Talk:Ken Alibek

NPOV

The "Criticism" section of this article that used to exist (though poorly referenced) seems to have been completely purged, turning the article from NPOV to unquestioning praise. I don't have the time to do extensive edits myself, but someone who's interested in restoring NPOV might want to begin with this article: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/01/nation/na-alibek1 -- Kolbasz (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It seems that Alibekov is curating the article himself religiously for 7 years now. The "criticism" reads like a defamation lawsuit basis, and would most certainly not be written by anyone neutral in any way, shape, or form. I know nothing of the subject, but it was just too obvious that this article is a personal promotion platform for its subject, and looking at Next_Generation - it's fairly obvious that it's Ken himself. IDiO (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LA Times

I would caution anyone against using the LA Times article as a credible source; just because something is published does not mean that the statements are true or even written within context. Suggest people have another look at the quality and objectivity of the article. Before the article was published, I personally contacted Dave Willman to talk with him (Dr Alibek introduced me to him) to provide some objective information about an unrelated matter, however he did not respond to my email. After the LA Times article was published, me and another close colleague of Dr Alibek sent letters to the editor of LA Times, correcting and clarifying the information in the libelous article, however the editor chose not to respond to our letters or publish them in the "letters to the editor" section. After that, LA Times reportedly apologized for publishing a libelous article about P Diddy; the article was based upon documents which reportedly were "doctored" http://www.nme.com/news/p-diddy/35473. Would any reasonable person give any credibility to the LA Times article, given the information above? I am still shocked that Dr Alibek didn't sue the LA Times for libel; I am confident he would have won. I strongly suggest such a poorly written article with highly questionable credibility not be used as part of a living biography...it violates Wiki principles and seemingly the law. D. Anderson 68.33.54.126 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, presume you wrote the section I've just amended for spelling - it comes over as a little, I dunno, angry/biased, although I'm certain you're correct, this isn't really the place for getting angry - it's just a wiki. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

- I agree with the critic of the article above. That LA Times article is rubbish. As such, is shouldn't be dignified with a place in Wikipedia, which has the aim of being accurate. And to the user above, I dare you to walk up to Jimmy Wales and tell him "It's just a wiki."

- The criticism that says that Dr. Alibek was fanciful about adding Ebola genes to smallpox - I know that's false. Here's why:

• First, I have personally inserted genes into Vaccinia, which is very close to smallpox. I've done it in roughly 5 days through to selection of plaques which were positive using beta-galactosidase marker. It's routine in labs that work with Vaccinia virus. Here's an example of a paper using the technique. http://jvi.asm.org/content/76/3/1236.full.pdf Look at methods on page 1237 to see how to insert a gene into vaccinia. Smallpox protocol would be identical.

• Second, somewhere, in Russian, is a paper published by the scientist who did the work Alibek talks about. I've seen reference to the paper, but I just don't have the time to try to dig it up and my Russian has seriously deteriorated through non-use. Bluntly put, that critic doesn't know what he's talking about. The techniques have been well developed for a long time. So he's an MD? That doesn't mean he knows lab virology from a hole in his head.

• Yes, I know "personal knowledge" isn't supposed to go into wikipedia. In this case it's pretty ridiculous because it means is that the articles are written by people who are least qualified to do it. That's just dumb. Yes, I've b*tched to Jimmy Wales about this and other deficiencies of wikipedia.

69.229.121.85 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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 Patrick and Ken Alibek were close friends and Bill Patrick vehemently defended Ken Alibek's honor on two separate occasions to which I was a party. A very fast way to anger Bill Patrick was to question the loyalty, integrity, or scientific/technological expertise of Ken Alibek. And I can tell you that one day in later years when I went to the Patricks and we were all leaving for lunch, I saw that Willman had just been to visit Bill Patrick's and when I reminded Bill who Willman was, he was absolutely incensed that he had granted Willman an interview to help him with a book he was writing; he said that if he remembered that Willman was the author of that trash about Alibek, he would have told him *&*^$%%^*. Mr Patrick was so upset about unintentionally helping a man he despised because of the trash he wrote about a dear friend that I was concerned for his health during lunch.

Regarding bias in the article - I don't like the bias when it is negative or positive. For example, I don't think it is necessary to add "despite being forbidden to do so" when discussing Alibek's emigration to the USA however that small statement is far less egregious than an overt attack on his character using an article which isn't even worthy of lining the bottom of a bird cage. When the larger problems with the article are fixed, then we can focus on fixing the smaller parts of the article and adding his current work, which would absolutely fascinate the reader and substantially add to the picture presented by the article. But I am not going to add the information 1) without Alibek's permission and 2) until people stop using Wikipedia as a means to attack Alibek in order to advance their own interests. Until Wikipedia steps up to end all the childish and vindictive behavior people (including me) have complained about with regard to this article, I have nothing new to add and the article will remain incomplete. Alibek is currently saving lives that physicians in the USA are losing - the medical community and the terminally ill patients (your mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and children) will all have to wait for additional hope for a cure until people learn not to use Wiki to attack the man who has been curing people considered incurable. Next Generation (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why L.A. Times article can't be used as a source. It seems to generally be a trustworthy news source. News papers get things wrong once in a while and they retracted the article about p.diddy with apologies. They haven't retracted the article about Ken Alibek and he has not sued the L.A Times for it. Also considering the author of the article is a pulitzer awarded journalist and the L.A times seems to have a reasonable reputation calling them untrustworthy could be libelous in itself.

I do however think the L.A times criticism shouldn't take up much weight in the article since there doesn't seem to be many other criticisms written against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.10.246 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that no one likes being lectured about following the rules. That said, Wikipedia does have rules and we must follow them. One is that if you know someone personally, you are probably not qualified to write about them on Wikipedia. Honestly, with the impassioned speech above by Next Generation, I'm tempted to request that the article be deleted. Maintaining an article of someone you know is completely inappropriate. Yes, I know how that sounds, but those are the rules. I have absolutely no knowledge of this man personally or professionally. Does that make me qualified to write about him? According to Wikipedia, yes. What's the cure? Dr. Alibek should put up his own biography page on his own personal website or his company website, but we cannot cite that page as a source. That's the cure. Fighting on Wikipedia is silly.

Secondly, the LA Times is a reliable source. That said, all of the controversial statements from the article do not have to be cited. In addition the Pulitzer prize winning reporter can be cited as the author of statements that other editors find objectionable. I have not (yet) reviewed the LA times article but if I decide to include any text from that article, and cite it, it is entirely inappropriate to argue that the LA times is not a reliable source. Especially by referencing an article about a musician written by another reporter. That's not how this works.

Respectfully Nickmalik (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Verification

This article requires attention to ensure that no content was lost because of these edits. Note that those edits removed the one reference that this article cited. Uncle G 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is said the information is based partly on the "author's personal knowledge of subject." Does this statement refer to Anderson's work? The publisher of Anderson's work is Center for Advanced Defense Studies. Is this verifiable? All online information sources, in turn, are based on the Wikipedia article.Fconaway 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anderson's work WAS NOT published by Center for Advanced Defense Studies. It was published by UMI Dissertation Services. Her dissertation is categorized as UMI #3231331.

In reference to the "personal knowledge" question - Anderson included biographies on William C. Patrick III and Kenneth Alibek in her dissertation. Both gentlemen were members of her dissertation committee and reviewed the biographies written about them before granting permission for Dr. Anderson to publish them. The Wikipedia article was taken verbatim (with Dr. Anderson's permission) from her dissertation.

References

Impressions on Article

I would like to submit what I feel is a more appropriate article about Dr. Alibek. Having worked closely with Dr. Alibek over the last two years, I am familiar with his personal background, his work at AFG Biosolutions, his professorship at George Mason University, and his current position as CEO and President of MaxWell Biocorporation, a U.S.-based, privately held medical and pharmaceutical company created to serve significant unmet medical needs in emerging healthcare markets in the former Soviet Union. Disclaimer: I work for Dr. Alibek. This draft is not yet complete and requires further referencing, which I will provide. I am submitting it to the Wikipedia community due to what I feel is an inappropriate tone and bias evident in the current entry. My apologies for any formatting errors, as I am new to Wikipedia editing and am still learning.

At the beginning, I need to make three key points. First, Kenneth Alibek is a medical doctor and deserves the title of "Doctor" or "Dr." before his surname, as per standard usage. Referring to him by his surname without his medical title is gratuitously insulting. Second, since his former military rank of Colonel in the Soviet military has long been defunct (along with the Soviet military itself), it is not appropriate to refer to him by that title now. Finally, Dr. Alibek legally changed his name to "Kenneth Alibek" after arriving in the United States; while he often uses the shorter, informal nickname "Ken", "Kenneth" is his full legal first name, as used in his Congressional appearances and testimony, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrilmax (talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Alibek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kenneth Alibek, M.D., Ph.D., Sc.D. (Russian: Канатжан Алибеков; Kazakh: Қанатжан Әлібеков) is a noted American specialist in microbiology, immunology and biotechnology, medical doctor, public health expert and consultant, author, professor, entrepreneur, Chief Executive Officer of AFG Biosolutions Inc. (USA) and President and Chief Executive Officer of MaxWell Biocorporation, LLC (USA). A widely recognized biodefence specialist, Dr. Alibek actively participated in designing a biodefense strategy for the U.S. government, and has repeatedly advised Congress and the U.S. and other governments on biotechnology issues.

Kenneth (“Ken”) Alibek has received honorary diplomas from governments and organizations in many countries, including the Berkeley Medal in 1994 from the U.S. Congress for his outstanding contribution to the struggle for peace. In 2001, he received an award for the largest contract in biotechnology to date concluded with the U.S. government. The “Washington ProFile” news agency has rated Kenneth Alibek as one of the most influential Americans of former Soviet origin.

Dr. Alibek has taught and lectured in leading American universities, including Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown. He has lectured to students and instructors at the University of Sorbonne and the National University of Singapore. Starting in 2007, Dr. Alibek has lectured to graduate students of the Biology Department of the Shevchenko National University in Kiev, Ukraine. He has authored and co-authored more than one hundred scientific and popular articles and ten books.

Dr. Alibek was born Kanatjan Alibekov in Kauchuk, Kazakhstan. Thanks to his exceptional performance while studying military medicine at the Tomsk Medical Institute, after graduation he was selected to work for the Soviet Union’s highly secretive biological weapons program. Dr. Alibek’s formidable abilities as a scientist, manager, and organizer allowed him to rise quickly through a series of increasingly more senior research and management assignments at various Soviet production facilities and institutes, and to learn complex skill sets required for the organization and management of industrial-scale biotechnological facilities and the assembly-line production of biological products.

His continued scientific and managerial successes eventually led to Dr. Alibek’s promotion to a senior position in Moscow, where he ultimately oversaw not only the Soviet Union’s biological weapons facilities but also a significant number of civilian pharmaceutical production facilities. His advancement also gave Dr. Alibek the opportunity to voice his growing opposition to the Soviet Union’s continued secret biological weapons program.

In 1990, Dr. Alibek officially proposed to then-Soviet president Gorbachev the cessation of all biological weapons development and production in the USSR. After Gorbachev approved his proposal, Dr. Alibek used his position and authority to begin destruction of the Soviet biological weapons program despite serious opposition from its military supporters, while also planning to increase production of civilian pharmaceuticals and medicines allocated to the long-deprived Soviet public health sector.

Dr. Alibek was subsequently placed in charge of intensive preparations for inspections of Soviet biological facilities by a joint American and British delegation. While participating in the subsequent reciprocal Soviet inspection of American facilities in late 1991, Dr. Alibek’s growing suspicion that the USA did not have a biological warfare program was confirmed before his return to Russia (the Soviet Union had dissolved while he was in America). Soon after his return from America, Dr. Alibek resigned from both the Soviet army and his Soviet government position, and then secretly emigrated with his family to the United States in 1992, despite being forbidden to do so by the KGB.

After moving to the USA, Dr. Alibek provided the U.S. government with a detailed accounting of the former Soviet biological weapons program and has testified before the United States Congress on numerous occasions (see also Sverdlovsk anthrax leak). He has provided guidance to the intelligence, policy, national security, and medical communities, and for a time returned to the pure biomedical research that captured his interest as a medical student.

Dr. Alibek was the impetus behind the creation of the Graduate Programs in Biodefense, an innovative biodefense graduate education program at George Mason University (GMU) that drew students from across the country, and served in the program as both a Distinguished Professor of Medical Microbiology and as the Director of Education. He also developed the plans for the university’s biosafety level three (BSL3) research facility and was instrumental in obtaining $40 million dollars in federal and state government grants for construction of the facility at GMU.

However, due to substantive differences between him and GMU over the future of the Graduate Programs in Biodefense, Dr. Alibek announced in March 2006 that he would not be teaching classes beyond Spring semester and that he was resigning from George Mason University effective in late August 2006. In an agreement with his students, he volunteered his time from Spring 2006 through Spring 2007 to help them earn their doctoral degrees, despite the tremendous demands on his time placed by his concurrent leadership of AFG Biosolutions and MaxWell Biocorporation.

Dr. Alibek is currently the Chief Executive Officer at the Gaithersburg, Maryland-based AFG Biosolutions, Inc [2] where he and his scientific team continue to develop advanced solutions for antimicrobial immunity.

Motivated by the lack of affordable anti-cancer therapies available in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Dr. Alibek drew on resources available at AFG Biosolutions and elsewhere to create in 2006 a new company, MaxWell Biocorporation, in which he currently serves as CEO & President.

Based in Washington, D.C., with several fully owned subsidiaries and affiliates in the United States and in Ukraine, MaxWell Biocorporation’s main goal is the creation of a new, large-scale, high-technology, ultra-modern pharmaceutical fill-and-finish facility in Ukraine. The high quality off-patent generic pharmaceuticals produced at this site will target severe oncological, cardiological, immunological, and infectious diseases and disorders, and could literally mean the difference between life and death for millions of people in Ukraine who otherwise would have no available therapeutic options to extend and enhance the quality of their lives.

This GMP-compliant pharmaceutical production facility – the biggest and most modern in all of Ukraine and the entire former Soviet Union - will serve as the flagship of a larger healthcare complex at a campus just outside the Ukrainian capital city of Kyiv in the town of Boryspil. Construction of the Boryspil facility began in April 2007 and was completed in March 2008; initial production is scheduled to begin later in 2008. [edit] References 1. ^ "Interview Dr. Ken Alibek", Journal of Homeland Security (September 18, 2000) 2. ^ AFG Biosolutions

[edit] Literature

• Alibek, K. and S. Handelman. Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World - Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran it. 1999. Delta (2000) ISBN 0-385-33496-6 [1] • Anderson, D. Lessons Learned from the Former Soviet Biological Warfare Program. 2006. UMI Dissertation Services, UMI NO. 3231331 --Mithrilmax (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes are welcome so long as they do not violate the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or other writing rules. For example: like all encyclopedias we do not keep mentioning someone's title; it has nothing to do with "respect", rather with the style of clinical observation that is present in encyclopedias (or, for another example, news). --Bobak (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that a section called "Criticism" (which had citations from major news organizations) has been completely removed by Mithrilmax... (And this in an article that was already tagged as too "POV"...) Does anyone find this inappropriate? Bushido123 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have reinstated the deleted section. Dogwood1 (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What a shameless self-promotion. Ken Alibek, you're pathetic. Ilyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.240.218 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Defection

I’m unfamiliar with the precise terminology but I was always under the impression that "defection" was a Cold War term. According to this article however, Alibek emigrated in 1992 after the fall of the Soviet Union and presumably after emigration restrictions were eased.--Lairor (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the Los Angeles Times (“Selling the threat of bioterrorism” by David Willman; July 01, 2007): “A scientist defected, warned of epidemics, helped shape policy and sought to profit….In the fall of 1992, Kanatjan Alibekov defected from Russia to the United States, bringing detailed, and chilling, descriptions of his role in making biological weapons for the former Soviet Union.”

Dictionary definition of “defect” (American Heritage Dictionary): “To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group: Example: defected from the party over the issue of free trade.”

You can defect from your own country to another country at any time in history (if they’ll have you).

96.231.214.117 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To use the definition you provided, Dr. Alibek did not "defect" from Russia, since Russia and the US were not "opposing groups" at the time. By what standard was what Dr. Alibek and his family did any different from what countless thousands of other Russian citizens did at the very same time, simply by physically moving to another country and and going through the necessary legalities? The only exception would have been if Russia tried to prevent Alibek and/or his family from leaving Russia (such things sometimes happen), and Alibek left in defiance of those attempts (perhaps by traveling under false papers). Was that the case here? Is there reliable evidence of it? If not, he simply emigrated. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Bricology (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Misattribution to D. Anderson as a Source

Regarding D. Anderon source - this article relies heavily on copyrighted information provided by me. Contributing authors are violating my copyright and the Wikipedia licensing agreement by changing the meaning of things I wrote and attributing the changed sentiments to me. I am filing a complaint with Wikipedia. My original comments, the only comments which may be attributed to me, can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_Alibek&oldid=66069560. The comments are provided below and if there is a question about the meaning of something I said, people can ask me at Anderson51704 at yahoo dot com.

"Kenneth Alibek, M.D., Ph.D., Sc.D. is a physician-scientist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist who was born Kanatjan Alibekov in Kauchuk, Kazakhstan. Because of his exceptional performance while studying military medicine at the Tomsk Medical Institute and his family’s noted patriotism, he was selected to work for Biopreparat, a secret organization attached to the Soviet Union’s Council of Ministers. His first assignment was to the Eastern European Branch of the Institute of Applied Biochemistry near Omutninsk, a combined pesticide production facility and reserve biological weapons production plant that would be activated in a time of war. At Omutninsk, Dr. Alibek mastered the art and science of formulating and evaluating nutient media and cultivation conditions for their impact on microbial growth. It was here that he expanded his medical school laboratory skills into the complex skill set required for industrial level production of microrganisms and their products.

After less than a year at Omutninsk, Dr. Alibek was transferred to the Siberian Branch of the Institute of Applied Biochemistry near Berdsk. With the assistance of a colleague, he designed and constructed a microbiology research and development laboratory to develop techniques to optimize production of biological formulations. After several promotions over a short period of time, Dr. Alibek was transferred back to Omutninsk where he quickly rose to the position of Deputy Director.

Dr. Alibek wasn’t at Omutninsk long before he was transferred to the Kazakhstan Scientific and Production Base in Stepnogorsk (another reserve biological weapons facility) to become the new Director. Officially, he was Deputy Director of the Progress Scientific and Production Association, a manufacturer of fertilizer and pesticide. At Stepnogorsk, Dr. Alibek created the most efficient industrial scale assembly line for biological formulations. In a time of war, the assembly line could be used to produce anthrax biological weapons. Continued successes in science and biotechnology led to more promotions which resulted in a transfer to Moscow.

In Moscow, Dr. Alibek began his service as the deputy chief of the Biosafety Directorate at Biopreparat. He was later promoted to First Deputy Director of Biopreparat where he not only oversaw the biological weapons facilities but also the significant number of pharmaceutical facilities that produced antibiotics, vaccines, sera, and interferon for the public. Though the time he had available was short, he took this additional responsibility to public health seriously. In response to a Spring 1990 announcement that the Ministry of Medical and Microbiological Industry was to be reorganized, Dr. Alibek drafted and forwarded through channels a memo to President Gorbachev proposing the cessation of Biopreparat’s biological weapons work. Though the President approved the proposal, an additonal paragraph had been secretly inserted into Dr. Alibek’s draft resulting in a presidential decree that not only ordered the end of Biopreparat’s biological weapons work but also required them to remain prepared for future production. Though disappointed by the double dealing, Dr. Alibek used his position at Biopreparat and the authority granted to him by the first part of the decree to begin destruction of the biological weapons program. He also negotiated a concurrent appointment to a Biopreparat facility called Biomash. Biomash designed and produced technical equipment for microbial cultivation and testing. He planned to increase the amount of product sent to the hospitals and the civilian medical laboratories beyond the 40% allocated at the time.

Dr. Alibek wasn’t at Biomash long when he was placed in charge of the intensive preparations for the facility inspections that were to be conducted by a joint American and British delegation. While participating in the subsequent Soviet inspection of American facilities, his growing suspicion that the USA did not have a biological warfare program was confirmed before his return to Russia (the Soviet Union dissolved while he was in America). Not long after his return from America, Dr. Alibek resigned from both the army and from Biopreparat and secretly emigrated with his family to the United States.

Since moving to the USA, Dr. Alibek has provided the government with a detailed accounting of the former Soviet biological weapons program and has testified before United States Congress on numerous occasions (see also Sverdlovsk anthrax leak). He has provided guidance to the intelligence, policy, national security, and medical communities and has returned to the pure biomedical research that captured his interest as a medical student. He was the impetus behind the creation of an innovative biodefense graduate education program at George Mason University that drew students from across the country and has served in the program as both a Distinguished Professor of Medical Microbiology and as the Director of Education. He also developed the plans for the university’s biosafety level three (BSL3) research facility and was instrumental in obtaining $40 million dollars of grants from the federal and state governments for construction of the facility. Though he has resigned from the university, he still volunteers his time to mentor his numerous former students while they complete their doctoral degrees.

Dr. Alibek is currently the President and Chief Scientific Officer at AFG Biosolutions, Inc [1] where he and his scientific team are continuing their development of advanced solutions for antimicrobial immunity. Motivated by the lack of affordable anti-cancer therapies available in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, AFG Biosolutions, Inc. is using Dr. Alibek’s extensive biotechnology experience to plan, build, and manage a new pharmaceutical production facility designed specifically to address this problem. The high quality pharmaceuticals produced will be an affordable source of therapy for millions of regional people who otherwise would have no available therapeutic options to enhance the quality of their lives.[1]"

The information provided above is the only information that can be attributed to me.

Next Generation (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

This BLP article looks very strange: a mixture of poorly sourced libelious and promotional materials, precisely the kind of staff that makes bad press for wikipedia. But unfortunately I can not fix it because of my topic ban.Biophys (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Monographs" section. Wikipedia is not the place to publish such lists (books are fine). If the publications were used to source text ("he did this... [in-line reference]"), that could be OK.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the answer. All materials must be sourced per WP:RS and follow WP:NPOV. If they are not, anyone can remove such materials at will.Biophys (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see where are you coming from [1]. This is not even a personal web site of Alibek (if he had one, it could be included). We need 3rd party publications about the subject of the article (newspapers, journals). I am not going to remove this, but others might.Biophys (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

I have placed a "POV" tag in the section formerly titled "LA Times criticism and the collateral damage to friends, family, and colleagues"... Wikipedia is hardly the place to air a dispute between the LA Times & Alibek's "friends, family, and colleagues"... (Actually, Alibek himself...) 75.136.224.234 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The section you are labeling as POV actually demonstrated that there was not a dispute between Alibek and LA Times; he chose not to respond. Information in Wikipedia should be from reliable sources; the LA Times may not be a reliable source, as demonstrated by the evidence presented. If people would stop trying to use a questionable source, then I would stop pointing out the questionable nature of that source. Next Generation (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove the entire Controversy section in order to make the article neutral on both sides. The other option is to delete the entire article. Next Generation (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

This looks like one of those pages that should have a headers warning that the objectivity of the contents has been questioned. It reads like Dr. Alibek's CV, with the addition of the 'Controversy' section. The Controversy section should be rephrased 'So-called Controversy,' since each has been cleverly phrased in a way to suggest, even though that rat fink reporter from the LA Times found what seems to be an embarrassing fact about Alibek, the suggestion is laughable. Moreover, it does not answer the fundamental question about Alibek, of how someone trained as a gynecologist would rise to become a 'chemical weapons expert.' Cossackathon (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Questionable claim removed -- Barkley medal

I removed the following line from the top section of the article: "In 1994, Alibek was awarded by the government of the United States with the Barkley medal for his outstanding contribution to World Peace."

The US Government does not grant the Barklay medal. That medal is granted by the British Institute of Radiology. Not sure why a radiological institute would give an award to a Soviet bioweapons expert anyway, but it cannot be ordered by the US Government to do so. A quick examination of all of the recipients of the Barclay medal shows that the BIR Barclay medal was never awarded to this individual. If someone can find a good third party reference to validate that in fact this individual was actually awarded a medal of any kind from any source, I'll be happy to restore the sentence with proper attribution.

Nickmalik (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ken Alibek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007095259/http://www.maxwellusa.com.ua/ to http://www.maxwellusa.com.ua/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512201303/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Cuba/Biological/3490_3502.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Cuba/Biological/3490_3502.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802025742/http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/official/congress/alibek112901.pdf to http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/official/congress/alibek112901.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802025742/http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/congress/house071305Alibek.pdf to http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/congress/house071305Alibek.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What "promising Swedish technique"?

Under the heading "Career: Work in Kazakhstan", in the second paragraph, the first two sentences read thus:
"However, after seven years, no significant scientific results from Alibek's work developed. During these seven years, Alibek received more than 1 billion Tenge from the budget for "New Systemic Therapy for Cancer Tumors" project he tried to implement. The promising Swedish technique has remained a common concept, a panacea for cancer treatment has not appeared" (emphasis added).
What "promising Swedish technique"? For being a "common concept", no mention is made of it elsewhere, nor are any sources provided. Can anyone help clarify this? Bricology (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"A bronze Barkley medal"?

In the lede, the final sentence of the third paragraph makes this assertion: "In 1994, Alibek received a congressional award, a bronze Barkley [sic] medal awarded in recognition of distinguished public service and his contribution to world peace" (emphasis added).
No source is provided for this claim, nor can I find anything else on WP about a "Barkley Medal". "Congressional award" suggests that it is something bestowed by the US Congress, but I can find nothing about any such award given by the Congress. I assume that the "medal" in question is actually the "Barclay Medal", which is bestowed by the British Institute of Radiology (sometimes referred to as the "BJR Barclay Medal", since it is that organization's publication, the British Journal of Radiology which announces winners). According to the website of the BIR, "The Barclay Medal is awarded annually to the author, whether or not a member of the BIR, whose contribution to BJR has been a piece of original research of special merit (medical or scientific), contributing to the science and practice of radiology". It is conceivable that Dr. Alibek could indeed be a recipient, provided the definition of "contributing to the science and practice of radiology" was sufficiently broadly defined. "Here is a list of all Barclay Medal winners from its founding in 1953 through 2021: https://www.bir.org.uk/get-involved/prizes,-awards-and-bursaries/bjr-awards/bjr-barclay-medal.aspx In 1994 the medalist was one "Dr. J. Law". Dr. Alibek's name appears nowhere in the list. Now, he is listed here as having been awarded "a bronze...medal" which suggests that there are (at least) three ranks of medals (the other two being gold and silver, one presumes). Perhaps the BJR's list only includes "gold medal" recipients. However, the website makes no mention of there being any more than one rank of recipients, and searching Google for any combination of "Barclay Medal" and "bronze" returns no results. As always with WP, the onus is on the claimant to provide reliable secondary sources for claims. None are provided here. Unless it can be, the claim should be removed. Bricology (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)