Breaking News: Second Possible Case of Ebola in Dallas, Texas — How many Biosafety Level 4 Hospital Beds are there in the United States? — 22 Hospital Beds — Too few for An Airborne Ebola Pandemic! — Center for Disease Control (CDC) Sacrifices Hospital and Medical Staff To Open Borders And Amnesty For Illegal Aliens! — Will The Ebola Dallas Strain Jump To Another Human Host? — Breaking News — Videos

Posted on October 8, 2014. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 306: July 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 305: July 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 304: July 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 303: July 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 302: July 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 301: July 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 300: July 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 299: July 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 298: July 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 297: July 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 296: July 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 295: July 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 294: July 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 293: July 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 292: July 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 291: July 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 290: July 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 289: July 2, 2014

Story 1: Breaking News: Second Possible Case of Ebola in Dallas, Texas — How many Biosafety Level 4 Hospital Beds are there in the United States? — 22 Hospital Beds — Too few for An Airborne Ebola Pandemic! — Center for Disease Control (CDC) Sacrifices Hospital and Medical Staff To Open Borders And Amnesty For Illegal Aliens! — Will The Ebola Dallas Strain Jump To Another Human Host? — Breaking News — Videos



Second patient in Texas showing signs consistent with Ebola

EBOLA IN AMERICA – WE’RE SCREWED Says Major Garrett in OPEN MIC at Press Conference (Full)


Texas EBOLA PATIENT Thomas Eric Duncan DIED (Video) First Ebola Patient Diagnosed In The U.S Dies

CDC: New Ebola situation in Texas being…

Soon: Frisco Texas Officials To Update On Possible Second Ebola Case – Fox News Reporting

Author tracks Ebola outbreaks over decades, calls virus “Jack The Ripper”

Elbows-Deep in Ebola Virus – Richard Preston

In the Hot Zone with Virus X – Richard Preston

USAMRIID The US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease

Jerry & Nancy Jaax discuss biosafety facilities

The Jaax’s worked in biocontainment facilities for years and discuss safety measures used.

State of Tomorrow Interview – CJ Peters: Wake Up Call

UTHSC Regional Biocontainment Laboratory

Ebola & Emerging Viral Diseases: Overview of the Science

Ebola & Emerging Viral Diseases: How the Virus Attacks Us

Ebola and Emerging Viral Diseases: New Drug Therapy

Suspect in the 2001 Anthrax Attacks Gets $5.8 Million!

Steven Hatfill Anthrax Denial

CDC Set To Slow Large Ebola Outbreak by Placing Doctors At Risk

Inhalation Ebola: Governments Ready For World War Ebola

US Army: Ebola like FLU needs Winter Weather to go AIRBORNE

MWV Episode 68 – Threading the NEIDL: TWiV Goes Inside a BSL-4

Aerosolizing ONE DROP of EBOLA = 1/2 MILLION DEAD

NEIDL: Biosafety Level 4

MWV Episode 68 – Threading the NEIDL: TWiV Goes Inside a BSL-4

How scientists enter and exit BSL-4 laboratories

Ebola Spreads, Worst Outbreak In History

Obama’s Border Crisis Could Result In The Deaths Of Millions Of Americans

Dallas County Ebola press conference

‘A Virus Walks Into a Bar…’ and Other Science Jokes – Brian Malow

Science comedian Brian Malow jokes that a virus is “the ultimate David and Goliath” when compared with humans. He then rattles off a series of science-related jokes. “Schrodinger’s cat walks into a bar, and doesn’t.”

Could take 48 hours to confirm if deputy has Ebola

SOUTHCOM Commander: Ebola Outbreak in Central America Could Cause Mass Migration to U.S.

Updated: October 7, 2014 10:26 PM

Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly, center, commander of U.S. Southern Command, speaks with Adm. Sigifrido Pared Perez, Dominican Republic minister of defense, in Barahona, Dominican Republic on June 9, 2014. SOUTHCOM Photo

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The head of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) warned an Ebola outbreak in Central America or the Caribbean could trigger a mass migration to the U.S. of people fleeing the disease and implied established Central American illegal trafficking networks could introduce the infected into the U.S., during remarks at a Tuesday panel on security issues in the Western Hemisphere at the National Defense University.

“If it comes to the Western Hemisphere, the countries that we’re talking about have almost no ability to deal with it — particularly in Haiti and Central America,” SOUTHCOM Commander, Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, said in response to a question of his near term concerns in the region.
“It will make the 68,000 unaccompanied minors look like a small problem.”

An Ebola outbreak could encourage the poor and increasingly desperate populations in Central American countries — like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — to leave in droves.

“I think you’ve seen this so many times in the past, when in doubt, take off,” he said.

Though an ocean away from Ebola hotspots in Africa, a growing numbers of West Africans are using the illicit trafficking routes through Central America to enter the U.S. illegally and could introduce the disease in the U.S.

Kelly stressed through out the panel session at NDU how effective the criminal transportation networks were at moving people and material into the U.S.

“We see a lot of West Africans moving in that network,” he said.

Kelly passed on a story from a border checkpoint in Costa Rica — told to him by an American embassy official — in which five or six men from Liberia were waiting to cross into Nicaragua.

The group had flown into Trinidad and then traveled to Costa Rica hoping to travel up the Central American isthmus and into the U.S.

Given the length of the journey, “they could have been in New York City well within the incubation period for Ebola,” Kelly said.

The realities of a potential outbreak caused Kelly to ask his staff to start thinking about the affects to the SOUTHCOM area of operations (AO) and pay attention to the response of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The U.S. has sent 4,000 troops to West Africa to assist countries in dealing with the Ebola outbreaks in the region.

“The five services of the U.S. military will get it done and be a large solution to this problem,” Kelly said.

In the meantime, SOUTHCOM is regular contact with AFRICOM in the event of the worst-case outcome.

“We’re watching what AFRICOM is doing and their plan will be our plan,” Kelly said.
“The nightmare scenario, I think, is right around the corner.”


Ebola Patient Has Died During a Crucial Week for Dallas

If Thomas Eric Duncan passed the virus onto anyone else, that would likely become evident this week.

(Mike Stone/Getty Images)

October 8, 2014 The first patient to be diagnosed with Ebola in the United States has died, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital said Wednesday.

