Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
How could so many people be so wrong about the anthrax attacks of 2001? This book explains how.\ Using published scientific data confirmed via one-on-one discussions with America's top anthrax experts, this book shows that simple laboratory mistakes made in the first days of the investigation were leaked to the media before they could be corrected and led to wild conspiracy theories which dominated discussion of the case for the next three years. Totally erroneous information has been...
Search in google:
How could so many people be so wrong about the anthrax attacks of 2001? This book explains how. Using published scientific data confirmed via one-on-one discussions with America's top anthrax experts, this book shows that simple laboratory mistakes made in the first days of the investigation were leaked to the media before they could be corrected and led to wild conspiracy theories which dominated discussion of the case for the next three years. Totally erroneous information has been accepted as "fact", and attempts to correct the errors have become accepted as attempts to cover up a conspiracy. The book shows example after example of how a careful examination of the available evidence totally disproves popular misconceptions about the case. Plus, errors by the CDC, the FBI, the New York Department of Health, and other govenment agencies have never been publicly corrected and continue to mislead people. The book provides a careful scientific analysis of the anthrax attacks of 2001. Details about the letters and envelopes are carefully examined. The nature of the anthrax and how it was handled are carefully studied. Bad information is traced to its source, and the effect of the errors are carefully documented step by step. The book lays out detail by detail, fact by fact, as it builds a description of events that is totally at odds with the way the case has been depicted in the media. Filled with fascinating details which often boggle the mind, the book is intended to make the reader reconsider all prior thinking about the case, thinking which has been dominated by rumor, speculation, innuendo and baseless conspiracy theories. 30 April 2005, page 53 - New Scientist magazine "Internet warriors like Lake are now important players in the public discourse. Who knows? This one may yet be right."
\ New Scientist magazine"Internet warriors like Lake are now important players in the public discourse. Who knows? This one may yet be right."\ —30 April 2005, page 53\ \
