Senate Resolution For Voluntary Inoculation & Correction Of Military Records

[HARDCORE]

Received this by e-mail!!

Mrs. Hardcore
___________________________________

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Pg S16031 - S16034, November 25, 2003
SENATE RESOLUTION 278?EXPRESSING
THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING
THE ANTHRAX AND SMALLPOX VACCINES
Full text from Congressional record: Page: S16031, Or PDF: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...me=2003_record

Full text from Congressional record: Page: S16032, Or PDF: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...me=2003_record

Full text from Congressional record: Page: S16033, Or PDF: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...me=2003_record

Full text from Congressional record: Page: S16034, Or PDF: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...me=2003_record


Full text:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Pg S16031 - S16034, November 25, 2003
SENATE RESOLUTION 278?EXPRESSING
THE SENSE OF THE
SENATE REGARDING THE ANTHRAX
AND SMALLPOX VACCINES
Mr. BINGAMAN submitted the following
resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on Armed Services:
S. RES. 278
Whereas military personnel are asked to
risk and even sacrifice their lives and the
well-being of their families in defense of the
United States;
Whereas vaccines are an important factor
in ensuring force health protection by protecting
the military personnel of the United
States from both natural health threats and
health threats resulting from biological
weapons in overseas conflicts;
Whereas vaccines offer significant benefits
and protections that must be carefully balanced
with the reality that vaccines and
drugs generally carry rare but serious adverse
events and life-threatening risks;
Whereas in 2002, the insert label for the anthrax
vaccine required by the Food and Drug
Administration was revised to include approximately
40 serious adverse events with
information that ??approximately 6 percent
of the reported events were listed as serious.??;
Whereas in 2002, the Food and Drug Administration
also compelled the manufacturer of
the anthrax vaccine to substantially revise
the package insert and changed the risk to
pregnant women from Category C (a possible
risk) to Category D (a known risk) because
of ??positive evidence of human fetal risk
based on adverse reaction data from investigational
or marketing experience or studies
in humans??;
Whereas in 2002, the General Accounting
Office reported ??an estimated 84 percent of
the personnel who had had anthrax vaccine
shots between September 1998 and September
2000 reported having side effects or reactions.
This rate is more than double the level cited
in the vaccine product insert. Further, about
24 percent of all events were classified as systemic?
a level more than a hundred times
higher than that estimated in the product
insert at the time??;
Whereas in June 2003, the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
withdrew its support for expanding the
smallpox vaccination program for first-responders
after finding that 1 in 500 civilians
vaccinated for smallpox had a serious vaccine
event;
Whereas in 2002, the General Accounting
Office found that 69 percent of experienced
pilots and aircrew members in the National
Guard and the Reserve reported that the anthrax
shot was the major influence in their
decision to change their military status in
2000, including leaving the military entirely;
Whereas in the war in Iraq that continues
as of the date of enactment of this resolution,
the British and Australian militaries
have conducted voluntary anthrax vaccine
programs, and other allies who have been offered
the anthrax vaccine have declined;
Whereas in March 2000, the National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Disease reported
in the ??Jordan Report 20th Anniversary:
Accelerated Development of Vaccines
2000?? that no data existed to support the effectiveness
of the anthrax vaccine against
pulmonary (inhalation) anthrax in humans;
Whereas because anthrax can be prevented
and treated with antibiotics and other options
are either in clinical trials or development,
the current anthrax vaccine is not the
only choice for force health protection;
Whereas in the 2002 State of the Union address,
President Bush placed a national priority
on developing a new anthrax vaccine
and a newer and safer smallpox vaccine is
also in development; and
Whereas the threat of anthrax and smallpox
attacks against the deployed troops of
the United States has significantly diminished
since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein
and the disruption of Al Qaeda activity in
Afghanistan: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate
that?
(1) the Secretary of Defense should reconsider
the mandatory nature of the anthrax
and smallpox vaccine immunization program,
pending the development of new and
better vaccines that are under development
as of the date of enactment of this resolution;
(2) the Secretary of Defense and Board for
Correction of Military Records should reconsider
adverse actions already taken or intended
to be taken against servicemembers
for refusing to accept the anthrax or smallpox
vaccine;
(3) the Secretary of Defense and the intelligence
community should reevaluate the
threat of anthrax and smallpox attacks on
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to reflect
operational realities as of the date of enactment
of this resolution when considering the
continuation of a mandatory military vaccination
program; and
(4) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
should assess those adverse events being reported
with respect to the anthrax and
smallpox vaccines, research causal relationships,
and estimate a future cost to the Department
to treat these conditions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President,
throughout the conflict in Iraq, our
brave soldiers have carried out their
duties with strength, with honor, and
with courage. They have never faltered
in their service to this nation or the
world. That is why I am so troubled
that some of our servicemembers and
their families believe that current Department
of Defense policies may be
failing them, with grievous consequences.
That is why I rise today to submit a
Sense of the Senate Resolution that
asks for reconsideration of the policies
surrounding the current smallpox and
anthrax immunization programs. Specifically
it asks the Secretary of Defense
to reconsider the mandatory nature
of its smallpox and anthrax vaccine
immunization programs pending
the development of new and better vaccines
that are currently under development;
reconsider adverse actions taken
against servicemembers on the basis of
refusal to take the smallpox or anthrax
vaccines; and reevaluate, with the intelligence
community, the current
threat of anthrax and smallpox attacks
on our troops, in an effort to reflect
current operational realities when considering
the continuation of a mandatory
vaccination program.
It also urges the Department of Veterans
Affairs to assess these adverse
events being reported with respect to
the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, research
causal relationships, and estimate
a future cost to the Department
of Veterans Affairs to treat these conditions.
Vaccines are an important factor in
ensuring protection of our nation?s
military personnel from health
threats?both natural or from biological
weapons?in overseas conflicts.
However, the current smallpox and anthrax
vaccines have real and serious
consequences that must be weighed
against the potential benefits. This is
why the President has made development
of a modern anthrax vaccine a
national priority in his last two State
of the Union addresses and why the Institute
of Medicine urged the government
to do so in March 2002.
What are the consequences of a policy
that makes it mandatory that military
personnel get the anthrax and
smallpox vaccines? First, there are a
growing number of adverse events reported
in conjunction with these two
vaccines, which is in sharp contrast to
other vaccines. Second, there is a morale
problem in the military associated
with the mandatory nature of requiring
military personnel to take these
shots that has a serious negative impact
on the recruitment and retention
of our military personnel. Third, the
long-term consequences of the vaccine
programs for the health and well-being
of our military personnel and our veterans
is in question and should be addressed.
Ensuring the health and well-being of
our military personnel before, during
and after serving our country should
always be a top priority of our nation.
The major potential benefit of any
vaccine would be force protection. Unfortunately,
there are major questions
that arise with this argument concerning
the anthrax and smallpox vaccines.
First, even if there was a threat,
such a threat against our troops in the
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has
been significantly diminished. Second,
there are other mechanisms to address
any potential exposure, including postexposure
vaccination and antibiotics.
This was the effective treatment used
in the Senate after the anthrax exposure
in 2001. Third, we do not even
know if the anthrax vaccine works at
all on inhalation anthrax or
weaponized anthrax, so the vaccine
may be completely ineffective anyway.
For our brave men and women serving
in harm?s way, all too often the
first threat they face is not when their
boots hit the ground in Baghdad, Iraq,
or Kandahar, Afghanistan?the first
threat many servicemembers believe
they face may be in line at the home
station when they receive their anthrax
and smallpox vaccinations.
There is a growing number of disturbing
reports about how some of our
servicemembers have contracted
health problems shortly after receiving
the anthrax and smallpox vaccines.
These illnesses include mysterious
pneumonia-like illnesses, heart problems,
blood clots, and other medical
conditions that have stricken otherwise
young, healthy, and strong military
personnel. It has even resulted in
death.
This is not entirely surprising, in
light of the fact that the Food and
Drug Administration, or FDA, has
identified a number of adverse reactions
associated with these two vaccines.
With respect to the anthrax vaccine
alone, in 2002 the FDA required
the anthrax vaccine product label be
revised and it now includes approximately
40 serious adverse events. As it
reads, ??Approximately 6% of the reported
events were listed as serious.
Serious adverse events include those
that result in death, hospitalization,
permanent disability or are life-threatening.??
The FDA also raised the rate of
systemic reactions by up to 175 times
over the previous 1999 product label,
from 0.2 percent to 5?35 percent
Meanwhile, in light of adverse events
that exceed those for other vaccines
and other concerns about the smallpox
vaccine, both the Institute of Medicine
and the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices recently issued recommendations
calling for a pause in
the Federal Government?s smallpox
vaccination program.
Meanwhile, both CBS News and UPI
have identified a growing number of
deaths and severe illnesses that they
claim point to the anthrax and smallpox
vaccines. These include the deaths
of Army SP4 Joshua Neusche, Army
SGT Michael Tosto, LTC Anthony
Sherman, Army SP4 Rachel Lacy,
Army SP4 Zeferino Colunga, Army SP4
Cory Hubbell, Army SP4 Levi Kinchen,
Army SSG Richard Eaton, Jr., Army
PVT Matthew Bush, Army SSG David
Loyd, and Army SP4 William Jeffries.
Eight of these 11 Army personnel were
under the age of 25.
As Dr. Jeffrey Sartin, and infectious
disease doctor at the Gundersen Clinic
in La Crosse, WI, said, ??I would say
that the number of cases among young
healthy troops would seem to be unusual.??
The numbers of those with adverse
health events is significantly higher.
There have been around 700 adverse
events reported in just the first 6
months of this year and this is as part
of a reporting system that has been
found to significantly under-report adverse
events.
In addition, there are the reports of
problems at both Ft. Stewart and Ft.
Knox with respect to sick and injured
soldiers who have been waiting weeks
and sometimes months for medical
treatment. Senators LEAHY and BOND
should be commended for drawing attention
to those problems and getting
the military to move to address it.
What remains disturbing is that many
of those who are ill and on ??medical
hold?? were never deployed. At Ft.
Stewart, Senators BOND and LEAHY
found that one-third of the 650 soldiers
awaiting medical care and follow-up
evaluations were not physically qualified
for deployment and therefore
never deployed overseas.
At Ft. Knox, according to a UPI
story, 369 of the 422 soldiers at Ft.
Knox did not deploy to Operation Iraqi
Freedom because of their illnesses.
This includes, according to the story,
??strange clusters of heart problems
and breathing problems, as did soldiers
at Ft. Stewart and other locations.??
These are health problems that are
often cited as adverse events accompanying
the anthrax and smallpox vaccines.
Once again, there is a surprising
number of such cases in what are otherwise
a strong, healthy, and young
group of people.
We certainly do not know whether
these cases have been caused by the anthrax
or smallpox vaccines at this
point. In fact, these personnel desperately
await any medical treatment
and that must be addressed. While the
military works to address that problem,
they should also reconsider the
mandatory nature of the anthrax and
smallpox vaccines, as they may be contributing
heavily to the problem.
In the case of Army SP4 Rachel
Lacy, who loved her country and volunteered
to deploy to the Persian Gulf,
she was ordered to take the anthrax
vaccine and did so without objection.
Within days, she started to suffer pneumonia
and flu-like symptoms. Within
weeks, she was dead. The coroner listed
??post-vaccine?? problems on the death
certificate for Rachel Lacy and said,
??it?s just very suspicious in my mind
. . . that she?s healthy, gets the vaccinations
and then dies a couple weeks
later.??
The Army is, according to published
reports, conducting an investigation of
the 100 or more soldiers that have gotten
pneumonia in Iraq and southwestern
Asia. Of those 100, 2 have died
and another 13 have had to be put on
respirators.
According to a story published in
both the New York Times and Washington
Post on November 19, 2003, as
part of that investigation, the Advisory
Committee on Immunization
Practices and the Armed Services Epidemiology
Board said the evidence
??strongly favors?? the belief that vaccines
led to the death of Rachel Lacy.
It was an important admission and yet
the military immediately said its vaccination
policies would ??not be
changed.??
Rachel?s father, Moses Lacy, has
asked, ??Let?s stop this, re-evaluate
what we?re doing, re-evaluate the
risks.?? That is a reasonable request
and our nation?s servicemembers and
families deserve it. We owe it to the
Lacy family and to all our military
personnel and their families.
As a result of the concerns of
servicemembers and their families that
these vaccines are having on their
health and well-being, it must also be
noted that the anthrax and smallpox
vaccines are having serious consequences
for our nation?s military
readiness. In September 2002, the General
Accounting Office reported that 69
percent of trained and experienced pilots
and aircrew members in the Guard
and Reserve reported that the anthrax
shot was the major influence in their
decision to change their military status
in 2002, including leaving the military
entirely.
Responding to the serious recruitment
and retention problems caused by
the mandatory anthrax vaccine policy,
in February 2000, my colleague and
then Presidential candidate JOHN
MCCAIN called for a moratorium of this
policy. Unfortunately, the safety concerns
Senator MCCAIN noted then have
not been resolved. The military continues
to deny problems with the vaccine
while simultaneously operating a
clinic at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center to treat the illnesses caused by
the vaccine.
Instead of reconsidering its policy,
the DOD has, instead, aggressively
moved against those who have refused
the vaccines. After his testimony before
the House Government Reform
Committee, Major Sonnie Bates, the
highest ranking officer to refuse the
anthrax vaccination, was charged
under article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and the Department of
Defense moved to court-martial him.
After accusations of reprisal came
from the Congress, the Department of
Defense backed down and discharged
Major Bates.
There is also the case of Air Force
Captain John Buck, M.D. He was courtmartialed
for refusing the anthrax vaccine
in a trial in which the judge refused
to allow the jury to hear the doctor?s
views on its safety and efficacy.
After he was convicted, fined $21,000,
and denied a promotion he had earned,
Dr. Buck deployed to the Indian Ocean
after September 11th to support U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan. He
was awarded a medal for his service in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom
and subsequently given an honorable
discharge.
In fact, the military has courtmartialed
soldiers throughout the military
for refusing the anthrax vaccine,
including a case this spring in New
York of Private Rhonda Hazley who refused
the vaccine because she was
breast-feeding her child. One of the
things this resolution asks is for the
Department of Defense to reconsider
adverse actions taken against
servicemembers on the basis of refusal
to take the smallpox or anthrax vaccines.
The court-martialing of a woman
that refused these vaccines because she
was breast-feeding is particularly disturbing.
It is important to note that the FDA
revised the product label for the anthrax
vaccine from ??a possible risk?? to
a ??known risk?? to pregnant women because
of ??positive evidence of human
fetal risk based on adverse reaction
data from investigational or marketing
experience or studies in humans.??
While Private Hazley was no longer
pregnant, the FDA does believe the
??pregnancy and lactation are a clinical
continuum.?? Once again, the risks of
the vaccine would appear to far outweigh
the benefit to a mother and mechanic
in the Army.
The DOD?s actions in such cases have
created a climate of distrust and fear
within the ranks of the military. This
comply or be discharged or prosecuted
policy is of great concern to our brave
young men and women in uniform, and
in the case of Private Hazley, to her
child. Again, due to this policy, many
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to
reevaluate their commitment to the
military.
The military has argued that we need
a mandatory program with respect to
our nation?s military personnel as part
of ensuring force protection. However,
I understand that our allies?both the
British and Australians?have not
made the anthrax vaccines mandatory
in the Iraqi Freedom Operation. As
those two nations weighed the potential
consequences of requiring all military
personnel to get the vaccines
versus any potential benefit, they came
down on the side of making the vaccine
voluntary.
In the case of the British military,
more than half the armed forces personnel
deployed in the Gulf have refused
to be vaccinated against anthrax.
The British Ministry of Defense
spokesman said that this policy would
remain voluntary ??in accordance with
long-standing medical practice.?? Of interest,
British army units that would
be responsible for dealing with suspect
chemical and biological sites are given
the smallpox vaccine but still are not
required to get the anthrax vaccine.
For those that have agreed to accept
the anthrax vaccine among British
troops, they are reporting a large number
of adverse events. According to a
report by the British National Gulf
Veterans and Families? Association,
they anticipate adverse reaction
among ??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.??
In addition to the policy of our allies
that military personnel should be able
to make their own decisions regarding
the anthrax vaccine, another reason
they have made the vaccine voluntary
is that we do not even know whether
the anthrax vaccine is effective against
inhalation or weaponized anthrax.
Furthermore, even if we had truly
thought there was strong evidence that
the Iraqi government had and was preparing
to use biological weapons such
as anthrax against the United States
military, the report by Weapons Inspector
David Kay in September indicates
that threat has been found to be
lacking or non-existent. There appears
to be little evidence available that Al
Qaeda or Saddam have the capability
to deliver anthrax or smallpox against
our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even
if there was such a threat, it is likely
extremely small at this point. Again, if
nothing else, this change in the threat
to our troops requires an immediate reevaluation
of DoD vaccination policy.
Even if you still think there is some
potential benefit of these vaccinations,
it must be further weighed against
whether there is another mechanism
available that would have the same effect.
We in the Senate, for example,
know very well that the treatment of
anthrax exposure via antibiotics works
very well. The Senate was faced with
the choice of having those exposed undergo
a course of antibiotics versus
getting the anthrax vaccine and the
vast majority of those exposed to anthrax
choose to take the antibiotic
treatment rather than volunteer to
take the anthrax vaccine.
In fact, the current Majority Leader,
Senator FRIST, said at the time the anthrax
vaccine was offered to Senate
employees potentially exposed to anthrax,
??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.??
Again, in weighing the potential benefit
of the vaccine versus the option of
antibiotics, the vast majority decided
in support of the latter option. Our
military personnel certainly deserve
the option that many Senate personnel
chose for themselves and what it seems
the Secretary of Defense chose for himself
when he acknowledged on October
25, 2001?in the midst of the anthrax attacks?
that he was not taking the anthrax
vaccine.
When the President was running for
our Nation?s highest office, he said
with respect to questions posed to him
in the September 2000 issue of U.S.
Medicine, ??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.??
Some of our nation?s servicemembers
and their families believe that the current
policy of this Administration does
not adequately take soldiers and their
families into consideration. They believe
we are, in fact, failing to ensure
the health and well-being of our military
personnel and we must do better.
Before closing, I would like to particularly
note the long-standing work
by Congressman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
on this issue. In a report issued by the
House Committee on Government Reform
in April 2000, the report states,
??many members of the armed services
do not share that faith [that the DoD
places in the anthrax vaccine]. They do
not believe merely suggestive evidence
of vaccine efficacy outweighs their
concerns over the lack of evidence of
long term vaccine safety. Nor do they
trust DoD has learned the lessons of
part military medical mistakes: atomic
testing, Agent Orange, Persian Gulf
war drugs, and vaccines. Heavy handed,
one-sided informational materials only
fuel suspicions the program understates
adverse reaction risks in order
to magnify the relative, admittedly
marginal, benefits of the vaccine.??
Many of the findings by Congressman
SHAYS, such as the concerns by military
servicemembers are even more
valid today with the introduction of
the smallpox vaccine to the list of vaccines
required by the military.
Consequently, I urge the passage of
this Sense of the Senate urging the Department
of Defense to reconsider the
mandatory nature of its smallpox and
anthrax vaccination programs and to
minimize the use of these vaccines
pending the current development of
new and better vaccines.
I also plan to introduce legislation
early next year, as the Institute of
Medicine recommended back in 1999, to
establish a National Center for Military
Deployment Health Research. Our
nation?s servicemembers deserve our
best efforts to assure their health and
well-being. As the IOM said in making
the recommendation to establish a National
Center for Military Deployment
Health Research, ??Veterans? organizations
were instrumental in developing
the idea for a national center for the
study of war-related illness and
postdeployment health issues, and
these organizations continue to support
the national center concept.?? We
owe this to our nation?s
servicemembers and veterans and I
look forward to working with them
over the coming months in the development
of that long-needed legislation.

[MORTARDUDE]

Does this mean that some shots in the military are voluntary ? I remember the yellow shot record book as one of the things you kept track of over all else while in the service. None of that was voluntary. How will this work ?

Larry