Talk:Poisoning of Sergei Skripal

Skripal and Steele dossier
I do not think Skripal' played a big role in Steele dossier. He is not a 'trusted compatriot', obviously, and even less an insider like 'a former intelligence officer still active in Kremlin', or 'a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure', etc (in Steele dossier open version, info is attributed to trusted compatriots who are friends of insiders, or some auxiliary figures like hotel workers with allegedly first-hand knowledge
 * Source E provided an introduction for a company ethnic Russian operative to Source F, a female staffer at the hotel when TRUMP had stayed there, who also confirmed the story.--here I am not getting the language, what's the  'company'  that operative is working for?
 * "Company" in the Steele dossier refers to Steele's company "Orbis Business Intelligence". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not being an insider or trusted friend, his role is at most minimal. On top of it, the report is pretty ridiculous and I think nobody took it too seriously. So what's the point going after Skripal, for his (alleged) role in the report? This would create much more damaging to Russia situation than Steele report itself--Resup (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What would be the point of accusing Trump of murdering Skripal? Gee! Maybe Trump and Putin murdered him together!
 * Quote: ''The dossier has sparked a formal investigation in the US into Russian collusion in the US presidential election, to the fury of both presidents Trump and Putin.
 * ''If the Kremlin believed that Col Skripal might have helped with the compilation of the dossier, it could explain the motive for the assassination attempt in Salisbury town centre.
 * -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

'Gift'?

 * Poisoned Russian spy Sergei Skripal’s daughter Yulia could have unwittingly released nerve agent after opening gift ‘from friends’ - The Sun, March 8, 2018
 * A theory not totally without merits, but unlikely. Bringing gifts is traditional; tainting a gift does not require sending operatives; it lowers threshold and may be attempted as personal revenge (say, by somebody directly affected by his actions, as it is said that he passed list of Russian agents to British services). But unlikely, everybody is aware of such possibility, even more so a former intelligence officer, and his daughter is enough of an adult and was with him long enough to know, too. I believe the occasion was anniversary of his son death, who had sudden liver failure, and poisoning suspected. It is unlikely that they will celebrate the event by drinking or eating something of uncertain origin, that would be odd. A gift is most likely opened at home well before the collapse, not taken to a restaurant (where it is said that traces found, and which is a likely place for poisoning to occur). Also, that 'gift' will be found and quite likely traced (assuming no false flagging). If it is traced to Russia, it can be brought to a Russian court, and cooperation is not out of the question. --Resup (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's say there were two gifts, one left at the house and one taken to the restaurant; and Rozzer got poisoned when he inspected the remaining gift, or at least the packaging.
 * I'm guessing the gift was opened on the park bench and not before. I'm also guessing the poison wasn't that common as there would have been some official statement - rather that wild-arsed self-publicising guesses by HBG and equally self-serving vacuum filling rambling by Kaszeta. --Charles Wood (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Flowers?

 * Was Russian spy poisoned by flowers? Chemical experts examine bouquet left by the double agent at his wife's grave -Daily Mail, March 10, 2018
 * Russian spy poisoning probe 'focusing on flowers he took to wife's grave' amid claims nerve agent found at restaurant -The Mirror, March 11, 2018
 * That seems unusual, fresh flowers coming from a 'friend'. 'Women's day' (March 8) approaching, could not resist?  But it is said that the placed the flowers on the grave some time (few hours) before they collapsed. Not impossible, but not very convincing either, unless confirmed by tests. Tabloids do not say who the 'friend' was, or from which side of the iron curtain. --Resup (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Litvinenko again
One thing that is common to the Skripal and Litvinenko cases is that traces of poison were found in multiple places, all of which could not be explained by a single act of poisoning. Litvinenko met Mario Scaramella in a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly before he met Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun at the the Millennium Hotel. Both places had traces of Polonium 210.

Finding traces in multiple places unconnected to the assassination itself may be a sign that the traces were left intentionally as fake evidence. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Litvinenko case may be different, or whatever, and I do not feel like going into it (not having anything to contribute too). Yet I note the official inquiry position: there were two poisoning incidents with Litvinenko, the first is much weaker, and estimated by hair growth to be some weeks earlier. While on October 16, 2006 he had a business meeting with Tim Reiley and the prime official suspects attending (6.87--6.101). They minus Reiley went to Itsu after that. Office where they met was found to be contaminated, and the officiial report attributes Itsu contamination to the same source (ie apparently 16 October, not Scaramella meeting of 1 November. Report also claims that a different table was contaminated (table they sat was provided by Scaramella) --Resup (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia publishes documents about British protection of criminals
Russian prosecutor general Chaika announced that there were some communications between Russian and British authorities (headed at the time by Teresa May), to do with Berezovsky and Litvinenko, in particular alleging that warning on Litvinenko safety was given prior to his death, allegedly not acted on. Documents publications were promised, and the first document now appeared, about somebody V. Terliuk. According to Russian authorities letter, addressed/sent to Theresa May, Berezovsky and his associates Litvinenko and Goldfarb attempted to bribe or threaten Terliuk to force him making a fake confession of working for Russian special services and preparing Berezovsky murder, in order for Berezovsky to get refugee status in UK; and when Terliuk refused and reported them to the Scotland Yard, he was accused of the above plot by those people. The letter goes on to say that Terliuk was threatened and attacked and needs to be protected. Allegedly similar request was made in some other letters concerning Litvinenko, but this is not in the letter now published. (They also apparently try to draw attention to the fact that Berezovsky should not have been given refugee status and handed to the Russian authorities to answer some charges) --Resup (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting. There seems to be a whole series of articles on RIA, all from today or yesterday. Here:
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180408/1518161609.html (Announcement)
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180409/1518200713.html (Another document from 2006 about Terliuk)
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180409/1518200548.html (Terliuk beaten up)
 * there's also a link to where the documents are apparently uploaded, a telegram page which wants me to login: https://web.telegram.org/#/im?p=@genprocrf
 * So the key seems to be that the British knew since years that Berezovsky's reasons for getting Asylum were faked by trying to use this guy and others at the time of the Litvinenko affairs. Details lost in auto-translation but hopefully more to come, also in English. --CE (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what to make of it, on the face value it may be sort of embarrassing for an old school politician, but it may be not what it seems. Berezovsky was very deeply into politics with all sides playing very rough; he was a master puppeteer in very rough waters, to the extend that people who know him well are unsure whether he was killed, committed suicide, or arranged for his own murder. Without knowing this guy Terliuk, I think impossible to know what was really going on, and I hear the name for the first time. Litvinenko at least told his stories on video, and at least appeared sincere, but whose story is genuine in the above, I can't be really sure. Theresa may say, for example, OK, there was some murky stuff but also Berezovsky was genuinely in danger for some other reason and so it does not matter and he deserved his status. Especially with modern politicians, Teflon Pony and stuff, they will figure out an explanation--what's most relevant today, for the Skripals at hand  --Resup (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The timeline seems to be roughly that in 2003 they tried to fake reasons for Berezovky to get asylum (which he got anyway), involving this guy Terliuk who wasn't a Russian citizen, then in 2006 during the Litvinenko affair the Russians reminded the Brits about this case, and then in 2010 somehow they mailed the by-then Home Secretary Theresa about it again? Hmm. --CE (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is an English-language TASS article about the issue. Among other things it says that Russia sent 39 requests for protection of Terliuk between 2006 and December 2011. Still isn't very helpful for piecing it all together. --CE (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Asylum granted to Putin adversary -The Guardian, 11 September, 2003
 * At the time, criminal charges and extradition request against Berezovsky on Avtovaz/Lada case. He and partner accused of stealing over 2000 vehicles. At the time, he is having a 'difference of opinions' with the Russian leadership on the issue of whether he owns them. Despite his talents. not very likely he stole 2000 Ladas with a crow bar; probably Khodorkovsky type situation, some grey-area scheme to sell the vehicles with a profit (perhaps re-exporting or else exporting, despite non-existent open market for anybody else to do the same, or fancier tricks maybe); while perhaps some other grey structure (+ public at large, but it matters only selectively) at loss; short and clean explanation of the case is hard to find. He should have said it is politically motivated, and responded that it is not, with the criminal case still rolling, as usual
 * 2007: found guilty in Russia in Aeroflot case (accused of pocketing large amounts); another extradition request to Britain made
 * 2010, again Avtovaz, not paying under contract, now for 20,000 vehicles, 9 years prison term in abstention, and another extradition request to Britain. More on Russian Wikipedia, largely following the official line. --Resup (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Puncher

 * Radiation expert, 46, who investigated the 'assassination' of KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko 'killed himself by stabbing his arms and chest repeatedly five months after a trip to Russia' - Daily Mail, November 24, 2016
 * A radiation expert who investigated the 'assassination' of Alexander Litvinenko was found dead five months after a trip to Russia, an inquest heard. Matthew Puncher, 46, bled to death at his home from multiple stab wounds inflicted by two knives.
 * The Man Who Knew Too Much - BuzzFeed, June 19, 2017

Walter Litvinenko

 * Отец бывшего офицера ФСБ Литвиненко, обвинявший в смерти сына Россию, сожалеет о сказанном ('The father of a former FSB officer, Litvinenko, who blamed Russia for the death of his son, regrets what was said')-TV 1 (Russia), February 2, 2012
 * Lives in poverty, regrets his words, asks Russia for forgiveness and help returning to Russia
 * 'Something not right in Salisbury', ПУСТЬ ГОВОРЯТ talk show, TV 1 (Russia), March 20, 2018
 * Blames Goldfarb. Prior to that, claims poisoning happened many times, including the hospital (does not specify by whom, at that point).
 * Lugovoi in studio, makes comments on non-transparency prior to public investigation (~35:00). Walter Litvinenko (father) and Maxim (brother) arrive to the studio ('from Italy'). Walter  gives Lugovoi a touch on the shoulder, 1/2 embrace; he separates brother from Lugovoi; camera goes off to the presenter who draws our attention to that episode expressing surprise how they met the killer and poisoner. Father smiles, brother stays neutral/Mona Lisa'ish. Father goes ahead to tell that he spent the last 3 days of Alexnder life near him at the hospital. Polonium 210 claim made  '1/2 hour after his death', people with respirators/protective suits arrived. A meeting with many people was assembled. Walter Litvinenko tells us that Goldfarb elbowed him for starting to talk too early (blaming Russia for polonium attack, in a passionate manner). They 'walked in' somewhere after the meeting where Walter encountered young Goldfarb wife, weeping 'sitting on a bed'. Walter claims that she said 'Walter, Alex (Goldfarb) killed Alexander (Litvinenko)'
 * A journalist sitting on the same coach as the Litvinenkos and Lugovoi reinforces the message, telling us that nobody in the West, BBC, etc, will reach out to have this sensational recording
 * The program is a regular commercial talk show on a state TV channel.

For the record. This is different matter from Skripal, they do not have to follow the same pattern. I am not really interested in revisiting Litvinenko case (and do not see how, too), or in expressing any opinion, either way. Technical investigation records are not open, public inquiry presumably had access, while we do not. Human stories are humans' stories, and can change for whatever reason or be inaccurate. I note that Russian television made claims blaming Berezovsky or his people earlier. Berezovsky successfully sued for libel in British court in 2010 --Resup (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Goldfarb: After the murder of Litvinenko, his father spent several years milking Berezovsky in London. And when he returned to Russia, he changed his testimony - Gordon.ua, March 22, 2018
 * Father of poisoned in England by polonium Litvinenko named the killers of his son - Komsomolskaya Pravda, March 23, 2018
 * (Noted: Walter now lives in Moscow. his claims are in the text form here, otherwise similar to those made on a TV program, above).
 * Here he claims that Goldfarb wife named the killer when they all went to the Goldfarbs' place, after Alexander Litvinenko death. He further says that at that point she was shsh-shshed (told to be quiet) by 'everybody' present, and that  'in one month, she was no more... died for some reason'  (as per source, unconfirmed).

--Resup (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Novichok

 * ''Moved to Talk:Novichok

Kholstov

 * ''Moved to Talk:Novichok

Yulia Skripal audio

 * Телефонный разговор племянницы Скрипаля с его дочкой Юлией - Россия 24 -Russia 24, April 5, 2018
 * Tape said to be of conversation of Victoria Skripal and Yulia Skripal is played on national Russian TV. We are told that the recording came from Victoria Skripal, but 'we do not know who and under what circumstances made the recording'. Presenters tell us that they have some doubts but decided to use their journalistic right/duty to play the tape. The tape is a clean normal colloquial conversation, with nothing standing out at all. Yulia tells that both herself and the father are fine, recovering, and there are no irreversible effects (which suggests that Sergey is not mentally incapacitated). Yulia controls her answers and is not giving details; it is felt that she understands that this may be recorded (but not definitely so). She is given a phone on a temporary basis (apparently). Victoria offers to fly in immediately if she gets a UK visa. Yulia tells that she will not get UK visa, not offering any theory why.
 * It is indeed unclear whether the tape is genuine. The rest is for the sake of the argument, assuming that it is. It seems clear that she was put into medical-induced coma, then woke up. Assuming that Porton Down assessment (Novichok) is correct, this creates an interesting possibility: very low dosage did not kill them at once; they were put on ventilator machine and kept long enough for some ACHE regenerated or re-supplied; then out of the coma. Even without any nerve agent or anything else at all, just medical induced coma for over a week will require lengthy recovery (at least 1 month). They will also have lots of strong drugs and those will be showing on blood tests, even without anything else
 * No element is definitely verified. That may be not Yulia. And it may be not Novichok. And Novichok itself remains controversial/undefined. --Resup (talk)17:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Victoria Skripal was in Russia 24 studio a day earlier, April 4, 2018 (video). Victoria is in contact with the British Consulate in Moscow and BBC, trying to get UK visa. On the eve of Easter break (March 29, 2018), acting on advice from the consulate, she had a conversation with a Russian-speaking woman about her visa, and was told to apply. 20 minutes later, it was announced in the news that Yulia regained conscience. Victoria stated in the program that she has no other information about Skripals condition, etc.,  apart from what's in the news. --Resup (talk)18:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Russian spy poisoning: Sergei Skripal 'improving rapidly' -BBC, April 6, 2018 (main page) --Resup (talk)18:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ''Meanwhile, the UK has refused to grant a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria Skripal, the BBC has learned. A government source said it appears Russia is "trying to use Viktoria as a pawn". It comes after Russian TV aired a recording of an alleged phone conversation between Viktoria and Yulia on Thursday. Doubts were raised over its authenticity but Viktoria has told Newsnight she was 100% certain it was Yulia.

Fentanyl
Fentanyl transdermal patches are available for pain control. So it can obviously cross the skin barrier but probably not quick enough to knock people out (incidentally I've had Fentanyl in medical procedures. It's not that active when administered topically)

There is a chemical derivative of Fentanyl Kolokol-1 which is gaseous and is alleged to have been used in the Moscow Hostage Crisis. It's possible, but probably ineffective in an open air setting --Charles Wood (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A recent case of death from exposure to fentanyl in the United States: -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 dead, 1 critically injured in possible fentanyl exposure in Fontana home - ABC7, March 9, 2018

Salisbury District Hospital declared a “major incident” on Monday 5 March, after two patients were exposed to an opioid.

Signs and symtoms of fentanyl overdose include confusion and dizziness

How long fentanyl remains in system

Parathion
Parathion, an agricultural chemical, was used as a nerve agent in Rhodesia when it was impregnated on clothing to be picked up and worn by insurgents. Along with Thallium an estimated 1000+ insurgents were killed by these means. It works slowly enough to be considered a possible poison in the Skripal case - though what it was carried on is yet to be determined. --Charles Wood (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thallium

 * Investigators suspect ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal was poisoned with a rare heavy metal -Business Insider, March 7, 2018
 * Thallium sulfate, Thallium, toxic, similar to K and interferes with Na/K pump, so kind of 'nerve agent', formerly known as 'rat poison'.
 * --Resup (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Botulinum toxin
See also main page

I now suspect that Sergei Skripal and her daughter are suffering from botulism, caused by the "Risotto Pesce" they ate at the Zizzi restaurant. There was no "novichok agent" involved. The British investigators seem not to have a sample on the nerve agent. They do not know when and where it was administered to the Skripals. They have not identified the container used to transport it into the country or to the attack site. They have no suspects for the assumed attack. Maybe Yulia Skripal brought the nerve agent from Russia, but then it would need to have been in some container the police would have found by now.

Botulinum toxin is a neurotoxic protein with effects somewhat similar to those of nerve agents. It is the most acutely lethal toxin known, with an estimated LD50 of under 2 ng/kg intravenously. There is no evidence for the use of a nerve agent except the words of politicians, and maybe a reading on some mass spectrometer in Porton Down. For all I know the blip can be the result of random impurities, contamination of the environment around Porton Down or simple mass hysteria. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Identification?
IMO, Botulinum toxin quite unlikely different mechanism and speed of onset, so I guess different symptoms, severity, treatment. Molecule is a protein monster compared to nerve agents, (here), and result is muscle tone weakness while for nerve agent a spasm. It also likely needs incompetence or outright falsification at Porton, and it's unlikely. I'd think there may be false positive bump on GC, less likely on mass spectrometry, ions mass to charge measurement is accurate and a misinterpretation or malfunction needed for this to go wrong; and spectroscopy is very accurate, so it will need a serious misinterpretation. But once they are serious onto confirming the theory, they can do all those tests, and failing them all is not going to happen. Also, they will test for everything, including bacteria, and will find botulinum bacteria. Does not mean that it's definitely fool-proof though, but needs something like this: (1) there is a pesticide out there with chemical structure close enough to pass all the tests which they actually had time to do, and it may be less testing then everything available as they were pressed with time and conclusions Seafood, especially farmed one, is the most polluted food out there, collecting everything. (Or maybe, as a theory, Porton Down somehow produces enough pollution to be detectable by Porton Down itself--Mirzayanov job in the USSR was to guard against similar issues)   (2) bacterial test did not come back yet. That may take weeks, up to a month, farming bacteria in a dish and counting. (3) something else, apparently more sudden and violent then 'normal' botulism, put the victims in their jeopardy, and (4) pretty many of people are eating stuff that looks like a nerve agent to the chemlab nerds --Resup (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Tetrodotoxin or Saxitoxin

 * ''See Tetrodotoxin on Wikipedia
 * ''See Saxitoxin on Wikipedia

Tetrodotoxin would fit the timeframe of eating seafood risotto at the Zizzi restaurant and getting paralyzed on the park bench.
 * Dog deaths across Suffolk and Norfolk coastline confirmed as Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning - Eleanor Pringle, Ipswich Star, January 30, 2018
 * ''The authority confirmed that the death of a seven-year-old Siberian Husky after eating a shore crab at Felixstowe Ferry in Suffolk earlier this month is likely to have been caused because of this poisoning. Owner Chris Poole, from Kirton, said his dog died within 90 minutes of leaving the beach.


 * Question #1 on the MOA piece about the Policeman effectively demolishes the teterodotoxin argument. Despite lots of other comments trying to work him in somehow. --Charles Wood (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

As says this Moon Of Alabama articleSaxitoxin which can be produced in shell fish has similar effects as nerve agents Considered in syndromal or functional terms it could therefore be considered a 'closely related agent' to an organophosphate based nerve agent. It is listed alongside OP agents - in a syndromal classification  - as a nervous system agent here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ana.21072

Definition: Saxitoxin Clinical description In severe poisoning, illness typically progresses rapidly and may include gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting) and neurological (cranial nerve dysfunction, a floating sensation, headache, muscle weakness, parasthesias and vertigo) signs and symptoms. Respiratory failure and death can occur from paralysis (1-5)https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/saxitoxin/casedef.asp


 * However the molecule (‎C10H17N7O4, mass 299 u) is very different, no P , no F, and so there seems to be no theory how Porton Down could possibly mix it up with a 'military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, known as Novichok' (official wording). All Novichoks seen in published sources has a P; and all Mirzayanov's except 'substance 33' aka A-208 have F. In organophosphate -ACHE bond, the bonding involves P from the nerve agent --Resup (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Just speculating but, "The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." The sworn court statement referred to Novichok or closely related agent. It didnt say 'closely related compound'. It could be similar agency they mean - using words sneakily. Saxitoxin is listed by CWC as a nerve agent according to citation in MoA piece. --Diagonal (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from MoA - a legal perspective on Court statement

I posted this comment on Craig Murray's blog back in March--it's a parsing of the language of the UK High Court decision--but am reposting here because I think it is still pertinent given what the OPCW does not say, and also given b's hypothesis about the possible toxic in question in the Skripal case.

March 23, 2018 at 19:53

''Regarding the ambiguity of some phrases in the High Court judgment, I submitted this comment further up-thread but since it directly pertains to your argument here I am re-posting here. I have found in my profession that in reading legal documents, one should always opt for the WEAKEST reading possible if there is ANY ambiguity in the language. Hence the following.

There are two non-identical sentences describing the Skripals’ test results in the high court judgment. How should we read them, individually and in combination. Here is my guess:

I think the truth behind the first sentence is that the Skripals tested positive not for a nerve agent, but for a “related compound.” (Otherwise this phrase would not have been included at all.) This could mean EITHER that they tested possible for everyday chemicals that in certain combinations could be used to produce a nerve agent, but in this case were not, OR that they tested possible for a poison that is not a nerve agent at all, but a “related compound”–i.e. a “compound” (and not a simple element) that causes effects “related” to (but not identical with) those of nerve agents.

The second sentence is designed to weaken my skeptical reading of the first sentence without actually stating a lie, under conditions of plausible deniability. The second sentence states that they tested positive for “a Novichok class nerve agent” OR “a closely related agent.” The key to understanding the second sentence is that the adjective “nerve” need not be taken to modify the second use of the word “agent,” even though that is the most natural and plausible way to read the sentence for a native English speaker. Rather, a “closely related agent” could refer to a non-nerve agent–a different kind of poison–that is “closely related” to a “Novichok class nerve agent” in precisely the way that the “related compound” is related to “nerve agent” in the first sentence: i.e. it is an agent that produces or is intended to produce “closely related” (in the relevant sense) effects–sickness, poisoning, etc–to those of a nerve agent (Novichok class or otherwise).

So the two sentences are designed to obfuscate the truth without stating an outright lie under conditions of plausible deniability. And the lawyerly way to read them is to read them in the weakest way possible: the Skripals tested positive for a non-nerve-agent poison. This reading would also seem to fit with the facts–about nerve agents, about the Skripals’ symptoms, about the timeline–as we now understand them. It also matches up with the much discussed Salisbury physician’s letter to the editor, which differentiates “poison” from “nerve agent” in just this way.” '' Posted by: WJ | Apr 12, 2018 3:42:08 PM | 63 --Diagonal (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

OPCW Fact sheet on dual application chemicals Saxitoxin is a CWC schedule 1 Substance Can be an exception to usual procedures where it is needed to test for Paralytic Shellfish poisoning

Comment on MOA piece by Mark McCarty "Saxitoxin is a very different type of nerve agent than VX of the Novichoks. The latter act as cholinesterase inhibitors, and cause convulsions. Whereas saxitoxin inhibits voltage-activated sodium channels in neurons; this prevents the transmission of action potentials, and hence produces flaccid paralysis. Hence, the clinical picture of saxitoxin poisoning is very different than that of VX/Novichok. Is that why one of the doctors treated the Skripals stated that they have not been poisoned with "nerve agents"? Unfortunately, the Skripals' doctors have been gagged, and hence can't clarify this issue. With saxitoxin poisoning, death can occur by respiratory failure. If the victims are hospitalized quickly before complete respiratory failure occurs, and given respiratory support as needed, they can be expected to fully recover after the agent is metabolized and cleared from the system. The Skripals seem to be en route to total recovery. Could people totally recover from a dose of VX/Novichoks sufficient to induce coma? I don't know the answer, but comments I have seen online suggest otherwise." --Diagonal (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We said something similar, on one of the food poisoning versions. Doctors do not give details, but it seems consistent with medical-induced coma and replenishing missing chemicals. That appears to give a chance for survival after organophosphorus compounds; however I saw somewhere lab animal test experiments with the agent killing off the brain (I am not sure is it working directly or by lack of breathing and blood circulation--the latter survivable in intensive care unit, the former obviously not). Overall, OK, maybe we should keep the possibility of food poisoning-like, because they have not made the case otherwise; but I do not see it as very likely. (1) Timing and speedy political exploitation suggests that it was deliberate (2) Maybe there is some Clintonesque way to keep it together with the official statements, but really this is hugely misleading (at least for a scientist, not a lawyer) (3) Food likely was commercially farmed, and so it is with high probability safe, or else, it affects not just one portion of the food, but the whole batch of it --Resup (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of official statements

 * "Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent."
 * ''Regarding the ambiguity of some phrases in the High Court judgment, I submitted this comment further up-thread but since it directly pertains to your argument here I am re-posting here. I have found in my profession that in reading legal documents, one should always opt for the WEAKEST reading possible if there is ANY ambiguity in the language. Hence the following.There are two non-identical sentences describing the Skripals’ test results in the high court judgment. How should we read them, individually and in combination. Here is my guess:
 * I think the truth behind the first sentence is that the Skripals tested positive not for a nerve agent, but for a “related compound.” (Otherwise this phrase would not have been included at all.) This could mean EITHER that they tested possible for everyday chemicals that in certain combinations could be used to produce a nerve agent, but in this case were not, OR that they tested possible for a poison that is not a nerve agent at all, but a “related compound”–i.e. a “compound” (and not a simple element) that causes effects “related” to (but not identical with) those of nerve agents.The second sentence is designed to weaken my skeptical reading of the first sentence without actually stating a lie, under conditions of plausible deniability. The second sentence states that they tested positive for “a Novichok class nerve agent” OR “a closely related agent.” The key to understanding the second sentence is that the adjective “nerve” need not be taken to modify the second use of the word “agent,” even though that is the most natural and plausible way to read the sentence for a native English speaker. Rather, a “closely related agent” could refer to a non-nerve agent–a different kind of poison–that is “closely related” to a “Novichok class nerve agent” in precisely the way that the “related compound” is related to “nerve agent” in the first sentence: i.e. it is an agent that produces or is intended to produce “closely related” (in the relevant sense) effects–sickness, poisoning, etc–to those of a nerve agent (Novichok class or otherwise).So the two sentences are designed to obfuscate the truth without stating an outright lie under conditions of plausible deniability. And the lawyerly way to read them is to read them in the weakest way possible: the Skripals tested positive for a non-nerve-agent poison. This reading would also seem to fit with the facts–about nerve agents, about the Skripals’ symptoms, about the timeline–as we now understand them. It also matches up with the much discussed Salisbury physician’s letter to the editor, which differentiates “poison” from “nerve agent” in just this way.” 

The prepared statement by the Medical Director of Salisbury Hospital just spoke about nerve agents in generic terms - their mode of action in relation to an enzyme and symptoms that can occur "such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion". There is no mention of "novichok" or "military grade". All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the nervous system from functioning. --Diagonal (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/new-developments-in-the-skripal-drama-police-statement-opcw-report-release.html


 * Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a question on medical treatment that Sergei and Yulia Skripal are receiving in the Salisbury hospital
 * "Salisbury Hospital has never confirmed that Sergei and Yulia Skripal had any symptoms of chemical poisoning and that they were treated precisely for this"


 * Yes, the phrase "had been exposed to" a nerve agent would not strictly imply having "had any symptoms" of the same agent.


 * Presumably the samples of the three victims presented to OPCW would have to be consistent with one another. As the DS Nick Bailey role seems dubious (no third person was mentioned by Public Health England on 7th March), this would seem to indicate there would have to have been some artifical means of getting biomedical samples to match, ie Nick Bailey (or perhaps all three) was dosed seperately to the initial poisoning. If Yulia and DS Bailey are well then presumably it would be exposure to a chemical that does not cause lasting damage. --Diagonal (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Russian Embassy Report 13 April 2018 With timeline of events

(From Annex) What is Mr and Ms Skripal’s exact diagnosis and condition? Partially answered by Salisbury District Hospital. What treatment are they receiving? Partially answered by Salisbury District Hospital. Is that treatment the same as that provided to Sgt Nick Bailey? No information. Why has the condition of Mr Bailey and Ms Skripal improved, while Mr Skripal remains in a critical condition? No information. Did Mr Bailey, Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal receive antidotes? No official reply. According to Porton Down Chief Executive, no antidote exists against the substance used. Which antidotes exactly were administered? See 5 above. What information and medical effects led to the decision to administer antidotes? How had the medical staff identify which antidotes to use? See 5 above. Why are there no photos/videos confirming that the Skripals are alive and at hospital? No information. Did the Skripals agree on Salisbury CCTV footage to be shown on TV? No information. If not, who gave the agreement on their behalf? No information. Is that person also entitled to authorize the publication of photos/videos? No information. Is that person also entitled to authorize consular access? No information. What protection against chemical exposure is used by the medical staff? No information. If consular access is impeded by the risk of exposure, can the same protection be used by a consular officer? No information. Could the hastiness in administering antidotes aggravate the condition of Mr Bailey, Mr and Ms Skripal? See 5 above. Where, how and by whom were blood samples collected from Mr and Ms Skripal? No information from the UK. OPCW says their experts took samples. How was it documented? No information from the UK. Who can certify that the data is credible? No information from the UK. Was the chain of custody up to all the OPCW requirements when evidence was collected? No information from the UK. OPCW says chain of custody has been respected. Which methods (spectral analysis and others) were used by the British side to identify, within such a remarkably short period of time, the type of the substance used? No information. Had the British side possess a standard sample against which to test the substance? No information. Where had that sample come from? No information. How can the delayed action of the nerve agent be explained, given that it is a fast-acting substance by nature? No information. The victims were allegedly poisoned in a pizzeria (in a car, at the airport, at home, according to other accounts). So what really happened? How come they were found in some unidentified time on a bench in the street? No official reply. Police says the victims came into contact with the poison through the front door. No further details available. How do the hasty actions of the British side correlate with Scotland Yard’s official statements that “the investigation is highly likely to take weeks or even months” to arrive at conclusions? No information.
 * Note Verbale of 22 March 2018:
 * Note Verbale of 26 March 2018:

Timeline of early local reports and agency statements

 * 4th March
 * Two people in hospital after an incident in The Maltings Descibed in reports as a medical emergency not as a major incident. It seems strange that Salisbury Journal reports from that day would name the man as a Russian spy. --Diagonal (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5th March
 * Major incident at Salisbury District Hospital - 10:15am 5th March 2018 (Updated 12:06pm 6th March 2018)
 * ''Major incident declared at our hospital. Small number of casualties Fire-fighters called to decontaminate the area.
 * Spire FM: Police link major incidents at hospital and Maltings in Salisbury 1:50pm 5th March 2018 (Updated 6:09pm 5th March 2018)]
 * Salisbury District Hospital declared a “major incident” on Monday 5 March, after two patients were exposed to an opioid. - Clinical Services Journal
 * 'Major incident' at Salisbury District Hospital linked to medical emergency at Maltings, police confirm - Salisbury Journal

The pair were treated for Fentanyl till a "major incident at Salisbury Hospital the following morning" --Diagonal (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, this is the morning after report, with the event itself sometime after 15:47 on Sunday, March 4, 2018 when Skripals were recorded on CCTV cameras, and there are some witnesses and publications telling that it happened on Sunday. Well, it is unclear what's going on and it does not exclude something else happening on Monday. But also it does not exclude scenario where Porton Down folks did not break their Sunday for some drug addicts reported, and did their tests on Monday morning (so some concern was present). Their tests showed that secret nerve agent chemical from the OPCW report (not banned by OPCW according to Lavrov, somewhere). At this point in time it became some sort of 'all hands on deck' moment. (?) Or do we have evidence of a CW -type response on Sunday already ? --Resup (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I just wrote on Diagonal's User talk page: Ok, took a look and added a piece from the Salisbury Journal which has a bit more details and pictures. From the SJ we also know that paramedic Ian originally treated them, apparently without larger consequences, for Fentanyl abuse and is likely the source for that original information. That "major incident" seems to be when they realized at the Hospital that it had to be something else, apparently lightly affecting the staff and/or other patients, and called in the specialists. Seems to be a plausible thing to happen. Still an interesting detail. --CE (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I might be dubious about the Salisbury Journal Web page could have been updated retroactively (need timestamp). Also we need verification on Nick Bailey story as he is not mentioned as seriously ill till 7th. This SJ page purports to be from 4th March but the presence of biohazard suited personnel pictured would be totally inconsistent with a major incident not being announced till 5th March at the hospital --Diagonal (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC) --Diagonal (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Wayback Machine has a snapshot from March 6, which seems to be pretty much the same as the current version, with one exception: It has a yellow "UPDATED" note above the headline, which the current version doesn't have anymore. Hmmm... But it says pretty much what the articles you collected say as well, doesn't it? The police officer has like Yulia Skripal immediately asked - through people speaking on his behalf - to have his privacy respected, so I don't think anything about even where he was injured is known to this day. --CE (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What I am hypothesizing based on the reports (Please look carefully at the times and details of these reports on reponses listed) is as Nick Bailey was presumably a staged add on he was not poisoned as the Skripals were. The Skripals were treated for Fentanyl - as per clinical services journal - after falling ill on the 4th. A major incident was only declared on morning of the 5th. Subsequently Nick Bailey was invented and all three were dosed in manner consistent with Swiss findings. --Diagonal (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote yesterday in section above "Presumably the samples of the three victims presented to OPCW would have to be consistent with one another. As the DS Nick Bailey role seems dubious (no third person was mentioned by Public Health England on 7th March), this would seem to indicate there would have to have been some artifical means of getting biomedical samples to match, ie Nick Bailey (or perhaps all three) was dosed seperately to the initial poisoning. If Yulia and DS Bailey are well then presumably it would be exposure to a chemical that does not cause lasting damage." -Diagonal (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Timeline from Salisbury Journal


 * 6th March:
 * Statement from Angus Macpherson, police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon
 * As you are aware, we declared a major incident yesterday after a man and a woman were taken seriously ill in Salisbury on Sunday. They both remain in a critical condition in hospital and our thoughts and best wishes are with their families during this difficult time. A full multi-agency response was activated and currently involves Public Health England, the NHS, Local Authorities both in Swindon and Wiltshire and a range of other key partners. This has been a fast paced investigation and our focus has been on trying to establish what has caused these people to become critically ill and whether or not any criminal activity has taken place. Since Sunday, we have had access to a wide range of specialist resources and services that have been working alongside us. You will be aware that this afternoon, the Metropolitan Police have confirmed that, due to the unusual circumstances, the Counter Terrorism network will now be leading this investigation, as it has the specialist expertise to do so.It is important to reiterate that they have not declared it as a terrorist incident and at this stage they are keeping an open mind as to what happened. The advice from Public Health England remains that, based on the evidence to date, currently there doesn't appear to be any immediate risk to the public. We can confirm that a small number of emergency services personnel, including some police officers and staff, were assessed immediately after the incident.

Ill Policeman

 * 6th March
 * Police Oracle: Two police officers admitted to and discharged from hospital only minor symptoms Wilstshire police pictured outside Skripals house


 * 7th March:

First mention of seriously ill policeman (I can find so far) is 7th March, the same day Public Health England had issued statement saying only two people affected

On Tuesday, 6 March, it was confirmed that the Counter Terrorism Policing Network had taken over the lead for the investigation, due to the unusual circumstances and the specialist expertise the network can bring to the investigation. ... https://journal-neo.org/2018/03/09/the-skripal-incident-another-anti-russian-provocation/
 * Paul Cosford, Medical Director and Director of Health Protection at PHE said:
 * ''All known first responders have been contacted through their organisations and encouraged to seek further advice should they experience any symptoms. The sites recently visited by the 2 people affected have all been secured and PHE is reminding local clinicians of the symptoms to look out for.
 * ''Based on current evidence the risk to the wider public is low and it is likely that, had any member of the public been exposed to the substance, they would have presented with symptoms by now. However, anyone who was in the area and is concerned because they feel unwell, should dial 111 or 999 depending on the severity of their symptoms.
 * Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, the head of Counter Terrorism Policing, said:
 * ''"Having established that they were exposed to a nerve agent we are now treating this as a major incident involving an attempted murder by the administration of a nerve agent.
 * ''"Two people remain in hospital in a critical condition. A police officer who was among the first responders also remains in hospital in a serious condition and is continuing to receive intensive care. We are keeping the Chief Constable in Wiltshire regularly updated in relation to our investigation.
 * 8th March
 * Policeman is named, said to be very anxious
 * On Thursday the 8th of March the British government claimed that they had identified a “nerve agent” as the substance used. Yet the BBC quotes on the same day a woman physician who attended at the scene saying that she found Mrs. Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench vomiting and fitting. She had lost control of her bodily functions. The physician, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved the daughter into the recovery position and opened her airways as others tended to her father. The doctor stated that the she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on her face or body and that though she had been worried she would be affected by a nerve agent so far she “feels fine.”Yet, the British media published on Thursday a photograph of a police officer who they say attended the scene and who they claim was made ill and placed in intensive care but is now stable and recovering. The two stories do not add up, as it would seem the doctor was in closer physical contact with the two victims than the police officer yet the doctor has suffered no symptoms at all.

11th March -- Diagonal (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2018‎ (UTC) - Updated 17:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Det Sgt Nick Bailey, 38 and also still in hospital after being contaminated, is thought to have visited the house after attending the scene where the pair collapsed.

Biomedical sample presented to OPCW
--Diagonal (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Biomedical sample taken from Police Officer according to OPCW:
 * ''"The team also took biomedical samples from these two victims, as well as from a third individual, a police officer reportedly exposed to a toxic chemical."

“Highly complex”
The Financial Times writes:
 * ''Clips of Mr Skripal’s car driving through Salisbury have been released, but no pictures of any individuals that are being sought.
 * ''A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said nothing should be read into this and that no information would be released unless it helps the “highly complex” inquiry.

“Highly complex” is a code word and means that normal legal and investigative procedures are not followed and the investigation should not endanger the predetermined outcome. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Fast paced investigation"

Skripal's pets
11th March The Sun reports Friends said they had not seen Skripal’s pets for days and had not been asked to care for them.

17th March Metro reports Saturday 17 Mar 2018 11:46 am [A poisoned Russian double agent’s cat and two guinea pigs were taken from his home to be tested, according to a source.

The Sun reports [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5833121/russian-sergei-skripals-pet-cat/ Russian spy Sergei Skripal’s pet cat and guinea pigs are taken away for tests Neighbours say the poisoned Russian spy's animals have not been seen since he was hospitalised]

5th April Sun reports Sergei Skripal’s beloved cat was secretly put down by ­Government scientists in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent atrocity. "Government sources have told The Sun that specialist chemical weapons investigators found the spy’s black Persian kitty Nash Van Drake “very unwell” when they finally got into his Wiltshire house shortly after the March 4 attack.The sickly mog was transported to the Ministry of Defence res­earch laboratory at Porton Down to be tested, where he was found to be severely malnourished." Sounds incongrous that the cat would be malnourished. --Diagonal (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

6th April Guardian reports Sergei Skripal's cat and guinea pigs die after police seal house

Cited by MoA

--Diagonal (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Vets in Salisbury Statment, facebook, 6th April (updated 9th April after clarification from DEFRA:


 * ... We contacted the police straightaway upon hearing the news that Mr Skripal had been admitted to hospital, and a number of times afterwards, to make them aware of Mr Skripal's pets and their needs. We contacted Porton Down - in case the animals may have been taken into quarantine. We also offered to take care of Mr Skripal's pets in his absence. We were never contacted by the police or Porton Down in return regarding Mr Skripal's pets. ...

Who is Ross Cassidy?
The name sounds awfully American. But other sources hint that Cassidy was Skripal's MI6 or MI5 handler in Britain. He was "a close friend of Sergei Skripal" and a close neighbor when Skripal rented his first house Salisbury. Ross Cassidy picked Yulia from the airport with his Japanese pick-up truck. Some sources said that this was his fists car after he arrived in the country. Where did he come from? Ireland or America? When? Note the formal and evasive language. Sounds like a police officer or an MI5 operative. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Vehicle used to pick up Yulia Skripal from airport seized for forensic tests - The Telegraph, March 19, 2018
 * Did treacherous past of Russian colonel finally catch up with him in Salisbury? - The Telegraph, March 6, 2018 (with photos, print version)
 * ''The colonel’s close friend Ross Cassidy, who lives just a few doors from the property the Russian rented when he first arrived in Salisbury, said he “was not at liberty to talk.”
 * ''He declined to say whether his friend had spoken of fears for his life, adding: “It’s a very sensitive investigation of some gravitas. I really am unable to divulge any information at the moment.”

Who was Joseph Edward Cassidy?
This may be just an odd coincidence, but is related to our study anyway.

In Operation Shocker started in 1959 U.S. Army First Sergeant Joseph Edward Cassidy leaked disinformation to the Soviets about U.S. chemical weapons programs. This might be his grave: command sergeant major (CSM) Joseph Edward Cassidy (1920-2011). Is Joseph Edward Cassidy in any way related to Ross Cassidy?

Suspects?

 * 'Teresa May'-type version
 * USSR/Russia developed or produced Novichok, has expertise
 * Involved in hit jobs in the past
 * Revenge for a treason is a motive
 * 'Putin did it'


 * 'Walter Litvinenko'-type version
 * Enemy of Putin or Russia did it, possibly an alliance of a non-public oligarch ('Berezovsky-2' or non-Russian anti-Russians) + special services, in any mix of those, or alone.


 * Denis Dementyev Julia Skripal's boyfriend and alleged Russian Intelligence operative - see comment by Richard Compton. Possibly it was Dementyev's mother instead - see comment also about allegations by Viktori Skripal. --Charles Wood (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also noted (about non-suspects)

 * Also noted: scientists involved or knowledgeable about CW are underfunded; some may be seeking income ('Leonid Rink'-type), others may have left science for some sort of small business. Likely majority of them, apart from the top brass, are in non-system opposition to the state, pro-Western, and pro-Ukrainian ('Vladimir Uglev'-type). Reported storage of the research quantities of various substances is OK for expert handling but not super-secure. I am not at all saying that scientists has anything to do with it, --they are not, and they are surely disgusted and horrified by what has happened; but all the above creates a lax environment which may be exploited by a determined enemy or criminal (there was one well-known case of crime committed using those substances).

--Resup (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nerve agent samples?
Do the investigators have any samples of the alleged nerve agent?

4th April OPCW "The team also took biomedical samples from these two victims, as well as from a third individual, a police officer reportedly exposed to a toxic chemical." https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-57/en/ecm57dg01_e_.pdf --Diagonal (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

See OPCW investigation discussion

The press coverage gives the impression that there are traces of the nerve agent everywhere, but I think it is more likely that the investigators have not been able to recover a single sample from the environment. Michael Kobs sums up the argument on Twitter:
 * In fact all these alleged traces are debunked by the strange MI5 theory of a mini drone hovering above the bench. Any earlier trace would 100% exclude the drone theory while the drone theory excludes any knowledge of any earlier trace.

It seems that the determination of a novichok type of nerve agent is made solely based on blood samples. These show a breakdown product that can be linked to some novichok type. Most likely this marker is similar to IMPA, having lost its lethality and fluoride atom but maintaining the skeletal molecule structure of the original agent. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(I think) the testing process is different for hydrolysis breakdown products (such as IMPA) than for molecules that have bound to an enzyme, as is shown in the poster below. Will we ever know whether the positive indication was from protein adduct tests or from metabolites/degradation products? --Diagonal (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note the indeterminacy of these tests on protein adducts, hence "Sarin or Sarin-like"


 * "As the leaving group of the agent is lost when binding to AChE or BChE, this analysis can not reveal the identity of the used agent (the same is true for flouride regeneration and any other analysis that does not identify the intact agent). For example an adduct that is identical to the one produced upon exposure to Sarin might actually come from an agent that features a leaving group similar to that of VX"

I think, any nerve agent found in a flouride regeneration test would have to bind to AChE which IMPA doesnt apparently. But other methylphosphonates can bind to AChE. I don't know if this applies to Novichok class.--Diagonal (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

DDTea says:


 * "IPMA does not bind strongly to acetylcholinesterase. It’s water soluble, and would be washed out with urine. It does not bioaccumulate to any appreciable degree. So it’s difficult to imagine this giving a positive result in the enzyme reactivation test." https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/update-to-briefing-note-doubts-about-novichoks/#comments --Diagonal (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Literature references
See also: Full UN meeting video, with bi-lingual audio, April 5, 2018 here.
 * Arthur Conan Doyle, early on, entered by Russia, implying rush to judgment as opposed to Sherlock Holmes approach.Foreign Office: Allowing Russian scientists into an investigation would be like Scotland Yard inviting in Professor Moriarty.
 * Fyodor Dostoevsky. 'Crime and Punishment': Boris Johnson: 1, 2 ‘We are all confident of the culprit – and the only question is whether he will confess or be caught’. Nebenzya at UN: the novel is in fact not about this. It is not a detective story, as British FM apparently thinks, but a deep philosophical  (мировоззренческое: system of World's concepts) work of literature. We already quoted from that novel an (English) proverb, a 100 rabbits will never make a horse (and a hundred suspicions will never make a proof'). I would also advice Mr. Johnson to read other Dostoevsky's novels, or at least get acquainted with their titles; I won't reproduce those.
 * 'Dead cat on the table', referred to by Nebenzya, explained by Boris Johnson
 * 'Alice in the Wonderland' (White Rabbit at the court), read by Nebenzya at the UN (" There is more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty," said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry, " this paper has just been picked up." ... it seems to be a letter written by the prisoner to somebody."..."Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?" "No, they're not,"..." He must have imitated somebody else's hand," said the King.  ..There's no name signed at  the end of it."  " If you didn't sign it, that makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief..." That proves his guilt," said the Queen. " That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet," said the King, rubbing his hands, "so let the jury now consider their verdict." " No, no," said the Queen, " Sentence first, verdict afterwards."; earlier  appearance here)
 * --Resup (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * UK Politics 2018: Where Lewis Carroll meets Hans Christian Andersen, Neil Clark, April 10, 2018
 * Romeo and J(Y)uli(a)et, (The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet), by William Shakespeare, around 1597 c.e. --Resup (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled chemicals

 * ''Moved from Poisoning of Sergei Skripal

Presumably any canditate for an organophosphate poison would have to be one that inhibits AChE to give a positive indication in blood tests. --Diagonal (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(ACLOS Copy)
 * Schedule 2 lists toxic chemicals and precursors deemed to pose a significant risk to the object and purpose of the CWC because of their lethal, incapacitating or other properties that could enable them to be used as a chemical weapon. Precursors may be used at the final stage of formation, or may be important for the production, of any of the chemicals listed in Schedule
 * or of toxic chemicals listed in Schedule 2. Schedule
 * chemicals are not produced in large quantities for commercial or other purposes not prohibited by the Convention, but may be used to manufacture such things as insecticides, herbicides, lubricants or pharmaceuticals

Making Novichok page discussing easily available OPs

CWC Schedule 1 Precursors
 * Schedule 1 alkyl phosphonyldifluorides; where R1 = Me, Et, i-Pr or n-Pr.
 * Alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonyldifluorides, e.g.
 * DF: Methylphosphonyl difluoride
 * O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) O-2-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonites and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts, e.g.
 * QL: O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite
 * Chlorosarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonochloridate
 * Chlorosoman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonochloridate

CWC Schedule 2 precursors
 * Chemicals, except for those listed in Schedule 1, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms, e.g.
 * Methylphosphonyl dichloride
 * Dimethyl methylphosphonate
 * Exemption: Fonofos: O-Ethyl S-phenyl ethylphosphonothiolothionate
 * N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidic dihalides
 * Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) N,N-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphoramidates
 * Arsenic trichloride
 * 2,2-diphenyl-2-hydroxyacetic acid
 * Quinuclidin-3-ol
 * N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethyl-2-chlorides and corresponding protonated salts
 * N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-ols and corresponding protonated salts

Exemptions:
 * N,N-Dimethylaminoethanol and corresponding protonated salts; N,N-Diethylaminoethanol and corresponding protonated salts
 * N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-thiols and corresponding protonated salts
 * Thiodiglycol: Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide
 * Pinacolyl alcohol: 3,3-Dimethylbutan-2-ol

For further reference

Legal aspects

 * Comment posted by WJ on MoA blog, Apr 12, 2018, provides apparently professional read-out of the language. It was reposted here by --Diagonal (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC) . A shortened version with just the link entered by --Resup (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC) (who would not dare to attempt a brief summary of this legal-speak, apart from stating that it sounds professional, ie made by a person with proper legal training and/or experience).

12 April 2018 report

 * Summary of the Report on Activities Carried Out in Support of a Request for Technical Assistance by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Technical Assistance Visit Tav/02/18) OPCW, 12 April 2018
 * Noted: Samples were sent to 4 labs, and it is claimed that biological and environmental samples demonstrated exposure/presence to/of 'this toxic chemical' (not provided in the public version of OPCW report but communicated to member states). Lavrov tells that he has a report from one of those labs which found BZ and A 234. Lavrov does not say whether this refers to biological or environmental samples. It is unclear whether he has 3 other labs reports, and he does not talk about other labs at all. It is not at all likely or expected that other labs have different results on the same question of the investigation. With multiple tests (including spectral) conclusions shall be definite, not probabilistic with some confidence levels  (ie essentially with probability 1). However it is possible that other labs only performed work to confirm A-234 and ignored anything else that might be there; this is not clear. Procedures do matter; there really has to be a detailed report, and especially so if results differ. Probably, these days tests are highly automatized and run by computers doing the matching, this adds more avenues for potential screw-ups, but those are not supposed to be happening--Resup (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Presumably if they found A234 at high level of purity, it must have come from an environmental sample. I'm guessing it would bind to enzymes in blood and therefore could not be identified definitely (as in 'sarin or sarin like'). Or be said to be of high purity in urine as it would presumable break down to metabolites. Just my rough guess, for now --Diagonal (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That would explain why Spiez could say Porton Down had correctly identified Novichok, if referring to matching environmental sample. They (Spiez) dont have access to both biomed and environmental samples, but Porton Down do --Diagonal (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Access of other States Parties to the report will be subject to the agreement of the United Kingdom,pursuant to the Confidentiality Annex of the Convention, the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality, and the consistent practice in relation to other technical assistance visits." EC-M-57/DG.1

OPCW denied BZ
They said it was in control sample sent for quality control. That is not really unusual, I heard about such QC methods elsewhere before. If so, unfortunate that Lavrov got confused, but no major issue here. Apart from that this does not bring us any closer to knowing who is to blame/what happened. Lavrov in recent appearance on UK hard talk, 17 Apr. 2018, did not talk about BZ, he talked about Novichok too pure being a problem, as it cannot be, after several weeks, + wet weather (but we also do not know what report actually is). It is also reported that the origin of Novichok is not established. And Russian sources speculate that medically induced coma could be fool-played. Well, it could be. But we do not know that it was. --Resup (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "There was no other chemical identified by the labs". As the biomedical procedures arent definitive then the only substance positively identified would presumably come from environmental samples. The biomed samples would presumably have some degradation products and protein adducts that might be taken to indicative of an OP such as A234 but could just as well be from other potential factors - as with IMPA in urine of KS victims..? The recovery of Yulia and 'DS Nick Bailey' would indicate they have'nt had any significant exposure to A234 (The fact that we have not seen Yulia not withstanding) --Diagonal (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Detection of intact organophosphates in the blood usually is not possible except during or soon after absorption of a substantial amount. In general, organophosphates do not remain unhydrolyzed in the blood more than a few minutes or hours, unless the quantity absorbed is large or the hydrolyzing liver enzymes are inhibited. Blood should be obtained for cholinesterase testing as described above, but it is not feasible or practical to attempt to test for specific compounds. It may be useful to obtain a urine sample from the poisoned patient and send it for metabolite detection... EPA


 * Were BZ and A-234 found in the same sample? The text quoted by Lavrov does not exactly say so. High purity A-234 might also be an indication of a control sample. Either case, it shows that A-234 is not endemic to Russia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "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." --Diagonal (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

They confirm the findings of the British in relation to the identity of the toxic chemical.

8. The results of analysis of biomedical samples conducted by OPCW designated laboratories demonstrate the exposure of the three hospitalised individuals to this toxic chemical. 9. The results of analysis of the environmental samples conducted by OPCW designated laboratories demonstrate the presence of this toxic chemical in the samples. 10. The results of analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury and severely injured three people. 11. The TAV team notes that the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities. 12. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to States Parties. https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf


 * 'Demonstrates' sounds definitive, as opposed to the more inconclusive 'indicates' but from what we know about biomed analysis the agent is not left intact so the absolute identity cannot be revealed so I dont think they should say "demonstrates exposure to" rather than say, 'is consistent with exposure to'. --Diagonal (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Russian Envoy to the UK seems to have misunterstood, thinking that the chemical was present in the blood samples (saying they could have been spiked) as opposed to the blood showing signs of having been exposed to a chemical. Only the environmental samples are said to have the chemical present --Diagonal (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I infer that if A234 of high purity has been identified in both environmental and biomed samples then it would be highly suspicious; given the prior vaguely worded court statement on blood samples (why would it be so ambiguous if they had positively identified A234 at that time) and the degradation properties of A234 already noted. It was also not explicitly stated by medics that Skripals or Bailey had any symtoms of military grade nerve agent poisoning as opposed to just "been exposed to a nerve agent" or "significant poisoning". I'm now inclined to think that environmental traces at the hot spots must have been placed there not long before the OPCW team visited and that if any biomed samples demonstrate A234 they would have been spiked. But the wording for biomed samples says the blood was exposed to not that the chemical was present in the samples. Thoughts? --Diagonal (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC) --Diagonal (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If biomed tests are indeterminate then How have they been able to rule out that metabolites and protein adducts consistent with exposure to A-234 have not come from any other source How OPCW assess for organo phosphate exposure  - There seems to be some degree of indeterminacy in what chemical exposure might be indicated from protein adducts in blood samples, same for metabolites in urine.