July 8, 2002

THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS

QUESTIONS NOBODY WANTS TO ASK

By Meryl Nass, MD

Amid the uproar over the former Fort Detrick scientist with the spook-y background in Rhodesia and South Africa, the glaring holes and inconsistencies in the anthrax investigation have been forgotten…or, perhaps, conveniently overlooked.

First, why was our government convinced from the start that the perpetrator is an American? Why did the White House announce this so early in the investigation?

Although the administration might have learned the anthrax had a domestic origin from genetic studies of the Ames strain, or the makeup of the additive that neutralized the spores’ tendency to clump, the White House announcement preceded such studies by months. Did the President receive inside information, which has never been shared with the public? If so, the details should be revealed. This will aid our nation to accurately appraise assertions regarding the threat of bioterrorism from foreign rogue states and terrorists.

Second, although the additive’s components are classified, contradictory statements by government spokespersons have claimed that:

1. it was identical to a US preparation, and
2. it was an entirely new preparation unknown to US biodefense experts.

Which is true?

Third, there are only a small number of government scientists and contractors who are known to work with anthrax. Interestingly enough, the scientist who has been publicly investigated was not among them. According to his resume and publications, he has never worked with anthrax. Yet his anthrax vaccinations, provided by government agencies, were up to date. Why?

While the Defense Department was forced to curtail military anthrax vaccinations due to lack of supply, this scientist was given his yearly boosters. Did someone in the Defense Department (which owns the entire anthrax vaccine stockpile) think he needed it badly? Who authorized those vaccinations? Who was this scientist working for, and what had he been doing since returning to the US from South Africa and the UK?

Fourth, what were the scope of his pursuits during the years his resume says he was obtaining three masters’ degrees and a PhD, in addition to his medical (MD) degree?

Fifth, how many people have the knowledge and access to either obtain or create this type of spore preparation? How many others may reside in the "intelligence" netherworld, unknown to the rest of us, but well versed in the ins and outs of biowarfare and biodefense? This could be a large number of people, all of whom should be considered suspects. Has the FBI been informed by the military services and CIA who they all are? How many different agencies and civilian contractors might employ such folks? (About thirteen federal agencies perform intelligence work.)

Sixth, the scientist under recent FBI investigation is said to have just traveled to Uzbekistan as a State Department contractor, to investigate a possible bioterrorism incident. If he was truly a suspect, as the recent public search of his properties implies, why has he continued to work on important government projects?

Seventh, there were rare anthrax hoax letters before 1999. Then suddenly there were hundreds sent during a few months, and then the hoaxes died down. The hoax letters seemed to increase about the time that Congress began having hearings on the military’s anthrax vaccine problems, and the media started reporting vaccine problems. Might the hoax letters have been intended to retrain Americans to think of anthrax not as a remote possibility, but as an immediate threat? Such a viewpoint could encourage use of a questionable vaccine that was otherwise very unpopular.

Also in 1999, the scientist under recent investigation, working at the time for a military contractor, hired former Fort Detrick biowarfare guru, William Patrick, to provide a detailed 27 page report on anthrax sent by mail.

Has the FBI studied these old hoax letters, to assess whether any were sent by last October’s anthrax perpetrator? Has the FBI investigated the possibility that some of the hoax letters may have originated in a "black" Defense Department program? If so, have they tried to learn the identities of, and been allowed access to, the people involved in that program?

Although hoax anthrax letters that closely resembled real anthrax letters were sent last fall, we have heard very little about them from the FBI.

Eighth, there were both hoax and real anthrax-containing letters found in other countries last fall. The public has never been informed of the results of investigations concerning those letters.

Ninth, it was recently reported that careful genetic analysis of various anthrax strains was unable to determine the origin of the strain used last fall. However, none of the media reports gave any information regarding the details of the genetic analysis that was done: the number and location of sites on the genome where mutations exist, and the actual results. Without that information, it is impossible to tell if the analysis was thorough or accurate.

Tenth, in February I suggested the likelihood that a Biosafety 3 or 4 laboratory was used to fill the anthrax envelopes last fall. There have been no media reports of surveys of these facilities’ use during last September and October. Has the FBI investigated this?

Eleventh, who gave the order for Iowa State University in Ames to destroy its anthrax collection just days after the attacks were identified? Why hasn’t FBI director Mueller publicly explained why this was done?

Twelfth, the homes and other buildings of suspects have been searched and sampled for anthrax spores. Media reports indicate no spores have been found. However, it is important to specify the methodology used for sampling and identifying spores, in order to confirm that very sensitive methods were used. There are sampling methods that will miss small spore concentrations: remember how the American Media News building was "clean" apart from a computer keyboard the first time around, but when more sensitive methods were employed, the entire building was found to be contaminated.

Most sensitive techniques for identifying spores rely on growth in a culture medium. However, fumigation, ozonation and other treatments have the ability to kill stray spores, preventing growth and avoiding detection. Have any properties of potential suspects been treated in this manner?

The FBI’s curious approach to all the above implies we are not dealing with a lone-wolf Unabomber. There would be no need for the FBI to avoid important aspects of the investigation if it was seeking a crazy scientist who worked alone.

The FBI’s early dissemination of a Unabomber-like profile may have deflected public gaze from the Army, CIA, and their contractors, away from the possibility that more than just a lone-wolf bioterrorist might be involved.

But the accumulating facts in this case suggest involvement of more than one person. The logistics of stealing, being given or producing weaponized anthrax; receiving the training that enabled the attack to be carried out; obtaining a safe environment to work in; receiving vaccinations; mailing the letters from different cities; and getting away with it for the past nine months, all suggest a group effort that may well turn out to be connected to the US government in some manner.

Will Congress, due to hold hearings on this subject, muster the resolve to get to the bottom of the anthrax attacks? Will it seriously try to learn these answers?