The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] The Kay report: dissecting biological weapons claims

On 10/6/03 2:41 AM, "Peter Brooke" <> wrote:

> Dear Tom and list
> I haven't yet succeeded in accessing the actual report. Reading David Kay's
> introduction I got the impression that the network of secret laboratories
> and the laboratory in the prison were pre-1991. Is this right?
> Also there is the sentence which begins: 'Additional information is
> beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities
> ...' Is this reporting since 1996 about activities before 1991? or is it
> referring to activities since 1996?
> Best wishes
> Peter
>> From: "Tom Young" <>
>> Organization: Lycos Mail  (
>> Reply-To:
>> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 11:31:53 -0400
>> To:
>> Subject: [casi] The Kay report: dissecting biological weapons claims
>> To call the Kay speech to Congress a " report" is paying way to much respect
>> for what appears essentially a media management exercise.  The speech pushes
>> lots of buttons but provides very few specifics so it is impossible to judge
>> how well based its claims are.  Ones response will depend on how honest you
>> believe CIA officials and reports are.
>> Nevertheless as a biologist by training I thought it worthwhile examining the
>> biological weapons section, and here it is patently obvious that the report
>> contains such gross distortions that it can only have been issued in bad
>> faith.  This in turn casts doubt on its other claims that it is impossible
>> for
>> us to verify and must be taken on trust, if at all.
>> Specifically, the report makes claims that
>> "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic
>> Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to
>> the UN."  As no further details are given on this work beyond that assertion
>> its difficult to assess how valid it is.  It should be noted that CCHF (a
>> tick
>> borne disease) is a disease that is found in Iraq
>> Al-Tikriti S.K.
>> Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus in Iraq: isolation, identification and
>> electron microscopy. Acta Virol;24(6)464-467(1980)
>> Tantawi H.H. et Al.
>> Antibodies to Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus in domestic animals in
>> Iraq: a seroepidemiological survey.
>> Int J Zoonoses,8(2)115-120(1980)
>> Tikriti S.K. et al.
>> Congo/Crimean haemorrhagic fever in Iraq: a seroepidemiological survey.
>> J Trop Med Hyg.,8(4)117-120(1981)
>> As such it would be incumbent on the health officials to keep reference
>> stocks
>> of the organism as a public health issue.  Its use of as a bioweapon is
>> completely unknown (and almost certainly ineffectual - bombing opposing
>> troops
>> with tick infested blankets?).  Similar, the claim for ricin and aflatoxin is
>> later amended to "surrogate work with .....and medicinal plants with ricin" -
>> translation - we found some castor beans, as that is the major ricin
>> producing
>> plant.  Its difficult to make much of a threat out of a "hill of beans" to
>> quote Casablanca, but that is what David Kay has succeeded in doing.
>> However the distortions in bad faith really begin when discussing Bt toxin
>> and
>> its applicabilty to anthrax production.
>> "Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt
>> work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited
>> investigation with pathogenic agents. Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt)
>> with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin. In a similar
>> vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of
>> legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant
>> to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved,
>> simplified
>> fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would
>> have
>> been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the
>> production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if
>> the
>> seed stock were available."
>> The ease in which it is suggested that Bt toxin (the very word toxin of
>> course
>> raises alarm bells in people's minds) is equated to anthrax is simply
>> staggering.  The Bt industry in the US has a multi million dollar market as a
>> liquid based pesticide for agricultural spraying.  The Bt organism producing
>> a
>> toxin that attacks the digestive gut of many crop pests.  This toxin is
>> supposed to be harmless to humans, to the extent that the toxin has been
>> introduced into many GE food crops, including maize, and regularly ingested
>> by
>> all Americans, except those who insist on organic, GE free food.  However, in
>> the hands of Iraqis it is being promoted as a surrogate Weapon of Mass
>> Destruction!!!
>> It is entirely plausible that Iraq should wish for an develop a BT pesticide
>> industry - many many other countries have and it is a very basic technology.
>> The toxin is not purified, but rather a wet mix of entire bacterial culture
>> is
>> used as a spray.  Considering the limitations on Iraqi chemical manufacture
>> it
>> is clean, affordable and environmentally friendly form of controlling crop
>> pests.  To equate the production of this liquid mix with the production of
>> weaponised anthrax is absurd.  In the only known attack using anthrax
>> conclusively proved to be US military stocks in October 2001, it was shown to
>> be effective, anthrax had to be weaponised.  That is, first grown, then dried
>> and finally milled and aersolised to a fine powder suitable for aerial
>> dispersion.
>> To pretend this is in any form similar to Bt pesticide production is a
>> deceitful claim made in bad faith.  To pretend that it would be easy to
>> switch
>> from pesticide production to production of anthrax weapons is simply wrong
>> and
>> a claim that the reporting parties know is wrong.  Iraq has every right to
>> manufacture and use Bt sprays.  To me, it casts into doubt the veracity of
>> the
>> entire report.
>> This report from a former UN chief inspector highlights the totally partisan
>> and propaganda nature of the UN weapons inspectorate.  A fitting ending to a
>> decade long charade.
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>> To unsubscribe, visit
>> To contact the list manager, email
>> All postings are archived on CASI's website:
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
> To unsubscribe, visit
> To contact the list manager, email
> All postings are archived on CASI's website:

We have the actual report on our site (with a link as well to its source -
the CIA site).  We also have Glen Rangwala's original analysis of the report
as a pdf file (printed in two parts in the Independent as well).

Best wishes, Charlie

Charles Jenks, attorney at law
President of the Core Group
Traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road
Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-1633; Fax 413-773-7507

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]