Excellent websites to reference:

Anthrax Vaccine Network    AnthraxVaccine.org    Major Sonnie Bates 

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html.......don't miss this..

Despite promises that hospitalizations after anthrax vaccinations would be reported, the Pentagon withheld data on more than 20,000 cases.

Daily Press - Hampton Roads, Virginia

BY BOB EVANS
247-4758
December 4, 2005
First of four parts
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-71613sy0dec04,0,6004666.story?coll=dp-widget-news

bevans@dailypress.com 247-4758

The Pentagon never told Congress about more than 20,000 hospitalizations involving troops who'd taken the anthrax vaccine, despite repeated promises that such cases would be publicly disclosed.

Instead, a parade of generals and Defense Department officials told Congress and the public that fewer than 100 people were hospitalized or became seriously ill after receiving the shot from 1998 through 2000.

They also showed Congress written policies that required public reports to be filed for hospitalizations, serious illnesses and cases where someone missed 24 hours or more of duty.

But only a sliver of those cases were reported, while the rest were withheld from Congress and the public, records obtained by the Daily Press show.

Critics of the vaccine, veterans' advocates and congressional staffers say the Pentagon's deliberate low-balling of hospitalizations helped persuade Congress and the public that the vaccine was safe.

Keeping the actual number of illnesses secret contributed to a shorter list of government-recognized side effects for the drug, giving patients and physicians a false idea of what might constitute a vaccine-related illness or problem. Doctors are expected to know the full list of side effects and alert federal drug safety officials whenever they see a repeat of those symptoms.

Repeated evidence of the same adverse side effect after a vaccination is one of the most telling signs of a systematic problem with a drug or vaccine, as opposed to a coincidental relationship, vaccine safety experts say.

During the Daily Press' investigation of the vaccine and its effects, the newspaper found three cases of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease - that the military hadn't reported. The disease destroys muscles and nerves, is always fatal and rarely hits people younger than 45.

One of the three cases involves Navy Capt. Denis Army of Virginia Beach. Army died in 2000, after developing symptoms less than a week after his first anthrax vaccination - and a few days before his 45th birthday. His widow filed the first public acknowledgement of his death and its temporal connection to the vaccine this year. That occurred after she talked to a Daily Press reporter and learned that she could file a report with the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS.


SAILOR'S DEATH NOT REPORTED BY MILITARY

Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Kristin Shemeley died of ALS in 2001, at 29. Her symptoms began about two months after her third shot, a sworn legal document detailing her illness says.

Before Shemeley died, she spent 14 months in Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where she was regularly visited by high-ranking military officers, said her mother, Ginger Shemeley of Quakertown, Pa. She says her daughter repeatedly told those generals and admirals that she was suffering because of the vaccine and even pleaded with one of them to stop giving it to troops. Several of those generals and admirals had promised Congress that such cases would be publicly reported to VAERS.

The military never filed a VAERS report on Kristin Shemeley. Ginger Shemeley filed one after her daughter died.

Col. John Grabenstein, director of the military's vaccine agency, said no one from the military intentionally misled Congress or the public. He said the 20,765 hospitalizations merely followed vaccinations in time, without documented proof of a cause-and-effect relationship.

He said a statistical analysis showed that those who'd been vaccinated weren't more likely to be hospitalized or likely to seek medical treatment than those in the military who hadn't been vaccinated from 1998 through 2000.

Some medical experts say this approach doesn't adequately address the problems of many people who report illnesses after anthrax vaccination. That's because the approach is limited to comparing rates of illness involving one symptom or disease - instead of the complex combination of symptoms and illnesses that many veterans report after getting their shots.

The data that the Daily Press used to document the underreporting of hospitalizations came from a report that Grabenstein supplied in response to the newspaper's request. It's never been made public until today.

It covers 1998 through 2000, when the Pentagon did detailed evaluations every three months to compare hospitalizations, clinic visits and medical treatment data for those who'd been vaccinated, compared with troops who hadn't. This quarterly analysis stopped and hasn't been done since, Grabenstein said.

The practice of not reporting all hospitalizations continues.

Quarterly analysis of the vaccine's effects ended just as the nation's only manufacturing site for the drug regained its license. That was in 2002, after federal inspections found many safety and other problems that prompted a shutdown and renovation that began in early 1998.

The company's current manufacturing techniques provide greater potency compared with earlier versions of the drug, said the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm. The manufacturer, BioPort Inc., says there's no difference in the drug made since 2002 that might cause health problems.


TOP GENERAL NOT TOLD MONITORING TO END

The decision to discontinue the quarterly health monitoring program means that the biggest gap in research about the vaccine remains: There are no systematic long-term studies of the health of those who've taken the drug. Most studies that the Pentagon cites as support for the vaccine's safety involve monitoring that lasted days to a few months.

None lasted as long as five years, the minimum length of time recommended by a nationally recognized panel of scientists assembled by the Institute of Medicine in 2002. The institute is a nonprofit organization that provides expert advice to Congress and other government agencies.

After the quarterly reviews of the vaccine's effects stopped, more than a million troops were forced to take the vaccine - until a federal judge ruled last year that the drug had never been adequately licensed for protection against anthrax use in warfare.

He ordered the military to make vaccination voluntary. The Pentagon is appealing that ruling. Lawyers argued the case Thursday, and a decision is expected by February.


VACCINE MONITORING STILL IMPORTANT

Grabenstein said he decided to halt the quarterly studies after consulting the chairman of the Institute of Medicine panel and its staff, and with doctors affiliated with the military. He acknowledged that he didn't consult the general who ultimately was responsible for the anthrax program.

The chairman of the institute panel, Brian Strom, said he didn't recall what was discussed at the time about the quarterly reports. But he said, "I think they should continue to be using it," in case there's a problem.

Another panel member, Linda Cowan, said she's sure the committee expected quarterly reviews to continue and pointed to a number of the panel's recommendations and findings that she said clearly contradicted Grabenstein's interpretation of its report.

Strom and Cowan emphasized that they thought the vaccine was still safe.

Beth Clay isn't so sure. She directed the staff of Congress' House Government Reform Committee investigation into the anthrax vaccine from 1998 to 2001. She continued working on the subject as a congressional staff member through 2003, after her Republican boss was no longer chairman of the committee.

Clay said the military's decision not to report all the hospitalizations gave the public and Congress a rosier picture of the vaccine than it deserved.

"We were never given this data," she said. "Had we seen this, the committee would have had significant questions" and would have demanded more information about the program.

After reviewing the report obtained by the Daily Press, Clay said it raised several questions about the vaccine's safety. She said Congress was never told about the detailed level of data in the report but was assured regular monitoring of the vaccine and its health effects would continue.

Terminating the quarterly reviews would seem to break those promises, she said. "It's just appalling that they didn't keep up with this," she said.


LINK BETWEEN VACCINE, HOSPITALIZATIONS?

Steve Robinson is executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a lobbying and advocacy group for veterans. He said he was stunned when he learned that the reviews had stopped: "They track the flu vaccine and not the anthrax vaccine, which is totally crazy to me."

He said discovery of the hospitalization data showed that the Pentagon couldn't be trusted to monitor the vaccine's safety.

"You can't let Enron investigate Enron, and you can't let DOD (the Department of Defense) investigate DOD," he said. "We work with the people who have been hurt by this vaccine every day."

No one knows how many, or how few, of the 20,765 hospitalizations are directly attributable to the vaccine. Ruling out certain illnesses, such as broken bones or injuries from falls or other accidents, might appear a safe bet. But military doctors have documented cases where broken bones and other injuries from falling were the result of vaccine-induced loss of consciousness affecting the nervous system - sometimes beginning months after vaccination.

The difficulty of figuring out what's related and what isn't is why safety officials encourage people to file reports even if they're not sure.


WHY PENTAGON DIDN'T FILE HOSPITAL REPORTS

Still, medical experts consulted by the Daily Press said it's unlikely that the vast majority of the 20,765 hospitalizations resulted from the vaccine. They said that if all hospitalizations had been filed with VAERS, it would have overloaded the system and caused problems for experts trying to analyze the data.

Grabenstein said those were among the reasons that the full number of hospitalizations was not reported. Another reason, he said, was that examinations of the data showed that if there were adverse effects from the vaccine, they were so infrequent, they weren't detectable by statistical analysis. Doing this type of analysis - instead of simply reporting the incidents to VAERS - provided a more definitive look at the health effects of the vaccine, he said. As a result, "we decided not to file" public reports about all hospitalizations, he said.

Those considerations weren't relayed to Congress or the public.

During the years covered by the hospitalization report obtained by the Daily Press, dozens of sick veterans who'd received the shot went to Capitol Hill, complaining of various health problems. Some got the shot for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which the vaccine had its first widespread use. Others were members of the military forced to take the shots under a mandatory program that began in 1998.

Their complaints had common themes: Fatigue. Chronic pain in joints and other symptoms of arthritis. Tingling in their feet, arms and hands. Mental lapses. Often, more than one of the symptoms were present, making diagnoses difficult.

Sympathetic doctors testified that these complaints were indicative of autoimmune problems, in which the body's natural protective mechanisms go haywire and start attacking healthy cells and tissue. The doctors said that could result if the vaccine overstimulated the vets' immune systems. The vaccine primes the system to develop protection against anthrax.

Bewildered and sometimes-angry members of Congress asked how many vets were affected. Pentagon doctors and generals used the cases reported to VAERS - fewer than 100 hospitalizations or other "serious events" from 1998 to 2000 - or said the number was so small, it couldn't be detected.


VACCINE REPORTS ARE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE

The two sets of numbers for how many hospitalizations followed the shot come from a comparison of two sets of data kept by three federal agencies.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain the only database open to public inspection, VAERS. VAERS is the nation's first line of defense in identifying possible problems with vaccines after they've been licensed, said Susan Ellenberg, who led the FDA's efforts to monitor vaccine safety from 1993 to 2004.

During congressional testimony before the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations in July 1999, Ellenberg explained how and why the system worked.

VAERS was established to help identify and head off problems once a vaccine is licensed and more people are taking it, she said. The few hundred people typically involved in vaccine or drug testing and licensing trials can't mimic the diversity of age, race, gender and other biologic variables encountered once the vaccine gets widespread public use, she explained.

Reports to VAERS by civilian doctors and hospitals are mostly voluntary, based on suspicion of a connection between an illness or injury and a vaccination, Ellenberg told Congress.

Doctors and others are encouraged to file a report, known as a VAERS-1, even when they aren't sure there's a cause and effect, she said. That's because VAERS requires as many reports of problems as possible, so experts can identify possible patterns and investigate further, she said.


GENERALS' TESTIMONY PROMISED REPORTS

During the same congressional hearing, Lt. Gen. G. Robert Claypool - then the deputy assistant secretary of defense for health operations policy - assured Congress that military doctors, hospitals and medical officials were filing VAERS-1 forms, too.

And, he said, they were expected to report even more cases than civilians - including all hospitalizations.

"The duty to report adverse medication events has been codified for many years," Claypool testified. "The joint regulation requires submission of a form VAERS-1 for all adverse events resulting in more than 24 hours of lost duty time or any period of hospitalization. These requirements represent a higher standard than in comparable civilian community health care settings."

There was no mention that the word "all" didn't mean all hospitalizations.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Ronald R. Blanck, then the Army's surgeon general and the top Pentagon official responsible for the anthrax vaccine program from 1998 to 2000, gave similar assurances to Congress.

He said, "We have a reporting system that when either of those two criteria are met, that is, either a patient is hospitalized following an anthrax immunization or misses duty because of it for greater than 24 hours, we have an active reporting system. That must be reported to us. We, in turn, report it to the Food and Drug Administration, and they have a group that reviews those reactions."

Clay and other congressional aides say these assurances came in private, too. "We had lengthy conversations that they were supposed to report," she said.

But the numbers reported were very low. And the Pentagon stuck with them for years to persuade the public that the shot was safe.

In December 2003, Pentagon officials conducted a news conference to rebut a judge's ruling that the shots had been given illegally and that troops had been used as "guinea pigs." Grabenstein was asked whether he had "any data on the numbers of people who have had bad adverse reactions to the vaccine and would have required hospitalization."

He said that only 69 hospitalizations had been reported to VAERS for the anthrax vaccine from 1998 through 2000. A panel of civilian experts had analyzed each, he said, and decided that 11 were results of the shot. The 69 cases were "a complete, exhaustive list of what was reported," Grabenstein said.

Grabenstein told the Daily Press that his statement wasn't misleading. He said no one should expect all hospitalizations after vaccination to be reported to VAERS - despite the Pentagon's written policies - because the number included cases unrelated to the vaccine, sometimes years after vaccination.

He said, "The simple answer is it's so obvious, it's never appeared in the memo."


NO EXCEPTIONS NOTED IN POLICY MEMOS

The memo, "Policy for Reporting Adverse Events Associated With the Anthrax Vaccine," serves as the standing order for all military personnel. It reads: "For the purposes of reporting anthrax vaccine adverse events, a Form VAERS-1 must be completed and submitted using service reporting procedures for those events resulting in a hospital admission or time lost from duty for greater than 24 hours or for those events suspected to have resulted from contamination of a vaccine lot."

The memo lists additional circumstances requiring a report, but nothing that would permit excluding hospitalizations after vaccination. It refers to the Pentagon's formal regulations, which don't include the exclusions that Grabenstein cited.

The data on all hospitalizations after anthrax vaccination comes from the Pentagon's Defense Medical Surveillance System, or DMSS. This computerized tracking system pulls medical records for every shot, clinic visit, hospitalization or other instance of medical treatment for active-duty military personnel.

Experts in health care and statistics say it's one of the most important medical databases in the world. That's because of its precision, its millions of patients, and the diversity of drugs and vaccines used by the armed forces. By design, it's more complete and accurate than VAERS. Unlike VAERS, its data isn't open to the public.


EXPERTS: NO EXCUSE FOR SECRET DATA

The Institute of Medicine report that Grabenstein cited as supporting the vaccine's safety and his decision to end the quarterly monitoring program also says the DMSS database should be open to researchers outside the government, with precautions to protect the privacy of individuals' health records.

This hasn't been done. Grabenstein said the military had not been able to figure out how to protect individuals' health records and make it work.

Strom of the institute panel and other experts say it should not be that difficult. "There's no excuse," he said. "We use these kinds of data sets in Medicaid and Medicare data all the time. There are technological solutions."

Cowan, another member of the panel, said the institute's recommendation was based, in part, on the military saying it couldn't afford all the analysis that the data was good for: "That way, you get the most of what the American people have invested in."

Strom said keeping the data from the public only bolstered the perception that the military was hiding the truth about the vaccine.

Walter Schumm is a professor of family studies and an expert on statistical methods at Kansas State University. He said he and other researchers would love to get the DMSS data. He's a retired Army colonel who's spent more than a decade using statistical analysis to examine the vaccine's safety - after friends and others in uniform began complaining about health problems after the shots.

Schumm has used other data made public on the anthrax vaccine to publish several scientific papers that poke holes in the safety assertions made by Pentagon doctors and researchers.

Good science involves people with different approaches to the same problem having a chance to test their theories, Schumm and others say. Their findings might cement the safety assertions, he said, but no one knows for sure until the military loosens its hold on the facts and data.

He said, "If you let independent people have the data, you risk losing control. In combat, letting things get out of control gets people killed, so loss of control is a very sensitive issue. I'm just sure they're trying to protect their program."

Victims of vaccine?
N.C. troops say military program is unsafe
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/9763416.htm?1c

ELIZABETH LELAND

Charlotte Observer
Sun, Sep. 26, 2004

Two days after a military nurse injected Lavester Brown with the anthrax vaccine at Pope Air Force Base near Fayetteville, his heart failed. Brown was 34, an avid athlete, career military. Doctors had warned him to avoid vaccinations, he said, because of a reaction to a malaria drug in the early '90s. But when Brown told superiors, he said, they warned he could be kicked out of the military if he didn't get vaccinated for anthrax.

Brown was afraid: of the vaccine, of losing his job. He had a wife and four young children to support.

"I kept telling them, `I can't take the shot.' "

The vaccination is mandatory, part of the military's war on terrorism. Brown had been in the Air Force 14 years and was trained to follow orders. So when a commander, a major, a captain and a first sergeant all ordered him to be vaccinated, Brown, a technical sergeant, rolled up his sleeve and took the jab.

He is now awaiting a heart transplant.

Thousands of soldiers have suffered unexplained illnesses after getting the anthrax vaccine, ranging from muscle aches to death. The federal Food and Drug Administration says the vaccine has no more side effects than other vaccines, but cases like Lavester Brown's raise troubling questions:

Is the vaccination safe?

Should the military require troops to take it?

There was concern about the anthrax vaccine long before the threat of global terrorism.

In the 1990s, the FDA found problems with quality control procedures at the only U.S. company that makes the vaccine, then owned by the state of Michigan. The FDA warned that if the problems were not corrected, the company could lose its license. The state halted production in 1998 and began renovations, then sold the plant to BioPort.

After terrorists hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, and anthrax-laced letters killed five people and infected at least 13 others, demand for a vaccine erupted. In January 2002, the FDA gave BioPort approval to
distribute its vaccine to the military. The FDA and the Department of Defense and BioPort all say the vaccine is safe. A vocal group of current and former military personnel, doctors and members of Congress claims it is not. Three lawsuits challenging the vaccine are now in federal court.

To the emergency room

Brown knew nothing of the controversy on Friday, Feb. 27, when he got the fourth in a series of six anthrax shots.He rarely got sick, not even a cold. He didn't drink. He didn't smoke. He stood 5 feet 11 1/2 inches and weighed 207 pounds, but so much was muscle, he looked lean. The day after the fourth anthrax shot, Saturday morning, he played basketball at the gym as usual but quickly tired. He went to the emergency room that night, he said, and a military doctor diagnosed a gastrointestinal infection.

By Sunday, he felt as if his body was filling up with fluid. The muscles in his neck throbbed and bulged. He had trouble breathing. Back at the emergency room that night, he said, a doctor again diagnosed
gastrointestinal infection. Something else is happening, Brown remembers saying. I can't breathe.

He said his wife, Ebony, insisted on X-rays. "When they looked at the X-rays," Brown recalled, "the doctor got this look on his face. I knew something was terribly wrong."  Brown said his heart was so enlarged, it had almost stopped pumping. He now takes medication to keep it beating until a transplant becomes available. He has dropped to 151 pounds, and walking only a few feet exhausts him. Friday, he was medically retired from the Air Force.

Before he got sick, Brown sometimes worked two jobs to provide for Ebony and their four children, ages 5 to 12. Now Ebony works and the children help care for him, and that's been a tough transition. "I wish we had done our homework before Lavester got in line (for the vaccine)," Ebony said. "We trusted the military."

Mandatory shots

Until recently, anthrax had been considered primarily a livestock disease. People can be infected in three ways -- through skin contact, by eating infected meat or by breathing airborne spores -- but it's rare. The military became convinced that Iraq had developed biological weapons, including anthrax, and might pack its Scud missiles with the deadly bacteria. Nearly everyone who inhales anthrax dies if not treated.

In 1998, the Defense Department made vaccinations mandatory.

Since then, about 1.2 million military personnel have received the vaccine, six doses over 18 months, followed by yearly boosters. (Several hundred thousand, a Pentagon spokesman said, got the vaccine during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.)

Out of 4.7 million doses given since 1998, the government says it has received 3,817 reports of adverse reactions, from headache, fatigue and fever to cancer, cardiac arrest and autoimmune diseases. The reaction rate, the government says, is about the same as for other adult vaccinations.

Studies have reached conflicting conclusions.

The Pentagon cites a 2002 report by the Institute of Medicine, a private, nonprofit scientific group, that said a better vaccine is needed, but that the current vaccine is "acceptably safe and effective." Other studies link the anthrax vaccine to Gulf War illness, a medically unexplained fatigue suffered by veterans of the first Gulf War. One study found more adverse reactions to the anthrax vaccine than to other vaccines, and urged doctors to report all reactions so the scope of the problem could be determined.

Many cases, critics say, still go unreported.

Dead at 29

Christine Nilson, who lives in Wilmington, hadn't heard about the controversy over the anthrax vaccine until after her husband, Erik, died.Now she's convinced it killed him. Erik Nilson flew CH-46 helicopters for the Marine Corps and was vaccinated twice, before two separate six-month deployments to the Mediterranean.
Soon after he came home for the second time, in October 2001, Christine noticed the whites of his eyes had yellowed. Doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington discovered bile duct cancer, a slow-moving, usually fatal cancer that most often attacks people over 60.

Nilson was 29 and had a 2-year-old son, Luke.

He was, Christine said, "a man's man," who loved hunting, fishing and the Marines. He had had a rough childhood, she said, and often told her he wanted nothing more than to be a good father.

Six months after the cancer was discovered, Erik Nilson died.

Christine Nilson said no one from the military ever mentioned a possible connection with the anthrax vaccine. The national Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System has no record of Nilson's death.

But the more Christine Nilson read, the more she believed there was a connection.

"There is," she said, "no other explanation for it."

Rapid-acting diseases

Other service members have died of rapid-acting diseases after getting the vaccine, including Army cook Sandra Larson of Kansas. Four weeks after her sixth anthrax shot, she was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, a rare disorder resulting from failure of bone marrow to produce blood cells.

She died two months later. She was 32.

The package insert on the vaccine, approved by the FDA in 2002, cites her death and the deaths of five other vaccinated military members. But a panel of civilian doctors concluded that none of the deaths was related to the vaccine.

The Pentagon has linked only one death to the vaccine: Rachel Lacy, a 22-year-old Army reservist, who died in April 2003 of a pneumonia-like illness after receiving five vaccines, including anthrax. The Pentagon said
the vaccines may have triggered the illness that led to her death, but that "the evidence was not conclusive."

Critics say the government is stonewalling the way it did with the herbicide Agent Orange in the Vietnam War and with Gulf War illness.

"The first thing they do is fight, deny, obfuscate ...," said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, an advocacy group for veterans. "Meanwhile people are getting sick." About 10,000 Vietnam veterans receive disability benefits because of exposure to Agent Orange, and tens of thousands of others suffer illnesses. An estimated 100,000 Gulf War veterans suffer a range of symptoms, including memory and thinking problems, fatigue, joint pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia, headaches and rashes.

No proof, no medical help

Robinson said he has spoken with hundreds of veterans who said they had adverse reactions to the anthrax vaccine, but they can't prove it and are not getting the medical help they need. They complain of chronic fatigue, bone and muscle pain, migraine headaches, short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment."While anthrax is a threat," Robinson said, "the American public, much less the military, should not be given an inferior vaccine."

Meryl Nass, an internist in Bar Harbor, Maine, who has testified before Congress about the vaccine, said she has treated dozens of soldiers and corresponded with thousands more.

"I've seen so many people with the exact same thing, the same story," she said. "They can't think straight. They have pain in different parts of their bodies ... and they're fatigued." Usually, she said, they have something else wrong, too: multiple sclerosis or lupus or a sleep disorder.

As a doctor, Nass said, the last few years have been an emotional roller coaster "watching 1 million be vaccinated when I knew at 100,000 what was happening."

Forced vaccinations

In federal court, two lawsuits are pending against BioPort, a third against the Food and Drug Administration, the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The lawsuits challenge whether the vaccine is safe, effective, even necessary.

On Dec. 22, 2003, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., blocked the Pentagon from forcing soldiers to get vaccinated. He ruled that the FDA had never approved the vaccine for use against inhaled anthrax. The military, he said, could not make troops "serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs."

Eight days later, the FDA approved the vaccine against inhaled anthrax.

Although Sullivan called the timing of the order "highly suspicious," he lifted his injunction.

The military once again ordered vaccination.

Refusal, court-martial

As many as 500 active-duty personnel have been dismissed from the military for refusing vaccination, according to congressional testimony. At least 100 have been court-martialed.Tom Kaufmann, an airman first class at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, refused to be vaccinated in December 2002.

He had read about problems at the manufacturing plant, he said, as well as about illnesses among people who got the vaccine. Kaufmann, now 22, was demoted, then discharged under "conditions other than
honorable."

"My first sergeant repeatedly called me a coward, saying I was afraid of war, afraid of serving my country," Kaufmann recalled. "I told them that I wanted to deploy. I wasn't against the war."

He was, he said, only against the vaccine.

. Anthrax comes from the Greek word for "coal" because infected skin forms ugly black lesions. . The rod-like bacteria were discovered in the 19th century. Louis Pasteur created the first vaccine in 1881. . Anthrax spores can live in soil for decades. People contract the disease in three ways: through skin contact, eating infected meat or breathing airborne spores.

Most Common Adverse Reactions

erythema, headache, arthralgia, fatigue, fever, peripheral swelling, pruritus, nausea, injection site edema, pain/tenderness and dizziness.

Less Frequent Adverse Reactions

cellulitis, cysts, pemphigus vulgaris, endocarditis, sepsis, angioedema and other hypersensitivity reactions, asthma, aplastic anemia, neutropenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, lymphoma, leukemia, collagen vascular disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, polyarteritis nodosa, inflammatory arthritis, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, immune deficiency, seizure, mental status changes, psychiatric disorders, tremors, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), facial palsy, hearing and visual disorders, aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, syncope, glomerulonephritis, renal failure, spontaneous abortion and liver abscess. Infrequent reports were also received of multisystem disorders defined as chronic symptoms involving at least two of the following three categories: fatigue, mood-cognition, musculoskeletal system.

Fatalities

cardiac arrest (2), myocardial infarction with polyarteritis nodosa (1),aplastic anemia (1), suicide (1) and central nervous system lymphoma (1)

SOURCE: FDA-approved package insert for anthrax vaccine

Elizabeth Leland: (704) 358-5074; eleland@charlotteobserver.com.

Other recent articles:

The shots of war
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/17/Floridian/The_shots_of_war.shtml
"Cristina Kutz thinks the anthrax vaccinations that she and other troops must undergo devastated her health. Her complaints are not unique, but doctors don't back her up."
By SUSAN ASCHOFF, Times Staff Writer, Published September 17, 2004

Mon May 21, 2007 8:34 am (PST)

Vaccine survey shows trouble at DAFB
Review of data shows those who got anthrax shot at Dover were more likely to fall ill

By HIRAN RATNAYAKE and LEE WILLIAMS / The News Journal
10/19/2004

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2004/10/19vaccinesurveysh.html

 www.milvacs.org

Take the time to visit this website. This touching poem reveals the heart of website.

We will not desert you.
You, who have donned the uniform of our country and pledged your life to defend us,
We pledge to defend you with our honor, our work, the sweat of our brows,
Until you are no longer a medical experiment;
Until your pain is treated, and treated correctly;
Until your voice is heard and you are no longer ignored;
Until your sacrifices are recognized and you no longer have to defend yourself against your own government.
You do us honor in the face of those who would shame you.
We will walk with you.
We will not desert you.
 

http://www.channel4.com/apps26/news/news_story.jsp?storyId=851048

Squalene found in Anthrax vaccine
Breaking News: Britain

Published: 17-Mar-03; 03:23
By: ITN

Samples of anthrax vaccine have been found to contain a banned substance which could threaten troops' health.

 

Nov 25 2002
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=1240
1732&method=full&siteid=50081

By The Journal
 
Army veterans have branded a new report into Gulf War Syndrome commissioned by military top brass a "whitewash" after it said exposure to noxious chemicals was not the cause of their illnesses. The report, produced by the Government-backed Gulf War Illness Research Unit (GWIRU), concluded that health problems reported by veterans could not be blamed on vaccines used during the 1991 war, as some had claimed. The findings were last night greeted with anger by Shaun Rusling, North-based chairman of the National Gulf Veterans' Association, who said the report lacked both impartiality and credibility.

Many Gulf War Syndrome sufferers, backed by alternative academic research, believe that their condition is related to the use of organophosphates in insect repellent issued to soldiers fighting in Iraq and Kuwait. Others have linked the symptoms - which include muscle fatigue, loss of co-ordination and even problems encountered by sufferers of autism - to the use of vaccines and even the depleted uranium ammunition during the conflict. The Journal-backed campaign for justice for sufferers has now been running for almost a decade.

The MoD funded the latest research, carried out at Guy's, King's and St Thomas's Joint School of Medicine in London, in what they say was the most intensive neurological study of Gulf War soldiers in Britain to date.  Forty-nine veterans with neurological symptoms - national estimates say a total of 35,000 are suffering some sort of illness - were given exhaustive medical examinations, alongside a further 29 who had experienced no problems. The results were then compared to servicemen who had fought in Bosnia, as well as other personnel.

While the research team found there was no evidence that Gulf War veterans' symptoms were linked to brain damage, they did agree that their general health was poorer than that found in other groups of soldiers. That, says Mr Rusling, who served as a medic during the Gulf War, is a complete contradiction. "This is not surprising, given that the paper was funded by the MoD. Veterans were exposed to low level radiation, classified vaccines and anti-nerve gas pills in the Gulf.  "This has become a national disgrace, but the more the MoD tries to hide this away, the more they will be disbelieved. "All these desperately ill servicemen can't be wrong, but the MoD seems to be well and truly above the law."

But Professor Simon Wessely, who co-authored the report, said it was now clear that the health effects plaguing many of those who served in Operation Desert Storm was not associated with the brain or nervous system. "There is no smoking gun," he said. "There is no new disease that causes Gulf War Syndrome. There is a Gulf War health effect."

However, Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry at Sunderland University who has advised several veteran's groups, also claims the findings are seriously flawed. He believes the problems stem from damage to the central nervous system. "For this survey not to find any evidence of  neurological damage makes me very suspicious," he said. "I find this research unpersuasive and statistically insignificant." A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "We note that the authors found no evidence for a specific neuro-muscular disorder that could be linked to deployment in the Gulf conflict. This should reassure all veterans.".   
 

VOLUME 38, NO. 34, September 24, 2002
Gulf War syndrome linked to anthrax vaccine
http://www.medicalpost.com/mdlink/english/members/medpost/data/3834/57A.HTM

By Pam Harrison

NEW ORLEANS - Symptoms of the elusive Gulf War Syndrome have now been linked to antibodies that target squalene, an experimental adjuvant used in some batches of anthrax vaccine received by 2.4 million U.S. military personnel as protection against the threat of bioterrorism.

Dr. Pamela Asa and colleagues from the Tulane University medical school here examined the association between symptoms of the syndrome and the anthrax vaccine used during the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) initiated by the U.S.  government in 1997. Researchers initially tested serum samples from six anthrax vaccine recipients and all six tested positive for anti-squalene antibodies. They then tested sera from 25 vaccine recipients and 19 controls who had not received the vaccine.

Thirty-two per cent tested positive for anti-squalene antibodies compared with 16% of controls. However, when researchers divided recipients into groups according to the lot of vaccine received, they found four lots of vaccine had been given to 17 of the 25, and in this group, eight subjects or 47% tested positive for anti-squalene antibodies.

None of the recipients who had received the vaccine from any other lot used during the AVIP campaign tested positive, a significant difference between the two groups despite the small number of samples tested, researchers note. Results of the study were reported in Experimental and Molecular Pathology. "Our testing for anti-squalene antibodies in persons receiving anthrax immunization as part of AVIP identified many antibody-positive individuals," researchers write. This is in contrast to the absence of anti-squalene antibodies observed in sera collected prior to immunization, they add. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration dismissed the amount of squalene found in certain lots of the anthrax vaccine as being too low to have an immunological effect.

But the immune system is "exquisitely sensitive to small quantities of antigen" and no lower safety limits have been set for squalene when used as an adjuvant in a vaccine. Symptoms of the syndrome include joint and muscle pain, dizziness, chronic headaches, low-grade fevers and memory loss.
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-492718,00.html

The needle and the damage done

By Tim Reid
London Times
26 November 2002

Hundreds of American soldiers have suffered serious illness after being compulsorily injected with a controversial Anthrax vaccine, a batch of which has been found to be contaminated

   ON THE MORNING of December 17, 1998, Ronda Wilson, a supremely fit, strikingly beautiful American helicopter gunship pilot, was heading for military stardom. Just 21 and the only woman in her squadron, she had recently defeated her 63 male fellow pilots to earn the coveted Top Gun award in her first gunnery flight test. She was without peer in her cavalry unit, so skilled at handling the OH-58 Delta Warrior, armed with Hellfire missiles and .50-calibre machine guns, that she was described by her commanding officer as “one of the most outstanding pilots of her generation”.

On that morning, at Fort Stewart, Georgia, she received a routine order that was ultimately to destroy her faith in the military family and American government which she loved beyond question, and which she says “I was willing to die for”. She was told to “go get your jabs”.

She was never told what the injection was for, and felt no need to ask. It  was, she later discovered, the first in a six-dose course of anthrax vaccination. It was the moment she became part of the US government’s compulsory, highly ambitious anthrax vaccination programme for all 2.4  million of its military personnel; the project was authorised by President Clinton himself, it had begun eight months before, and it was halted 18 months later amid damning congressional verdicts, lawsuits and accusations of a top-level cover-up.

There were many things Wilson was not told about the 0.5ml phial of milky liquid that was being injected into her arm. It was manufactured by a company that today, after a new lease of life for the vaccination programme, has begun to distribute millions of doses to immunise “high-risk” US troops heading to the Persian Gulf for an attack on Iraq. (British soldiers will not be immunised with this vaccine, but with a home-grown version, produced at Porton Down).

Critics of the vaccine, who include congressmen, senior military officers and more than 450 American servicemen who have been court-martialled or forced to leave the military for refusing to take it, say its ability to combat inhalation anthrax has never been proven and it has never been tested on humans; it has never been licensed to combat inhalation anthrax; and its long term effects have never been known. Those claims are supported by a congressional committee which issued a scathing and alarming report into the efficacy and supervision of the vaccine, and the immunisation programme, in April 2000.

Its critics also claim it is being forced on the country’s soldiers as part  of a politically-inspired attempt to persuade the American public that an effective vaccine against an anthrax terror attack exists, and that its soldiers are safe from Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological arsenal.

The Pentagon, and BioPort, the manufacturer, together with the Food and Drug Administration, which licenses US drugs, fiercely deny these claims. The Times has looked at thousands of pages of government, FDA, Army, congressional and medical reports stretching back 30 years. The extraordinary story of this anthrax vaccine, suddenly thrust on to centre stage in a new age of global terror, is one of high-level politics, furious scientific dispute, big business and great controversy.

One thing is certain — this vaccine has a history. Questions persist on two levels: the ability of the company that manufactures it to produce it safely, and the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine itself. There is testimony and documentation that raise the question of why the American military establishment and successive White House administrations have persisted with a company and a vaccine that by their own admission have suffered problems. It is a history that the hundreds of thousands of US troops about to receive the compulsory immunisation, and who have no right to refuse it, are not being told about.

Of all the things Wilson was not told about her first jab, perhaps the most crucial was this: that 10 months earlier, in February 1998, after an inspection of the Michigan laboratory that manufactures the vaccine, the plant had its authority to make the vaccine suspended by the FDA.

The inspection followed five years of warning letters citing concerns over the plant’s record-keeping and violations in safety, potency consistency and sterility. The February 1998 FDA report, which effectively prevented the plant from manufacturing fresh supplies of the vaccine for three years, and a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, is damning. The 95-page report found lots of the vaccine contaminated, a filtration process not authorised by the FDA, problems with cleanliness and the sterility of equipment and a failure to ensure a uniform potency of the drug.

“The firm routinely redates Anthrax Vaccine lots that have reached their labelled expiration date,” the report says. And it states: “Lot FAV036 was at room temperature for 20 hours, the filling operation was aborted, it was placed back in the refrigerator.” According to military records it was a dose from Lot FAV036 that was given to Wilson that December morning, eight months after the FDA report had been sent to BioPort.

“The patient reported no significant reactions with the first shot,” her final military medical report states — written in April 2001 when a depressed, emaciated and mentally confused Wilson was discharged from her unit — “except for an immediate large painful local reaction at the injection site (described as being slightly smaller than a golf ball). The pain extended from her shoulder to her elbow. The military medical community reassured her this was normal. She also reported the onset of about three headaches a week.”

After her second jab, from a different lot, in January 1999, she developed “irritability, loss of memory, fatigue. By late February to early March nausea and diarrhoea started. One week after her third anthrax vaccine dose her gastro-intestinal symptoms worsened further, evolving into her current disabling state of illness.”

That current state is pitiful. Wilson, who four years ago was in superb health and in charge of one of the most potent weapons in the US armoury, can barely drive a car. She has lost a third of her body weight and suffers such agonising cramps every day that she is forced to curl up in a fetal position for hours at a time. She has stiff joints, chronic fatigue, anaemia, difficulty with simple sums, memory loss, blackouts, permanent abdominal pain and, according to her medical report, “loss of cognitive function”.

She is sure the anthrax jabs caused her physical and mental degeneration, but understands the difficulty in proving it. The final medical report concluded: “There were no other risk factors present . . . that could account for her symptoms. The anthrax vaccination may have adversely affected her immunological balance. There is a clear temporal association with the onset of her illness and her anthrax vaccination. While it is not possible to scientifically prove causality between anthrax vaccination and the onset of her illness, it is impossible to disprove causality.”

Wilson understands those problems of proof. What has destroyed her trust in everything she once held dear — the US military, the US government and her husband, a fellow pilot who has now left her — is that for 18 months she was led to believe she was a freak, the only soldier to have become ill after the injections, a strange one-off. Military doctors would diagnose stress, Aids, leukaemia, anything except a possible link to the vaccination. And, she says, as soon as she became ill, “they couldn’t wait to get rid of me”.

But in the summer of 2000, at the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, she met another soldier reduced to a sad husk by, he claimed, an anthrax jab. He began to tell her what he had learnt about the vaccine, and about the hundreds of soldiers who claim it has made them chronically ill with fatigue, auto-immune diseases, severe joint pain and infertility.

It was a story that left Wilson feeling “betrayed by everything I once believed in”. Sitting in her rented flat in Savannah, Georgia, and often close to tears, she asks: “How could they not tell me the history of this drug, to make me believe I was an aberration?”

Jon Irelan, a retired Army major and US Ranger, was on a tour of duty in Saudi Arabia in 1999 when he was given four anthrax jabs. Soon he was losing his hair and suffering fevers and muscular weakness, mood swings and bed-sweats. Ultimately he discovered that his testicles had shrivelled up and died. He will be on testosterone injections for the rest of his life. “Right from the beginning they refused to send me to an American medical facility,” he says. .“They kept sending me to Saudi doctors. They told me it was a freak reaction. There were guys being airlifted to the Army Hospital in Germany for ingrowing toenails. I thought I was an anomaly.”

In June 2000 Irelan, back in the US, contacted his congressman, Washington State’s Jack Metcalfe, who sat on the House Government Reform Committee which was investigating the vaccine. “His office told me I was not alone. Then I started receiving calls from others, telling me I was not crazy. The calls have not stopped. “I would have been happy to accept this if I had been told the problems with the vaccine. Shit happens. But they treated me like a dog.”

In October 2000, Irelan gave evidence before the House committee. “Members of Congress,” he said, “I appear before you today to tell you that I would willingly lay down my life for the United States of America. But what I wish someone would explain is why it has been permitted to perpetrate this unproven drug on my fellow soldiers.” It was a question worth asking, because a long paper trail shows how concerned the US Government has been about the vaccine for more than 15 years.

The first anthrax vaccine was designed in the 1950s to protect wool-mill workers from cutaneous anthrax, which enters the body through breaks in the skin. In 1970 the federal government issued the only licence to manufacture a similar vaccine to the Michigan Department of Public Health. That later became the state-owned Michigan Biologic Products Institute (MBPI). That licence was based on a scientific study of an earlier vaccine which had suggested an effectiveness against inhalation anthrax. “There was a presumption of effectiveness, but it has never been tested, which is a legal requirement,” says a congressional aide on the House Government Reform Committee, which had called for the immunisation programme to be suspended in April 2000.

By the late 1980s MBPI, with antiquated facilities, was making small batches of the vaccine, about 15,000 to 17,000 doses every four years, selling them mostly to people in the animal hides business. It was the only US company making an anthrax vaccine. With the reduction in the relevance of nuclear weapons, the Cold War now over, the US Army had begun to take an interest in chemical and biological warfare. It investigated the possibility of contracting MBPI to supply the US military with the vaccine. This was before vaccinations became politically sensitive, and the Army and Pentagon statements are now a matter of public record. They are striking in their  bluntness.

In 1985 a US Army report stated: “There is no vaccine in current use which will safely and effectively protect against all strains of the anthrax bacillus. A licensed vaccine against anthrax . . . is currently available for human use. The vaccine is, however, highly reactogenic, requires multiple boosters to maintain immunity and may not be protective against all strains of anthrax bacillus.”

In 1989, a year after the Army had gone ahead with ordering 300,000 doses from MBPI, a letter from the Pentagon to Senator John Glenn stated: “Current vaccines, particularly the anthrax vaccine, do not readily lend themselves to use in mass troop immunisation for a variety of reasons, a higher than desirable rate of reactogenicity, and, in some cases, lack of strong enough  efficacy against infection by the aerosol route of exposure.” Then came the Gulf War. Amid claims that the vaccine may have caused the illness of thousands of troops after 150,000 were vaccinated — allegations never proved — hearings were held by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

In December 1994 it stated: “The efficacy of the vaccine against biological warfare is unknown.” In the 1994 medical textbook Vaccines, Colonel Arthur Friedlander, the US Army’s chief anthrax vaccine researcher, wrote: “The current vaccine against anthrax is unsatisfactory for several reasons. The vaccine is composed of an undefined crude culture . . . the degree of purity is unknown . . . the presence of constituents that may be undesirable may account for the level of reactogenicity observed.” This is the same vaccine — the same ingredients, if not the same batch — being administered to troops today. In October 2000, Col Friedlander gave evidence to the House committee. He said: “This vaccine is safe and effective, and it’s the best vaccine we have to protect against this disease.”

Col Friedlander says he has taken the vaccine himself. There is no reason to believe his assertion before the committee was not genuinely held. One thing, however, had changed: the determination of the US government to immunise the entire military.

Throughout the 1990s, MBPI had been manufacturing millions of doses in the conditions so damned by the February 1998 FDA inspection, as political demands for the vaccine grew. In 1996 the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia killed 19 US troops. Pan-Arab terrorism had begun in earnest. The spectre of biological terrorism was becoming a genuine political concern. So  the Army again looked at the anthrax vaccine. This time the plan was bold: a mass immunisation programme for all 2.4 million servicemen and women.

In 1995 the Army contracted the SAIC Corporation, consultants to the Pentagon, to submit a plan that would enable them to obtain an FDA licence for inhalation anthrax. In its report, the SAIC’s plan clearly identified the vaccine’s legal status: “This vaccine is not licensed for aerosol exposure expected in a biological warfare environment.” Under US law, the lack of such a licence meant that soldiers could not be given the vaccine without their “informed consent”, a hurdle that would have made a mass immunisation programme impossible.

On September 20, 1996, MBPI submitted an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. Again, one of its purposes was clear: “To obtain a specific indication for inhalation anthrax.” That IND application has never been acted upon by the FDA. Six months later the FDA’s stance on the vaccine appeared to change. In 1997 a new Defence Secretary, William Cohen, made combating bio-terrorism a priority. On March 4, 1997, four days after the retirement of the long-serving FDA Commissioner David Kessler, the Assistant US Defence Secretary (Health Affairs), Dr Stephen Joseph, wrote to the acting FDA  Commissioner, Dr Michael Friedman. Dr Joseph said the Defence Department had “long interpreted” the vaccine as being effective for inhalation anthrax. This was six months after the IND application.

Dr Friedman replied on March 13. It was a response that seemed to clear the regulatory hurdle for a mass immunisation programme: “While there is a paucity of data regarding the effectiveness of Anthrax Vaccine for prevention of inhalation anthrax, the current package insert does not preclude the use.” The insert said the vaccine was licensed for “at risk” industrial and  veterinary workers. It did not specify the type of infection.

Meanwhile, MBPI was in financial trouble. In June 1998 a private consortium named BioPort, headed by a Lebanese businessman, Fuad El-Hibri, bought the company for $24 million. A major shareholder and director of BioPort was Admiral William Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations, and a friend of El-Hibri; the two met while  Crowe was Ambassador to the UK.

Less than a month after the sale of MBPI, BioPort landed an exclusive $29 million contract with the Pentagon to “manufacture, test, bottle and store the anthrax vaccine.” Admiral Crowe has vehemently denied that he knew of the deal before BioPort purchased MBPI. He also insists that the vaccine is safe.

Within months, BioPort too was in trouble. Unable to rectify in time the problems highlighted in the FDA’s February 1998 inspection report, the new owner, like MBPI before it, was unable to ship any new vaccine. It appealed to the Pentagon for more money. By June 2000 the Anthrax Vaccine Immunisation Programme (AVIP) had all but ended, due in large part to dwindling supplies.  Not until January this year was BioPort authorised to start shipping new vaccines. But between March 1998 and January 2000, according to the Pentagon’s own figures, 2.1 million doses of stockpiled, pre-February 1998 vaccines were administered to 535,000 troops. Only in August did the FDA prohibit BioPort from using any pre-1998 vaccine. During that period the Pentagon spent over $100 million of taxpayers’ money renovating the plant. It is also paying about $20 a dose, more than three times the original price negotiated three years ago. And critics point out that no matter how much  money has been spent renovating the plant and cleaning up the manufacturing process, the vaccine itself, given to troops heading to the Gulf today, has not changed.

Six months after the FDA inspection of the plant, Captain Tom Rempfer and Major Russ Dingle, officers in the Connecticut Air National Guard, were asked by their commanding officer to look into the vaccine. Misgivings about the jabs had begun to spread, and it was felt that their investigation would put the minds of fellow pilots at rest.

It didn’t. The two officers wanted to go public when they discovered the FDA inspection report. Senior officers in their unit, they say, ordered them to keep their discovery secret. They then refused to take the jab, and were ordered to resign their commissions. Both pilots have filed federal lawsuits against BioPort challenging the effectiveness of the vaccine. The sister of  Sandra Larson, a soldier who died three months after her sixth jab, has also been joined by Ronda Wilson in suing BioPort. Their lawyer, Alan Milstein, says he hopes to bring a class action involving hundreds of former  servicemen. Their cases, they say, have been greatly helped by the House of Representatives.

In April 2000, after days of testimony, the House Government Reform Committee released its verdict on the vaccine. It stated: “The AVIP programme . . . leaves the Department of Defence captive to old technology and a single, untested company . . . based on a dangerously narrow scientific and medical foundation. The safety of the vaccine is not being monitored adequately.” As  a health care effort, “the AVIP compromises the practice of medicine to achieve military objectives.”

It derided the “preposterously low” adverse reaction rates reported by the Pentagon, which is “more concerned with public relations than effective force protection”. It adds: “Adverse events following vaccination are reported by women at twice the rate among men.” And it concludes: “AVIP raises an ominous question: who protects the force from ill-conceived force protection?” The House committee, chaired by Dan Burton and Christopher Shays, both Republican congressman, recommended that the AVIP programme be suspended. Lawrence Halloran, a senior aide to Shays, says: “The FDA was leant on by the Department of Defence in 1997, and took a shortcut. They interpreted the old licence on the fly, giving the vaccine approval. It is not a standard you would find anywhere else. No other drug manufacturer would be given approval for a product like this.

“The committee concluded that it is not licensed for inhalation anthrax. There is no question it is harmful to some people’s health. To persist with using this vaccine at the expense of developing a new one is a scandal.”
So how can the Pentagon be allowed to vaccinate troops with such a discredited product? “Because they can,” Halloran says. “They felt a desperate need to have something at hand, and this was already on the shelf. After the Gulf War they panicked, and felt they had to do something. They have the weight to intimidate the FDA into ignoring the problems.”

In August the FDA acknowledged problems with the vaccine. The product insert was altered dramatically. It said the vaccine could harm people with immunity disorders, could cause a host of serious long-term adverse reactions and could already be responsible for six deaths and a number of birth defects. According to the Pentagon, of the 535,000 troops inoculated, 1,578 have reported adverse reactions with 208 classified as “serious”.

The insert warnings were based in part on a report by the US General Accounting Office earlier this year, which stated that adverse reactions occur in five to 35 per cent of people who take the injection, vastly higher than a previous Pentagon claim of only 0.2 per cent. The GAO also criticised the pressure exerted on troops not to report adverse effects, so as not to jeopardize their military careers.

James Turner, a Pentagon spokesman, says: “The vaccine is safe and effective. Period.” He points to the FDA’s own evaluation of the vaccine. Kim Brennan Root, of BioPort, refers to the product insert, which states: “BioThrax is also indicated for individuals at high risk of exposure to bacillus anthracis spores.” She says: “It doesn’t say it is licensed for one type of anthrax  over another. There are three types: inhalation, cutaneous and intestinal. The critics keep pointing to the 1996 IND application. They say the license does not specify inhalation anthrax. Well, the license merely specifies that it protects against the disease, regardless of what form you contract. If you follow the critics’ line of argument, we would have to expose people to high levels of inhalation challenge. We have monkey studies which support the effectiveness of the product for all three types.”

In August the FDA gave a 25-page, point-by-point response to a Citizen’s Petition filed by Major Dingle. It stated that in 1972, when the FDA assumed responsibility for regulating the drugs industry, independent panels reviewed the vaccine, concluding that it is “safe and effective”. Referring to its own February 1998 inspection of BioPort, the FDA states: “Inspectional observations do not necessarily render the anthrax vaccine unsafe or  ineffective.”

Their assurances are of little comfort to Ronda Wilson. She says: “Everybody said I should get over my anger. But anger is the only thing that gets me out of bed in the morning. I have lost my marriage, my career, my dreams, my future, my pleasures. I would have died for my country. But I didn't think I would die like this.”

