Comments on: DOJ Wants to Have Its Culprit and Withhold Some Materials, Too

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:45:40 +0000

My regrests if I seemed abrasive. I didn’t mean to. I think I’m a bit frustrated at the lack of convincing investigation FBI has done, the fact that when I was growing up, we didn’t even begin to think people would want to attack the US with the mass killers that are now the stuff of so many movies and TV shows, and although I think the Bush administration has been poor in their approach to claiming they’d protect the socker moms while making it more dangerous for them, it’s a tall order to defend against bugs that are so dangerous for even a small number of people acutely rather than a whole country of 305 million.

Guys like Dr. Perlin are no doubt very bright and accomplished and mean well, but they also have the buildup of their own institutions at stake, and when they make meaningless statements that we’re much better prepared I take issue with them–especially when they never spell out how.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:56:06 +0000

Oh. I thought maybe you were referring to my last observation; tsk, tsk, such self-absorbtion. My understanding is that Dr Ivins’ professional focus was on developing defenses (vaccines)against biological warfare, no matter what other activities were going on at the fort. He should be commended for applying himslf to the thankless task, especially when you consider the dangers involved. Now with regard to what he MAY have been up to in an unprofessional focus, one would think that the positive mental health of those in such high-risk occupations would be of paramount importance in the minds of those whose task it is to manage facilities such as Ft Detrick.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:31:22 +0000

My observation that “the patient’s” behavior could be directed to more constructive ends via therapy, self-help and social encouragement, when he works on biological weapons. (Though that assumes he’s designing them rather than designing how to defend against them.)

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:26:12 +0000

Not clear which last observation seems TZ-ish.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:18:42 +0000

Your observations raise another issue. What might a full, independent autopsy reveal about Dr. Ivins work? Might it reveal pathologies related to the accumulated effects of his work?

No government would welcome such evidence or speculation about it. It would affect all researchers doing similar work, their families, friends and neighbors. It needn’t be contagious, it need only be a by-product of working in secret, government-funded bio-weapons labs for three and a half decades.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:12:20 +0000

That’s very helpful. And it brings me back to my question, whether Irwin, if involved as Duley implies, is a profiler rather than as therapist. The “is” vs. “does” model seems a law enforcement focus rather than one that assumes one’s impulses or tendencies can be controlled or directed, through will and social encouragement, toward more socially constructive ends.

That last observation seems a bit Twilight Zone-ish, however, considering that at our government’s direction and control, Dr. Irvin worked on biological weapons.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:53:06 +0000

I know. I voted for Nader, and you won’t belive the abuse I took from democrats for “helping elect Bush”.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:48:04 +0000

Working thru the comments, I have to stop and offer a word of support for your analysis of things so far. Your “obsession” has led to a more conprehensive treatment of a mass of details than mine, but I want to say that the picture you present is highly consistent with my thinking on this (FWIW). I think your observation of “shades of torture tricks” bears amplification.
Consider this. We have an account of government inverstigators approaching a suspect in a shopping mall and accusing him in front of his wife (and possibly his children, friends, neighbors, passers-by, etc)of killing five people. If this assertion were KNOWN to be true, an arrest would have been appropriate. Since this is NOT KNOWN, it is unconscionable to make such public declarations, and must have been done for a purpose. I presume this purpose was to isolate Ivins from his social support group, to cast doubt about him in the minds of those around him, such as wife, children, cworkers, neighbors, and so help me, the man’s therapist. If you are right about a confrontation during a group session, it has the affect of manipulation of the bonds of trust that must develop among the group members, a trust that is vital to the the theraputic process of group therapy.
Social isolation is one of the techniques used in the “handling” of the enemy combatants, and I suppose one could
then progress to viewing the anthrax mailer as a terrorist, and subject to Patriot Act provisions, which unless I’m mistaken has provisons for use inside the US.
Early on I became suspicious of Duley’s testimony at her RO hearing. Yes the nomenclature was off, but for me , nomenclature derives from psychological theory, which brings in the shadowy Dr. Irwin. His use of medical model thinking grates against my Behavioral orientation. To me the focus of analysis is on what one DOES, and in what context, as opposed to what one IS. Ms Duley was presenting testimony as to what Ivins IS, “a revenge killer”. A simple question: How does she know that? The answer brings up, as she testified, a psychological diagnosis provided by someone, but we are not sure who(or how obtained, again context),but this reliance on some permanant psychological characteristics strongly suggests the thinking of a profiler. While this sort of thinking is pervasive in the mental health field, I’d want to look at the evaluation report to see what treatment recommendations were included, if any. The lack meaningful treatment considerations, in light of the the seriousness of this matter, would indicte to me an investigative, rather than a therapeutic basis for the evaluation, and thus pointing at a forensic analysis. Again, for what it’s worth.

By: klynn

klynn — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:12:57 +0000

Hey PetePierce,

My comment and link at 76 was not in any way to belittle your noting his letter to the editor at 55.

I TOTALLY agree his LTE letter is BS. My note at the bottom is snark for why would someone in Public Health even write this letter? What is HIS motivation? I think he has one that is far beyond any interest he may serve in public health. The fact that he is from Newark, NJ and aspects of his resume tweaked my attention from a national security perspective. And from the fact that more contacts pop up from NJ and yet the FBI cannot place Ivins in NJ on the mailing date? Jeebuz, I even think Judy Miller should be on the suspect list my than Ivins at this point.

Hey, I’ve got a brother who is a trauma physician and a husband in human health risk. I would never disagree on the fact that Dr. Perlin’s letter is BS…I’m on your side. Next time I’ll connect the dots better.

Perlin doth protest too little and too soon in my estimation. I wonder how much he got paid to write that LTE or on whose behalf he wrote it for? His “public health” integrity is slim to none after that letter.

My regrets. I was not slamming your deconstruction of his letter to the editor.

By: lllphd

lllphd — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:52:01 +0000

well, i know psychiatrists can sign off on things without actually observing them, and often do even without reviewing them, but what you describe is a nightmare i was completely unaware of! my area does not bring me into contact with that one, so i guess i’ve remained in something of a cocoon.

enough reforms in my own area of practice are way overdue (starting with the godforsaken apa), but what you’re saying suggests the govt agencies also require oversight. actually, i’m working on that along other lines right now, so i’ll keep what you say in mind. thanks.