NEWS DISSECTOR August 2, 2008

THE BIOWAR STORY NOT TOLD IN THE AFTERMATH OF A SCIENTIST’S “SUICIDE”

By Danny Schechter

It is Saturday morning, and as the skies darken, and the rains threaten, I am reading about biowar investigator Bruce E. Ivins who is said to have taken his life with a fatal cocktail of codeine and other drugs just as he was about to be arrested and charged with five cases of murder in connection with the still fully unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001.

The naming of Mr. Ivins, born in Lebanon (Ohio), not the Middle East, and a veteran employee at the U.S. Government’s massive US Army bio weapons lab at Ft. Detrick, MD at least suggests, as many have long contended, that this was a domestic crime, not a foreign terrorist act.

The story, broken by the LA Times Friday got the full card monte coverage treatment by the New York Times on Saturday with acres of print. Is there any reason to conclude that we now know all the facts, or that the case is closed or even that Ivins was the guilty party?

The last man accused by the FBI Dr Stephen Hatfill went to Court and won a $4.6 million settlement in his suit against the FBI for violating his rights. His law suit against the NY Times reporting on the issue failed when the Judge ruled he could not prove the newspaper knowingly published false information. Clearly, the information was false then. How credible is the reporting now?

Ivins’ lawyer Paul Kemp insists that it was FBI harassment and humiliation that led to the suicide. He also contends that Ivins would have been exonerated if his case went to trial. Obviously he was facing a long and costly legal ordeal contributing to his anxieties. One report said he did not have the money to properly defend himself.

The Washington Post reports that other scientists at the lab are skeptical about suggestions that Ivins is the man described in the NY Post as “DR DOOM.”

Yet, colleagues and friends of the vaccine specialist remained convinced that Ivins was innocent: They contended that he had neither the motive nor the means to create the fine, lethal powder that was sent by mail to news outlets and congressional offices in the late summer and fall of 2001. Mindful of previous FBI mistakes in fingering others in the case, many are deeply skeptical that the bureau has gotten it right this time.

“I really don’t think he’s the guy. I say to the FBI, ‘Show me your evidence,’ “ said Jeffrey J. Adamovicz, former director of the bacteriology division at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, on the grounds of the sprawling Army fort in Frederick. “A lot of the tactics they used were designed to isolate him from his support. The FBI just continued to push his buttons.”

Investigators are so confident of Ivins’s involvement that they have been debating since Friday whether and how to close the seven-year-old anthrax investigation. That would involve disbanding a grand jury in the District and unsealing scores of documents that form the basis of the government’s case against Ivins.

Congressman Rush Holt does not trust the FBI either. In a statement buried at the end of the Times story on page A10, rather than in the lead on page l where it belonged, he said, “What we learn will not change the fact that this has been a poorly handled investigation that has lasted 6 years and already has resulted in a trail of embarrassment and personal tragedy.”

According to another report, FBI investigators had conducted 9100 interviews, sent out 6000 grand jury subpoenas and conducted 67 searches. They also traveled to “many” unnamed countries. They would not disclose their case against the late Mr. Ivins. He saw himself as a fall guy or patsy. Was he? Who else and what else was behind this attack on news outlets, US Senators and the postal service employees who died.

UNASKED QUESTIONS

The Brad Blog noted that “it’s curious – if hardly surprising – that none of the major outlets reporting the news bothered to note that the attacks were all made on perceived “liberals”.

Even a parade of reporters contacting Ivins family today, failed to bring up the topic.

We called Ivins oldest brother Thomas today, to ask if he had any idea of Bruce’s political leanings, and he told us “No, I didn’t. I didn’t know what his affiliations where. And that’s a good question.”

He was surprised by the question and though he said he’d been speaking with reporters all day, “one after another,” he told The BRAD BLOG, none of the other reporters, not one of them, had asked him about his brother’s political affiliations, leanings or beliefs?.”

No reporters have also brought up a crazy angle on the case: a reported at the time JLO connection.

FBI AND MEDIA FLAWED

So both the FBI probe and the media coverage has been flawed but there is one rather large and dangerous aspect of this that has also so far escaped much notice. In the Times accounts, one story suggested that Ivins may have acted to “raise an alarm about the bio terrorism threat.” Another suggested that Ivins had bought a bullet proof vest and gun and contemplated killing co-workers at the Army research lab “to take everyone else out with him.”

Was he a nut, another lone maniac, or is it possible that his motives were more nuanced?

The NY POST reduced his motive to making money, although he never made any as a result of his still unproven role in the anthrax attacks:

The suicidal scientist revealed as the likely culprit behind the 2001 anthrax mailings was part of a megamillion-dollar deal to have his own vaccine mass produced in the wake of those biological attacks and the national panic they created.

Bruce Ivins, 62, was the co-owner of a patent on what was seen as a cure to the terrifying threat.

Before the attacks, the vaccine developed by Ivins – who killed himself last week as a seven-year federal investigation closed in on indicting him for five murders – garnered little attention. But the deadly post-9/11 mailings brought $50 billion in government funding to the field of bioterror prevention.

An $877.5 million contract was inked with biotech firm VaxGen to provide Ivins’ vaccine in a deal in which he stood to profit, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. One estimate put the potential windfall in the tens of thousands of dollars.

A VaxGen executive said his company did not have a profit-sharing agreement with Ivins personally, and he had no knowledge of what arrangement Ivins had with his employers.

A former senior official at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases – the high-security lab in Maryland where Ivins worked for 36 years – believed the mad researcher mailed the anthrax-laced letters to move government resources to his field.

“It had to have been a motive,” the official told the LA Times. “I don’t think he ever intended to kill anybody. He just wanted to prove ‘Look, this is possible.’ He probably had no clue that it would aerosolize through those envelopes and kill those postal workers.”

The Associated Press quoted a therapist who suggested the scientist was a homocidal killer. This angle will no doubt interest Hollywood. Watch for the HBO Special later this year:

Social worker Jean Duley testified at a court hearing in Frederick on July 24 in a successful bid for a protective order from Ivins – who five days later committed suicide – that he “actually attempted to murder several other people.”

Ivins took a fatal dose of acetaminophen, the active drug in Tylenol, as federal authorities monitored his movements and prepared to charge him with the murder of five people who died from anthrax poisoning in the weeks after the Sept. 2001 terror attacks.

An audio recording of the court session was obtained by The New York Times and posted it on its Web site.

“As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people, either through poisoning. He is a revenge killer. When he feels that he’s been slighted or has had – especially toward women – he plots and actually tries to carry out revenge killings,” Duley said.

Another possible motive: could it be that the threat he saw, from his own insider experience, was not overseas, but here at home, inside the military for whom he worked, not from some cave in Afghanistan? He was a vaccine man in a world that was increasingly moving in a more military mode. Maybe that is what he wanted to “take out!”

WHERE IS THE REAL THREAT?

If so, he would not be the only scientist worried about the direction bio research was taking and this new threat. And what could that threat be? Perhaps it was not necessarily one fabricated bio attack but rather the covert development of a bio war industry through which the US government is reviving its bio war capacity for aggressive use, not domestic protection. In fact, many researchers in this field share this concern.

Reported the Times about his work, “the work became even more intense in the aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attack, as the field grew tremendously with BILLIONS (my caps) in new federal support for research on anthrax AND OTHER POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS (my caps) and to buy new drugs or vaccines to handle a possible future attack.”

The Times might have added this line had they conducted their own investigation into the controversy over the proliferating U.S. bio war INDUSTRY: “and to create new weapons for use in a possible future attack by the US military.”

Bear in mind that it was the US and Germany who sold Saddam the bioweapons he used on the Kurds. Also remember the Operation Tailwind Story suppressed by CNN alleging bio-weapons (ie. nerve gas) use in Vietnam by the US. When the producers fired by CNN later sued, demanding access to documents and information on the pressure the network came under for their story, CNN settled and paid the producers large sums of money as long as they signed a gag order and refused to disclose the amount they were paid and other information. I covered this issue extensively on Mediachannel.org

That industry is, of course, sold to the public entirely as a defensive response and public health necessity. In the same way that the attack on Iraq was sold to the US to protect us from attack, using the 911 attack as its rationale, the far less public expansion of the Bio war industry had a similar rationale.

The anthrax attack was a 9/11 for the expansion of the biowar industry.

INVESTIGATING THE BIO WAR INDUSTRY

I know a bit about this because three years ago, I was working with a team to find funding for an investigative film about this issue. We begged funders for help, writing:

While most of our media is focused on covering the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq, another Administration initiative could easily turn into another arena of conflict with truly frightening implications.