The news of Thomas Eric Duncan’s passing comes as those he came into contact with enter a critical period this week in determining whether they have also contracted the deadly virus.

Duncan, 42, was diagnosed with Ebola on Sept. 30, after arriving in the U.S. from Liberia on Sept. 20. He first went to the Dallas hospital with a fever on Sept. 26, but was sent home,despite telling a nurse he came from the Ebola-stricken country. The information did not reach doctors at the hospital, and he was discharged with antibiotics. He returned to the hospital two days later and was placed in isolation.

Texas officials continue to monitor 10 people who had direct contact with him while he was symptomatic, as well as 38 others who may have had contact. None have shown symptoms of the disease up to this point.

The incubation period of Ebola is a maximum of 21 days, with symptoms commonly beginning to present eight to 10 days after exposure. If Duncan passed the virus onto anyone else, that would likely become evident this week.

If any show signs of a fever, or other symptoms, health officials plan to immediately isolate and test those individuals for the virus.

Duncan was in serious condition until this past weekend, when his condition was changed to critical, and he was given the experimental drug brincidofovir, an oral medicine developed by Chimerix. The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency authorization for the treatment; it had previously been tested against Ebola only in test-tube studies.

Duncan is the first patient to die of Ebola in the U.S. At least five patients already diagnosed with Ebola in West Africa had been taken to the U.S. for treatment. Two were treated and released from Emory University Hospital, one was treated and released from Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, a fourth is currently in treatment at Emory, and a fifth is in treatment in Nebraska.

The current Ebola outbreak has killed more than 2,000 people in Duncan’s native Liberia, according to the latest estimates from the World Health Organization. There have been more than 3,400 total deaths in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, and more than twice as many reported cases.

“It is with profound sadness and heartfelt disappointment that we must inform you of the death of Thomas Eric Duncan this morning at 7:51 a.m.,” the hospital said in a statement. “Mr. Duncan succumbed to an insidious disease, Ebola. He fought courageously in this battle. Our professionals, the doctors and nurses in the unit, as well as the entire Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas community, are also grieving his passing. We have offered the family our support and condolences at this difficult time.”

Duncan had reportedly come to the U.S. to marry his girlfriend, Louise Troh, from whom he had been separated for nearly two decades. Troh and three others who live in the apartment where Duncan stayed in Dallas remain in isolation.

Officials continue to closely monitor those who came into contact with Duncan, and they remain confident that an outbreak in the U.S. is unlikely.

Triage and Management of Accidental Laboratory Exposures to Biosafety Level-3 and -4 Agents


The recent expansion of biocontainment laboratory capacity in the United States has drawn attention to the possibility of occupational exposures to BSL-3 and -4 agents and has prompted a reassessment of medical management procedures and facilities to deal with these contingencies. A workshop hosted by the National Interagency Biodefense Campus was held in October 2007 and was attended by representatives of all existing and planned BSL-4 research facilities in the U.S. and Canada. This report summarizes important points of discussion and recommendations for future coordinated action, including guidelines for the engineering and operational controls appropriate for a hospital care and isolation unit. Recommendations pertained to initial management of exposures (ie, immediate treatment of penetrating injuries, reporting of exposures, initial evaluation, and triage). Isolation and medical care in a referral hospital (including minimum standards for isolation units), staff recruitment and training, and community outreach also were addressed. Workshop participants agreed that any unit designated for the isolation and treatment of laboratory employees accidentally infected with a BSL-3 or -4 pathogen should be designed to maximize the efficacy of patient care while minimizing the risk of transmission of infection. Further, participants concurred that there is no medically based rationale for building care and isolation units to standards approximating a BSL-4 laboratory. Instead, laboratory workers accidentally exposed to pathogens should be cared for in hospital isolation suites staffed by highly trained professionals following strict infection control procedures.

The construction of a number of new federally funded biocontainment laboratories in response to the 2001 terror attacks, in compliance with Homeland Security Presidential Directives 10 and 18,1,2 has raised concerns that a significant expansion in the laboratory workforce will result in an increased number of accidental exposures, some of which might lead to actual infection.3 While it is true that accidental infections of laboratory workers studying pathogenic bacteria and viruses were at one time fairly common, their incidence has been markedly reduced as a result of the standardization of laboratory design, biosafety practices, and employee training, so that only a handful of cases have occurred in the past few decades.4

Much of this new capacity in Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) biocontainment laboratories will be centered on the National Interagency Biodefense Campus (NIBC) at Fort Detrick, which includes the existing United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and a planned expansion, plus the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Integrated Research Facility (NIAID-IRF) and a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) laboratory, the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC). NIH also has upgraded the laboratory capacity at its Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, by expanding the amount of Biosafety Level-3 (BSL-3) space and adding a new BSL-4 lab, and it is supporting the construction of National Biocontainment Laboratories at Boston University and at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, both of which will contain BSL-3 and -4 units. In anticipation of public concerns, the NIBC Executive Steering Committee tasked its Scientific Interactions Subcommittee with organizing a workshop to review procedures for dealing with accidental exposures in laboratories currently conducting research on highly pathogenic (BSL-3 and -4) agents and to recommend optimal strategies for their detection and management in the future expanded biodefense research community.


Biosafety level

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A biosafety level is a level of the biocontainment precautions required to isolate dangerous biological agents in an enclosed facility. The levels of containment range from the lowest biosafety level 1 (BSL-1) to the highest at level 4 (BSL-4). In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have specified these levels.[1] In the European Union, the same biosafety levels are defined in a directive.[2]


The first prototype Class III (maximum containment) biosafety cabinet was fashioned in 1943 by Hubert Kaempf Jr., then a U.S. Army soldier, under the direction of Dr. Arnold G. Wedum, Director (1944–69) of Industrial Health and Safety at the United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories, Camp Detrick, Maryland. Kaempf was tired of his MP duties at Detrick and was able to transfer to the sheet metal department working with the contractor, the H.K. Ferguson Co.[3]

On 18 April 1955, fourteen representatives met at Camp Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. The meeting was to share knowledge and experiences regarding biosafety, chemical, radiological, and industrial safety issues that were common to the operations at the three principal biological warfare (BW) laboratories of the U.S. Army.[4][5]Because of the potential implication of the work conducted at biological warfare laboratories, the conferences were restricted to top level security clearances. Beginning in 1957, these conferences were planned to include non-classified sessions as well as classified sessions to enable broader sharing of biological safety information. It was not until 1964, however, that conferences were held in a government installation not associated with a biological warfare program.[6]

Over the next ten years, the biological safety conferences grew to include representatives from all federal agencies that sponsored or conducted research with pathogenic microorganisms. By 1966 it began to include representatives from universities, private laboratories, hospitals, and industrial complexes. Throughout the 1970s, participation in the conferences continued to expand and by 1983 discussions began regarding the creation of a formal organization.[6] The American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) was officially established in 1984 and a constitution and bylaws were drafted the same year. As of 2008, ABSA includes some 1,600 members in its professional association.[6]


CDC technician dons an older-model positive-pressure suit before entering one of the CDC’s earlier maximum containment labs.

Biocontainment can be classified by the relative danger to the surrounding environment as biological safety levels (BSL). As of 2006, there are four safety levels. These are called BSL1 through BSL4, with one anomalous level BSL3-ag for agricultural hazards between BSL3 and BSL4. Facilities with these designations are also sometimes given as P1 through P4 (for Pathogen or Protection level), as in the term P3 laboratory. Higher numbers indicate a greater risk to the external environment. Seebiological hazard.

At the lowest level of biocontainment, the containment zone may only be a chemical fume hood. At the highest level the containment involves isolation of an organism by means of building systems, sealed rooms, sealed containers, positive pressure personnel suits (sometimes referred to as “space suits”) and elaborate procedures for entering the room, and decontamination procedures for leaving the room. In most cases this also includes high levels of security for access to the facility, ensuring that only authorized personnel may be admitted to any area that may have some effect on the quality of the containment zone. This is considered a hot zone.


Biosafety level 1

This level is suitable for work involving well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adult humans, and of minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment (CDC,1997).[7]

It includes several kinds of bacteria and viruses including canine hepatitis, non-pathogenic Escherichia coli, as well as some cell cultures and non-infectious bacteria. At this level, precautions against the biohazardous materials in question are minimal and most likely involve gloves and some sort of facial protection. The laboratory is not necessarily separated from the general traffic patterns in the building. Work is generally conducted on open bench tops using standard microbiological practices. Usually, contaminated materials are left in open (but separately indicated) waste receptacles. Decontamination procedures for this level are similar in most respects to modern precautions against everyday microorganisms (i.e., washing one’s hands with anti-bacterial soap, washing all exposed surfaces of the lab with disinfectants, etc.). In a lab environment all materials used for cell and/or bacteria cultures are decontaminated via autoclave. Laboratory personnel have specific training in the procedures conducted in the laboratory and are supervised by a scientist with general training in microbiology or a related science.

Biosafety level 2

This level is similar to Biosafety Level 1 and is suitable for work involving agents of moderate potential hazard to personnel and the environment.[7] It includes various bacteria and viruses that cause only mild disease to humans, or are difficult to contract via aerosol in a lab setting, such as C. difficile, most Chlamydiae, hepatitis A, B, and C, orthopoxviruses (other than smallpox), influenza A, Lyme disease, Salmonella, mumps, measles,[8] scrapie, MRSA, and VRSA. BSL-2 differs from BSL-1 in that:

  1. laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic agents and are directed by scientists with advanced training;
  2. access to the laboratory is limited when work is being conducted;
  3. extreme precautions are taken with contaminated sharp items; and
  4. certain procedures in which infectious aerosols or splashes may be created are conducted in biological safety cabinets or other physical containment equipment.

Biosafety level 3

Researcher at US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, working with influenza virus under biosafety level 3 conditions, with respirator inside a biosafety cabinet (BSC).

This level is applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents which may cause serious or potentially lethal disease after inhalation.[7] It includes various bacteria, parasites and viruses that can cause severe to fatal disease in humans but for which treatments exist, such as Yersinia pestis (causative agent of plague), Francisella tularensis, Leishmania donovani, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Chlamydia psittaci, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, SARS coronavirus, Coxiella burnetii, Rift Valley fever virus,Rickettsia rickettsii, several species of Brucella, rabies virus, chikungunya, yellow fever virus, and West Nile virus.

Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone.

All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets, specially designed hoods, or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features.

It is recognized, however, that some existing facilities may not have all the facility features recommended for Biosafety Level 3 (i.e., double-door access zone and sealed penetrations). In this circumstance, an acceptable level of safety for the conduct of routine procedures, (e.g., diagnostic procedures involving the propagation of an agent for identification, typing, susceptibility testing, etc.), may be achieved in a biosafety level 2 (P2) facility, providing

  1. the filtered exhaust air from the laboratory room is discharged to the outdoors,
  2. the ventilation to the laboratory is balanced to provide directional airflow into the room,
  3. access to the laboratory is restricted when work is in progress, and
  4. the recommended Standard Microbiological Practices, Special Practices, and Safety Equipment for Biosafety Level 3 are rigorously followed.

The decision to implement this modification of biosafety level 3 recommendations is made only by the laboratory director.

Biosafety level 4

This level is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections, agents which cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which vaccines or other treatments are notavailable, such as Bolivian and Argentine hemorrhagic fevers, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, Lassa virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, and various other hemorrhagic diseases. This level is also used for work with agents such as smallpox that are considered dangerous enough to require the additional safety measures, regardless of vaccination availability. When dealing with biological hazards at this level the use of a positive pressure personnel suit, with a segregated air supply is mandatory. The entrance and exit of a level four biolab will contain multiple showers, a vacuum room, an ultraviolet light room, and other safety precautions designed to destroy all traces of the biohazard. Multiple airlocks are employed and are electronically secured to prevent both doors from opening at the same time. All air and water service going to and coming from a biosafety level 4 (or P4) lab will undergo similar decontamination procedures to eliminate the possibility of an accidental release.

Agents with a close or identical antigenic relationship to biosafety level 4 agents are handled at this level until sufficient data are obtained either to confirm continued work at this level, or to work with them at a lower level.

