In 13 years of running my blog I have never been exposed to such a tirade of abuse as I have for refusing to accept without evidence that Russia is the only possible culprit for the Salisbury attack. The abuse has mostly been on twitter, and much of the most venomous stuff has come from corporate and state media “journalists”. I suppose I am a standing rebuke to them for merely being stenographers to power and never doing any actual research, but that hardly explains the visceral levels of hatred exhibited.
Today they are all terrifically happy and sharing amongst themselves a lengthy twitter thread by a Blairite and chemist called Clyde Davis in which they all say I am “owned” and my article disproven. There are two remarkable things about this thread.
The first remarkable thing is the remarkably high percentage of those who are sharing it with commendations who are mainstream media journalists. Last I saw was George Monbiot five minutes ago, but there are dozens. I suppose it is important to them as validating their decision to support uncritically the government line without doing any actual journalism.
The second remarkable thing is that the thread they are all sharing misses out almost all my side of the conversation. An objective observer might think that made it hard to say who “won” the argument. To be fair, that is probably not deliberate but appears to be a result of how twitter does threading. Here I reconstruct by paste the thread with my responses. It may give a better idea of whether Mr Davis completely “destroys” my article, as the “professional” journalists are all claiming. And as Mr Davies is critiquing my article, perhaps you might refresh yourself on that first here.
Neither my reply nor Davies’ rejoinder are included in the thread which the mainstream “journalists” are circulating. Note that Davies responds to being challenged, with a riposte which is untrue. The OPCW have never changed their position on the physical existence of “novichoks” from the position I gave and referenced in my article. By contrast, Mr Davies gives no reference for his claim the OPCW has changed its mind. Personally I find it problematic that somebody like Mr Davies who blusters so loud on scientific method, responds to a challenge to his position with an apparent invention.
It is indeed true that Porton Down (which here means the British government), however, have changed their position since 2016 when, as I again demonstrated in my article with references, they said there was no evidence for the physical existence of “novichoks”. Now apparently they have said not only do they have one, but it is indubitably Russian. If a “novichok” is indeed in the possession of Porton Down, of course scientists, like diplomats and the others involved, will change their position on the existence of Novichoks. As will I. But that, in any sense, that will prove it is of Russian manufacture is a totally different question.
Then along came the man who really did put me to shame. A Mr Kevin Smyth who completely demolished Davis with a simple polite question:
That part of the exchange is also missing from the thread being circulated so gleefully at the moment.
So what does Davies tell us in this article delivered by twitter which “demolishes” my article.
1) Davies acknowledges that until recently Porton Down and OPCW doubted the physical existence of “novichoks”. He says they have now changed their minds. [Porton Down has indeed undergone a remarkable change of mind in the last week , but the OPCW has yet to see the evidence].
2) Davis states that chemists can tell if a compound corresponds to one of the “novichoks” described by Mirzyanov, but Davis specifically accepts that does not prove Russian manufacture.
3) Davis nevertheless states strongly it is Russia because he believes Russia has form and motive.
Nothing here can remotely be said to be conclusive. The question that puzzles me, is why are so many mainstream media journalists gleefully seizing on this series of tweets as a destruction of the need for sceptical inquiry? A possible answer:
1) Davies by claiming credentials as a chemist conforms to the corporate media urge for an appeal to authority. He validates the government line and he is a chemist. He can throw in the names of chemicals and molecular diagrams. That kind of thing impresses journalists. That he explicitly admits the chemistry cannot prove Russia did it, is apparently irrelevant.
2) Davies thus provides a smokescreen of respectability by which they can continue to advance their careers by cutting and pasting the government line without question.
In fact, all of Davies’ “chemistry” in this exchange sets out to prove something which was never disputed – that chemists are able to identify whether or not a substance is one of the “novichok” compounds described by Mirzyanov. But as he published the formulae two decades ago, and has been living in the USA, and as the US dismantled and studied the Nukus plant, and as Porton Down had never seen any evidence the Russians actually succeeded in synthesising “novichoks, this in no way adds up to evidence of Russian manufacture. As Davies, to his credit, finally acknowledged when confronted by an interlocutor for whom he did not have automatic hatred.
I can’t say the midgies bother me that much. But they are interesting to study.