I am referring to a massive and under-reported Bush Administration initiative to spend six BILLION dollars on a new “Bio-Defense” program that is building as many as 20 BL-4 labs equipped to handle the deadliest pathogens known to man. Without a public debate or media scrutiny this program is attacking serious criticism from the scientific community and community groups opposed to siting these labs in densely populated urban areas

The International Center for Global Communications Foundation is seeking support for a Globalvision investigative documentary on the dangers posed by this Initiative. “WHEN BIO SAFELY BECOMES A BIO THREAT” (TENTATIVE TITLE) will examine this program which major medical schools and the National Institute of Health has embraced while community groups and top scientists involved in arms control oppose.

The response: ZERO, ZIP, NADA!

We first learned about this story because of opposition in Boston to the construction of a level containment 4 lab (top security), for use with major pathogens, at Boston University. When the university announced it was to be built in the black community of Roxbury, community groups there became concerned.

They were pissed that they were not consulted, but and, also, soon worried about how any accident at the lab might put the community at risk. Their initial fears were predictably dismissed until reports came out of an unplanned release of a dangerous rabbit virus at a nearby level 2 lab. Suddenly, their concerns could not downplayed as a hysterical or paranoid reaction.

The organization Roxbury Safety Net contacted Globalvision and we started looking into the issue. So did a Boston area anti-war organization. What we found was that the Boston lab was part of a national program run out of the National Institute of Health and coordinated by an ex CIA official with a budget of billions. The NIH, at the direction of the Bush Administration and with funding provided by Congress, escalating bio research will cutting back on funding for other diseases and research,

Slowly, opposition to more labs emerged in other parts of the country, at the Livermore Labs in the Bay Area and even at Ft Detrich in Maryland. Some were defeated. Across the country, citizen researchers dug out documents and soon scientists expressed alarm.

WHEN DEFENSE BECOMES OFFENSE

I spoke with a top researcher at Rutger’s University who explained how easily a “defensive” program could become an offensive one even as the flouted international treaties and American law. (Richard Nixon ended the US bio war program, but many in the military objected in part because the Soviet Union had its own massive and secret facility for many years. And yes,there had been accidents.)

This became a media story, or rather anon media story, when we could not find any money to fund our investigation and film. Thank you media consolidation and caution at all the foundations for the fear to challenge the government’s national security obsession.

Despite its importance, despite the unsolved anthrax attacks, and despite the obvious public concern, fear of terrorism and worries about public safety, we struck out. Our film has yet to be made. It is painful for a journalist to have a big story and not be able to interest any outlet or funder in it.

Most of the media was once again asleep at the switch, Perhaps with this suicide, some media outlets will pursue the story and the larger context that has been missing. I am also trying to get back in touch with activists at Ft Detrich who have been monitoring this story and have additional information missing in most press reports.

SAFETY CONCERNS RAISED

Most media outlets have yet to discuss the potential for a revival of our bio-war program but are raising deeper questions. The Houston Chronicle asked this weekend:

“Has the unprecedented boom in biodefense research made the country less secure by multiplying the places and people with access to dangerous germs?

“We are putting America at more risk, not less risk,” said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of a House panel that has investigated recent safety lapses at biolabs.”

But the proliferation of biodefense research laboratories presents real threats, too, congressional investigators recently warned.

More people in more places handling toxic agents create more opportunities for an accident or intentional misuse by an insider, Keith Rhodes, an investigator with the Government Accountability Office, said at a congressional hearing in October.

Nationwide, there are an estimated 14,000 people working at about 400 laboratories who have permission to work with so-called “select agents” – which could be used in a bioterror attack – although a much smaller amount of this research involves the most dangerous materials, like anthrax.

With so many people involved, there is insufficient federal oversight of biodefense facilities, Rhodes testified.

Heightening the concern has been a string of accidents at certain new or expanded biodefense laboratories, several of which were not properly reported to the authorities when they first took place.

One of the first accidents was in Ivins’ laboratory in late 2001, when he and his colleagues were aiding the federal investigation of the anthrax attacks and spores accidentally spilled outside the secure area.

He failed to report the event to his superiors and instead tried to disinfect the contaminated areas, according to an Army report, which concluded, “Adherence to institute safety procedures by laboratory personnel is lax.”

In early 2006, at Texas A&M University, a worker was infected with Brucella bacteria, a pathogen common in livestock that can cause flulike symptoms like fever, fatigue and joint pain, although it is rarely fatal. Later, three researchers at the same lab were infected with Q fever, another cattle-borne disease that can cause serious but generally not fatal illness in humans.

After the two incidents belatedly became public, federal officials temporarily shut down the laboratory, citing a series of safety shortcomings.

This story originally came from the NY Times. It also raises a related question: have tens of millions poured into bio research presumably investigating various new threats, led to funding cutbacks of serious other health crises?

“Apart from the threat from insiders, some public health experts believe money being used to study obscure pathogens that are not a major disease problem could be better directed to study known killers like influenza or AIDS.”

(IF YOU CAN HELP US MAKE THIS FILM, OR HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ISSUE PLEASE CONTACT ME AT dissector@mediachannel.org)

Comment on this post…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BOSTON DEBATE: THE BIO LAB CONTROVERSY

This is a dated summary. More opposition to the lab has emerged since it was written. I welcome help in updating this?but it does offer some important background. I believe there is a connection between this program and concerns raised at Ft. Detrich which was at one time the main lab and is now just one of many.

Most Americans date the threat of bio-terrorism in the United States to either September 11, or the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly thereafter in Washington D.C., New York City, Florida, and New Jersey. The city of Boston has received several terrorist threats though a specific attack has not manifested. Threats have ranged from a plot to attack hotels to most recently a dirty bomb hoax. In response, he federal government and Homeland security agencies went into panic mode with exaggerated and unsubstantiated warnings and press reports. All of this dates back to September ll.

In June of 2001, almost four months prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the Anthrax attacks, the political climate, and desire to pursue bio-terrorism protection began to pick up momentum after “Dark Winter.”

Dark Winter” was a bio-terrorism exercise held at Andrews AirForce Base on June 22 and 23 of 2001. This fictional scenario outline included an attack where Iraq launched a covert bio-terrorist attack with smallpox against shopping malls in Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Nine days after the exposure, there are twenty confirmed cases of smallpox. Logistical chaos ensues as the stockpiled smallpox vaccine can cover only 2% of the total U.S. population while the total world supply can only assist 20% of the U.S. population. Issues of containment, news dissemination, evacuation, and dissemination of treatment arise.

At the conclusion of this exercise, major weaknesses were revealed in the U.S. ability to confront a biological attack on its homeland. In other words, the United States was woefully underprepared. But was that all?
“We have a fragmented and underfunded public health system ? at the local, state and federal level ? that does not allow us to effectively detect and track disease outbreaks in real time” said Frank Keating, Governor of Oklahoma. “Dark Winter showed just how unprepared we are to deal with bioterrorism,” said Jerome M. Hauer, a bioterrorism consultant to Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. “It pointed out that there were significant challenges to all levels of government.”

With the processing of multiple terror threats per week in the spring and summer of 2001, and epiphanies drawn from Dark Winter, the federal government began planning its response.
II From “Dark Winter” to a Biolab in Boston

In the aftermath of the Dark Winter exercise, and the September 11th attacks, federal authorities and the Bush Administration decided to increase the already developing bioterrorist countermeasure infrastructure. President Bush and Congress passed a series of legislations that would help fight bioterorism. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush first proposed “Project BioShield” which provides for funding for research and development for medical countermeasures against biological, radiological and nuclear attacks with the highest priority placed on organisms like anthrax, ebola, plague, tularemia and others. Congress approved a plan in 2004. Boston is the site of a proposed lab funded sought to be created as a result of the legislation.

The funding for research and development is disseminated from the Federal government through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (’NIAID’) and which is a member organization of the National Institutes of Heath (’NIH’). An estimated $5.6 billion dollars will be spent on BioShield with another $4.4 billion spent on Biodefense. Besides the advertised benefit of public health improvements, supporters of the lab estimate that the economic effect of the lab will be an additional $272 million in revenue and 1,960 direct jobs (1300 in construction and 660 permanent jobs). But, how do you development countermeasures against a biological attack?

Via special biocontainment laboratories or Bio-Safety Laboratories, Level 4 (’BSL-4?), researchers and scientists can conduct the testing on the infectious diseases listed above. Where are these special labs? Currently, there are two labs in Texas, one lab in Georgia, and one lab in Maryland. However, in the government’s view as suggested in the legistlation, the four operating bio-safety labs, are not sufficient to “produce the “countermeasures” necessary for the protection of the American people.

According to a 2003 NIH/NAIAD press release, “an outside panel of experts provided guidance to NIAID on its biodefense research agenda and identified the insufficient amount of biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) and BSL-4 lab space as a significant barrier to progress” on its biodefense research agenda. “To know that we can do this research and not do it would be irresponsible,” said Rona Hirschberg, a senior program officer at the NIH.
Boston University and Boston Medical Center united to form Boston University Medical Center (BUMC) and successfully applied for NIAID grant money to construct a national biocontainment laboratory in Boston to produce countermeasures for potential bio-terror attacks on U.S. interests whether civilians or soldiers. BUMC will contribute $50 million dollars towards the project. The Boston University Medical /BUMC South End site was selected based on multiple factors, but “primarily on the scientific and technical merit of the applications as assessed by peer review and on the BU’s ability to contribute to the overall NIAID” agenda. Boston, home to a growing bio-tech and pharmaceutical industry, seemed like an ideal place for the lab.

Said Mayor Tom Menino, “I am thrilled with the National Institutes of Health’s decision to designate Boston and BU Medical Center as an [National Biocontainment Laboratory] site.” Mayor Menino also asserted that the presence of the lab would secure “Boston’s role as a center of bio-medical and research activity.” “It’s a very important part of our efforts in the state to be on the cutting edge of research,” said Christine C. Ferguson, the Massachusetts public health commissioner. The Greater Boston area has more biomedical researchers than any other area in the world. The biotechnology industry includes 280 firms and 30,000 employees.

Both the mayor and the governor publicly lauded the economic development potential of this progam to bolster the local biotech industry. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts State Governor, also vocalized his early support stating that, “the construction of this new center will solidify Massachusetts’ position as the national leader for cutting-edge biotech research. It will generate 1,300 construction jobs, 660 new permanent positions, and countless other economic opportunities for local businesses and residents.”

Furthermore, he stated, “this project is about jobs and economic development.” Several members of the Boston City Council, as well as Senators Wilkerson and Kennedy also voiced their support for the project. With the bipartisan support of powerful local and state officials, money to cover the project, and boast of an economic stimulus, the project seemed destined for success.

III.The Local Community Response

Residents of Boston’s Roxbury, Dorchester, and South End neighborhoods were the last to know about this BUMC bio-lab, but the first to act vocally in opposition of the plan. Responding to an anonymous phone call urging them to attend a meeting, members of SAFETYNET gathered together and were shocked at the plans.
In a meeting featuring eighty scientists and other project supporters, SAFETYNET members wondered what were these scientists trying to bring to their community? SAFETYNET members began asking questions and BU responded curtly that SAFETYNET members were too incompetent to understand. This lack of engagement served as fuel for the residents to research and fight for information crucial to understanding the project and potentially their community’s well-being.

Chuck Turner, Boston City Council Member, also chides BU for its secretive and obtuse manner in delivering information to the public. “BU removed or penciled over a number of lines in the response to the federal government. That is, even though they handed a copy to ACE and to others, they made it impossible for some of it to be read because they said that was confidential information.”

Several major questions are at the center of the opposition of the lab. Will this expenditure truly advance public health? What is the danger to the community? Does a facility of this nature belong in a densely populated urban metropolis? Will biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction be produced at the new labs? Who is in control of the research? Will BU act responsibly in its management of the lab?

IV: An Emerging Debate

Numerous scientists have weighed in on the issues and have and no clear consensus has come down on either side of the debate as to whether the lab is actually dangerous to the community. Most of the debate concerns whether a highly infectious organism, with no known cure, can breach the highly secure laboratory. The debate further divides on the possibility of this breach as an assisted event or an unassisted event.

Proponents of the lab insist that the multilevel, highly complex, security system will prove to be retardant to leaks, theft, or break-ins. The BSL-4 lab will be located deep inside of a seven-story facility made of compressed concrete and stainless steel. The lab hosting the most dangerous experiments with the infectious diseases only represents 15 percent of the entire facility.

Lola Vollen, a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley, said she was concerned that scientists with experience in the proliferating Level 4 labs could be hired by terrorists. In response to a question about the 2001 anthrax attacks linked to Ft. Detrick in Maryland, Councilperson Turner stated “they demonstrated something very important to us and that is the ability to infiltrate and take deadly materials out of those laboratories and to escape detection.”

Klare Allen, a community member and organizer for SAFETYNET, stated “We have seen these incidents happen around the world and with the tularemia incident in 2002 and 2004 and not to mention the mercury spills and the contamination of water, 9/11, the mail issue with anthrax being mailed. There are too many things that are happening now that put doubt in your mind about how secure is this lab.”

Comment on this post…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS BEGINS WITH MORE QUESTIONS

MORE QUESTIONS ARE BEING POSED. WHAT ARE YOURS

These are posed by Ricard B of the AllSpinZone blog:

Several things don’t ring quite right with this story:

* The timing is certainly curious. If Ivins offed himself several days ago, why is the report just coming to light?

* Reports indicate that Ivins had been informed of his pending indictment. I’m not sure how that happened, as federal grand juries operate in secret, most importantly so indicted suspects don’t hit the road before they can be detained.

* The method of his reported suicide simply doesn’t square with how men kill themselves. Men put guns to their head or jump off a bridge; they generally don’t pill themselves to death. Plus, I’d hazard a guess that someone would have to take a whole lot of Tylenol III’s (a controlled substance) and get no medical attention in order for death to result.

? The first question that any amateur CSI sleuth asks is, “What’s the motivation?” According to earlier reports, Ivins was loosing the deadly spores into the wild in order to field test a vaccine that he’d been involved in developing. Is that a normal government protocol for testing bioweapons? (Just kidding. Maybe.)

What a history! What a mystery! This story demands more investigations. Its time to start knockin on the media’s door or perhaps help us find the funding to report the story ourselves.

There is much more to this issue and I would welcome information from readers in the know.

HIDDEN HISTORY?

One issue of interest. The history of this lab. Anthony Sutton has a right-wing outlook but some interesting history to share:

Fort Dietrich Biological Programs In The 1960's

The Army maintains a Special Operations Division (SOD) on the Fort Dietrich base with a formal operating agreement with CIA (Memorandum signed in May 1952.) Both CIA and Army have covered their tracks well but some original documents survive to outline a horrific story.

In the early 60's U.S. Army SOD personnel used specially designed suitcases to spray unsuspecting American civilians with bacillus subtilis at the Greyhound Bus Terminals in Washington, Chicago and San Francisco. Similar operations were conducted at airports in Washington D.C., New York, Boston and Los Angeles. The number of one way tickets sold at time of release was used to estimate distribution of the bacterial agents. (Bacillus subtilis can be bought at biological supply houses. It is not listed as a pathogen, but can cause respiratory infections, blood poisoning and food poisoning.)

According to declassified Army documents the Greyhound terminals in San Francisco and Chicago were the location for “six operatives to launch covert attacks” spread over 7 days. Specially designed suitcases sprayed bacteria into crowded terminals for maximum exposure. Photographs were taken and other Army personnel “covertly collected air samples in close proximity to the passengers” to determine if the civilians had been infected.

Later tests were repeated with smallpox a2ents, grown in large quantities and converted to a lethal powder for spraying. Senate investigation in 1975 revealed close cooperation between SOD and CIA:

“CIA association with Fort Dietrich involved the Special Operations Division (SOD) of that facility. This division was responsible for developing special applications for biological warfare agents and toxins. Its principal customer was the U.S. Army. Its concern was with the development of both suitable agents and delivery mechanisms for use in paramilitary situations. Both standard biological warfare agents and biologically derived toxins were investigated by the division.”

The Senate Committee found the CIA had covered its tracks to conceal this unconstitutional activity from the American public. The Senate Committee stated “Although some CIA originated documents have been found in the project files it is clear that only a very limited documentation of activities took place.”

An extract from a U.S. Army report details why smallpox was selected as the agent of choice.” Its “attractive” features are listed as:

1. Smallpox is highly infectious with close contact. It spreads readily from an infected person to susceptible individuals.

2. A long incubation period of relatively constant duration permits the operatives responsible to leave the country before the first case is diagnosed

3. The duration of illness for those who recover is relatively long. Although the Federal Government claims that the 1972 treaty banning biological weapons stopped further use of Fort Dietrich we know that the U.S. Amy applied for $1.4 million appropriation to EXPAND germ warfare testing ability in the early 1980's. Senator James Sasser objected and it is unlikely that the appropriation went through. It could have been handled on the “black budget.”

What a history. What a mystery. This story demands more investigations.

Do you agree?

Write dissector@mediachannel.org

Make a tax-deductible donation today.

You can send a check made out to our fiscal sponsor:

THE GLOBAL CENTER
575 Eighth Avenue, Suite 2200
New York, New York 10018

or DONATE ONLINE: http://www.tinyurl.com/2zg2hb

If you have ideas or suggestions, please write to Dissector@mediachannel.org

REMEMBER: THE SITE YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN.

Thank you!

SUBSCRIBE TO OTHER MEDIACHANNEL EMAILS
www.mediachannel.org/email/

HAVE FEEDBACK?
Write to us at david@mediachannel.org

Concerned about the media? TELL A FRIEND!
www.demaction.org/mediachannel/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=89

MAKE MEDIACHANNEL.ORG YOUR HOME
on the Web for news, analysis, resources and more.
www.mediachannel.org