No, it doesn't, considering it was documented in Scotland in the 1700s. The Plum Island facility was started in 1954.
> From wikipedia: "The review in Army Chemical Review concluded 'Lab 257 would be cautiously valuable to someone writing a history of Plum Island'".
The actual quote is:
> The review in Army Chemical Review concluded "Lab 257 would be cautiously valuable to someone writing a history of Plum Island, but is otherwise an example of fringe literature with a portrayal of almost every form of novelist style."
In other words, "it gets the biographical stuff mostly right, before it goes nutty".
> Anyway, in summary, there is enough evidence to ask a reasonable question: which puts the onus back on the government, or you, to provide credible evidence that Lyme was not developed there.
Lyme's historical record predating the very existence of the lab is fairly conclusive proof that it wasn't developed there.