Members of the laboratory staff have specific and thorough training in handling extremely hazardous infectious agents and they understand the primary and secondary containment functions of the standard and special practices, the containment equipment, and the laboratory design characteristics. They are supervised by qualified scientists who are trained and experienced in working with these agents. Access to the laboratory is strictly controlled by the laboratory director.

The facility is either in a separate building or in a controlled area within a building, which is completely isolated from all other areas of the building. A specific facility operations manual is prepared or adopted. Building protocols for preventing contamination often use negatively pressurized facilities, which, even if compromised, would severely inhibit an outbreak of aerosol pathogens.

Within work areas of the facility, all activities are confined to Class III biological safety cabinets, or Class II biological safety cabinets used with one-piece positive pressure personnel suits ventilated by a life support system.

List of BSL-4 facilities

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published on October 4, 2007, a total of 1,356 CDC/USDA registered BSL-3 facilities were identified throughout the United States (GAO-08-108T [9]). This represents a very conservative estimate of the number of facilities in the US in 2007. Approximately 36% of these laboratories are located in academia. Only 15 BSL-4 facilities were identified in the U.S. in 2007, including nine at federal labs.[9]

The following is a list of existing BSL-4 facilities worldwide.

Name Location Date
Virology Laboratory of the Queensland Department of Health Australia, Queensland,Coopers Plains
Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) Osong, Cheongwoncounty, North Chungcheong province, South Korea 2013
University of Queensland – Sir Albert Sakzewski Virus Research Centre (SASVRC) Royal Women’s Hospital Brisbane P3 (BL3) Australia, Queensland,Herston
Australian Animal Health Laboratory Australia, Victoria,Geelong
National High Security Laboratory Australia, Victoria, North Melbourne National High Security Laboratory Operates under the auspice of the Victoria Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory.
Republican Research and Practical Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology Belarus, Minsk Department of Molecular Epidemiology & Innovational Biotechnologies
National Microbiology Laboratory Canada, Manitoba,Winnipeg Located at the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health, it is jointly operated by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences China, Hubei, Wuhan 2003 Wuhan Institute of Virology already hosts a BSL-3 laboratory. A distinct BSL-4 facility is currently being built based on P4 standards, the original technology for confinement developed by France.[10][11] It will be the first at level 4 in China, under the direction of Shi Zhengli.[12]
Biological Defense Center Czech Republic,Pardubice, Těchonín 1971, rebuilt 2003-2007 Located at the Centrum biologické ochrany (Biological Defense Center)[13]
Laboratoire P4 Jean Mérieux France, Rhône-Alpes,Lyon 1999-03-05 Jean Mérieux laboratory is a co-operation between the Pasteur Institute and INSERM. Note that in France, it is P4 for Pathogen or Protection level 4.[14]
Laboratoire de la DGA France, Vert-le-Petit,Essonne 2013-10-24 The Laboratoire de la DGA [1] is part of the Ministry of Defence.
Centre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville Gabon This facility is operated by a research organization supported by both Gabonese (mainly) and French governments, and is West Africa’s only P4 lab (BSL-4).[15]
Robert Koch Institute Germany, Berlin The facility was licenced for construction by City of Berlin on November 30, 2008.
Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine Germany, Hamburg
Friedrich Loeffler Institute on the Isle of Riems Germany, Isle of Riems (Greifswald) 2010 Deals especially with virology
Philipps University of Marburg Germany, Marburg 2008 The facility is licenced to work with genetically modified organisms
High Security Animal Disease Laboratory (HSADL) India, Bhopal 1998 This facility deals especially to zoonotic organisms and emerging infectious disease threats.
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology India, Hyderabad 2009 National Bio-Safety Level-4 Containment Facility for Human Infectious Diseases & Clinical Research Facility in Regenerative Medicine [16][17]
All India Institute of Medical Sciences India, New Delhi 1993 Conducts studies on major pathogenic organisms. Has contributed in discovering new strains & vaccines.
Microbial Containment Complex India, Pune 2012 Bio-Safety Level-IV Laboratory established by ICMR with support from Department of Science & Technology
Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Luigi Sacco Italy, Lombardy, Milan A university hospital located in the city’s Polo Universitario; it contains two special vehicles for the safe transportation of infectious patients.
Istituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive Italy, Lazio, Rome 1936 (1997) The “National Institute of Infectious Diseases” used to operate within the Lazzaro Spallanzani hospital; the facility is now independent and is home to five BSL-3 labs as well as a single BSL-4 laboratory, which was completed in 1997. [18]
National Institute for Infectious Diseases Japan, Tokyo,Musashimurayama Located at National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Department of Virology I; this lab has the potential of operating as a BSL-4, however it is limited to perform work on only BSL-3 agents due to opposition from local residents and communities.
Institute of Physical and Chemical Research Japan, Ibaraki, Tsukuba This is a non-operating BSL-4 facility.
Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Netherlands, Bilthoven 2009
Cantacuzino Microbiological Research Institute (INCDMI) Romania, Bucharest [19]
“Dr. Carol Davila” Central Military Hospital Romania, Bucharest [20]
State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR Russia, Novosibirsk Oblast, Koltsovo It is one of two facilities in the world that officially hold smallpox. The other Russian BSL-4 facilities have been dismantled.
National Institute for Communicable Diseases South Africa,Johannesburg National Institute for Communicable Diseases of Special Pathogens Unit is one of only two BSL-4 facilities in Africa but the only suit laboratory on the continent.
The Swedish BSL-4 Laboratory[21] Sweden, Solna 2001 Located at the Public Health Agency of Sweden premises, this is the only BSL-4 facility in the Nordic region. The facility also houses a BSL-3 laboratory.[22][23][24]
University Hospital of Geneva Switzerland
Spiez Laboratory Switzerland, Spiez
Kwen-yang Laboratory (昆陽實驗室) Center of Disease Control Taiwan Part of the Department of Health, Taiwan.
Preventive Medical Institute of ROC Ministry of National Defense Taiwan
Health Protection Agency‘s Centre for Infections United Kingdom,Colindale Located in the Viral Zoonosis unit.
National Institute for Medical Research United Kingdom,London [25]
Institute for Animal Health United Kingdom,Pirbright
Institute for Animal Health Compton Laboratory United Kingdom,Compton [26]
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory United Kingdom, Porton Down
Health Protection Agency United Kingdom, Porton Down Special Pathogens Reference Unit.
Health Protection Agency United Kingdom, Porton Down Botulism.
Francis Crick Institute[27] United Kingdom,London Under construction. The UKCMRI will not work on Human Hazard Group 4 agents.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention United States, Georgia,Atlanta Currently operates in two buildings. One of two facilities in the world that officially holdsmallpox.
Georgia State University United States, Georgia,Atlanta Is an older design “glovebox” facility.
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility(NBAF), Kansas State University United States, Kansas,Manhattan Under construction. Facility to be operated by the Department of Homeland Security, and replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (which is not a BSL-4 facility). Planned to be operational by 2015, but likely delayed.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) United States,Maryland, Bethesda Located on the NIH Campus, it currently only operates with BSL-3 agents.
Integrated Research Facility United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick Under construction. This facility will be operated by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), it is planned to begin operating at 2009 at the earliest.[needs update]
National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick Under construction, it will be operated for the Department of Homeland Security.
US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick 1969 Old building
US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick 2017? New building, currently under construction
National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory (NEIDL), Boston University United States,Massachusetts, Boston Under construction by Boston University, building and staff training complete, waiting for regulatory approval.
NIAID Rocky Mountain Laboratories United States, Montana,Hamilton National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Kent State University, Kent Campus United States, Ohio,Kent Operates as a clean lab at level 3 for training purposes. Scheduled for conversion to a hot level 4 lab in response to a bioterrorism event in the USA.
Galveston National Laboratory, National Biocontainment Facility United States, Texas,Galveston Opened in 2008, facility is operated by the University of Texas Medical Branch.[28]
Shope Laboratory United States, Texas,Galveston Operated by the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB).
Texas Biomedical Research Institute United States, Texas,San Antonio The only privately owned BSL-4 lab in the US.

See also[edit]



Texas Ebola patient’s remains will be cremated

By Ashley Fantz and Elizabeth Cohen, CNN
updated 3:28 PM EDT, Wed October 8, 2014

(CNN)[Breaking news update, posted at 3:28 p.m. ET]

The body of Thomas Eric Duncan, who died in Texas from Ebola, will be cremated, state health officials said Wednesday.

Pastor George Mason of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas said Wednesday that he told Duncan’s partner of his death. “It was a painful and difficult time for her. She reacted as almost anyone would, with great shock and despair. She expressed that in her own personal way, with great emotion,” Mason told reporters.

Duncan’s family members were devastated upon learning of his death, Mason said, and worried that “this will be the course that their life will take next.”

Duncan’s partner responded with many “what ifs” about his care when she learned about his death from Ebola, Mason said.

“She is not seeking to create any kinds of divisions in our community over this. She certainly, like all of us, would want to see justice done. She wants to see that people are treated well and treated fairly, and that includes Mr. Duncan. But this is a human drama. It’s not a political drama. … It is a drama of human grief,” Mason said.

A memorial for Duncan be held Wednesday evening, Mason said. The event was originally planned as a prayer vigil, but will now be a memorial for Duncan, Mason said.

[Previous story, posted at 2:49 p.m. ET]

(CNN) — Thomas Eric Duncan, a man with Ebola who traveled to the United States from Liberia, died Wednesday morning at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, the hospital said.

He had been in critical condition after being diagnosed with the virus in mid-September. People who had contact with the 42-year-old Liberian national are being monitored for symptoms.

Read more: Who was Duncan?

Louise Troh, Duncan’s longtime partner, said through a public relations firm that she believes “a thorough examination will take place regarding all aspects of his care.”

“I am now dealing with the sorrow and anger that his son was not able to see him before he died,” Troh said. “This will take some time, but in the end, I believe in a merciful God.”

Did Duncan know he had Ebola?

U.S. to check travelers for fevers

Some members of Duncan’s family are being monitored for the virus — their temperatures taken twice daily — to make sure they don’t have symptoms. Ebola can take 21 days to show itself. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that as of Tuesday, they had not shown any symptoms.

Several who have had contact with him were moved to a secure location Friday.

After word of the death, CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman went to a Dallas apartment where Duncan’s family members were previously and spoke with the adult daughter of Duncan’s partner.

The daughter, Youngor Jallah, is not considered to have come into contact with Duncan. She was crying and declined to speak, though she did say the family had received a call from the hospital and knew that Duncan had died.

Five Dallas schoolchildren who possibly had contact with Duncan remain on the school district’s homebound program during the 21-day wait, and none are showing symptoms, the district said Wednesday.

It has just been a little over a week since Duncan was hospitalized for treatment.

Those days have been an “enormous test of our health system,” said Dr. David Lakey, the commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services.

“For one family it has been far more personal,” he said in a statement. “Today they lost a dear member of their family. They have our sincere condolences, and we are keeping them in our thoughts.”

He vowed that health care workers will continue to try to stop the spread of the virus “and protect people from this threat.”

The Ebola virus can live in dead bodies, the CDC says, and it can be transmitted after death if the body is cut, body fluids are splashed, or if the body is handled. Only personnel trained in handling infected human remains, wearing protective gear, should touch or move Ebola-infected remains, the agency says. An autopsy should be avoided, it says, but if one is necessary, the CDC should be consulted.

Airport screenings

New measures at U.S. airports to screen for people possibly carrying the Ebola virus will include taking passengers’ temperatures and handing them questionnaires, according to a federal official and a second person briefed on an announcement the federal government plans to make Wednesday.

The enhanced methods, focused on people coming from West African nations hit by the Ebola crisis, will begin soon at New York’s JFK airport and then expand to four other major international airports: Newark, Chicago, Washington Dulles and Atlanta.

A federal official says the enhanced screening will apply only to passengers arriving from Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia.

The new measures at U.S. airports come a day after Dr. Thomas Frieden, the director of the CDC, told reporters that devising travel guidelines was in the works but nothing had yet been finalized enough to announce.

Can you catch Ebola on a plane?

The Ebola virus can spread through contact with bodily fluids — blood, sweat, feces, vomit, semen and saliva — and only by someone who is showing symptoms, according to the CDC.

People with Ebola may not be symptomatic for up to 21 days.

Symptoms generally occur abruptly eight to 10 days after infection, though that period can range from two to 21 days, health officials say.

Air travelers must keep in mind that Ebola is not transmitted through the air, said Dr. Marty Cetron, director of the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine.

“There needs to be direct contact frequently with body fluids or blood,” he stressed.

Questions about Duncan’s case

Duncan came to the U.S. to visit family and friends, departing Liberia on September 19, according to the CDC. It was his first trip to America, his half-brother Wilfred Smallwood said. Liberian authorities said he was screened for Ebola before flying.

It’s unclear how he got Ebola, but witnesses have said that he had been helping victims of the virus in Liberia, and The New York Times said he’d had direct contact with an Ebola-stricken pregnant woman. Duncan answered “no” to questions about whether he’d cared for someone with the virus.

His symptoms first appeared “four to five days” after he landed in the U.S., Frieden said.

Duncan went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital after 10 p.m. on September 25 and was treated for a fever, vomiting and abdominal pain — all symptoms of Ebola — but he was sent home with antibiotics and a pain reliever and was not screened for Ebola.

He returned two days later and was then tested for Ebola, after which his treatment at the hospital began.

There are a lot of questions about the handling of Duncan’s case.

Dr. Alex Van Tulleken, an expert in tropical diseases at Fordham University in New York who is not involved in the case, said on CNN on Wednesday that the two-day lag time could have been “significant.”

Cases in Europe

Meanwhile, Frederic Vincent, a spokesman for the European Commission, told CNN on Wednesday that there have been eight confirmed cases of Ebola in European countries. There is one case in the United Kingdom that has been treated and the person has recovered; one case in France like that; two cases in Germany in which patients are receiving treatment; and three cases in Spain: two deceased Spanish missionaries and a nurse’s assistant who is being treated.

There is also a case in which a Norwegian staffer with Doctors Without Borders is being treated, he said.

Also in Spain, health officials said four more potential Ebola cases — in addition to the nurse’s assistant — are under observation.

The nurse’s assistant said that she had no idea how she had contracted the virus, but a doctor treating her said that she may have been exposed while she removed her protective suit.

Dr. German Ramirez said the assistant, who is in isolation at Madrid’s Carlos III Hospital, had told him it was possible that a part of the suit — possibly the gloves — touched her face.

On Wednesday, top British officials discussed ways to contain the virus. Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the meeting, received the latest updates about the United Kingdom’s efforts in Sierra Leone, where it has provided support. The UK will also deploy 750 defense personnel to help establish the Ebola treatment centers.

U.S. personnel are also being deployed.

Read more: Pentagon says troops heading to West Africa

Cases in West Africa

The globe’s largest outbreak of Ebola has killed more than 3,400 people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Since March, more than 7,400 people have contracted Ebola in those nations, according to the World Health Organization.

The CDC is tracking the latest cases in the region.

NBC News freelance cameraman Ashoka Mukpo was diagnosed with Ebola in Liberia on Thursday. He left Liberia on a specially equipped plane Sunday and was headed to Nebraska, the network reported.

Mukpo is in stable condition at The Nebraska Medical Center, hospital representative Taylor Wilson said Wednesday.

The CDC’s Frieden said Tuesday that battling the virus will be a “long, hard fight.”

“The virus is spreading so fast,” he said, “that it’s hard to keep up.”

Steven Hatfill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Steven Jay Hatfill
Born October 24, 1953 (age 60)
Saint Louis, Missouri
Education Southwestern College (1975)University of Zimbabwe (1984)University of Stellenbosch (1993)

Steven Jay Hatfill (born October 24, 1953) is an American physician, virologist and bio-weapons expert who underwent what was considered by many[who?] to be a trial by media with great toll on his personal and professional life. After eight months of pressure from the media and amateur detectives, the US Department of Justice identified the former government scientist as a “person of interest” in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. FBIsearches of his apartment in July and August 2002 were well-attended by journalists, many of whom had been pointing at Hatfill for months. Hatfill later sued the government for ruining his reputation, a case which the government settled for US$ 5.8 million.[1] He also filed lawsuits against several periodicals that had identified him as a figure warranting further investigation. Hatfill’s lawsuit against The New York Times was dismissed on the grounds that he was a “public figure” and malice had not been proven. His lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Reader’s Digest was settled out of court, and the details were not disclosed. FBI and DOJ officials later blamed another government scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, although questions about the validity of that assertion have persisted.

Early life and education

Hatfill was born in Saint Louis, Missouri, and graduated from Mattoon Senior High School, Mattoon, Illinois (1971), and Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas (1975), where he studied biology.

Hatfill was enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army from 1975 to 1977.[2] (In 1999, he would tell a journalist during an interview that he had been a “captain in the U.S. Special Forces“, but in a subsequent investigation the Army stated that he had never served with the Special Forces.[3]) Following his Army discharge, Hatfill qualified and worked as a medical laboratory technician, but soon resolved to become a doctor.

Hatfill then settled in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) entering the Godfrey Huggins Medical School[4] in Salisbury (now Harare) in 1978. (His claimed military associations during this period included assistance as a medic with the Selous Scouts and membership in theRhodesian SAS, but according to one journalist[5] the regimental association of the latter is “adamant Hatfill never belonged to the unit”.) He graduated (after failing in 1983) with a M ChB degree in 1984 and then completed a one year internship (1984–85) at a small rural hospital in South Africa’s North West Province. The South African government recruited him to be medical officer on a 14 month (1986–88) tour of duty in Antarctica with the South African National Antarctic Expedition (SANAE). He then completed (1988) a master’s degree in microbiology at the University of Cape Town. He worked toward a second master’s (1990; medical biochemistry and radiation biology) at the University of Stellenbosch, while working again as a paid med tech in the University’s clinical hematology lab. A 3-yearhematological pathology residency (1991–93) at Stellenbosch followed, during which time Hatfill conducted research on the treatment of leukemia with thalidomide.[5] This research, toward an anticipated PhD degree, was conducted (1992–95) under the supervision of Professor Ralph Kirby at Rhodes University.

Hatfill submitted his PhD thesis for examination to Rhodes in January 1995, but it was failed in November and no degree was ever granted.[5] Hatfill later claimed a Ph.D. degree in “molecular cell biology” from Rhodes, as well as completion of a post-doctoral fellowship (1994–95) at the University of Oxford in England and three master’s degrees (in microbial genetics, medical biochemistry, and experimental pathology). Some of these credentials have been questioned. During a later investigation, officials at Rhodes insisted that he had never been awarded a Ph.D. from their institution.[6] (In 2007, Hatfill’s lawyer Tom Connolly[7] — in his lawsuit against former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI — admitted that his client had “Puffed on his resume. Absolutely. Forged a diploma. Yes, that’s true.”[8])

Back in the U.S., another of Hatfill’s post-doctoral appointments commenced at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, in 1995. He subsequently worked (1997–99) as a civilian researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the U.S. Department of Defense‘s medical research institute for biological warfare (BW) defense at Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD. There he studied, under aNational Research Council fellowship, new drug treatments for the Ebola virus and became a specialist in virology and BW defense.

Anthrax attacks

In January 1999 Hatfill transferred to a “consulting job” at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which has a “sprawling campus” in nearby McLean, Virginia. The corporation did work for a multitude of federal agencies. Many projects were classified.

By this time there had been a number of hoax anthrax mailings in the United States. Hatfill and his collaborator, SAIC vice president Joseph Soukup, commissioned William C. Patrick, retired head of the old US bioweapons program (who had also been a mentor of Hatfill) to write a report on the possibilities of terrorist anthrax mailing attacks. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (director of the Federation of American Scientists‘ biochem weapons working group in 2002) said that the report was commissioned “under a CIA contract to SAIC”. However, SAIC said Hatfill and Soukup commissioned it internally — there was no outside client.

The resulting report, dated February 1999, was subsequently seen by some as a “blueprint” for the 2001 anthrax attacks. Amongst other things, it suggested the maximum amount of anthrax powder – 2.5 grams – that could be put in an envelope without making a suspicious bulge. The quantity in the envelope sent to Senator Patrick Leahy in October 2001 was .871 grams.[9] After the attacks, the report drew the attention of the media and others, and led to their investigation of Patrick and Hatfill.[10]

Assertions by Rosenberg

In October 2001, as soon as it became known that the Ames strain of anthrax had been used in the attacks, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and others began suggesting that the attack might be the work of a “rogue CIA agent”, and they provided the name of the “most likely” person to the FBI. On November 21, 2001, Rosenberg made similar statements to the Biological and Toxic Weapons convention in Geneva.[11] In December 2001, she published “A Compilation of Evidence and Comments on the Source of the Mailed Anthrax” via the web site of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) suggesting the attacks were “perpetrated with the unwitting assistance of a sophisticated government program”.[12]

Rosenberg discussed the case with reporters from the New York Times.[13] On January 4, 2002, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times published a column titled “Profile of a Killer”[14] stating “I think I know who sent out the anthrax last fall.” For months, Rosenberg gave speeches and stated her beliefs to many reporters from around the world. She posted “Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks” to the FAS web site on January 17, 2002. On February 5, 2002 she published an article called “Is the FBI Dragging Its Feet?”[15] At the time, the FBI denied reports that investigators had identified a chief suspect, saying “There is no prime suspect in this case at this time.”[16] The Washington Post reported that “FBI officials over the last week have flatly discounted Dr. Rosenberg’s claims.”[17]

On June 13, 2002, Rosenberg posted “The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows” to the FAS site. On June 18, 2002, Rosenberg presented her theories to senate staffers working for Senators Daschle and Leahy.[18] One week later, on June 25, the FBI publicly searched Hatfill’s apartment, turning him into a household name. “The FBI also pointed out that Hatfill had agreed to the search and is not considered a suspect.”[19] Both The American Prospect and reported that “Hatfill is not a suspect in the anthrax case, the FBI says.”[20] On August 3, 2002, Rosenberg told the media that the FBI asked her if “a team of government scientists could be trying to frame Steven J. Hatfill.”[21]

Person of interest

In August 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled Hatfill a “person of interest” in a press conference, although no charges were brought against him. Hatfill, a virologist, vehemently denied he had anything to do with the anthrax (bacteria) mailings and sued the FBI, the Justice Department, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and others for violating his constitutional rights and for violating the Privacy Act. On June 27, 2008, the Department of Justice announced it would settle Hatfill’s case for $5.8 million.[22]

Hatfill later went to work at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA. In September 2001 SAIC was commissioned by the Pentagon to create a replica of a mobile WMD “laboratory”, alleged to have been used by Saddam Hussein, who was President of Iraq at the time. The Pentagon claimed the trailer was to be used as a training aid for teams seeking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[23]

His lawyer, Victor M. Glasberg,[24] stated: “Steve’s life has been devastated by a drumbeat of innuendo, implication and speculation. We have a frightening public attack on an individual who, guilty or not, should not be exposed to this type of public opprobrium based on speculation.”[25]

In an embarrassing incident, FBI agents trailing Hatfill in a motor vehicle ran over his foot when he attempted to approach them in May 2003. Police responding to the incident did not cite the driver, but issued Hatfill a citation for “walking to create a hazard”.[26] He and his attorneys fought the ticket, but a hearing officer upheld the ticket and ordered Hatfill to pay the requisite $5 fine.[27]

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006, and at that time another suspect, USAMRIID bacteriologist Bruce Ivins, became the main focus of the investigation.[28] Considerable questions have been raised, however, about the credibility of the case against Ivins as well.[29]

60 Minutes interview

Hatfill’s lawyer, Tom Connolly, was featured in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about the anthrax incidents on March 11, 2007.[8] In the interview it was revealed that Hatfill forged a Ph.D. degree certificate. “It is true. It is true that he has puffed on his resume. Absolutely”, Connolly acknowledged. “Forged a diploma. Yes, that’s true.” He went on to state, “Listen, if puffing on your resume made you the anthrax killer, then half this town should be suspect.”

The New York Times stated in their paper that Hatfill had obtained an anti-anthrax medicine (ciprofloxacin) immediately prior to the anthrax mailings. Connolly explained, “Before the attacks he had surgery. So yes, he’s on Cipro. But the fuller truth is in fact he was on Cipro because a doctor gave it to him after sinus surgery”. Hatfill had previously said the antibiotic was for a lingering sinus infection.[30] The omission in the Times’ article, of the reason why he had been taking Cipro, is one reason Hatfill sued the newspaper. The newspaper won a summary judgment ruling in early 2007, squelching the libel suit that had been filed by Steven Hatfill against it and columnist Nicholas Kristof.[31]


Hatfill v. John Ashcroft, et al.

On the 26th of August 2003, Hatfill filed a lawsuit[32] against the Attorney General of the United States John Ashcroft, the United States Department of Justice, DOJ employees Timothy Beres and Daryl Darnell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Van Harp and an unknown number of FBI agents.[33]

On March 30, 2007, US District Judge Reggie Walton issued an order warning Hatfill that he could lose his civil lawsuit over the leaks if he did not compel journalists to name their sources. He gave Hatfill until April 16 to decide whether to press the journalists to give up their sources.[34]

On April 16, Hatfill gave notice that he would “proceed with discovery to attempt to obtain the identity of the alleged source or sources at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation who allegedly provided information to news reporters concerning the criminal investigation of Dr. Hatfill.”

On April 27, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, federal prosecutors[clarification needed] wrote that Steven Hatfill had overstepped court orders allowing him to compel testimony from reporters whom he had already questioned and had instead “served a new round of subpoenas” on organizations “that he failed to question during the discovery period.”[35]

During the first round of depositions, Hatfill subpoenaed six reporters: Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek, Brian Ross of ABC, Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, Jim Stewart of CBS, and Toni Locy of USA Today.

Hatfill now has subpoenaed eight news organizations, including three that he didn’t name before: The New York Times (Nicolas Kristof, David Johnson, William Broad, Kate Zernike, Judith Miller, Scott Shane, and Frank D. Roylance), The Baltimore Sun (Gretchen Parker and Curt Anderson), and the Associated Press. Subpoenas for Washington Post writers Marilyn W. Thompson, David Snyder, Guy Gugliotta, Tom Jackman, Dan Eggen and Carol D. Loenning, and for Mark Miller of Newsweek, are now included.

The Justice Department responded to Hatfill’s subpoenas, saying that they went too far. “The court should reject this attempt to expand discovery,” prosecutors wrote.[36] In a status conference on Friday 11 January 2008, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered the attorneys for the government and for Hatfill to seek mediation over the next two months. According to the Scheduling Order, the parties will be in mediation from January 14 until May 14, 2008. The prospects of a mediated settlement notwithstanding, Walton said he expected that a trial on the lawsuit could begin in December. Afterward, Hatfill’s attorney Mark A. Grannis said: “The court has set a schedule for bringing this case to trial this year, and we’re very pleased at the prospect that Dr. Hatfill will finally have his day in court.”[37]

On March 7, 2008, Toni Locy of USA Today was ordered to personally pay contempt of court fines of up to $5,000 a day which begin the following Tuesday, until she identifies her sources.[38]

On June 27, 2008 Hatfill was exonerated by the government and a settlement was announced in which the Justice Department has agreed to pay $4.6 million (consisting of $2.825 million in cash and an annuity paying $150,000 a year for 20 years)[39] to settle the lawsuit in which Hatfill claimed the Justice Department violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case.[40][41]

Hatfill v. The New York Times

In July 2004, Hatfill filed a lawsuit against The New York Times Company and Nicholas D. Kristof.

In a sealed motion[42] on December 29, 2006, The New York Times argued that the classification restrictions imposed on the case were tantamount to an assertion of the state secrets privilege. Times attorneys cited the case law on state secrets to support their argument that the case should be dismissed. The “state secrets” doctrine, they said, “precludes a case from proceeding to trial when national security precludes a party from obtaining evidence that is… necessary to support a valid defense. Dismissal is warranted in this case because the Times has been denied access to such evidence, specifically documents and testimony concerning the work done by plaintiff [Hatfill] on classified government projects relating to bioweapons, including anthrax.”[citation needed]

A redacted copy[42] of the December 29, 2006 New York Times Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for an Order Dismissing the Complaint Under the “State Secrets” Doctrine was obtained by Secrecy News.[43]

Attorneys for Hatfill filed a sealed response on January 12, 2007 in opposition to the motion for dismissal on state secrets grounds. A redacted copy[44] of their opposition has been made available by Secrecy News.[45]

On January 12, 2007, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Hatfill against The New York Times.[46]

On January 30, 2007, Judge Hilton’s order dismissing the Hatfill v. The New York Times was made public, along with a Memorandum Opinion explaining his ruling.Kenneth A. Richieri, Vice President and General Counsel of The New York Times scored what he called a “very satisfying win” at the beginning of 2007 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The newspaper won a summary judgment ruling squelching a libel suit that had been filed by anthrax poisoning “person of interest” Steven Hatfill against it and columnist Nicholas Kristof.[31]

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court, ruling that a jury should decide that issue. In March 2008, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in the case, effectively leaving the appeals court decision in place.

The case was dismissed in a Summary Judgment on January 12, 2007. The appeals were heard on March 21, 2008, and the dismissal was upheld by the appeals court on July 14, 2008. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and was rejected by the Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2008.[47] The basis for the dismissal was that Dr. Hatfill was a “public figure”, and he had not proved malice on the part of The New York Times.

Hatfill v. Foster

Donald Foster, an expert in forensic linguistics, advised the FBI during the investigation of the anthrax attacks. He later wrote an article for Vanity Fair about his investigation of Hatfill. In the October 2003 article Foster described how he had tried to match up Hatfill’s travels with the postmarks on the anthrax letters, and analyzed old interviews and an unpublished novel by Hatfill about a bioterror attack on the United States. Foster wrote that “When I lined up Hatfill’s known movements with the postmark locations of reported biothreats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud”.[48]

Hatfill subsequently sued Donald Foster, Condé Nast Publications, Vassar College, and The Reader’s Digest Association. The suit sought $10 million in damages, claiming defamation.[49] The Reader’s Digest published a condensed version of the article in December 2003.

The lawyers delayed bringing the Hatfill v. Foster lawsuit to court because “the parties are close to finalizing the settlement”.

On February 27, 2007, The New York Sun reported that he settled without a trial.[50]

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: