Warning to those in the military: This is a monitored group by the Pentagon

[HARDCORE]

Sorry to all on the anthrax no list... repeated digest from earlier.

> For those not on the list, I've been on a weeks vacation and have lost track what I've sent, and what I haven't. This digest that came in has some of the pertinent information on it, so, I'm forwarding on just in case anyone missed anything.

Again, my apologies to those already on the list. And again... for those not, if you'd like to get on the list, check the links below on how to subscribe.

> Warning to those in the military: This is a monitored group by the Pentagon.
>
> Randi

> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:15 PM
> Subject: [Anthrax-no] Digest Number 1725
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
> Our Anthrax information web site: http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anthra...iles/VAERS.pdf
> DESTROY QUARANTINED VACCINE:
>
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_pe...&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
> Military Vaccine Education Center link, http://www.milvacs.org
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 7 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Senator Jeff Bingaman resolution: Review military vaccine program
> From: "VERACARE"
> 2. RE: Senator Jeff Bingaman resolution: Review military vaccine program
> From: "John F. Sorg"
> 3. Doctoring Orders
> From: "John F. Sorg"
> 4. The Granville Sentinel: Granville guardsman pleads not guilty -- 4 Dec 2003
> From: darocksmom@aol.com
> 5. Reminder . . . Your letters to Sen. Bingaman
> From: darocksmom@aol.com
> 6. Researchers Caught Faking AIDS data in NIH funded research
> From: "VERACARE"
> 7. Orlando Sentinel: Anger over [anthrax] vaccines festers -- 5 Dec 2003
> From: darocksmom@aol.com
>__________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 0941 -0500
> From: "VERACARE"
> Subject: Senator Jeff Bingaman resolution: Review military vaccine program
>
> ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
> http://www.ahrp.org
> Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
> Tel: 212-595-8974
> e-mail: veracare@ahrp.org
>
> FYI
>
> After months of denial, on Nov. 19, the Pentagon acknowledged that multiple vaccines may have caused the death of Army nurse Rachael Lacy, who died in April after receiving shots for anthrax, smallpox and three other diseases.
>
> Critics have noted a growing number of news reports about severe illness and deaths that point to the anthrax and smallpox vaccines. The illnesses include "mysterious pneumonia-like illnesses, heart problems, blood clots, and other medical conditions that have stricken otherwise young, healthy, and strong military personnel." The illnesses emerge shortly after vaccination against anthrax and smallpox. Civilian smallpox vaccine program was halted following the recommendation of an advisory committee of the Institute of Medicine, which noted that 1 in 500 civilians suffered adverse reactions.
>
> On Nov. 25, Senator Jeff Bingaman introduced a resolution (S. 278) asking
> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to review the vaccine program and to
> reconsider the draconian punishments to military personnel who refuse to
> be vaccinated. Question also arise about whose interests are being served
> by the forced vaccine program when the risk to troops from biological
> weapons has been significantly reduced in the aftermath of the removal
from
> power of Saddam Hussein. See: http://www.nvic.org/AVSA/Bingaman.htm
>
>
> http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-045156-7401r
> UPI
> Senator: Military must review vaccine use
> By Mark Benjamin
> Published 11/24/2003 7:18 PM
>
> WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- A week after the Pentagon acknowledged one
> soldier's death might have been caused by a vaccine reaction, a U.S.
senator
> is calling on the military to reconsider mandatory anthrax and smallpox
> vaccinations that he says could be causing "grievous" harm.
> Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., plans on Tuesday to introduce a "Sense of the
> Senate" resolution asking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to review
the
> vaccine program amid growing reports of serious side effects. He also
argues
> that U.S. troops face less risk of a biological attack since
> the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
>
> "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," Bingaman says in remarks prepared for
> delivery in the Senate Tuesday.
> "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 deaths."
>
> On Nov. 19, the Pentagon acknowledged vaccinations might have led to the
> April death of Army nurse Rachael Lacy, who died after receiving shots for
> anthrax, smallpox and three other diseases. The Pentagon said her death
> might have been due to an underlying disorder that was triggered by one or
> more vaccines.
>
> "Vaccinations are important tools to keep our servicemembers protected and
> healthy. Specialist Lacy's case was rare and clearly tragic," Dr. William
> Winkenwerder, assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs, said last
> week. "We plan to continue to carefully administer our vaccination
programs,
> including careful monitoring of adverse events that follow
administration."
> Bingaman acknowledges in his prepared remarks that "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."
> But he said he is concerned "our current Department of Defense policies
may
> be failing them, with grievous consequences."
>
> "An estimated 84 percent of the personnel who had anthrax vaccine shots
...
