[Anthrax-no] Why anthrax vaccine was & is not safe, effective or properly approved - ...
Nov 2006
FDA's incomplete rulemaking in 1985 rendered the anthrax vaccine program
illegal: In a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Proposed Rule, 50 FR
51002. (
http://www.anthrax.mil/documents/library/fed_reg.pdf ) Dec. 13,
1985, the FDA published, but never finalized, a licensing rule for the
anthrax vaccine in the Federal Register based on an expert review panel's
findings, which included the fact that the "Anthrax vaccine.efficacy
against inhalation anthrax is not well documented," and that "No meaningful
assessment of its value against inhalation anthrax is possible due to its
low incidence," and that "The vaccine manufactured by the Michigan
Department of Public Health has not been employed in a controlled field
trial." The lack of a final anthrax vaccine rule led to the declaration in
2004 that the program was illegal, though the court never ruled on what it
termed the numerous substantive challenges to FDA's Final Rule and Order
(see footnote 10 [
http://www.anthrax.mil/documents/library/AnthraxSJtOrder_Op.pdf ] ).
DoD knew they need a modern vaccine: In 1985 the United States Army
submitted a "request for proposal" (
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2001/health/fda.pdf ) to solicit
a new anthrax vaccine from the pharmaceutical industry. The Army candidly
discussed the limitations of the current vaccine with its high adverse
reaction rate and its questionable efficacy against different strains of
anthrax writing, "There is an operational requirement to develop a safe and
effective product which will protect US troops against exposure from
virulent strains of Bacillus anthracis. There is no vaccine in current use
which will safely and effectively protect military personnel against
exposure to this hazardous bacterial agent ... A licensed vaccine against
anthrax, which appears to afford some protection from the disease, 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 the anthrax bacillus."
Once upon a time the DoD told the truth about the anthrax vaccine: In 1989
an Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) letter (
http://www.sskrplaw.com/vaccine/anthchrono.html ) to Senator John Glenn
reiterated the safety and efficacy problems with the anthrax vaccine,
saying "Current vaccines, particularly the anthrax vaccine, do not readily
lend themselves to use in mass troop immunization for a variety of reasons:
the requirement in many cases for multiple immunizations to accomplish
protective immunity, a higher than desirable rate of reactogenicity, and,
in some cases, lack of strong enough efficacy against infection by the
aerosol route of exposure."
Once upon a time the DoD published the truth: In an article titled
"Military Immunizations Past, Present, and Future Prospects" (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=2407777&dopt=Abstract ) published by Infectious Disease Clinics of North
America in March 1990 Army Doctors / Colonels Takafuji and Russell of Fort
Detrick described the anthrax vaccine as a: "Limited use
vaccine...unlicensed experimental vaccine."
Congress knew there were problems: In a 1994 Senate Veteran Affair's
Committee Staff Report, SR 103-97 (
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm
), Major General Ronald Blanck acknowledged a possible link between the
anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illness to Committee investigators testifying,
"Although anthrax vaccine had been considered approved prior to the Persian
Gulf War, it was rarely used. Therefore, its safety, particularly when
given to thousands of soldiers in conjunction with other vaccines, is not
well established. Anthrax vaccine should continue to be considered as a
potential cause for undiagnosed illnesses in Persian Gulf military
personnel because many of the support troops received anthrax vaccine, and
because the DoD believes that the incidence of undiagnosed illnesses in
support troops may be higher than that in combat troops."
Congress knew the vaccine was investigational: The Senate Committee
concluded in Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Staff Report 103-97
(http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm
) that "Records of anthrax
vaccinations are not suitable to evaluate safety...However, the vaccine's
effectiveness against inhaled anthrax is unknown. Unfortunately, when
anthrax is used as a biological weapon, it is likely to be aerosolized and
thus inhaled. Therefore, the efficacy of the vaccine against biological
warfare is unknown.The vaccine should therefore be considered
investigational when used as a protection against biological warfare."
Key scientists previously said the anthrax vaccine was unsatisfactory: In
the 1994 civilian medical textbook "Vaccines," Colonel (Dr.) Arthur
Friedlander, the Army's chief anthrax vaccine researcher at Ft. Detrick,
authored a chapter on the anthrax vaccine. The article was co-authored by
Dr. Phillip Brachman and edited by Dr. Stanley Plotkin, both involved with
the original study of the vaccine thirty years earlier. The chapter
acknowledged the shortcomings of the vaccine used for the AVIP, including
its high adverse reaction rates, plus noted, "The current vaccine against
anthrax is unsatisfactory for several reasons (
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=1326 ). The vaccine is
composed of an undefined crude culture of supernatant adsorbed to aluminum
hydroxide. There has been no quantification of the protective antigen
content of the vaccine or of any of the other constituents, so the degree
of purity is unknown. ... The undefined nature of the vaccine and the
presence of constituents that may be undesirable may account for the level
of reactogenicity observed. ... There is also evidence in experimental
animals that the vaccine may be less effective against some strains of
anthrax. Clearly a vaccine that is completely defined, that is less
reactogenic, and that requires one or two doses to produce long-lasting
immunity would be highly desirable."
US Army tried to fix problems: In September 1995 the US Army developed a
plan at Fort Detrick to obtain FDA approval for the licensing of the
anthrax vaccine against aerosolized or inhalation anthrax. The plan's text
included the fact that "This vaccine is not licensed for aerosol exposure
expected in a biological warfare environment (
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447151 )."
Improper licensure: In a report prepared by the Joint Program Office for
Biological Defense (JPOBD) in December 1997, the DoD acknowledged, "Anthrax
and Smallpox are the only licensed vaccines that are useful for the
biological defense program, but they are not licensed for a biological
defense indication."
Flawed testing: Mr. Joseph Little, a contracting officer for the anthrax
vaccine at the Pentagon, confirmed via email in May of 1999 that results of
the anthrax vaccine testing was "all over the board," while recommending
they "suspend any further potency testing" or else the results "must be
reported to the FDA."
DoD cover-up: Brigadier General Eddie Cain, in email exchanges with
Colonel John Wade, reference 29 APR 99 Congressional testimonies, said,
".two key areas in which we came up flat were the GAO's assertion that #1,
the anthrax vaccine licensed was NOT the one tested and #2, how can DoD say
that reported desert storm illnesses were not cause (sic) by the anthrax
vaccine when we have no record of who received the shots. If we cannot
answer these questions we (DoD & the Administration) are in big time trouble."
GAO confirms problems: In the April 1999 GAO Report T-NSIAD-99-148 (
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-NSIAD-99-226 ) confirmed that the
"long-term safety of the vaccine has not yet been studied," that the
"vaccine and the manufacturing process (was) changed," that "the
ingredients used to make anthrax vaccine were changed from the original
vaccine," and that "Prior to the time of licensing, no human efficacy
testing of the MDPH vaccine was performed."
IOM confirmed safety problems: On March 30, 2000, the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) published "A Letter Report Assessment of the Safety of the
Anthrax Vaccine (
http://newton.nap.edu/html/anthrax_vaccine/ )"
concluding, "There is a paucity of published peer-reviewed literature on
the safety of the anthrax vaccine...The Committee concludes that in the
peer-reviewed literature there is inadequate/insufficient evidence to
determine whether an association does or does not exist between anthrax
vaccination and long-term adverse health outcomes."
Sole Congressional report confirmed problems: House Report 106-556 (
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_reports&d
ocid=f:hr556.106 ) on April 3rd, 2000, titled "Unproven Force Protection,"
recommended suspension of the AVIP due to its "experimental" status. The
Committee determined, "While an improved vaccine is being developed, use of
the current anthrax vaccine for force protection against biological warfare
should be considered experimental and undertaken only pursuant to FDA
regulations governing investigational testing for a new indication."
Presidential Candidate George W. Bush empathized with the troops: In US
Medicine in September of 2000 candidate President Bush empathized with the
troops that "The Defense Department's Anthrax Immunization Program has
raised numerous health concerns and caused fear among the individuals whose
lives it touches. I don't feel the current administration's anthrax
immunization program has taken into account the effect of this program on
the soldiers in our military and their families. Under my administration,
soldiers and their families will be taken into consideration." Senator
McCain concurred, stating in the San Diego Union Tribune in February 2000
that "I think that there should be a pause. I think that they have not done
the job in educating the members of the military, and ... right now members
of the armed services, the Guard and reserves are not accepting it."
Stephen Hadley, Bush's Assistant for National Security Affaires, confirmed
the same on PBS NewsHour in Sept. 2000 (
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/september00/military6.html ) stating,
"The vaccination program is a very serious issue. Maintaining the trust and
confidence of our men and women in uniform is critical to the future of our
armed forces. Some months ago, Governor Bush called for the
Commander-in-Chief and our military leaders to be very mindful of the
concerns of our men and women in uniform and their families about the
vaccine, and called for the government to do more to address their
concerns. Hopefully the [Clinton] administration will respond."
Senate Majority Leader, a doctor, criticizes the anthrax vaccine: Sen.
Bill First criticized the vaccine on CNN in December 2001 (
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/18/anthrax/index.html ) stating, "The vaccine
is a dated vaccine, it's an old vaccine. There are very real and
potentially serious side effects from the vaccine and anyone who elects to
receive the vaccine needs to be made aware of that. I do not recommend
widespread inoculation for people with the vaccine in the Hart Building
...There are too many side effects and if there is limited chance of
exposure the side effects would far outweigh any potential advantage."
Court rulings confirm illegality of mandatory anthrax inoculations: In
December 2003 (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-707a.pdf
) and October 2004 (
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2004/Sullivan/03-707c.pdf ) the
Federal Court Rulings confirmed that "The involuntary anthrax vaccination
program, as applied to all persons, is rendered illegal absent informed
consent or a Presidential waiver." In February 2006 the DC Federal Appeals
Court declined to vacate or overturn the ruling that the anthrax vaccine
was illegal, despite FDA's attempt to fix the paperwork and re-license the
vaccine in December 2005.
GAO confirms vaccine problems remain: Via testimony in report GAO-06-756T
(
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06756t.pdf ) the Congressional watchdog
agency continued to question the "long-term and short-term safety of the
vaccine, including gender differences; and the vaccine's efficacy." GAO
again confirmed that the "long-term safety of the licensed vaccine has not
been studied," and that the efficacy of the vaccine for DoD's intended use
against inhaled anthrax "may not be extrapolated to humans."
DoD Press and Courts attempt to rewrite the history of the anthrax vaccine:
DoD begins misinformation campaign to negate the importance of Federal
Court decisions, which previously confirmed the anthrax vaccine program was
illegal. Pentagon spokesperson claims, "No judicial judgment has declared
such orders to have been unlawful (
http://www.militaryproject.org/docs/vol4/GI )," [Special 4J1 Interview With
The Resistance.doc] which is a patent falsity. Additionally, military
judges at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rule (
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006Term/04-0246.pdf ) that the DoD
presumed the order to be legal previously. The judges refuse to reverse
previous court-martials, while omitting the finding of fact and law that
the anthrax vaccine program was declared illegal prior to the FDA's
December 2005 flawed licensure.
Bottomline: The fundamental facts remain unaltered (
http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/ ),
despite DoD's attempt to change the
history of the anthrax vaccine. The vaccine, in DoD's own words, is or was
unsatisfactory, inadequate, highly reactive, of limited effectiveness, and
therefore was experimental / investigational. It is academic that the
anthrax vaccine was illegal to mandate, and that DoD cannot erase their
previous intellectually honest criticisms (
https://www.hsdl.org/homesec/docs/legis/nps01-121103-07.pdf ). The new
license, for the same old vaccine, remains improper because the legally
required clinical trials never occurred. DoD's intended use of the vaccine
for inhaled anthrax remains unproven according to GAO testimony, and
therefore the mandatory order remains illegal. FDA's continued failures to
properly regulate only complicate the situation. DoD actions with respect
to the anthrax vaccine violate the armed forces' honor codes (
http://www.military-biodefensevaccines.org/ ), core values
(http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/index.htm
), oath of office
(http://www.avip2001.net/ ) and the basic
trust Americans require (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthrax-no/ ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
FDA's incomplete rulemaking in 1985 rendered the anthrax vaccine program
illegal: In a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Proposed Rule, 50 FR
51002 (
http://www.anthrax.mil/documents/library/fed_reg.pdf ). Dec. 13,
1985, the FDA published, but never finalized, a licensing rule for the
anthrax vaccine in the Federal Register based on an expert review panel?s
findings, which included the fact that the ?Anthrax vaccine?efficacy
against inhalation anthrax is not well documented,? and that ?No meaningful
assessment of its value against inhalation anthrax is possible due to its
low incidence,? and that ?The vaccine manufactured by the Michigan
Department of Public Health has not been employed in a controlled field
trial.? The lack of a final anthrax vaccine rule led to the declaration in
2004 that the program was illegal, though the court never ruled on what it
termed the numerous substantive challenges to FDA's Final Rule and Order
(footnote 10).
DoD knew they need a modern vaccine: In 1985 the United States Army
submitted a request for proposal (
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2001/health/fda.pdf ) to solicit
a new anthrax vaccine from the pharmaceutical industry. The Army candidly
discussed the limitations of the current vaccine with its high adverse
reaction rate and its questionable efficacy against different strains of
anthrax writing, ?There is an operational requirement to develop a safe and
effective product which will protect US troops against exposure from
virulent strains of Bacillus anthracis. There is no vaccine in current use
which will safely and effectively protect military personnel against
exposure to this hazardous bacterial agent ... A licensed vaccine against
anthrax, which appears to afford some protection from the disease, 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 the anthrax bacillus.?
Once upon a time the DoD told the truth about the anthrax vaccine: In 1989
an Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) letter (
http://www.sskrplaw.com/vaccine/anthchrono.html ) to Senator John Glenn
reiterated the safety and efficacy problems with the anthrax vaccine,
saying, "Current vaccines, particularly the anthrax vaccine, do not readily
lend themselves to use in mass troop immunization for a variety of reasons:
the requirement in many cases for multiple immunizations to accomplish
protective immunity, a higher than desirable rate of reactogenicity, and,
in some cases, lack of strong enough efficacy against infection by the
aerosol route of exposure."
Once upon a time the DoD published the truth: In an article titled
Military Immunizations Past, Present, and Future Prospects (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=2407777&dopt=Abstract ) published by Infectious Disease Clinics of North
America in March 1990 Army Doctors / Colonels Takafuji and Russell of Fort
Detrick described the anthrax vaccine as a: 'Limited use
vaccine...unlicensed experimental vaccine.'
Congress knew there were problems: In a 1994 Senate Veteran Affair's
Committee Staff Report, SR 103-97 (
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm
), Major General Ronald Blanck acknowledged a possible link between the
anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illness to Committee investigators testifying,
"Although anthrax vaccine had been considered approved prior to the
Persian Gulf War, it was rarely used. Therefore, its safety, particularly
when given to thousands of soldiers in conjunction with other vaccines, is
not well established. Anthrax vaccine should continue to be considered as a
potential cause for undiagnosed illnesses in Persian Gulf military
personnel because many of the support troops received anthrax vaccine, and
because the DoD believes that the incidence of undiagnosed illnesses in
support troops may be higher than that in combat troops."
Congress knew the vaccine was investigational: The Senate Committee
concluded in Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Staff Report 103-97 (
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm ) that Records of anthrax
vaccinations are not suitable to evaluate safety...However, the vaccine's
effectiveness against inhaled anthrax is unknown. Unfortunately, when
anthrax is used as a biological weapon, it is likely to be aerosolized and
thus inhaled. Therefore, the efficacy of the vaccine against biological
warfare is unknown. The vaccine should therefore be considered
investigational when used as a protection against biological warfare.
Key scientists previously said the anthrax vaccine was unsatisfactory: In
the 1994 civilian medical textbook "Vaccines," Colonel (Dr.) Arthur
Friedlander, the Army's chief anthrax vaccine researcher at Ft. Detrick,
authored a chapter on the anthrax vaccine. The article was co-authored by
Dr. Phillip Brachman and edited by Dr. Stanley Plotkin, both involved with
the original study of the vaccine thirty years earlier. The chapter
acknowledged the shortcomings of the vaccine used for the AVIP, including
its high adverse reaction rates, plus noted, The current vaccine against
anthrax is unsatisfactory for several reasons (
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=1326 ). The vaccine is
composed of an undefined crude culture of supernatant adsorbed to aluminum
hydroxide. There has been no quantification of the protective antigen
content of the vaccine or of any of the other constituents, so the degree
of purity is unknown. ... The undefined nature of the vaccine and the
presence of constituents that may be undesirable may account for the level
of reactogenicity observed. ... There is also evidence in experimental
animals that the vaccine may be less effective against some strains of
anthrax. Clearly a vaccine that is completely defined, that is less
reactogenic, and that requires one or two doses to produce long-lasting
immunity would be highly desirable.
US Army tried to fix problems: In September 1995 the US Army developed a
plan at Fort Detrick to obtain FDA approval for the licensing of the
anthrax vaccine against aerosolized or inhalation anthrax. The plan?s text
included the fact that This vaccine is not licensed for aerosol exposure
expected in a biological warfare environment (
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447151 ).
Improper licensure: In a report prepared by the Joint Program Office for
Biological Defense (JPOBD) in December 1997, the DoD acknowledged,
'Anthrax and Smallpox are the only licensed vaccines that are useful for
the biological defense program, but they are not licensed for a biological
defense indication.'
Flawed testing: Mr. Joseph Little, a contracting officer for the anthrax
vaccine at the Pentagon, confirmed via email in May of 1999 that results of
the anthrax vaccine testing was "all over the board," while recommending
they "suspend any further potency testing" or else the results "must be
reported to the FDA."
DoD cover-up: Brigadier General Eddie Cain, in email exchanges with
Colonel John Wade, reference 29 APR 99 Congressional testimonies, said, two
key areas in which we came up flat were the GAO's assertion that #1, the
anthrax vaccine licensed was NOT the one tested and #2, how can DoD say
that reported desert storm illnesses were not cause (sic) by the anthrax
vaccine when we have no record of who received the shots. If we cannot
answer these questions we (DoD & the Administration) are in big time trouble.
GAO confirms problems: In the April 1999 GAO Report T-NSIAD-99-148 (
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-NSIAD-99-226 ) confirmed that the
long-term safety of the vaccine has not yet been studied, that the "vaccine
and the manufacturing process (was) changed," that "the ingredients used to
make anthrax vaccine were changed from the original vaccine, and that,
Prior to the time of licensing, no human efficacy testing of the MDPH
vaccine was performed."
IOM confirmed safety problems: On March 30, 2000, the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) published A Letter Report Assessment of the Safety of the
Anthrax Vaccine (
http://newton.nap.edu/html/anthrax_vaccine/ ) concluding,
There is a paucity of published peer-reviewed literature on the safety of
the anthrax vaccine...The Committee concludes that in the peer-reviewed
literature there is "inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether
an association does or does not exist between anthrax vaccination and
long-term adverse health outcomes."
Sole Congressional report confirmed problems: House Report 106-556 (
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_reports&d
ocid=f:hr556.106 ) on April 3rd, 2000, titled Unproven Force Protection,
recommended suspension of the AVIP due to its experimental status. The
Committee determined, "While an improved vaccine is being developed, use of
the current anthrax vaccine for force protection against biological warfare
should be considered experimental and undertaken only pursuant to FDA
regulations governing investigational testing for a new indication."
Presidential Candidate George W. Bush empathized with the troops: In US
Medicine in September of 2000 candidate President Bush empathized with the
troops that "The Defense Department's Anthrax Immunization Program has
raised numerous health concerns and caused fear among the individuals whose
lives it touches. I don't feel the current administration's anthrax
immunization program has taken into account the effect of this program on
the soldiers in our military and their families. Under my administration,
soldiers and their families will be taken into consideration." Senator
McCain concurred, stating in the San Diego Union Tribune in February 2000
that "I think that there should be a pause. I think that they have not done
the job in educating the members of the military, and ... right now members
of the armed services, the Guard and reserves are not accepting it."
Stephen Hadley, Bush's Assistant for National Security Affaires, confirmed
the same on PBS NewsHour in Sept. 2000 (
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/september00/military6.html ) stating,
"The vaccination program is a very serious issue. Maintaining the trust and
confidence of our men and women in uniform is critical to the future of our
armed forces. Some months ago, Governor Bush called for the
Commander-in-Chief and our military leaders to be very mindful of the
concerns of our men and women in uniform and their families about the
vaccine, and called for the government to do more to address their
concerns. Hopefully the [Clinton] administration will respond."
Senate Majority Leader, a doctor, criticizes the anthrax vaccine: Sen.
Bill First criticized the vaccine on CNN in December 2001 (
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/18/anthrax/index.html ) stating, "The vaccine
is a dated vaccine, it's an old vaccine. There are very real and
potentially serious side effects from the vaccine and anyone who elects to
receive the vaccine needs to be made aware of that. I do not recommend
widespread inoculation for people with the vaccine in the Hart Building
...There are too many side effects and if there is limited chance of
exposure the side effects would far outweigh any potential advantage."
Court rulings confirm illegality of mandatory anthrax inoculations: In
December 2003 (
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-707a.pdf ) and October 2004
(
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2004/Sullivan/03-707c.pdf ) the
Federal Court Rulings confirmed that "The involuntary anthrax vaccination
program, as applied to all persons, is rendered illegal absent informed
consent or a Presidential waiver." In February 2006 the DC Federal Appeals
Court declined to vacate or overturn the ruling that the anthrax vaccine
was illegal, despite FDA's attempt to fix the paperwork and re-license the
vaccine in December 2005.
GAO confirms vaccine problems remain: Via testimony in report GAO-06-756T
(
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06756t.pdf ) the Congressional watchdog
agency continued to question the "long-term and short-term safety of the
vaccine, including gender differences; and the vaccine's efficacy." GAO
again confirmed that the "long-term safety of the licensed vaccine has not
been studied," and that the efficacy of the vaccine for DoD's intended use
against inhaled anthrax "may not be extrapolated to humans."
DoD Press and Courts attempt to rewrite the history of the anthrax vaccine:
DoD begins misinformation campaign to negate the importance of Federal
Court decisions, which previously confirmed the anthrax vaccine program was
illegal. Pentagon spokesperson claims, "No judicial judgment has declared
such orders to have been unlawful," (
http://www.militaryproject.org/docs/vol4/GI ( [Special 4J1 Interview With
The Resistance.doc] which is a patent falsity. Additionally, military
judges at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rule (
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006Term/04-0246.pdf ) that the DoD
presumed the order to be legal previously. The judges refuse to reverse
previous court-martials, while omitting the finding of fact and law that
the anthrax vaccine program was declared illegal prior to the FDA's
December 2005 flawed licensure.
Bottomline: The fundamental facts remain unaltered (
http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/ ),
despite DoD's attempt to change the
history of the anthrax vaccine. The vaccine, in DoD's own words, is or was
unsatisfactory, inadequate, highly reactive, of limited effectiveness, and
therefore was experimental / investigational. It is academic that the
anthrax vaccine was illegal to mandate, and that DoD cannot erase their
previous intellectually honest criticisms (
https://www.hsdl.org/homesec/docs/legis/nps01-121103-07.pdf ). The new
license, for the same old vaccine, remains improper because the legally
required clinical trials never occurred. DoD's intended use of the vaccine
for inhaled anthrax remains unproven according to GAO testimony, and
therefore the mandatory order remains illegal. FDA's continued failures to
properly regulate only complicate the situation. DoD actions with respect
to the anthrax vaccine violate the armed forces' honor codes (
http://www.military-biodefensevaccines.org/ ), core values (
http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/index.htm ), oath of office (
http://www.avip2001.net/ ) and the basic
trust Americans require (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthrax-no/ ).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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.petitiononline.com/fd1950/petition.html
To visit Dr. Meryl Nass's web site, go to:
http://www.anthraxvaccine.org
Also visit: Anthrax Vaccine Benefit vs Risk:
http://www.avip2001.net AND
http://www.MajorBates.com/
Anthrax Vaccine Network
http://www.ngwrc.org/anthrax/default.asp
Sgt. Sandra Larson's story:
http://www.ngwrc.org/anthrax/heroes/sandralarson.htm
http://www.avip2001.net/CongressionalTestimony.htm
Tom Heemstra's new book -
http://www.anthraxadeadlyshotinthedark.com/index.html
Contact list owner: Gretchen at:
anna_nim@ix.netcom.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to make changes to your
subscription,
log on:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthrax-no then:
http://groups.yahoo.com/myprefs
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthrax-no/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthrax-no/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Anthrax-no-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Anthrax-no-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Anthrax-no-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/