 

My name is Dennis Drew. I am an active duty service member stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas. This is a summary of how my life has changed after receiving the anthrax vaccine in March 2003: I had just completed basic training in very good health and shape. I did fracture my  pelvis, but I kept on going, determined to finish. That has healed now. I  graduated March 19, 2003 and was then stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas. On  March 24, I received the anthrax and typhoid vaccines in preparation for  deployment. On March 27th, I woke up feeling ill. I felt like I was getting the flu. I had body aches, sore throat, nausea and a headache.

Later that day I started feeling worse. I began to get a sharp pain in my chest and was having trouble breathing and started sweating for no reason. On March 28th, I returned to Maine to see my family before I was to leave for Iraq. I got worse as I was there and ended up going to Maine Medical Center where I was diagnosed with severe pneumonia and myocarditis. My symptoms have gotten worse ever since. I came back to Ft. Hood the first week of April and went to the medical clinic for a follow up. I was told I had permanent damage to my heart. I began feeling worse and eventually checked in to the emergency room. They ran tests on me and even sent me to San Antonio for additional testing. The doctors down there called me a 'medical mystery.' I have been to the hospital emergency room more times than I can count and was made to wait hours before I was seen. Every single time I was told that there was nothing wrong with me and they sent me home. The last week of April my family moved down here and had to take care of me. Now, I can hardly walk or stand for more than 5 minutes. I have chronic headaches, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, nausea, chest pains, numerous colds, memory loss and a 30lb weight loss.

Over the past few months of dealing with this, my unit was not supportive. They treated me terribly and a few of my superiors told me I was faking. I went to sick call almost daily, which turned out to be the best thing I could have done. There, I was always made to see different doctors and got many different diagnosis; such as lupus, chronic myocarditis, lyme disease and rheumatoid arthritis. However, blood tests later showed these diagnosis to be false. My Commander noticed I wasn't getting better. In an attempt to help me, he had me assigned to a doctor in internal medicine, Dr. Klotz. After 2 or 3 visits and a few tests, Dr. Klotz said he didn't know what to do for me anymore. He had suspected a vaccine reaction in the beginning and filed a VAERS report to the CDC. When he told me he didn't know what to do for me anymore, I asked to go to Walter Reed thinking maybe they could determine if I was having a vaccine reaction. He told me I could not go until he knew what was wrong. His suggestion was that I wait 3-6 months and if I wasn't better, they would consider a discharge. I don't understand why they would consider discharging me without sending me to Walter Reed. After all, I thought I was supposed to be getting the best medical attention possible. My whole experience thus far with the medical care at Ft. Hood has been a joke. I ended up contacting Walter Reed myself and they wanted to see me, but I couldn't go without a doctor here recommending that I needed to go.

Eventually, with the help of a higher ranking friend, I was able to get in touch with a doctor at one of the clinics. I met with him for almost 2 hours and he recommended me to Walter Reed. I was then referred to Col. Dalzell at the clinic to be my PCP. She also thought I was having a vaccine reaction and with the help of Walter Reed, was able to get me there quickly. Finally, on July 28th, after much difficulty from my unit, I arrived at Walter Reed. However, right before I was supposed to leave for Walter Reed, I was made to have a psychiatric evaluation performed by Major Jennifer Lang. I met with her for an hour and we discussed my family, my frustrations with the medical care I had been receiving and we also talked a little about my illness. After just an hour of talking and no prior knowledge of my current medical situation, she concluded that I have a somatization disorder- basically, that I am making all of this up and just wanted people to feel sorry for me. I thought it was absurd that she could even say something like that after only 1 visit and no prior knowledge of what I had been going through. My case worker at Walter Reed saw the diagnosis and thought it was premature and unnecessary. After a having a variety of tests run on me at Walter Reed, they determined that I had chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia caused by the anthrax vaccine. I also have small vessel ischemia in my brain, but they are still uncertain of its origin. I was also made to have a neuropsych evaluation. After talking with the doctor for 30 minutes, he then handed me off to his assistant and she administered the test. I just got the results a few days ago and the doctors diagnosis was that I was a malingerer and that I was suffering from somatization. I was really upset about this. I have no reason to be making this up. Some people have suggested that it is stress-related, but this cannot possibly be true. Yes, I have dealt with many stressful circumstances recently, but I am no malingerer. When I was at basic training I had to deal with not seeing my wife and son for 6 months. I also missed the birth of my daughter and fractured my pelvis. All of these events were stressful, but I was able to deal with them fine. My goal was to retire from the military after 20 years of service, not to end up like this. I can't pick my 2 small children up. I can't go places or do anything. It has affected not only me, but my wife and children as well. I can't get a second job to support my family and my wife can't work because I can't take care of our kids or myself. Our finances have been destroyed. I hate not being able to be the best husband, father and provider that I can be. If I am making all of this up, I am losing a lot more than my health. This is a large burden that my family and I have to carry around because not many other people want to accept the blame for what has happened to me. This is a great burden to deal with and it makes it even harder when I have people that don't believe that I am truly sick. I have nothing to hide. I would love to invite anyone who doesn't believe in the adverse reaction of the anthrax vaccine to come spend a day in my home- to see first hand what my family and I go through. We will fight for the rest of our lives so that myself and other military personnel like me will be acknowledged as having a reaction to the anthrax vaccine. We are not malingerers and we are not fakers. We are just victims of wanting to serve our country. Even after all I have been through, I still don't want out of the military. I am proud of what I signed up to do. However, I have been told that discharge is in my best interest and that is what will happen to me.

We are people too with a real illness and deserve to be treated fairly. These past 6 months I have tried to be fair and respectful to the healthcare system of the military but I can't stand by anymore. I realize that there could be some retribution from the Army about this but I am an American citizen and I have the right to voice my opinion. The best advice I can give to anyone suffering through any vaccine is to be persistent- very persistent. Go to sick call as much as you have to. Keep records of everything. My wife, kids and I will most likely be dealing with this for the rest of our lives and we will fight until the day we die for other people like us.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Dennis W. Drew
 

KEY: ER =enlisted recruit; OA =officer accessions (includes Academy unless specified); Academy = service academy
Note: The Armed Forces began to include hepatitis B vaccine in their list of basic immunizations for new recruits in 2002.
Source: "A Report for The Armed Forces Epidemiological Board" August 1999 [43]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/health/17TROO.html?tntemail1

BIOLOGICAL DEFENSES
Pentagon Faces Difficulties in Smallpox Shots for Troops
By DENISE GRADY





"
But the presence of people in the military who must avoid the vaccine may pose logistical difficulties. Such people must also avoid close contact with others who have been recently vaccinated, because for two to three weeks the vaccination site can shed the live virus, vaccinia, used in the vaccine.

Australian SAS could be offered experimental vaccines
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/21/1040174434938.html
By Fia Cumming, Political Correspondent
December 22 2002
The Sun-Herald

Australian SAS troops are likely to be offered experimental vaccines against anthrax, mustard gas and bubonic plague if they are deployed to a war on Iraq.As a US decision on whether to attack Iraq looms, preparations for an Australian contribution are winding up. Vaccination plans for British and American troops are already under way, but the Australian Defence Department will not reveal which vaccines may be offered to Australian soldiers. A spokeswoman said the information could be used by other countries.

"It's a matter of operational security," she said. "We vaccinate in line with a threat and risk assessment, based on what operational environment they are entering into." Iraq is known to have had stocks of VX, a liquid nerve poison, sarin and tabun nerve gases and anthrax, and is suspected of having other biological and chemical agents.Australian troops - mainly SAS - may be offered the vaccines on a voluntary basis, because of the problems which arose after the Gulf War. American, British and Australian defence personnel said they developed mysterious and lingering illnesses, known as Gulf War syndrome, as a result of the vaccines.

The Howard Government last weekend received 50,000 imported doses of smallpox vaccine as a precaution against a terrorist attack. But because of its risks, the vaccine will not be used unless the disease is released by a terrorist. Australian Defence Association executive director Michael O'Connor said providing vaccines was normal when troops went overseas.

 

Exhaustive exams... I love it... My husband had one of  those 'exhaustive exams' because of his ongoing gastrointestinal problems since the Gulf War.  It lasted about 3 minutes, the Dr  didn't even know how to fill out the paperwork for the report to the administration, and NO ONE followed up with my husband... makes me exhausted.
 

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20021224-9999_1m24sick.html
      Deadly bacteria infection overwhelmed MCRD recruit
    
                         By Jeanette Steele
      UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

      December 24, 2002

                All recruits entering MCRD are vaccinated against the meningococcal bacteria, which usually affects young people . Still, Malone said the vaccine isn't always effective, as in Zavala's case.     

From John Rappaport's StratiaWire's Newsletter:

Monday, December 23, 2002

UPDATE---SMALLPOX VACCINE OP

DECEMBER 23. I have had time to consult with several very good sources, and this is what is happening with the smallpox vaccine. There is a full-court press on the major media to keep them from saying, THE GOVERNMENT HAS REVERSED ITS POSITION ON THE VACCINE. THE GOVERNMENT SCREWED UP BIG-TIME. How long this pressure will succeed we don’t know. But so far the media campaign of OMISSION is working. The dumbed-down public is buying the moment-by-moment coverage without connecting the dots.

Too busy shopping and making plans for the holidays. In point of fact, the government could have begun leaking its reversal-of-position info a lot earlier, but now is perfect. Xmas rules all. The amazing “confession” data re the vaccine FROM THE MAINSTREAM PRESS is a series of planned leaks. This is all orchestrated, for reasons I’ve been mentioning in recent articles. It’s being made to look like responsible medical bureaucrats have the public interest at heart. Some of them do. But overall, this is a story about heavy protection of the vaccine industry from exposure, since the smallpox vaccine is so dangerous and toxic.

The CDC is now scrambling to do two things: one, tell those thousands of community vaccine centers they have been setting up, all across America, to back off on the smallpox shot; and two, retain the STRUCTURE of those centers, a new infrastructure for all sorts of medical OPS (covert operations), including, of course, vaccines to be given in the event of a PURPOSELY STAGED “biowar attack.”

However, because the prior propaganda about the importance of getting the smallpox shot was so successful, there will be people who insist on getting the vaccine. Some of them will get very sick, and some will die.The government is not willing to simply say, “Well, we warned you.” That is not enough. That is not going to carry the day. So as many of these deaths as possible will be attributed to other causes. But it is likely there will be problems. As I write this, legal experts are working to figure out how the government should deal with the liability, and PR firms are weighing in, too, to concoct spin trips to minimize bad press. Odds are, the vaccine manufacturers will stay out of the spotlight.

Whatever heat there is to take, the government will take it. This, in fact, was the whole point of the VAERS system of liability payouts that was put into effect in 1986. Get the drug companies off the hook and involve claimants in a maze of government pros who could stall God from making it rain. Okay? So now we have to ask, if the government has been making an amazing reversal of opinion and policy in the last week on the smallpox vaccine, why did they ever support mass vaccinations in the first place? Why say yes and then say no later on, when the liability exposure is so fraught with danger?

This part of the story is definitely DEVELOPING, as they say in the news business.

Was Bush told to launch the mass vaccination program by people who were stupid, who didn’t understand what could happen? Did Tommy Thompson, Bush’s secretary of health and human services, tell him to do this? Thompson knows nothing about these matters, as far as the science is concerned. If the urging for a green light came from Thompson, then HE had been briefed by others first. Was Bush urged to give the green light by George Tenet, the CIA director? Did Tenet think he had good information that a smallpox bio-attack might be imminent? If it was Thompson or Tenet, who had briefed these men first? We know that Bush is impulsive, and that he gets advice from his people and tends to jump into action without reflection.

There is another possibility. Somebody ran an OP on Bush. Somebody wanted him to do exactly the wrong thing. Somebody wanted to him to be the dupe for an eventual vaccine disaster of enormous proportions. A Gerald Ford with his absurd swine flu vaccine fiasco. Only much worse. Can you imagine the damage Bush would have suffered (and could still suffer) if he had given the final okay for a mandate to vaccinate the whole nation? People dying like flies, photos, the whole war on terrorism cast as a medical screw-up of the first order?
Bush’s Waterloo.

Judging from the rising tide of negative opinion about the vaccine coming from the CDC and NIH over the last few months, it’s unlikely that the original instigator for this mass vaccination program came from official channels at these two giant federal agencies. And you see, as long as the major media refuse to pursue the story of the government 180-degree turnaround on the smallpox-vaccine issue, reporters are not going to ask Bush, “Who convinced you this was a good idea in the first place?”

I have spoken with my prime source on propaganda matters, Ellis Medavoy. He said, “You have to look for layers of people here. You have to build a chain of people to see where the idea for this mass vaccination came from. It’s quite possible that someone within the intelligence cartel was the real source. Someone who WANTED a disaster. Because disasters are what create the kind of chaos certain people want. (I have referred to these elements in past articles as the Plan B people). They are not satisfied with the slow-drip method of gaining more control over the global population. They want to burn down everything to the ground and build a steel-trap society on the ruins.”

Bush is still up against it. The Army is vaccinating lots of soldiers. How successful will the cover-up of deaths be? Well, it’s a lot easier to manage that behind the military walls than out in the public. Bush is still on the hook as the dupe. How do you make a dupe? You feed him information which merges with his general outlook, you give him a detailed suggestion as to action, and you stand back and let him go to work.

In the case of instituting that VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in 1986 that took vaccine manufactures off the liability-payout hook, the federal government allowed anti-vaccine activists to propose VAERS, activists who thought that GOVERNMENT was a better protector of the people than DRUG COMPANIES.

Hello? The medical monopoly IS a joint venture of government and drug companies. More coming… Although I haven’t been able to obtain the medical records of those Marines in San Diego who are falling ill and dying, I believe that at least some of them are the victims of the smallpox and/or anthrax vaccine. I’m still looking for better confirmation. This ranks as a maybe right now.

Meanwhile, CNN reports that hundreds of sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt have come down with the flu. Of course, no details on exactly how the blood of these people was tested to make that diagnosis---and we don't know whether the sailors have recently been vaccinated. The ship is in the Atlantic Ocean on exercises, and is third in line to go to the Middle East---so it's possible the crew has received smallpox shots. If this outbreak is really a vaccine reaction, it's being covered up. Maybe we're seeing a reaction to a flu vaccine.

MSNBC is reporting on a new survey done to see what Americans know and don't know about smallpox and the vaccine. The conclusion? Americans are confused about the most elementary facts. There is a clue here for us: The complete government turnaround on ITS position vis-a-vis the vaccine is now being laid off on the public---"The government is not talking out of both sides of its mouth, it's the public that has all the wrong ideas." And this MSNBC piece also tells us how the press is going to worm its way out of confronting the White House about that 180-degree turnaround---again, the "confusion" is going to be laid at the door of the public. Repulsive.

US soldiers are caught in the crossfire of the government's 180 re the vaccine. As far as we know, the smallpox vaccinations are proceeding in the military. This is happening with NO announced evidence that any nation is preparing to use, or can use, smallpox as a bio-weapon. If Bush publicly calls off the vaccine program for the military, then he exposes the whole hoax. The Pentagon brass tend to view "their boys" as the healthiest specimens in the world, and so they convince themselves that the vaccine will do little harm.

UPDATE: A few hours after I wrote that last paragraph, MSNBC posted a report on the first round of military smallpox shots---ONE THIRD OF THE SOLDIERS IN THE INITIAL SMALL GROUP WHO WERE CALLED IN FOR THEIR SHOTS WERE EXEMPTED FROM GETTING THEM, BECAUSE OF PRIOR EXISTING CONDITIONS, OR BECAUSE THEY WERE LIVING WITH PEOPLE WHO MIGHT EXPERIENCE A SEVERE REACTION IF THE VIRUS FROM THE VACCINE JUMPED FROM THE RECIPIENT TO THEM.

This represents yet another fast-breaking phase in the complete government turnaround re this vaccine. BOOM.

However, this "careful medical screening" the Army is doing right now to identify those who should be exempted from the shot? What will happen soon when the big wave of 500,000 soldiers is due for the vaccine all at once? The usual style is, get in line, roll up your sleeve, keep moving, keep your mouth shut. That's exactly how they can process so many people. They are going to sit these 500,000 guys down, one at a time, and put them through an extensive interview to determine whether they should get the shot? No possible way.

So there are three choices. One, they quietly cancel the whole vaccine campaign. Two, they shoot up all the soldiers and lie about the damage and death that actually results. Three, they stage a bio-war attack with the smallpox germ and thereby justify giving them all the shot---in which case vaccine deaths are blamed on the "bio-attack."

NOTE: I'M NOT DEFENDING THE IDEA OF GIVING ANYBODY THIS SHOT. I'M DESCRIBING HOW THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES ARE WORKING THEIR VARIOUS SCAMS.

There are still very important snakes in the grass. As Jane Orient, MD, points out, the Homeland Security Act, which was passed without a single congressional hearing or testifying witness, contains, in Section 304, Subsection C, a provision that empowers the secretary of health and human services (Tommy Thompson, at the moment)to declare states of emergency. He can order "countermeasures" against bio-attacks. He can order quarantines and detainments for "categories of individuals" he invents according to his own guidelines. This broad power, undefined, opens the door for all sorts of medical/police actions.

So although Thompson says he's not taking the smallpox vaccine himself, don't assume we are looking at a moment of enlightenment.

“What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think.”  ~Adolf Hitler

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1923

“It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them."  ~Adolf Hitler

 

Our veterans were abandoned
BY CONN HALLINAN
Special to The Examiner

    AS THE U.S. RAMPS up for invading Iraq, we should know that we are sending our troops into the most toxic battlefield on earth.     And should those soldiers suffer the huge number of disabilities that Gulf War I vets do, they can expect their government, in the words of U.S. Rep. Christopher Shey (R-N.C.), to have "a tin ear, a cold heart and a closed mind."

    For 11 years, more than 100,000 Gulf War vets have complained of chronic fatigue, headaches, joint pains, memory loss, cancer and birth defects. For 11 years the Department of Defense (DOD) has known the cause but systematically denied that the disabilities were anything but psychosomatic.     But, layer by layer, the lies have come undone. A recent study in a British medical journal demonstrated that British Gulf vets were three times as likely to be disabled as all other vets.

    The study is hardly a bolt from the blue. The Centers for Disease Control concluded in 1995 that Gulf War vets suffered illnesses at 12 times the rate as non-Gulf War vets.     The stonewalling started when young soldiers were inoculated with an experimental anthrax vaccine that included squalene, an additive with dangerous side effects.

    The Defense Department denies the vaccine included squalene, but a University of Tulane Medical School study found squalene antibodies in 36 out of 38 Gulf vets suffering from the syndrome and a high incidence of similar disorders in vaccinated vets who never served in the Gulf. The DOD won't release information on the vaccine because it is "classified."

    The Pentagon also maintained that none of our troops had been exposed to chemical weapons, in spite of the fact that Army logs indicated the presence of chemical weapons on Jan. 20, 1991. When Sen. Donald Riegle (D-Mich.) requested those logs, he was told they didn't exist. Eight months later the logs were finally released -- with most of the pages missing.

    It was not until 1998 that the DOD admitted that as many as 130,000 troops (the vets claim more) were exposed to chemical weapons after the destruction of the Iraqi arms depot at Kamisiyah.   The DOD says it never said anything about the exposure because "scientific research and medical research do not indicate that this type of exposure is harmful," according to Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Dian Lawhon.

    But the Army never researched the matter and ignored a 1974 Swedish study showing that small doses of chemical weapons did produce long-term effects.  The tragedy here is that because the Pentagon lied, the vets' complaints were dismissed.

    "Because doctors were told that chemicals had not been used, many veterans were sent straight to the psychiatric department," said Paul Sullivan of the Gulf War Veterans of Georgia. By July 1995, 95 percent of vets seeking disability had been turned away because doctors thought they were nut cases.  When research was done, it was ignored. A 1997 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center study demonstrated that the interaction of nerve gas pills (another experimental and dangerous drug given the troops), insecticides and nerve gas produced a rare disorder called "organophosphate-induced delayed polyneuropathy," which is essentially Gulf War Syndrome.

    With an Iraqi invasion looming, this is hardly an academic issue. As Shaun Rusling, chairman of the British National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association, said, "Our troops, who will be exposed to the same as we were 11 years ago, need to know that should they be ill or injured, they will get the best medical care and proper pensions."

    The track record on our side of the Atlantic suggests quite the opposite.

    Comment: letters@examiner.com

    Conn Hallinan is a provost at UC Santa Cruz.

 

Anthrax vaccine stories

Sgt. Sandra Larson's story:
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.10.03/rugo.htm 


Our Anthrax information web site: http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthrax-no/files/VAERS.pdf
DESTROY QUARANTINED VACCINE:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?robi2662&1
PETITION TO OVERTURN/REPEAL FERES DOCTRINE http://www.i-charity.net/ptn/80
To visit Dr. Meryl Nass's web site, go to: http://www.anthraxvaccine.org
Tom Colosimo's website: http://www.tomcolosimo.com
Also visit: Anthrax Vaccine Benefit vs Risk: http://www.avip2001.net AND
http://www.MajorBates.com/
Anthrax Vaccine Network  http://www.anthraxvaccine.net
Sgt. Sandra Larson's story:
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.10.03/rugo.htm 
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.10.03/accountability.doc
Tom Heemstra's new book -
http://www.anthraxadeadlyshotinthedark.com/index.html
 

From a doctor who was damaged by the vaccine and is very ill..........and on the anthrax-no list I'm on
All I can say is to take TONS of vitamin C in the form of Sodium Ascorbate - everyone, especially husband.
I'll send the vitamin C info again to the list

Amy,

. I am a PFC in the us army.. tomorrow i will be given the anthrax . vaccine.. I plan to refuse, i want to know what will happen to me, . what I should know, and what could help in my defense.. I am a . female, if that is any sort of information, have been in for 2 1/2  years, and have around 9 months left in service.. I have had a  perfect service record before..  what can I do?   help and advice,  please?

First, see if you can get out legally without having to get the anthrax immunization.  If you have any significant illnesses at present -- old injury or disease or disorder that impairs you in any way and it was NOT self-induced for the purpose of your becoming disqualified or was otherwise "illegal" in any other context -- you can request a Fitness-for-Duty MEB/PEB designed to either result in your being physically disqualified for continued military service or non-deployable outside CONUS.  This works even for conditions existing prior to your joining the Army that were exacerbated by military service.  (See the regulations for guidance.)  It's not much of an idea but it's an idea.
Consult a civilian attorney first.

Officially, the order to get the anthrax shot is still considered legal. If you refuse to obey it you'll get whatever the Army wants to throw at you for disobeying a legal order.  Consult a civilian attorney first.   If you're wealthy enough, you can take the DOD to court about the legality of the order.  This will take several years and several thousands of dollars, but with a good attorney who know his way around the errors in AVIP, you should win for yourself and all those who sue DOD on the same grounds afterwards.  Consult a civilian attorney first.

If you take the shot, monitor your health carefully.  Be sure you keep copies of ALL your medical records, including laboratory tests and x-rays.  Document the dates you get all your shots and the dates you reported to sick call for local or systemic reactions to them.  When you get sick enough to present unmistakable physical signs of your anthrax-induced autoimmune disease to your Army physician, get a diagnosis first and then request a Fitness-for-Duty MEB/PEB.  If they let you separate rather than giving you the Disability Retirement you have coming to you, be sure that within four months of your separating from active duty in the Army that you get a Fitness-for-Duty MEB/PEB.  A separation  physical alone is never enough.  YOU MUST GET THE PRE-SEPARATION MEB/PEB.  This guarantees that the Army knows you're sick and if they don't give the 100% Disability Retirement you deserve as a sick anthrax shot recipient, you can take them to court once you've separated to get all the benefits you have coming to you.  It also makes it automatic to get VA Service Connection for your illnesses after you separate.  Consult a civilian attorney.

I know this wasn't very helpful, but it's where things stand now. Nevertheless, it's kind of generic in the sense that it's applicable to all.

Best of luck,

Frank Fisher, MD
Previously: LTC USAFR MC FS

 

NATIONAL GULF VETERANS & FAMILIES ASSOCIATION OFFICE TEL.
NO. 01482 808730 OR FAX 01482 808731
24 HOUR HELPLINE 01482 833812 FAX NO 01482 833816

URGENT PRESS RELEASE - MONDAY 6TH JANUARY 2003

ANTHRAX VACCINE GIVEN TO TROOPS PREPARING FOR GULF WAR CAUSES VACCINE DAMAGE AND ILL HEALTH

EX SOLDIER WINS LAND MARK CASE AT LEEDS FOR VACCINE DAMAGE - OSTEOPOROSIS

Former Army Royal Engineer Soldier Mr Alex Izett from Glasgow recently won a  landmark case against the Ministry of Defence at an Independent Tribunal hearing in Leeds. Alex who had been waiting 3 years to have his case heard for Osteoporosis and depression caused by vaccinations classified secret given to him before the Gulf War. The Tribunal found Mr Alex Izett had depression and osteoporosis from the vaccinations given at the time of the Gulf War 1990-91.  It must be noted Mr Alex Izett did not serve in the Gulf War he was vaccinated to go but did not go!!!

The Tribunal findings:

Mr Rudin Chairman of the ENT/31692/2002 Leeds found

1. We accept you were vaccinated and we looked at the MoD letter 24.1.01 we  note the posity of the vaccination date we therefore accept the evidence Autoimmune induced osteoporosis caused by vaccines.

2. We have also looked at psychiatry report dated 29-2-01 and accept classified secret injections not listed in Army Medical Documents and that you have depression.

3. We also note exposure to squalene, further we have looked at Dr Juliet Compston's report endorsed by Prof. Simon Wessely of the Kings College London, we concur and endorse the findings

Mr Izett was represented by Mr Roy Gibson of the National Gulf Veterans & Families Association based in Hull, who stated  "This is a very significant case that shows the vaccines given to Mr Izett at the time of the Gulf War caused his ill health of depression and osteoporosis, it is of course significant that the Ministry of Defence denied everything!  I would imagine the Ministry of Defence are very concerned.

THIS ANTHRAX VACCINE IS CURRENTLY BEING GIVEN TO SOLDIERS OF 2 AND 3 PARA WHO ARE EXPERIENCING FLU LIKE SYMPTOMS ALREADY.

For further comment ring NGVFA on 01482 833812 or Alex Izett on 0049 5439 6094600 
     mcjock@t-online.de

 

Peer in plea over Gulf War veterans
Manchester Evening News - 10:00am Dec 13

MANCHESTER peer Lord Morris has accused the Ministry of Defense of causing distress to thousands of Gulf War veterans suffering a mystery illnesses.He said it was "doubly distressing" for veterans, some of them terminally ill, to have to wait until next year for a vital report on their illnesses.

Lord Morris has campaigned to prove that the illnesses were caused by a cocktail of injections given to the troops, but the MoD has so far refused to accept that there is such a thing as Gulf War syndrome. "Why are some illnesses treated as Gulf War-related in the US but not here?" asked Lord Morris in the Lords. "Why, 12 years on, when we could soon be involved in a second Gulf War, have we not learned the lessons of the first?"

Lord Morris said the MoD had been defeated in several court cases when they refused to hand over Army pensions to people with Gulf War illnesses. And he pointed out that a vicar, Gulf War veteran the Reverend David Peachell was discharged by the Church of England on the grounds of Gulf War illness and given a pension. Lord Morris asked what implications the case would have for other servicemen and women.

The Defence Minister Lord Bach said that despite the Church of England's decision the MoD continued to believe that no Gulf War illness had been identified. But he insisted that even though there was no recognition of Gulf War syndrome that did not prevent veterans getting a pension. He said more than 4,800 Gulf veterans had received pensions, one in four of them for disablement accepted as linked to their service in the Gulf.

  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2638125.stm

Wednesday, 8 January, 2003, 10:02 GMT
Troops fears over anthrax vaccine Soldiers at Army Infantry Training School, north Yorkshire  Troops will not be forced to have vaccines, say ministers Troops being sent to the gulf ahead of a possible war with Iraq have expressed concern about the safety of anthrax vaccines they are being given. The Gulf War Veterans and Families Association says it has been inundated with enquiries from servicemen worried about the possible side-effects of the vaccine.

The group said it had also heard from troops who said they had become ill after receiving the jab.   Individuals who have contacted our helpline have said they are feeling ill and their mates are feeling ill Tony Flint, GWVFA However, ministers have insisted the vaccine is safe and that no one will be forced to have it against their will.

Tony Flint of the GWVFA said its telephone helpline had received many calls in recent weeks from concerned troops.  The GWVFA represents thousands of servicemen who believe their health suffered after they were given a cocktail of vaccinations in the 1991 Gulf War.

Worried

Mr Flint told the BBC: "Regular servicemen have been phoning us worried about the vaccine, asking for our advice, because they know, like we know, the vaccines are a major cause of our illnesses. "From what we have learnt so far, members of the Parachute Regiment have already had the anthrax vaccine and they are reporting to us that they are getting side-effects. "Individuals who have contacted our helpline have said they are feeling ill and their mates are feeling ill." 
 
  I can assure you the vaccine is safe

Dr Lewis Moonie, Defence Minister
Mr Flint raised concern over the tests carried out on the vaccines before they were given.

"The British haven't done any real test work on it all," he claimed. "All our evidence comes from the States and from their evidence, 30% of those that receive the vaccine become ill and six have died." Joyce Riley, of the American Gulf War Association, also expressed concern. "My concern about the anthrax vaccine is that it has been proven to be unsafe. It is not a tested vaccine. "What we are seeing from those who have been given the vaccine is usually something to do with blackouts, with seizures and motor problems.

"We are finding that these people become affected by skin lesions, they develop sores and problems that just never go away." Vaccine 'is safe'  But defence minister Lewis Moonie insisted that the vaccine is safe. He told the BBC: "I can assure you that it has been given to many, many people over a long period of time and there has never been a case of serious side-effects. Not one case. "Of course it's been tested. It is not widely tested, because anthrax is not a common disease, but it is given very widely.

"I can assure you the vaccine is safe. It has side-effects - all vaccines like this do.

"You may get soreness at the site of injection and you may get a flu-like illness after it. But there are no serious complications." Dr Moonie added: "It is being offered to people who may be going into a theatre where they may be exposed to it. "It's being offered to them on a voluntary basis and nobody is compelled to have it."  Troops were given large amounts of information about vaccines they were offered and were able to discuss any concerns with medical officers, he said.

 

Toxic ammo is tested in fish areas
U.S. Navy uses depleted uranium in coast waters; activists may go to court
        By LARRY JOHNSON, Thursday, January 9, 2003
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103402_fife09.shtml


The Navy routinely tests a weapon by firing radioactive, toxic ammunition in prime fishing areas off the coast of Washington, raising concerns from scientists, fishermen and activists. The Navy insists the use of depleted uranium off the coast poses no threat to the environment. Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years. Cmdr. Karen Sellers, a Navy spokeswoman in Seattle, also said there are no hazards to the servicemen and women on board the ships, adding that "all crew members are medically monitored" to ensure their safety.

But a coalition of Northwest environmental and anti-war activists say they are considering seeking an injunction to halt the tests. "The Navy is willing to put us all at risk, including its own sailors, to improve its war-fighting capabilities," said Glen Milner, ofGround Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, one of the groups weighing a suit to stop the Navy tests. Milner received information on the Navy's tests of depleted uranium ammunition off the coast in a memo released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

No major studies apparently have been done on the effects of such weapons in the ocean. Where depleted uranium munitions have been used in combat on land, such as in Iraq during the Gulf War, or in tests on land, such as Vieques island in Puerto Rico, they not only give off relatively small amounts of radiation, but produce toxic dust that can enter the food chain.

Seattle environmental attorney David Mann asked, "How can the Navy fire depleted uranium rounds and spread radioactive material into prime fishing areas off our coast?" Sellers, however, said that only 400 to 600 rounds would be fired during a typical test at sea. And even though these tests have been going on since 1977, she said Navy environmental experts say that the DU dissolves very slowly in the ocean. "It would be too diluted to distinguish from natural background uranium in the sea water," she said.

The weapon in question is the Phalanx, also known as a Close In Weapons System. Such a system is on virtually all U.S. Navy combat ships. It includes radar and rapid-fire 20mm guns. The guns are capable of firing up to 3,000 or 4,500 rounds per minute of depleted uranium, a superhard material prized for its armor-piercing ability.

The Defense Department says the military uses the munitions "because of DU's superior lethality against armor and other hard targets." Although depleted uranium emits radiation, a second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits a hard target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

Once in the soil, DU can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program The Defense Department said DU munitions are "war reserve munitions; that is, used for combat and not fired for training purposes," with the exception that DU munitions may be fired at sea for weapon calibration purposes."

Another Navy spokeswoman described those firings at sea as "routine" and says they occur regularly off both the East and West coasts. "If the firing is with DU, it's probably with what we call the Close in Weapons System, and it is routine," said Lt. Brauna Carl, a Navy spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., and a former gunnery officer who has worked with DU weapons. When asked if the tests of DU rounds posed any health hazards, she replied, "God, I hope not. All I know is I haven't started glowing."

But Milner says, "It just makes sense that if DU can contaminate land and get into the food chain, then it would do the same thing in the sea." Robert Alverson, president of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association in Seattle, said he was "very troubled" to hear that the Navy was using depleted uranium off the coast of Washington. "I don't like what I'm hearing," he said.

The Navy memo obtained by Milner described a June 2001 operation by the USS Fife, an Everett-based destroyer. The memo said the Fife would conduct gunnery operations with depleted rounds in what was described as areas W237C and W237F.

These areas are designated Navy Warning Areas and are about 25-100 miles off the coast between Ocean Shores and Ozette, south of Neah Bay, according to Milner. "These are certainly prime fishing areas" for some salmon, flounder and other bottomfish, Alverson said. "It is folly to be testing anything in this area that might contaminate the natural food supply."

"How would the Navy feel about eating fish caught there?" he asked. Alverson said even the perception that fish might be contaminated could scare consumers and have dire consequences. "If any species ever turns up with radiation, it would be devastating to the fishing industry," he said.

Leonard Dietz, a research associate with the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, said that the degree of environmental contamination the DU rounds will cause in sea water depends on what kinds of targets were hit and how much DU was fired.

"Corrosion of the DU by sea water would occur over a long time," said Dietz, who with Asaf Durakovic, director of the center, and research associate Patricia Horan, published a landmark study on inhaled DU that showed Gulf War veterans still had DU in their urine nine years after the war.

"The end result is that the ocean becomes a dumping ground for the spent DU penetrators and they add to the (natural) uranium content of sea water," he said. The Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action is one of five peace and environmental organizations already involved in a federal lawsuit against the Navy for violations of the Endangered Species Act over the Trident D-5 nuclear missile upgrade at the Bangor submarine base.

DEPLETED URANIUM HAZARDS

The Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, saying there have been no known health problems associated with the munition. At the same time, the military acknowledges the hazards in an Army training manual, which requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and says that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Some researchers and several U.S. veterans organizations say they suspect depleted uranium of playing a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

* On the Net:

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action: http://www.gzcenter.org
U.S. Navy: http://www.navy.mil
   Iraqi birth defects, Gulf War Syndrome linked to depleted uranium

P-I foreign desk editor Larry Johnson can be reached at 206-448-8035 or
larryjohnson@seattlepi.com

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,860598,00.html

Guardian | Mystery surrounds secret 1991 vaccines
Mystery surrounds secret 1991 vaccines
David Pallister
Monday December 16, 2002
The Guardian

Britain sent more than 53,000 troops to the Gulf war 12 years ago. They faced the threat of chemical and biological attacks and a series of medical counter measures were hurredly introduced. The range of vaccines was kept secret, even from the troops, to prevent the Iraqis learning how they were protected.

But with the politcal furore over Gulf war syndrome, the Ministry of Defence published the full details - six years after the war - and admitted there were "significant deficiencies" in the programme. Each individual was given up to 12 vaccines. First there were the routine ones to prevent disease: yellow fever, hepatitis B, typhoid, tetanus, cholera and polio. Some received jabs for meningitis and hepatitis A.

Then there were the anti-biological vaccines for anthrax and plague. The anthrax jab was given with one for pertussis (whooping cough) to make it work quicker, although this combination had never been tested on humans. Warnings about the risk from the Department of Health and the National Institute for Biological Standards and control were ingnored. After the war, research at Porton Down, the government's defence laboratory, concluded that the use of pertussis was ineffective.

For protection against a chemical attack everyone took a tablet containing the drug pyridostigmine bromide, which some scientists now believe may have been a contributory cause of neurological problems in veterans. The troops were also exposed to potentially hazardous organophosphate pesticides, one of which was unauthorised and other, unidentified, ones were bought locally.

When veterans first started complaining of ill health, the most predominant symptoms were similar to those for chronic fatigue. Others included: headaches, memory loss, muscle pain, nausea, gastrointestinal problems, loss of concentration, vision and balance problems and depression. It has been established that veterans deployed to the Gulf are two to three times more likely to report symptoms than those not deployed.

Dozens of research experiments have been carried out since the late 1990s with the UK spending £8.5m and the US $213m (£133m). No conclusive results have been made but the early UK concentration on whether post-traumatic stress caused the illnesses has now largely been ruled out.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

 

Friday, 10 January, 2003, 12:44 GMT
Gulf war drugs 'linked to infertility'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2645315.stm
Gulf War troops took drugs to protect against disease

Drugs given to soldiers involved in the Gulf War may have caused infertility and other sexual problems, a US government-funded study suggests. Researchers say tests on rats have shown that some of the chemicals can damage male reproductive organs. The drugs were given to soldiers to protect them against insect-borne diseases and nerve-gas poisoning during the 1991 conflict. Veterans' groups say many of their members have suffered fertility and other sexual problems since the war.

Dr Mohamed Abou-Donia and colleagues at Duke University Medical Center tested the insect repellent DEET, the insecticide permethrin and the anti-nerve gas agent pyridostigmine bromide on rats. The rats were given equivalent doses to those given to soldiers.

Extensive damage

According to the researchers, these chemicals caused extensive damage to the cells in the rats' testes when they were given together. The damage was even more severe among those rats that were also exposed to moderately stressful situations. The damage affected the part of the testes responsible for producing sperm. The researchers have previously shown that the same chemicals can cause devastating changes in rats' brains.

In a study published last year, they suggested the chemicals killed cells in key areas of the brain responsible for muscle strength; balance and coordination; memory, cognition and mood. In both tests, the rats appeared physically normal despite extensive intensive cell damage.

"The chemically-treated rats don't look or behave any differently than normal rats, just as the soldiers don't show any outward signs of disease," said Dr Abou-Donia. "But under a microscope you can see clear and well-defined damage to a variety of testicular structures."

Further study

Dr Abou-Donia said he was planning further research to find out why the chemicals acted in this way. "The military used these chemicals with the best of intentions, to protect soldiers from indigenous diseases in the Gulf War region. Without protection, there may have been thousands of deaths. "But it appears that the precautions prevented one set of problems while creating another.

"Now our task is to discern the mechanisms of illness in order to provide the soldiers with maximum protection and the least risk of chemically induced injury." The UK's National Gulf Veterans and Family Association welcomed the study.

A spokesman said: "It backs up our experience over the last 11 years where we have found many veterans and their partners have complained of burning semen and high rates of gynaecological problems." The study is published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. It was funded by the US Department of Defense.
 

Spate of Thyroid Cases Baffles Army
http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=510860
Several cases of Graves disease -- 62 times higher than expected in young men
 -- struck a Special Forces unit in the 1990s.

By Adam Marcus
HealthScoutNews Reporter
    
       
TUESDAY, Dec. 17 (HealthScoutNews) -- A dramatic spike in cases of an overactive thyroid struck a U.S. Army Special Forces unit in the late 1990s, and Army doctors are at a loss to explain why. Military physicians say the unit, based in Fort Campbell, Ky., had eight cases of apparent Graves disease over a 21-month period ending in 1999.

The revelations about Graves disease come on the heels of an order by President Bush -- whose mother has the condition -- that roughly a half million military personnel receive the smallpox vaccine. Smallpox vaccine is effective, but it causes deadly reactions in about one to two people per million who receive the inoculation.
 

From: TRempfer@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:27:43 EST
Subject: Insight Magazine:  "Anthrax Program Reduced Reenlistments, Retention"

Anthrax Program Reduced Reenlistments, Retention

Timothy W. Maier, Insight Magazine, Jan. 2003

When a scientist sent a letter to the president warning that the United States faced great danger from weapons of mass destruction it was his intent to encourage the administration to take precautionary measures. The letter writer was Albert Einstein. His warning to President Franklin Roosevelt on Oct. 11, 1939, came in the midst of an emerging threat from Nazi Germany. It paved the way for the Manhattan Project, a nuclear program to counter Germany's plan to build an atomic bomb. Fourteen months ago another letter writer prompted the Bush administration to take precautionary measures against weapons of mass destruction. This time the writer added a lethal dose of anthrax that resulted in five deaths across the country and mass panic in the nation's capital. If the intent was to push or redirect policy concerning anthrax vaccination, the mission was accomplished. The attack put the Pentagon's anthrax-vaccination program back on track. The six-shot regime had been on the ropes after a series of congressional hearings and critical reports by Army Times and Insight that questioned whether inoculating 2.4 million troops would do more harm than good.

As Insight noted [see "A Dose of Reality," Sept. 20, 1999, and "Why BioPort Got a Shot in the Arm," Sept. 20, 1999], hundreds of reservists, including many trained pilots, had resigned rather than face a series of vaccinations that in some cases had resulted in service personnel contracting aseptic meningitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome and lupus. The Pentagon and BioPort Corp., the sole provider of the anthrax vaccine, downplayed the risks and insisted all was safe. Insight since has learned that in August 2001 senior Pentagon officials explored alternative methods of countering possible anthrax attacks, including developing better antibiotics to fight the virus. Had this occurred it would have finished BioPort, which had poured its resources into building a state-of-the-art facility in Lansing, Mich., to mass-produce anthrax vaccines for the military and eventually the public.

The program had been halted when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to approve a manufacturing license for BioPort. Even when the FDA finally gave the green light in January 2001, the Pentagon did not immediately roll out the program but continued to consider alternatives. The anthrax scare that began in October 2001 seemed to settle the matter but didn't. Not until May 2002 were vaccinations resumed even for a limited number of "at-risk" troops — nearly eight months after the anthrax attacks. And the identity of the troops receiving the vaccine remains a military secret. Now the Pentagon has announced that substantial quantities of vaccine will be manufactured and kept in reserve for civilian use in homeland security.

Meanwhile, the FBI has been claiming that the anthrax attacks probably were committed by a domestic terrorist with access to a military lab at Fort Detrick, Md. The FBI still refers to Steven Hatfill as a "person of interest" in the attacks, but he has not been charged. Hatfill is in fact a bio-defense scientist who worked at Fort Detrick, but he has been an outspoken critic of the nation's failure to develop defenses for biological and chemical attacks.

Hatfill warned Insight in 1998 how easily a terrorist could shut down Washington with a single dose of anthrax. When this magazine recently asked for a follow-up interview, Hatfill attorney Victor M. Glasberg replied, "It's not going to happen." Hatfill did hold a series of controlled press conferences, proclaiming his innocence. "I went from being someone with pride in my work, pride in my profession, to being made into the biggest criminal of the 21st century for something I never touched. What I've been trying to contribute, my work, is finished. My life is destroyed."

While the FBI explores other leads, and victims of the attack continue to recover, the incident is far from forgotten. For a while the anthrax-letter attacks seemed to quiet critics of the vaccination program. The armed forces wanted to go to fight terrorism, reservists say, and under the circumstances few were willing to be viewed as "too wimpy" to undergo the six-shot regime.

Congress meanwhile seems to have stopped questioning the program's value. Since the anthrax attacks, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, has remained silent rather than continuing his inquiry into why reservists ordered to take the shots were quitting at an alarming rate. Another frequent critic, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, also has kept quiet on the issue. In fact, a Jones congressional staffer tells Insight the congressman has nothing to say about anthrax.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit in June 2002 filed by a reservist who charged the vaccine is an experimental drug and therefore cannot be mandated, but critics of the program say an appeal could put the case back in court by April 2003 [see "First Response to Terror," Jan. 26, 1998]. Other service personnel resisting the mandatory anthrax vaccinations are preparing a class-action lawsuit, to be filed in the next few weeks, seeking injunctive relief to stop the program, Insight has learned. Providing ammunition for these lawsuits are decisions by the United Kingdom to make anthrax vaccinations voluntary and by Canada to stop the program altogether after its attempts to court-martial those who refused the shots failed.

Now a 50-page General Accounting Office (GAO) report again has put into question the safety of the vaccine. The GAO criticized the program after conducting a survey with 843 randomly selected reservists from the Air Force and National Guard.

The GAO review, which Rep. Jones ordered, reaffirms what Insight previously had reported. Alarmed service personnel are avoiding the shots by leaving the military at an alarming rate, and those who submit to the shots are becoming ill at a far greater rate than the Pentagon claimed. According to the GAO, between September 1998 and September 2000 about 16 percent of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and reserve had transferred to another unit (primarily to nonflying positions) to avoid or delay receiving the anthrax shots, moved to inactive status or left the military. Another 18 percent said they intended to leave in the near future. Of those who changed status or quit, 69 percent said it was because they didn't want to take the anthrax shots.

Those who quit or were reassigned to nonflying positions were experienced pilots with more than 3,000 flight hours on average. In addition, the GAO noted that two-thirds of those surveyed did not support the vaccination program. While the survey was conducted prior to the events of 9/11, which may impact how reservists would respond now, the survey confirmed that the Pentagon had failed to convince reservists that the shots were safe or needed, ultimately resulting in the depletion of trained pilots. Moreover, the GAO says in no uncertain terms that the Pentagon has put one over on Congress by failing to produce data to support claims that the numbers of those leaving are comparable with normal attrition rates.

Among those who took one or more shots, the GAO found that 85 percent reported experiencing some type of reaction. The overall rate reported for adverse reactions was nearly three times that published in the vaccine manufacturer's product insert, which claimed only 30 percent would experience some adverse reaction. Of those experiencing side effects, 24 percent had adverse effects considered serious enough for the shots to be discontinued. These systemic reactions included malaise and lassitude, chills and fever. The rate for these reactions was more than 100 times higher than claimed in the insert provided to those taking the shots. The rates may have been even higher, the GAO noted, because many adverse reactions were not reported to military command for fear of loss of flight status, negative effect on military or civilian careers and potential for being ridiculed.

The GAO recommended that the secretary of defense direct the establishment of an active surveillance program to identify and monitor adverse events associated with each anthrax immunization. The program, the GAO suggests, should ensure that appropriate and complete treatment and follow-up are provided to those who have experienced adverse effects and to those who may experience them in the future.

The Pentagon has refused to do so, citing a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) claim that there are "no data that indicate the need for the continuation of special monitoring programs." This "is misleading," the GAO charges, because the NAS actually suggested that the Pentagon regularly should study data for new trends and monitor reactions to vaccinations. Not to do so would lead to continued depletion of reserve forces, the GAO warned.

"Unfortunately, the actual losses and expected losses as a result of this program represented some of the most experienced and highly trained individuals in these services and are people not easily replaced," the GAO noted. "It takes time and a great deal of money and other resources to develop trained, experienced pilots and other aircrew members to support the important missions of these reserve components, particularly in light of the current battle against terrorism."

Online at:
http://www.insightmag.com/news/320556.html
 

The Truth About Anthrax And Biological Weapons

By Gary Krasner

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and hence clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." —H.L. Mencken

Infectious disease experts were among those hardest hit by the September 11th terrorist attack. Prior to the attack, many will recall that these experts had been warning us to prepare for biological terrorism and new exotic microbial epidemics. Their credibility may have seemed tarnished after 6 thousand people perished from "mere" explosives, instead of biological agents. However, they seem to have made a quick recovery.

Ironically, their past success in instilling inordinate fear of infectious diseases has hampered even their own attempts to mitigate public alarm about anthrax. Their cohorts in the media have had similar difficulties. Except that the media's struggle to put the threat in proper perspective has been hindered by their desire for high ratings and selling newspapers. They also don't know enough to distinguish the genuine killing potential of chemical agents, from the dubious threat of biological agents.

Here's the truth of the matter. Anthrax is a livestock pathogen. The spores survive for about twenty years in the ground in rural areas. They normally have no effect upon humans, because a few anthrax spores cannot create an infection, and they do not come up from the ground in large quantities. A human must inhale about 10,000 spores to get sick. And such concentrations are never found in nature. Wool sorters inhale anthrax spores in small quantities continually (150-700 per hour), and only if they get a large dose will an infection begin. Some anthrax researchers who were interviewed in the media said that they often don't even wear protective masks; they just make sure not to draw close to it and breathe in the stuff.

Anthrax is what's called a "gram positive" bacterium. This means it has the type of cell walls which are harmless, unlike the cell walls of "gram negative" bacteria, which attack tissue. Therefore, anthrax can only attack tissue by producing a special toxin which it excretes as a waste product. One cell or spore does not produce enough toxin to start an infection. Epidemiologically, anthrax more closely resembles a chemical toxin for humans: it is dose-dependent and not contagious. Fatal human cases show almost no bacteremia at all. Yet for some animals, there is such a heavy bacteremia that it was once supposed that death occurred through capillary blockade.

The reports of office or postal workers "testing positive" for anthrax are totally useless without comparing them to the normal background incidence of either asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria, or antibody positive individuals. A guess would be that there may be 10% of the population that are either carrying the numerous common wild strains, or who have residual antibodies from exposure to any strain of anthrax that occurred sometime during their lives, or from perinatal transmission, or even genetic inheritance. In New York City, for example, at one point, out of 1300 people who had been tested, only 4 people were found to have antibodies to anthrax. Without comparing that ratio to what would be found during normal times, one cannot claim that the immune response to anthrax among those 4 people was the result of exposure from the recent mailings. (Excluding cutaneous cases, of course.)

Increased surveillance in detection of anthrax spores in the environment is also creating something of a paradox. But only because we have no data on the normal presence of stray anthrax bacilli (virulent or not)—a microbe that appears naturally in certain environments. Some anthrax spores detected in very small quantities in "low profile" locations may not necessarily be coming from terrorists. Confirmation that the spores were processed in some fashion—electrostatic charge removed or coated with an anti-caking agent to help them remain suspended in the air—would rule out that they're naturally derived. But non-medical journalists do not know to ask officials such questions.

Among those tested, the few with symptoms (fever, cough, muscle weakness) may really just have the flu or a bad cold. Certainly, that infant with the rash wasn't unusual, particularly if he had recently received routine infant vaccinations. And anthrax wasn't even found at the ABC building where his mother brought him. It was all assumptions: (baby rash) + (network headquarters) = anthrax. The first man that had died came from a farming region where anthrax was common.

But more likely he died from the antibiotics that were administered to him. About a year ago, the NY Times reported that antibiotics could be leading to the deaths of 98,000 Americans each year. A month later, researchers revised that number down to 36,000, partly by eliminating antibody-resistant infections from the total. Nevertheless, fully 10% of our own body weight consists of bacteria. Bacterial cells outnumber total body cells by ten to one. And only about 1% of all known bacterial strains are pathogenic to humans. The other 99% are beneficial to us, and indeed, vital to all life on earth. Therefore, the disruption in the vital equilibrium of normal bacterial colonies in our bodies adversely affects our biochemistry so extensively as to make such estimates impossible to make. Thousands die from the flu alone each year—in actuality, from complications from the anti-catarrhal effects of taking antipyretics and antibiotics to suppress the symptoms.

The disequilibrium may even be the cause of major diseases. The epidemic of Crohn's disease in the last fifty years, for example, started with the introduction of antibiotics, and progressed in parallel with the increase in antibiotic consumption. One hypothesis is that a mutated form of normal bacterial flora morph into genetically super-resistant bacteria under constant selection pressure from antibiotic usage. A British study that tested 3545 subjects showed that the relative risk of developing Crohn's disease was threefold, and 2.5 fold for developing ulcerative colitis, after receiving live measles vaccination (vaccines contain antibiotics and other agents that have a germicidal effect).

Adding to this, is the fact that drug effects are rarely cited as official "cause of death", even when the cause is know to be a drug. And no comprehensive records are kept of medication-related deaths. Doctors and hospitals rarely report such deaths. That was the basis for a major study published in The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), April 14th, 1998. The paper analyzed 39 studies of ADRs (Adverse Drug Reactions) in the United States to estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in hospital patients. The authors estimated that on average, 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced a serious ADR, and 106,000 deaths were caused by ADRs annually in the United States—making these reactions the sixth, and possibly (at most) the fourth leading cause of death. Furthermore, these figures were NOT due to mistakes by doctors in prescribing drugs or by patients in using them.They were solely from the effects of drugs that were properly administered.

Some health officials have been quietly acknowledging that detection methods that would absolutely establish exposure or infection do not exist. No cultural or biochemical characteristics serve to differentiate the pathogenic strain of anthrax from the many non-pathogenic saprophytic sporulating bacilli. And applying multiple antibiotics to a culture—particularly in the absence of immune antibodies in the blood—to see if it stops the growth, is too general and provides insufficient identifying information about the strain of anthrax—only one of which is pathogenic. Therefore, the invitro testing of blood cultures or nasal swabs is unreliable. Other medical technologies used by microbiologists have their own unique limitations. Gene testing—involving the amplification of a molecular signal many thousand times—inevitably introduces quantitation errors, and was never intended to distinguish different strains of bacteria.

Electron photomicrographs have also been somewhat overstated as a diagnostic tool. First, as with stained cultures, what you see is a static picture of the tissue sample while it's being bombarded with billions of electrons in a vaccum—which is obviously in the absence of normal immune system effects. What happened before and after is not observed. Were the cells invaded, or did they eat the virus as food? Also, the long and arduous preparation in making the sample "electron dense" introduces numerous artifacts, to the extent that it's hard to be sure what you started out with. If that's not enough, a computer graphic artist adds colors to the photo-image, because electron microscopes  "see" in black & white only.

Noble Laureate, Kary Mullis, Ph.D., invented the PCR test for retroviruses. In his newly released documentary, "Deconstructing The Myth Of Aids", journalist Gary Null asked Mullis to explain the apparent growing HIV epidemic. Dr. Mullis replied that what we were actually seeing was an "epidemic of HIV testing": In the beginning of the crisis very few tests were given. But as the scope of testing dramatically increased, we started to see more positive results. This was not proof of a growing epidemic.

Likewise, medical surveillance for anthrax toxicity—the symptoms of which merely mimic the flu—increased dramatically in recent weeks. Consequently, and not surprisingly, investigators found a handful of sick people that they attribute to anthrax. In the absence of the anthrax scare, cases with these symptoms would be hardly noticeable. As such, doctors wouldn't have bothered to test them for anthrax, and these cases would have therefore been recorded as an acute cold or flu, and treated with common antipyretics or antibiotics.

WEAPONIZING ANTHRAX
The latest contrivance is that terrorists might weaponize anthrax by drying a slurry and grinding it to particles 1-5 microns in size. (The bacteria are 1 by 3 microns.) The first problem is that the gunk would dry like glue; and after grinding, it would still be glue. Even if it were washed first, the bacteria would be sticky and would dry like glue. The second problem is that bacteria do not tolerate grinding. They are as fragile as egg shells. Grinding is how they are broken apart for biochemical tests. Even if only 1% were broken, the result would be a sticky gum, not a powder; and more like 99% would be broken before getting 5 micron particles.

On eight separate occasions between 1990 and 1993, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo cult tried to spray anthrax and botulinum toxins from trucks and rooftops in Tokyo, and each time it failed. No one was infected, or at least no one died. Main reason: The terrorists had problems developing effective spray nozzles for aerosolizing the agents in the 1 to 5 micron range necessary for them to lodge in the lungs.

The lethality of such airborne attacks depends largely on the size of the particle dispersed. Particles in the 1 to 5 micron diameter deposit efficiently in the lungs, while submicron particles tend to be exhaled. Particles above 5 microns tend to become trapped in the upper respiratory tract, where higher doses are required to start an infection. Those above 20 microns in diameter tend to settle to the ground quickly and, as a result, do not travel far downwind.

Anthrax bugs can also be delivered in the form of liquid slurries. Gastrointestinal anthrax is rapidly fatal in many cases. But experts say reservoirs aren't an attractive target for terrorists, because they'd have to dump large amounts of biological agents to overcome dilution. Also, water supplies are filtered and chlorinated to kill naturally occurring microorganisms, which would neutralize anthrax and other bacteria. In fact, terrorist contamination of water supplies is extremely rare, according to a study of such cases by Jessica E. Stern, author of "Would Terrorists Turn to Poison?"

Aum Shinrikyo is the only example of a terrorist group that tried a biological weapon for mass murder. The cult ended up turning to a chemical—sarin gas—to attack Tokyo subway commuters, killing 12 and hospitalizing about 1,000. In fact, threats or actual use of chemical or biological weapons account for only 52 cases out of more than 8,000 in the RAND Chronology of International Terrorism since 1968. Many are just scares. Wilkening counts more than 120 anthrax hoaxes alone which have been reported in the media nationwide since October 1998.

Biological warfare generally, is a flawed concept. The only route usually considered is airborne, because bombs and missiles create the delivery system. There is no natural disease in existence which is propagated in that manner. Even the airborne diseases require close contact with the source (infected person). The reason is because wind disperses the agents too thinly, and gravity brings them down too rapidly. Increasing the quantities massively will get a few persons, but only a few.

And then, very few of the diseases which are mentioned as biowarfare agents are suitable for airborne dissemination. Brucellosis is not. It is disseminated through body fluids. Plague is not. It is carried by insects from the blood of one animal to another. The insects do not pick it up from the ground. Government scientists even released airborn cholera in the NYC subway system, with no effects. The only way biological warfare agents can be used in a significant manner to create disease is to inject them into the victims.

"CONTROLLED" EXPERIMENTS
And even then, mortalities are not likely caused by the biological agents themselves. Biological pathogens used in serums on test animals, for example, contain toxic preservatives and adjuvants that are injected directly into their bloodstreams—bypassing normal immune system barriers. These injected agents also contain protein growth mediums that supports the pathogenic cultures. In the absence of digestive juices in the bloodstream, they immediately start decomposing and yielding known endotoxins from normal protein putrefaction. Consequently, animals often succumb to blood toxemia or septicemia and die. Their deaths are erroneously attributed to the pathogen being tested.

Volumes have also been written showing that animals make poor medical models for human diseases. Animals also react to drugs, vaccines, and chemicals very differently than humans, and also to other species of animals. Guinea pigs die from penicillin, but they can safely eat strychnine—a deadly poison for humans, but not for monkeys. Aspirin kills cats and sheep can swallow enormous quantities of arsenic. It's the main reason drugs are recalled from the marketplace, but only after a high enough death toll among humans is finally noticed. It all amounts to a waste of human and animal life.

There's also evidence indicating how easily stressed lab animals succumb to illnesses and die, from the poor conditions of their captivity, and the artificial food and environment they're subjected to. All of these additional factors contribute to faulty conclusions about the risk from biological pathogens.

Pathogenicity is also a function of the general state of health of the host, or target group. For example, the U.S. Government Bulletin, Hygienic Laboratory, No. 123, February 1921, is a series of telling experiments that were conducted by U.S. Government doctors to determine the true "contagious" character of "influenza." To achieve their objective, the experimenters subjected great numbers of volunteer Navy personnel to "exposure" by various "known methods of transmission": Ten volunteers were inoculated with secretions from the nose and throat and with blood from typical cases of influenza. Thirty men were inoculated by spray, swab or both of the nose and throat. Ten volunteers were placed close to selected patients who had the flu and were then exposed by being coughed in the face. The exposure continued for thirty minutes. Fifty volunteers were subjected to the same procedure at another location. One hundred were sprayed and dosed with cultures of the most virulent strains of flu possible to obtain and observed for seven days. The results were: "no appreciable reactions".

In nature, under normal conditions, maintaining health depends on keeping the host and the pathogenic microbe in equilibrium. It does not merely involve the total elimination of the latter. Yet it is this simplistic approach that influences conventional medicine today.

Famed bacteriologist, Rene Dubös (inventor of streptomycin; 1968 Pulitzer Prize winner) wrote a great deal on the limitations of the conventional Germ Theory, and the aforementioned artifactual outcomes from laboratory experiments. In his classic, Mirage Of Health (1959), page 89, he wrote:

"The ease and predictability with which Pasteur, Koch, and their followers produced disease at will in experimental animals seem miraculous in view of the difficulties that have so often been encountered in subsequent attempts to produce disease in man. Their success seems incompatible with the course of natural events. The fact of the matter is that Pasteur and Koch did not deal with natural events, but with experimental artifacts. The experimenter does not produce nature in the laboratory. He could not if he tried, for the experiment imposes limiting conditions on nature; its aims are to force nature to give answers to questions devised by man. Every answer from nature is therefore more or less influenced by the kind of questions asked."

"The art of the experimenter is to create models in which he can observe some properties and activities of a factor in which he happens to be interested. Koch and Pasteur wanted to show that microorganisms could cause certain manifestations of disease. Their genius was to devise experimental situations that lent themselves to an unequivocal illustration of their hypothesis—situations in which it was sufficient to bring the host and the parasite together to reproduce the disease. By trial and error, they selected the species of animals, the dose of the infectious agent, and the route of inoculation, which permitted the infection to evolve without fail into progressive disease.

Guinea pigs always develop tuberculosis if tubercle bacilli are injected into them under the proper conditions; introduction of sufficient rabies virus under the dura of dogs always gives rise to paralytic symptoms. Thus, by the skillful selection of experimental systems, Pasteur, Koch, and their followers succeeded in minimizing in their tests the influence of factors that might have obscured the activity of the infectious agents they wanted to study. This experimental approach has been extremely effective for the discovery of agents of disease and for the study of some of their properties. But it has led by necessity to the neglect, and indeed has often delayed the recognition, of the many other factors that play a part in the causation of disease under conditions prevailing in the natural world—for example, the physiological status of the infected individual and the impact of the environment in which he lives."

THE BIAS
Since allopathic trained people run the health bureaucracies, every inflammatory (catarrhal) symptom of bodily elimination is assumed to be an infectious disease. All evidence of malnourishment, toxemia, or a toxicological agent is dismissed in favor of a microbiological agent—which are plentiful and are readily available candidates to blame. For the public health investigator, obscurity comes with the former. But the latter will accompany research grants, a published article in a leading journal, medical awards, recognition and prestige, and profits from patentable test kits, treatments or vaccines. And of course, blaming a microbial agent for a disease will always engender importance to the institutions of infectious disease, and make the public feel dependant upon their expertise, products and services.

The appendix contains a list of this historic bias, and the tragic consequences of it.

THE "PROBLEM" FOR THE BIOLOGISTS:
While anthrax spores are resistant to heat and dryness, they're no match for rain. A downpour would wash most of them out of the air, where they'd become relatively harmless. Also, humidity and ultraviolet light decay the bugs. So does oxygen. Anthrax and botulinum spores multiply only in the absence of oxygen.

All these problems and more ranks anthrax and other biological agents as very poor battlefield weapons. Uncontrolled variables as wind direction, lengthy duration between infection and death, and all the rest makes biologicals much more inferior as weapons than are chemical agents, which can at least kill immediately and are more resilient to weather and decompose more slowly. It is therefore rank stupidity to subject soldiers heading to the battlefield with the debilitating and crippling effects of vaccines for small pox, or anti-toxins for botulism, anthrax, and all the rest. Those who can make onto the battlefield after all that are not left in optimum health to deal with the rigors of fighting in a war.

Another aspect beyond normal biodegradability, is the "problem" of bacterial Pleomorphism. Rod-shaped anthrax bacillus, for example, can literally transform into the spherical coccus from exposure to ultraviolet light. Pleomorphism refers to the transformation of one distinct strain of bacteria into other strains within a single life cycle. For example, the virulent tubercle bacillus could be made to degenerate into harmless non "acid-fast" cocci, and then into "diphtheroid" coccobacilli, just by altering their food or environment. This bacteriological phenomenon was observed throughout history by the noted microbiologists Antone Bechamp, Altman, Cohn, DeBarry, Dienkowski, Fremy, Galippe, Lankester, Koch, Kurth, Manwaring, Nagelli, Portier, Rosenow, Serval, Zops, Metchnikoff, J.Tissot, Raymond Rife, and currently, Gaston Nessons.

Since all strains of bacteria can potentially share all bacterial genes, then strictly speaking, there are no fixed species in the bacterial world. According to Canadian bacteriologists, Sorin Sonea and Maurice Panisset (The New Bacteriology. Boston:Jones & Bartlett, 1983), all bacteria are one organism, one entity capable of genetic engineering themselves on a planetary scale.

Obviously, fixed species of bacteria is the central part of the biomedical model of specific etiology of disease (classifying a specific germ as the singular causative agent of a specific disease). Stability of the strain is also essential for it is to be effective bio weapon. But Pleomorphism implies that conventional infectious disease theory is based upon a faulty construct. Indeed, highly processed and concentrated biological pathogens aside, in the natural environment, the prior state of health of the host will usually determine the virulence of any natural
exposure.

The threat of biowarfare is exaggerated through a combination of ignorance, propaganda, and inordinate fears of infectious disease. Researchers, who should know better and often do, are getting paid to produce the agents, so they don't admit the futility of it. People without medical backgrounds cannot realistically evaluate the claims. Recently, some biowarfare experts have been candid about the low level of threat that anthrax poses. However, CDC and other health officials have grossly overstated the threat. They want the public to be frightened enough of microbial pathogens to: (1) acquiesce to increased public funding for basic medical research, treatments and prophylactics, (2) value the role of infectious disease "experts" and elevate their status in society, and (3) validate the disease paradigm—germ=disease; drug=cure; vaccine=prevention—into which the medical profession has invested so much in, and relies upon to sustain public perception of their importance. A fearful public dependant on medical salvation is what sustains the biomedical complex. In the distant past, it sustained religious institutions.

The terrorists had to have planned the anthrax mailings prior to September 11th. They knew that targeting the major news outlets would have the maximum media effect, regardless of the actual ineffectiveness of anthrax to kill many people. So, while federal agents are busy sorting through the mails, they can load rental trucks full of explosives, with perhaps radioactive waste. If Westsiders complain about available parking near Zabars today, tomorrow they might find their streets empty for the next 2000 years.

POSTSCRIPT:

The NY Times of Wednesday, October 30, 2002 carried an article by Dr.Lawrence K Altman, MD on the follow up study of the Center for Disease Control on last year's anthrax scare in news media offices, the US Senate and the Postal Service. The study found that 56% of personnel advised to take a regimen of antibiotics to prevent the consequences of exposure to inhalation Anthrax, did NOT complete the full course of therapy advised. Despite this, no cases of anthrax had developed, including some people who took absolutely no medication.

Federal Health officials recommended 60 days of antobiotic therapy to over 9,300 workers exposed to anthrax spores in 4 states and Washington, DC. Of these, 6,178 participated in the study. The group that did not take any antibiotics was 13%, or 787. They didn't even fill the original prescription for the antibiotic. Moreover, the study did not include people who were told to stop taking antibiotics after laboratory tests determined they had NOT been exposed to anthrax, The irony is that the conclusion drawn by public health officials was that there must be "improved compliance" in the future. "It undercored the importance of communicating risks to individuals and of counselling them." Instead, genuine scientists would have understood that a controlled experiment had just taken place, and should have allowed for the hypothesis that the antibiotic therapy has no efficacy.

[In December 2002, Dr. Anthony Fauci of HHS maintained that prophylactic antibiotic therapy was what stemmed any outbreaks of anthrax symptoms during the anonymous anthrax mailings. But he cited no studies to support
that contention.]

APPENDIX:

Thousands of lives have been sacrificed due to the bias in favor infectious disease theory. The following are some examples:

—Scurvy was thought to be a microbial disease in the 19th Century, before it was found to be a Vitamin C deficiency.
—The high mortality of the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-19 was thought to be a contagious disease. Dr. Roger Cunningham isolated the gene fragment, hemophilus Influenza from secretions the sick. Instead of being contagious, this microbe is a normal inhabitant of our upper respiratory tract that flourishes after we get ill; not before.
—The U.S. Public Health Service insisted for over 10 years in the 1920s that pellagra was infectious, rather than a vitamin B deficiency as had been proposed by Joseph Goldberger (Bailey, 1968).
—Tertiary syphilis is commonly blamed on treponemes, but is probably due to a combination of treponemes and long-term mercury and arsenic treatments used prior to penicillin, or merely to these treatments alone
(Brandt, 1988; Fry, 1989).
—"Unconventional" viruses were blamed for neurological diseases like Kreutzfeld-Jacob's disease, Alzheimer's disease and kuru (Gajdusek, 1977). The now extinct kuru was probably a genetic disorder that affected just one tribe of natives from New Guinea (Duesberg and Schwartz, 1992). Although a Nobel Prize was given for this theory, the viruses never materialized and an unconventional protein, termed "prion," is now blamed for some of these diseases (Evans, 1989c; Duesberg and Schwartz, 1992).

—Shortly after this incident, a virus was also blamed for a fatal epidemic—the SMON epidemic—of neuropathy, including blinding, that started in the 1960s in Japan, but it turned out later to be caused by the prescription drug clioquinol (Enterovioform, Ciba-Geigy) (Kono, 1975; Shigematsu et al., 1975).

—In 1976 the CDC blamed an outbreak of pneumonia at a convention of Legionnaires on a "new" microbe, without giving consideration to toxins. Since the "Legionnaire's disease" did not spread after the convention and the "Legionnaires bacillus" proved to be ubiquitous, it was later concluded that "CDC epidemiologists must in the future take toxins into account from the start" (Culliton, 1976). The Legionnaire's disease fiasco is in fact the probable reason that the CDC initially took toxins into account as the cause of AIDS (Oppenheimer; 1992)."
—"The pursuit of harmless viruses as causes of human cancer, supported since 1971 by the Virus-Cancer Program of the National Cancer Institute's War On Cancer, was also inspired by indiscouragable faith in the germ theory (Greenberg, 1986; Duesberg, 1987; Shorter, 1987; Anderson, '99'; Editorial, '99'; Duesberg and Schwartz, 1992).
—For example, it was claimed in the 1960s that the rare Burkitt's lymphoma was caused by the ubiquitous Epstein-Barr virus, 15 years after infection (Evans, 1989c). But the lymphoma is now accepted to be non-viral and attributed to a chromosome rearrangement (Duesberg and Schwartz, 1992).
—Further, it was claimed that noncontagious cervical cancer is caused by the widespread herpes virus in the 1970s, and by the widespread papilloma virus in the 1980s—but in each case cancer would occur only 30 to 40 years after infection (Evans, 1989c). Noninfectious causes like chromosome abnormalities, possibly induced by smoking, have since been considered or reconsidered (Duesberg and Schwartz, 1992).
—In addition, Ubiquitous hepatitis virus was proposed in the 1960s to cause regional adult hepatomas 50 years (!) after infection (Evans, 1989c). In the 1980s the rare, but widely distributed, human retrovirus HTLV-I was claimed to cause regional adult T-cell leukemias (Blattner, 1990). Yet the leukemias would only appear at advanced age, after "latent periods" of up to 55 years, the age when these "adult" leukemias appear spontaneously (Evans, 1989c; Blattner; 1990; Duesberg and Schwartz, 1992).

 

Date:  Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:08:10 -0800

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1182299.html
Anthrax Vaccine May Have Been Thrown Overboard, Vets Say
Mike Wendling, London Bureau Chief

London (CNSNews.com) - A veterans' organization says a stockpile of anthrax vaccine found on a British beach may have been thrown overboard deliberately by sailors deploying to the Persian Gulf. Jim Moore, a spokesman for the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association (NGVFA), said Thursday his organization has no conclusive proof that the vaccine vials that washed up in Dorset, southern England, were thrown overboard. But Moore noted that the circumstances surrounding the vaccine find are suspicious.

"For anything to be accidentally washed overboard on an aircraft carrier is highly unusual," he said. "This gives us cause for concern and there are a lot of questions that need to be asked." The organization said it has heard anecdotal evidence of mistiming of vaccines from current service personnel. The NGVFA believes that improperly administered vaccines might be one of the causes behind "Gulf War Syndrome," a mysterious collection of symptoms that is thought to afflict 5,000 vets in Britain and 20,000 in the United States.

"People say you accept the risks when you sign up to join the forces," Moore said. "That's true, but the risk you accept is one of an enemy bullet or a landmine." "You don't accept the risk of being a guinea pig for a vaccine," he said. "All the same mistakes made in the Gulf War are being made again." Earlier this week, U.K. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon announced that about 26,000 additional service personnel, or about a quarter of Britain's armed forces, would be deploying to the Middle East in anticipation of possible military action against Iraq.

Those numbers come on top of 5,000 British troops already dispatched to the region. A Ministry of Defense spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that an internal investigation into the vaccine find was underway. "We wouldn't like to speculate on where the vaccine might have come from at this stage," she said. "There has been a large amount of speculation in the press and this isn't helpful. The investigation will uncover the source of the vaccine."

The spokeswoman said that "hundreds, possibly thousands" of doses were found on the beach in Dorset, southern England. "Clean up is being handled by local fire fighters," she said. "The vaccine poses no health risks to the public, as there is no live anthrax contained within the vaccine." The spokeswoman said the vials containing the vaccine were numbered and that the MoD would eventually be able to trace the vaccine to a particular ship.

  © Copyright 2002, Crosswalk.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use.
  A proud member of the Salem Web Network, a division of Salem
Communications Corporation 
 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-26-bank-usat_x.htm

Some troops freeze sperm before deploying By Valerie Alvord,

 special for USA TODAY SAN DIEGO

 
Fear of vaccines and chemical and biological agents has some servicemen freezing their sperm before they ship out. Atwell says he was warned of the risks of infertility by a buddy in his unit who said "he had become sterile after a previous deployment and an anthrax vaccination."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2638125.stm

Wednesday, 8 January, 2003, 10:02 GMT
Troops fears over anthrax vaccine Soldiers at Army Infantry Training School, north Yorkshire  Troops will not be forced to have vaccines, say ministers Troops being sent to the gulf ahead of a possible war with Iraq have expressed concern about the safety of anthrax vaccines they are being given.

The Gulf War Veterans and Families Association says it has been inundated with enquiries from servicemen worried about the possible side-effects of the vaccine. The group said it had also heard from troops who said they had become ill after receiving the jab.  Individuals who have contacted our helpline have said they are feeling ill and their mates are feeling ill

Tony Flint, GWVFA However, ministers have insisted the vaccine is safe and that no one will be forced to have it against their will. Tony Flint of the GWVFA said its telephone helpline had received many calls in recent weeks from concerned troops. The GWVFA represents thousands of servicemen who believe their health suffered after they were given a cocktail of vaccinations in the 1991 Gulf War.

Worried

Mr Flint told the BBC: "Regular servicemen have been phoning us worried about the vaccine, asking for our advice, because they know, like we know, the vaccines are a major cause of our illnesses. "From what we have learnt so far, members of the Parachute Regiment have already had the anthrax vaccine and they are reporting to us that they are getting side-effects. "Individuals who have contacted our helpline have said they are feeling ill and their mates are feeling ill."  
 
  I can assure you the vaccine is safe

Dr Lewis Moonie, Defence Minister Mr Flint raised concern over the tests carried out on the vaccines before
they were given. "The British haven't done any real test work on it all," he claimed.  "All our evidence comes from the States and from their evidence, 30% of those that receive the vaccine become ill and six have died."

Joyce Riley, of the American Gulf War Association, also expressed concern.

"My concern about the anthrax vaccine is that it has been proven to be unsafe. It is not a tested vaccine. "What we are seeing from those who have been given the vaccine is usually something to do with blackouts, with seizures and motor problems. "We are finding that these people become affected by skin lesions, they develop sores and problems that just never go away."

Vaccine 'is safe'

But defence minister Lewis Moonie insisted that the vaccine is safe.

He told the BBC: "I can assure you that it has been given to many, many people over a long period of time and there has never been a case of serious side-effects. Not one case. "Of course it's been tested. It is not widely tested, because anthrax is not a common disease, but it is given very widely.  "I can assure you the vaccine is safe. It has side-effects - all vaccines like this do.

"You may get soreness at the site of injection and you may get a flu-like illness after it. But there are no serious complications." Dr Moonie added: "It is being offered to people who may be going into a theatre where they may be exposed to it. "It's being offered to them on a voluntary basis and nobody is compelled to have it." Troops were given large amounts of information about vaccines they were offered and were able to discuss any concerns with medical officers, he said.
 

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/news/1945929/detail.html
Marine Faces Court Martial For Refusing Anthrax Vaccine
Fusco Says Internet Leads Him To Believe Vaccine Isn't Safe

POSTED: 9:32 a.m. PST January 30, 2003
UPDATED: 10:02 a.m. PST January 30, 2003

SAN DIEGO -- A Camp Pendleton-based Marine faces court martial and possible prison time for refusing to be vaccinated against anthrax, it was reported Thursday. Cpl. Anthony Fusco, a Santa Clarita native, was charged this month with disobeying a lawful order and probably will be court-martialed in February, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Fusco, 22, a switchboard operator, told the newspaper he believes the vaccine isn't safe, based on his Internet research.  "They haven't really done any studies on long-term side effects," Fusco told the Union-Tribune. "I believe it's your own body. It's your own right to put something in your body."

Fusco told the newspaper that he fears the vaccine might cause auto-immune diseases and birth defects when he and his wife decide to have children. Fusco is the only member of the 45,000-strong 1st Marine Expeditionary Force charged with refusing the vaccination since the military resumed the program last fall, 1st Lt. Dan Rawson, a Camp Pendleton spokesman, told the Union-Tribune.

All members of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton and Miramar Marine Corps Air Station are expected to get the shot if they are likely to be deployed on combat-related service. Fusco is accused of the same offense for which at least 37 service members were convicted when they refused inoculations in the late 1990s.
If convicted, Fusco could face a year in a military prison and a bad-conduct discharge.

 

Marine charged after refusing anthrax shot

Prison, bad-conduct discharge possible

By Jeanette Steele
STAFF WRITER
San Diego Union-Tribune

January 30, 2003
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/metro/news_1mc30anthrax.html


CAMP PENDLETON – Cpl. Anthony Fusco has become the first San Diego County-based Marine to face court-martial for refusing the anthrax vaccination since the military resumed the controversial program last fall. Fusco, a switchboard operator, said he believes the vaccine isn't safe, based on his Internet research. "They haven't really done any studies on long-term side effects," Fusco, 22, said in an interview. "I believe it's your own body. It's your own
right to put something in your body." Fusco, a Santa Clarita native, was charged this month with disobeying a
lawful order and probably will go to a special court-martial in February, he said. If convicted, his maximum sentence would be a year in military prison and a bad-conduct discharge.

Fusco is the only member of the 45,000-person 1st Marine Expeditionary Force charged with refusing since the vaccinations resumed, said 1st Lt. Dan Rawson, a Camp Pendleton spokesman. For the military community, it is an old debate coming to the forefront again. Fusco is accused of the same offense that at least 37 service members were convicted of when they refused inoculations in the late 1990s. The Pentagon largely suspended its anthrax vaccination program in 2001 because of low supply from troubled manufacturer BioPort Corp. of Michigan.

With a potential war against Iraq, the Marines in September began inoculating troops bound for the Middle East and Southwest Asia. All members of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton and Miramar Marine Corps Air Station are expected to get the shot if they might deploy. The anthrax bacterium can be deadly, especially when inhaled. Spores enter the lungs and migrate to lymph nodes, where they produce lethal toxins that destroy vital organs. Five Americans died in late 2001 when anthrax-laced letters circulated through the postal system. Rawson said the Marine Corps has tried to educate troops about the safety of the vaccine – the same version given to service members in the late 1990s.

"Whenever a Marine thinks about refusing the anthrax vaccine, that refusal is thought to be a misunderstanding of the purpose and efficacy of the vaccination," he said. "The Marine is given multiple opportunities to sit down one on one with a number of individuals in the chain of command and learn and have his questions answered. If that fails, charges can be brought." Fusco said he fears the vaccine might cause autoimmune diseases and birth defects when he and his wife decide to have children.

He studied a Web site called www.majorbates.com, which is a collection of articles and documents about the vaccine. The site is run by retired Air Force reservist Lt. Col. John Richardson, who launched it in 2000 after fruitless attempts to get the military to change its mandatory vaccine policy. Richardson disputes the military's claims of the vaccine's safety. "Objective information makes me believe it's not safe," he said yesterday. "I've talked to victims."

Fusco, who joined the Marine Corps in 1999 during the height of the earlier courts-martial, said he had never heard of the controversy until he was offered the shot, if he wanted it, while stationed in Japan later that year. He declined. In December, he was ordered to be inoculated when his 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit was scheduled for a six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf in June. He refused. Fusco said he was removed from his unit and initially was offered nonjudicial punishment, which he intended to accept to avoid a negative discharge. With hopes of becoming a police officer, he worries that a bad-conduct discharge could hurt his chances. Then his superiors told him the deal was off, Fusco said. Now he has been told he faces a special court-martial, the second-highest kind of military trial.

Fusco said he still hopes for a less-severe general discharge. But if he doesn't get it, he won't be sorry. "Even if it's hard for me, I'll do my own business or something," Fusco said. "I'll make it. "I still don't hate the Marine Corps. I just think what they are doing is very wrong."

Jeanette Steele: (760) 476-8244; jen.steele@uniontrib.com
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

====================================================

Two show 'significant adverse effects' to vaccine


By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, January 30, 2003

http://www.stripes.osd.mil/article.asp?section=104&article=12226&archive=true

WASHINGTON — Two military members recently showed “significant adverse effects” to the smallpox vaccine, though the symptoms are not life-threatening, defense officials said. One of the two patients began showing the adverse signs over the weekend and the other on Tuesday, Army Lt. Col. John Grabenstein, deputy director for military vaccines, said Wednesday during a health conference.

Because the two cases are being reviewed, he declined to provide information such as the patients’ sexes, ages, whether they are deployed overseas or serving in the United States, active duty or guard or reserve, or give a general description of the side effects and what type of medical treatment the two are receiving. However, once their case reviews are complete, which should occur within the next few days, Grabenstein said mu ch of that kind of information would be made public, to include being posted on the Defense Department’s official smallpox Web site: www.smallpox.army.mil .

“We want the whole story correct the first time,” he said.

Since President Bush ordered on Dec. 13 a mandatory smallpox vaccination program that eventually will tap roughly 500,000 troops, about 3 percent of those vaccinated have lost one or more days at work or reported side effects such as fever or malaise, Grabenstein said. There have been no reported deaths. To date, roughly 3,000 military health-care workers have gotten the vaccine. The number in the operational force is not releasable to the public, he said. However, both the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are updated weekly on the number and health status of vaccinated troops.

Targeted troops include those on emergency response teams, troops deployed to the front battle lines, and those living in high-risk areas of the globe. For security reasons, the high-risk areas are not being publicly identified.  It has been reported that troops deployed to the Middle East region have been vaccinated. Side effects from the vaccine range from flulike symptoms to, in extreme cases, death. Experts have estimated that one to four people out of every million vaccinated could die from the vaccine. In the past, about 1 in 1,000 vaccinated people experienced reactions that were serious, but not life-threatening, according to the Web site. Most reactions involved the spread of vaccine virus elsewhere on the body.

The vaccine is made from a live virus, and if the inoculation site is touched, and people touch another part of their body, it can spread. Historically, roughly 30 percent of those exposed to the disease die. And while the program is mandatory, some servicemembers with health conditions will be exempt, including those with compromised immune systems (such as those who are HIV positive), skin conditions like eczema, cancer patients, and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Servicemembers who are HIV positive can still serve; however, they are not
deployable.

 

About 209,000 Gulf War veterans have filed claims with the Veterans Administration, and 161,000 of them are receiving disability payments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/health/06NERV.html

Drug Tested in Gulf War Is Approved for Troops
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.


The Food and Drug Administration gave final approval yesterday to a drug used to help protect troops against one type of nerve gas that might be used in any war with Iraq. The drug, pyridostigmine bromide, was used, on an experimental basis, in the Persian Gulf war in 1991, and some groups argued that it could have been a cause of gulf war syndrome. The syndrome is vaguely defined, but veterans complained of fatigue, rashes, headaches, muscle pains and memory loss.

But an F.D.A. spokesman said several postwar studies "all assert that you can't attribute any aspects of gulf war syndrome to this drug." Much higher doses of the drug are used to treat myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disease, the spokesman, Dr. Robert Temple, said, adding that the drug does not pass the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain. It was approved for myasthenia gravis in 1955.

At the front, pyridostigmine bromide is taken in tablets three times a day by troops in danger of being exposed to soman nerve gas. Soman is one of several nerve gases that kill by paralyzing the breathing muscles. The drug does not protect against sarin, a better-known, slower-acting gas in the same family.

The pills protect the periphery of the body. If troops are exposed to gas, they must immediately stop using them and inject themselves with atropine and pralidoxime, drugs that can reach the central nervous system and that already have F.D.A. approval. Troops are also supposed to wear gas masks and chemical protection suits. In the gulf war, pyridostigmine bromide was considered an investigational drug. Yesterday's agency approval was based on tests in guinea pigs and monkeys. The drug cannot ethically be studied in humans because they would have to be exposed to nerve gas.

F.D.A. rules issued last June allow for approval of drugs for humans based on their effectiveness in animals when it is not feasible to do human tests, Dr. Temple said.  Because of the possibility of war with Iraq, "there was interest in having the drug approved," he said. Dr. Mark B. McClellan, the F.D.A. commissioner, said the approval would "help protect American troops and others from nerve agent attacks."
 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030208-
9999_7m8kuwait.html
2 Marines who balked at vaccine deployed

Both go to Kuwait, face penalty later

By Jeanette Steele
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 8, 2003

Two Marines who refused the military's mandatory anthrax vaccination are among thousands of Camp Pendleton-based troops deployed to Kuwait, according to officials.  The 1st Marine Division is deferring punishment and will allow them to serve in "duties that will not . . . unduly jeopardize them or their fellow Marines," said 1st Marine Division spokesman 2nd Lt. Eric Knapp.  There are no plans to court-martial them while in Kuwait, he said. That departs from previous Marine actions on anthrax refusal, which  involved removal from deployment status and quick punishment.

It's unclear whether the two Marines have been charged, but in past years the Marine Corps has court-martialed others who refused the controversial vaccination. At least 37 service members were tried for refusing the vaccine when it was first mandated in the late 1990s. Another Pendleton Marine, Cpl. Anthony Fusco, currently faces court- martial for the same offense, which is disobeying a lawful order. The Marines said preparation for a possible war and a commander's judgment influence punishment decisions. The division commander is Maj. Gen. James Mattis, who led the Marine forces into Afghanistan in late 2001.

"Although swift disposition of disciplinary proceedings is preferable in most instances, it is not unusual for operational commitments to delay such proceedings, especially when . . . related to real-world contingencies," Knapp said. A Marine spokesman at the Pentagon said the two will face punishment later. "All Marines who continue to refuse the anthrax vaccination will be held accountable . . . for disobeying orders, eventually," said Lt. Col. Stephen Kay, a Marine headquarters public affairs officer.  One of the Marines is Lance Cpl. Kevin Lotz, a 21-year-old machine gunner stationed at the Twentynine Palms Marine base. His division is headquartered at Camp Pendleton. The other Marine's name wasn't available.

Lotz's mother, Kathleen Lotz of Arcata, said she's disappointed the Marines would punish him after he serves in a potential combat zone. "I can't believe they would put a Marine on the front lines, fighting a war and risking his life every day, then bring him home only to court-martial him and give him a bad conduct discharge," Lotz said. "All I can do as a mother is pray for his safety while in Iraq and trust in the history of honor the Marine Corps has."  By refusing the vaccinations, the two men put themselves at greater risk in an anthrax attack, Marine officials said. Anthrax is a deadly bacteria that the White House has said Saddam Hussein possesses and may use against U.S. troops.

"They have been ordered to take the vaccine and counseled about the necessity for protecting their bodies from the dangers of anthrax,"Knapp said. "We expect them to take the vaccine and fulfill their enlistment oath." All other division Marines have been vaccinated, he said.
Jeanette Steele: (760) 476-8244; jen.steele@uniontrib.com

 

http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=71872003

Sun 19 Jan 2003
Troops fear jab more than germ war

JASON ALLARDYCE

MORE than half of all British troops will go to war in Iraq without anthrax vaccinations because they fear the side-effects on their health more than the risk of germ warfare, Scotland on Sunday can reveal. Thousands of members of the Royal Navy, army and Royal Air Force have rejected the MoD’s strong recommendation that they accept jabs to protect against chemical and biological attacks.

If war breaks out, the majority of forces personnel who would fight in the Gulf would do so without protection against an anthrax attack. Their decision - which comes as Britain prepares to deploy a further 14,000 soldiers to the Gulf tomorrow - will acutely embarrass ministers because it suggests soldiers, pilots and sailors do not believe government assurances that the vaccine is safe.

Last night, opposition politicians accused the government of mishandling its vaccines policy and jeopardising the lives of servicemen and women. Within the Navy, which is central to Britain’s military build-up in the region, the refusal rate is as high as 72%, the MoD has confirmed. Over half of RAF personnel and a quarter of Army have also rejected the  MoD’s medical advice. The government is desperate to minimise British casualties in another war against Saddam Hussein.

Concern about vaccination has been growing within the armed forces as a result of publicity about the plight of Gulf War veterans. The government still refuses to officially recognise Gulf War Syndrome, despite claims by veterans that 500 have died and over 5,000 may be suffering from the syndrome, which they blame on being inoculated against biological weapons.  A recent industrial tribunal ruling accepted a link between the anthrax vaccine given to a 32-year-old Scottish soldier in 1991 and his osteoporosis and depression, which he blames for the break-up of his marriage.

The symptoms experienced by former Army Royal Engineer Alex Izett could not be blamed on anything he witnessed or experienced in the Gulf because, although he was on standby for service, he was not sent there. Within a few years of his vaccination, Izett developed stomach ulcerations, depression, brittle bones and violent mood swings which led to him striking his wife.

He told Scotland on Sunday: "I asked at the time what was in the vaccines and I was told, ‘You don’t need to know.’ I trusted them. I didn’t think my government would do anything that would harm me. "Later I became withdrawn and aggressive to the point that even a fly on the wall would annoy me. I have no trust in the British government. They have taken away everything I ever had: my livelihood, my marriage and my health, and yet they have still not learned from their mistakes because they are still administering these vaccines."

Similar concerns in the US, where anthrax vaccinations are mandatory, have led to an exodus by highly trained and experienced pilots from the services to avoid the vaccine. Opposition politicians and veterans campaigners voiced grave concerns about the British vaccination programme. Tory defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin said: "People obviously feel that Gulf War Syndrome is far worse than anything they are going to get from the enemy. The government has completely failed to build confidence in their vaccination advice ."

The MoD confirmed that its medical officers currently recommend strongly that all personnel receive anthrax vaccinations, which the government insists are safe. The ministry refused to rule out mandatory jabs in future. An MoD spokeswoman said: "We think it is safe, but like any other medicines there are side effects. There is no evidence of long-term effects. We want those serving in the Gulf region to have access to the very highest level of protection available." But Maria Rusling, who manages the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said she sympathised with the servicemen and women who had turned down the vaccines.

"The government has not learned from its mistakes. They must prove that this vaccine is safe and I don’t believe they have," she said. In response to the high refusal rate among military personnel, Rusling claims some in the service have been warned that ignoring the MoD’s advice to accept jabs could jeopardise their career prospects although this is denied by the Ministry. Tony Blair is expected to announce tomorrow that over 14,000 British soldiers and at least 150 Challenger II battle tanks will be sent to the Gulf to prepare for war as he steps up the pressure on Iraq. That will take Britain’s military presence in the region to around 25,000 personnel as the UN continues to scour the Gulf for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

jallardyce@scotlandonsunday.com

 

Troops are offered a vaccine to protect against anthrax

More than half of British service people heading to the Gulf have refused a voluntary Anthrax vaccination, the Liberal Democrats have revealed. Defence spokesman Paul Keetch MP said that of the 16,538 service personnel offered the jabs only 8,103 accepted. That was despite the fact the government believes Anthrax poses a "real threat to our armed forces", according to Defence Minister Lewis Moonie. He said that there were "no reservations" over recommending the injection but it would still remain voluntary "in accordance with long-standing medical practice". But that prompted Mr Keetch to accuse the government of failing to show leadership over the vaccines.

"By making immunisation voluntary, the Government has sown confusion among service personnel.
"Soldiers are being asked to judge for themselves the possibility of anthrax infection in the Gulf. If the vaccine is safe and the threat real, why pass the buck to our troops to decide? "The government is exhibiting a real lack of leadership at a time when the public expects clarity about the risks, and indeed the necessity, of war."

'No waiver'

Mr Keetch's comments come just days after the government rejected suggestions troops were being asked to sign waivers to say they will not claim compensation if they become ill after having vaccinations. There had been reports that soldiers preparing to go to the Gulf were being asked to sign the waiver when they were given jabs, including the anthrax vaccine. The wife of an RAF solider from Bury St Edmunds, wrote to the Daily Telegraph to say her husband, who is about to leave for the Gulf, had been asked to sign a waiver when he was offered vaccinations. She wrote: "He was told, if he wanted to have these jabs, he had to sign a disclaimer saying that, if he had illness in the future, he couldn't claim compensation."

The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association said earlier in the week that it had been contacted by a female member of 16 Air Assault Brigade who said she had been asked to sign a waiver. It has also expressed concerns over the safety of the vaccine. Shaun Ruisling, chairman of the association, said: "These are great concerns. "It seems to be the case that soldiers are damned if they do have the vaccine and damned if they don't." 'Opposite'

But Mr Moonie told the BBC that soldiers were "categorically not" being asked to sign waivers. "They are not being asked to sign. "When someone refuses a vaccination, not when they take one, a record is kept - signed by the doctor and the person - to say they understand they have been offered the vaccination and they have refused to do it. "So it's the exact opposite of what's being said."

Dr Moonie said the Ministry of Defence had very good public health reasons for wanting its troops to take all the vaccinations on offer, including anthrax. He said they were told they should have the vaccines, but it was still voluntary. He said it was safe and had been given for many years without any cases of serious side effects being noted. However, he admitted that full immunisation took about six months, but there was some immediate protection from the jab.
 

Listen to this  <http://www.abc.net.au/am/2003/02/13/20030213am05.asx story
[Requires Microsoft Media  <http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp
Player]

This is a transcript of AM broadcast at 08:00 AEST on local radio.

Gulf War veterans health study to be released

AM - Thursday, February  13, 2003 8:14

LINDA MOTTRAM: The Federal Government is this morning rejecting claims that it's deliberately withholding the first comprehensive study into the health of Australia's veterans from the 1991 Gulf War. The study has taken three years to complete and it is currently, as they say, "at the printers", according to government sources, due for release next week.

Jo Mazzocchi reports.

JO MAZZOCCHI: Public confusion over the anthrax vaccine is fast reaching new levels of anxiety.

This caller to Perth Radio's 6PR identified herself as Delma, the mother of a serving sailor who had refused an anthrax injection on the grounds it may lead to infertility.

DELMA: She just said she'd refused the anthrax injection.

The only information they sort of gleaned was it can cause infertility, possibly other things, they're not quite sure. So she refused to have it, she's a young girl.

JO MAZZOCCHI: And in Darwin, Leslie Bullard is angry that his son, on board HMAS Darwin, wasn't warned before he left Australia that he'd been vaccinated against anthrax.

He's now emailed his son, advising him not to have any more anthrax injections.

LESLIE BULLARD: I want my son to partake in the operations over there should we need to go to battle, but I don't want him dead before he does go to battle.

JO MAZZOCCHI: It's a public relations nightmare but Australian defence authorities insist there is no cause for concern because the vaccine is both safe and effective.

But families and loved ones of serving defence personnel say that is a claim that should be proved.
Philip Steele is the chairman of the Gulf War Veterans and Peacekeepers Association.

PHILIP STEELE: Well, they would have love to, or liked to have heard it from the Department of Defence before hearing it in the media.

And they say that one side effect of the injections is possibly that women, and men for that matter, will become sterile, but I don't think there is anything proven and that's what the Government needs to do, come out and
say, here is a study into anthrax, it's safe, that type of thing.

JO MAZZOCCHI: The debate over the anthrax vaccine coincidentally comes at a time when the first ever study into the health problems of Australia's Gulf War veterans has just been completed. The study, commissioned by the Federal Government, has been carried out by Monash University and it shows that Gulf War veterans are at a greater risk of developing psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress, depression and greater substance abuse.

It is believed the report shows there are no findings that Gulf War veterans are at increased risk of any unique disorder, in other words, Gulf War Syndrome. AM also understands the report examined anthrax and other related vaccinations but the findings are inconclusive because a lot of veterans simply couldn't recall what injections they'd received. According to Labor's Federal Member for Cowan in Western Australia, Graham Edwards, himself a Vietnam veteran, the report should be released immediately.

GRAHAM EDWARDS: We know it's gone to the minister and we know that she's sitting on it. It's a disgrace and she should have released it before those troops were deployed. If she's now telling the people of Australia that it's at the printers, then she's now contradicted herself in a serious way.

JO MAZZOCCHI: The Minister, Danna Vale, declined to be interviewed. A spokeswoman from her office told AM the report was always scheduled to be released shortly, but as is usual practice, it must first be examined by an independent scientific advisory committee.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Jo Mazzocchi reporting.

 

The government's propaganda on Anthrax vaccination would have warmed the cockles of Joseph Goebbels's heart (if he had one, that is). They have played right into the hands of the anti-choice lobby by sneaking Anthrax aboard our ships just before they departed and springing them, unannounced, on unsuspecting service personnel. That there have been objections to this tactic is not surprising. Though the armed services train people to obey orders, they do not teach them to stop thinking and any thinking person who can read and write would be able to access much medical information on the dangers of this vaccine.

For instance, the following is a partial list of adverse reactions from the package insert of the American Vaccine (being used on Australian Troops), BioThrax. "cellulitis, cysts, pemphigus vulgaris, endocarditis, sepsis, angioedema and other hypersensitivity reactions, asthma, aplastic anemia, neutropenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, lymphoma, leukemia, collagen vascular disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, polyarteritis nodosa, inflammatory arthritis, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, immune deficiency, seizure, mental status changes, psychiatric disorders, tremors, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), facial palsy, hearing and visual disorders, aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, syncope, glomerulonephritis, renal failure, spontaneous abortion and liver abscess. Infrequent reports were also received of multisystem disorders defined as chronic symptoms involving at least two of the following three categories: fatigue, mood-cognition, musculoskeletal system.Reports of fatalities included sudden cardiac arrest (2), myocardial infarction with polyarteritis nodosa (1), aplastic anemia (1), suicide (1) and central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (1). Now Mr. Editor, I challenge you - if you were to be offered a vaccine listing these as side effects, would you be the first to roll up your sleeve?
Meryl W Dorey
National President
The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.
PO Box 177
Bangalow NSW 2479
02 6687 1699 - 0414 872 032
www.avn.org.au

 

This is a transcript of PM broadcast at 1800 AEST on local radio.

Sailors future uncertain after vaccination refusal

PM - Thursday, February 13, 2003 18:15

MARK COLVIN: Sailors from Australian vessels deployed to the Gulf have been undergoing what are called 'debriefing sessions' in Western Australia today. They're men and women who refused to accept anthrax vaccinations.

The stepfather of a woman sent back from HMAS Darwin says she's had to deal with being called a coward, and fears an uncertain future in the Navy. The stepfather, himself a former leading seaman, says she refused the vaccination because she was afraid of becoming infertile.

David Weber reports.

DAVID WEBER: Luis Lim was in the Australian Navy for 18-years. He served around the world, and received medals for his role in the East Timor deployment. Mr Lim also received a long-service medal. Mr Lim says his step-daughter's been having a rough time. He says she hasn't refused to serve her country, but she has refused to be a guinea pig.

LUIS LIM: She's had a lot of turmoil in her mind and in her heart. The crew members who remained chastised them, they accused them of being cowards. The senior officers on the ship have told them that they're not welcome on the ship anymore, not even to attend the ship's ball, and some other personnel have said that they should have their medals taken away from them for service that they have already participated in.

DAVID WEBER: Given that attitude, can you understand why they needed to send her back?

LUIS LIM: The Navy seems fairly bureaucratic in this. Half the British Army in the Gulf region have refused the anthrax needles, and logistically speaking, they can't just send everyone home. I can understand the Navy wanting to give their personnel the best health care available, but to say that they're unfit to serve because they might get anthrax, it seems to me that it's strange when they're there to fight. And the main area of concern should be the enemy, not anthrax.

DAVID WEBER: The woman was concerned about possible infertility. Mr Lim says she's now worried she may have jeopardised her career.

LUIS LIM: Along with termination of a career comes the possible loss of a house. She's very worried about that. She doesn't want to step on people's toes; she wants to keep her bridges intact, but at the same time her health is more important, her long-term health is more important than a career.

DAVID WEBER: At this stage, has the Navy given any indication about what they're going to do with her?

LUIS LIM: Unfortunately, they've only used standover tactics, veiled threats of dismissal, veiled threats of being posted to a different state from where she comes from.

DAVID WEBER: It's understood the woman attended a psychological debriefing session at HMAS Stirling near Rockingham today. She was advised [to have] two-weeks leave.

LUIS LIM: And officially, even though she's refused the injection, it's so she can make up her mind.

DAVID WEBER: About what?

LUIS LIM: Whether to rescind that refusal or to maintain her position.

DAVID WEBER: So she may be allowed to go back to the ship if she decides to have that injection?

LUIS LIM: Well, I think officially, she would be allowed to, but from the opinion of, well... from the activities of the crew and the hierarchy on the ship, she might not actually want to go back to the ship.

DAVID WEBER: A spokesman for the Defence Forces denies any of those who'd refused anthrax vaccinations were even at HMAS Stirling today. But the spokesman says they were expected to take part in debriefing sessions, followed by leave and advice on their next postings. The spokesman says the Navy had a duty of care to bring back those who refused vaccinations. He says no one's being crucified over the issue.

MARK COLVIN: David Weber.

Transcripts on this website are created by an independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the accuracy of the transcripts. ABC Online users are advised to listen to the audio provided on this page to verify the accuracy of the transcripts.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2690723.stm

Anthrax vaccine risk row

The government has denied troops are being asked to sign waivers to say they will not claim compensation if they become ill after having vaccinations. There had been reports that soldiers preparing to go to the Gulf were being asked to sign the waiver when they were given jabs, including the anthrax vaccine. The wife of an RAF solider from Bury St Edmunds, wrote to the Daily Telegraph to say her husband, who is about to leave for the Gulf, had been asked to sign a waiver when he was offered vaccinations.

She wrote: "He was told, if he wanted to have these jabs, he had to sign a disclaimer saying that, if he had illness in the future, he couldn't claim compensation." She added: "I am disgusted that these men and women are being sent possibly to fight a war that no one wants and, besides worrying about the immediate danger they could be exposed to, have the long-term worry of 'could I get ill from these inoculations and who will protect me if I do."

The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association said earlier in the week that it had been contacted by a female member of 16 Air Assault Brigade who said she had been asked to sign a waiver. It has also expressed concerns over the safety of the vaccine. Shaun Ruisling, chairman of the association, said: "These are great concerns. "It seems to be the case that soldiers are damned if they do have the vaccine and damned if they don't."

But Lewis Moonie, defence minister told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that soldiers were "categorically not" being asked to sign waivers. "They are not being asked to sign. "When someone refuses a vaccination, not when they take one, a record is kept - signed by the doctor and the person - to say they understand they have been offered the vaccination and they have refused to do it. "So it's the exact opposite of what's being said."

Dr Moonie said the Ministry of Defence had very good public health reasons for wanting its troops to take all the vaccinations on offer, including anthrax. He said they were told they should have the vaccines, but it was still voluntary. He said it was safe and had been given for many years without any cases of serious side effects being noted.

However, he admitted that full immunisation took about six months, but there was some immediate protection from the jab. "If anybody thinks they have been asked to sign any kind of waiver, I would ask them to get in touch with us, and we will put their minds at rest. "We have no intention of asking people to sign waivers. We will not do it. And, as far as I know, we are not doing it at present."
 

Judge dismisses lawsuit, expresses concern

By ROBERT WELLER http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=72861

Associated Press Writer

DENVER (AP) - U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham dismissed a lawsuit Friday by a female soldier given a less than honorable discharge for refusing to be vaccinated against anthrax, but said he had concerns about the military's program. Lawyers for ex-Pfc. Jemekia Barber argued the military violated her constitutional rights by requiring her to be vaccinated, even though it would have made it dangerous for her to become pregnant for at least 18 months.

She was a newlywed and anticipated having children. Nottingham said allowing the lawsuit to proceed ''would significantly interfere with the function of the military.'' He added that Barber hasn't exhausted her options in the military's justice system. Nottingham said he was not endorsing the vaccination campaign, however. ''If the court were reviewing the program the court would be very concerned by the questions raised by the plaintiff,'' Nottingham said. ''The military will be held accountable if it is using its own soldiers as guinea pigs.''

Nottingham said there was no dispute that the effectiveness of the anthrax vaccination remained unproven as given by the military. He noted that a majority of courts have held that lawsuits can go ahead even though administrative remedies remain, but in this case he was siding with the minority opinion.

Legal analyst Scott Robinson said, ''There is no definitive Supreme Court ruling on this precise issue. Certainly there are times when a trial judge feels his hands are tied.'' Herbert Fenster, Barber's chief counsel, said the judge had declared there was no proof the vaccine was effective. ''This means the Army violated the law by requiring soldiers to be vaccinated,'' said Fenster. Fenster said the issue is more serious for female soldiers, because the military acknowledges the vaccination could be a health threat during pregnancy. Her constitutional rights were violated because she effectively would have had to abstain from reproductive sex for at least 18 months, said Fenster.

''That was the main reason I didn't want to have the vaccination. We wanted to have a family,'' said Barber, in a telephone interview. Fenster said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade and other cases that the government may not interfere in the reproductive process. ''Our courts have been relatively diligent in keeping the government out of the bedroom. It would be possible for this to have a chilling effect on a marital relationship,'' said Robinson.

The Army had suspended the anthrax program except for high risk areas because of a shortage of vaccine. It was subsequently resumed and some supplies made available for use by civilians. Barber, 27, was stationed at Fort Carson, Colo., when she was discharged in 2000. Her husband, Rodney, a private first class, also received a less than honorable discharge.

 

Military proposes serious relaxation of IND regulations
Tue, 28 Jan 2003

We are rapidly approaching The Brave New World. FDA bureaucrats are attempting to institutionalize a double standard in human experimentaion by resorting to a strategy of doublespeak. A Department of Defense memo states: "DoD should continue to conduct trials when ethically appropriate and when time and resources permit compliance with the [Federal] Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." The Nuremberg Code of 1947 applies to ALL human beings--including military personnel.

The DOD and FDA would establish different standards for some Americans--in this case military personnel who are being singled out for "special treatment" with drugs whose safety no one knows because they have never been tested in clinical trials.

To accomplish this the FDA is creating a "new category" of drug approval for unlicensed drugs. The category would be reserved for "products unlikely to receive FDA approval under current rules but that have sufficient human safety and animal efficacy experience to permit military "use." The new category would eliminate FDA labeling requirements that alert people about the experimental nature of the product.

The FDA's cynical rationale defies logic: "the military often fields products that have not been tested in humans "because of the great danger to individuals of conducting human clinical efficacy trials."

Meryl Nass, MD., board member of The Alliance for Human Research Protection is on the mark when she told BNA: "It is part of an ongoing DOD campaign to free the military from basic human subject protections."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Bureau of National Affairs Army Researchers' Plan Seeks Exemption From FDA Experimental Product Safety Rules By M. Alexander Otto

Under a plan proposed by U.S. Army human research regulators, the Department of Defense could ignore key Food and Drug Administration safety standards when administering experimental products to soldiers, according to an October memorandum recently obtained by BNA from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases Office of Human Use and Ethics. Under current FDA rules, experimental drugs and devices can only be used in well-controlled clinical trials that test safety and efficacy.

That means the principal investigator must supervise the administration of the product and serious side effects must be reported to FDA within seven days, neither of which are practical in combat situations, according to the memorandum, dated Oct. 11, 2002. Investigational products also must carry labels that state "Caution: New Drug-Limited by Federal (or United States) Law to Investigational Use."

"This label can lead the war fighter to question the safety and/or effectiveness of the product and may threaten operational objectives," according to the memo.  New FDA Category. The plan would exempt the military from the clinical trial requirement. Instead, a joint military and FDA panel would review the safety and efficacy of the agent, determine whether a clinical trial is feasible, identify ethical obligations, and approve the product under a new FDA category: "licensed for contingency."

The category would be reserved for "products unlikely to receive FDA approval under current rules but that have sufficient human safety and animal efficacy experience to permit military … use." The memo noted, however, that the military often fields products that have not been tested in humans "because of the great danger to individuals of conducting human clinical efficacy trials." "DoD should continue to conduct trials when ethically appropriate
and when time and resources permit compliance with the [Federal] Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act," the five-page memo stated.

Some of the content for this position paper was added to the DOD Medical Department legislative agenda, Dr. Arthur O. Anderson told BNA. Anderson is chief of the USARMIID Office of Human Use and Ethics and Department of Clinical Pathology. He co-authored the memo with Chris Beardmore, an administrator in the Office of Human Use and Ethics.

Advocate Skeptical. The move would resolve ongoing conflict with FDA about the use of experimental products. Following the Gulf War and action in Bosnia, DOD was criticized for failing: to report adverse events, to properly label and track investigational products, and to ask soldiers' permission before administering experimental agents.

Dr. Meryl Nass, an advocate for soldiers injured by anthrax vaccine,  botulinum toxin, nerve gas antidote, and other experimental products, takes a dim view of the initiative. "It is part of an ongoing DOD campaign to free the military from basic human subject protections," she said. Soldiers are subject to military discipline if they refuse an experimental product. Those injured have no recourse; soldiers cannot sue DOD for injuries received while in the service, Nass noted.

Copyright 2003, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.

 

Sailors refusing anthrax vaccine picketed by peers


The Australian Navy has been accused of using standover tactics on sailors being sent home after refusing anthrax vaccinations. Luis Lim says his step-daughter is one of the sailors sent home from the Persian Gulf for refusing the injections. Mr Lim says the sailors are being treated terribly. "The crew members who remained chastised them, accused them of being cowards," he said. "The senior officers on the ship have told them that they are not welcome on the ship, not even to attend the ship's vale, and some other personnel have said that they should have their medals taken away from them for servicethat they've already participated in."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-13feb2003-48.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/business/13DRUG.html?pagewanted=2&th

New York Will Sue 2 Big Drug Makers on Doctor Discount

By REED ABELSON and JONATHAN D. GLATER

New York plans to sue two major pharmaceutical companies today, accusing them essentially of paying doctors and pharmacists to choose the companies' drugs over competing medicines.The state is joining six other states, including California and Texas, in a  growing legal attack on a longstanding practice that the states say has cost state and federal governments and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years.

The lawsuits contend that GlaxoSmithKline and Pharmacia, the two large drug  companies, gave discounts to doctors and pharmacies that bought their drugs. Doctors often buy and dispense injectable drugs like chemotherapy medicines. Pharmacies buy drugs in bulk to fill prescriptions, and sometimes recommend particular drugs to doctors.

The discounts work this way. The drug companies establish a price for the drug that the government and insurance companies use to determine how much to reimburse the doctors and pharmacies for the drugs they buy. The companies then allow the doctors and pharmacies to buy their drugs at much lower prices  than the ones reported to the government. The doctors and pharmacies then pocket the difference.

The lawsuits argue that the drug companies, doctors and pharmacists all  profit from this arrangement, at the expense of the taxpayer and the patient, who has a higher co-payment. The lawsuits are expected to be filed this morning in state court in Albany  by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is holding a news conference to announce New York's action. A third drug maker, Aventis, has been notified that it may also be sued. Some cancer doctors have come under fire from members of Congress and private insurers for profiting from providing chemotherapy drugs to their patients, but the states are now taking direct aim at the overall pricing practices of some of the nation's largest pharmaceutical companies.

Regulators say it is easier to pursue the big drug makers for setting the high prices, known as average wholesale prices, than it is to investigate numerous individual doctors. "What we're trying to do is focus on the entire practice, rather than a particular drug from a particular company," Mr. Spitzer said in an interview on Tuesday. "What underlies this is a larger failure of the marketplace to properly price drugs," he added. As an example of the problem, Mr. Spitzer cited Adriamycin, a chemotherapy drug made by Pharmacia. According to his staff, a doctor may pay as little as $7.40 for 10 milligrams of the drug after the discounts from the drug maker. But Medicare would reimburse the doctor $34.42, based on Pharmacia's average wholesale price, and a Medicare patient in New York would make a co-payment of $8.60. The doctor would pocket $35.62, the difference between the amount paid for the drug and the payments received from the patient and from
Medicare.

Many of the companies and lawyers who defend pharmaceutical companies argue  that their pricing practices are legal, and say that attorneys general are overreaching in their lawsuits. Any changes to the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement system, they say, should be made by Congress, which has so far chosen not to act.

"The question from the standpoint of the policy makers is whether this is the kind of promotion that they want to, as a policy matter, stop," said James M. Spears, a lawyer with Ropes & Gray in Washington. "That's a question for Congress to answer." But the state suits pose a worsening problem for pharmaceutical companies as regulators examine health care costs amid a nationwide squeeze on state budgets. Several states, including California, Texas, Minnesota and Nevada,  have filed suits against numerous drug makers in the last three years over their prices, and they say they are prepared to expand their activities as they gather more evidence.

In California, for example, the attorney general expects to file new suits in addition to one filed there last month against Abbott Laboratories and Wyeth. More states are contemplating lawsuits of their own, and state attorneys general have formed a working group to share information and discuss legal strategies. Private lawyers, many of them veterans of the tobacco class-action litigation, have also joined the fray.

Attorneys general are trying to use litigation to force companies to change their practices, not just to win damages, said Jennifer Arlen, a law professor at New York University. "They're filing cases where they know full well that it's not clear that they can win if they go to trial," she said. "But because they're not seeking damages in many of these situations — they're seeking structured settlements —they're often getting a big bang for the buck by filing their case."Although the states are sharing information, they have filed separate lawsuits rather than a single, unified suit, and they are using different laws and pursuing different legal strategies. Several drug companies are battling to have the lawsuits consolidated in federal court in Boston.
   
While the states are suing on behalf of their individual Medicaid programs, which pay for drugs for the poor, some are also suing on behalf of state residents covered under the federal Medicare program. Medicare does not pay for most drugs, but does cover part of the cost of certain kinds of medicines, like chemotherapy drugs administered in a doctor's office. Patients are responsible for paying 20 percent of the bill."They're harmed much more than the states," said Mike Hatch, the attorney general for Minnesota, which sued Pharmacia last year.Regulators are also concerned that cancer doctors may have a financial incentive to recommend inappropriate or unnecessary chemotherapy because they are able to profit from prescribing particular drugs. While New York is focusing on Pharmacia and GlaxoSmithKline as makers of anti-nausea drugs, the lawsuits include all of the drugs they make. (Aventis also makes anti-nausea drugs.) Medicaid is significantly overpaying for many drugs, Mr. Spitzer said, although it is unclear exactly how large those overpayments may be. "I sense there is waste everywhere," he said.The New York suits charge Pharmacia and GlaxoSmithKline with consumer fraud and making false statements to government health plans when they establish the drug prices, as well as with commercial bribery for trying to wield inappropriate influence on doctors' decisions. The suits take advantage of a New York statute that makes it a crime to try to interfere with the fiduciary relationship between a doctor and a patient. Each drug company benefits if it can enlarge its share of the market by inducing doctors to choose their drugs based on the difference, or spread, between what doctors pay for the drug and the amount they are reimbursed, Mr. Spitzer said. "They gain by marketing the spread." Pharmacia and GlaxoSmithKline both argue that Congress has chosen to allow the current system of setting prices for drugs to continue. Spokesmen for those companies and for Aventis said they had not seen the suit to be filed today and could not comment on it. A spokeswoman for Aventis said yesterday that the company voluntarily stopped reporting an average wholesale price in August 2001, but declined to say how the government now sets reimbursement rates for its drugs."We really have to wait until we see and then review any additional allegations," she said. But Mr. Spitzer defended his decision to pursue the litigation, despite inaction by  Congress and the government programs. "Regulatory lapses elsewhere don't create a justification for the perpetuation of a system that is broken," he said. The escalating price of drugs is motivating many states to try to tackle these practices. In California, prescription costs for the Medi-Cal program, which provides health insurance to low-income residents, doubled from 1997 to 2001, even as the number of patients declined by 15 percent."The public should be incensed that the pharmaceutical giants are fleecing the Medicaid program," said Collin Wong, the director of the state attorney general's bureau of Medi-Cal fraud and elder abuse. The Texas lawsuit, which was one of the first to be filed, has turned up some evidence unfavorable to the pharmaceutical companies, said Jeff Boyd, deputy attorney general for general litigation.Some former drug company employees who were deposed have provided evidence that manufacturers deliberately used the spread between the government's reimbursement and the price paid by doctors to persuade doctors to use their drugs. Mr. Boyd said he thought some drug companies might try to avoid taking cases to a jury."We're hopeful that as some of these dominoes begin to fall, some of these companies will see the writing on the wall andcome forward and start trying to negotiate a resolution," he said. 
   

Soldier hails Gulf case win
 BBC News
 5 May 2003

 A former soldier says a tribunal's ruling on the connection between  injections and Gulf War Syndrome is "a great step forward" for  campaigners.  A war pensions appeal tribunal ruled Alex Izett's brittle bone disease  could be linked to a cocktail of injections he had before the Gulf War.  Mr Izett - who served with the Royal Engineers - was never actually  sent to the conflict but developed unexpected illness in the same  way as many veterans.  The Ministry of Defence has said it will not challenge the finding  made by the tribunal in December, but it does not agree with the  verdict.  Army veterans have described the ruling as the first official  recognition of Gulf War Syndrome.

 They have taken my dignity, my livelihood but  they are not going to take my life as well  - Alex Izett   It has taken until now to get the paperwork confirming the findings  from the War Pensions Agency.  The tribunal found that "the appellant was vaccinated with a  concoction of drugs prior to planned deployment in the Gulf War.  "The concoction of drugs caused osteoporosis."  Mr Izett's condition left him unable to work and very depressed.  "I suffered the exact same symptoms as people who actually served in  the Gulf who also had the same inoculations," he told the BBC.  "My bones started to deteriorate, I lost muscles, I had stomach  problems, I had psychiatric problems. I am really depressed and I have  also had two suicide attempts."

 'Official backing'

 Mr Izett, 33, who is from Glasgow but who now lives in Bersenbruck in  Germany, said he was then diagnosed with osteoporosis.  "I cannot lift more than 20lbs. I can't pick my children up," he said.  "I cannot work - I am unemployed."   No reputable medical authority whatsoever accepts  the existence of a syndrome called Gulf War Syndrome  - Louis Moonie, defence minister  Mr Izett said the tribunal's finding was "a great step forward" for  other veterans.  He said the MoD was being pushed into a corner and was starting to make mistakes.  "I'm glad we can use these mistakes which they are making to prove  they are wrong and prove they damaged our health which they should  pay fully-paid pensions for," he said.  "I hope this judgment will have a knock-on effect and that the MoD  will now finally tell the truth.  "I just hope that this opens the floodgates for more cases to come  forward."  Campaigners have seen his case as the vital link that proves there is  a problem specifically with the injections, something long disputed by the government.

 'No evidence'

 Gulf War veterans believe the tribunal's decision constitutes official  backing for their position.  Unlike an ongoing earlier case, the government has decided not to  challenge the verdict.  The MoD said it still disagreed with the verdict but could not find  any grounds to contest it.  Defence minister Dr Lewis Moonie said he did not accept that the  injections caused the illnesses.

 "There is no medical evidence to support that whatsoever," he told BBC  Radio 4's Today programme.  "The tribunal ruling accepted that we could not prove that the ill  health was not due to the concoctions.  "If you are going to create a syndrome it has to be one that the  medical profession accepts because they are the ones responsible for  doing so.  "No reputable medical authority whatsoever accepts the existence of a  syndrome called Gulf War Syndrome."

 Research

 Gulf War Syndrome is associated with a vast array of symptoms  including fatigue, nausea, fever and depression.
 It has been attributed to injections, depleted uranium ammunition, or  even Iraqi chemical weapons, although many believe the nebulous  condition could be psychosomatic.  The MoD has acknowledged the existence of the concept of "symptoms  and signs of ill-defined conditions" (SSIDC).  But veterans feel there has never been a proper investigation into the  issue.

 Dr Moonie said some additional experiments were taking place at Porton  Down research centre to look at long term effects but there was still  no evidence of "systematic harm" as a result of injections.  Liberal Democrat MP Paul Tyler, a member of the Royal British Legion  Gulf War Group, said he would be demanding a statement from the MoD this
week.  "I will be asking the secretary of state to cut the legal waffle and  recognise that our troops, who put their lives on the line, deserve  better," he said in a statement.  "Full recognition of the link between the injections and their  illnesses, and then appropriate compensation, is the least they should expect."


 (c) BBC MMIII
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3000739.stm

 

FROM THE UNITED STATES

27 April 2003

Fort Drum soldier will be tried for refusing vaccine

The Associated Press

(April 28, 2003) — FORT DRUM — A 26-year-old Army reservist at Fort Drum faces a court-martial for her refusal to receive an anthrax vaccine. Pvt. Kamila Iwanowska said she resisted receiving the shots on religious and
medical grounds. Military prosecutors will try her for refusing to obey a lawful order. The trial was to begin today, but was delayed for one to two weeks.

The Army said Iwanowska, of New York City, refused an anthrax shot at Fort Drum after reporting for pre-deployment processing with her unit in January. Iwanowska said she considers the shot medically dangerous to children she
might have in the future, saying the long-term effects are unknown. She also said she could not take the vaccine because of the Roman Catholic religion she practices and the respect it accords unborn infants.

The Pentagon insists the vaccination is safe, with severe adverse reactions developing in about one in 100,000 vaccinations. Iwanowska was demoted from the rank of specialist, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a Fort Drum spokesman.
Meanwhile, Pvt. Rhonda Hazley served a 14-day jail sentence and lost her specialist’s rank following a court-martial last month. Hazley, of East Dublin, Ga., said she refused the shot because she feared it could harm her breast-feeding infant. In February, two Marines at Camp Pendleton in California refused the anthrax vaccine. Both were deployed to the Middle East and have courts-martial pending upon their return.

Two Air Force officers sued the Bush administration and the Pentagon last year, challenging the mandatory anthrax vaccines for the nation’s 2.4 million service members.

 

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/5000823?source=Evening%20Standard

'War vaccines poisoned us'

By Rebecca Mowling, Evening Standard
27 May 2003

Four British soldiers who received jabs for the Iraq conflict are to sue the Ministry of Defence claiming they are suffering from a new form of Gulf War Syndrome. The revelation comes as a veterans' support group predicted today that thousands of UK servicemen will come forward with mystery illnesses linked to "vaccine overload".

Tony Flint of the National Gulf Veterans and Families' Association,confirmed he now anticipates a fresh wave of health cases. "We are expecting at least 6,000 new cases as a result of the Iraq conflict - about 30 percent of the 22,000 troops who had the anthrax vaccination." The first four soldiers from the latest conflict who are set to sue - two reservists and two regulars - are blaming depression, breathing problems and eczema on injections they were given before being sent to the Middle East.

Professor Malcolm Hooper, chief scientific adviser to the veterans' association, said the MoD did not seem to have learned from "the mistakes of the 1991 conflict" in relation to multiple vaccinations. "These guys are clearly suffering from vaccine overload," he said. The key concern centres on soldiers given anthrax vaccines on top of other more routine inoculations. Professor Hooper added: "The problem was one which was there in 1991. Our studies have shown that these people have excessive symptoms - three to four-fold compared with people who have not been vaccinated in the same way.

Concern about the long-term side-effects led to almost half the 45,000 British servicemen and women in the recent conf lict refusing vaccinations against anthrax, fearing that they might be afflicted by the syndrome. However, all four men are understood to have been given the anthrax vaccination and had multiple jabs in one day before falling ill. Royal Engineers reservist Stephen Cartwright was taken to hospital with a fever and blistered skin after being given a number of jabs, including the controversial anthrax vaccine. The 24-yearold spent four days in hospital and was so ill he did not make it to the Gulf.

The second reservist, Tony Barker, 45, was given five vaccinations -hepatitis, typhoid, polio, diphtheria and yellow fever on 17 February, days after he was called up. The father-of-one received an anthrax jab less than a week later. The Royal Logistics Corps driver fell ill in Kuwait after being given nerve agent pre-treatment and anti-malarial pills. He also had a second anthrax jab on 13 March.

Lawyer Mark McGhee, who is acting for the four men, said: "The symptoms that these four individuals are experiencing are identical to those of the individuals I represent in relation to the first Gulf war." The High Court
is due to rule within weeks on whether Gulf War Syndrome can be recognised in law. But the MoD has also accepted that some troops returning from the latest conflict may suffer long-term health problems as a result of the war and has begun a screening programme.

 

http://home.abc28.com/Global/story.asp?S=1296706

Judge denies dismissal motions in anthrax vaccine case
Wednesday, May28, 2003, 2:58 AM

Fort Drum, New York-AP -- A military judge has upheld the legality of the military's anthrax vaccination program.

The judge refused to dismiss the charge against an Army reservist facing a court martial for refusing the vaccine.
Attorneys for Private Kamila Iwanowska argue the vaccine has never been properly licensed by the government -- and is being used by the military even though it isn't intended to treat inhalation infections. They also contend she has already been punished by her company commander.

Iwanowska says she considers the anthrax shot medically dangerous to children she might have in the future. She also cited religious reasons for refusing it. The Pentagon says the vaccination is safe.If found guilty of disobeying an order, Iwanowska could face a maximum of 12 months in jail and a bad conduct discharge.
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax29may29,1,292297
2.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation a d v e r t i s e m e n t

Soldier Is Discharged in Vaccine Refusal
From Associated Press

May 29, 2003

FT. DRUM, N.Y. — A military panel found an Army reservist guilty of disobeying an order for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine and tossed her out of the Army on Wednesday. The panel of eight officers — only two of whom said during questioning that they have taken the six-shot regimen — took 40 minutes to return a guilty verdict against Pvt. Kamila Iwanowska and two hours to determine her penalty: a bad conduct discharge.

Iwanowska, 26, admitted in a court "stipulation of fact" that she refused to follow the verbal and written orders of her commanding officers. Army prosecutor Capt. Leslie Rowley said the statement was all the proof the panel needed.  Iwanowska told her superiors she considered the shot medically dangerous to children she might have in the future, saying the vaccine's long-term effects are unknown. As a Roman Catholic, she also cited religious reasons.

Since the vaccinations were made mandatory for U.S. military personnel in 1998, hundreds of service members have been disciplined or discharged for refusing to take the shot. At least 37 have been court-martialed. The Pentagon says the vaccination is safe, with severe adverse reactions occurring in about one in 100,000 vaccinations. Iwanowska said she was relieved to avoid a possible one-year jail term but may still appeal to upgrade her discharge.

"I certainly expected some jail time," she said.

Prosecutor Maj. David Tobin had asked the panel to give Iwanowska six months in jail, but said after sentencing that he was satisfied with the decision, which now goes to Ft. Drum commander Maj. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck for approval. "I still believe the Army is a good place and I don't regret joining," Iwanowska said after the verdict. "I don't regret what I did; I just wish it had turned out differently."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/05/gulf.syndrome/index.html

Gulf War Syndrome case: Jabs link

LONDON, England --A British soldier has won a landmark judgment against the government linking injections with his so-called Gulf War Syndrome.

A War Pensions Appeal Tribunal said that a "concoction of drugs" given to Alex Izett before the first Gulf War in 1991 was responsible for his osteoporosis, or brittle bone condition. Izett, a former Lance Corporal with the Royal Engineers, was injected with the same drugs as those soldiers who went to the war zone, despite not being sent himself. He has suffered from similar symptoms to hundreds soldiers including fatigue, digestive and psychological problems, depression, wasting muscles, and nausea.

Izett said the illnesses and 10 year legal fight had taken his "dignity and livelihood." He now hoped the judgment would act as a "watershed" in having the condition officially recognized. "I hope this judgment will have a knock-on effect and that the MoD (Ministry of Defence) will now finally tell the truth," he said. "I'm not only pleased for myself, I'm delighted for the Gulf War veterans community as a whole... I just hope that this opens the floodgates for more cases to come forward."

The tribunal gave its verdict last December, but its publication was delayed until after the latest war in Iraq. "The concoction of drugs caused osteoporosis," Reuters quoted the ruling as saying. The British government, which has consistently denied that medical proof exists for Gulf Veterans Syndrome, said it disagreed with the verdict but would not contest it. Defence Minister Lewis Moonie said Monday: "There is no evidence whatsover of any systematic harm."

But he added there was no legal basis on which the ministry could appeal the tribunal's judgment.

"The tribunal is not competent to make that kind of decision," he told the BBC.  "The tribunal's purpose is to determine whether a war pension should be awarded or not, and it is awarded on the basis of whether we can
show beyond all reasonable doubt that a condition was not due to a person's service.

"The reason they found was that we were unable to show that the injections did not cause this problem." He said further experiments were taking place to show the reason for the illnesses. It has been blamed on a series of factors including stress, smoke from oil-burning wells, and depleted uranium. Veterans' groups have welcomed the verdict, saying claims should be made for vaccination damage. Charles Plumridge, senior coordinator for the UK National Gulf War Veterans Association, said: "We are now calling on the (ministry) to officially confirm that we are ill because of the inoculation we were given."

Campaigners say that it is the first official confirmation of the existence of the syndrome, which veterans blame for a range of ailments including

<The article just ends
 

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=13044404&method=full&si
teid=106694&headline=THE%20SUICIDE%20SQUADDIES

THE SUICIDE SQUADDIES
Jun 8 2003

By Mike Hamilton

TWO young soldiers have killed themselves after falling ill with suspected Gulf War Syndrome following the latest conflict in Iraq. Both men committed suicide after showing recognised symptoms of the illness - blamed on controversial jabs our troops were given before the war. One - Royal Engineer Eddie Hosdell, 21 - leapt to his death from the Humber Bridge in Hull and a 26-year-old soldier hanged himself at a base in Germany.

The German-based soldier was given five jabs in one day - in direct contradiction of Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's pre-war pledge that troops would not have multiple vaccinations at the same time. The suicides are the first linked to Gulf War Syndrome after the latest conflict. Campaigners say almost 200 soldiers who saw service in the 1991 Gulf War have killed themselves after developing the illness, which has always been officially denied by the Government.

Charlie Plumridge, spokesman for the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association (NGVFA), said: "It's a shocking and sad state of affairs that these young soldiers are taking their own lives. For 12 years we have been warning the MOD that this sort of thing has happened and would continue to happen. "Tragically these two deaths show we were right. This could only be the tip of the iceberg.

"I call upon the Government to do more to look after brave young men and women who have been willing to lay down their lives for this country." Both soldiers are believed to have been given multiple vaccinations before war broke out to protect them from chemical or biological attack. The Sunday Mirror has seen medical records showing the 26-year-old soldier - not named at the request of his family - received five inoculations, including the controversial anthrax jab, on the same day. Experts attribute the illness to the cocktail of jabs and tablets given to troops, and the use of depleted uranium in allied weapons. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told MPs in January: "A key lesson learned about inoculations is that it is not sensible to inflict on our forces a large number simultaneously."

Eddie, whose funeral took place in Hull this week, returned from the war at the end of April with 39 Engineer Regiment, based at Waterbeach Barracks in Cambridgeshire. Within days he started to behave erratically. The soldier, never in trouble before, was arrested by police on suspicion of firing a ball-bearing out of a car window near his home in Hornsea, North Humberside. He was released on bail and sent text messages to friends saying he was going to take his own life.

His body was found on the Humber river on May 18.

Last night Eddie's parents, Jacqueline and Tuke, were too upset to comment. An inquest in to Eddie's death was opened and adjourned on May 23, with the full hearing in six months. The parents of the soldier found dead in Germany have also demanded a full inquest. The member of the Queen's Royal Hussars hanged himself at his Army
base in Sennelager, Germany, days after falling ill. He had been unfit to travel, with a rash, sleeping problems and mood swings. This week his parents, from the Birmingham area, contacted the NGVFA's helpline.

An Army source said: "He was planning to get married so his suicide is especially tragic." Gulf War Syndrome expert Professor Malcolm Hooper, a member of the MOD's independent Vaccine Panel, said: "The soldiers are hung out to dry, where instead they should be offered help when they come back from a horrific war distressed and unwell." An MOD spokesman said yesterday: "We recognise people are ill but we do not recognise a single syndrome.

"We will not comment on individual cases."

THE NGVFA 24-hour helpline number is 01482 833812

 

http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030520-102253-6646r

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Mandatory anthrax vaccine for troops challenged in court
By Patrick Badgley
Published May 21, 2003

Attorneys for six military officers and Defense Department personnel argued in a U.S. District Court yesterday that the Department of Defense must stop inoculating soldiers as a remedy for inhalation anthrax because the vaccine is in "investigational" stages and is being used without approval. Appearing before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in John Doe, et. al. v. Rumsfeld, et. al., plaintiffs were seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the government from vaccinating military personnel unless the recipients heard an explanation of potential side-effects and gave consent, or the president issued a waiver. They said that under a federal statute such regulations are necessary for drugs under investigation.

"In some cases, they're not even told it's going to be an anthrax vaccination," said John Michels Jr., the plaintiffs' attorney. Mr. Michels brought up the case of a woman who said she told the person administering the shot that she was pregnant and was fearful of the effects of the vaccination, yet was told that didn't exempt her. When soldiers who reject the shot are court-martialed and punished, that is "irreparable damage," one requirement needed for a judge to issue an injunction, the defense has said. But attorneys for the defendants - the Defense Department, and the Food and Drug Administration - said the treatment has been accepted for years for all forms of anthrax, including the inhalation variety. Although plaintiffs' attorneys maintained that it is still to be determined whether the vaccine is an acceptable treatment for inhalation anthrax, the defense attorneyssaid it is settled.

"There are risks with all vaccines, your honor," said Ronald Wiltsie, a Department of Justice trial lawyer, who is representing the defendants. "The risks here are no greater than a tetanus shot or MMR," measles, mumps and
rubella shots. Mr. Wiltsie also disputed the plaintiffs' claim of irreparable damage, saying punishing personnel by court-martialing them does not warrant such a description.

In the first day of oral arguments, yesterday, the lawyer also detailed a different and more informative process that soldiers go through if they are reluctant to receive the vaccination. He said they are informed about the type of inoculation they will receive and are counseled by a medical professional if they refuse. They are then give an order, and if they still refuse, are subject to discipline. The plaintiffs "seek to undermine a key component of military readiness and defense against battlefield use of biological weapons," attorneys for the defense wrote in a brief to the court. The Pentagon has said the anthrax vaccine is safe but acknowledged that severe harmful reactions develop in about one in 100,000 vaccinations. When inhaled, dry anthrax spores can be deadly to humans. At least 600,000 employees in the Defense Department have received the vaccination, and officials say they plan to immunize each of the 2.4 million members of the military.

Also at issue is whether the case, which involves military parties, belonged in a federal court instead of a military one. Defense attorneys denied that the federal court should be the decision-maker in the case. "This goes to the core of the military's ability to structure its forces and control them," Mr. Wiltsie said. But Mr. Michels said military courts have a pattern of following rules set by the heads of the armed forces branches. "I don't believe there is a military judge anywhere ... that would step up and say, 'I'm going to stand against the secretary of defense, the secretary of the Air Force," he said.

There have been several cases of U.S. soldiers refusing to take the anthrax vaccine, whether for religious reasons or for fear of breast-feeding infants or the long-term effects it could have on children they might bear. Two Air Force officers filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon in 2002, challenging the mandatory anthrax vaccines for soldiers. One complainant received 60 days of base restriction and was fined $21,000 for refusing the anthrax vaccine, and the other was forced to end his 14-year military career.
 

Questions Mount Over Anthax Shots
WASHINGTON, June 20, 2003

Kamila Iwanowska is the latest soldier to get kicked out of the U.S. military for refusing the anthrax vaccine, CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports. "It's not about defiance and it's not about being a bad soldier, because it's not," says Iwanowska, a former Army reservist, who received a bad conduct discharge. She says it's about her belief that the anthrax vaccine could be dangerous. Since it became mandatory five years ago, hundreds of troops have been disciplined or booted out for rejecting it, and dozens of others have been court-martialed.

"If I knew then what I know now, I would have refused to take the vaccine," said Jason Nietupski, a former U.S. Army captain who got seriously ill after his shot in 2000. "I developed blood clots in my legs," Nietupski says. "They found pulmonary nodules in my lungs."But even when the Army finally documented that the vaccine was to blame, Nietupski says no one reported his case to the FDA, which tracks adverse events.

"There's a lot of people like me out there because doctors in the military are fearful of reporting adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration because of potentially being reprimanded for doing so," he says. In fact, a General Accounting Office investigation last fall found that the rate of side effects from anthrax vaccine was hundreds, sometimes thousands of times higher than what the military claimed. The Defense Department says it now encourages more accurate reporting of adverse events. But the latest numbers the military provided CBS News still fall short:

Among 600,000 people who got anthrax shots in the past year, possible side effects are reported by the military in only a fraction of one percent: .142 percent or 852 reports per 600,000 people. The GAO investigation released last fall found a much higher rate in a survey of vaccines: 85 percent, with side effects ranging from lumps and rashes to hospitalizations.

Dr. Bill Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, oversees military vaccines and says he urges all problems to be reported. He says it's "just not true" that the military hasn't provided the whole story as to how many people are getting sick from anthrax vaccines.  "We've been very forthcoming," Winkenwerder says. "There'd be no reason to be anything else other than that. Our personnel are our most important assets."

Jason Nieptuski just wonders how many others might end up like him. "I took the vaccine because I was patriotic, because I love my country and because I wanted to serve in the military. Even though the Army ruled that the medical complications were from anthrax vaccine, I can no longer serve because of the blood clots," Nieptuski says.

Late last year, government investigators advised the Defense Department to actively track each soldier who gets the anthrax vaccine to get a truer picture of the harm it may do, but the military rejected that advice. Now, some troops find themselves more worried about the shots than the biological threat they're supposed to ward off.

© MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 

http://www.jdnews.com/Details.cfm?StoryID=14010

Article ran : 07/09/2003
Marine booted for refusing vaccine
By ERIC STEINKOPFF
Jacksonville (NC, USA) Daily News

DAILY NEWS STAFF A Marine Desert Storm veteran who refused on religious grounds to receive an anthrax vaccination in December was dismissed from the Corps on Tuesday and ordered to serve seven months in prison.

During a general court-martial at New River Air Station, CH-46 Sea Knight pilot 1st Lt. Erick Enz pleaded guilty to disobeying the order of a senior commissioned officer.

Enz, a father of five and described by his superiors as a "natural leader," faced a maximum punishment of five years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dismissal from service. Although military judge Lt. Col. Martin Sitler sentenced him to seven months confinement, Enz could serve as little as 30 days in the brig based on a pretrial agreement. Enz, a member of New River's Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 162, Marine Aircraft Group 29, originally pleaded not guilty during a June arraignment and asked for a court-martial with a jury of at least five members.

Enz reversed that decision Tuesday and chose to plead guilty. Reported adverse reactions to the anthrax vaccine have been the subject of debate since the vaccine's widespread use during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in the early 1990s. The matter came to the forefront again this year when thousands of troops were ordered to be vaccinated prior to the war with Iraq. A devout Christian and Bible study group leader, Enz did not feel right about the vaccination, witnesses testified Tuesday. He sought guidance in prayer that led him to seek more information about the vaccine and ultimately refuse the shot, fellow Marines, friends and relatives said during testimony.

In an earlier defense motion pertaining to the case, Military Judge Col. Steven Day ruled that Enz's objection on religious grounds could not be admitted into court as lawful evidence on his behalf. Department of Defense officials contend that the vaccination is safe, as do military doctors at Camp Lejeune Naval Hospital. But a September 2002 U.S. General Accounting Office report to Congress says that the rate of severity of adverse reactions to the vaccine are considerably greater than advertised. In a random survey of 1,253 guard and reserve pilots and aircrew, the GAO found 84 percent suffered minor reactions and at least 24 percent major multiple "systemic" reactions, the latter more than 100 times higher than the estimate by the manufacturer.

Retired Army Ranger Sgt. 1st Class Steve Robinson, who runs the National Gulf War Resource Center, a nonprofit veterans' advocacy organization, was a member of the Veterans' Administration Research Advisory Committee that studied problems related to the vaccination. "We continue to kick people out of the military and give them jail sentences for not taking a vaccine that science still hasn't proven," Robinson said. "You only have to read a little bit about the vaccine and you will question whether it is safe."

A Desert Storm veteran, Enz, whose age was not immediately available, was described by superiors and his peers as a natural leader before and after refusing the vaccination. Nearly every witness for the defense and for the prosecution said that he was well liked, respected and even admired among those in his unit. He was on a fast track to promotion, trained ahead of many of his peers, and the papers that would move him from a reserve commission to augment him as a regular officer in the Marine Corps remained unsigned at his unit administrative office. "The people who refuse this are not the dummies or the troublemakers," said former Air Force F-16 pilot retired Lt. Col. John Richardson of Raleigh, a critic of the vaccine. "I get two to three unsolicited calls or e-mails a week - sometimes as many as five a day - from kids who are sick. Someone has to stand up and do the right thing."

For more information on Gulf War Illness visit www.ngwrc.org and for more information on reactions from the anthrax vaccination visit www.anthraxvaccine.org.

Contact Eric Steinkopff at esteinkopff@jdnews.com or at 353-1171, Ext. 236.

 

AF officer repeatedly refuses anthrax shot, but does not get day in court

By Scott Schonauer, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Saturday, August 2, 2003
Scott Schonauer / S&S
Lt. Col. Jay Lacklen shows the knots on his fingers. He suspects that the anthrax shots he has taken have caused the deformity.

NAVAL STATION ROTA, Spain — Even with his 33-year military career on the line, Lt. Col. Jay Lacklen wants the Air Force to court-martial him. By refusing to take another anthrax shot earlier this year, he thought he would get his wish. Facing a military judge, Lacklen said, would allow him to argue that the Pentagon’s controversial vaccine contains a harmful booster called squalene, which he claims is causing a string of mysterious maladies in his squadron.

But instead of ordering him to court, his commander sent him on assignment to southern Spain. While junior officers and enlisted service members are getting thrown in jail for not taking the shot, Lacklen said his Dover, Del.-based squadron sent him on meaningless temporary duty to Naval Station Rota and Morón Air Base. He believes the Air Force will not punish him because commanders are afraid they will lose in the courtroom. “They’re scared,” said Lacklen, a reservist since 1981, “because I have the science” to win in court. But in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes on Friday, Lacklen said his commander had given him until Friday to take the shot.

Large caches of biological and chemical weapons have yet to be found in Iraq and none was unleashed against U.S.-led troops during the war, but the military is continuing its goal to inoculate all of its 1.4 million servicemembers. The Pentagon insists the vaccine is safe. Right now, service members take a series of six shots over the course of 18 months, along with an annual booster shot. Almost half of the active-duty force has received the entire series of shots, but some have refused and paid dearly. Since the military resumed inoculating servicemembers earlier this year, several have been booted out of the service or sent to jail.

In June, Navy aircraft mechanic Troy Goodwin, based at Lemoore, Calif., told the Los Angeles Times that he was sent to the brig after rejecting the shot. In May, Army Reserve Pvt. Kamila Iwanowsk, 26, a petroleum specialist from Fort Drum, N.Y., refused the shot and received a bad-conduct discharge. She didn’t want to take it because, she said in a court-martial, it might harm any children she may bear. On July 8, the military dismissed a Camp Lejeune, N.C.-based Marine helicopter pilot and sent him to jail for 25 days for not taking it. Lt. Erick Enz refused the vaccine on religious grounds.

More than 400 military personnel have been disciplined since the shot was made mandatory in 1998, according to the Pentagon. But Lacklen said he has avoided prosecution because his unit, the 326th Airlift Squadron, does not want the bad publicity.  On April 15, Lacklen refused in writing to take the shot. But instead of ordering him to take the vaccine, Lacklen said his commander, Lt. Col. Edward Poling, two days later grounded him and sent him to Spain. When he returned, he was immediately sent to Scott Air Force Base in Illinois to work as a scheduler.

Lacklen, a Vietnam War veteran with more than 12,000 flight hours, said he was not needed in Spain or Illinois and suggests he was sent on temporary duty to “avoid the situation.” After Lacklen refused his shot, a more junior officer, Capt. Paul Staquet, also refused in writing, using the same wording Lacklen had used, but signed his own name to it. When he gave the letter to the squadron, he said he was threatened with a court-martial and a discharge. The thought of possibly getting kicked out of the military with a bad-conduct discharge was enough to cause Staquet to reluctantly take the shots.

“Nobody wants to walk around with a conviction on your record,” said Staquet, who has not suffered any side effects from the shots, but supports Lacklen. In a complaint filed with the Defense Department’s inspector general on June 5, Lacklen accused his commander of a double standard. Poling did not return phone and e-mail messages seeking an explanation or comment for this story, but Col. Bruce Davis, 512th Airlift Wing commander, said, “I’m sure you know that, as a commander, I can’t comment on any incident that may end up in a courts-martial.”

“All military members should expect equal protection, and equal sanction, from the military legal system,” Lacklen wrote in the complaint. “This is not the case in this instance.” This is not the first time Dover has been embroiled in controversy over the vaccine. In 1999, dozens of C-5 pilots from the base reported side effects after taking the shot. One senior officer resigned and 40 percent of the pilots in the Reserve wing left rather than take a shot.

Concerns by the pilots prompted Col. Felix M. Grieder, commander of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover, to suspend the inoculation program, making it the first base to do so. Since the base resumed the shots earlier this year, military personnel are reporting similar health problems they fear are caused by the shots. Some of the aviators agreed to talk to Stars and Stripes on the condition their name is not used. They said they fear that if they talk, the Air Force will punish them for speaking out about the vaccine. One pilot reported migraine headaches to the point of vomiting, temporary blindness and an itching rash that won’t go away. Others have reported severe joint pain. One aviator in his 30s had arthritis so bad he had to take a prescription pain reliever.

Crewmembers have also had problems. A loadmaster reported having blackouts and chronic dizzy spells. Another person suffered from vertigo. One of the pilots said he isn’t sure if the vaccine caused his rash and other health problems but military doctors have done little to find out the cause. He said even if a military doctor thought there might be a link between the vaccine and the ailment, they would not admit it out of fear of retribution. “We have seen with our own eyes those who are sick and watched them not get any help,” he said. “It’s shameful.”Another pilot had a bad reaction with the first shot, but was told to continue taking the rest of the shots. “It does concern me,” the pilot said. “I don’t want to take another shot until they can prove this is just coincidental.”

Lacklen has also had strange health problems after the first couple of shots. He has complained of joint pain and his fingers have developed odd-looking knots. He doesn’t blame the vaccine for the health problems but alleges that a substance called squalene is the culprit. Squalene is manufactured in the liver of humans and some animals. It is a building block to make hormones and other substances in our body. It is also found in some foods.
In vaccines, it is used as a booster to work faster and longer. However, it was not approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration to be used in the anthrax vaccine. When Tulane University in 1999 found the presence of the additive in 1991 Persian Gulf War veterans, squalene’s safety became a hot topic. Some servicemembers speculated then that the anthrax vaccine might contain squalene as a booster and that is the reason for the side effects.

For years, the Pentagon denied there was any squalene in the shots. Then, the FDA tested all 50 lot numbers of the current vaccine in 1999 and found squalene traces in five of them. Dover Air Force Base received all five of these lot numbers. The Pentagon says the amount of squalene found is so minute that it is “likely the result of squalene in the oil of a fingerprint not cleaned from the lab glassware.” The Defense Department has an entire page of questions and answers about squalene on its anthrax Web site, www.anthrax.osd.mil, disputing the significance of squalene in the shot. Lacklen and some of the pilots at Dover are not buying the explanation. They want the Defense Department to hire an independent lab to test vaccine lots for squalene.

While the Pentagon asserts that the adjuvant in the anthrax vaccine is aluminum hydroxide, Lacklen and the sick pilots said the reason they are skeptical is because other bases, which may not have gotten the same squalene lot Dover received, had not had similar health problems. Those who talked to Stars and Stripes said they are willing to resume the shots as long as they know for sure the lots don’t contain any trace of squalene. “It’s not the vaccine, it’s what they added to it,” Lacklen said. Not all of the pilots agree with Lacklen. One pilot said that there are those in the squadron who think Lacklen is way off base. They did not receive any side effects from the shots.

But other pilots who talked to Stripes consider Lacklen, who is married and has four daughters, almost a hero for risking his career and speaking out. Lacklen said the Air Force should do more to find out why some members of the wing are experiencing so many health problems and whether the vaccine is the reason. “If we had wrecked an airplane, they would have had a team of people come down and figure out what went wrong,” Lacklen said. “A lot of people have gotten sick, but nobody has come.”