> reported having side effects or reactions," says Bingaman's resolution, a
> copy of which was obtained by United Press International.
>
> The resolution also notes that a government advisory committee 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."
>
> The resolution calls for the military to reconsider punishments given to
> servicemembers who refuse to take the vaccines. Some have been
> court-martialed for refusing the vaccinations and others have left the
> military rather than receive them.
>
> Prospects for the resolution do not look promising -- Bingaman introduced
> the measure without any co-sponsors. But the issue is getting increased
> attention among veterans groups and soldiers' families.
>
> Bingaman's statement cites UPI and CBS News reports that "have identified
a
> growing number of deaths and severe illnesses that point to the anthrax
and
> smallpox vaccines." It also quotes from UPI's reporting on problems of
sick,
> injured and wounded soldiers, many of whom served in Iraq, who have been
> stuck for weeks and months in "medical hold" awaiting treatment.
>
> "At Fort Knox, according to a UPI story, 369 of the 422 soldiers 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 (also experienced by) soldiers at Fort Stewart and other
> locations,'" Bingaman said.
>
> "These are health problems that are often cited as adverse events
> accompanying the anthrax and smallpox vaccines," he said.
> "We certainly do not know whether these cases have been caused by the
> anthrax or smallpox vaccine at this point. In fact, these personnel
> desperately await any medical treatment and that must be addressed."
>
> Copyright ? 2001-2003 United Press International
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (? ) material the use of
which
> has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such
> material is made available to advance understanding of ecological,
> political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical,
> and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a
'fair
> use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the
> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
> material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
> general interest in receiving similar information for research and
> educational purposes. For more information go to:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
> copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',
you
> must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:54:21 -0500
> From: "John F. Sorg"
> Subject: RE: Senator Jeff Bingaman resolution: Review military vaccine
> program
>
> Many thanks for this. I've posted it on my site as well.
>
> Here is the link to the resolution's status on the government website:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...8:s.res.00278:
>
>
> John F. Sorg
> Anthrax Vaccination Program Exposed
> http://www.avip2001.net/
> gwvet@avip2001.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 1716 -0500
> From: "John F. Sorg"
> Subject: Doctoring Orders
>
> http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9530/view/print
>
> Doctoring Orders
> John Richardson was a fighter pilot in the Gulf War, and later served as a
> policy analyst for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and military fellow at
Harvard
> University. Today, he is a consultant to the National Gulf War Resource
> Center, a veteran's organization.
> On January 14, 2002, two fellow military officers and I met with the
> Pentagon's newly-appointed top doctor, William Winkenwerder, M.D., to
brief
> him on the military's anthrax vaccination program criticized in 11 prior
> General Accounting Office reports. I told Dr. Winkenwerder, a civilian,
that
> he held a key Constitutional responsibility-the "civilian control"of
> military medicine-and that he needed to address deep systemic problems,
> starting with the vaccination program.
> But Dr. Winkenwerder-a career hospital administrator-ignored our concerns
> and yielded to his military staff. Over the next year he authorized the
> resumption of mandatory anthrax and smallpox vaccinations. While the
British
> and Australian military made the shots voluntary during the Iraq War,
> American servicemembers who refused vaccination were-and still are-being
> court-martialed and jailed. In contrast, the highest judge in the Canadian
> military ruled in 2000 that the mandatory use of the U.S. anthrax vaccine
> was a violation of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. Apparently,
> American soldiers have no such rights.
> The more serious consequences of Dr. Winkenwerder's decision are now
> becoming clear. On Tuesday, Dec. 2, he belatedly announced that the death
of
> Army Specialist Rachel Lacy last April was "probably" caused by vaccines,
> among them the controversial anthrax and smallpox shots given to all
> soldiers sent to Iraq.
> This admission follows a familiar pattern we've seen with Gulf War Illness
> in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, with Agent Orange in Vietnam War and with
> other military medical problems. First, the Pentagon denies
responsibility.
> Then, they claim the death or illness is unique. And finally, they blame
the
> victim.
> Equally important, this case highlights the bipartisan indifference of a
> Congress that for decades has refused to hold the military accountable for
> law-breaking and unethical behavior related to its practice of medicine.
The
> Pentagon has a well-established pattern of ignoring laws passed by
Congress
> intended to protect soldiers' health. For instance, the Pentagon refused
to
> create baseline medical records of all deployed Iraq War troops, as
required
> under a 1997 law. And with the anthrax vaccine used on Rachel Lacy, the
> Pentagon ignored a 1998 law barring the military from using drugs and
> vaccines unapproved for their intended use without a presidential
executive
> order.
> Rachel Lacy's story is simple. She received five shots in one day and
later
> became ill and died. In her case, the Army's admission comes after seven
> months of denials that vaccines caused her death. Dr. Winkenwerder asserts
> that her death is a "rare and tragic case," but investigations by United
> Press International and CBS News suggest that there have been a rash of
> unexplained deaths and illnesses among both deployed and non-deployed
> soldiers following vaccination.
> For instance, the Army has attempted to attribute pneumonia deaths
overseas
> to Iraqi cigarettes and dust, when virtually identical cases have occurred
> in domestically based soldiers who were vaccinated. The Army ignores the
> possibility that these deaths were caused by vaccines, despite Navy
doctors
> having linked anthrax vaccine to a pneumonia-like autoimmune disorder
called
> hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
> Additionally, news reports of soldiers at Ft. Stewart, Ga., and Ft. Knox,
> Ky. being kept in "medical hold" units without adequate medical care have
> revealed few of the sick soldiers had combat-related illnesses-and most
had
> not even deployed. Their illnesses included multiple sclerosis and other
> autoimmune disorders that the Army refuses to investigate. Like Lacy, the
> Army has blamed many of these sick reservist soldiers-who were healthy
> enough to be ordered to combat-for having preexisting conditions that
caused
> their illnesses.
> Finally, while acknowledging that vaccines played a role in Lacy's death,
> the Pentagon is once again engaging in a 'blame-the-victim' strategy, by
> ascribing her death to a predisposition to Lupus. This was discovered by
> evaluating a 1998 sample of SPC Lacy's blood the Army already had in its
> possession-which raises the question of why the Army doesn't screen
soldiers
> in advance instead of waiting until they become ill or die from
> vaccine-related complications.
> The answer, sadly, is that common sense doesn't have a place in military
> medicine when it conflicts with perceived operational necessity or
> inflexible doctrinal precepts.
> Recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine found that genetic
> differences contribute to development of autoimmune disorders and that
these
> diseases may take years to develop. These findings call into question the
> military's rigidly uniform vaccination policies, and contradict the
> Pentagon's frequent assertions that post-vaccination autoimmune illnesses
> that develop weeks or months afterwards are not caused by the shots.
> Yet, the military has stated Lacy's death will not cause a change in their
> immunization policies-including multiple, near-simultaneous injections.
The
> time has come for Congress to stop the Department of Defense's continued
> medical abuse of America's military service members. Instead, most members
> passively allow wrongdoing-known to the Pentagon leadership and to
> Congress-to go unpunished.
> For instance, in early 2000, 73 officers filed a complaint with the DoD
> Inspector General over false and misleading statements made to Congress on
> anthrax vaccine safety by the top general in the Air National Guard. After
> twice refusing to investigate, the DoD Inspector General cited the general
> for violations of the DoD Joint Ethics Regulation. But the Pentagon
> leadership and Congress allowed this general to remain on active duty.
> More recently, the DoD Inspector General has failed to refer for
prosecution
> three now-retired senior officers who misled Congress and military courts
> about anthrax vaccine safety. Two of these officers later received
payments
> from the anthrax vaccine manufacturer, BioPort Corporation, after they
> retired. While the DoD Inspector General deemed these payments ethical,
the
> allegations about giving false testimony have been referred to the FBI
> Public Corruption Unit. But there is little reason to expect the FBI to
> investigate, given that the Department of Justice is currently defending
the
> legality of Pentagon's anthrax vaccine program in federal court.
> Unfortunately, the relevant Armed Services and Veterans Affairs committees
> have been swayed that anthrax and smallpox vaccines are necessary by
> unproven assertions of a bioterror threat. So, oversight of military
> medicine has been left to a handful of courageous Congressmen, such as
Rep.
> Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who,
> unfortunately, lack the jurisdiction-and support from colleagues-to force
> the military to obey the law and conform to accepted ethical standards in
> their practice of medicine.
> The illnesses and deaths of soldiers from the medical friendly fire should
> have already prompted Congress to intervene and redirect the Pentagon's
> troop health protection programs. Sadly, such aggressive congressional
> oversight of military medicine is still needed.
> The first step toward Pentagon accountability should be a bipartisan call
> for the resignation of Dr. Winkenwerder and an independent criminal
> investigation of the medical corps officers responsible for the DoD
anthrax
> and smallpox vaccination programs. If the unnecessary deaths of soldiers
> doesn't demand a congressional response, what does?
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:04:17 EST
> From: darocksmom@aol.com
> Subject: The Granville Sentinel: Granville guardsman pleads not guilty --
4
> Dec 2003
>
>
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/granvi...eaking/120403b
> .html
>
>
> Granville guardsman pleads not guilty
>
> By Brian Miller
>
> The Granville Sentinel
>
> Dec 4, 2003
>
>
> A 2001 Granville High School graduate could get kicked out of the Ohio
> National Guard or face up to 100 days of confinement for refusal to take
an
> anthrax
> vaccine prior to being sent overseas with his unit.
>
> Spec. Kurt Hickman entered a plea of innocent Wednesday to a charge of
> failing to comply with an order to submit to an anthrax vaccine, at his
> arraignment
> before a military judge. A trial has been scheduled for Dec. 13 at 8 a.m.
>
> Although this is the first case of an anthrax vaccine refusal among Ohio
> National Guard soldiers, it is just another chapter in a nationwide
> controversy
> over whether the adverse health affects of the vaccine outweigh its role
in
> protecting against the deadly bacteria and potential biological weapon.
>
> Hickman, who is enrolled in the journalism school at Ohio University, was
to
> be sent overseas in January with his unit, the 196th Mobile Public Affairs
> Detachment. He reported to his base about two weeks ago to take the first
in
> a
> series of anthrax vaccines, and refused to take it. He was served charges
at
> his
> family home in Granville last week.
>
> "He made it clear in a letter to his commander, Major O'Brien, that he
would
> willingly deploy and comply with all else that was requested of him but he
> would not take the anthrax shot," said his father, Bill Hickman, a
Granville
> Township resident, in a press release. Kurt Hickman is avoiding talking to
> the
> press while his case is under judicial review.
>
> The elder Hickman said his son had seen reports about adverse reactions
> ranging from headaches and muscle aches to dizziness and difficulty
> breathing. One
> of the adverse affects of the vaccine is respiratory illness, and Hickman
> had
> asthma and pneumonia as a child.
>
> "He's not the first to refuse the vaccine," said Hickman. "A lot of
National
> Guard pilots left because they did not want to jeopardize their health.
They
> resigned and are no longer flying." If convicted, Hickman could face a
> bad-conduct discharge, reprimand, or reduction of rank, or a combination
of
> these, in
> addition to a maximum of 100 days of confinement, according to his
attorney,
> Kenneth Levine of Blue Bell, Pa. Hickman could be required to pay back
bonus
> money received and be ineligible for further tuition assistance, according
> to
> James Sims II, deputy director of public affairs for the Ohio Adjutant
> General's
> Department.
>
> Sims said the vaccine is required of every soldier headed to areas in
which
> anthrax could be used as a weapon. "It is like training and a uniform," he
> said. "It is all part of making sure the soldier is ready."
>
> Questions about the adverse reactions and effectiveness of the vaccine
have
> been raised in Congress, among veterans, and in the press. About a million
> military personnel have been vaccinated against anthrax, which was first
> administered during the Gulf War in 1990.
>
> In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required the label on the
> vaccine to be revised; it now includes 40 possible serious adverse
affects.
> There
> was strong evidence the vaccine caused the death of Army Spec. Rachel Lacy
> last April, two panels who studied medical evidence concluded.
>
> A General Accounting Office report cited in a statement Sen. Jeff Bingaman
> (D-NM) made to the U.S. Senate last week reported 69 percent of the
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.
>
> However, the Defense Department claims the medical evidence on the vaccine
> supports its continued use. It reports that about 30 percent of men and 60
> percent of women who had taken the shot have had local reactions, but they
> usually
> last only a short while. Larger reactions occur in about one in a hundred
> vaccine recipients.
>
> "Flu and rabies shots can also cause mild or moderate adverse reactions,"
> said Sims.
>
> The administration of the vaccine is necessary to protect against the
> possibility of enemy use of the biological agent, says the Defense
> Department's Web
> site on the vaccination. Anthrax spores can be spread in the air by
> missiles,
> rockets, artillery, aerial bombs and sprayers. Iraq had an extensive
> biological
> weapons program, including anthrax, and the former Soviet Union had a much
> larger program testing the use of anthrax in weapons.
>
> In his statement to the Senate, Bingaman said the threat of use of anthrax
> against the U.S. by Iraq, if it once existed, is no longer a reality, and
> that
> there is little evidence Al Qaeda is capable of using it. Bingaman said,
> "...this change in the threat to our troops requires an immediate
> reevaluation of
> the Department of Defense vaccination policy."
>
> Bingaman favors making the vaccination optional. He proposes treatment
with
> antibiotics as an alternative until a safer vaccine is developed.