The correct post typo checked/amended post below.
This twitter thread was also promoted on the Guardian comments today (unsurprisingly) and was also challenged.
Taken from that thread, another good question for the eminent research scientist Mr Davies:
Why, if this nerve agent so directly attributable to the Russians is so potently and devastatingly deadly and that “one drop smaller than a pin head of a compound 10 times less potent can kill a healthy man”, why is it that this attack did not result in the immediate death of the victims? Is it dilutable? Are it’s effects known to be non instantaneous? Could Mr Clyde Davis, ex research scientist please elaborate?
They are in utter panic mode Craig, for the last ten days they’ve been trying hard to bring over their mass propaganda and you best switch your twitter feed off for now, cause they are going to carry on.
Football fans must be worried about the tensions that are being raised in Russians, by means of groundless accusations by very desperate Tory politicians. They are being battered on Brexit and strangled by their own mistakes over this incident.
Are the Skripals, whatever state they are in, getting the right medical attention at all? Or are the specialist from the anti terrorist squad just ensuring that they are quiet and that nobody will be able to talk to them?
The victims are being sidelined for the great game must go on. I expect another chemical attack, with the white helmets being close by/involved, before the week is out. Be rest assured that the cacophony over it will all be directed towards Russia and that the rogue, land stealing state to the west of Syria, as well as our raw state, would have been batting away the corruption charges and the failure of a hard Brexit/ failing Government.
Too much ad hominem from Craig, methinks. You can’t take an it-was-anyone-but-Russia approach and not expect criticism, especially when, as Craig seems to have obliquely acknowledged when he suggested the Israelis did it to make it look as if it were Russia, it does so much look like the Russians.
I’m quite prepared to be sceptical about the media and UKGov comments, and yes May may have added two and two and made 5 on this one, but Craig’s “speculations” verge on the ridiculous.
So far he has shat on Skripal – Skripal is no Litvinenko – which was none to classy, then put just about everyone else in the frame: the UKGov, the Clintons (where they got access to Novichok entirely unexplained), a small organisation which wrote a dossier on Trump (again no explanation of their access to Novichok) and the Israelis. It’s anyone but the Russians.
Losing credibility I’m afraid. To believe this stuff you have to embrace credulity.
Hi, Dunwich
Quote, “So far he has shat on Skripal – Skripal is no Litvinenko – which was none to classy, then put just about everyone else in the frame: the UKGov, the Clintons (where they got access to Novichok entirely unexplained), a small organisation which wrote a dossier on Trump (again no explanation of their access to Novichok) and the Israelis. It’s anyone but the Russians.”
Where the Clintons might have gained access to that alleged agent? Craig has been at great pains to explain the US cleaned out the Uzbek lab where this “Novichok” agent was supposedly developed. That’s where. Where the UK and others might have got access to the agent? Same place. Uzbekistan was in disarray and I have read the plant was not well guarded. Who would have been interested in stealing Soviet chemical weapons? Every country in the West could have wanted to study them.
Plus, the chemist has published the formula years ago, it seems. So who could have got access to that poison? Anybody.
Anyway, first things first: the UK has the legal obligation to hand over a sample from the Salisbury crime scene to the OPCW.
As soon as they do that, the fog will start clearing.
You are embracing credulity. Novichok may or may not have been created in the Uzbek lab. Other reports suggest it was in Russia. But supposing that’s right. Do you not think it’s a bit of a leap to say it was then given to or stolen by the Clintons. Which is what you are saying. Likewise for that organisation that wrote that dossier on Trump. One can imagine that if the US had brought any back, it would have been quite heavily guarded. But clearly no problem for a few wonks to get hold of it
Yet Craig insists both speculations just as valid as the idea that it had something to do with the Russian state/mafia. I’m not buying it. Tell me why you are.
Well, put it this way – who benefits?
I am clear that if I was a Russian special agent who wanted to kill someone in this way, the first thing I would do would be to find some chemical agent which could be identified as being used (ideally, solely) by the CIA or MI6, and use that. Then I could sit back and enjoy the furore.
The idea that the Russians would do their best to make it look like their own work is laughable, unless you think they want more sanctions. Maybe they do, of course, as current sanctions have led to more self-sufficiency in Russian industry, but it would seem to be a rather roundabout way of achieving this goal.
This current craze is just more fodder for the sheep.
@dunwich,
I am with you on this one.
I have no insider knowledge and a shaky grasp of chemistry, but it does seem to me as if people are being over-eager in seeing a deeper conspiracy here.
None of it is as convincing as the case laid out in the mainstream media… Russia has done this sort of thing before, and had motives for doing so.
proof? none… “If you have a weak argument, shout louder”.. that is may and the msm approach at this point.. lets skip the conspiracy crap and get some real facts… so far may and the uk gov’t are providing none.. that is a big fat zero…
Dunwich do you speak fluent organophosphate? I don’t. If you do…fill ya’ boots.
https://alchetron.com/Novichok-agent
More often than not this blog is ad hominem, whether the target is Oliver Kamm, Jake Wallis Simons, Lady Arbuthnott or now a chemist who pointed out a few facts
I think….to pit iy simply…he has pointed out that there are other avenues not being considered….and asking were is the hard evidence to conclude what they have.. that seems sensible? Why with all the resources that can be brought to this….can we not present the conclusive evidence?
You’re seriously suggesting that the email exchange I’ve just read has ‘too much ad hominem from Craig’? The abuse from the alleged scientist is relentless. Nothing about his behaviour during the exchange suggests scientific competence or method. As soon as someone else asks the same question, how is this traceable to the Russian government, he concedes the very point Craig Murray was making: it can’t be proven, you can only say that a molecular formula has been reproduced. Guilt is presumed because ‘Russia’. I’m very willing to accept a calm technical explanation of culpability based on real evidence, if and when one becomes available. It’s astonishing that this is no longer a basic parameter for most people, including journalists.
(correction: twitter exchange)
Exactly my view on this. Clyde Davies is an embarrassment to any sense of scientific method or logic.
The strangest thing for me in all this is the lack of focus on the victims. No meaningful update on the condition of the 2 supposed targets, nor any reportage from those who presumably suffered severe psychological trauma as they waited to find out if they had been exposed, and if they were waiting to find out if the likely dose was below the threshold for causing any ill effect. Have we seen any media interviews with anyone actually exposed to this stuff?
The whole thing just seems like such a confection. If an unknown quantity of a highly lethal nerve agent has been smuggled into the UK, surely an actual investigation would need to find out where it is, how much there is, how it came into the country. The fact that in lieu of all that it’s has simply been stated by fiat that it was Russia; and anyone who points out the incongruities in that conclusion is to be labelled a traitor and/or a Kremlin agent.
Yes indeed you make a good point which I have also made before. Wouldn’t it have been better to transfer the Skrupals to a centre of excellence where there are proper isolation facilities to protect the staff. Not all intensive care units are equipped to deal with chemical warfare. I think the Royal Free is oone such a designated unit. Moreover, the advice given to those possibly contaminated have been rather amateurish and nobody seems to be warning against perpetrators on the loose.
here is a website to be put on twitter before you switch off for a break.
http://ionalister.co.uk/midge.htm
“The daughter of the former Russian double agent was the real target of the nerve agent attack that has left them both fighting for life, his niece has claimed. Victoria Skripal has alleged that Yulia, 33, argued with her boyfriend’s mother, a highly-ranked Russian security official, after he said they wanted to start a family. Her prospective mother-in-law was said to have been upset that he wanted to marry into the family of a man viewed as a ‘traitor’ by many in Moscow. ‘The mother didn’t accept Yulia and thought that, if she was a traitor’s daughter, then she herself would betray her country.’ ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5503849/Was-Russian-spys-daughter-REAL-target-nerve-agent-attack.html
Ah! The Mail. Not very credible then.
Oops, the Mail got it from the Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5812917/russia-attack-daughter-yulia-real-victim-niece-claims/
Muddy those waters.
What is saddest of all with this Daily Fail and The Scum crap is that they think some people will swallow it..
But again, in essence, the supposed ‘serious’ MSM will just happily see anything published that supports their own evidence free ‘Russia did it’ narrative.
MSM has mostly been pure propaganda on foreign policy issues, well, since WWII, but this episode takes the bar even lower than Iraq WMD..
We need a different model for media to create some real diversity and plurality. Perfectly easy to create a public funded, but ‘commons’ sector, beyond the control of the establishment (eg BBC board and Public School infestation).
Stay strong Sir and keep getting objective information out to us. We need you and indeed people like Kevin Smyth. The PM is desperate for distraction from Brexit, and to be seen to be “strong and stable” and seems prepared to do anything to stay in power, including keeping unpalatable truths from the population. ?
I think the bigger distraction here is Telford!
I haven’t heard her mention it once.
Even the local police are trying to down play it?
Brexit is going exactly how she wants it, we’re staying in, but we don’t know it yet!
I have seen these sorts of attacks in another sphere, that of global warming/climate change.
The first way to refute the appeal to authority is to determine whether self-righteous scientist is funded by the taxpeyer (i.e. you amongst others). Without further discussion, if he is, you have a right to an opinion about what he says, as you help to pay his salary.
I have worked performing professional due diligence on scientists’ inventions in many UK academic institutions. I learned quickly that senior scientists are used to being admired, not used to having their egos dented and will try it on unless you show you have done your homework on their research.
I also learned that many failed to understand that the academic literature is but a subset of sources of scientific advance (patent filings being an obvious second).
Thirdly I learned that many could not distinguish between their technical solution and the best technical solution (which is the one industry is interested in).
So I have a track record of closing down cases where academics could not see that there was no value commercially in their elegant academic work. As a result, I had threats, I had Professors clearly involved in electronic hacking of my computers and I learned that scientists could be stroppy threatening wankers from time to time.
So let us look at this Clyde Davies:
1) A mass spectrometer, Mr Davies, is solely capable of indicating the presence of certain bonds in compounds. It works very well in identifying pure compounds, but when you have complex mixtures, it is rather less useful. So you need to purify your sample first before using mass spec. analysis….
2) Without wishing to put your chemical credentials through a macerator, Dr Davies, the only way you could ascertain if a given compound were manufactured in Russia or not is if the manufacturing process left Russia-specific signatures or you have the paperwork associated with production and delivery from Russian manufacturers. There are only two Russia-specific signatures I can think of: firstly, Russia is known to be the only place on earth making them (and Uzbek factories in the 1990s rather dispels that without difficulty); the second is unique use of certain solvents during final purification leaving trace residues as a Russian signature, when any other manufacturing sites outside Russia use clearly distinct ones. I am assuming the dastardly Russkies did not use dastardly signatures using deuterium, tritium, carbon14, or other isotopes making manufacture considerably more hazardous and expensive…..
Were any unique solvent-associated residues remaining in Russian-manufactured goods, would you detect that in material taken from patients or only from the pure vial held by the killers? Unless the authorities have scientific evidence to the contrary, the most likely conclusion is the latter. As Dr Davies can use ‘balance of probabilities, so can I…..and Mr Davies, being a chemist, knows less about physiology than biologists…..so as a biologist I will tell him that the Russians would only leave a signature if they wanted it to be found….
I have a few questions for Mr Davies:
1) Do you have a sufficiently skeptical mind to test the hypothesis that the greatest dangers to peace now are not Russia and North Korea but the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel? If not, why not?
2) Do you have a sufficient grasp of physics to understand the logical consequences of what conclusions could be drawn from how WTC1, -2 and -7 collapsed?
3) As you as a chemist cannot be questioned on Novichoks, do you think surgeons who are adamant that David Kelly could not have died bleeding out from the ulnar artery cannot be questioned either, especially not by you? If not, why not? They are as eminent in their field as you are in yours, after all…..
4) As a scientist, can you correlate false Western accusations with subsequent acts of war, or is that too fuzzy wuzzy for a chemist? Are you still a believer that Uk politicians tell the truth or do you start from the premise that they tell the lies more powerful masters tell them to tell? If the former, did Tony Blair not give you pause for thought?
One thing which can usefully be clarified is Dr Davies’ current position and how tenable it would remain if he deviated from the Establishment Line. Those prepared to lose their jobs by telling the truth usually have greater inherent credibility than those joining the mob…..
It would also be valuable to know whether Dr Davies knows any non-scientist Russians still living in Russia. London emigres are hardly a balanced sample of Russians, after all. Demonising Putin from afar is easier than asking Russians if Putin has improved their economic well being, has stood up for Russian interests and has increased both life expectancy and infant mortality in Russia. Monsters rarely attend to such matters…..
I could go on, but no doubt others can line up further lines of cross examination of a hostile witness…..
“I have seen these sorts of attacks in another sphere, that of global warming/climate change.”
You will see it too on http://www.ae911truth.org/ but we are not in this Orwellian world allowed to discuss such things, though you make a good point about it in your comment.
It strikes me Rhys that these people, apologists for the government lie, are not interested in argument. The peer-group vilification of Russia gives them enough solace not to need arguments to back up their nonsense. They have been tarred with the Boris Johnson bluster brush. It is sure to backfire on them.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clyde_Davies
Clyde DaviesUniversity of Nottingham | Notts · University of Nottingham Library
One research paper, more to do with computer programmes than chemistry, in 2012.
I am pleased to see you inquired into his antecedents.
Does he sell wet fish as a sideline?
Well said.
I also was surprised by his reference to mass spectrometers, but ” a mass spectrometer, Mr Davies, is solely capable of indicating the presence of certain bonds in compounds” is not correct.
Mass spectrometers *can* be used to determine the structure of a compound by observing its fragmentation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry#Applications), but they also have many other uses. I used them for analyzing the isotopic compostion of minerals, for instance – both stable isotopes and radionuclides (radiometric dating). This was a long time ago, so I am sure that additional uses and more advanced equipment have been developed since then, but they have not stopped being used for the purposes I am familiar with.
That said, I am inclned to agree with your criticisms, both of scientists in general (I’ve retired – phew!) and of Clyde Davies.
Nice how, having made a jugular attack on your person, Davis then invites you to “play the ball, not the man”.
As soon as the story broke I came to this blog for information. Nuff said.
Exactly!
Exactly.
A relevant post has just appeared on the site of a ‘Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media’ recently set up by a group of British academics. It is co-authored by Paul McKeigue, Professor of Statistical Genetics and Genetic Epidemiology at Edinburgh University, and Piers Robinson, Professor of Politics, Society and Political Journalism’ at Sheffield University, and is entitled ‘Doubts about “Novichoks”.’
http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers
H/T to David Habakkuk on Colonel Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Craig – firstly, a minor point. Your critic here is named Clyde Davies, not “Davis” (as you constantly refer to him).
Secondly, not all your critics on this are “mainstream”, “corporate” or “Blairite”, although these labels (and similar) are copiously used throughout both your blog and the comments section to denigrate anyone who criticises you. So, instead of rational argument, we get a kind of “them and us” generalisation, which just alienates.
I agree there’s too much abuse and snide nonsense from many of your critics. But it’s hardly one way. Get over yourself. For example, I get fed up with the way you and your followers constantly smear George Monbiot, as he seems to me one of the more decent, empirically-based journalists, always willing to change his views as evidence dictates (there are many cases of his having done so, unlike many of the ideologues among your own supporters).
Monbiot has been a gatekeeper for the establishment for long enough.
That they are willing to ‘burn’ him this time is highly relevant.
“gatekeeper for the establishment”. Uh-huh. Medialens (who have a lot to answer for as “pioneers” of these stupid smears against Monbiot) recently described him as “hard right”.
It’s idiocy. Read his complete output rather than focusing only on the issues on which you disagree with him. Let me know when you’ve published as many articles *attacking* the neoliberal establishment as Monbiot has done.
The admirable thing about Monbiot is that he manages to take on corporate and state interests *without* resorting to conspiracy speculations and “false flag” nuttiness. He opposes authoritarianism, greed and fakery *wherever* it resides – in UK, US *and* Russia.
If he’s pushing spurious justications for another regime change in the mideast then surely it’s legitimate to question him. The last two didn’t turn out so well.
Please give one example of a medialens smear of Monbiot? I think you’ll find the smears have all been one way, from Monbiot.
Presumably you’re unaware of the time ZNet refused to publish a Medialens article precisely because it smeared Monbiot. In the words of ZNet editor, Michael Albert, the Medialens article falsely “implied that a very excellent journalist, George Monbiot, was protecting corporate interests”. Albert added: “We refuse to give silly and destructive claims and formulations credibility”.
