Ah, I've run into these guys before. They do good work in general, although from time to time they can be a tiny bit misguided.

A few corrections to some statements he made:
On viral hemorrhagic fevers: "If you get it, you're pretty much gonna die" - no, although they're dangerous on the individual level, the real danger lies in their capability to be transmitted from human to human quickly and easily. Survival rates vary widely amongst the different families of VHFs, amongst different viruses, and amongst different strains.
On BSL-4 labs: "There are only five in the US" - no, to public knowledge there were seven fully-capable BSL-4s in the US at the time of his speech.
On preparation: "Red teams raise treaty issues" - wut. Treaty issues? On our own territory?

His overall analysis of budgeting for infectious diseases in terms of biowarfare/bioterrorism is pretty spot-on, allocation isn't based on demonstrated current need, and very often it should be, rather than fear, political influence, and public desire (anthrax springs to mind). The argument against that, however, is the fact that demonstrated current need is not all that needs to be considered. Avian flu, for example, demonstrates little current need in terms of infections and deaths per year, but the potential for both is staggering. Also, considering the US's policy of "homeland defense" above international wellbeing, it is no surprise that the military budgets its bio research money towards biowarfare and countering such and related topics. I think the overall call should instead focus on NIH, NIS and other federal grant-giving organizations moving away from these research topics, where the most good can be accomplished.

Good'nuff, Rembar.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I've chosen to not meet up with sifters a few times, but we'll see in the future. It really depends on how my career path works out, as I'm really in the midst of some overdue change. Eventually, I think, all in due time.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
In reply to this comment by rembar:
>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


...I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

I hope that this doesn't mean that if there's ever a VS meet-up, you wouldn't be able to attend so I could by you a drink.

"I was clapping out a shag wool rug purchased from Poverty Barn or Ikea or somewhere. My ex the Dr pointed out that I stood a better chance of getting anthrax doing that. Haha. I feel the same now as I did then. ;-)", she was probably right, another gotcha is bongos and the like, the animal skin used can be tainted.

downvote away, lol.

gotcha! well thanks for answering dumb questions Rembar, you must be used to it by now!

No dumb questions have been asked yet and, believe me, I know dumb questions when I see them.

On a side note I remember being even more uninformed than I am now and voicing my concern about it as I was clapping out a shag wool rug purchased from Poverty Barn or Ikea or somewhere. My ex the Dr pointed out that I stood a better chance of getting anthrax doing that. Haha. I feel the same now as I did then. ;-)

Poverty Barn? ....yikes, lol.

And anthrax isn't as totally dangerous as people make it out be. It can be to the people attacked, but it's basically non-transmissible between humans, and it's generally treatable by antibiotics, usually with high rates of success (with a few specific exceptions, the 2001 attacks not really being amongst them). I am against fearmongering in all its forms, and the media hype during and after the 2001 attacks is certainly a prime example.

I've chosen to not meet up with sifters a few times, but we'll see in the future. It really depends on how my career path works out, as I'm really in the midst of some overdue change. Eventually, I think, all in due time.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
In reply to this comment by rembar:
>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


...I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

I hope that this doesn't mean that if there's ever a VS meet-up, you wouldn't be able to attend so I could by you a drink.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


...I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

I hope that this doesn't mean that if there's ever a VS meet-up, you wouldn't be able to attend so I could buy you a drink.

gotcha! well thanks for answering dumb questions Rembar, you must be used to it by now!

On a side note I remember being even more uninformed than I am now and voicing my concern about it as I was clapping out a shag wool rug purchased from Poverty Barn or Ikea or somewhere. My ex the Dr pointed out that I stood a better chance of getting anthrax doing that. Haha. I feel the same now as I did then. ;-)

>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


I'll give you the same answer I've given Sorted, as well as a few others:
"As to venturing my opinion on "whodunnit", you'll also excuse me if I don't. You can ask me other things if you want about the topic and I'll answer as best I can, but I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

Lol, you do like answering your own questions, don't you? I've dropped a reply in the thread, by the way.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Can we add this to *Mystery then?

E: (Doh!, it is! I Stoopid.)

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This doesn't belong in Science, because it only briefly covers anthrax biologically and even then does it poorly.

And I downvoted because, from a personal standpoint, this is a horrible mistreatment of a subject that requires a much greater in-depth analysis and a much stronger knowledge of the actual events and the nature of anthrax than the History Channel has, can or likely ever will put forth. Whether the conclusions are likely correct or not, this clip is still bad.

Okay you're right, it's way deep and this video is very alarmist.
Yes I am, yes it is, and yes it is.

Rembar could you tell us if it's true that they concluded it was all the Ames type, and if in fact this is "almost" entirely controlled by the pentagon?
It was the Ames strain (not type), although that's poor reporting on this video's part by implying that it is one of many. Although this is true, basically any lab worth its salt doing research on anthrax pathology uses the Ames strain, so that tells people precious little. And no, it is not almost entirely controlled by the Pentagon. It is under national regulation, and not anybody can get their hands on it, but it's a BSL-3 agent, not BSL-4. And that doesn't even cover the samples not held in the US.

People forget that anthrax is a bacteria. Unlike nuclear and chemical weapons, new samples of pathogenic bacteria can be grown from a small sample, and how exactly do you keep inventory of that?

The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.'(9 May 2002, New Scientist)
So it wasn't "on the street" for long.
That's what it seems like at first glance, but that conclusion is faulty. Three years of cultivation is a long, long time, especially if you're only collecting material to use in an attack, rather than trying to improve the strain's lethality or resistance to antibiotics or anything in that vein. In certain forms and methods, anthrax can be properly stored in stasis for decades, without necessity of reproduction. Thus, you could keep a sample viable for close to a century, but genetically your strain will be the same generation. In effect, this knowledge instead points to somebody doing a grow-and-throw - in simplified terms, acquiring the anthrax sample, storing it for however long, then growing some, collecting spores, and sending them, then rinsing and repeating as necessary. This means it was not specifically weaponized, contrary to what the newspapers love to tell you, nor would the actual process require very high-level knowledge of microbiology or anthrax in order to perform.

And lol, Constitutional_Patriot, cry more. I'll gladly put a silly video about breast-watching (which is both entertaining and healthy, as the video demonstrates) into my channel over something that's factually inaccurate, something you don't seem to understand as you've demonstrated a number of times that you wouldn't know real science if it bit you in the ass. Don't try to take it out on me with your little passive-aggressive downvoting. Sack up.

Can we add this to *Mystery then?

E: (Doh!, it is! I Stoopid.)

In reply to this comment by sorted:
mmm 'k... knee jerk much, jst jking...

Can we add this to *Mystery then?

E: (Doh!, it is! I Stoopid.)

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This doesn't belong in Science, because it only briefly covers anthrax biologically and even then does it poorly.

And I downvoted because, from a personal standpoint, this is a horrible mistreatment of a subject that requires a much greater in-depth analysis and a much stronger knowledge of the actual events and the nature of anthrax than the History Channel has, can or likely ever will put forth. Whether the conclusions are likely correct or not, this clip is still bad.

Rembar could you tell us if it's true that they concluded it was all the Ames type, and if in fact this is "almost" entirely controlled by the pentagon? Is there even such thing as an Ames strain? Is he the guy they c...never mind I'm going to sound stupid if I keep asking questions so I'll go look at wikipedia.

Okay you're right, it's way deep and this video is very alarmist.

First this...

"Although the anthrax preparations were of different grades, all of the material derived from the same bacterial strain. Known as the Ames strain, it was first researched at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. The Ames strain was then distributed to at least fifteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and six locations overseas."

So, anybody could have it by now.

And then this...

...The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.' (9 May 2002, New Scientist)

So it wasn't "on the street" for long.

Personally, I remember thinking it was an attack by the Pro-life (Anti-choice). I had googled who was attacked in the Senate and it came back that they were all part of a Pro-choice (Anti-life) committee or initiative or something.

Your welcome, this is a serious issue that supporters of the status quo will attempt to suppress at the mere mention of the subject. Don't mind rembar and his junk science channel.. he's not an authority on science (even though he would like to think he is).

In reply to this comment by sorted:
thanks for upvote:

http://www.videosift.com/video/History-Channel-Admits-Anthrax-Attacks-are-an-Inside-Job

after 7 hours no response, silence is golden, heh.

so if you're in this field of research or have experience which you indicate,
can you share your opinion on this topic, what' yer take?
Who was sending out spores that killed some peeps terrorist stylee.
I myself am just a mere sheep-person with no research background and am
curious what an experienced learned person such as yerself makes of all this...

In reply to this comment by rembar:
>> ^sorted:
mmm 'k... knee jerk much, jst jking...


If by knee-jerk you mean I have years of personal experience with anthrax research, then yes, my knee is suddenly spasming and making me downvote bad videos in which people talk about subjects they know next to nothing about. Oh, wait, that's not my knee. It's my brain.