My interview about the anthrax case on Expert Witness/WBAI NYC

fyi, here is a link to the MP3 of a 55 minute interview with Michael Levine and Mark Marshall on the March 15 ExpertWitness radio program.

Similar Posts

Swine Flu Campaign Waits on Vaccine; Only Third of Supply Is Expected for First Round of Vast Effort

The Washington Post’s Rob Stein updates us on the current thinking about availability of swine flu vaccine and its voluntary nature. He does not cover liability issues nor how care will be delivered for illnesses that attend vaccination. Excerpts: “There’s little doubt we’re going to vaccinate people,” said Anthony S. Fauci of the National Institute…

COVID-19: Why Are We Ignoring Infection-Acquired Immunity?/ Medscape

Very comprehensive, straightforward review of natural immunity.  The author also makes clear how guidelines for accepting proof of recovery in some European countries are arbitrary and unscientific. The fact that Medscape published this (Medscape had hewed closely to the permissible narrative as well as censoring my comments in the past) reveals that a message has…

FDA attempts to stop OTC sales of N-acetyle cysteine, an adjunctive treatment for Covid-19

Last July, FDA sent out warning letters to supplement companies, informing them that N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) could no longer be marketed as an ingredient in food supplements, using the justification that it was also a licensed drug.   FDA has concluded that NAC products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) of the…

4 Comments

  1. 55 minutes with Meryl! Very cool. Reminds me of the tiger who said, "Oh, honey, look who came over for dinner."

    I would tend to want a senior executive to do everything possible to promote the morale of the employees. For example, when I see a CIA Director defend the CIA analysts against alleged failures of intelligence, I tend to think “Good for him. That’s someone who is doing their job.” I feel the same when I see FBI Director Mueller defend the work of the DOJ. But there is a tricky balance to strike. At the end of the day, justice and correctly “connecting the dots” is the paramount value to uphold.

    What is the view of FBI Director Mueller and President Obama, a former constitutional law professor, on Blackwater, involving the same lead prosecutor as led Amerithrax throughout the decade?

    The judge said of the prosecutor who also has been the lead Amerithrax prosecutor advancing the Ivins Theory:

    “The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions and persuade the court that they did not use the defendants’ compelled testimony were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility,” wrote Urbina, voicing astonishment that such a “seasoned and accomplished” lawyer could make so many blunders.”

    The federal district court judge also accused prosecutors of not giving grand jurors evidence that was helpful to the defendants.

    In Amerithrax, why did Kenneth Kohl not disclose that the toner, paper and “trash marks” (that identify a copier) were not, in fact, a match with the copier allegedly used by Bruce Ivins?

    Why did the DOJ Amerithrax Investigative Summary by Kenneth Kohl and Rachel Carlson Lieber not disclose this fact?

    Why are those reports still being withheld?

    http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/copier.jpg

    (Relatedly, why isn’t the general science relating to identification of a copier/paper/toner part of the review of the science by the National Academy of Sciences?) Such science would help with any mailed pathogen or hoax.

    “Missteps, errors and miscommunication doomed Blackwater case,” Washington Post, Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, February 11, 2010

  2. There were some facts left out and maybe for good reason. The FBI, may have "closed the case" but have not closed the possibility that there may be someone else linked to the evidence. They must also balance disclosures with information that could affect the prosecution of the case, be it fair, or unfair.

    I will only slight them in their contradictions, erroneous statements whether they be intentional, in a biased sort of investigation, in failing to investigate their own investigation, their method and madness in the way they harassed and abused the persons investigated….well this list is getting long isn't it ?
    But all in all, a good review of the emails, Bruce Ivins statements, personality and habits etc all point to the fact that he didn't do it. It is so blatantly obvious from the information gathered, though we can't criticize them for considering anyone who had access to such a pathogen as a suspect.

  3. I took the time to listen to your interview on streaming audio. Nice job! Your points were on the mark and you didn't let the show hosts hijack your topic. Although, being an expatriate of NYC, it was enjoyable to hear my New Yawk dialect spoken.

Comments are closed.