That’s by the standard definition of smear. By Medialens’s own, comically low-bar, definition, they’ve “smeared” Monbiot repeatedly for years. They seem a tad obsessed with him.
Agreed. Craig’s snide remarks about dear old George do him no credit. George Monbiot has taken as much flak for going against mainstream opinion as Craig has, so this lack of sympathy is regrettable.
I am a PhD biochemist, formerly a professor in that subject.
There is something deeply fishy going on here. I don’t doubt that he is a chemist – and is happy to go into arcane details of synthetic processes, whilst stating that these substances are several times more potent than Vx, whilst omitting to state that some may well be so, but others may be much less potent – and some in the class described (he appears to have blagged the structures from a wikipedia article on them) may be biologically inert.
Indeed the same wikipedia article states:
These agents were designed to achieve four objectives:
1. To be undetectable using standard 1970s and 80s NATO chemical detection equipment;
2. To defeat NATO chemical protective gear;
3. To be safer to handle;
4. To circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention list of controlled precursors, classes of chemical and physical form.
Point 3 could be accomplished by, for example, the use of relatively innocuous precursors, and the production of a readily hydrolyable end-product. Close contact with the intended victim may be necessary.
The analytical methods he suggests using (spectroscopy, NMR etc) could indeed determine what class of chemical they may be (including highly toxic – and completely biologically inactive) but would be extremely unlikely of themselves to be able to tell one from the other. He kind of admits this when he says they could ‘say with a great deal of confidence’ what kind of compound it is.
But the gold standard would be direct comparison with an identical reference compound using chromatography – and if they have enough, direct comparison using the methods he cites which are largely destructive. Moreover, samples are likely to be contaminated with lytic products of the original chemical (and environmental contaminants), and hence analysts would have to deal with a soup of substances. He’d knows this, which accounts for the use of the subjunctive tense. So even in terms of the science, his utter certainty is puzzling.
You have already pointed out that his geographical extrapolations cannot logically follow from his chemical argument – even were it not flawed and presented without caveat. So we have utter certainty built on scientific rubble – and diplomatic dross.
All of this may account for the fact that the authorities failed to activate isolation techniques for almost a week – and when they did – they suggested that folks merely “wash contaminated clothing” Eh????
This suggests that the substance concerned is readily hydrolysed (broken down by water), and in its active form is not persistent. Water, of course is pretty ubiquitous – even in Salisbury.
(My guess is that they don’t have an exact reference, and do not know the precise molecule concerned – unless they synthesised it themselves – the latter point could account for their initial insouciance followed by an overblown and distinctly tardy security response.)
In order to determine which precise chemical is present, they require pure compound in reasonable quantities, and ideally a quantity of pure reference compound.
Biological samples are much more problematic, since quite apart from chemical processes, they will have been metabolised and conjugated to other substances in the body’s detoxification processes.
It will be interetsting to see what, if anything they are able to send to the international authorities.
I smell “Dodgy Dossier”
thanks for articulating all that.. ”dodgy dossier” is a good name for it!
Could it be that the doctors and scientists around the three patients (not forgeting the policeman) are barking entirely up the wrong tree and that the patients are suffering from food poisoning. What cirumstances link all three patients?
I do hope the future substantial findings in this case refer to something firmer than Mirzayanov’s public domain stuff. I find it hard to believe that during and following the chaos of the post-communist years, the tides of defectors and emigrants, decades of espionage and the black market, that more substantial information than solely Mirzayanov’s exists. But there is only one thing to be certain of here: given that these events involve the intelligence services, we will never really be sure about what happened.
The Kivelidi case is interesting, since the case against Khutsishvili was based explicitly on the chemical weapons field in the 1990’s being ‘leaky’ under terrible economic circumstances. In particular – Just who is Igor Rink (sometimes, for some reason, also called ‘Leonard”), and where did he go? Igor Rink was the Saratov chemist accused of selling vials of a nerve agent through intermediaries, and alleged by one of Khutsishvili’s lawyers – unsubstantiated, probably – of dealing in samples of agents with chechens on the side. Rink himself gave evidence against Khutsishvili. It is a very strange case, after just a cursory look.
