Archive for March, 2010

Beware the Frumgarch my son

March 25, 2010

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy neocons
Did gyre and gimble in the Iraq;
All mimsy were the borrow-banks,
And the Frum rats outgrabe.

“Beware the Frumgarch, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub blog, and shun
The Frumious Bankersnatch!”

He took his theorem sword in hand:
Long time the neoxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the DumbFrum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Frumgarch, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the Ivy wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The theorem blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Frumgarch?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy neocons
Did tire and tumble in whole waves;
All flimsy were the borrow-banks,
And the Frum rats were spun.

==

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/immigration-vanishing-survival-theorem/

Advertisements

Much of Libertarian Alternative Right still wants extinction for whites

March 25, 2010

See the article at Vdare by W. James Antle to discuss how many on the Ron Paul alternative right are libertarians still embracing the death of the white race:

http://www.vdare.com/antle/100324_immigration.htm

March 24, 2010 “Turmoil Over War, Immigration Threatens The Alternative Right”
By W. James Antle III

Consequently, under Paul’s would-be successors things could get rather worse. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is talked about as a possible Paulite candidate in the 2012 primaries. His frugal record as governor and his constitutionalist platform today are remarkable. But his position on immigration is dreadful.

Johnson’s “OUR America Initiative” includes expanding legal immigration on its “Three Point Plan” for national prosperity. In 2000, Johnson gave an interview to Playboy in which he promiscuously uttered almost every immigration enthusiast canard:

Being for non-white immigration is being for canceling your own race, whites.  You can’t build any plans on destroying your own group.  Survival of your own group is a prerequisite to any plan.  This is why disloyalty to your own group has traditionally been punished severely.  When the leaders are disloyal and get away with it, the group loses its own land and country.  This is what is happening to whites.  There is no future at all in voting for disloyal leaders or supporting disloyal websites or magazines or institutions.

The Bush family builds its plan on the Bush family surviving, not on the white race surviving.  The same applies to the Republican Party.   The same applies to big corporations, the education system, the Wall Street banks, and big academia.   Try to avoid supporting them.  Make sure you get more out of them then they get out of you.  Don’t put your trust or dreams or future aspirations in these institutions.  Try to find small ones at a minimum.  Deal with a community bank, take your money out of big banks.  The small banks are FDIC insured as well.

Israel, Jerusalem, Neocons, Obama, Liberalism No White Survival

March 24, 2010

Obama has condemned Israel for building housing in East Jerusalem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030900497.html

“U.S. condemns Israel’s plans to build housing in east Jerusalem”

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janine_Zacharia

http://janinezacharia.com/index.html

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Janine+Zacharia&btnG=Google+Search

Janine Zacharia writing on Tom Lantos:

http://info.jpost.com/C001/Supplements/Shoah/hol_LantosList.html

Under Liberalism, the West has no right to exist.  It has no right to survive.  This is because Whites have no right to survive and thus exist under liberalism.  In particular, Whites have no right to survive as a white majority.

The Jewish people in the West have embraced that view.  They push it heavily.  This includes the neocons. The neocons took the side of Muslims after 9/11.  They support Muslim immigration.  The neocons condemned Virgil Goode when he said no Muslim immigration into America.   By doing that they explicitly said that Southern Whites, who they hate, have no right to exist in their own lands.   They said that about all Whites as well.

The Neocons enjoyed power.   Under Bush they could embrace positions against all their enemies, seemingly. They were against Southern Whites like Virgil Goode to exist. They were against Saddam.  They were against the Palestinians.   They were against Old Europe.  They were against Old America, the America of Southern Whites, of Harvard Whites, of Stanford Whites,  of San Francisco Whites,  of Berkeley Whites.

Liberal Jews have the same position as Neocons.  So Jews as a group have no legitimacy under Liberalism. The reductio ad liberalism is that Jews don’t have a right to exist.  So Israel doesn’t either.   Palestinians are the indigenous people under liberalism.   They are more non-white than Jews. So Obama is on their side.  Despite Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod.  Obama is against the Jews.  That is the fate of the Jews under liberalism.  Even with their own people running things behind the scenes, they still don’t have a right to exist under Liberalism.

By adopting the position that the White Race, White West, and Whites don’t have the right to exist, neocons and liberal Jews have ended up adopting the position that Jews and Israel have no right to exist.

The White Race and Jews are static.  They don’t have population growth.  Liberalism doesn’t acknowledge existence rights for static groups against growing groups.  Under Liberalism, groups don’t have rights.  So a static group has no right to exist under Liberalism, because the growth of population eliminates it and its only way to survive would be to separate from the growing groups.

But separation from growing groups is not allowed under Liberalism because it doesn’t acknowledge group rights as a core right.  Liberalism has rights only for Brownian motion of people.  Each person is an individual atom.  As the atoms engage in a random walk, Liberalism gives a separate group no right to exclude the random motion of others into their lands.  This means Liberalism acknowledges no right to a group to survive if the group is not growing.

Liberalism says group rights don’t exist, only individual rights exist.  Liberalism says that groups don’t exist in its extreme form.

Because individuals follow a random walk, without group rights of separation and to exclude, a growing group will engulf and eliminate a static group under Liberalism.  The growing group will exert a substitution effect pressure that eventually eliminates the static group and causes it to actually decay.

The math of the random walk of individuals combined with growing groups combined with no right to exclude on group basis means that growing groups automatically eliminate non-growing ones.  The latter can not even maintain themselves on a static basis because of the substitution effect of Brownian motion of people, i.e. of the random walk of individuals from the growing group.

Liberals then actively feed the population growth of the third world.  This includes giving them food, money, medicine, and the first right to education in the West.   They give our know-how to China in our schools and from our companies.  They do it even in our government laboratories, even weapon labs.  This is because the Brownian motion of people can’t be excluded under Liberalism.   Therefore even our weapon labs embrace Diversity.

