but it took them two hours just to get the smile off his face."

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286/

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    17. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black leg is actually caused by Clostridium chauvoei, a gram-positiv anaerobic rod :)

    18. Re:Anthrax... by RiddleofSteel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. These were used on us by our own military to push through the Patriot act. That poor guy was used as the scape goat. I know people love to call these conspiracy theorists a bunch of wackjobs but it seems more and more like we are the idiots for sticking our head in the sands while this goes on all around us.

    19. Re:Anthrax... by neurovish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Anthrax found in the letters was allowed to float around in the air in crowded places, too. How many people died?

      This guy is giving second-hand and speculative "evidence", and it's not holding up to scrutiny.

      Enough to be noticed.

    20. Re:Anthrax... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      While their deaths were tragic, putting it in perspective puts death by Anthrax WAY down the list of things to really worry about.

      The difference, of course, being that lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes and, to some degree, car accidents are things we have little to no control over. Just because only 5 people died from the anthrax attack did not mean (at the time) that's all there would be. Someone had access to a lab capable of making a weaponized version of anthrax, was doing so AND had used it. You don't think some effort should be put into finding out who that might be? You don't think it might've been possible for them to, after having tested the effectiveness of it in a real-world example, actually CAUSE an epidemic? I also can't find the post where someone called it an "epidemic"?

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    21. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely, and it is mere coincidence that the targeted lawmakers were Democrats rather than Republicans.

    22. Re:Anthrax... by Livius · · Score: 1

      Cheney is such a horrible human being that it's surprising something hasn't leaked yet.

    23. Re:Anthrax... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      Obviously though, he's far too nice of a guy to ever do anything underhanded.

      Absolutely. He's the kind of classy guy that will shoot you in the face, not in the back.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    24. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lol, Obama engineered a financial crisis before he even became president! This guy's a real whiz!

      Have fun continuing to invent fantasies even more ludicrous than the GP

    25. Re:Anthrax... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      "cattle with black leg"

      There is a difference between anthrax that occurs naturally and anthrax specifically designed for use in biowarfare in a government lab. The strains of bioweapons that are kept in bioweapons labs are orders of magnitude more resistant and more deadly than anything you'll ever encounter on the face of this planet.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    26. Re:Anthrax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who the hell are you? I'd say he's a couple thousand times more qualified.

    27. Re:Anthrax... by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

      People who deal with cattle have heard of it. When a herd gets it the herd is destroyed, the bodies burned and the land itself quarantined.

      --
      Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    28. Re:Anthrax... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      look up argumentum ad verecundiam, then come back and apologize

    29. Re:Anthrax... by blair1q · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then you're his target audience.

      This guy is giving second-hand and speculative "evidence", and it's not holding up to scrutiny.

      The tobacco industry has plenty of "qualified" people on its research staff as well, and it still sells cancer on a stick.

      See above about argumentum ad verecundiam

    30. Re:Anthrax... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, you are not getting an apology.

      "This Guy" worked with the deceased. He's one of the few who can actually have a say here.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. Silence != Truth by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Army officials had prohibited comment on the case, silencing him until he left the government laboratory.

    I'm sure he told the Army & FBI about this. Sounds like anthrax killed a scapegoat named Bruce E. Ivins to me.

    1. Re:Silence != Truth by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This story never made sense.

      The way I see it there are three possibilities. When the anthrax events were taking place, you'll recall that this was high-grade weaponized anthrax containing silica, that indicates a high level of technical competence. So that leads to the first possibility, a sufficiently competent person can, on their own, weaponize anthrax from a culture. This, to me, is the most frightening, but also the least likely possibility. If one person could do it, someone else would have. I don't doubt that there are sufficiently motivated and financed terror groups who would have repeated the procedure if this were possible. This stuff was supposedly (although there are contradictory statements) better than the soviet weaponized anthrax.

      The second possibility is that Ivins had nothing to do with this, except possibly supplying the culture to a third party - a third party who stopped the attacks for some unknown reason.

      The third - and this is where I put on my tinfoil hat - is that the US maintains stores of weapons grade anthrax in contradiction to our biological warfare treaty obligations that someone, probably Ivins, pilfered.

    2. Re:Silence != Truth by b4upoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It really makes me wonder if overzealous nuts in the Bush regime could have caused anthrax to be let lose to justify our military actions. I have no trust at all after things like WaterGate and the arms for drugs crap that went on under republican administrations.

    3. Re:Silence != Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we store weapons grade Anthrax - who said we didn't? Our obligations are a lot less than you think - most major powers have stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - the difference is in numbers and how much they store, and our obligation is not to USE them. The fact that US national policy is to respond to biological or chemical attacks with nuclear retaliation doesn't prevent us from storing stockpiles.

      Furthermore, even weapons-grade anthrax is an overstated threat. I'd be much more concerned about more virulent agents or chemical warfare agents. Anthrax, if treated, is not nearly as deadly as you might think. If you don't get it treads - then yeah, you're pretty much screwed. We can also vaccinate against most strains of it since it's a bacterial agent and not a virus, which makes it also much less frightening (at least in my view) even though that vaccination has risks (if there was a widespread outbreak - you can bet the vaccination would make rounds as it was produced more, not to say we'd have it right away though...).

      Also - I assume you meant a third party that performed the attacks. I find this most likely - using spores shared for research into vaccinations or other things you could produce more. I actually read about this in (of all places) middle school - apparently culturing Anthrax is not that complicated of a procedure compared to other biological and chemical agents.

    4. Re:Silence != Truth by jdev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you'll recall that this was high-grade weaponized anthrax containing silica, that indicates a high level of technical competence

      There was a lot of press initially about the anthrax being high end weapons grade with silica. The truth is, the initial reports of silica are very dubious. That highlights one of the issues in a case like this - you don't even know what basic facts to believe. Almost all of the evidence against Ivins is circumstantial and claims by the government haven't always held up.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Silicon_content_too_high

    5. Re:Silence != Truth by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Article One of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which we are a party, is, "Never under any circumstances to acquire or retain biological weapons."

    6. Re:Silence != Truth by chmod755 · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sure you probably meant big "R" Republicans, right? I just think it's funny that you'd choose to highlight instances that occurred under the watch of Republican presidents and none under Democrats, as though all Democrat presidents were boy scouts and all Republican presidents were akin to Hitler's child-abusing step-brother (citation needed). The only thing "insightful" about your post is how blatantly obvious your political bias extends.

    7. Re:Silence != Truth by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      The third - and this is where I put on my tinfoil hat - is that the US maintains stores of weapons grade anthrax in contradiction to our biological warfare treaty obligations that someone, probably Ivins, pilfered.

      That actually seems to be the most likely. A ban means you do it only in secret and keep it small, not that you actually stop doing it.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    8. Re:Silence != Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as your tinfoil hat is one, try this one:

      The attacks never happened. They were disinformation in order to pass the PATRIOT act.

    9. Re:Silence != Truth by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      I have no trust at all after things like WaterGate...

      That's nothing. *I* have no trust at all after things like the Conway Cabal (happened in the year 1777).

      (more info)

    10. Re:Silence != Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This gets modded *up*? You're reading way, way, way, way too much into that comment. How the hell do you arrive at the conclusion that the poster is implying all Democrats are "boy scouts"? If he mentions a Republican president did something bad, he has to "balance" it with an example of a Democratic president? Ridiculous.

    11. Re:Silence != Truth by chmod755 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry - I guess "overzealous nuts in the Bush regime" was meant not as inflammatory but as a totally benign comment that reflected *in no way* the deeper feelings of the poster on this subject. That's what I get for reading words and trying to understand their meaning like a normal person, I guess.

      You two can discuss this at your next Obama Fanboy party - I think this month's shindig is at Bill Ayer's house, on the corner of Socialism Park Drive and Partisan Way (but watch out, that's a rough part of town).

      And yes, now I'm just being mean... ;)

    12. Re:Silence != Truth by chmod755 · · Score: 1

      By far the worst was the XYZ Affair, back even before we came up with clever names for scandals.

    13. Re:Silence != Truth by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd agree, but I'd think if we were running a covert bio-weapons program there'd be pretty tight controls on it - tight enough that if some got mailed to a congressman we'd get the right guy the first time.

      This whole thing stinks, but I still don't buy the even more conspiratorial we did it to pass the patriot act - does anyone really believe that a few people getting sick on September 20th 2001 is the real impetus behind patriot?

    14. Re:Silence != Truth by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then name something the Democratic presidents did that they obviously knew about. Either Reagan or Bush (likely both) knew about the illegal sale of arms to provide illegal funding for revolutionaries. Nixon actively worked to cover up a felony. Clinton covered up a blow job. Compare and contrast. If anything big was missing from that list, please list it.

    15. Re:Silence != Truth by RiddleofSteel · · Score: 1

      No it's not the full reason behind it, but it was sent to the media and key democrats who might have opposed the Patriot act. Enough to scare anyone who was going to vote no, and if not scare at least errode their position that it's not needed. This stinks to high heaven of a cover up.

    16. Re:Silence != Truth by chmod755 · · Score: 1

      How soon we forget...there have been two presidents that have been impeached. The first, Andrew Jackson, was impeached in 1868. If only I could remember that second guy...

      Wait! I got it! It was Clinton! Obstruction of justice and perjury, correct? Not exactly glowing words to use for the person that occupied the most powerful office on earth for a time. Heck, he couldn't even understand what the meaning of "is" was. And too bad - we had a good streak of 130 years going and he had to go screw it up.

      Yes, I know Nixon was facing impeachment, but he wasn't impeached, and close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I think it's funny (and sad) how people cherry pick from one side of the aisle or the other when slinging mud. I'm not going to argue with you, but not because you're right (because you obviously are not). It's because, as a liberal, you're likely to not understand or be able to follow a logical argument anyhow, I'm tired of typing, and I don't feel you're worth the bits. All presidents have flaws and all presidents have scandals, and trying to paint Demoncats with a nicer brush because they're Demoncats is nonsensical (and don't deny that is your intention, as it clearly is).

      Good night, and good evening. Alaska is is a beautiful state, BTW.

    17. Re:Silence != Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, the OP already mentioned your blowjob witchhunt. Apparently you think a blowjob is equally reprehensible as illegal sale of arms?

      Let me guess, you're a puritan, right?

      Most of us seem to care about actual illegal and immoral activities a lot more than which president happened to have enough of an opposite-party majority around to publicize a ridiculous impeachment.

    18. Re:Silence != Truth by moortak · · Score: 1

      Part of what makes anthrax such a dream biological agent is that it isn't highly virulent. There isn't the risk of an epidemic spreading to your own troops and citizens and you tie up the medical infrastructure of your enemy much better than something Ebola, where the host is killed quickly.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    19. Re:Silence != Truth by unitron · · Score: 1

      You say "Democrat presidents" instead of "Democratic presidents" and you have the nerve to complain about someone else not capitalizing "Republican"? Whose political bias is blatantly obvious?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    20. Re:Silence != Truth by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's because, as a liberal, you're likely to not understand or be able to follow a logical argument anyhow, I'm tired of typing, and I don't feel you're worth the bits.

