Is there a conspiracy?

Some years ago there was a rash of sudden deaths in the UK Defence industry, including, IIRC, at least 2 rather bizarre suicides.Since it struck a little close to home I kept an eye out. (While I didn't know any of the people and I was no longer working in Defence one of the dead HAD worked on a project I had also been involved with).But the run stopped, no hard evidence was ever produced to suggest that there was any link and it seems to have been all a coincidence.Now these deaths actually made the mainstream press. The list you linked to reminds me more of the list of deaths supposedly linked with President Clinton. I suspect there will be a similar lack of substance when the details are examined.

In this particular case there was no clear link between the dead individuals, and the run of deaths stopped. A statistical quirk is by far the most likely explanation.And the only thing more surprising than the idea thatt the U.S. government would be ruthless to plan 9-11 is the idea that they would be competent enough to succeed and get away with it.

You're being illogical. Given that there is no reasonable alternative, a statistical quirk is the most likely explanation for the evidence that we actually have.Jumping from the speculation that there might be some connection to the conclusion that a conspiracy is a likely explanation would be making an unwarranted assumption. Concluding from the lack of evidence of any connection that a conspiracy is an unlikely explanation is not.

None of the people concerned had any connection to biological warfare - AFAIR none of them were biologists at all. So how is it reasonable to assume that SA's biowarfare program had any connection to the deaths ? Where's the illogic and danger in not making that connection when there is absolutely no good reason TO make such a connection ? Surely it is more illogical and dangerous to make connections like that without any sound basis for doing so.And how can the mere possibility of a connection which somehow escaped detection change the assessment of the likelihood of a conspiracy ? Surely you must at least jump to the conclusion that such a connection is likely to dismiss my assessment.

The problem is revealed. I'm talking about the case I raised - which made national news at the time, not the original post.And you still can't explain why speculations that there might be some unknown connection between a series of deaths is an adequate reason to consider a conspiracy AS LIKELY as chance.

Let me point out thata) You managed to miss the fact that I was talking about a different set of deaths even after I pointed out that none of the people involved were biologists - while the OP referred to explicitly referred to the deaths of "microbiologists, immunologists, and protein researchers"b) You chose to attack my point that a statistical quirk was the most likely explanation by appealing to the possibility of some obscure, unknown, connection. You were NOT attacking a "knee-jerk reaction" since there was none.I suggest that instead of engaging in childish rants you actually learn to pay attention to the messages you are replying to.

So basically your argument is that since you said something completely irrelevant in a post I didn't reply to that somehow means that I didn't read the posts that I DID reply toLike I said, you're being completely illogical.