Previously, the front screen of Los Alamos National Lab was of Asians and the message was Diversity.  That isn’t there as of this writing.  But it is their basic logic of Liberalism.  Its the logic of Major Hasan and the FBI failure to act.  Its the logic of hating Virgil Goode.

Its the logic of the FBI at Ruby Ridge.  They shot the White Separatists.   Under the random walk of non-whites, only separation would let whites exist and survive.  So the FBI shot the White Separatists.  They hired a Japanese gunman to do it.  Then they sent him to Waco. Then they protected him and covered it up. The FBI then promoted its managers and put one of them in charge of the anthrax investigation.  He decided a lone white guy did it.  They tried Hatfill and then went to Ivins.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/white-zeroist/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/immigration-fertility/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

ttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Under Liberalism including neocons and Liberal Jews, this is the fate of the White Race, the West, Israel and the Jews.  They spend their time and treasure promoting this.  They make Diversity the mission of every institution even weapons labs.  The result is their own destruction.   Obama is simply delivering this message to the Jews, that their own message of Liberalism is their own self indulgent self destruction.

In that sense, Obama is almost like a prophet from the Old Testament, but an anti-prophet telling the Jewish people they have no right to exist in Liberalism’s Sight, i.e. in the Sight of the Liberal God.  By making Liberalism their God, Jews have embraced their own self-destruction.

There is no way to salvation for Jews as a group under Liberalism.  Because they support excess population growth for non-whites, under liberalism they have no right to exclude non-whites as a group.  Thus the substitution effect of the random walk of non-whites which can’t be stopped results in the genetic replacement of Jews by non-whites.  That is the math of liberalism given its logic.

The random walk of non-white population (as individuals under Liberalism) which can’t be excluded under liberalism implies the extinction of whites and other non-growing groups.  The growth of non-whites in turn comes from the pouring in of money and resources from the Liberal West.  Thus it forms a circle of its own self-destruction under Liberalism.  Only by adopting the right of separation and exclusion from non-whites can the West survive.   Only the same right would let Jews and Israel survive as well.

==

Netanyahu speech to AIPAC

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/middleeast/23diplo.html

http://bigthink.com/ideas/19215

Obama Holder DOJ meets with group advocating requiring AIPAC to register as a foreign agent of Israel.

==

Currently “Old Atlantic Lighthouse” at WordPress has been removed from Google.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=azg&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=%22Old+Atlantic+Lighthouse%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

It is on Bing. com and Yahoo.com.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=f1g&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=+immigration+site%3Aoldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Hypothesis: Brownian Motion can strip artifical anthrax coating

March 19, 2010

Hypothesis: Brownian Motion can strip artifical anthrax coating

The following is a hypothesis to try to explain how anthrax spores with an artificial coating at the time of the anthrax mailings in 2001 may have lost their outer coating.

Coated individual spores have low drag and low mass compared to clumped uncoated spores that have high drag and high mass.  The lower drag of artificially coated spores results in a higher diffusion coefficient for Brownian motion for these artificially coated spores.

Coated individual spores will thus have a higher mean for the velocity distribution from Brownian motion and a higher standard deviation of velocity.  Thus individual coated spores will experience a tail of much higher kinetic energy and momentum than uncoated spores especially if the latter are clumped.

The higher velocity distribution from Brownian motion and whatever else is impinging the spores will over time subject the outer coating of treated spores to experience collisions of much higher kinetic energy as well as spread out over a wider range of energy.

The binding of the outer coating to the spore itself and to silicon and whatever else is inside the spore will thus be subject to a greater stress including those that may find any particular resonances or weaknesses.  This need only find and enlarge holes and cracks
in the outer artificial coating, which was likely never a perfect geometric form in the first place.

Nature did not evolve to preserve such artificial coatings for a long period.  The natural spores themselves experience a low velocity distribution from Brownian motion and
they have evolved to endure this.  But the artificial coating has not evolved from anything and does not inherently need to be stable under the effect of Brownian motion.

Its quite reasonable to believe that the effect of the higher velocity distribution of the artifically coated spores will eventually widen holes and cracks through collisions of coated spores at high velocity in head on collisions until the artificial coating is gone and the spores acquire a low velocity distribution as natural spores have.  Thus over time the artifically coated spores lose the artificial coating.  Silicon is left inside the spores because once the outer coating is stripped, the spores have high drag and can clump so that their velocity distribution falls to that of normal spores. In fact, the additional internal mass simply helps to lower the velocity distribution thus adding to the stability of the spore.

Artificially coated spores with a high mean and standard deviation of velocity together with natural spores with low mean and low standard deviation of velocity from Brownian motion are not a stable equilibrium.  Over time the artificially coated spores transition
to uncoated natural spores.

Irradiation of spores will combine with the effect of Brownian motion as well as the treatment by TEM to subject artificially coated individual spores to a wide range of velocities and interaction energies. Subjecting artificially coated spores that have experienced months or years of the effects of Brownian motion to irradiation and TEM will tend to cover an even wider range of energy impacts and finish off the possibly tenuous remaining binding of the artificial coating to the spore and whatever is inside the spore.  Collisions of coated spores from Brownian motion then have an enhanced ability
to finish the job of stripping the artificial outer coating.  What is left is natural spores on the outside with whatever they contain of silicon and other elements on the inside.

References

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=95744

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=irradiated+anthrax+Michael+Sandia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1dc62da33e2ff469

Irradiation of the spores before analysis by Sandia:

http://www.sandia.gov/mission/homeland/factsheets/Anthrax_Factsheet_Sep9_08.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_effect

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/mail_irrad.html


How does irradiation kill anthrax?
Irradiation kills anthrax by shattering its DNA and other cellular components. The process for irradiating mail is the same process used to sterilize medical equipment.

During irradiation, an intense stream of electrons (or x-rays if x-ray technology is used) strikes the mail and any anthrax spores it may contain. The radiation dose is very high, about 56 kilograys of radiation, which is approximately 2 million times more than a chest x-ray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy


The photons which make up visible light have energies of 270–520 yJ, equivalent to 160–310 kJ/mol, the strength of weaker chemical bonds.

http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/33/L697/

http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2009/01/critique-of-chemical-signature.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobic_silica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumed_silica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29

Brownian motion

In the micron range of particles there is Brownian motion.  Spores are 1 to 3 microns in length and one micron in width.  The original observations of Brown were themselves from living things c. 1820 and his equipment was obviously much weaker and so he likely couldn’t see individual spores of bacillus but instead larger objects, or in any case not smaller.
D = k_B T/b

b linear drag coefficient


In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance or fluid resistance) refers to forces that oppose the relative motion of an object through a fluid (a liquid or gas).

sqrt(2Dt) = sigma

(Its really the velocity distribution we are interested in, not position.)
The silicon coating decreases the drag b.  Thus it increases D and thus increases sigma. So what happens is that the spores coated with silicon have a high velocity from the brownian motion collisions.  This means they are having collisions at high velocity until the coating is knocked off.  what is left is under the spore coat.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/36075

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Update-History2005.html

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_iraq_alibek033103.htm


Ken Alibek: Of course they are WMD. The shelf life of these nerve gasses and chemical weapons. These are chemical weapons and they are WMD. The shelf life would be years.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8W-40S0D9D-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F08%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1258163189&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5d4a6f0158bcce0a37e92fbd299a2b5d

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=95744

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_length

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picometer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_binding_energy

Search silicon oxide “binding energy” eV

weaponized anthrax “shelf life”

bacillus spore coat exosporium

irradiated anthrax Michael Sandia

silicone polymer structure

silicon coating anthrax “Brownian Motion”

irradiation anthrax

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=spore%20coat%20composition&aql=&gs_rfai=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydimethylsiloxane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endospore

http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/33/L697/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumed_silica

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/hunting-the-anthrax-killer-national-geographic-channel-sunday-july-26-900pm/

Recent silicon coating discussion in comments at Meryl Nass

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6592607595936297457&postID=5493194118103137822&isPopup=true

and at Case Closed

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/capture-of-mustafa-hawsawi-and-laptop-with-anthrax-spray-drying-documents/

The outer artificial coating need only be good enough to last a limited period in this instance.  It can have holes and cracks in itself.  It can be loosely bound to the spore or to silicon inside the spore.  Its only enough for the Brownian Motion to produce a velocity distribution that can find and widen the cracks and holes and loose binding to the spore and inside silicon.

The artificial coating gives the treated spore a low drag and thus high mean and standard deviation of velocity from Brownian motion and the randomization of its velocity.  Head on collisions of artificially coated molecules at the upper end of the velocity distribution need only break, crack or widen the holes and cracks and loose binding to the spore and inner silicon to break off the outer artificial coating.

The remaining natural coated spore then retains inside it the artificial silicon but now has a high drag and thus low velocity mean and low velocity standard deviation.  It is thus within the range of velocity distributions from Brownian motion that spores have evolved to survive.

It is unstable to have two different velocity distributions of spores, one artificially coated and one natural.  Over time the high velocity distribution of artificially coated spores will strip the artificial coating by finding its weak points and concentrating the energy of two spores on the cracks and weak links and holes until the artificial coating is striped off and the natural spore with excess silicon inside is left.

This Brownian motion hypothesis thus reconciles initial observations of highly energetic spores in the lab and later observations of no artificial outer coating but silicon left inside.  Brownian motion in the velocity distribution of low drag high velocity artificially coated spores plus time leads to the striping of the artificial coating but leaving silicon inside the spore.   This links the initial lab observations under microscopes of energetic spores and the Senate office buildings being closed and the later observations of no artificial coating of the spores and high silicon inside them.

==Short summary comment left at Meryl Nass blog

The link below considers a lengthy hypothesis to explain how Brownian motion could have striped off an artificial coating of the anthrax spores leaving silicon inside them.

In a nutshell, an artificial coating would produce a low drag coefficient on the coated spore.  This would lead to a high diffusion coefficient and a high mean and standard deviation of velocity of the artificially coated spores by a random walk diffusion process in the velocity of the spores.

Some artificially coated spores would have higher velocities from the combined effect of high mean and standard deviation in velocity.  When they collided head on, they would widen cracks and holes.  The original outer coating may have had its own flaws plus only weakly been bound to the spore or to silicon inside the spore coat.  Over time, the collisions would weaken the bonds.

When the artificial coating is stripped, the drag coefficient goes up and the spore acts like a normal spore with low velocity mean and standard deviation from Brownian motion.  These spores are then stable. But silicon and other elements inside them are trapped and stay in them.

This hypothesis and mechanism reconciles the initial lab observations of high velocity spores with the later observation of silicon inside the spores but no artificial coating outside them.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/hypothesis-brownian-motion-can-strip-artifical-anthrax-coating/

Also at

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/capture-of-mustafa-hawsawi-and-laptop-with-anthrax-spray-drying-documents/#comment-4656

==

Two distributions of spore velocity in the same sample are not stable as a general principle of both quantum mechanics and random processes.  The artificially coated spores can transition to low velocity spores by losing the artificial coating.

This is a one way transition.  Thus over time, we expect to see the artificial coating that causes a high velocity distribution to be lost leaving normal spores but still retaining their extra silicon inside.

The high velocity distribution is created by the artificial coating having a low drag coefficient and thus a high diffusion coefficient and thus a high mean of velocity and a high standard deviation of velocity.   Over time this high velocity, high energy distribution will decay to the normal low velocity mean and standard deviation by the loss of the artificial coat.  The extra internal silicon is then left over as observed.

==

In October 2001, the initial lab observations were of high velocity spores, unlike what the observers had seen before of other spores. This is direct evidence of the high velocity distribution from Brownian motion in the spores in October 2001.   The high velocity of the spores they saw in the test tube and plates in October 2001 could only come from Brownian motion.  It shows the drag coefficient was very low, so the velocity distribution of the spores was high.

==

The exosporium of the spore, the very outside, is not firm and rigid. There is no firm structure to tie onto to resist the high velocity collisions.  Potholes and cracks will develop and widen until the artificial covering is stripped off.

The spore will expand when it becomes a vegetative cell.  We know that this happened, since people died from the anthrax.  This shows the spore was able to break any artificial covering that was around it.  This shows, if there was an artificial covering, it was not a rigid structure encasing the spores in unbreakable bonds.  Instead it shows the typical forces of spore expansion were sufficient to break the artificial covering.

Any artificial covering designed to weaponize has to be a weak one so that the spore can expand and break it and become a vegetative cell.  Thus an artificial covering to reduce the drag coefficient on the outside will be loosely bound to the exosporium and will not be a rigid covering that can’t be broken by the forces the spore can exert by growing.

==

They saw high velocity spore motion in the test tube and on plates in October 2001.  This is direct observation of the high velocity distribution of Brownian motion.   In a sense, the high velocity distribution of the spores observed directly in October 2001 by examination under the microscope is sufficient itself to demonstrate or show a physically different state of the Senate spores from normal spores.  This difference is in having a low drag coefficient and high velocity distribution.  The low drag coefficient implies dispersal.  The high velocity distribution observed directly was the direct observation of dispersal.

This high velocity distribution of spores observed directly under the microscope is in effect a direct observation of a low drag coefficient of the spores.  Thus it shows their dispersal tendency was higher.  This is most easily explained by an artificial covering.  But such an artificial covering has nothing on the exosporium to grab onto with unbreakable bonds.  Instead it will have a loose connection to the spore and possibly to silicon below the exosporium in the spore coat.

==Dxer Comment at Case Closed

DXer said

March 20, 2010 at 9:27 am

No.

I recommend you read the excellent MICROBIAL FORENSICS, Bruce Budowie editor, available for free through your public library’s interlibrary loan.

==Reply to Dxer at Case Closed

The high velocity of the Senate spores were observed directly under the microscope in October and November 2001.  The spores flew off the plate they said.

They have seen normal spores under the microscope.  So the observation of high velocity spores was a scientifically valid observation.

The spores under the microscope were showing a velocity distribution in all directions not one direction.  That is what Brownian motion is, a random walk in all directions.

“Einstein predicted that Brownian motion of a particle in a fluid at a thermodynamic temperature T  is characterized by a diffusion coefficient  D = kBT / b, where kB is Boltzmann’s constant  and b is the linear drag coefficient on the particle ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

In Einstein’s 1905 article he looked at displacement directly.  So he did not have a random walk on the velocity.  That came later in the work of Ornstein and Uhlenbeck.

So in October 2001, the scientists saw a high velocity distribution of the spores.  This was not in one direction so it was not some em field in the lab.  Instead it showed that the drag coefficient of the spores was low.  The math is more complicated than the formula above, but essentially, the velocity distribution has a higher mean and standard deviation from the lower drag coefficient.  This is what they observed directly in October 2001.

The higher velocity distribution shows a lower drag coefficient.  That is either the embedded silicon alone or more likely a coating on the outside.  Such an artificial coating would thus mean that coated spores would have high velocity and uncoated ones low velocity.  This is not an equilibrium.  So over time the coating gets knocked off, leaving the silicon in the spore coat trapped.

The outer coating would not have much to hold onto in the spore.  The exposporium of the spore is not a rigid structure suitable for resisting repeated bombardments from high velocity collisions.  Binding to the silicon inside would be tenuous since it was removed spatially from the outside.  Moreover, any artificial covering had to be designed to break when the spore grew back into a vegetative cell which involves expansion.  We know that happened, since people died from the anthrax.

Thus the Brownian motion in velocity mechanism reconciles the direct observation of the high velocity distribution of the spores in October 2001 and the latter observation of no spore coat but silicon still trapped inside the spore coat below the exosporium.

==

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=12&ved=0CAoQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physik.uni-rostock.de%2Fmahnke%2Flehre%2Fss07%2Fandris_ornst-ulenb-pr.odp&rct=j&q=Ornstein+Uhlenbeck+1930&ei=WbakS8LpCYX7lwe8gP1y&usg=AFQjCNFR6eQsPw9PZeW63G_JqhVGJd20Lw

This is a mathematical discussion of the Ornstein Uhlenbeck approach.  It shows that the variance of the velocity distribution is inversely related to the frictional drag coefficient and proportional to the variance of the instantaneous Brownian motion and a damping factor from the mean reversion implied by the frictional drag effect.  See around slide 10 and 11 for the final formula.  See slides 3 and 4 for the set up in terms of a drag coefficient.  Low drag coefficient means a low tendency of the velocity to go back to its target, in this setup zero.  A high drag coefficient means a rapid tendency for the velocity to fall.

Coating the outside of the spore to aid dispersion means in effect coating it to lower the drag coefficient.  Its the mathematical definition relative to the formulas of a random walk in the velocity of the Ornstein Uhlenbeck type.

The high velocity of the spores from Senate anthrax was observed directly in the lab under the microscope in 2001.  So this is a direct observation of a low drag coefficient through the OU type formulas as exhibited in the above link.

==

In the formula discussion the velocity is a signed quantity.  So positive velocity along the x axis means moving to higher x values.  Here the mean of the velocity is zero since there is no preference for right over left, or up v down.

If we define speed as the absolute value of velocity, then the speed will not have a mean of zero.  As the variance of the velocity distribution increases, the mean of the speed increases as well.  Thus a low drag coefficient means the mean and variance of the speed both go up.  This means the mean and variance of the speed of the spore are higher the lower the drag coefficient.

So an artificial coating increases the mean and variance of the speed of the spores.  This shows up under the slide as the effect that the spores seem to be moving fast even if its in different directions.  The higher variance of velocity from the lower drag coefficient thus ends up increasing the collision kinetic energy between coated spores, which are sometimes head on, i.e. they have opposite direction of velocity.

Over time these collisions find the weaknesses, joins, holes, cracks, and loose bonds of the outer coating to the spore.  Thus the outer coating becomes full of pot holes and cracks until it breaks off.

In equilibrium, the outer coating will be gone from the spores and all the spores will have high drag coefficient and be in the same distribution of low speed, i.e. low variance of velocity around a mean velocity of zero. This is exactly what the formulas linked to show.

==

Search Ornstein Uhlenbeck velocity distribution.  Or Brownian motion velocity distribution.

Some derivations from a more elementary starting point are given here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/6E812E2D-BDB4-4AC9-9E91-E57D7DB64056/0/lec14.pdf

Note the orientation is to diffusion on the displacement.  The original OU paper did a velocity distribution and that is gone through at the link cited above.

==Further comment at Meryl Nass in rebuttal to the No of Dxer.

The formulas for the velocity distribution of a spore under from random collisions in a media of smaller particles is given here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=12&ved=0CAoQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physik.uni-rostock.de%2Fmahnke%2Flehre%2Fss07%2Fandris_ornst-ulenb-pr.odp&rct=j&q=Ornstein+Uhlenbeck+1930&ei=WbakS8LpCYX7lwe8gP1y&usg=AFQjCNFR6eQsPw9PZeW63G_JqhVGJd20Lw

I apologize for the unsightly link, but its the best I could find.

The formulas show that the variance of the velocity is inverse proportional to the drag coefficient.  The drag coefficient just means the tendency of the velocity to revert back to zero from friction.

F = – gamma m v

where m is the mass of the spore, gamma is the drag coefficient, and v is the velocity.  There is an additional random forcing term from random collisions with molecules.

When gamma is low, the drag is low, i.e. friction is low.  In this case, the variance of signed velocity is high.  In that case, we get some very high velocities compared to a spore which has a high drag coefficient gamma.

In October 2001, the labs directly observed high velocity movements of the spores under the microscope.  The spores flew off the slides.  This was observing the Brownian motion of the spores.  The original observations by Brown were on pollen.  Brown was a botanist.

The high velocity of the spores in October 2001 under the microscope was not due to em fields since it had no particular direction.  It could only be from Brownian motion.  Which means they directly observed the velocity distribution as high compared to normal spores they were familiar with.  This was equivalent to directly observing the drag coefficient as low.

Unless silicon in the coat causes this, there was an outer coating. In either case, the spores had a high velocity distribution from Brownian motion.  That is just fancy math talk for saying they dispersed.  The math of dispersion is the formulas of the velocity distribution under Brownian motion at the above link.

Since coated spores have a higher velocity then uncoated, over time, coated spores will suffer higher velocity collisions.  This will widen cracks and holes just like pot holes in a road.  Eventually, the coating is knocked off leaving the silicon inside the coat still there.  The uncoated particles have a high drag coefficient like normal spores and thus a low velocity distribution.

==Further reply to a comment by Dxer at Case Closed

High velocity follows from low drag coefficient. That is the formula.  We know the spores have velocity as seen under the microscope in October 2001 from Brownian motion because it was in all directions at once.

They observed a high velocity compared to normal spores.  That shows a low drag coefficient through the formula of Ornstein and Uhlenbeck for the variance of velocity in terms of the drag coefficient.  They are inverse.

Thus the drag coefficient was low for Senate anthrax compared to normal anthrax spores they had seen before under the microscope.  This was observed.

The drag coefficient being low means low friction.  A means for the drag coefficient to be low is an outer coating that doesn’t stick to whatever is around.  Thus the high velocity of the spores observed under the microscope compared to normal spores is evidence of an outer coating that reduced the drag coefficient.

The outer coating may or may not have been silicon although it seems likely.  The outer coating had to bind to something on the spore.  That could include the exosporium and the silicon in the coat.

Brownian motion of spores and the 1930 formula of Ornstein Uhlenbeck for the velocity distribution of spores in terms of a friction drag coefficient is  a basic part of spore science.  The energetic motion of the spores they saw under the microscope was Brownian motion exhibiting the OU formula for the velocity distribution.  Einstein won the Nobel for his simpler formula of Brownian motion.  Uhlenbeck won for his work with spin.

Having coated spores with a high velocity distribution from a low drag coefficient alongside spores that are uncoated with low velocity from a high drag coefficient will then be subject to the forces discussed which will tend to strip away the outside coating until there is equilibrium and all spores have high drag coefficient and low velocity distribution.

==

In October-November 2001 they saw under the microscope high velocity spores compared to normal spores.  The velocity came from Brownian motion in the Ornstein Uhlenbeck mode of analysis.  Thus they observed a low drag coefficient of the spores in October 2001.  Thus they observed something causing that low drag coefficient.  That would seem to imply a coating that lowered the drag coefficient.  So they observed a coating in October November 2001 appears to be what they observed from the high velocity.

==

The Ornstein Uhlenbeck velocity variance formula equates a high velocity to a low drag coefficient.  A low drag coefficient appears to best equate to a coating that lowers the drag coefficient.  Thus high velocity is equated to a coating.  Thus by observing the high velocity in October November 2001 under the microscope they observed a coating through the Ornstein Uhlenbeck math of Brownian motion.

The Sandia observations were also based on using formulas and indirect effects.  Thus Sandia observed no coating from its indirect analysis that came later and the microscopic examination of high velocity Brownian motion observed a coating in October November 2001.  The reconciliation is that the high velocity Brownian motion will eventually strip away the coating so that the spores are back to low velocity uncoated spores.  That is what Sandia saw.  So both sets of observations of the coating were indirect through math formulas.  They are reconciled through the high velocity Brownian motion itself stripping the coating over time to achieve equilibrium with low velocity uncoated spores.

Sean Gabb on Labour Tyranny towards BNP

March 15, 2010

Sean Gabb writes a column at Vdare on what is being done to the BNP in England.  The BNP is being forced to admit non-indigenous members as well as those opposed to the BNP itself as members.

http://www.vdare.com/gabb/100314_british.htm

Bruce Ivins Anthrax Vaccine Patent 6387665 shows couldn’t do it as FBI says

March 7, 2010

The FBI DOJ claim that Ivins produced the first batch of anthrax the weekend from Friday Sep 14 in the evening to Sunday evening Friday Sep 16 2001.  Ivins was in the lab 2 hours 15 minutes each night. Dxer at Case Closed Blog has found FBI 302’s that indicate this is the time it would take to check animals if Ivins was doing that work that weekend.  The second time period is from Friday Sep 28 2001 to Friday October 5 2001.  This period is when the FBI DOJ claim Ivins prepared the Senate anthrax letters in his lab at Ft. Detrick.  The following information shows that this would not be possible.  It would take 5 days using the single fermentor and that would produce too little anthrax.  The 5 days would require running during the week when others were present.  It would be a continuous 5 day run, not just at night for 5 days.  The following are Ivins own experiments using that fermentor reported in Ivins own patent application dated from 2000 before the 2001 time period.

Bruce Ivins et al applied for a patent in 2000 which was granted in 2002. This patent describes in detail the actual growing of anthrax by Bruce Ivins using the New Brunswick Bio-Flo 3000 that the FBI 302 report indicated was the fermentor at Ft. Detrick. The patent also describes use of the speed-vac. The patent gives a table with the yield in mg of protective antigen (PA) (not anthracis) using the 5 Liter fermentor after growth of several days.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6387665.html

“Fermentation conditions: The fermentations described here were carried out using a New Brunswick Bio-Flo 3000 equipped with a 5.0 liter working volume glass vessel and stainless steel headplate and hemispherical bottom cooling dish.”

“EXAMPLE 1

B. Anthracis ΔSterne-1(pPA102)CR4 was compared with its parent spore-forming strain B. anthracis ΔSterne-1(pPA102). Both organisms were plated onto sheep blood agar (a preferred medium for promoting bacterial spore production) and grown at 37° C. for 1 day, after which the temperature was lowered to 25° C. for 4 days. The two strains were also grown in liquid Leighton-Doi medium, which is designed to promote spore production, for 1 day at 37° C. followed by 4 days growth at 25° C. Growth from both agar and broth cultures were examined under phase contrast microscopy for the presence of spores. Growth from all four cultures were then resuspended in phosphate buffered saline to a concentration of about 10 9 colony-forming units (CFU) per ml. All four cultures were then heat shocked at 64° C. for 60 minutes to kill vegetative cells. Aliquots of 0.1 ml of the heat shocked material was then plated out onto sheep blood agar and incubated at 37° C. for 2 days. ”

“EXAMPLE 2

B. anthracis ΔSterne-1(pPA102)CR4 was grown in an FA medium fermentor culture. No spores were seen upon phase contract microscopic examination. Only medium-length and long chains of bacilli were seen. Dilution plate counts on the culture determined that the culture contained 1.86×10 9 CFU per ml. Three ml of culture was heat shocked at 60° C. for 60 minutes, then 0.2 ml was plated onto each of 5 plates of Tryptic soy agar. After incubation for 2 days at 37° C., no colonies were seen on the agar plates, indicating that spore production in the fermentor was less than 1 per 1.86×10 9 CFU. On two other fermentation runs with this strain, similar results were obtained. No revertants to the parent spore-forming phenotype were observed.

The above process using an FA medium fermentor culture was repeated using the parent strain B. anthracis ΔSterne-1(pPA102). Growth on the tryptic soy agar after heat shock resulted in a total of 1000 total colonies, indicating that the parent strain B . anthracis ΔSterne-1(pPA102) had about 1000 spores per ml in the FA medium, or 1 spore per 106 CFU in the non-heat shocked medium. ”

“TABLE 1
Summary of Aerobic ΔSterne-1(pPA102)CR4 Fermentations
Final
Final Final Yield Doubling
Conc. Yield (mg Specific Time
Fermentation (μg PA83/ (mg PA83/g Growth T D
Conditions ml PA83) DCW) Rate (min)
Aerobic, Batch 51 235 8.10 0.0132 min −1 53
Aerobic, Batch 64 301 10.7 0.0136 min −1 51
Aerobic, Batch 45 225 7.40 0.0136 min −1 51
pH constant
Aerobic, 68 360 ND 0.0116 min −1 60
Fed-Batch
(non-
continuous)
DCW = dry cell weight ”

The final protective antigen (PA)  yields ranged from 235mg to 360 mg. This was based on using the actual fermentor at Ft. Detrick in growth runs of 5 days as indicated in detail in the Example 1 quote.

You can search at the above link.

“For each O.D.600 determination, two appropriate dilutions were made and results were considered acceptable only when both dilutions yielded a linear response. DCWs were determined starting with a 2 hr point by centrifuging 10 mls of fermentation liquor at 11,953×g for 10 min, resuspending the cell pellet in 10 mls of sterile PBS and pelleting the cells again under the same conditions. The cell pellet was resuspended in a minimal volume of PBS and transferred quantitatively to a preweighted Eppendorf centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 5 min. Excess PBS was removed and the cell pellet was dried in a speed-vac for 72 hrs under vacuum and a medium heat setting. A final analysis of the dry weight versus O.D. 600nm revealed that the relationship between the two parameters was adequately fit with a linear function. ”

The speed vac appears to be have been used for a small sample. This appears to be on a mLs sample, ie 10 milli liters.

This appears to settle it. Ivins could not produce the anthrax at Ft. Detrick using even the fermentor and the speed-vac. It would take 5 days.  (  The Senate anthrax contained 871mg per letter at least.  The yield of antigen is below this, but of anthrax spores might be higher than this amount.  Is it dried antigen?  A spore weighs less than a living cell so there is some offset depending on the weight of antigen in a living cell compared to how it was measured or estimated.)

The speed vac was used on a small sample of 10 milliliters. This is too small just as Ms. Ulrich indicated.

This patent was applied for in 2000. Ivins knew from this data that it would be impossible for him to produce the anthrax at his lab and convert it into high quality powder in the amounts in the Senate letters. The speed-vac could not process this volume. Ivins knew that. He is the principal person on the patent and is listed first out of alphabetical order. The patent also cites Ivins own papers.


Inventors:
Ivins, Bruce (Frederick, MD)
Worsham, Patricia (Jefferson, MD)
Friedlander, Arthur M. (Gaithersburg, MD)
Farchaus, Joseph W. (Frederick, MD)
Welkos, Susan L. (Frederick, MD) ”


Filing Date:
03/07/2000

“Method of making a vaccine for anthrax
United States Patent 6387665″

Search Detrick “bioflo 3000″

“Results 1 – 10 of about 56 for Detrick “bioflo 3000″. ”

This is further confirmation the New Brunswick 5-L Bioflo 3000 fermentor is the relevant fermentor at Ft. Detrick.

Search Bioflo 3000 Ivins

” Results 1 – 10 of about 20 for Bioflo 3000 Ivins.”

Mostly the patent but it appears another Ivins paper or two at least in the results.

This patent was previously discussed at Case Closed after Dxer posted an extract from it.

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/nas-panel-meeting-92409-%E2%80%93-limited-information-available-since-the-nas-did-not-webcast-the-session-and-so-far-has-not-made-available-any-recording-of-the-session-or-powerpoints-of-the-pres/

The FBI 302 page 1 discusses the 5 Liter Bioflo 3000 as being at Ft. Detrick and then discusses a transfer to KBI.

http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847425.PDF

This is presumably the fermentor that was said by some to have been inoperative in fall 2001.

FBI misspells the name of the fermentor in the 302 report.

New Brunswick Scientific BioFlo III fermentor is correct name. Can search on Internet for it and find used models.

http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847425.PDF

See page 1 of 51 page pdf. FBI spells it:

“5 L Bio Flow III fermentor.”

Comment posted at

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/anonymous-scientist-summarizes-the-fbis-case-against-dr-bruce-ivins-if-it-wasnt-so-serious-it-would-be-laughable/#comment-4355

==

You can see photos of the results of centrifugation by searching centrifuge pellet in Google and also in image search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugation

“Centrifugation is a process that involves the use of the centrifugal force for the separation of mixtures, used in industry and in laboratory settings. More-dense components of the mixture migrate away from the axis of the centrifuge, while less-dense components of the mixture migrate towards the axis. Chemists and biologists may increase the effective gravitational force on a test tube so as to more rapidly and completely cause the precipitate (“pellet”) to gather on the bottom of the tube. The remaining solution is properly called the “supernate” or “supernatant liquid”. The supernatant liquid is then either quickly decanted from the tube without disturbing the precipitate, or withdrawn with a Pasteur pipette.”

You don’t end up with Senate letter quality dry non-clumping powder by just centrifuging. The pellet is still wet. Will dumping the pellet onto a plate and letting it air dry for 2 hours turn it into Senate letter quality powder?

Assuming the answer is no, is that why lyophilizers are used? But the lyophilizer was not available to Ivins and it would have required decontamination that would have been known to the lab. The FBI did not release any documents on the lyophilizer at Ft. Detrick? Nor mention it in the summary report that I recall. Nor documents on the speed vac such its size and capacity?

From page 19 of summary pdf

“Second, the evidence demonstrated that the perpetrator was familiar with key items of laboratory equipment used in microbiology research. All of the Ames anthrax existing in the 15
U.S. labs prior to the attacks was in liquid slurry form or on vegetative cell slants, rather than in powder form. Consequently, it was not possible for the perpetrator to merely steal an existing quantity of Ames spore powder “off the shelf,” because none was known to exist in the holdings of any laboratory. Even if the perpetrator stole a quantity of liquid Ames anthrax slurry, it would still have been necessary to dry the anthrax in order to produce a product like the one recovered from the envelopes. This drying procedure would have required either the type of laboratory equipment, such as a lyophilizer or speed-vac system, that was present in each of the 15 labs, or considerable time and space to air-dry. Alternatively, if the perpetrator stole only vegetative cells or a small quantity of spores to use as seed stock, not only would the perpetrator have to dry the anthrax, he would also have to subject the anthrax to two separate culturing and washing operations using an incubator and centrifuge.”

Footnote 17 on page 35 of summary

“Numerous microbiologists have concurred that two hours and 15 minutes would be enough time to dry Ba spores, depending on factors such as the quantity of starting material, the volume of liquid in which it was suspended, and whether a centrifuge was used to eliminate most of the water, leaving behind a pellet, or paste, capable of being dried in well under two hours.”

These two quotations from the summary don’t seem fully consistent on the feasibility of centrifuging and air drying in 2 hours the quantities involved in the mailings.

If you air dry the paste, you spread it out with your fingers? It doesn’t clump when it dries when you do this?

If you can air dry 2 grams of powdered anthrax in 2 hours to get Senate letter quality, why do they use lyophilizers overnight?

Results 1 – 100 of about 22,500 for “lyophilized overnight”.

Meaning air dry the paste after centrifuging.

“leaving behind a pellet, or paste, capable of being dried in well under two hours.”

Does that mean air dried or does that mean dried with a speed vac or dried with a lyophilizer in 2 hours? Can you dry 2 grams of anthrax powder in 2 hours with a lyophilizer? Or is that overnight? Or more?
What about with the speed vac at Ft. Detrick?

Are there logs and sign outs for these devices? Have they been released for this time period?

“She said it would take about an hour to dry one milliliter of wet anthrax spores in one vial in a SpeedVac. It would have been impossible for Ivins to have dried more than a liter, which would have been required for the amount of anthrax sent in the letters, in the time frame they were mailed, Ulrich said. ”


Ulrich was a principal investigator in the diagnostic systems division at USAMRIID.

http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=200518&format=html


She said Ivins was upset the FBI was watching him, but handled it as well as he could. “I’ve never even seen him angry,” Ulrich said.

“Ulrich said she worked with Ivins at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Md., for about six years. The person she knew doesn’t match the troubled past Ivins is alleged to have had, she said. ”

Results 1 – 10 of about 19,100 for speedvac bacillus mL.

mL 1 milliliters = 0.0338140227 US fluid ounces

Results 1 – 10 of about 3,950 for speedvac bacillus uL.

uL is microLiter or 1/1000 of a mL.

These are typical experimental sizes for bacillus using a speedvac.

==

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/new-york-times-fbis-anthrax-case-against-dr-ivins-is-not-convincing-independent-assessment-is-needed/

http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847425.PDF

page 44 interview of Ivins.

“RMR-1029, which is a large preparation of Bacillus anthracis Ames spoers compiled from multiple productions grown in both, shaker flasks at USAMRIID and fermentors at Dugway Proving Ground.”

So the Ba at USAMRIID was grown in the shakers which from a prior page in this same document, page 26, were at different places and only one shaker in any one place. These were hard to find space in according to the interview on page 26. Thus the type of run to produce 22 liters of anthrax used to help make RMR-1029 would be difficult to do. It would require many days on one shaker, if there is one in BSL-3. Ivins could not simply have put 11 flasks large enough to hold 2 liters of liquid and simply let them run together.

Ivins estimated 20 liters to make 2 grams of anthrax. The two Senate letters were at least 2 *.871 grams if no allowance for wastage is made. So given the set up at USAMRIID, Ivins time of 2.15 hours a night in BSL-3 would not give him the ability to have the shaker space and time needed for the runs for either weekend.

The FBI should have asked these questions and more. Instead, when an interviewee raises these points, the FBI agent notes them down but doesn’t follow up with questions related to them.

It appears the FBI agents think its someone else’s responsibility to figure out how it was done, not theirs individually or collectively. This appears to be part of an attitude of its not their job to think about the technical stuff.

When its not the FBI’s job to think about the technical stuff, then they are reduced to the gossip. When this is not enough, they try to lean on the person to get them to break. This pattern was repeated with Hatfill and then Ivins.

The FBI did not start out in 2001 with the question of how was this produced? Dxer mentions no 302’s from 2002. Is that because they asked the questions then and were told it required days and weeks with a good lab?

http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847425.PDF

Page 42.

“Blank recalls Ba samples being kept in the walk-in freezer for very short periods of time surrounding experiments. However these samples were usually already diluted for aerosolization. Blank believes that all glass impingers containing Ba may have been stored in this walk-in, but only for very short periods. Blank does not recall storage of any larger stocks (e.g. 500 ml flasks) of Ba.”

Ivins patent anthracis 6387665

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=ivins+patent+anthracis+6387665&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=3d121c88310e67e3

Download Patent at Google

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6387665

speed vac “two hours” overnight

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&ei=-CWUS7uPM8qm8AbcjOWoBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=speed+vac+%22two+hours%22+overnight&spell=1&fp=3d121c88310e67e3

http://www.fbi.gov/anthrax/amerithraxlinks.htm

Detrick “bioflo 3000”

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Detrick+%22bioflo+3000%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Results 110 of about 56 for Detrick “bioflo 3000”

Melanie Ulrich comments on Ivins

http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=200518&format=html&autoreload=true

==

Comment submitted at:

http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-summary-of-unresolved-issues-in.html

==

The yields stated in the Ivins patent are for the yield of PA not of the anthrax itself.  (Jim White pointed this out on his blog.)

“protective antigen (PA) ”

“The data presented in Table 1 demonstrated that the PA yield on a unit volume and biomass basis,”

Claim one of the patent states

“1. A method of making a vaccine comprising: incorporating a protective antigen produced by recombinant asporogenic B. anthracis with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein said recombinant asporogenic B. anthracis was isolated from a ΔSterne-1(pPA102) strain of bacteria and said recombinant asporogenic B. anthracis does not have the ability to bind a dye when grown on Congo Red Agar.

So the yield of PA understates the yield of the anthrax used to grow it.

The time of 5 days is the same however for the antigen and the anthrax bacillus it is in.  If we assume the antigen mass is a fixed ratio to the anthrax cell mass it is in, and that each anthrax cell has the same mass, then production of antigen mass is proportional to the production of anthrax cells.

The number of anthrax cells grown depends on the time period they are grown.  The mass of antigen follows the same path in time.  So if it takes 5 days to grow the antigens, then it takes 5 days to grow the cells.

(We can relax the assumption of fixed ratios made originally by allowing for fixed over time distributions of the ratios or cell size.)

A spore weighs less than a living cell so there is some offset  depending on the weight of antigen in a living cell compared to how it was measured or estimated.  So the antigen mass is less than a vegetative cell that contains it.  However, the spore weighs less than the vegetative cell.  How the antigen mass is determined matters too.  Is it converted to a dry powder and what loss of weight does that entail compared to a vegetative cell becoming a spore and then weighed as a dry powder of spores?

=Correction comments posted at Meryl Nass and Case Closed.

Final version at Meryl Nass  of one comment:

We must distinguish the vegetative cell, the antigen and a spore made from a vegetative cell.  A spore weighs less than a vegetative cell so there is some offset  depending on the weight of antigen in a vegetative cell compared to how it was measured or estimated.

The antigen mass is less than a vegetative cell that contains it.  However, the spore weighs less than the vegetative cell.  How the antigen mass is determined matters too.  Is it converted to a dry powder and what loss of weight does that entail compared to a vegetative cell becoming a spore and then weighed as a dry powder of spores?

%d bloggers like this: