America Losing Bioweapons (Greenwald on Hatfill & Hatfill's partner, Duray)
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: America Losing Bioweapons (Greenwald on Hatfill & Hatfill's
partner, Duray)
Date: Apr 22, 2010 1:26 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
=========================
Well, it's funny Greenwald, etc., should
mention it, because the rest of the world is
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
chugging along with the actual science
that blows US bioweapons (race specific)
quite out of the water, and is related
to the non-discovery of the mechanisms
of immune dysregulation caused by OspA.
The rest of the world is, of course, also
going to think this OspA fiasco was deliberate
or Part 1 of the two-part deployment of
a "vaccine" that caused immune suppression
which was intended to render Part B more
"effective" (deadly) - a subsequent disease/vaccine.
It didn't work out that way. And especially
not in mice (mice can't be used for the
human model of TLR2-Tolerance/Lipid Dysimmunity).
'Didn't happen for multiple reasons including
the activism: "We don't give a ship what
psychiatrists say - we happen to have conclusive
evidence that this clique couldn't be stupider
folk, and not only as regards science."
But the world moves forward on this New
Disease Paradigm. And we have a new
one:
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
to add to the present 11 applications
of the mechanisms of OspA-induced AIDS:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_APPLICATIONS.htm
by Weismuller, who is cited several times
in our Pam3Cys Immune Dysregulation PPT:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20385141
What now, of the "race-specific bioweapons"
http://www.actionlyme.org/PNAC.pdf
(page 60)
program, since it is that obvious US Medical
Science has no clue HOW STUFF WORKS?
This disease, let's call it "Gulf War Illness"
and is to include CFIDS, Lyme, FibroFemino,
Lupus, MS, Leukemia, Moldy-House-Mycoplasmal-
immunosuppression, Transverse Myelitis, and ALS,...
as well as Gulf War Illness
http://www.actionlyme.org/ROCKET_SCIENCE.htm
was first identified by Paul Duray, ***Steve
Hatfill's*** partner
http://www.actionlyme.org/Duray.htm
"Badly cloned B cells that looked like
immature, Epstein-Barr immortalized cells."
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHP_9_IDSA_REVIEWS.htm
Duray reported this in IDSociety.org's journal
in 1989.
After that, in 1990, the ALDF.com RICO
entity sic'd the DUMBO Mumbo-Jumbos on us:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article537453.ece
Having lost all sci-med credibility - and now
everyone knows psychiatrists are the world's
worst medical whores :
http://www.actionlyme.org/DSM_VI.htm
- what can the bioweaponeers do next?
1) IDSA is still fighting the subpoena, LOL:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BLUMENTHAL_IDSA_FEB_2010.pdf
http://www.actionlyme.org/STEERE_IN_EUROPE.htm
2) America owns *NONE* of the State of Science.
and 3) WHO and the EU told the US and IDSA
off over this very thing -OspA, OspA-Tuberculosis
and OspA-HIV non-vaccines, meaning, no one is going
to listen to America on medical science again.
Ever.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
================================================
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/21/hatfill/index.html
Wednesday, Apr 21, 2010 04:22 EDT
Unlearned lessons from the Steven Hatfill case
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below)
Andrew Sullivan rightly recommends this new Atlantic article by David
Freed, which details how the FBI and a mindless, stenographic American
media combined to destroy the life of Steven Hatfill. Hatfill is the
former U.S. Government scientist who for years was publicly depicted
as the anthrax attacker and subjected to Government investigations so
invasive and relentless that they forced him into almost total
seclusion, paralysis and mental instability, only to have the
Government years later (in 2008) acknowledge that he had nothing to do
with those attacks and to pay him $5.8 million to settle the lawsuit
he brought. There are two crucial lessons that ought to be learned
from this horrible -- though far-from-rare -- travesty:
(1) It requires an extreme level of irrationality to read what
happened to Hatfill and simultaneously to have faith that the "real
anthrax attacker" has now been identified as a result of the FBI's
wholly untested and uninvestigated case against Bruce Ivins. The
parallels are so overwhelming as to be self-evident.
Just as was true for the case against Hatfill, the FBI's case against
Ivins is riddled with scientific and evidentiary holes. Much of the
public case against Ivins, as was true for Hatfill, was made by
subservient establishment reporters mindlessly passing on dubious
claims leaked by their anonymous government sources. So unconvincing
is the case against Ivins that even the most establishment, government-
trusting voices -- including key members of Congress, leading
scientific journals and biological weapons experts, and the editorial
pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall St.
Journal -- have all expressed serious doubts over the FBI's case and
have called for further, independent investigations.
Yet just as was true for years with the Hatfill accusations, no
independent investigations are taking place. That's true for three
reasons. First, the FBI drove Ivins to suicide, thus creating an
unwarranted public assumption of guilt and ensuring the FBI's case
would never be subjected to the critical scrutiny of a trial --
exactly what would have happened with Hatfill had he, like Ivins,
succumbed to that temptation, as Freed describes:
The next morning, driving through Georgetown on the way to visit
one of his friends in suburban Maryland, I ask Hatfill how close he
came to suicide. The muscles in his jaw tighten.
"That was never an option," Hatfill says, staring straight ahead.
"If I would've killed myself, I would’ve been automatically judged by
the press and the FBI to be guilty."
Second, the American media -- with some notable exceptions --
continued to do to Ivins what it did to Hatfill and what it does in
general: uncritically disseminate government claims rather than
questioning or investigating them for accuracy. As a result, many
Americans continue to blindly assume any accusations that come from
the Government must be true. As Freed writes, in a passage with
significance far beyond the Hatfill case:
The same, Hatfill believes, cannot be said about American civil
liberties. "I was a guy who trusted the government," he says. "Now, I
don’t trust a damn thing they do." He trusts reporters even less,
dismissing them as little more than lapdogs for law enforcement.
The media's general willingness to report what was spoon-fed to
them, in an effort to reassure a frightened public that an arrest was
not far off, is somewhat understandable considering the level of fear
that gripped the nation following 9/11. But that doesn’t "justify the
sliming of Steven Hatfill," says Edward Wasserman, who is the Knight
Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, in
Virginia. "If anything, it's a reminder that an unquestioning media
serves as a potential lever of power to be activated by the
government, almost at will."
No matter how many times the Government and media jointly disseminate
outright lies to the American citizenry -- remember Iraq, or Jessica
Lynch's heroic Rambo-like firefight with Evil Iraqi Villains, or Pat
Tillman's death at the hands of Al Qaeda Monsters, or all the
gloriously successful air strikes and raids on Terrorists that never
happened? -- that propagandistic process never weakens. As a result,
many Americans (especially when their party is in power) simply place
blind faith in whatever the Government claims (even when the claims
are issued anonymously and accompanied by no tested evidence). Hence,
the Government claims it knows that Ivins is the anthrax killer; the
American media largely affirms that claim; and, for so many people,
that's the end of the story, no matter how many times that exact
process has so woefully misled them and no matter how many credible
and even mainstream sources question it.
Third, the Obama administration is actively and aggressively blocking
any efforts to investigate the FBI's case against Ivins through an
Obama veto threat, based on the Orwellian, backward claim that such an
investigation "would undermine public confidence" in the FBI's case
"and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions." As explained in a
letter to the Obama administration by Rep. Rush Holt, the former
physicist who represents the New Jersey district from which the
anthrax letters were sent:
The Bureau has asserted repeatedly and with confidence that the
"Amerithrax" investigation is the most thorough they have ever
conducted -- claims they made even as they were erroneously pursuing
Dr. Steven Hatfill. . . . Many critical questions in this case remain
unanswered, and there are many reasons why there is not, nor ever has
been, public confidence in the investigation or the FBI’s conclusions,
precisely because it was botched at multiple points over more than
eight years. Indeed, opposing an independent examination of any aspect
of the investigation will only fuel the public’s belief that the FBI’s
case could not hold up in court, and that in fact the real killer may
still be at large.
The anthrax attacks were one of the most significant political events
of this generation -- as significant as the 9/11 attack, if not more
so, in creating the climate of fear that prevailed (and still
prevails) in the U.S., which, in turn, spawned so much expansion of
government power. It is worth remembering what happened in the
Hatfill case in order to be reminded of just how inexcusable it is
that there has been no independent investigation of the case against
Ivins and that the current administration is now aggressively and
quite strangely blocking any efforts to do so.
(2) More generally, it is hard to overstate the authoritarian impulses
necessary for someone -- even in the wake of numerous cases like
Steven Hatfill's -- to place blind faith in government accusations
without needing to see any evidence or have that evidence subjected to
adversarial scrutiny. Yet that is exactly the blind faith that
dominates so many of our political debates.
Throughout the Bush years, anyone who argued against warrantless
surveillance, or torture, or lawless detention and rendition, was met
with this response: but this is all being done to Terrorists. What
they actually meant was: these are people accused by the Government,
with no evidence or trials, of being Terrorists. But the
authoritarian mind, by definition, recognizes no distinction between
"Our leaders claim X" and "X is true." For them, the former is proof
of the latter. Identically, those who now argue against due-process-
free presidential assassinations of American citizens and charge-less
indefinite detentions are met with a similar response: but these are
dangerous people who are trying to kill Americans, when what they
actually mean is: Obama officials claim, with no evidence shown and
no process given, that these are dangerous people trying to kill
Americans. The authoritarian mind refuses to recognize any
distinction between those two very different propositions.
No matter how many Steven Hatfills there are -- indeed, no matter how
undeniable is the evidence that the Government repeatedly accused
people of being Terrorists who were no such thing, even while knowing
the accusations were false -- the authoritarians among us continue to
blindly recite unproven Government accusations (but he's a Terrorist!)
to justify the most extreme detention, surveillance and even
assassination policies, all without needing or wanting any due process
or evidence. No matter how many times it is shown how unreliable
those kinds of untested government accusations are (either due to
abuse or error), there is no shortage of people willing to place blind
faith in such pronouncements and to vest political leaders with all
sorts of unchecked powers to act on them.
* * * * *
I'm currently in the process of sending out thank you emails to
everyone who participated in the blog fundraiser held here last week,
but since that will take a bit of time to complete, I want to express
my sincere gratitude here for everyone who did so. The support is
deeply appreciated and gratifying and will help the work being done
here in numerous ways.
UPDATE: As several people noted in comments, Obama's rationale for
threatening to veto an anthrax investigation (investigations would
undermine the State's credibility and thus dilute its authority) is
very similar to the Catholic Church's explanation for why it concealed
reports of so many abusive priests (disclosure would undermine the
Church's credibility and thus dilute its authority). See, for
instance, here, as well as here (Cardinal Christoph Schönborn: "the
appearance of an infallible church was more important than anything
else"). That was also the same rationale invoked by Justice Scalia
when enjoining the Florida recount during the 2000 election (Scalia:
a recount would "irreparably harm" Bush "by casting a cloud upon what
he claims to be the legitimacy of his election"). Common to all of
these suppression-justifying claims is the notion that preventing the
truth from being examined and known is necessary to preserve
institutional credibility and power.
On a related note: Jim White highlights some notable comments from
Steven Hatfill in an interview he recently gave on The Today Show.
It's quite striking how quickly someone turns into a raving civil
libertarian as soon as they experience first-hand the effects of
unrestrained government power (similar to how the Surveillance-State-
loving Jane Harman instantaneously transformed into an outraged, ACLU-
echoing freedom-lover upon learning that her telephone conversations
-- rather than others' -- had been secretly eavesdropped on).
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci