General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

anthrax vaccine

Started by john · · Last activity · 1 post · 211 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

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
211
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.