Two more victims of "unknown substance" in U.K.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

The source was the Porton Down lab, which determined that a nerve agent was used, and that it came from the Novichok family. The OPCW independently confirmed those findings. This was further corroborated when the other pair were exposed to the same substance (one of whom died), and again the OPCW confirmed that the nerve agent was used in both cases. Yulia Skripal has made a statement about this, the poisoning and the use of the nerve agent.

To date no evidence has emerged that it was any other type of nerve agent (e.g. VX, Sarin) or any other type of poison

You claimed there are "several candidates" for the poisonings, which ones? and what evidence is there for each?

What was in the perfume bottle that killed Sturgess? She sprayed it on her skin and died shortly after, there aren't many substances that do that. The OPCW sent samples of it to 2 labs which confirmed it was the same substance that poisoned the Skripals, what information do you have that is contrary to that?

Cheerful Spring

mbur wrote: »

If you are nice I'm sure we will get to answer all your question in time.

Don't be so impatient.

Did you read the articles you quoted or just the misleading headlines?

There is nothing in either article that contradicts what I have stated in my post above.
The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Oh and about the OPCW's "alleged nerve agent" statement. If they knew it was a nerve agent they would not have used that language. How do you know that they know when they clearly say that they don't?

Your correct but they identified the chemical structure that is alleged to be a formula for Novitchok.

I would not get too hung up on pet names for nerve agents. It was identified as a nerve agent and really doesn't matter if it was Novitchok or not they still got attacked.

cnocbui

mbur wrote: »

If you are nice I'm sure we will get to answer all your question in time.

Don't be so impatient.

Did you read the articles you quoted or just the misleading headlines?

There is nothing in either article that contradicts what I have stated in my post above.
The only source of the Novichok claim is the House of Commons.

Oh and about the OPCW's "alleged nerve agent" statement. If they knew it was a nerve agent they would not have used that language. How do you know that they know when they clearly say that they don't?

The 'source' of the Novichok analysis was Porton Down, not parliament. Novichok is a term used to describe a class of chemically related compounds, hence the 'type-agent' so that phrasing does not indicate doubt. The OPCW don't 'allege' they clearly state, on the basis of confirmatory analyses conducted by several independent laboratories.

Elmer Blooker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There are some details not yet confirmed. What time did Skipral return home? This would clear up what time Skipral touched the door. It one thing that still not fully answered yet.

There still some doubts if the attack took place at Skipral home or in the town of Salisbury itself?

Confused or what?

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Confused or what?

If boards asked if today was Wednesday people on here would be confused about the answer

Dohnjoe

Gatling wrote: »

If boards asked if today was Wednesday people on here would be confused about the answer

Actually you'd be more likely to get some twat arguing that it was Thursday in New Zealand and that the "Western imperialist" calendar was a tool of oppression stolen from another race or some nonsense :pac:

Harry Palmr

All in the best possible taste

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/salisbury-novichok-attack-board-game-on-sale-russia

A Russian toymaker has released a board game called Our Guys in Salisbury, featuring the same cities in Europe visited by the GRU agents accused of carrying out last year’s nerve agent attack.

Salisbury, the finish line in the game, is decorated with images of the city’s cathedral and two figures in hazmat suits. They are taken from photographs of the police response to the poisoning of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia last March.

In one corner of the board is a spray bottle bearing a green skull and crossbones, seemingly a reference to the perfume bottle that British police said the Novichok nerve agent was transported in.

In another corner are two illustrated figures resembling the suspected assailants, Anatoliy Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin. The two Russian intelligence officers were placed under sanctions by the EU on Monday for their suspected role in the poisonings.

Spannerplank

Harry Palmr wrote: »

All in the best possible taste

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/salisbury-novichok-attack-board-game-on-sale-russia

A Russian toymaker has released a board game called Our Guys in Salisbury, featuring the same cities in Europe visited by the GRU agents accused of carrying out last year’s nerve agent attack.

Salisbury, the finish line in the game, is decorated with images of the city’s cathedral and two figures in hazmat suits. They are taken from photographs of the police response to the poisoning of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia last March.

In one corner of the board is a spray bottle bearing a green skull and crossbones, seemingly a reference to the perfume bottle that British police said the Novichok nerve agent was transported in.

In another corner are two illustrated figures resembling the suspected assailants, Anatoliy Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin. The two Russian intelligence officers were placed under sanctions by the EU on Monday for their suspected role in the poisonings.

It is kinda funny. The HazMat suits made me laugh.

cnocbui

Murder and state sourced terrorism made a laugh? Not for me.

mbur

cnocbui wrote: »

Murder and state sourced terrorism made a laugh? Not for me.

You are right, It is no joke.
My problem is that I remain in serious doubt as to which state is indulging in "terrorism"

It was quite obvious from the outset, when the UK Government came to a conclusion before any evidence had been properly assessed, that any subsequent investigation had already been politicised. There was therefore little hope that the investigation would be impartial, and that if evidence was found to contradict the Government’s assessment, that it would be presented.

The investigation conducted is badly flawed and frankly incredible because:

The Skripals have not been allowed to give their account of what happened that day to the media, and the media allowed to freely ask questions.

There is no thorough account of the two Russian suspects’ movements, just highly selective bits of footage that imply where they went, while leaving out the footage that shows where they did actually go.

The failure to release CCTV footage showing what happened in The Maltings in order to appeal for witnesses to come forward.

Important information, such as the duck feed and the close proximity of the suspects to the Skripals at that time, has not been given out to the public, and included in the timeline.

There remains no explanation of the poisoning that is actually scientifically credible.

All credit to Rob Slane and others for staying with this one.

WinnyThePoo

Gonna trust the British police over some weird blog.

Hours of man work looking through the cctv and finding the two Russians was superb police work.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

It was quite obvious from the outset, when the UK Government came to a conclusion before any evidence had been properly assessed, that any subsequent investigation had already been politicised. There was therefore little hope that the investigation would be impartial, and that if evidence was found to contradict the Government’s assessment, that it would be presented.

All the information in the public (and private sphere) as it came out pointed toward Moscow. It had all the hallmarks of a Kremlin hit from the outset, the Brits also had private intelligence, which directly convinced numerous (even skeptical) countries they shared the info with

The investigation conducted is badly flawed and frankly incredible because:

The Skripals have not been allowed to give their account of what happened that day to the media, and the media allowed to freely ask questions.

They were immobilised. Afterwards they gave private interviews because they were in direct danger

There is no thorough account of the two Russian suspects’ movements, just highly selective bits of footage that imply where they went, while leaving out the footage that shows where they did actually go.

Two known GRU agents traveling under aliases visited Salisbury the day before the attack, were tracked on multiple CCTV cameras, then on the day itself, passed the house. They immediately left for Moscow same day. There are no other suspects

There remains no explanation of the poisoning that is actually scientifically credible.

Was confirmed to be Novichok in a solution sprayed from a bottle

If you have alternative theories with stronger evidence, please share

cnocbui

The British nearly killed a police man, just to make it look authentic and then left the bottle lying around for some poor woman to be given it and die, because they are are just so careless. They deliberately ruined tourism in the area and shut down businesses just because they are vindictive.

Yeah, no holes in the Russian's obvious attempts at misdirection.

mcmoustache

mbur wrote: »

All credit to Rob Slane and others for staying with this one.

Erm, this one has pretty much been conclusively proven. The two "tourists" have been positively identified as GRU from publicly available information on official state websites and social media. The evidence is overwhelming.

The only people supporting the conspiracy theory that the Brits did it are Russian propaganda, people who relay Russian propaganda and people who get fooled by Russian propaganda.

There is a heap of information in this thread and I would advise catching up. Also, just as a piece of general advice - getting your information from someone's blog is like getting your information from some guy down in a pub. You might be lucky and be chatting to a professional about their domain but most of the time it'll be an unqualified bullshítter with an opinion.

Cheerful Spring

mcmoustache wrote: »

Erm, this one has pretty much been conclusively proven. The two "tourists" have been positively identified as GRU from publicly available information on official state websites and social media. The evidence is overwhelming.

The only people supporting the conspiracy theory that the Brits did it are Russian propaganda, people who relay Russian propaganda and people who get fooled by Russian propaganda.

There is a heap of information in this thread and I would advise catching up. Also, just as a piece of general advice - getting your information from someone's blog is like getting your information from some guy down in a pub. You might be lucky and be chatting to a professional about their domain but most of the time it'll be an unqualified bullshítter with an opinion.

I not sure this is correct they are positively GRU. They definitely connected with the Russian ministry of defence. Borisov is definitely military.

Putin denial is not helping their case. He claimed they were civilians? We know this to be untrue. They claimed they were fitness instructors, obvious lie now. They were in the correct area the day the Skiprals got attacked.

There still unanswered questions about how both of them got poisoned and when it actually happened. Why Skipral and his daughter turned off their phone for two hours is still a lingering mystery. There no denying the Russians are not telling the truth about the two men.

mbur

Here is another random guy I met in the youtube pub with his opinion about the Skripal case. His name is George Galloway and I thought I'd share his opinion with my drinking buddies here in the after hours pub. As Rob Shane has pointed out, the UK government don't appear to be so keen to explain their actions and accusations in any plausible way so we can do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRDqfwLQHbM

ohnonotgmail

mbur wrote: »

Here is another random guy I met in the youtube pub with his opinion about the Skripal case. His name is George Galloway and I thought I'd his opinion with my drinking buddies here in the after hours pub. As Rob Shane has pointed out, the UK government don't appear to be so keen to explain their actions and accusations in any plausible way so we can do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRDqfwLQHbM

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

Here is another random guy I met in the youtube pub with his opinion about the Skripal case. His name is George Galloway and I thought I'd share his opinion with my drinking buddies here in the after hours pub. As Rob Shane has pointed out, the UK government don't appear to be so keen to explain their actions and accusations in any plausible way so we can do this.

Was a big supporter of his when I was against the Iraq war, unfortunately he went into full loon mode afterwards and works for Russia Today (or anyone who will listen to his full-on anti-Western rhetoric)

mbur

Craig Murray is back up and running with this one as well. As you might expect the comments section is growing quickly.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

Craig Murray is back up and running with this one as well. As you might expect the comments section is growing quickly.

Personal incredulity. No attempt to explain, with evidence, what really happened. identical to Alex Jones style. Still, it gets blog viewers

Gatling

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Personal incredulity. No attempt to explain, with evidence, what really happened. identical to Alex Jones style. Still, it gets blog viewers

Blame the lack of mental health services ,it only encourages people to accept opinion based blogs as actually being factually correct and the information is well researched and documented ,

When it's always personal rants of a sad person with access to a keyboard and broadband

mbur

More ducking and diving. Apparently the head of the CIA shows fake photos of dead ducks to President Trump to get him to expel 60 Russians fake photos supplied by the UK government. wow

Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives

If you’re late joining the party, and don’t understand what is so extraordinary about this, let me spell it out plainly and unambiguously:

Firstly, there were no dead ducks as a result of poisoning. None!

Secondly, there were no children sickened by nerve agent. None!

According to the official story, Mr Skripal and his daughter became contaminated with “Novichok” by touching the handle of his front door at some point between 13:00 and 13:30 that afternoon. A few minutes later (13:45), they were filmed on CCTV camera feeding ducks, and handing bread to three local boys, one of whom ate a piece. After this they went to Zizzis, where they apparently so contaminated the table they sat at, that it had to be incinerated.

You see the problem? According to the official story, ducks should have died. According to the official story children should have become contaminated and ended up in hospital. Yet as it happens, no ducks died, and no boys got sick (all that happened was that the boys’ parents were contacted two weeks later by police, the boys were sent for tests, and they were given the all clear).

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

If you’re late joining the party, and don’t understand what is so extraordinary about this, let me spell it out plainly and unambiguously:

Firstly, there were no dead ducks as a result of poisoning. None!

According these sources there were dead ducks

Secondly, there were no children sickened by nerve agent. None!

They were hospitalised after coming into contact with Skripal (meaning they went to hospital)

https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/25/children-hospitalised-poisoned-russian-spy-gave-bread-feed-ducks-7414979/

You see the problem?

You can always try to explain what happened instead of relying on personal incredulity

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According these sources there were dead ducks



They were hospitalised after coming into contact with Skripal (meaning they went to hospital)

https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/25/children-hospitalised-poisoned-russian-spy-gave-bread-feed-ducks-7414979/




You can always try to explain what happened instead of relying on personal incredulity

There were no dead ducks There were no sick children,

The Skripal case was widely covered at the time. There were no reports of any children affected by 'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the Skripals, before visiting a restaurant, fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury. They also gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their blood was tested. No poison was found and none of them fell ill. No duck died. (The duck feeding episode also disproves the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

There were no dead ducks There were no sick children,

Yes there were according to the source.

It was also reported over a year ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5541823/Children-taken-hospital-Sergei-Skripal-handed-bread-feed-ducks.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5894684/russian-spy-sergei-skripal-bread-fears/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-children-taken-hospital-after-12245559

It's known that up to 49 people were taken to hospital over the issue
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43315636

And there's only a certain amount of info that's made public

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes there were according to the source.

It was also reported over a year ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5541823/Children-taken-hospital-Sergei-Skripal-handed-bread-feed-ducks.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5894684/russian-spy-sergei-skripal-bread-fears/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-children-taken-hospital-after-12245559

It's known that up to 49 people were taken to hospital over the issue
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43315636

And there's only a certain amount of info that's made public

None of the links you provide verify these newly disclosed assertions that there were dead ducks and sick children. What they do say is that no poison was found and none of the three boys fell ill. No duck died.

The letter by Dr Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital on 16 March 2018 to the Times, without any shadow of a doubt, rules out the possibility of hospitalised children.

40+ people were taken to hospital but only three were poisoned. The Skripals and the mysterious DC Bailey.

Gina Haspel was lying to the President.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

None of the links you provide verify these newly disclosed assertions that there were dead ducks and sick children. What they do say is that no poison was found and none of the three boys fell ill. No duck died.

There was info that was publicly announced and there was second-hand info from sources

According to the media sources I posted there were dead ducks and children were hospitalised (taken to hospital, lest the semantics begin) The sources were sufficient for those newspapers last year, plus sources on the latest info were sufficient for the NY Times - and the bevvy of outlets which reported on it

It only makes sense for me to go with the NY Times and those papers over your subjective view on the matter

The letter by Dr Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital on 16 March 2018 to the Times, without any shadow of a doubt, rules out the possibility of hospitalised children.

I've read an excerpt from the letter, but it doesn't mention children specifically

The source?

mbur

I said:

None of the links you provide verify these newly disclosed assertions that there were dead ducks and sick children. What they do say is that no poison was found and none of the three boys fell ill. No duck died.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There was info that was publicly announced and there was second-hand info from sources

and none of it supports your assertion that there were dead ducks and sick children,

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to the media sources I posted there were dead ducks and children were hospitalised (taken to hospital, lest the semantics begin) The sources were sufficient for those newspapers last year, plus sources on the latest info were sufficient for the NY Times - and the bevvy of outlets which reported on it

Agreed and never disputed - people were taken to hospital.

But there were no dead ducks and no sick children.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It only makes sense for me to go with the NY Times and those papers over your subjective view on the matter

Where have I been subjective? I've not disputed anything there. You are completely misrepresenting what they actually say. Some of the headline are likewise misleading but that is how they sell newspapers these days. The NY Times never mentioned the fact that Gina was placing fake content before the President. Maybe they didn't know, Maybe revealing that fact didn't suit their chosen narrative. Maybe we will never know.

I said:

The letter by Dr Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital on 16 March 2018 to the Times, without any shadow of a doubt, rules out the possibility of hospitalised children.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've read an excerpt from the letter, but it doesn't mention children specifically

The source?

The Times is a British daily national newspaper based in London, England. They published a letter by one Dr Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital on 16 March 2018. The clue is in the sentence you quoted which I have reproduced above. That is your source. Peace.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

none of it supports your assertion that there were dead ducks and sick children,

The story was run by the NY times (repeated in by other outlets) and before that, last year, in those other newspapers based on sources.

Your assertions on the other hand are subjective, i.e. there sources/stories not being "verified" enough for you

That's fine. It only makes sense for me to go with the papers over your personal view

You wrote:

The letter by Dr Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital on 16 March 2018 to the Times, without any shadow of a doubt, rules out the possibility of hospitalised children.

Possibly, but provide the link for this. I've read (a) letter and it didn't mention children at all, maybe it's a different letter, hence I'm asking for the source

mbur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The story was run by the NY times (repeated in by other outlets) and before that, last year, in those other newspapers based on sources.

Your assertions on the other hand are subjective, i.e. there sources/stories not being "verified" enough for you

That's fine. It only makes sense for me to go with the papers over your personal view

I told you that there were no ducks or children harmed in the "Novichok" incidents and you claimed that there were, and that you had sources to prove your version of events. Not one of your sources backs up your claim. Well here is one that verifies that I am right and you are wrong. The Guardian Thu 18 Apr 2019 has this to say.

No children or ducks harmed by novichok, say health officials

Wiltshire council clarification follows claims Donald Trump was shown images to contrary
...
Three adults were poisoned the attack in Salisbury in March last year: Skripal, his daughter Yulia, and the police officer Nick Bailey. Two others, Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, were poisoned in Amesbury, eight miles (13km) north of Salisbury, in June, with Sturgess later dying. No children are known to have been harmed in either incident.

The fate of ducks on the river close to where the Skripals collapsed has been a source of speculation. It is believed some tests were carried out on dead ducks but they were not found to have been poisoned by novichok.

Asked by the Guardian to comment on the New York Times report, Tracy Daszkiewicz, the director of public health at Wiltshire council, said: “There were no other casualties other than those previously stated. No wildlife were impacted by the incident and no children were exposed to or became ill as a result of either incident.”

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

I told you that there were no ducks or children harmed in the "Novichok" incidents and you claimed that there were, and that you had sources to prove your version of events.

That's incorrect.

You made a claim (no dead ducks, no hospitalised children)

I wrote that according to the sources (read what I wrote carefully) I provided there were dead ducks and hosptialised children. Those sources are various newspapers, both more recently, and one a year ago

Not one of your sources backs up your claim.

It's not "my" claim, it's their claim.

Well here is one that verifies that I am right and you are wrong. The Guardian Thu 18 Apr 2019 has this to say.

Again your semantics and phrasing is not accurate

The above link you provided challenges those sources.

In relation to the children:
"Salisbury district hospital said no children were admitted as a result of being exposed to novichok. However, some children were taken to hospital by parents worried they may have been poisoned, or with anxiety."

In relation to the "dead ducks":
"The fate of ducks on the river close to where the Skripals collapsed has been a source of speculation. It is believed some tests were carried out on dead ducks but they were not found to have been poisoned by novichok."

Did children go to hospital? looks like it
Were there dead ducks? looks like it

So is it possible Trump was shown photos of children in hospital and dead ducks? yes

mbur

Sorry you are having difficulty Donjoe. We will get there in the end.

From the Guardian/NYTimes: The She being Gina Haspel
QUOTE:
She also showed the president pictures of young children who had been hospitalised as a result of the Salisbury attack,
as well as photographs of ducks that had been killed because of the carelessness in handling the deadly nerve agent
on the part of the two Russian intelligence operatives alleged to have carried out the attack.
/QUOTE

Yes - the duck feeding children were taken to hospital to be checked.
i believe this was some two weeks after the Skripal incident.
Were any children sick or "hospitaised"? - No
To equate going to hospital for a check to being hospitalsed is a pernicious lie.

Yes - Some random dead ducks were checked for Novichok poisioning.
Were there ducks dead after contact with Novichok - No
The smear that ducks died as a result of Russian carelessness is false.

Dohnjoe

mbur wrote: »

Sorry you are having difficulty Donjoe. We will get there in the end.

Now having any difficulty at all

She also showed the president pictures of young children who had been hospitalised as a result of the Salisbury attack,
as well as photographs of ducks that had been killed because of the carelessness in handling the deadly nerve agent
on the part of the two Russian intelligence operatives alleged to have carried out the attack.

Yes - the duck feeding children were taken to hospital to be checked.
i believe this was some two weeks after the Skripal incident.
Were any children sick or "hospitaised"? - No
To equate going to hospital for a check to being hospitalsed is a pernicious lie.

Yes - Some random dead ducks were checked for Novichok poisioning.
Were there ducks dead after contact with Novichok - No
The smear that ducks died as a result of Russian carelessness is false.

Which is why I wrote this:
They were hospitalised after coming into contact with Skripal (meaning they went to hospital)

Not sure why you are getting to het up about this, we're largely in agreement

JP Liz V1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoW6g_wg7A