"To the editor who amended my spelling - thank you very much, I greatly appreciate it. Indeed you are correct - I wrote the section in question. In fact, I am the original author of Alibek's Wikipedia article which I took verbatim from a copyright protected book I wrote; he authorized publication of the original biography in the book. The original article was thoroughly written and without bias. And I can confirm for you that I also wrote the section below regarding crediting me with the incorrect information people keep adding to the Wiki article. 

 With regard to the small section about the LA Times article I inserted into the Wiki article, I agree - it has no business being in the article HOWEVER there are ignorant and potentially vindictive individuals who insist on using the LA Times rubbish for the Wiki article. If they stop adding the LA Times info, I will remove the section about the credibility of the LA Times article as a source. My objective is simply to expose the lack of credibility of the article so I have been thinking about re-writing that little section so that it looks more professional; this constant battle with people who do not even know Alibek yet want to use Wiki as a means to malign his character is frustrating and unacceptable to me as a reasonable and intelligent human being who believes in truth, fairness, and justice. People insist on having the LA Times rubbish in the article - the rubbish needs to be countered with the truth, which is that the LA Times has admitted to publishing lies about public figures in the past. It would be great if everyone could agree to leave out the LA Times Criticism Section (yes, I changed ""Criticism"" to LA Times Criticism) and have just a balanced and unbiased article about the man but some people have self-esteem issues or ego issues and feel the need to try to empower themselves by writing untrue and damaging things about Alibek; I value the truth too much to tolerate this about Alibek or anyone else I know. And since he is considered a public figure (which I think the whole idea of ""public figures"" is stupid), people talk about him and almost everything I hear is untrue according to my presence during the events in question. It's like a contest between people, to see who knows him better, and all they do is embarrass themselves in front of me, someone who does know him very well, someone who knows his strengths AND his weaknesses and therefore is not ""star struck"" but instead is someone able to recognize both his roses and his thistle; we are all a combination of roses and thistle. I cannot describe to you how many people have approached me with an air of authority and tried to pretend like they know the man, trying to impress me with a connection to him, telling me things which they clearly have no first hand knowledge of and merely took from the LA Times article like it was a bible. If you think my response in writing on the Wiki page is ""angry"", you should hear my verbal response when I inform the person that I know for sure he does not know Alibek and that the speaker has just lost all credibility in my eyes because clearly he is such a weak thinker that he believes such a poorly researched and obviously biased article about Alibek. NO ONE is spared from this response, not even the very, very few people in the highest levels of government who dare to try and influence my opinion by feeding me rubbish; the people who know Alibek know the article is rubbish and don't dignify it with a response. The reason why I dignify it with a response is because I am a cop, through and through, and what people try to do in front of me is absolutely criminal; my cop nature doesn't permit me to ignore the attack, any more than it allows me to ignore any other crime I see happening in front of me. Alibek is a very well respected man among the intelligent people who know him. I have already thoroughly described his character other places online and do not need to do it again here...if you do not know this remarkable man, then that is unfortunate for you. 

 With regard to the comment on inserting genes into smallpox virus, I have seen several articles describing a variety of successful processes using vaccinia virus. I also know the gentleman who the LA Times article said made the comment; he is a very well respected scientist I have had the pleasure of working with a little. I wasn't present for his interview with Willman so I do not know what he actually said or how it might have been distorted by Willman so I cannot make any judgment as to what message he meant to convey. I wish I could tell you that some of the people involved in that article have contacted Alibek privately to tell him how sorry they were that their statements were taken out of context, but that would be violating a confidence, if it were true. I can tell you that I showed the LA Times article to Bill Patrick summer of 2007 and he was absolutely furious; Bill Pat