John Ringo's "It's Just Anthrax"
Jordan S. Bassior
today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post. It's a nice breath of sanity in the
midst of a totally absurd panic (people running about in terror because _one_
person has died, in a nation of 280 million? Come on!).
If only the Mainstream Media would buy a clue from him.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Dorothy J Heydt
Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
>Kudos to John Ringo for this essay, which appeared in the editorial section of
>today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post.
Got an URL?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Reverend Sean O'Hara
The media is giving the terrorists what they want: terror in America.
This could've been a near perfect terrorist assault: scaring the hell out
of the public without killing enough people to justify massive military
retaliation. Unfortunately, no one involved thought of this before
11 September.
Personally, I think the proper response to the anthrax attacks is to
make fun of them, thus negating the actual goal of the attacks.
(ObPlug: http://www.expulsion.org/issues/2308/anthrax.html )
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You too can be an ordained minister: http://www.ulc.org
Culture Editor for Expulsion: http://www.expulsion.org (new & improved)
"I need a woman. So that I can sell her organs to Black Sabbath." -Zorak
Walter R. Strapps
Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> >
> > Kudos to John Ringo for this essay, which appeared in the editorial section of
> > today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post. It's a nice breath of sanity in the
> > midst of a totally absurd panic (people running about in terror because _one_
> > person has died, in a nation of 280 million? Come on!).
> >
> > If only the Mainstream Media would buy a clue from him.
>
> The media is giving the terrorists what they want: terror in America.
> This could've been a near perfect terrorist assault: scaring the hell out
> of the public without killing enough people to justify massive military
> retaliation. Unfortunately, no one involved thought of this before
> 11 September.
>
But don't you think that absent the attacks on Sept. 11th the anthrax
attacks would be treated without the abject panic we seem to be
getting? I mean, I'm sure the media would try their best to whip it up,
but I think that Americans would be less susceptible to it.
> Personally, I think the proper response to the anthrax attacks is to
> make fun of them, thus negating the actual goal of the attacks.
> (ObPlug: http://www.expulsion.org/issues/2308/anthrax.html )
I think the proper response is to pray that these little bits of it are
all they've got...
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
Margaret Young
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <20011019153343...@mb-ff.aol.com>,
>Jordan S. Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Kudos to John Ringo for this essay, which appeared in the editorial section of
>>today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post.
>
>Got an URL?
>
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34051.htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Dorothy J Heydt
Margaret Young <mmy...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34051.htm
Thanks.
Mike Schilling
>
> Kudos to John Ringo for this essay, which appeared in the editorial section of
> today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post. It's a nice breath of sanity in the
> midst of a totally absurd panic (people running about in terror because _one_
> person has died, in a nation of 280 million? Come on!).
>
A bit ironic that anthrax was found at the Post today.
Old Toby
>
>
> But don't you think that absent the attacks on Sept. 11th the anthrax
> attacks would be treated without the abject panic we seem to be
> getting? I mean, I'm sure the media would try their best to whip it up,
> but I think that Americans would be less susceptible to it.
I don't know about the rest of America, but for me, coming after
Sept. 11th seems to have had the opposite effect. I mean, if
terrorists tried this thing back in August, it would seem like
something important, something significant. There are people
sending deadly diseases around in our mail...
After Sept. 11th, it's like, _this_ is the best you can do?
One death and a few infections? On Sept. 11th, terrorists
hijacked four planes, killed 5000 people, and destroyed
America's second largest building. Compared to that, the
Anthrax campaign is a joke.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Walter R. Strapps
Hey, for me too, but a whole lot of people seem to be acting as if this
is the second plague or something. And I also think that the anthrax
threat would be treated more as a domestic loony sort of thing if Sept.
11th had never happened.
I would really like to know the source of the anthrax, I assume that the
gov't knows which strain it is.
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
Jason Bontrager
>
> I would really like to know the source of the anthrax, I assume that the
> gov't knows which strain it is.
It's the Ames strain. Per:
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/express/orent101701.html
Kind of a pity really. Ames is an American isolated strain. We
can't (yet) tie this definitively to Iraq or anyone else.
Jason B.
Margaret Young
Ever noticed that real life gets away with a level of irony and
coincidence that we would find unacceptable in books and movies.
Margaret
Jordan S. Bassior
>Got an URL?
Unfortunately no -- I was reading it from the printed version of the paper.
Dorothy J Heydt
Walter R. Strapps <str...@sentigen.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, for me too, but a whole lot of people seem to be acting as if this
>is the second plague or something. And I also think that the anthrax
>threat would be treated more as a domestic loony sort of thing if Sept.
>11th had never happened.
Anthrax is in fact a fairly nasty disease. If a herd of cattle
is infected with it the only remedy is, or used to be, to
slaughter them all and burn the carcasses and the ground around
them. The spores can linger in the ground for years. There's a
small island off Scotland that was used for biowar experiments in
World War II (fortunately, they never got around to using it in
war) that is still infected and under quarantine.
But as has been severally pointed out, it's not all that easy to
contract and the cutaneous form is susceptible to being diagnosed
and treated before it can kill.
>I would really like to know the source of the anthrax, I assume that the
>gov't knows which strain it is.
Some of the news reports have stated that the infections found in
the various sites are all from an identical strain.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
>
>I would really like to know the source of the anthrax, I assume that the
>gov't knows which strain it is.
>
which is widely used in labs. (So there's no immediate pointer to the
perps.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Bill Van
Reverend Sean O'Hara <soh...@gmu.edu> wrote:
> The media is giving the terrorists what they want: terror in America.
> This could've been a near perfect terrorist assault: scaring the hell out
> of the public without killing enough people to justify massive military
> retaliation.
I agree with your main point. But you're implying that we would know who
to retaliate against if retaliation was seen as the proper response.
Although most people assume the anthrax comes from the same network as
the Sept. 11 hijackers, some of the news stories are pointing out that
the FBI has found no clear links yet to indicate that's the case. And
that's how long, two weeks after the anthrax began to surface? On Sept.
11, it took only hours to track down strong links to bin Laden and Co.
Don't forget there are other agendas in which the anthrax mailings would
fit. I'm thinking especially about the right-wing fringies who were all
over the political news groups after Sept. 11, encouraging racial and
religious rifts. Spreading more fear and loathing through the anthrax
campaign and having it blamed on Moslems and/or Arabs would be a pretty
good result for them.
I'm not concluding they done it. Only that we don't know yet who did.
bill
Ian A. York
Walter R. Strapps <str...@sentigen.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, for me too, but a whole lot of people seem to be acting as if this
>is the second plague or something. And I also think that the anthrax
What makes you think that? Seriously, I'm not seeing panic. I'm seeing
this reported on the front pages--as it should be; can you argue this
*isn't* front-page news? I'm seeing it treated seriously--and again, can
you argue it shouldn't be treated seriously? But I'm not seeing "panic".
Completely contrasting to Sept. 11, I'm seeing lots of jokes about
this--"white powder" is becoming a punch line for almost everything, on
Usenet and in my email and among my co-workers and heard among random
people at the cafeteria. Grim jokes, perhaps; black humour, maybe. But
they're jokes.
In the papers, I've seen a few comments about people being really nervous,
but honestly I don't see any sign of overall panic.
It's entirely possible that different places, or different groups, are
reacting differently.
And, you know, if you *aren't* seeing widespread panic about this, then
you're doing as much as the newspapers to contribute to an overreaction by
claiming there is widespread panic, right?
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Charlie Stross
as <djh...@kithrup.com> declared:
>Anthrax is in fact a fairly nasty disease. If a herd of cattle
>is infected with it the only remedy is, or used to be, to
>slaughter them all and burn the carcasses and the ground around
>them. The spores can linger in the ground for years. There's a
>small island off Scotland that was used for biowar experiments in
>World War II (fortunately, they never got around to using it in
>war) that is still infected and under quarantine.
Gruinard was decontaminated and declared safe about a decade ago.
They _did_ have to use live steam to treat the soil down to about
three feet, mind you, and nobody lives there even now -- but it's
not off-limits or considered unsafe any more. And that was with
fully weaponized anthrax of the most virulent variety available
at the time.
>But as has been severally pointed out, it's not all that easy to
>contract and the cutaneous form is susceptible to being diagnosed
>and treated before it can kill.
>
>>I would really like to know the source of the anthrax, I assume that the
>>gov't knows which strain it is.
>
>Some of the news reports have stated that the infections found in
>the various sites are all from an identical strain.
Weren't a couple of survivalist whackos arrested a year or so ago
for trying to buy anthrax spores from a biological supplies house?
(Apparently intending to use it to resist the evil ZOG and the black
helicopters.)
This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it's far too inefficient to be
someone _serious_.
-- Charlie
Dorothy J Heydt
Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>
>Weren't a couple of survivalist whackos arrested a year or so ago
>for trying to buy anthrax spores from a biological supplies house?
>(Apparently intending to use it to resist the evil ZOG and the black
>helicopters.)
>
>This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
>on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
>be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
>
>Not to put too fine a point on it, it's far too inefficient to be
>someone _serious_.
Now, you may turn out to be right. We'll have to wait and see I
guess. "Copycat" crimes are all too common.
Lois Tilton
> today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post.
Is Ringo a regular columnist there, or was this a one-of?
--
LT
Julie Pascal
"Ian A. York" <iay...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9qqd51$1at$1...@news.panix.com...
> In article <3BD0A0D4...@sentigen.com>,
> Walter R. Strapps <str...@sentigen.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hey, for me too, but a whole lot of people seem to be acting as if this
> >is the second plague or something. And I also think that the anthrax
>
> What makes you think that? Seriously, I'm not seeing panic. I'm seeing
> this reported on the front pages--as it should be; can you argue this
> *isn't* front-page news? I'm seeing it treated seriously--and again, can
> you argue it shouldn't be treated seriously? But I'm not seeing "panic".
> Completely contrasting to Sept. 11, I'm seeing lots of jokes about
> this--"white powder" is becoming a punch line for almost everything, on
> Usenet and in my email and among my co-workers and heard among random
> people at the cafeteria. Grim jokes, perhaps; black humour, maybe. But
> they're jokes.
>
> In the papers, I've seen a few comments about people being really nervous,
> but honestly I don't see any sign of overall panic.
I joked to my neighbor that I'd considered loading the kids
up and driving "home" to Minnesota to stay with grandma
before they shut everything down and she looks at me with
wide eyes and says, "Do ya' think so?" Eep! *sigh* How
many different ways are there to say, "No, I was joking...really."
--Julie
Julie Pascal
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:GLH8z...@kithrup.com...
> In article <slrn9t1ejl....@antipope.nsl.co.uk>,
> Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
> >
> >Weren't a couple of survivalist whackos arrested a year or so ago
> >for trying to buy anthrax spores from a biological supplies house?
> >(Apparently intending to use it to resist the evil ZOG and the black
> >helicopters.)
> >
> >This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
> >on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
> >be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
> >
> >Not to put too fine a point on it, it's far too inefficient to be
> >someone _serious_.
>
> Now, you may turn out to be right. We'll have to wait and see I
> guess. "Copycat" crimes are all too common.
Certainly the first thing that comes to my mind
is people or groups other than bin Laden and his.
--Julie
Michael S. Schiffer
<slrn9t1ejl....@antipope.nsl.co.uk>:
>...
>Weren't a couple of survivalist whackos arrested a year or so ago
>for trying to buy anthrax spores from a biological supplies house?
>(Apparently intending to use it to resist the evil ZOG and the
>black helicopters.)
>This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide
>bombers on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll
>turn out to be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather
>than Al Qaida.
Maybe. But the targets don't look right for that. Congress would fit
pretty much anyone, but if it were our nutbars, I'd expect anthrax at
the BATF or the IRS or UN headquarters rather than making the national
media primary targets. (Though treating supermarket tabloids as
frontline national media is weird whoever it is.) That's not to say
it's Al Qaeda-- maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But at this point, I'm
still inclined to guess that it's someone at least sympathetic to
them.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
ms...@mediaone.net
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Julie Pascal
"Lois Tilton" <lti...@shell-1.enteract.com> wrote in message
news:9qqh4a$q8j$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
I don't know if that is his first column or not, but he's
not a regular columnist, or wasn't at any rate. A week
ago or so he posted to Baen's Bar that he was going to
do a column, but I don't think he'd said it was going
to be a regular thing.
--Julie
Quilly Mammoth
<VHekfHAu...@meden.demon.co.uk>, Stewart Robert Hinsley spake thusly:
I think it will be the action of a "militia" group, and not OBL.
Quilly Mammoth
"Fantasy is ultimately what fiction is all about. Read it and you will become
again as a little child -- and as wise as Gandalf. Like auctioneers, we should
try to appreciate all kinds of art." Michael Dirda
Quilly Mammoth
Apparently number three. I don't know if he has been hired full time.
On 20 Oct 2001 00:39:38 GMT, in article <9qqh4a$q8j$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Lois
Tilton spake thusly:
Quilly Mammoth
Quilly Mammoth
<20011019182305...@mb-cc.aol.com>, Jordan S. Bassior spake thusly:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34051.htm
And I'd like to state that I am not a creature of Ringo. Though I agree with
his columns...so far. But I guess I pissed the bastard off, he's only answered
one of my queries in the last several weeks! Damn Airborne types are _so_ head
strong!
Thomas Bagwell
>In article <3BD0A0D4...@sentigen.com>,
>Walter R. Strapps <str...@sentigen.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey, for me too, but a whole lot of people seem to be acting as if this
>>is the second plague or something. And I also think that the anthrax
>
>In the papers, I've seen a few comments about people being really nervous,
>but honestly I don't see any sign of overall panic.
The police and health department were called out in San Antonio
because someone saw a "suspicious substance" on the sidewalk. Turned
out to be very old pizza crust.
People are crossing the border in droves to buy Cipro from pharmacies
in Mexico, where it's cheaper and no prescription is needed.
Of course, there is always the small percentage that over-react to
anything, and with a population as large as the US has, even a very
small percentage means a lot of people.
Tom B.
Jonathan W. Hendry
"Jason Bontrager" <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:3BD0A4CB...@gslis.utexas.edu...
I heard that it was not, in fact, the Ames strain. And now they're
saying that no, Daschle really didn't get highly refined and milled
weapons-grade anthrax.
Terry Austin
>On 19 Oct 2001 22:23:05 GMT, in article
><20011019182305...@mb-cc.aol.com>, Jordan S. Bassior spake thusly:
>>
>>Dorothy J. Heydt said:
>>
>>>Got an URL?
>>
>>Unfortunately no -- I was reading it from the printed version of the paper.
>>--
>>Sincerely Yours,
>>Jordan
>>--
>
>http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34051.htm
>
>
>And I'd like to state that I am not a creature of Ringo. Though I agree with
>his columns...so far. But I guess I pissed the bastard off, he's only answered
>one of my queries in the last several weeks!
Perhaps that's because you're an idiot.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Metacreator character software now available
Michael S. Schiffer
<9qqsmd$j5r$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
>...
>I heard that it was not, in fact, the Ames strain. And now they're
>saying that no, Daschle really didn't get highly refined and milled
>weapons-grade anthrax.
Are they? I'm not seeing it on the news sites I frequent, but it
wouldn't be the first time that they did the web equivalent of the
headline in big type on page one and the retraction in tiny type on
page 19. Can you point me in the direction of such a report?
John Schilling
>In article <3BD0A0D4...@sentigen.com>,
>Walter R. Strapps <str...@sentigen.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey, for me too, but a whole lot of people seem to be acting as if this
>>is the second plague or something. And I also think that the anthrax
>What makes you think that? Seriously, I'm not seeing panic. I'm seeing
>this reported on the front pages--as it should be; can you argue this
>*isn't* front-page news? I'm seeing it treated seriously--and again, can
>you argue it shouldn't be treated seriously? But I'm not seeing "panic".
>Completely contrasting to Sept. 11, I'm seeing lots of jokes about
>this--"white powder" is becoming a punch line for almost everything, on
>Usenet and in my email and among my co-workers and heard among random
>people at the cafeteria. Grim jokes, perhaps; black humour, maybe. But
>they're jokes.
>In the papers, I've seen a few comments about people being really nervous,
>but honestly I don't see any sign of overall panic.
How about doctors so swamped with heated demands, and pharmacies with
subscriptions, for just enough antibiotics to breed a resistant strain
of A: anthrax or B: any bacterial infection some ignoramus mistook for
anthrax?
*Most* Americans are not panicking. Many are.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Luke Webber
news:slrn9t1ejl....@antipope.nsl.co.uk...
> This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
> on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
> be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, it's far too inefficient to be
> someone _serious_.
Agreed. And whoever sent the letters had no better sense or resources than
to send them all in the same type of envelope with the same block-letter
scrawl on each, making identification much simpler. If he had half a brain
and access to a computer, he could make it much tougher by using different
types of envelopes, different fonts, whatever it takes to make the ID
harder.
Luke
John Schilling
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <djh...@kithrup.com> declared:
>Weren't a couple of survivalist whackos arrested a year or so ago
>for trying to buy anthrax spores from a biological supplies house?
>(Apparently intending to use it to resist the evil ZOG and the black
>helicopters.)
>This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
>on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
>be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
>Not to put too fine a point on it, it's far too inefficient to be
>someone _serious_.
Huh? Being serious does not magically erase the enormous barriers to
the efficient weaponization of anthrax. That is something governments
spend billions of dollars on, not something lone whackos do in their
basement. Aum Shinrikyo was undeniably serious; resolute, well financed,
technically competent. Their anthrax attack wasn't even *noticed*, and
your bet is that the Timothy McVeigh Appreciation Society did better?
Possible, but not likely.
And as for this being unlike Bin Laden's ordinary MO, this is unlike
*everybody's* ordinary MO. An unprecedented attack does not point towards
any particular attacker.
The timing, points towards a particular attacker. These letters were sent
out, IIRC, less than two weeks after the 9/11 attack. Not only do you want
us to believe a couple of whackos did this out of their garage, but that
they did it from scratch in *days*? Or do you imagine they hoarded their
bio-letterbombs for a pathetic followup to someone else's attack?
Which brings us to motive; another crucial issue you've neglected to mention.
There is none. Terrorism is a public relations strategy; a terrorist attack
which will be attributed to one's *enemies* is a wasted effort. And there
is no domestic terrorist group or movement I know of that does not consider
Al Qaeda, consider Islam generally, to be the enemy.
There is no motive of any domestic terrorist movement that I know of, that
would be served by this attack *now*, unless perhaps explicitly claimed as
their own. As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of raghead
Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved threat
of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil rights.
That is a very nearly complete list of everything the range of right-wing
domestic terrorists are *against*. What they are *for*, is mostly George
Bush and John Aschroft.
Without method, motive, or opportunity, against all evidence and reason, you
have a "strong feeling" that this was done by right-wing domestic terrorists.
This is the same sort of ludicruous reaction that gave us so many calls for
war against Libya, Iran, and Iraq after the OKC bombing. Just round up the
usual suspects what did it last time; we hate them most, so they must be
guilty. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
Nancy Lebovitz
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>cha...@nospam.antipope.org (Charlie Stross) writes:
>
>>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>>as <djh...@kithrup.com> declared:
>
>>Weren't a couple of survivalist whackos arrested a year or so ago
>>for trying to buy anthrax spores from a biological supplies house?
>>(Apparently intending to use it to resist the evil ZOG and the black
>>helicopters.)
>
>>This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
>>on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
>>be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
>
>>Not to put too fine a point on it, it's far too inefficient to be
>>someone _serious_.
>
>Huh? Being serious does not magically erase the enormous barriers to
>the efficient weaponization of anthrax. That is something governments
>spend billions of dollars on, not something lone whackos do in their
>basement. Aum Shinrikyo was undeniably serious; resolute, well financed,
>technically competent. Their anthrax attack wasn't even *noticed*, and
>your bet is that the Timothy McVeigh Appreciation Society did better?
>Possible, but not likely.
>
>And as for this being unlike Bin Laden's ordinary MO, this is unlike
>*everybody's* ordinary MO. An unprecedented attack does not point towards
>any particular attacker.
It's unlike the style of the 9/11 attacks, which were remarkable for
their elegant design and rejection of cool new tech.
OBSF: Clarke's "Superiority".
On the other hand, I think of this as a "degradation of services" attack.
It's got a lot of emergency support people running themselves ragged.
>The timing, points towards a particular attacker. These letters were sent
>out, IIRC, less than two weeks after the 9/11 attack. Not only do you want
>us to believe a couple of whackos did this out of their garage, but that
>they did it from scratch in *days*? Or do you imagine they hoarded their
>bio-letterbombs for a pathetic followup to someone else's attack?
It's a chance to test the stuff in such a way that someone else will
be blamed.
>Which brings us to motive; another crucial issue you've neglected to mention.
>There is none. Terrorism is a public relations strategy; a terrorist attack
>which will be attributed to one's *enemies* is a wasted effort. And there
>is no domestic terrorist group or movement I know of that does not consider
>Al Qaeda, consider Islam generally, to be the enemy.
>
>There is no motive of any domestic terrorist movement that I know of, that
>would be served by this attack *now*, unless perhaps explicitly claimed as
>their own. As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of raghead
>Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved threat
There was an NPR interview with a Southern Poverty Law (a group that
tracks hate groups) guy, and what you're describing fits the militias.
However, the white power groups have gotten a lot more alienated
from the US, and some of them were pleased that damage was done
to New York, a Jewish-dominated city.
>of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
>government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil rights.
>That is a very nearly complete list of everything the range of right-wing
>domestic terrorists are *against*. What they are *for*, is mostly George
>Bush and John Aschroft.
>
>Without method, motive, or opportunity, against all evidence and reason, you
>have a "strong feeling" that this was done by right-wing domestic terrorists.
>This is the same sort of ludicruous reaction that gave us so many calls for
>war against Libya, Iran, and Iraq after the OKC bombing. Just round up the
>usual suspects what did it last time; we hate them most, so they must be
>guilty. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
>
I think you've got a point there. Fortunately, there are forensics
people working on the case.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Bill Van
ms...@mediaone.net (Michael S. Schiffer) wrote:
> "Jonathan W. Hendry" <j_he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> <9qqsmd$j5r$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> >...
> >I heard that it was not, in fact, the Ames strain. And now they're
> >saying that no, Daschle really didn't get highly refined and milled
> >weapons-grade anthrax.
>
> Are they? I'm not seeing it on the news sites I frequent, but it
> wouldn't be the first time that they did the web equivalent of the
> headline in big type on page one and the retraction in tiny type on
> page 19. Can you point me in the direction of such a report?
>
> Mike
It has been in major wire service stories since fairly early Friday,
although not necessarily in the first few paragraphs, which is all
you'll typically find on most news sites. Search groups.google.com for
"weapons-grade" and anthrax, look for dates of Oct. 19 and 20, and
you'll find a lot of references.
bill
Michael S. Schiffer
<9qr7mq$r7i$1...@spock.usc.edu>:
>iay...@panix.com (Ian A. York) writes:
>...
>>In the papers, I've seen a few comments about people being really
>>nervous, but honestly I don't see any sign of overall panic.
>How about doctors so swamped with heated demands, and pharmacies
>with subscriptions, for just enough antibiotics to breed a resistant
>strain of A: anthrax or B: any bacterial infection some ignoramus
>mistook for anthrax?
B is a problem, though an expansion of an existing problem of
antibiotics misuse and overuse. A shouldn't be (for anyone other than
the immediate victim) since the disease isn't human-transmissible.
(Besides, if it's that easy to create resistant strains and then
harvest them for use then the same people should be able to get them by
feeding Cipro to an infected sheep.)
Bill Van
schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote:
> There is no motive of any domestic terrorist movement that I know of, that
> would be served by this attack *now*, unless perhaps explicitly claimed as
> their own.
Nonsense. Anyone interested in promoting ethnic and/or religious discord
is served by this attack *now.*
> As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of raghead
> Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved threat
> of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
> government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil rights.
Raghead Arabs? Talk about blowing your cover.
> Without method, motive, or opportunity, against all evidence and reason, you
> have a "strong feeling" that this was done by right-wing domestic terrorists.
> This is the same sort of ludicruous reaction that gave us so many calls for
> war against Libya, Iran, and Iraq after the OKC bombing. Just round up the
> usual suspects what did it last time; we hate them most, so they must be
> guilty. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
No, no. This is the same sort of reasoned reaction that led people to
suspect far-right wing-nuts after the OKC bombing. It was good judgment
then, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was good judgment now. But hey,
why don't we wait for the evidence before we string up anybody on the
basis of skin color or religion.
bill
Lois Tilton
> What makes you think that? Seriously, I'm not seeing panic. I'm seeing
The WSJ Friday had an article about how people who work at
anthrax-contaminated offices have been shunned in fear of contramination.
People losing jobs because of the most tenuous connection to the disease.
Etc.
--
LT
Keith Morrison
> Which brings us to motive; another crucial issue you've neglected to mention.
> There is none. Terrorism is a public relations strategy; a terrorist attack
> which will be attributed to one's *enemies* is a wasted effort. And there
> is no domestic terrorist group or movement I know of that does not consider
> Al Qaeda, consider Islam generally, to be the enemy.
Don't be too sure. I've seen white-power fruitcakes who've expressed
glee about the September attacks.
It's an enemy-of-my-enemy thing. If the attack hurts the US, which
supports Israel (or is under the control of the Zionist Occupational
Government, take your pick), then it somehow hurts Jews and is thus
a good thing.
No one said these morons had *rational* though processes.
--
Keith
Charlie Stross
>Huh? Being serious does not magically erase the enormous barriers to
>the efficient weaponization of anthrax. That is something governments
>spend billions of dollars on, not something lone whackos do in their
>basement. Aum Shinrikyo was undeniably serious; resolute, well financed,
>technically competent. Their anthrax attack wasn't even *noticed*, and
>your bet is that the Timothy McVeigh Appreciation Society did better?
>Possible, but not likely.
I think you're wrong about the "spending billions" bit. Aum got it wrong,
fundamentally wrong, by using the wrong strain of anthrax -- one that
barely infects humans at all. There's some question over whether it
was intended a genuine attack, or a dispersal testing exercise. Also,
let us not forget that the Aum were proven totally incompetent during
their sarin attack on the Tokyo subway; they used a solution of sarin in
a lunch box with a little electric fan to disperse it, and planted this
in a train. You -- or I -- could rig a dispersal device like that in my
living room for a cost of maybe ten or twenty pounds! By the time the
stuff began to disperse, about 90% of it had decayed -- sarin is not
very stable in air at room temperature. As it is, they used enough of
the stuff to kill several thousand people ... but only managed to kill
six and injure several hundred, while using it in a confined space.
The real issue with anthrax is that to weaponize it you just need to
induce sporulation then separate the spores up into a fine dust -- usually
they hang together. This is _routine_ in pharmaceutics; any industrial
pharmacist worth his or her pay cheque could rig together a lab-scale
apparatus to do this for a kilogram or so of product within a week, and
so could a dedicated but professional amateur. The trick would be to pick
a barely-infectious strain to experiment on, get yourself vaccinated, and
not load up with the real live killer until it's time for the final run.
Remember, this is lab-scale work -- the total quantity used is probably
measured in grams, right? Not the same _at_ _all_ as a military bioweapon
production run.
Caveat: my pharmaceutical microbiology training is fifteen years in the
past and I was lousy at pharmaceutics -- one reason I didn't go into
the industry. But I think you'd get an opinion like this from most
other pharmacists who've studied pharmaceutical production (which, you
should note, includes the culturing of organisms from which drugs can
be extracted -- single-celled organisms, at that.)
>And as for this being unlike Bin Laden's ordinary MO, this is unlike
>*everybody's* ordinary MO. An unprecedented attack does not point towards
>any particular attacker.
Correct. However bin Laden has demonstrated, in the past, a tendency
to re-use one particular mode of attack. Why would he switch now?
>The timing, points towards a particular attacker. These letters were sent
>out, IIRC, less than two weeks after the 9/11 attack. Not only do you want
>us to believe a couple of whackos did this out of their garage, but that
>they did it from scratch in *days*? Or do you imagine they hoarded their
>bio-letterbombs for a pathetic followup to someone else's attack?
Yes, I imagine *exactly* that. It's bubba in the backwoods exclaiming to
his pal "look! the end times are nigh! If we mail-bomb the agents of ZOG
with our deadly secret weapon now, everyone will blame the towel-heads!"
(For values of "deadly secret weapon" that they've been dinking with for
months or years but have never had the nerve to use.)
>Which brings us to motive; another crucial issue you've neglected to mention.
>There is none. Terrorism is a public relations strategy; a terrorist attack
>which will be attributed to one's *enemies* is a wasted effort.
On the contrary! A terrorist attack with bioweapons that gets attributed
to, say, Iraq, would result in massive US military intervention against
Iraq, possibly all the way up to nuclear weapons release. All you have to
do is look for someone who could benefit from that.
>And there
>is no domestic terrorist group or movement I know of that does not consider
>Al Qaeda, consider Islam generally, to be the enemy.
Sure.
>There is no motive of any domestic terrorist movement that I know of, that
>would be served by this attack *now*, unless perhaps explicitly claimed as
>their own. As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of raghead
>Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved threat
>of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
>government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil rights.
>That is a very nearly complete list of everything the range of right-wing
>domestic terrorists are *against*. What they are *for*, is mostly George
>Bush and John Aschroft.
Maybe they're hoping that Bush will see this as a biological weapons
attack from the middle east and go nuclear, bringing about the Apocalypse
and the four horsemen and all the other shopping-trolley full of weird
shit from Revelations.
Or maybe they're a couple of bored Saudi microbiology students trying
to do Their Bit for the Jihad.
Or (back to backwoods Bubba again) maybe they're simply so out of touch
with reality that they think lashing out randomly is a good idea.
>Without method, motive, or opportunity, against all evidence and reason, you
>have a "strong feeling" that this was done by right-wing domestic terrorists.
>This is the same sort of ludicruous reaction that gave us so many calls for
>war against Libya, Iran, and Iraq after the OKC bombing. Just round up the
>usual suspects what did it last time; we hate them most, so they must be
>guilty. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
Nope. My observation is that preparing a couple of letters with a light
dusting of anthrax in powdered form is _not_ as difficult as it sounds;
just about any university with a school of pharmacy has the equipment to
do it, and making it on a DIY basis is not hard. Meanwhile, Bin Laden has
a well-known MO that has been provably *successful* (not emphasis here);
why would he change it now?
The question of who sent the anthrax letters is still open, but I
strongly doubt it was Al Qaida, and I'd want to see some detailed
evidence before assuming it was something that required the expertise
of a military-industrial complex to put together.
Now, if it was smallpox that would be another matter ...
-- Charlie
Paul Austin
"Nancy Lebovitz" wrote
Think "diversion". I have a very bad feeling that the Anthrax campaign is a
diversion to cover a _real_ operation. The "letter-bomb" campaign is just
too transparently clumsy.
--
"I don't wonder that so many men are wicked.
I do wonder that so many are unashamed"
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Phil Fraering
> This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
> on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
> be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
The initial attacks were at the Sun, one of whose editors' spouse was
a real estate agent who rented a house/apartment to the attackers.
They also had subscriptions to the paper.
(!)
Phil
Charlie Stross
>The initial attacks were at the Sun, one of whose editors' spouse was
>a real estate agent who rented a house/apartment to the attackers.
>
>They also had subscriptions to the paper.
>
>(!)
That's ... bizarre. But I find it hard to believe that someone who's
waging biological warfare on the US government is going to take on
the husband of their landlord's estate agent. I figure the newspaper
_sounds_ like a more likely target in and of itself.
The whole thing is unbelievably weird, actually. The only thing I can
compare it to is something like the "Mardi Gras" bomber in the UK (who
is now doing a _long_ prison stretch). In which case, expect the blackmail
notes to start showing up any day now ...
-- Charlie
Mongo58
He had colums in the Post Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and may be
doing more...Fox News also wanted him to appear and discuss his
Wednesday column.
Rick
news:BillVan-DDE346...@clgrps11.telusplanet.net...
> In article <9qra8o$sja$1...@spock.usc.edu>,
> schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote:
> > As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of raghead
> > Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved
threat
> > of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
> > government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil
rights.
>
> Raghead Arabs? Talk about blowing your cover.
Oh get off it. He was speaking from the viewpoint of the hypothetical
right-wing loonies that some people think are mailing the anthrax. Anyone
with half a brain would have been able to figure that out.
Geoduck
wrote:
>Kudos to John Ringo for this essay, which appeared in the editorial section of
>today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post. It's a nice breath of sanity in the
>midst of a totally absurd panic (people running about in terror because _one_
>person has died, in a nation of 280 million? Come on!).
>
>If only the Mainstream Media would buy a clue from him.
Interesting article, but I wonder if he really meant to refer to guns
as 'the *scourge* of all evil'. :-)
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
John Schilling
Doesn't that last sentence essentially contradict the two that came before?
Michael Schilling
news:20011019182305...@mb-cc.aol.com...
> Dorothy J. Heydt said:
>
> >Got an URL?
>
> Unfortunately no -- I was reading it from the printed version of the
paper.
People still do that?:-)
Paul Austin
"Phil Fraering" <p...@globalreach.net> wrote in message
news:87n12n2...@globalreach.net...
--
"Peace is the ideal that we infer
from the fact that there are periods between wars."
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Ian A. York
But I think you're doiing exactly what the so-called panickers are doing.
