Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (part 2)

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

new thread as the old one is practically done.

I can understand the anxiety in Salisbury, I'd be anxious too and asking questions. I guess it comes down to the conflict between best practise and what people can practically do.

OutCrowd, thank you for that. It makes a lot of sense. Now perhaps people can see one reason why information is carefully controlled. The amount of counter spin is extraordinary.

@OutwiththeOutCrowd
I disagree with the excuse/ explanation that the BZ was supposedly added as a control to some of the samples.

It would be ridiculous to add another nerve agent to a sample of unknown nerve agent when trying to determine what you have. It makes nonsense of trying to see what contaminants are there to determine an origin. You do not deliberately spike samples when you give your material to another lab to check reproducibility. I'm appalled anyone is trying to dupe as in such a way.

It's probably similar to adding, say, DNA from another baby into a sample of DNA from a baby under paternity fingerprint checks.

Aha, we have the "not a scientist" counterpoint again.

As opposed to the "I'm a scientist" counterpoint on the first thread.

I was surprised by the practice as adding it in could potentially mask the presence of the control substance already there in the sample but only wished to report what someone who works in the field and knows their methods has to say.

BTW, OutwiththeOutCrowd, I forgot to thank you for that material from Alistair Hay. That explains really clearly how the OPCW uses its network of labs to get robust results.

It also fits with the Swiss comments to the OPCW about confidentiality and maintaining the impartiality of the process.

From what Hay says, it looks like the OPCW distributes a variety of specimens to multiple participating labs for testing, and the labs don't know which specimen is which, and whether they're testing the samples from the attack or confected specimens.

My understanding of what Hay says, is that labs will get an unadulterated sample from the attack (be it in Salisbury or Syria), and will also get specimens with known amounts of a control substance added. They could even be given specimens which don't contain any sample from the attack. The labs test them all and report back to OPCW central, which has the key for what each specimen was.

As Hay says, it's to test the competence of the labs. If a lab fails to correctly identify control substances, which the OPCW definitely knows are in certain specimens, then all its results come into doubt and have to be thrown out.

Perking I agree that any one particular lab would also have to have been given unadulterated samples and wondered if a given sample might have been split, one half with the addition of a marker, the other half not.

It's a fascinating insight.

When OPCW sends samples to laboratories, other substances are sometimes included in the samples as what is known as positive controls. It is to test the competence of the laboratories. They have to be able to identify this positive control in the sample. If they are not able to do this then all their results are thrown into doubt. A precursor of BZ, Quinuclidin-3-ol… was used as the positive control. It was deliberately added to one or more samples. None of the laboratories knew this. They simply report what they find in the samples. … So, BZ was present simply as a control.

I read that as a labs being sent a number of samples of which one is a control ,a substance unknown to the lab but known to the sender, to be identified as a test .

Not that the a substance had been ^mixed* with ,in this case ,the sample relating to the poisioning of the Skripals .

@peridito
*I read that as a labs being sent a number of samples of which one is a control ,a substance unknown to the lab but known to the sender, to be identified as a test .

Not that the a substance had been ^mixed with ,in this case ,the sample relating to the poisioning of the Skripals

From your previous extract, have another look at the bit that says:

It was deliberately added to one or more samples. None of the laboratories knew this.

Deliberately added means it was mixed in.

For strange things like this to be offered as some form of explanation makes me mistrust the OPCW altogether.

Also:

other substances are sometimes included in the samples

The phrases 'included in the samples' and 'added to one or more samples' pretty much means the BZ (precursor) was added, mixed, spiked etc into the samples. This is pretty dubious methodology imho.

Right thanks Counterpoint ,too hot for me today

Oh, what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.

I trust that remark is intended to underline your thinking about B&M and not directed towards me .

Whereas for those of us who actually do have a scientific background, it makes us trust the OPCW more.

Using controls is a fundamental part of good science.

Russia is of course a member of the OPCW and will have agreed to this methodology.

Just to add to the confusion, this is an extract from the OPCW document linked to by RafalstheKing earlier.

The precursor of BZ that is referred to in the public statements, commonly known as 3Q, was contained in the control sample prepared by the OPCW Lab in accordance with the existing quality control procedures. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the samples collected by the OPCW Team in Salisbury.

This seems to imply a separately prepared control, which would be the more orthodox approach.

@peridito
I trust that remark is intended to underline your thinking about B&M and not directed towards me

Sorry, yes, definitely not to you.

Russia is of course a member of the OPCW and will have agreed to this methodology

Doesn't mean they ask for permission to modify every procedure they do.

OPCW are claiming this was done under the radar, anyway.

Some people (OPCW included, it seems) don't truly understand the purpose of a control.

Why use a nerve agent (BZ/precursor) only produced by the UK and USA/NATO to act as a (so-called) control in an experiment whereby you were trying to identify another nerve agent blamed on a whole different party?

If you wanted to muddy the waters further, you couldn't achieve it any better.

If this is what OPCW have done, they should lose their status and a truly impartial, incorruptible, politically untouchable organisation be put in its place (dream on).

According to what is said in the extract the inclusion of a control is to test the competence of the laboratories .

Wasn't the remit to identify the substance ? Who deployed it was not something the OPCW was trying to establish was it ?

Or have I missed something ?

Counterpoint

A really warm day in the uk today. Unseasonably hot! Is Moscow benefitting also?

Some people don't truly understand the purpose of a control.

Yes, you.

Really simple use of a control.

It's important I use the correct amount of sugar in a recipe, and I'm not sure about the accuracy of my old scales. So I take something different that I know the mass of, eg a litre of water, and put that on my scales.

If my scales show 1 litre of water = 1 kg, then I have some confidence they will give me a correct result for the sugar too.

If my scales show 1 litre of water = 734 g, then I know my scales are off and I should throw them away.

My remit is still to measure out the correct amount of sugar for my recipe. The added step to test my equipment has added robustness to the measuring procedure, and I'm more likely to end up with the correct amount of sugar.

Looks like Lavrov's lie has pissed off the Canadians and EU as well.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/opcw-rejects-russian-claims-of-second-salisbury-nerve-agent
The Swiss delegation described Lavrov’s behaviour as incomprehensible and totally unacceptable. Sabine Nölke, the Canadian envoy to the OPCW, accused Russia of either “a craven attempt to mislead the international community”, or a breach of the OPCW’s confidentiality procedures. The EU described the Russian behaviour as malign.

Someone asked above what would innocent behaviour look like.

Not shitting on the neutral international investigating body of which you're a member, would be a good start.

My remit is still to measure out the correct amount of sugar for my recipe. The added step to test my equipment has added robustness to the measuring procedure, and I'm more likely to end up with the correct amount of sugar.

So then why would you add salt in it?

Put your scales away and cut down on the sugar altogether.