The lawyer is Boris Kuznetsov, who fled Russia a few years ago and has a history of defending high profile cases with elements of supposed FSB involvement.
Khutsishvili was released early only a few years ago and disappeared, presumably only into anonymity.
…that *no* more substantial information than solely Mirzayanov’s…
Thanks for generating questions and discussion on this issue. I have an open mind on who may have done this and why, but it seems clear that there is much more to both the events and the background than we are currently being told by the authorities. Is it possible that the evidence will not be there in the end, that May will look like a fool and have to resign and make way for someone else. Stranger things have happened.
Come on, Corbyn! Stand firm against the tide of fact-free sewage! Don’t buckle!
Too late, he’s buckled. Corbyn is what the Chinese used to call a “Paper Tiger”
I am still surprised that a week later, people were told to wash their clothes or burn them?
If it is such a toxic substance surely it needs more than this? or it isn’t that toxic?
Yes, and use baby wipes for their phone, etc. The nurse who provided first aid to Yulia suffered no consequences whatsoever, whereas the cop who arrived first at the scene is still in hospital. We’re being played in an Agatha Christie style “Who Dunnit” plot, but then a much more sinister one.
Davis enthusiastically ‘triangulates’ to his walking duck but its quack still rings hollow. I too can ‘triangulate if not, directly to M16 or CIA or which, as we all know are their own institutions typically immune to effective government oversight and often have various inter-agency factions at virtual war with themselves, then I certainly can do so to Ukraine’s SBU, who most probably had access to a soviet-era chemical agent, not to mention motive by the megaton. To any rational mind, Russia would be the LAST of not-a-few interested players in seeing this affair take root.
Davis’ triangulations smack as much of hammering an obtuse triangle into an acutely triangular hole as anything else. His mere mention of a Russian ‘motive’ to show up the UK as a political eunuch on the world stage suggests far more deep-seated incentives for him to ‘see this through’ than mere politics. Please feel free to ‘triangulate’ to my meaning at will.
Perhaps he’s an expert in orienteering!
It is striking that, despite ‘normal’ investigations into attempted murder taking months or years if complex, yet we would accept a flimsy investigation of only a few weeks.
This allows Russia whether responsible or not to say ‘you have no evidence’. It let’s them off the hook by acting too early. It’s never been more obvious that we live in the middle of a disinformation system.
Not even a fortnight. All solved! Well done Inspector Clouseau, Sherlock Holmes, Mrs Marples, Nat Pinkerton, Lieutenant Columbo and all the others who helped in this case with only one suspect. 🙂
As far as I know Mr Putin has never been to Salisbury.
Theresa May’s fingerprints are all over the city.
craig… kudos to you.. you’ve gotten under there skin having the temerity to point out the absence of facts! even the bimbo chemist has an opinion – not related to his chemist credentials – but failing in line with the ”russia done it” conclusion, with no facts to back it up… he comes across like a retard.. i wouldn’t be bothered by him…
as for the official scribes and there haven on twitter… they are a pathetic bunch really.. incapable of asking questions, but happy to carry water for the military industrial complex always…
i agree strongly with your conclusions at the end, so i am quoting you on it again ” That he explicitly admits the chemistry cannot prove Russia did it, is apparently irrelevant.” – exactly.. the guy is a bimbo, and no amount of knowledge of chemistry changes any of this..
“2) Davies thus provides a smokescreen of respectability by which they can continue to advance their careers by cutting and pasting the government line without question.” – indeed.. the scribes need something to hang onto, as they are fairly naked and exposed for the willing accomplices to manufactured supposition and innuendo with no evidence to substantiate any of it…
” That he explicitly admits the chemistry cannot prove Russia did it, is apparently irrelevant.”
Exactly!
Mattis in America, Johnson in UK have all stated the truth, prior to going on to lay the blame thick and wide on Russia’s door.
Mattis said at the beginning of a speech on Syrian chemical attack; “There’s no proof Assad did commit this crime”….before going on to lay the blame.
Johnson said the same of this attack, when he stated “IF” Russia are proven to be……..” then went on to totally destroy Putin, with no evidence.
I wonder when Macron changed his mind “However, President Emmanuel Macron’s spokesman suggested May was acting prematurely. “We don’t do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven then the time will come for decisions to be made,” Benjamin Griveaux told a news conference in Paris.
Griveaux added that France was waiting for “definitive conclusions”and evidence that the “facts were completely true” before taking a position. He said that the Salisbury poisoning was a “serious act”against a strategic ally, but France would await evidence of Russian involvement before taking a position.” – this was from earlier today. I believe he’s ‘on board’ now. https://russia-insider.com/en/fantasy-politics-france-accuses-may-going-after-russia-without-evidence/ri22783
those are good analogies of what is happening here… a rush to judgment in absence of any facts… this is what let the usa/uk into an unnecessary war in iraq, in case some have forgotten.. it would seem things are not going so well in the uk, or with mays gov’t for them to be pursuing this line of attack.. “If you have a weak argument, shout louder” seems to be may and the msm’s approach…
The events seems to follow a scripted pattern – terrible event, outrage, quick judgement of the usual subjects, political leaders announce measures to prevent future incidents, vote in Commons to bomb someone.
Isn’t it Davies, not Davis?
The main issue your adversaries appear to face is a difficulty in fully absorbing the contents of your article. Perhaps they ‘Should’ve gone to Specsavers’, although I fear it may actually be the analytical performance of the eye-brain mechanism that needs looking at.
” Last I saw was George Monbiot… ”
LOL. According to that silly bugger, the world should have burnt down by now.
In 13 years of reading your blog I have never shared, posted, retweeted and generally spread it about so entusiastically. Keep up the good work, Craig.
Keep strong Craig, the media has gone crazy.
We are according to them not supposed to question anything – we are supposed to follow like sheep.
Now that the dodgy British government has gotten France, Germany and the US onside, (I
doubt it took much convincing ) without proving that Russia actually carried out the Skirpal attack. We now have calls for Nato to look at (possibly implementing) Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Things could quickly could get out of hand.
Source French correspondent speaking on LBC radio.
I haven’t yet heard a lot of enthusiasm coming out of the EU. France is hosting Russia at the Salon du Livre in Paris. It hasn’t been cancelled. Sounds to me like Britain put on a lot of pressure, and Macron agreed, just to keep the peace between the former partners.
Trump wasn’t very strong either.
Yes Laguerre, I think you could be right, radio discussions mentioned something about Macron slapping down a French diplomat, who wasn’t that keen on backing Theresa May’s stance.
As for Trump, again you’re correct, he didn’t look or sound too convincing when he said he’d back Britain.
However I’d imagine that Trump and May, not sure about Merkel or Macron though, would love to see Russia and Putin come under pressure and more severe sanctions, in the hope of removing Putin.
Just to play the man rather than the ball. Clyde Davies is not a very distinguished scientist. Looking him up on Researchgate, he works in the Library, not in science. He’s followed by five or six colleagues in the university, no-one from anywhere else
Although I’m not a natural scientist, there seemed to be at least one massive hole in his argument. The source of products like sarin or these novichoks is determined by impurities in the production process, which will be unique to particular source materials. You can’t reconstruct those theoretically. You need a reference sample. Simply to say, Oh, the Russians have form, as he does (as a scientist he should know it), and May does is quite insufficient, on a logical basis. There’s pretty widespread evidence that the product is capable of being easily synthesised elsewhere.
Weren’t the ‘novichocs’ first manufactured in USSR, in particular Uzbekistan, not ‘Russia’ as it is today?
Secondly, we only have the word of a corrupt Government, that anything ‘did’ happen?
Two people, in debt to the Government and a Policeman, paid by the Government, were allegedly infected.
The young woman who ‘found’ them on the bench, isn’t infected?
We have no ‘bedside’ pictures of victims, as we had of Litvinenko.
The Government wont allow Russia a sample, as stipulated in OPCW protocols.
Then days after the fact, they are still erecting tents, as if to underline or dress the scene some more. It’s all pure hearsay!!
Oh yes, they sent the car to a local pound, from Sainsburys, instead of to a Hazchem site?
The media is simply pro – Establishment propaganda. It is why they came after you so heavily. You pointed out the whole thing is a false flag with authority. So wheel out the big guns to try and make you look incompetent. Means you’re doing something right so keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work, Craig. Ignore the Empire loyalists.
It was Walter White and Jesse