They're seeing reports of 20-odd anthrax exposures and extrapolating to
widespread attacks. You're seeing accounts of 20-odd overreactions and
extrapolating that to widespread panic. You can't have it both ways.
Keep in mind that newspapers *want* to find overreactions, because that
sells papers, and in a nation of 300 million there will be overreactions.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Phil Fraering
> >And as for this being unlike Bin Laden's ordinary MO, this is unlike
> >*everybody's* ordinary MO. An unprecedented attack does not point towards
> >any particular attacker.
>
> It's unlike the style of the 9/11 attacks, which were remarkable for
> their elegant design and rejection of cool new tech.
Wrong.
Both attacks have a remarkable similarity: they leverage a small
resource (some box cutters, a couple ounces of anthrax) to get the
target (America) to victimize themselves in the way they've been
conditioned to victimize themselves.
As an example, I offer: "And if there's a hijacking, you're supposed
to just go along with the situation and Let The Authorities work
it out."
Another way we've victimized ourselves is by stopping the smallpox
vaccination program.
A third way we're victimizing ourselves is by worrying too much about
anthrax, which doesn't appear to be a good biowarfare agent, and not
taking whatever precautions are necessary for what biowarfare agents
are more realistic threats.
(Personally, I hope the anthrax means they don't have any real
bioweapons. I could be wrong. But as John Ringo put it, it's only
anthrax.)
> On the other hand, I think of this as a "degradation of services" attack.
> It's got a lot of emergency support people running themselves ragged.
In a lot of ways, we attack ourselves.
Phil Fraering
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <p...@globalreach.net> declared:
>
> >The initial attacks were at the Sun, one of whose editors' spouse was
> >a real estate agent who rented a house/apartment to the attackers.
> >
> >They also had subscriptions to the paper.
> >
> >(!)
>
> That's ... bizarre. But I find it hard to believe that someone who's
> waging biological warfare on the US government is going to take on
> the husband of their landlord's estate agent. I figure the newspaper
> _sounds_ like a more likely target in and of itself.
Maybe they figured she was annoying, and they had to do _something_
with the anthrax... "heck, the Dumb Americans actually believe that
tabloid stuff, if we dump some of this on them, we'll really start
a panic!"
> The whole thing is unbelievably weird, actually. The only thing I can
> compare it to is something like the "Mardi Gras" bomber in the UK (who
> is now doing a _long_ prison stretch). In which case, expect the blackmail
> notes to start showing up any day now ...
I'm not familiar with the case.
This seems like the whole tylenol poisoning thing from the mid-80's.
Phil
Bill Van
schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote:
> Bill Van <Bil...@canada.com> writes:
>
> >No, no. This is the same sort of reasoned reaction that led people to
> >suspect far-right wing-nuts after the OKC bombing. It was good judgment
> >then, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was good judgment now. But hey,
> >why don't we wait for the evidence before we string up anybody on the
> >basis of skin color or religion.
>
>
> Doesn't that last sentence essentially contradict the two that came before?
I see what you mean, but don't agree. I wouldn't be surprised if X
turned out to be the case, in fact I suspect it will. But I'll wait for
the evidence. No contradiction.
bill
Eric Walker
[various things]
I'm just passing through on this thread, so perhaps this has
already ben noted--I don't know.
But the fact is that as of about 1 p.m. EST of Saturday, October
20th, the number of anthrax cases in the U.S. is *eight*.
If you just glance at newspapers or television, you would think
it was 800.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
Ian A. York
Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
>
>Another way we've victimized ourselves is by stopping the smallpox
>vaccination program.
As with any vaccine, the smallpox vaccine has side-effects. In fact, the
smallpox vaccine has quite a high rate of side-effects, to the point that
for a less fearsome disease it would not have been licensed in the first
place. Off the top of my head, the rates of complications were something
like 1/10,000, and the rate of severe complications (i.e. encephalitis,
death) was around 1/300,000.
Smallpox vaccination in the US was stopped in the early 1970s, say thirty
years ago. Let's say there are around 3 million births per year, meaning
3 million children to be vaccinated per year. That gives us nearly 10,000
complications due to the vaccine. And on your glib recommendation, you've
gone and killed, or destroyed the brains, of some 300 children. And
you've prevented every single case of smallpox in the US in the period,
all none of them.
Unlike Usenet, life is not simple. Unlike Usenet, people in real life
have often done real risk-benefit analyses and reached conclusions based
on knowledge.
>In a lot of ways, we attack ourselves.
Yup. Like recommending a certain 300 deaths and 10,000 injuries to
prevent the zero cases of smallpox so far. Or like making the sweeping
claim that everyone but cool, level-headed us is panicking, in the
absence of such evidence.
Ian A. York
Eric Walker <ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>But the fact is that as of about 1 p.m. EST of Saturday, October
>20th, the number of anthrax cases in the U.S. is *eight*.
>
>If you just glance at newspapers or television, you would think
>it was 800.
You mean, except for the first sentence in every newspaper story, that
explains that there have been eight cases in the US? Or the headlines
that announce the numbers of cases?
Eric Walker
>In article <87k7xqz...@globalreach.net>,
>Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
>
>>Another way we've victimized ourselves is by stopping the
>>smallpox vaccination program.
>
>As with any vaccine, the smallpox vaccine has side-effects. In
>fact, the smallpox vaccine has quite a high rate of side-
>effects, to the point that for a less fearsome disease it would
>not have been licensed in the first place. Off the top of my
>head, the rates of complications were something like 1/10,000,
>and the rate of severe complications (i.e. encephalitis,
>death) was around 1/300,000.
A lengthy, authoritative discussion of "Smallpox Vaccine
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices," dated June 22, 2001, is available at--
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5010a1.htm
Anyone interested should read the entire (obviously pre-9/11)
article, but it contains the statement: "Fatal complications
caused by vaccinia vaccination are rare, with approximately 1
death/million primary vaccinations." It also remarks "In the
majority of cases, [postvaccinial encephalitis] affects primary
vaccinees aged <1 year or adolescents and adults receiving a
primary vaccination." That is, children over 1 year of age but
not yet adults are actually at a lower than average risk.
(Also, the vaccine strain used in the US has lower complication
rates than that used in Europe, but I'm not sure from my quick
scan whether the mortality datum was worldwide or US-only.)
>Smallpox vaccination in the US was stopped in the early 1970s,
>say thirty years ago. Let's say there are around 3 million
>births per year, meaning 3 million children to be vaccinated
>per year. That gives us nearly 10,000 complications due to the
>vaccine. And on your glib recommendation, you've gone and
>killed, or destroyed the brains, of some 300 children. And
>you've prevented every single case of smallpox in the US in the
>period, all none of them.
So the number appears to be 3, not 300--possibly fewer if we
don't insist on vaccination before 1 year of age.
Ian A. York
>
>
>article, but it contains the statement: "Fatal complications
>caused by vaccinia vaccination are rare, with approximately 1
>death/million primary vaccinations." It also remarks "In the
Did you actually read it? Table 3 shows the overall rate of postvaccinal
encephalitis: 12.3 per million. That's 1/100,000, three times as common
as my from-memory suggestion.
>majority of cases, [postvaccinial encephalitis] affects primary
>vaccinees aged <1 year or adolescents and adults receiving a
>primary vaccination." That is, children over 1 year of age but
Yup. 40-odd cases per million if they're under a year. But until you're
over 20, the rates are still at least 9 per million--still considerably
higher than my estimate.
>So the number appears to be 3, not 300--possibly fewer if we
>don't insist on vaccination before 1 year of age.
So the number appears to be 1000, not 300, and certainly not 3--and not
any lower unless we vaccinate people over twenty, which was not done in
the US and has its own advantages.
Thanks for supporting my argument (in spite of your delicately-constructed
phrasing), and I'm glad to see my memory is not too far off.
Jordan S. Bassior
>If the MiB use them...
The Men in Black are, of course, aware that "Osama bin Laden" is actually an
invader from Andromeda Centauri. Now, watch the birdie ... ;-)
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Ian A. York
Who has been cancelling my articles?
On my server, the article to which Eric followed up is now missing; as is
the article I wrote, following up to Eric. AS far as I can see, only
these two articles of mine are missing. It's too late for me to check
control.cancel, which has already expired the relevant cancel.
Anything else missing, or am I the only person being targeted here?
Repeat of one missing article follows.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Ringo's "It's Just Anthrax"
References: <20011019153343...@mb-ff.aol.com> <87k7xqz...@globalreach.net> <9qsljj$i0f$1...@news.panix.com> <enfsjbjypebsgpbz...@news.cis.dfn.de>
In article <enfsjbjypebsgpbz...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
Eric Walker <ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2001 20:08:19 GMT, Ian A. York wrote:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5010a1.htm
>
>article, but it contains the statement: "Fatal complications
>caused by vaccinia vaccination are rare, with approximately 1
>death/million primary vaccinations." It also remarks "In the
Did you actually read it? Table 3 shows the overall rate of postvaccinal
encephalitis: 12.3 per million. That's 1/100,000, three times as common
as my from-memory suggestion.
>majority of cases, [postvaccinial encephalitis] affects primary
>vaccinees aged <1 year or adolescents and adults receiving a
>primary vaccination." That is, children over 1 year of age but
Yup. 40-odd cases per million if they're under a year. But until you're
over 20, the rates are still at least 9 per million--still considerably
higher than my estimate.
>So the number appears to be 3, not 300--possibly fewer if we
>don't insist on vaccination before 1 year of age.
So the number appears to be 1000, not 300, and certainly not 3--and not
any lower unless we vaccinate people over twenty, which was not done in
the US and has its own advantages.
Thanks for supporting my argument (in spite of your delicately-constructed
phrasing), and I'm glad to see my memory is not too far off.
Ian
Jonathan W. Hendry
> No, no. This is the same sort of reasoned reaction that led people to
> suspect far-right wing-nuts after the OKC bombing. It was good judgment
> then, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was good judgment now. But hey,
> why don't we wait for the evidence before we string up anybody on the
> basis of skin color or religion.
The only thing that suggests right-wing wackos is that they
targeted _Daschle_, as opposed to the White House itself, or
the more hawkish Republicans.
There was a report a few days ago, of which I've heard nothing
since, about abortion clinics getting anthrax envelopes which
tested positive, with some connection to "God's Army". Like I
said, I haven't heard anything since so maybe it was a false alarm.
Jonathan W. Hendry
"Luke Webber" <nos...@spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:eB9A7.186660$bY5.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Charlie Stross" <cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote in message
> news:slrn9t1ejl....@antipope.nsl.co.uk...
>
> > This is so unlike Bin Laden's ordinary modus operandi (sucide bombers
> > on boats/planes/trucks) that I have a strong feeling it'll turn out to
> > be a home-grown red-blooded All-American loony rather than Al Qaida.
> >
> > someone _serious_.
>
> to send them all in the same type of envelope with the same block-letter
> scrawl on each, making identification much simpler. If he had half a brain
> and access to a computer, he could make it much tougher by using different
> types of envelopes, different fonts, whatever it takes to make the ID
> harder.
Well, one of the envelopes apparently had an elementary school for
the return address, which would help excuse the block letter scrawl.
(And defeat the call to look out for letters with no return address,
as if it's particularly difficult to add a false return address to an
envelope.)
Jonathan W. Hendry
They'd also been running anti-Osama stuff, such as how Osama beats
his wives, etc.
Jonathan W. Hendry
"Michael S. Schiffer" <ms...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9140E33E4C12...@209.155.56.99...
> "Jonathan W. Hendry" <j_he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> <9qqsmd$j5r$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> >...
> >I heard that it was not, in fact, the Ames strain. And now they're
> >saying that no, Daschle really didn't get highly refined and milled
> >weapons-grade anthrax.
>
> Are they? I'm not seeing it on the news sites I frequent, but it
> wouldn't be the first time that they did the web equivalent of the
> headline in big type on page one and the retraction in tiny type on
> page 19. Can you point me in the direction of such a report?
A recent press conference, I think by Tom Ridge, on Friday or Thursday
10/18 or 10/19.
Rick
news:9qsso1$t8r$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> There was a report a few days ago, of which I've heard nothing
> since, about abortion clinics getting anthrax envelopes which
> tested positive, with some connection to "God's Army". Like I
> said, I haven't heard anything since so maybe it was a false alarm.
>
Last I heard, there had been letters with white powder sent to 91 abortion
clinics, but every one so far has tested negative...hoaxes.
Mr. Reggie
> Sept. 11th seems to have had the opposite effect. I mean, if
> terrorists tried this thing back in August, it would seem like
> something important, something significant. There are people
> sending deadly diseases around in our mail...
>
> After Sept. 11th, it's like, _this_ is the best you can do?
> One death and a few infections? On Sept. 11th, terrorists
> hijacked four planes, killed 5000 people, and destroyed
> America's second largest building. Compared to that, the
> Anthrax campaign is a joke.
I agree with everything here except the part about "America's second largest
building". I thought the WTC was the largest?
Mr. Reggie
> paper.
>
> People still do that?:-)
Heh. I cancelled my subscription to the WSJ because I can get their
editorial page online for free, and that was the main reason for my
subscribing in the first place. :-)
Mr. Reggie
> threat would be treated more as a domestic loony sort of thing if Sept.
> 11th had never happened.
I doubt that this is a "domestic loony", but there are a lot of folks
thinking just that. Apparently, the media have made the Al-Queda terrorists
into supermen, and since the Anthrax attacks have thus far been relatively
minor, many people are assuming it couldn't be them behind it.
Mr. Reggie
>
> http://www.thenewrepublic.com/express/orent101701.html
>
> Kind of a pity really. Ames is an American isolated strain. We
> can't (yet) tie this definitively to Iraq or anyone else.
Well, if it _was_ tied to Iraq, we would see an immediate widening of the
war, and an immediate negative reaction from some of our allies. Pakistan's
dictator might be deposed in an extremist coup if that were to happen. No
bueno for us to have radical Muslims with nukes...
Now, I think the war can _eventually_ be widened to encompass Iraq without
such a harsh reaction from the Muslim wackos. But right now? No bueno,
hombre...
Mr. Reggie
Jonathan W. Hendry
"Mr. Reggie" <no...@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:#3VFGdbWBHA.1304@cpimsnntpa03...
Height-wise, it's my friendly neighborhood Sears Tower.
I'd also bet the WTC wasn't America's largest building in terms
of floor space.
Mr. Reggie
90% or higher fatality rate for those not treated before symptoms show,
iirc.
If a herd of cattle
> is infected with it the only remedy is, or used to be, to
> slaughter them all and burn the carcasses and the ground around
> them. The spores can linger in the ground for years.
More like decades, from what I've heard.
There's a
> small island off Scotland that was used for biowar experiments in
> World War II (fortunately, they never got around to using it in
> war)
I recently read an article that talks about this.
> that is still infected and under quarantine.
I thought the quarantine had been removed a few years ago?
>
> But as has been severally pointed out, it's not all that easy to
> contract and the cutaneous form is susceptible to being diagnosed
> and treated before it can kill.
>
> >I would really like to know the source of the anthrax, I assume that the
> >gov't knows which strain it is.
>
> Some of the news reports have stated that the infections found in
> the various sites are all from an identical strain.
I've heard this as well. But the media seems to be over its head on this
one, so who knows...
Mr. Reggie
> saying that no, Daschle really didn't get highly refined and milled
> weapons-grade anthrax.
The media's really dropped the ball on this one.
Mr. Reggie
> 10/18 or 10/19.
First words out of his mouth, iirc.
Mr. Reggie
> someone _serious_.
That's what a lot of people are saying. But the Palestinians are certainly
serious in their hatred of Israel, and they often blow themselves to pieces
only to slightly injure a couple of Jews...not very "efficient" either...
Charles R Martin
Sears Tower is taller. A couple of convention centers have more
square footage ... unless you count the "outbuildings" like 4 WTC.
What do you mean by "largest"?
--
Our enemies are never villains in their own eyes, but that does not make them
less dangerous. Appeasement, however, nearly always makes them more so.
-- Don Dixon
______________________________________________________________________________
Charles R (Charlie) Martin Broomfield, CO 40N 105W
Mr. Reggie
1-Homegrown McVeigh-style gov't haters
2-A homegrown Unibomber-style "lone wolf" loon.
3-The Israelis, using this opportunity in an attempt to force the US gov't
to use WMD against their enemies.
4-??? Any other possibilites?
I personally think it's Muslim terrorists, but the fact is we don't know for
sure, and we might never know...
Eric Walker
Yes, but they've had a lot of help. Great numbers of
politicians who can barely spell anthrax are issuing bizarrely
wrong statements, up to and including the Secretary of Health.
The real health professionals are wringing their hands in
despair over the amount of confused misinformation mike-hogging
politicians are handing out as they try to appear well-informed.
(There was an AP article on Yahoo earlier in the day to this
effect, but it seems to already have been displaced by later
"news" stories.)
Mr. Reggie
> his wives, etc.
Yabut, who _hasn't_ been running anti-Osama stuff? Besides Al-Jazeera, that
is...
Eric Walker
[...]
>I personally think it's Muslim terrorists, but the fact is we
>don't know for sure, and we might never know...
Anything's possible, but it seems likely that this will be
traced down to the dunce or dunces responsible.
Last I heard, they thought they had it to within about a square
mile of New Jersey. Even if that turns out to be a false trail,
this lot seems so inept that they'll be found out.
Bill Van
"Rick" <sf.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Bill Van" <Bil...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:BillVan-DDE346...@clgrps11.telusplanet.net...
> > In article <9qra8o$sja$1...@spock.usc.edu>,
> > schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) wrote:
> > > As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of raghead
> > > Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved
> threat
> > > of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
> > > government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil
> rights.
> >
> > Raghead Arabs? Talk about blowing your cover.
>
> Oh get off it. He was speaking from the viewpoint of the hypothetical
> right-wing loonies that some people think are mailing the anthrax. Anyone
> with half a brain would have been able to figure that out.
>
>
Yes, I misread the intent of his post. Saw the term "raghead Arab,"
lowered my head and charged. My apology to John Schilling.
Mr. Reggie
> >head, the rates of complications were something like 1/10,000,
> >and the rate of severe complications (i.e. encephalitis,
> >death) was around 1/300,000.
One in two million, I read (USA TODAY, 10-19-2001), iirc.
Charles R Martin
> > Anthrax is in fact a fairly nasty disease.
>
> 90% or higher fatality rate for those not treated before symptoms show,
> iirc.
Only for the respiratory form, which is tougher than hell to catch.
Untreated cutaneous anthrax has a fatality rate of about 20 percent,
but less than 1 percent if treated, and that includes after the
infection becomes symptomatic.
> > If a herd of cattle
> > is infected with it the only remedy is, or used to be, to
> > slaughter them all and burn the carcasses and the ground around
> > them. The spores can linger in the ground for years.
>
> More like decades, from what I've heard.
The problem there is that the spores can be _eaten_ with the grass, so
it's a matter of keeping the next herd healthy. Or, you can give them
antibiotics.
Jason Bontrager
>
> The real health professionals are wringing their hands in
> despair over the amount of confused misinformation mike-hogging
> politicians are handing out as they try to appear well-informed.
The solution to this problem (medically ignorant politicians)
is obvious. Dr. Drew for Surgeon General!!!
Jason B.
.
Ian A. York
One in one hundred thousand, say the authoritative sources. The one in
one million is the pure death rate; I'm talking about death plus very
severe complications--the sort of complications that destroy a life.
I've posted this several times in this thread, and each time it's been
cancelled by someone else, who has left the rest of the thread
intact. It'd be nice if someone quoted this post, so that whoever it is
has to cancel other people as well.
Paul Austin
"Rick" wrote
> "Jonathan W. Hendry" wrote
> > There was a report a few days ago, of which I've heard nothing
> > since, about abortion clinics getting anthrax envelopes which
> > tested positive, with some connection to "God's Army". Like I
> > said, I haven't heard anything since so maybe it was a false alarm.
> >
>
> Last I heard, there had been letters with white powder sent to 91 abortion
> clinics, but every one so far has tested negative...hoaxes.
EnPeeAre actually got a loon who claimed to be a spokesman for "God's Army"
to praise the "courage" of the people mailing those letters.
--
"I don't wonder that so many men are wicked.
I do wonder that so many are unashamed"
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Mr. Reggie
> coincidence that we would find unacceptable in books and movies.
You betcha.
Imagine an author before the 2000 Presidential election writing about a
scenario akin to the _actual_ 2000 election. His manuscript would be laughed
at, then burned for the good of the author's reputation...
Ian A. York
Eric Walker <ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2001 20:08:19 GMT, Ian A. York wrote:
I've now followed up to this post twice, and both of my replies have been
canceled by a third-party. My previous post in this thread, to which Eric
followed up, has also been canceled, although the read of the thread seems
intact as far as I can see.
Here's my repost of my repost.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Ringo's "It's Just Anthrax"
In article <enfsjbjypebsgpbz...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
Eric Walker <ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2001 20:08:19 GMT, Ian A. York wrote:
Who has been cancelling my articles?
On my server, the article to which Eric followed up is now missing; as is
the article I wrote, following up to Eric. AS far as I can see, only
these two articles of mine are missing. It's too late for me to check
control.cancel, which has already expired the relevant cancel.
Anything else missing, or am I the only person being targeted here?
Repeat of one missing article follows.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Ringo's "It's Just Anthrax"
References: <20011019153343...@mb-ff.aol.com> <87k7xqz...@globalreach.net> <9qsljj$i0f$1...@news.panix.com> <enfsjbjypebsgpbz...@news.cis.dfn.de>
In article <enfsjbjypebsgpbz...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
Eric Walker <ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2001 20:08:19 GMT, Ian A. York wrote:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5010a1.htm
>
>article, but it contains the statement: "Fatal complications
>caused by vaccinia vaccination are rare, with approximately 1
>death/million primary vaccinations." It also remarks "In the
Did you actually read it? Table 3 shows the overall rate of postvaccinal
encephalitis: 12.3 per million. That's 1/100,000, three times as common
as my from-memory suggestion.
>majority of cases, [postvaccinial encephalitis] affects primary
>vaccinees aged <1 year or adolescents and adults receiving a
>primary vaccination." That is, children over 1 year of age but
Yup. 40-odd cases per million if they're under a year. But until you're
over 20, the rates are still at least 9 per million--still considerably
higher than my estimate.
>So the number appears to be 3, not 300--possibly fewer if we
>don't insist on vaccination before 1 year of age.
So the number appears to be 1000, not 300, and certainly not 3--and not
any lower unless we vaccinate people over twenty, which was not done in
the US and has its own advantages.
Thanks for supporting my argument (in spite of your delicately-constructed
phrasing), and I'm glad to see my memory is not too far off.
Mr. Reggie
> but honestly I don't see any sign of overall panic.
Maybe not "panic", but fear.
At work today, a mail-carrier came in while a report about a new Anthrax
case being discovered at a PO was playing on the TV. She shushed us all, and
went to the television to watch the remainder of the report. And, when she
left, she didn't look to be in quite as good a mood as when she came in...
Mr. Reggie
> subscriptions, for just enough antibiotics to breed a resistant strain
> of A: anthrax or B: any bacterial infection some ignoramus mistook for
> anthrax?
>
> *Most* Americans are not panicking. Many are.
The over-prescription of antibiotics we are going to see over the next few
years is going to have a hugely negative impact on our ability to fight off
certain bacteria in the near future.
Bush and Congress need to spend some serious Federal $$$ on R&D in the
medical field, ASAP, the smallpox vaccine being the most immediate and
obvious on a list of many things...
Charles R Martin
Okay, here's your replication (although I've seen all of your posts
that you're saying have been cancelled), but you're still incorrect:
the total number of serious adverse consequences is quite a good bit
lower than 1 in 100,000.
http://www.mheducation.com/HOL2_chapters/HOL_chapters/chapter186.htm
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n22/ffull/jst90000.html#r33
both report fatalities in the order of 1 per 1 million, total severre
adverse _reactions_ (eczema, progressive vaccinia, encephalitis etc)
around 14 per million at highest -- and the consequences of those
adverse reactions are often not so bad -- not nearly as bad as, say,
dying of smallpox.
This is from _Harrison's Internal Medicine_, JAMA, and the Australian
equivalent, of which the authoritativeness gets no higher.
--
Charles R Martin
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:44:30 -0500, "Jonathan W. Hendry"
<j_he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'd also bet the WTC wasn't America's largest building in terms
>of floor space.
I believe the Pentagon still holds the world record for the most
floor space in one building, over half a century after it was built.
Fortunately for the US military, that floor space is mostly spread
out horizontally, not vertically, so the collapse of the portion of
the Pentagon hit by the airplane affected only a small part of the
total building.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO9IVZjMYPge5L34aEQJ59gCgrcN9RECkZ9GWuncbb6mLniMLdxUAoNaY
HlxYB+Y7VHkW3Mfn9HsGG6v1
=nDgn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- eldr...@earthlink.net, eldr...@poboxes.com
PGP key available from http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace."
Woodrow Wilson
Mr. Reggie
> >*everybody's* ordinary MO. An unprecedented attack does not point
towards
> >any particular attacker.
>
> Correct. However bin Laden has demonstrated, in the past, a tendency
> to re-use one particular mode of attack.
How so? How are using car bombs at embassies, attacking a ship in port, and
using hijacked airplanes to destroy buildings, in any way similar?
>
> >The timing, points towards a particular attacker. These letters were
sent
> >out, IIRC, less than two weeks after the 9/11 attack. Not only do you
want
> >us to believe a couple of whackos did this out of their garage, but that
> >they did it from scratch in *days*? Or do you imagine they hoarded their
> >bio-letterbombs for a pathetic followup to someone else's attack?
>
> Yes, I imagine *exactly* that. It's bubba in the backwoods exclaiming to
> his pal "look! the end times are nigh! If we mail-bomb the agents of ZOG
> with our deadly secret weapon now, everyone will blame the towel-heads!"
>
> (For values of "deadly secret weapon" that they've been dinking with for
> months or years but have never had the nerve to use.)
>
> >Which brings us to motive; another crucial issue you've neglected to
mention.
> >There is none. Terrorism is a public relations strategy; a terrorist
attack
> >which will be attributed to one's *enemies* is a wasted effort.
>
> On the contrary! A terrorist attack with bioweapons that gets attributed
> to, say, Iraq, would result in massive US military intervention against
> Iraq, possibly all the way up to nuclear weapons release. All you have to
> do is look for someone who could benefit from that.
And those persons are...?
> >And there
> >is no domestic terrorist group or movement I know of that does not
consider
> >Al Qaeda, consider Islam generally, to be the enemy.
>
> Sure.
>
> >There is no motive of any domestic terrorist movement that I know of,
that
> >would be served by this attack *now*, unless perhaps explicitly claimed
as
> >their own. As is, they are aiding their effort to that of a bunch of
raghead
> >Arabs attacking native-born white Americans, adding to the percieved
threat
> >of a common foreign enemy that is uniting Americans in support of their
> >government, and providing one more reason for a clampdown on civil
rights.
> >That is a very nearly complete list of everything the range of right-wing
> >domestic terrorists are *against*. What they are *for*, is mostly George
> >Bush and John Aschroft.
>
> Maybe they're hoping that Bush will see this as a biological weapons
> attack from the middle east and go nuclear, bringing about the Apocalypse
> and the four horsemen and all the other shopping-trolley full of weird
> shit from Revelations.
Possible. Hell, anything's possible. But it's still unlikely.
> Or maybe they're a couple of bored Saudi microbiology students trying
> to do Their Bit for the Jihad.
More possible, IMHO.
> Or (back to backwoods Bubba again) maybe they're simply so out of touch
> with reality that they think lashing out randomly is a good idea.
McVeigh did a terrible thing, but I don't think "out of touch with reality"
is a good way to describe him.
Now, a Unibomber-type is more likely to be "out of touch with reality".
Could this be the work of crazed leftist anti-globalists?
Nah, I doubt it.
> >Without method, motive, or opportunity, against all evidence and reason,
you
> >have a "strong feeling" that this was done by right-wing domestic
terrorists.
> >This is the same sort of ludicruous reaction that gave us so many calls
for
> >war against Libya, Iran, and Iraq after the OKC bombing. Just round up
the
> >usual suspects what did it last time; we hate them most, so they must be
> >guilty. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
>
> Nope. My observation is that preparing a couple of letters with a light
> dusting of anthrax in powdered form is _not_ as difficult as it sounds;
> just about any university with a school of pharmacy has the equipment to
> do it, and making it on a DIY basis is not hard. Meanwhile, Bin Laden has
> a well-known MO that has been provably *successful* (not emphasis here);
> why would he change it now?
What's he gonna have his minions do? Hijack another airplane? The passengers
would revolt. Use car bombs? Security is too tight. Same thing goes for
attacking any military targets.
> The question of who sent the anthrax letters is still open, but I
> strongly doubt it was Al Qaida,
Then, who do you think is the most likely culprit? The Michigan Militia?
Gimme a break...
Mr. Reggie
Julie Pascal
"Geoduck" <geo...@webave.com> wrote in message
news:3bd19611...@news.olywa.net...
> On 19 Oct 2001 19:33:43 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
> wrote:
>
> >Kudos to John Ringo for this essay, which appeared in the editorial
section of
> >today's (Friday, Oct 19th's) New York Post. It's a nice breath of sanity
in the
> >midst of a totally absurd panic (people running about in terror because
_one_
> >person has died, in a nation of 280 million? Come on!).
> >
> >If only the Mainstream Media would buy a clue from him.
>
> Interesting article, but I wonder if he really meant to refer to guns
> as 'the *scourge* of all evil'. :-)
LOL... probably.
--Julie
Julie Pascal
"Mr. Reggie" <no...@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:#A4KgebWBHA.1248@cpimsnntpa03...
> And I also think that the anthrax
> > threat would be treated more as a domestic loony sort of thing if Sept.
> > 11th had never happened.
>
> I doubt that this is a "domestic loony", but there are a lot of folks
> thinking just that. Apparently, the media have made the Al-Queda
terrorists
> into supermen, and since the Anthrax attacks have thus far been relatively
> minor, many people are assuming it couldn't be them behind it.
I doubt that's *why*.... I mean.... just after Sept 11 my husband was
wondering why it had been a "traditional" (for lack of a better term)
attack rather than Anthrax. (He specifically said Anthrax.) It
seemed to me (an opinion based on no evidence whatsoever) that
bio-warfare did not have the sort of, um, nobility suited to the
warrior mentality, and that if it were Japanese (pulled out of a
hat and the vague recollection of some news article of Japanese
terrorism) terrorists they might have used anthrax.
Or Americans. Since, it seems, we think in those terms. (Judging
from a data point of *one*... my husband.)
Though I understand that chem and biological warfare is a
contemporary reality in the middle east... a la Sadam.
At any rate... the *only* point I intend to make here is that
it is probably not the media portraying the Al-Queda terrorists
as exceptionally competent that has led so many people to
suspect home-grown or other loonies for the anthrax.
--Julie
Phil Fraering
> Smallpox vaccination in the US was stopped in the early 1970s, say thirty
> years ago. Let's say there are around 3 million births per year, meaning
> 3 million children to be vaccinated per year. That gives us nearly 10,000
> complications due to the vaccine. And on your glib recommendation, you've
> gone and killed, or destroyed the brains, of some 300 children. And
> you've prevented every single case of smallpox in the US in the period,
> all none of them.
There are probably a lot of ways to make the smallpox vaccine safer.
There's the current mess going on in the UK about the MMR vaccine,
for instance; the current practice is thought to cause severe
injury or death in a number of cases, but breaking it up into
several different doses, some applied over a longer time period,
lowers the risk.
(Then again Charlie Stross was saying it was all hogwash to
begin with the last time it was brought up. Hello out there...)
Phil
Phil Fraering
> "Bill Van" <Bil...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:BillVan-DDE346...@clgrps11.telusplanet.net...
>
> > No, no. This is the same sort of reasoned reaction that led people to
> > suspect far-right wing-nuts after the OKC bombing. It was good judgment
> > then, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was good judgment now. But hey,
> > why don't we wait for the evidence before we string up anybody on the
> > basis of skin color or religion.
>
>
> The only thing that suggests right-wing wackos is that they
> targeted _Daschle_, as opposed to the White House itself, or
> the more hawkish Republicans.
They also seemed to target Hastert, who is Republican.
> There was a report a few days ago, of which I've heard nothing
> since, about abortion clinics getting anthrax envelopes which
> tested positive, with some connection to "God's Army". Like I
> said, I haven't heard anything since so maybe it was a false alarm.
I think that one turned out to be a false alarm.
Phil
Ian A. York
Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
>
>There are probably a lot of ways to make the smallpox vaccine safer.
This is true. In fact, there probably are some vaccinia strains that are
safer than the original vaccine strain. (Though the common lab strains,
such as the one I use every couple weeks, are considerably worse. Some
time I must check my titer to see if I've exposed myself--probably not,
since my virology technique is pretty good. A guy down the hall from me
right now is suffering from generalized vaccinia, pox lesions on his arms,
due to carelessness in his research; it's not particularly pleasant, and
that would have been considered a very minor reaction.)
I'd have liked to see research on making vaccinia safer, not just for the
applied use (i.e. not just because it would make the smallpox vaccine
safer) but because it would very likely have told us a lot about what
makes a virus virulent and what makes a vaccine effective. And (in the
interest of disclosure) since that's my research, it would probably have
gained me a million bucks worth of grants, but that's beside the point.
But I would not have liked to see smallpox vaccination continue. That
would have been criminally irresponsible.