Was a Soviet Biowarfare expert lying to profit ?

BZM · #1 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 03:52 AM

Just a few hours after I posted on the Soviet cold war defector Nosenko's difficulties in the United States, the LA Times is reporting that a 1992 defector -- Soviet Bio-warfare and terrorism expert (Microbiologist Kanatjan Alibekov aka Ken Alibek) -- was possibly a capitalist, profiteering liar who raised fears to line his own pockets. He promoted the idea that Soviet Union was continuing to research biological warfare despite a ban on such research and said that Russian scientists had left for Iraq and North Korea with biological samples.

A top biodefense specialist (Dr. Thomas Monath) for the U.S. Army, who advised the CIA post 9/11, said "Concern about smallpox, in particular, was driven by Alibek." President Bush's special assistant for biodefense said Alibek "had a substantial and profound effect."

But recently Kanatjan Alibekov's claims have not been holding up to scrutiny. No biological weapons were found in Iraq despite Ken's claims that there was "no doubt." Additionally, he received grants of over $28 million to do research. As he fanned the flames of bio-terrorism fear, he was actually selling nonprescription, unproven immune system boosting pills over the internet.

Update: Wired blogged this topic and lead me to this post at Dick Destiny Blog who provides some additional examples of Alibek's "work" and also mentions that Alibek is not the only one to play this game. /Update

As you read about Kanatjan Alibekov, who possibly fooled the American establishment for years, I want to you to consider Alexander Litvinenko. Remember that Litvinenko was publishing books, consulting, etc -- certainly he was profiting from what he was professing. Read the below quote from from this recent article on Litvinenko possibly fooling British intelligence. I would like you to consider: Could Alexander Litvinenko have simply been exaggerating to profit from foreign fears about a resurgent Russia? In my opinion, it is certainly possible and logical, although the press has played down that option. Certainly he died a horrible death and deserves some sympathy for that, but aside from that, was he playing the west to make a buck?

Quote:

A former Russian secret service agent [Vyacheslav Zharko] claimed that he was recruited by British intelligence through Alexander Litvinenko [by] MI6, Britain's intelligence service... for "analysis" work on Russia's political situation and during Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004.

According to Zharko, British intelligence contacted him through Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB agent who became a vocal Kremlin opponent and fled to London, where he died in November 2006 of radioactive poisoning.

"Litvinenko said: 'I have some British guys, we can sell them information, I will market you as a Kremlin intimate, and all you have to do is come and make a serious face.' So I did and the British bought it," Zharko said.

"At the time I was not working in secret agencies and had no access to classified information, so I would go into the Internet, make an analysis, add a speculation or two -- and if British taxpayers paid for my fantasies, I certainly was not against it," Zharko said.

This is just a sampling of some of the inconsistencies, promotion for profit, and poor research listed in the LA Times article on Alibek:

Quote:

As a doctor of microbiology, a physician and a colonel in the Red Army, [Ken Alibek] helped lead the Soviet effort. He told U.S. intelligence agencies that the Soviets had devoted at least 30,000 scientists, working at dozens of sites, to develop bioweapons, despite a 1972 international ban on such work.

He said that emigrating Russian scientists and others posed imminent threats. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, he said, several specialists went to Iraq and North Korea. Both countries, he said, may have obtained anthrax and smallpox. The transfer of smallpox would be especially ominous because the Russians, he said, had sought to genetically modify the virus, posing lethal risk even to those who had been vaccinated...

Dr. Philip K. Russell, a retired Army major general and physician who joined the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004 to confront the perceived threat of smallpox... said he "began to think that Ken was more fanciful than precise in some of his recollections...he'd heard it from somebody. For example, the issue of putting Ebola genes into smallpox virus. That was viewed, at least in many of our minds, as somewhat fanciful. And probably not true."

... Alibek said during an online discussion hosted by the Washington Post: "There is no doubt in my mind that [Saddam] Hussein has WMD."

Fear that Iraq possessed smallpox was emphasized by the Bush administration leading up to the war... Alibek has not retreated from his statements regarding Iraq's possession of smallpox or other biological weapons.... It is a lonely position today.

In addition to discrediting many of his biowarfare claims, his scientific research is also in question:

Quote:

One sensational claim came in a Sept. 11, 2003, news release from Virginia's George Mason University, where Alibek two years earlier arrived on the faculty.

Findings from laboratory research led by Alibek and another professor... suggested that smallpox vaccination might increase a person's immunity to HIV... Scientists elsewhere were less enthused. They pointed out that George Mason had announced the results even though the Journal of the American Medical Assn. had declined to publish them. Alibek and his colleagues also submitted a paper summarizing the research to another prominent medical journal, the Lancet. The paper "was rejected after peer review," said Dr. Sabine Kleinert, senior executive editor of the Lancet...

More than three years later, no published study has replicated the provocative results touted by Alibek...

"This is a theory that, I must say, does not hold up at all, and it does not make any sense from a biologic point of view," said Dr. Donald A. Henderson, a former White House science advisor whose work with the World Health Organization is credited with eradicating smallpox outbreaks globally. "This idea ... was straight off the wall. I would put no credence in it at all."

Even his former friends are questioning him now...

Quote:

The arc of Alibek's statements has not been lost on Bailey, the former USAMRIID chief who remains at George Mason after having been recruited there six years ago by his former friend [Ken Alibek]. Does the inconsistency cause him to reassess Alibek's earlier statements regarding global biological threats?

Bailey answered quietly. "Definitely, it does."

Is it not possible that Alexander Litvinenko was also not simply profiting by fanning flames of fear?

Update: The LA Times article was updated sometime after I posted some of these quotes so you may not find the original quotes in their exact form. I copied and pasted them so they are as the article was in its original form.

Note: I am relying on the LA Times editorial staff for the veracity of these claims.

Lavochkin · #2 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 05:54 AM

In a discussion of Litvinenko on another site, the Russians were nearly unanimous (and vehement) in their belief that Litvinenko was a traitor and that the U.S. was behind the murder. When I asked what the Americans had to gain from this they said it was to keep Europe and Russia divided. One individual claimed that the murder was predicted in E. Todd's After the Empire. I did not find a specific prediction of political murder in the book but I understand the authors theory of how the U.S. would benefit from bad blood between Europe and Russia.

BZM · #3 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 07:04 AM

That is the first that I have ever heard anyone say that the US could be behind Litvinenko's death and it sounds rather hollow to me. Of course it is possible, but there are several other more probable theories than that -- Berezovsky, MI6, Russian government via Logovoi, or Logovoi because of business dealings, etc. IMO those are much more likely. If you were the police, I doubt that you would start even looking at the US until all the others had been thoroughly ruled out.

Debra Anderson · #4 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 03:17 AM

Dear Reader,
Because I am so disappointed that more people don’t take the time to write pleasant and inspiring articles about people rather than write articles showing the darkness and despair within humanity, I am going to tell you in this very public format about Dr. Ken Alibek, a man who I am very honored and privileged to call mentor and friend. If you want to know the truth about this man, keep reading.

Since I mentioned my lack of appreciation for articles that just show the darkness and despair within humanity, I would first like to briefly address David Willman’s July 1, 2007 article about Dr. Alibek. Since I am quite familiar with most everything Mr. Willman described, it made me absolutely furious to see such a biased article full of “inaccuracies” (to use a more polite term). Though I would dearly love to discredit the author and the newspaper, I won’t. I won’t engage the author and the newspaper simply because Dr. Alibek asked me to join him in forgiving them for printing such a biased story full of “inaccuracies” and I agreed to try. It will be exceedingly difficult for me to forgive them as I lack the incredible strength of character required to forgive such a heinous crime. Dr. Alibek does not suffer from the same insufficiency of character…he has already forgiven them.

My husband and I have had the pleasure of knowing this man for three years and we both know him to be an extraordinary individual possessing many fine qualities not apparent to people distracted by his previous work for the former Soviet Army. In fact, I’m confident I know him rather well and that his humility is going to keep him from enjoying this exposition should he ever learn of its existence. Yet I will take the chance of incurring his displeasure in order to tell you about him, someone who is very special in this world. I will preface the rest of my comments by offering forgiveness at this time to those who respond negatively to this posting and just extend my apologies to them as they haven’t had the opportunity my husband and I have had to know such a fine individual.

Yes, Dr. Alibek was highly skilled at making biological weapons for the former but what does that really mean?

People gasp when they hear the words chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons but why do they respond that way? It is because they are conditioned to respond that way to weapons of mass casualty or weapons of mass destruction. My perspective is a little different as I view them less passionately along with all of the other weapons man has created to take the life of an adversary…they are all unfortunate innovations. Though I don’t like them, I understand that they are just natural progressions in the development of more effective weapons for war and it makes no sense to vilify their developers any more than the developers of any other weapon. I don’t see the criticisms of those people who invented tanks, grenades, or machine guns. An easy example would be the M249 Light Machine Gun used by troops in our military as it can fire up to 1000 rounds per minute. I have no idea who invented it probably because a weapon with the potential to kill 1000 adversaries/minute doesn’t make the headlines yet its destructive power is obvious.
People don’t understand that the process to manufacture biological weapons is very similar to the process to manufacture biopharmaceuticals (but with some important differences). To manufacture biological weapons requires great expertise in biotechnology that can be applied to a variety of products. Dr. Alibek made major improvements to mass production capabilities in the biotechnology field but instead of focusing on what innovative knowledge he has to offer our biotech industry, people focus just on the one product that was of the greatest interest to the former Soviet government, a government at war, and forget that he also produced sera, antibiotics, vaccines, and interferon. He performed a vast amount of work to improve the health of people during those times and he does an unbelievable amount of work to improve the health and welfare of people now. “Dr. Ken Alibek producing biopharmaceuticals that could save the lives of millions of sick children” isn’t nearly as attractive a headline to the masses as “Selling the Threat of Bioterrorism” so you will never see it published anywhere…yet it is the truth. Regardless, he works twice as hard as men half his age in order to ease the suffering of the world’s people. He is a physician not only by training but also by nature.

Instead of discussing events at George Mason University that have been called into question, I will direct you to the information posted online by Ann Workman and ask you to decide for yourself if there is more to the story than what Mr. Willman published. Though I don’t like the use of the term “fascinating”, the documents provided are genuine though I know the information that had the most potential to damage the reputation of the University was removed before posting. Regardless, I believe the documents demonstrate the extreme integrity and motivations of Dr. Ken Alibek and give the reader some insights into the man himself.

You have very patiently waited for me to tell you about Ken Alibek, the man.
“What is he like?” is a very common question asked of me and my husband and I will tell you what I tell everyone. First, Dr. Alibek really isn’t going to like that I do this for you because he is a very humble man but I know that he will forgive me.
In addition to his great capacity for forgiveness, the man truly is brilliant and innovative. One misconception I want to clear up right now is about whether or not ironing letters can kill anthrax (B. anthracis) spores. This thoughtful suggestion to people who were really panicked about the possibility of receiving a contaminated letter was discredited, but later Marc Roberge (a high school senior and son of a prominent CDC scientist) conducted an experiment that supported Dr. Alibek’s statement. Mr. Roberge’s experiment and results were to be published in a peer reviewed journal but I haven’t looked for the publication.

I already mentioned throughout this letter that Dr. Alibek is brilliant, innovative, humble, forgiving, strong, and hardworking. He is also very kind, generous, and thoughtful but as the saying goes - do not mistake his kindness for weakness. He is a consummate professional and a highly skilled businessman with noble intentions. He is absolutely dedicated to helping other people…a genuine philanthropist. Additionally, people who truly know him will tell you that he is a man of high integrity as well as a loyal and trustworthy friend. My husband and I are truly fortunate and proud to have him in our lives.

Dr. Debra Anderson
debra51704atyahoo.com

BZM · #5 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 04:30 AM

Thank you for stopping by to tell the other side of the story. In fact, I had hoped that someone would. I write all the time about the press writing misleading articles.

Could you point us to your professional biography or a page listing your place of employment so that we can be certain that you indeed are not just simply Dr. Alibek posting under a different name?

It is interesting that you mention people writing about the dark side of humanity since it was people clinging to fear and the dark side of Dr. Alibek's work in the first place that made him so well-known. But that is just interesting, let's move on to my follow up questions...

Quote:

My husband and I have had the pleasure of knowing this man for three years and we both know him to be an extraordinary individual possessing many fine qualities not apparent to people distracted by his previous work for the former Soviet Army.

Maybe you misread the article because it had zero concerns for the fact that he used to work for the Soviet Union. The concern was about whether or not he exaggerated threats in order to profit.

Quote:

I will preface the rest of my comments by offering forgiveness at this time to those who respond negatively to this posting and just extend my apologies to them as they haven’t had the opportunity my husband and I have had to know such a fine individual.

No need to forgive me here because I am not responding negatively to Dr. Alibek. I am simply asking for clarification and more information on your support of him.

Quote:

Though I don’t like {weapons of mass destruction], I understand that they are just natural progressions in the development of more effective weapons for war and it makes no sense to vilify their developers any more than the developers of any other weapon. I don’t see the criticisms of those people who invented tanks, grenades, or machine guns. An easy example would be the M249 Light Machine Gun used by troops in our military as it can fire up to 1000 rounds per minute. I have no idea who invented it probably because a weapon with the potential to kill 1000 adversaries/minute doesn’t make the headlines yet its destructive power is obvious.

You are missing one simple, but important and obvious fact -- Machine guns were designed to fight army against army. While weapons of Mass destruction such as biological weapons are designed to kill massive amounts of people in the general population. Society has made a distinction between conventional and biological weapons for decades now. For example, the decision to use Chemical and biological weapons was reserved for the president, like nuclear weapons, starting in 1954. The United States destroyed its stockpiles in the early 1970s based on a new policy of only researching for defensive purposes. (See time line) Again, Dr. Alibek should certainly understand that these weapons are very different since he did not spend hours doing interviews, receive millions in grant money, or publish books on the effects of the machine gun on the human body or if Saddam Hussein was stockpiling machine guns.

Also, a machine gun does not realistically have the potential to kill 1,000 adversaries per minute. First of all, how many bullets does it hold? Usually 30 with a maximum of 200. Secondly, your one bullet one kill argument is silly. Thirdly, people are smart enough to and it is effective to take cover. It is very difficult to take cover from a gas or spores in the mail.

Quote:

I will direct you to the information posted online by Ann Workman and ask you to decide for yourself if there is more to the story than what Mr. Willman published. Though I don’t like the use of the term “fascinating”, the documents provided are genuine though I know the information that had the most potential to damage the reputation of the University was removed before posting.

Please direct us to the information. That is the great thing about the internet you can post links to back up your arguments and statements.

Quote:

One misconception I want to clear up right now is about whether or not ironing letters can kill anthrax (B. anthracis) spores. This thoughtful suggestion to people who were really panicked about the possibility of receiving a contaminated letter was discredited, but later Marc Roberge (a high school senior and son of a prominent CDC scientist) conducted an experiment that supported Dr. Alibek’s statement. Mr. Roberge’s experiment and results were to be published in a peer reviewed journal but I haven’t looked for the publication.

Now might be a good time to look for the article and post a link to it. Also, "were to be published" lends itself to misinterpretation. Do you mean submitted for publication? That certainly does not mean that it passed the review and was published. Also, we should probably direct the FBI to Marc Roberge as I am quite certain that it is illegal for a high school student to to possess the anthrax necessary to test the ironing hypothesis. If it did not require anthrax, please refer me to the journal it was published in. I will go to the library and look it up if it is not freely available on the internet -- although abstracts usually are.

Deborah, your posting is obviously copied and pasted for mass distribution on the internet and I found it posted at wired magazine's blog post on the subject. It would be helpful if you could post a little more detail other than being a "character witness." Additionally, it is good to be forgiving, but if you really want to support the Dr now, you might want to find some facts to back him up. At least post links to the items that I asked you for. Thank you.

Debra Anderson · #6 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 12:32 PM

You are welcome for the posting and yes, it was copy and pasted for mass distribution. I have to be quick in my response as I am leaving for work...sorry.

T thought your comment about Dr. Alibek writing his own letter amusing as I know he is going to be displeased I wrote that letter for everyone...he truly is that humble. I won't send you to my biography or give you my place of work as I work in the national security community so I keep that information private. I will refer you to the Wikipedia article on Dr. Alibek as it references my dissertation and gives the ID number so that you can look it up for yourself to see that I truly exist. The entry also contains the text of the letters to which I was referring when talking about Ann.

As for missing the difference between conventional weapons and WMC/WMD, I assure you I am not missing the difference but in fact am making an entirely different point. I used to be in the military and know very well about conventional weapons, especially the M249. Of course I realize that not every bullet fired is going to hit the target. Of course I realize that the barrel has to be changed due to the heat. And of course I realize that the belt only holds x number of rounds (don't remember the number) so multiply belts are required. As far as targeting civilian lives vs military lives, my point is taking life in general. That M249 could just as easily be used against civilians as well as troops. It is unfortunate we need weapons against people at all.

The articles about Marc Roberge and his science experiment are online. This site isn't allowing me to copy and paste the links for you...sorry. I never have taken the time to look and see if he published his work which is why I wrote that so factually. As for access to Bacillus anthracis, I'm sure he used a surrogate.

Best to everyone,
Debra

BZM · #7 (**permalink**) 07-11-2007, 04:34 AM

Thank you for stopping back by. I figured with the mass distribution that we would not hear from you again.

As you probably know, it is rather easy for someone to write their own defense while posing as someone else on the Internet, so I must ask questions about your identity. Additionally, I don't think that Wikipedia would be a great source in this case. I did not post a link to his Wikipedia article intentionally because when a news article appears like this there is often vandalism -- either positive or negative.

The more I think about it, the difference between types of weapons is completely irrelevant to the LA Times article so I am not going to touch that subject any more.

I did find several links where the regular press picked up the story of Marc's science fair project. Similar article. You are right, he did use a surrogate. I thought that there might be a reasonable way to test without anthrax, but it at first glance just sounds rather silly to hear that a high school student did anthrax research. I am not certain that it was ever published in a scientific journal, but interesting none the less.

Can you direct me to the information by Ann Workman that you referred to? Just copy an past the URL from your browser address bar into the reply. Thanks.

BZM · #8 (**permalink**) 07-11-2007, 04:49 AM

Here is a related article referenced in Alibek promotion page on Wikipedia:

American Thinker: Don't Be So Sure There Were No WMD in Iraq

And what a load of junk. The United States government had tremendous amount of incentive to find WMDs. With Bush's approval rating at its lowest ever and approval of the Iraq war at its lowest ever, so the US government still has tremendous incentive to find WMDs. If the US would have found any substantial evidence of WMDs, they would have let the world know about it. A conspiracy theory to hide WMDs by the US government is laughable.

Lavochkin · #9 (**permalink**) 07-11-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debra Anderson

Dear Reader,
Because I am so disappointed that more people don’t take the time to write pleasant and inspiring articles about people rather than write articles showing the darkness and despair within humanity, I am going to tell you in this very public format about Dr. Ken Alibek, a man who I am very honored and privileged to call mentor and friend.

Loyalty to friends is a great virtue and I am sure that Dr. Alibek appreciates your efforts to defend him. However, it appears that Dr. Alibek was instrumental in supporting the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq. It also appears that Dr. Alibek's loyalty to the President has been rewarded quite handsomely. In view of the immense human cost of this war, why do you think that the people responsible for it do not deserve intense scrutiny?