      First, I'm not a liberal. My sister describes me as right wing, probably because I'm pro-gun, and anti-regulation (except for places where the free market has already had a chance to regulate themselves and failed). But then, the neo-cons consider me a liberal nut because I don't believe in government regulation (get the government the hell out of our bedrooms and churches - why does the government get to tell a church who can be married? and why are they worrying about what I'm smoking?).

      A blow job isn't a crime. He didn't even lie about it. He answered a poorly worded question in a manner consistent with the instructions, but the opposite of the vernacular, and thus was crucified. But Nixon was party to felonious conspiracy/ies. Bush Sr and Reagan were involved in treasonous support to enemies of the US, illegally sold weapons, and illegally funded Central American terrorists. Hell, though not illegal, Bush Jr started a war in the middle east in a country unrelated to any actions on American soil, then lied about it (or, at the best, was so incompetent that he was lied to by his administration and didn't know any better, as there is proof that the "administration" knew the yellow cake lies were fake long before they were used as an example in a speech). Plus, though unsubstanitated, I believe that he started the war for one and only one reason, that he blamed Saddam for his daddy losing a second term, so he was willing to kill thousands of Americans for revenge. I'd probably respect him more if he just stated that, rather than using "facts" like Osama asking Saddam for help, Saddam turning him down, and Cheney stating that's "proof" that they worked together.

      I'm not saying that all Republicans are bad and all Democrats are good. I'm saying that, at least in recent history, the Republicans have been much more felonious in office, and if you disagree, point out things. They spent millions and millions investigating Clinton land deals and found nothing. I wonder how Bush Jr would have fared with his land deals and Ranger's ownership if that level of scrutiny was applied? And no one had anything on Carter. He was such a Boy Scout that he couldn't get anything done and the world thought they could push around the US. And the worst anyone has on Obama is that he's apparently born on Mars or something, and he lied in his campaign promises (really? A lying politician? Who'd have thought?).

      So, go through again and let me know anything I've missed that a president has done. Blow jobs? Democrats. Sleeping with Marilyn Monroe? Democrats. I guess the Republicans are just jealous. They don't know the good unethical acts, and stick to robbery and treason. Those aren't any fun.

    21. Re:Silence != Truth by TimurLeng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      quote: The third - and this is where I put on my tinfoil hat - is that the US maintains stores of weapons grade anthrax in contradiction to our biological warfare treaty obligations that someone, probably Ivins, pilfered.
      ------------------
      Spot on! I think that is exactly what could have happened, as all else just doesn't make any sense.
      Silly conspiracy theories like "Dick Cheney" did it, overlook the lynching party that would have happened on Capitol Hill, would that have ever come out.
      Its not like those lawmakers would have appreciated attempts to kill them in one of the most gruesome manners imaginable.

      But the US secretly hidding that stuff and then someone getting his hands on it for abusive purposes, would explain why they would be covering it up - and even why Obama also would not announce the truth about it now.
      If it would have been only "evil Bush" people that did it, it would give the Dems the ammo they'd need to get rid of Rep competition for decades to come.

      But imagine the scandal of US presidents since Jimmy Carter & Ronald Reagan secretly hidding tons of that stuff underground. The US could never, ever again credibly demand that rogue regimes do not engage in Biological warfare research.

      This way even the most liberal regime in DC would have to hide such truths, or they'd loose all credibility on WMD issues.

      --
      Free will is the illusion that our wits could compensate for our brain's faulty circuitry.
    22. Re:Silence != Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democratic presidents did that they obviously knew about."

      President, singular. In the timeline you present, in the past 30 years, there has been ONE Democratic ex-president; Obama's presidency isn't even past the 1 1/2 year mark yet and is current (and despite that, has many questionable, jackass political moves)..

      "If anything big was missing from that list, please list it."

      Starting a war with biparistan support in a small Asian country that cost tens of thousands of American lives, led to a huge rise in the heroin trade domestically, first modern war we really lost, where the failure and subsequent pullout led to massive genocide in a nearby country (Malaysia), and overall led to a huge rise in mega military corporations that current liberals decry despite they built it (i.e. the 'no bid contracts' companies).

      That would JFK (background support) and LBJ with Vietnam. It took your crook, a Republican, to withdraw. That was Nixon.

      FDR WWII, including the sole sitting president in the advent of nuclear weaponry. Truman Korea. Bay of Pigs JFK and the support of the Vietnam war. LBJ with the active US military involvement. All Dems. In fact, there has been more years at war with Dems than Republicans. There have been more US lives lost with Dems than Reps, despite Reps being in office more, even accounting the current stupid conflicts. W was the first Rep where we had an extended modern war with. Wilson was WWI, and wasn't he a Dem, if you want to go back that far? So the whole Republicans are war-mongerers is shit; it's you Dems that have been killing millions, it's Reps that have provided the security and cleaned up your messes.

      The only decent person was Carter and he had crap on economics. 1 term administration, and the more that comes out over the years, the more you learn how good and bad he was as a president. Many good things (START, Egypt), some underhanded things suggested (your private wiretapping panels hail from him, it's origination is not Republican).

      So that leaves Clinton. Clinton left us weak, sorry. Not managing a 15 minute phone call to pull Osama bin Laden. Slick Willy could apparently manage time for several BJs but not manage to get to a phone. College students could get cell phones in the mid 90s (I know, I was in college then), but the POTUS couldn't manage to access one when he needed to. Somalia, which continues to today.

      Blaming Republican presidents is easy when they were the ones that keep on winning, or if you have a selective memory. We have one bad one, W, and that's even becoming questionable given how the chosen one Obama is continuing to handle things.

      That all said, Reps had it what was coming to them in 2008. The Dems, in turn, are getting what seems will be in 2010 because of their stupidity and people realizing they had more to do than people thought with the financial fallout and bailouts. And the people who controlled both elections?

      They aren't you, who hold to your party. They are the moderates and independents.

    23. Re:Silence != Truth by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They aren't you, who hold to your party. They are the moderates and independents.

      So they aren't you either. In a discussion on crimes committed by the sitting presidents, we find that Republicans are over-represented, and you bring up Obama having "many questionable, jackass political moves" as a counter example to my accusations of treason against Republican presidents. Yes, treason and making poor political moves are *almost* the same thing.

      And I am an independent moderate. I would love for there to be a moderate party. But 3rd parties are all but outlawed in the US. So every election comes down to picking the lesser of two evils. And I don't like voting for evil, lesser or not.

  3. suicide? by genican1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nobody OD's on Tylenol in order to commit suicide. It's too ugly and painful. There are much quicker ways.

    1. Re:suicide? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      People kill themselves in a manner of horrific ways.
      Years ago there was a guy who filled his toilet with gasoline, drop his pants, sat on it and then lit it on fire.

      Suicide by fire is pretty painful...for a little while.

      Well, ok it was an attempt suicide as the guy did live, but my point is valid.

      People use chemicals that are very nasty, drown, and a variety of other ways that make people go "why the fuck would you do it that way?"

      Even slitting you wrist is more painful then jumping off a bridge... assuming high enough bridge.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:suicide? by logjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point here being that as a biologist he would have a clue what kind of pain he was really in for in an APAP-induced liver failure death.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    3. Re:suicide? by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Right. Nobody at all. Tell that to the girl I briefly dated about 20 years ago, when I was a kid. Can you please also tell it to the ER doctors that pumped her stomach and filled it with charcoal once I discovered what she had done?
      Thanks so much.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    4. Re:suicide? by spun · · Score: 1

      That girl wasn't a trained biologist and had no idea what she was in for with APAP induced liver failure. Nobody who knows what APAP will do to you would choose to go that way, unless they really wanted a slow, painful death.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:suicide? by bmo · · Score: 1

      Never happens?

      I know someone personally who did it. Really nice girl. Pretty, too. Took a bunch of Tylenol and killed her liver dead.

      Modded informative? Mods on crack.

      --
      BMO

    6. Re:suicide? by DebateG · · Score: 1

      That's simply not true. I'll reference you this article which says that between 1997 and 2002, there were around 2700 patients in Canada admitted to the ER for acetaminophen overdose and 69% of them overdosed intentionally. That's about 370 people a year intentionally overdosing themselves with acetaminophen a year. In the US, 26,000 people overdosed on the drug over around 10 years. If the rate of intentional overdose is similar in the US and Canada, that's about 1800 people intentionally overdosing on the drug each year in the US. I personally know at least one person who attempted (and failed) to overdose on the drug. Dying of liver failure is a pretty nasty way to go compared to firearms, but anyone who has worked in any urban ER knows that intentional overdose is pretty common.

    7. Re:suicide? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The codeine would mask the pain and induce death itself. A "trained biologist" would know that.

    8. Re:suicide? by logjon · · Score: 1

      It truly wouldn't "mask the pain." Codeine is a joke.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    9. Re:suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The codeine wears off faster than it takes for APAP induced liver failure to produce death. A "trained biologist" would know that.

    10. Re:suicide? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Like some previous comments indicate, a biologist would know that a Tylenol OD would be a painful way to go, unlike the 2700 Canadians in your article.

      Your notion that liver failure is nasty relative to firearms illustrates the point those posters are trying to make well. I was an 0311/8541 in the USMC during a particularly active time in USMC history, so I'm familiar with the variety of damage dealt by firearms. If I were to decide to off myself, I wouldn't do it with a firearm, for sure.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    11. Re:suicide? by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have any idea how little codeine is in those pills? Even downing more than enough for the APA to kill you wouldn't result in significant pain reduction. It wouldn't do squat to alleviate the pain of liver failure.

      As logion said, codeine is a joke. Tylenol with codeine is what they hand out when people think they need something stronger than tylenol, but they don't. If they actually need something stronger than tylenol, they will get something with oxycodone in it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:suicide? by logjon · · Score: 1

      Hydrocodone or propoxyphene are usually prescribed before oxycodone.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    13. Re:suicide? by logjon · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about a 16 year old emo girl here.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    14. Re:suicide? by logjon · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't use the surest and quickest method because of its damaging effects?

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    15. Re:suicide? by spun · · Score: 1

      I was going to put hydrocodone in, but that's just codeine and oxycodone mixed, and I didn't want to confuse the issue. People here in the US know oxycodone from a certain radio personality who was heavily addicted to the stuff, so, it was better for the sake of example, I think.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:suicide? by logjon · · Score: 1

      I guess I can understand that. Best to keep it simple, what with dealing with someone who thinks that the codeine in T3 would mask the pain from an APAP overdose.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    17. Re:suicide? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0, Troll

      Tylenol+codeine has about 30 mg in it. That's a joke dosage.

    18. Re:suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Nobody at all. Tell that to the girl I briefly dated about 20 years ago, when I was a kid. Can you please also tell it to the ER doctors that pumped her stomach and filled it with charcoal once I discovered what she had done?
      Thanks so much.

      Steady there, drama-queen. Perhaps you could try to sound like less of a fag when you post anecdotes no one really cares about?

    19. Re:suicide? by durrr · · Score: 1

      Death by liver failure induced by paracetamol takes far longer than the time codeine stays in the system, and to die of codeine you need, as mentioned, a lot of pills.

    20. Re:suicide? by zero_out · · Score: 1

      What about Benadryl? Also ugly and painful. One of my best friends in HS killed himself on that stuff after doing something really stupid (kissing the newlywed wife of another friend). Vomitting, convulsions, and other nastiness, eventually leading to his heart stopping. I don't doubt that there are certain questions surrounding the circumstances of this man's death, but ugly and painful suicides happen quite often.

    21. Re:suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nobody would toss out an acronym like APAP, knowing full well the reader wouldn't know what it meant, unless they were trying to sound important.

    22. Re:suicide? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You see, noone who really wants to die OD's on tylenol because it's a horrible way to die (though something like taking some monk's hood is probably even worse). You don't try to off yourself with tylenol unless either you want to *punish* yourself, you don't know any better, or you are doing it to get attention (which since it takes a while gives them plenty of time to "save" you).

    23. Re:suicide? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      It isn't the 'surest method' and very often isn't quick relative to others and in those instances is most definitely not painless. What I refer to is the length of time people often remain conscious after an eventually fatal wound delivered by a firearm. Even with multiple hits.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    24. Re:suicide? by spun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Okay, skipper, thanks for the heads up. Opinion noted, for what that's worth. It's printed on every god damned container of the stuff: APAP 500mg/codeine 5mg. Nobody reads their pill bottles? Nobody can tell from context what I'm talking about? Slashdot was suddenly infested with morons? Sorry you feel intellectually threatened by me, but maybe, just maybe, that's your fucking problem, not mine.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    25. Re:suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But yet they try. The roommate of an ex-gf of mine did the same thing, about 20 years ago when I was in college. Swallowed a bunch of tylenol trying to kill herself.

    26. Re:suicide? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I guess I can understand that. Best to keep it simple, what with dealing with someone who thinks that the codeine in T3 would mask the pain from an APAP overdose.

      There was codeine in Terminator 3?

      Wow, you're right, that stuff is useless. It didn't do a thing to relieve the pain of watching that movie!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    27. Re:suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you're a "dick"

      no single light dose of codeine would prepare you for the hurt you're going to feel for the next 7-10 days, and to actually get a fatal codeine OD from that stuff would take many many bottles indeed.

    28. Re:suicide? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      50 pills * 30 mg = 1.5 grams of codeine.

      LD 50 for codeine is 0.8 grams.

      You won't feel a thing. Except maybe the itching.

    29. Re:suicide? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      ...and probably falls under "didn't know any better" or "doing it to get attention" (and accordingly "killing yourself" in a manner that is likely to fail).

    30. Re:suicide? by RiddleofSteel · · Score: 1

      This guy was a scientist who knew better. I agree lots of stupid teenage girls might go this way, but it makes no sense that someone trained in the field would do himself in like this.

  4. Or maybe its maybelline by cosm · · Score: 1

    cover up?

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  5. No kidding. by flitty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And no one who was paying attention to the original details of the story are surprised.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    1. Re:No kidding. by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      And for those who haven't been paying attention, check out Glenn Greenwald's writings on the subject. Something is rotten in the state of America.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    2. Re:No kidding. by flitty · · Score: 1

      Glenn Also pointed to this story about how Obama would veto a budget bill if it included money to reinvestigate the 2001 anthrax attacks.

      Transparency, this is not.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    3. Re:No kidding. by jp102235 · · Score: 1

      I actually took the time to read the final fbi report This guy was mentally unstable well before the attacks, he was obsessed with some sorrority, with female co-workers, and was quite openly discussing his mental illness with co-workers. (why he was still in charge of antrax - astonishes me) The most interesting part is the new science that came out of the investigation (some kind of new dna sequencing method) either way, this guy was nuts before the fbi got involved (imho)

      --
      jp
  6. Can you say inside job? by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So a strain of Anthrax, developed by the US Military, get's mailed to a Democratic senator, and a high profile journalist, about a month after 9/11. After years of "investigating" they blame a dead guy who can't defend himself.

    This is a case that will never be solved because whoever it was in the government that did it, has covered their tracks.

    1. Re:Can you say inside job? by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They blamed the dead guy before he killed himself.

    2. Re:Can you say inside job? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      So a strain of Anthrax, developed by the US Military,

      No.
      A strain of Anthrax with similar genetic code as one being developed by the military.

      The security around the anthrax at that time wasn't what anyone would call 'high'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Can you say inside job? by jythie · · Score: 1

      More likely they just wanted a solution since solving high profile cases tends to result in promotions and job offers while failing to solve said cases results in public scorn. History is filled with police that advancd their careers via finding a patsy to pin a high profile crime on.

    4. Re:Can you say inside job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please name and cite 3.

    5. Re:Can you say inside job? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      They blamed the dead guy before they made it look like he killed himself.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:Can you say inside job? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      They blamed the dead guy before he killed himself.

      They had blamed several guys already, this one, was the one who got depressed and killed himself. Of course, that depends on your definition of blamed. No charges has been filed. People had just been investigated and labeled "person of interest".

    7. Re: Can you say inside job? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      They blamed the dead guy before they made it look like he killed himself.

      I don't generally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I thought it was *very* strange that they would cremate the suspect in a high-profile national security case without an autopsy, after he had apparently killed himself.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Can you say inside job? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The security around the anthrax at that time wasn't what anyone would call 'high'.

      Or alternatively they were and this was the problem. ;)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Can you say inside job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sacco and Vanzetti, for two.

      The Birmingham Six, for another six.

    10. Re:Can you say inside job? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They blamed a bunch of people. The suspicions alone ruined people's lives. He was depressed over his life being ruined, and killed himself. He was never charged. He was never formally accused. He had his life ruined because he worked with something related to what was used, and killed himself. So, suspecting the real end was the US military (either directly doing the acts, or just having the weaponized anthrax around to be stolen, in violation of treaties), everyone in the government was happy to publicly blame the dead guy and close the case.

      No one was ever charged, and they did not then, nor now, have enough to "prove" (meaning get a conviction) anyone did it. They just got a break when there was a suicide (whether real or arranged) and closed the case.

    11. Re:Can you say inside job? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Pretty much everything the FBI did was entirely for show, so they could knowingly let the real perpetrator(s) continue to remain at large.

  7. The Wrong Man - Hatfill by Jainith · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Atlantic has a really interesting article about the FBI's multi-year investigation of Stephen Hatfill for the same crime.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/the-wrong-man/8019

  8. Not convinced by this testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems all a bunch of negatives. He concedes a genetic link that sources this stuff to the lab, but can't believe this could have gone unnoticed. And he uses the supposedly poor containment at the lab as another negative example, claiming that the other labs, animals and technicians should have become infected if the work was done there. But otherwise things were so tight that someone else would have noticed the production of all this anthrax.

    1. Re:Not convinced by this testimony by jythie · · Score: 1

      The 'noticed' part refers to the amount of time and resources nesseary to product the ammount that went out. A whole year or so of overtime using specific equipment day in and day out.

  9. That's two... by Manip · · Score: 4, Informative

    So that is two men the US Government accused of the Anthrax attacks, one of which killed himself and the second almost did. Neither with any real evidence other than vague coincidences. Just goes to show that when the pressure to solve an investigation goes to such extremes mistakes are bound to happen.

    I think we should ask about the state's method. In one case they intentionally harassed a suspect by releasing his name to the media, conducting multiple searches, and following him around 24/7 and even having local law enforcement arrest him multiple times on silly charges.

    In any other country that has some kind of independent police watchdog you would have consequences but in the US where law enforcement seem to be above the law and "investigate" (ha ha) themselves they just get worse and worse year after year.

    1. Re:That's two... by JamesPr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Government jobs not only have poor pay in comparison to industry, they can kill you too!

    2. Re:That's two... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, hearing how they viciously harassed Dr. Hatfill and Dr. Ivins it seems pretty clear that their strategy wasn't to solve the crime.
      If you read over the evidence their case is not particularly convincing, there really isn't any evidence that Ivins did it. He was a quirky strange guy and they used that against him until he broke. From what I've read almost no scientists in the "biodefense" community are convinced that Ivins did it, but once he'd killed himself he was the perfect scapegoat.

    3. Re:That's two... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Government jobs *don't* have poor pay in comparison to industry.

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

    4. Re:That's two... by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Richard Jewell, anyone?

    5. Re:That's two... by DaleSwanson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What countries have an independent police watchdog? I'd like to read how they are organized and how successful they are.

  10. Re:tylenol + codeine by logjon · · Score: 2

    Not a particularly poweful opiate. Not enough to cause death in the doses found in Tylenol with codeine. The APAP is what got him.

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  11. There is ZERO chance that it was Heine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When this first happened, I stated that this was a multi-person job and the original bugs came from the military. The military part was proven.
    This was a multi-person job. In particular, the envelopes that leaked at the start of USPS would have leaked through their system. They did not. Somebody hand carried them INTO the USPS, stamped them, carried them out and then hand delivered them at the final destination. The person that did that either worked at that particular location (not likely), OR was able to move between locations. That means either a temp or a high ranking USPS person that is very likely ex-military.
    Also, the idea that Ivins did the final work in a specialized underwater bio-box to work on this was stupid. Filled with air and trying to do all the work? Yeah. RIGHT.

    This was a group effort. Ivins was at best a participant by supplying the original bug and the tech know-how, though that would take some proving.

  12. Army investigation was botched by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone is assuming that all that weaponized anthrax came from the lab by its genetic makeup. Its possible only a sample was taken, and "mass produced" elsewhere. Yeah, it takes "special equipment", but its not like you need nuclear tools or there's only 7 machines in the world like it. Like the Kennedy assassination, and 9/11, we're never going to get the complete truth out of this.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    1. Re:Army investigation was botched by Mathness · · Score: 1

      but its not like you need nuclear tools

      Yeah man, don't be such a douche, think about the environment and use solar powered tools or something. Also get some weed and mellow out, you need it dude.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    2. Re:Army investigation was botched by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Well, I COULD have said UNIQUE tools made specifically for the handling of nuclear materials and calibration of nuclear power related machinery. But nuclear tools conveys all that detail in two words, and most people were able to pick that up. Sorry, I choose not to laboriously structure my posts to ensure every cretin will understand them.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    3. Re:Army investigation was botched by Mathness · · Score: 1

      It was meant as a joke, as in a reaction to the use of nuclear instead of green power. In no way was it meant to criticize you or your post. Guess I have to use smilies and signal flags so every cretin can see that it was an attempt at a joke.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
  13. this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    it screams conspiracies and secret government involvement

    but real life is not a hollywood movie, occam's razor is unfortunately mundane and boring. the simplest, lamest, conspiracy-free explanation is the truth

    but flame on paranoid schizophrenics: this story is made for you. wig out and bug out while you can

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      Riight. Because only a paranoid schizophrenic would find this at all suspicious. Do you work for the FBI, or are you just naturally trusting?

    2. Re:this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with applying Occam's Razor to this case is that when you examine the facts, there is no simple, straightforward, lame explanation.

    3. Re:this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      The simplest explanation is that a highly trained and successful microbiologist found the time and equipment to culture, weaponize, and distribute anthrax in his spare time while still maintaining his normal duties without arising any suspicion from his peers, and then proceeded to kill himself in just about the slowest, most inefficient, and most painful way possible.

      Now I'm not saying there's no way it's true, but it smells fishy enough to warrant looking further into in my opinion.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    4. Re:this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No it screams government incompetence. Someone sent the samples. The FBI jumped to conclusions and harassed a man to death that they thought was a suspect.

      It's not the first time. Remember Richard Jewell? After he saved countless lives by noticing a suspicious backpack and evacuating the area around it in Centennial Olympic Park, he was first hailed as a hero. The FBI investigated him for no other reason than he fit the profile of a lone bomber despite having no background with bomb making. What's worse is that he FBI leaked that he was a suspect. After a trial in the media and having all his possessions thoroughly search by the FBI, it wasn't until months later that a US Attorney (and not the FBI) declared he was no longer a suspect. Years later Eric Rudolph admitted he planted the bombs.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      occam's razor is unfortunately mundane and boring. the simplest, lamest, conspiracy-free explanation is the truth

      You're asking us to choose between "he did it using special equipment for a year that nobody noticed him using during that time, in an environment unable to contain any leaked spores that could have infected and possibly killed various caged research animals if not the researchers" and "someone else did it"?

    6. Re:this story is made for paranoid schizophrenics by tftp · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that Cipro was distributed to "people who matter" in the government weeks in advance, and nobody is willing to explain this or even ask why it was done.

  14. Alex Jones, is that you? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    I didn't know Alex Jones was a slashdot member.

  15. Glenn Greenwald by chainLynx · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Glenn Greenwald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Socky McSockPuppet fan are you?

      Turing Word: imbecile
      In a sentence: The imbecile made repeated sock puppet posts from his home IP address.

  16. They destroyed Hatfill by DebateG · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Atlantic magazine just published a really eye-opening article on Steven Hatfill, the FBI's first suspect. It is very clear from the article that the FBI was hell-bent on finding a perpetrator of the crime even in the absence of any solid evidence. It's an interesting and frightening read about how the FBI could completely destroy your job, your friends, your day-to-day life, and your family if they falsely accuse you of a crime.

  17. Not a compelling argument. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    People are not nearly as observant as they think they are. Been proven time and time again. People always think they "know" a person or they are certain of what the saw or didn't see. Multiple psychological studies have shown that people's certainty has little to no correlation with reality.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Not a compelling argument. by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The argument wasn't about whether or not he "knew" the accused. The argument is that he knows what would be involved in doing what the accused was accused of doing. He says it was impossible that the accused could have done what he did without being noticed. I imagine it would be like the equivalent of trained chemists noticing whether or not one of their colleagues was cooking up kilograms of MDMA over in the corner of the lab.

  18. Re:tylenol + codeine by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Tylenol + Codeine only has about 30 mg of codeine. A minimum lethal dose of codeine is at about 800 mg. That means he would have had to swallow almost 30 pills to die. As the GP said, that's a ridiculous way to suicide.

  19. Everyone says their friend is innocent by clay_shooter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How often do folks come forward to say that they can't imagine that their associate/friend/neighbor/spouse couldn't have done the crime. Sometimes they're right and their wrong.

    1. Re:Everyone says their friend is innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes they're right and their wrong."

      That's among the least sensible things i've ever read.

    2. Re:Everyone says their friend is innocent by sjames · · Score: 1

      Usually they base that on the person not "seeming" to be that sort of person rather than on an objective look at the logistics that would be involved. This is quite a different matter.

  20. Re:tylenol + codeine by logjon · · Score: 0

    Again, he wouldn't have to swallow that many, and likely didn't. The APAP in amounts found in Tylenol products is far more lethal than the codeine. Still absolutely ridiculous, seeing as how we're not talking about some crazy man who set his ass on fire, but rather a man who purportedly wanted an easy way to end it all because of harassment by law enforcement, and again, as a biologist, would know exactly what an APAP suicide would entail.

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  21. paging Dr. Phillip Zack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Anthrax cover-up on line one !

  22. Re:tylenol + codeine by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0, Troll

    I agree with you. My post was purely to deal with the anonymous above who was trying to claim that it could have been the codeine to do it. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that claim would be as tylenol+codeine has such a small dosage amount versus what is a lethal adult dose.

  23. Re:tylenol + codeine by logjon · · Score: 1

    Yeah I got that, I was really just expanding on what you had posted.

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  24. providing historical accuracy by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify,

    They blamed the dead guy before "he" killed "himself."

    Seth

    1. Re:providing historical accuracy by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify,

      They blamed the dead guy before "he" killed "himself."

