General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

anthrax vaccine

Started by John · · Last activity · 1 post · 362 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 December 2003
Last activity
30 December 2003
Original author
John
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
362
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–1 of 1
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Talking points: anthrax vaccine preliminary injunction Meryl Nass, MD

    Safety: Critique of National Academy of Sciences Report

    1. The National Academy of Science (NAS) produced four reports that dealt with anthrax vaccine.
    All of those reports, except the last one, admitted there was insufficient evidence to show
    long-term vaccine safety. The final report, by the Committee to Assess the Safety and
    Efficacy of Anthrax Vaccine, acknowledged that "statistically significant elevations in rates
    for outpatient visits were also found for certain malignant neoplasms, portal vein
    thrombosis, and acute pulmonary heart disease, among others" (page 118 of The Anthrax
    vaccine: Is It Safe? Does It Work? National Academy Press, Washington D.C. March 2002).
    Furthermore, there were higher rates of hospitalizations for diabetes, asthma, Crohn's
    Disease, thyroid cancer, in situ cervical and breast cancer, other intestinal disorders and
    multiple sclerosis (ibid, pp 120-121).

    This National Academy of Science Committee (paid for by the Defense Department) never said anthrax
    vaccine had proven long-term safety. Instead, the panel agreed with the three earlier NAS panels
    that "the available data are limited." But they then chose to interpret the lack of data as showing
    "no convincing evidence at this time that personnel who have received AVA have elevated risks of later-
    onset health events."

    How could they say this, when seven studies of Gulf War veterans had linked vaccinations to chronic
    illnesses in veterans? The Committee conveniently dismissed all seven studies by saying that since
    veterans' vaccination records were missing, the studies' results were unreliable. (However, in the
    two British and one Canadian study linking vaccinations to GWS, vaccination records were NOT
    missing. Furthermore, who lost the US records? The Defense Department, of course, which knew it
    would be much harder to link vaccinations to later diseases without the records.)

    How Many People Are Affected?

    2. At least 150,000 US Gulf War veterans, and soldiers inoculated in preparation for
    deployment to the Gulf War, received anthrax vaccine in 1990 and early 1991. Many who were
    vaccinated but never deployed have developed "Gulf War Syndrome" (GWS) - illnesses
    identical to those of many anthrax vaccine recipients today. They had no other exposure in
    the Gulf to account for their illnesses.

    3. One million soldiers and military contractors have received anthrax vaccine since March
    1998. They have filed over 3,000 adverse event reports to the FDA reporting problems they
    experienced following vaccination.

    4. According to the FDA, an additional 475,000 US soldiers received anthrax vaccine between
    1991 and 1998.

    5. This totals 1.6 million Americans who have been vaccinated against anthrax since 1990, more
    than one in every 200 Americans. How many have developed chronic illnesses and disabilities
    as a result?

    6. The epidemiological studies looking into long-term effects of anthrax vaccination come from
    research on Gulf War veterans. A Canadian study linked chronic fatigue to anthrax and
    plague vaccinations. A British study linked anthrax vaccine to Gulf War Syndrome in
    vaccinated veterans of both the Gulf War and the Bosnia conflict. Studies of US GW veterans
    from Ohio and Boston have linked anthrax vaccine to GWS. Studies from Kansas and the UK
    that looked at vaccinations in general, without separating individual vaccines, found that
    receiving vaccinations for the Gulf deployment related to developing GWS.

    7. The Kansas study (by Lea Steele) found that being vaccinated in preparation for a Gulf
    deployment, but never going to the Gulf, increased the chance of developing GWS in
    veterans by 8%.

    8. A study done at Dover AFB by an air force pilot indicated that about 30% of those
    vaccinated for anthrax developed at least one chronic medical problem soon afterward.

    9. Assuming 5% of 1,600,000 people have developed illnesses resembling GWS or other serious
    medical conditions from anthrax vaccine, then a total of 80,000 people have developed this
    serious illness as a result of their military vaccinations in the last thirteen years. (We
    still lack enough reliable information to know for sure how many have become ill, but this
    is a reasonable estimate for now.)

    10. The GAO found that 60% of those who developed illnesses that occurred shortly after vaccination
    did not seek treatment within the military, and tried to keep their illnesses hidden to avoid
    adverse effects on their careers. This is probably why military statistics do not reflect an
    increased number of serious illnesses, overall, in those vaccinated.

    11. Of the 40% that did seek treatment within the military, well over 90% have been told the
    vaccine had nothing to do with their illnesses.

    Is the vaccine licensed for inhalation? Is it effective for inhalation?

    12. The currently used anthrax vaccine was licensed in 1970 using safety and efficacy data from an
    earlier, different anthrax vaccine. Then and in 1985, the FDA noted that the data only showed
    protection for skin (cutaneous) anthrax, not inhaled anthrax. Because DOD also knew the vaccine
    was not licensed properly for inhalation, it held a series of meetings in the mid 1990s to
    discuss what it would take to get the vaccine a license that included inhalation. The
    Investigational New Drug application, prepared by DOD and filed in 1996, acknowledged that a
    major purpose of the application was to license the vaccine for inhalation. Because DOD has
    never been able to generate convincing data to show the vaccine is effective in people for
    inhalation anthrax, it has been unable to get the license changed. It does not matter how many
    monkeys lived or died in anthrax experiments, because DOD cannot show that the monkey
    experiments are predictive of human survival. Furthermore, two other vaccines developed for
    biological warfare turned out to be ineffective for inhalation. We simply do not know if the
    vaccine protects against weaponized anthrax.

    13. The National Academy of Sciences panel went out on a limb and claimed the vaccine protected
    against all known or plausible engineered strains of anthrax. This is utter rubbish. In animal
    models, this vaccine has not protected against all strains of anthrax. Furthermore, how can
    they say it will protect against bioengineered anthrax, when they do not know which genes were
    changed by genetic engineering? In fact, the defense department sponsored a secret project to
    bioengineer an anthrax strain that would be vaccine resistant. This claim is a good example of
    how the authors of the report actually ignored the existing science on anthrax.

    14. Claims that Al Qaeda sought anthrax, and other "threats" that have just appeared in the media,
    designed to support continued mandatory vaccinations, miss the point. Why were civilians given
    antibiotics, which were 100% effective? Why do plans for civilian readiness in future continue
    to emphasize antibiotics above vaccine? No vaccine is available to civilians, despite the DOD
    saying they have a more than adequate supply, and Bioport wanting to sell vaccine. Why? If
    civilians got this "licensed" product and got sick, they could sue Bioport for damages, and go
    after the FDA for inadequate testing and warnings on the label. DOD, FDA and Bioport only want
    to vaccinate a captive population that has little or no legal recourse when injured (due to the
    Feres Doctrine, which prohibits servicemembers from suing the government for any injury
    sustained "incident to military service"😉.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.