      Seth

      I don't get it. Are we now calling into question whether or not Bruce Ivens was male? That would be a twist - especially to "his" widow and children!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  25. never question authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It was done by rogue elements inside the government who wanted that patriot act passed, plus as a warning to journalists/newsies to never investigate beyond what the government official fairy tale story is on important events, such as 9-11. The mainstream press has just ceased doing any investigative reporting where it could contradict what the official party line is. And you don't need tinfoil, false flag events, using agent provocateurs, etc are SOP with government(s) going way way back, from small town police forces all the way to the top of the military industrial complex. Look at Viet Nam, a huge war promoted in part on a huge lie, the "gulf of tonkin" attack. War is big business, the security police state is big business, and then you have to look at "who profits" the most politically from having US boots on the ground all over the middle east (hint: proxy fighting forces for a regime that is untouchable politically inside the US)

  26. Perhaps the birth of a new slashdot meme ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Douchebag moderation says it very nicely.

    1. Re:Perhaps the birth of a new slashdot meme ... by ooshna · · Score: 1

      I agree I shall use it when ever a douchebag mis-moderates someone. We shall use this phrase to strike fear into the heart of douchebags across the land. Come with me brothers its time to turn the tides and take back the /. that used to be (or something)

  27. what did you think of last night's episode of "fringe"?

    isn't it great the truth is finally coming out?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  28. Thi is the second time . . . by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    The FBI already did this to another guy.

    They smeared and squeezed Steven Hatfill for several years. Ashcroft accused him publicly. They shadowed him 24-7. He lost all work and most friends. He is innocent.

    The only reason he didn't commit suicide from the harassment was that, "If I would've killed myself, I would've been automatically judged by the press and the FBI to be guilty."

    Don't take my word for it, read it here.

  29. The person of interest by westlake · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney was involved in any way...

    Baloney.

    Of course you are.

    It's the message you intended to deliver. Don't try to weasel your way out of it.

    Either say it - and prove it - or keep your big mouth shut.

  30. Nobody Accepts .... The Douchebag Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree I shall use it when ever a douchebag mis-moderates someone. We shall use this phrase to strike fear into the heart of douchebags across the land. Come with me brothers its time to turn the tides and take back the /. that used to be (or something)

    The above reads like "Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition Sketch - The Lost Dialog Page".

    Yes - I am with you good sir! We shall band together and battle tirelessly to assert the will of the Church of More or Less Normal Geeks in order regain rule of fair Slashdot and to banish all Douchebag Moderators to hell (or Digg).

    The cause is just and noble and righteous!

    The time is now!

    We strike at dawn!

    Or maybe 11:30, because tomorrow is Saturday and I like a good lie-in.

  31. biological war more effective then nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to watch this show on TV called "The Science of War". It was documentary style with topics like: chemical warfare, biological war, nuclear warfare, etc.

    The one thing that really stuck in my head was how easy, cheap and effective biological warfare is. And worldwide distribution (ie: killing life) is feasible by just about any country with a well financed mad man. And it does not require the technology or limited resources of nuclear.

    The news always plays up nuclear fears. But biological war is far easier and can be just as devastating.

    Of course you wouldn't want to use the mail system... that's just too unreliable. A crop duster will do tho.

    regarding this article... everyone knows the gov did it to insight terror. or let it happen. good fun and why not?

  32. nadleric by nadleric · · Score: 1

    New book and film on Ivins frame-up, military-industrial- terror-complex and the mysterious deaths of other anthrax scientists. Anthrax War by Bob Coen and Eric Nadler (brother of US Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) www.anthraxwar.com

  33. Response to Trailer Comment by JamesPr · · Score: 1

    Actually, that article only looks at only eight out of ten hand picked occupations.. Further in the article, "When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work."

  34. Re:suicide??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it's pretty effective to silence other researchers who might know something though..
    To continue the attacks would be too risky, since it's hard to bribe / kill everyone involved.

    But who could have done such a thing, in order to get boost for new wars and Patriot Act?

  35. NOT weaponized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a lot of misinformation about "silica" and weaponized
    Somewhere, you can download the 200 page pdf of the fbi report
    the silica/weaponized is a red herring based on early data that is inconclusive (some sort of scanning xray spectroscopy i think)

    the main point of the 200 page plus fbi report is that this guy was wierd and that he had several day of unexplained late night visits to the lab

    there is also a lot of confusin about who had access to the "magic" flask that is the source of the powder.

  36. Atlantic Magazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a very good article in this months Atlantic about what hell the FBI put Steven Hatfill through while thinking he was the guy who did this. Then, after two years of it, having ruined his job prospects and made every day a living hell, they turn they attention to Ivins. It wasn't until they started doing the same thing to Ivins, he broke down and committed suicide, that they declared him guilty and "case closed"

    Something smells fishy about this entire thing.

  37. Call me a conspiracy theorist nut if you want but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this was more an inside job than anything. I honestly see the timing on this as too convenient.

    You notice how everyone was up on arms of the voter fraud and wanting a recount on the votes from the election and how they kept getting stonewalled by the government from any attempts. Then all of a sudden "ANTHRAX IN THE MAIL!!!" which got everyone to forget all about it while at the same time trying to instill fear into the public to further entice them to support a war. Then after the anthrax scare was over, there was a media blackout on the voter fraud issue and virtually the entire public just dropped it and moved on like an alzheimer's patient and never looked back.

  38. I understand perfectly. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    My point is that people are busy with their own priorities and do not in fact notice what other people are or are not doing - even if they think they do.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.