>
> In story in July, the Los Angeles Times reported about 600 soldiers have
> refused the vaccine. Some have been jailed or unfavorably discharged, or
> both, and
> others have received lighter penalties, such as demotion. But John
> Richardson, spokesperson for the National Gulf War Resource Center, said
it
> is hard to
> determine accurately how many military personnel have refused the vaccine.
> Neither the Army nor the Marines collect data on the number of personnel
who
> refuse the vaccination, according to newspaper reports.
>
> Hickman, whose commitment to the Ohio National Guard ends in 2007, has no
> definite plans after college, his father said. "He had different ideas
> (after
> graduating from high school). At one time he thought about full-time
> military,
> but as a change of mind he chose the guard."
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:49:38 EST
> From: darocksmom@aol.com
> Subject: Reminder . . . Your letters to Sen. Bingaman
>
> DC SWITCHBOARD TOLL FREE NUMBER: 1-800-839-5276
>
> U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman
>
> Attention Aubre Brennen
>
> 703 Heart Senate Office Building
>
> Washington, D.C. 20510
>
>
> Everyone has until the end of Dec or so to put together a letter and
> contribute to this Senator's Bill.
>
> If there's a time for action, it is now! If you are ill, write! If you
> cannot write, get someone to write it for you. If you have refused and
were
> punished . . . write! If you're overall concerned about the future after
> taking the
> vaccine, write!
>
>
> Again, this resolution seeks making the program voluntary! In addition to
> expunging the records of those discharged under any other conditions than
> 'honorable'. Have everybody you know write in and support this
resolution!
>
> Here is the link to the resolution's status on the government website:
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...8:s.res.00278:
>
> * * * * * * * *
>
> STATEMENT BY SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN
>
>
>
> Sense of the Senate: Anthrax and Smallpox Vaccines
>
> and Our Nation's Military Personnel
>
>
>
> November 25, 2003
>
>
>
> Mr. President, throughout the conflict in Iraq, our brave soldiers have
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 our current Department of Defense policies may be
> failing
> them, with grievous consequences.
>
>
>
> That is why I rise today to introduce a Sense of the Senate that asks for
> some changes to 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.
>
>
>
> Mr. President, 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 is 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 growing 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 problems with this argument with respect to
> the
> anthrax and smallpox vaccines. First, even if there ever 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 post-exposure 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 they face is in line at home
> station
> when they receive their anthrax and smallpox vaccinations.
>
>
>
> There is a growing number of disturbing reports about how they 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 deaths.
>
>
>
> 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
> incl
> udes 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% to 5-35%.
>
>
>
> 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 point to the anthrax and smallpox vaccines.
These
> include the deaths of Army Specialist Joshua Neusche, Army Sergeant
Michael
> Tosto, Lt. Colonel Anthony Sherman, Army Specialist Rachel Lacy, Army
> Specialist
> Zeferino Colunga, Army Specialist Cory Hubbell, Army Specialist Levi
> Kinchen,
> Army Staff Sergeant Richard Eaton, Jr., Army Private Matthew Bush, Army
> Staff
> Sergeant David Loyd, and Army Specialist William Jeffries. Eight of these
> 11
> army personnel were under the age of 25.
>
>
>
> As Dr. Jeffrey Sartin, an infectious disease doctor at the Gundersen
Clinic
> in La Crosse, Wisconsin, said, "I would say that the number of cases among
> young healthy troops would seem to be unusual." That would be an
> understatement.
>
>
>
> The numbers of those with adverse health events is significantly higher.
> There have been around 700 adverse events reported in just the first six
> 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
> o
> r smallpox vaccine 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 Specialist 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."
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, the Army originally excluded Lacy's death from its
> investigation of the 100 or more soldiers that have gotten pneumonia in
Iraq
> and
> southwestern Asia because she never deployed there. Of those 100, two
have
> died and
> another 13 have had to be put on respirators.
>
>
>
> However, in a story published in both the New York Times and Washington
Post
> on November 19, 2003, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and
> the
> Armed Services Epidemiology Board said the evidence "strongly favors" the
> belief that vaccines led to her death. It was an important admission and
> yet the
> military immediately said its vaccination policies would "not be changed."
>
>
>
> Mr. President, in the words of Rachel's father, Moses Lacy, "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.
>
>
>
> In addition to the problems these vaccines are having on the health and
> well-being of our nation's military personnel, 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.
>
>
>
> Equally disturbing was the case of Air Force Captain John Buck, M.D. He
was
> court-martialed 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. The government's chief witness against Dr. Buck was an Army
> pharmacist.
> After he was convicted, fined $21,000, and denied a promotion he had
earned,
> Dr.
> Buck deployed to the Indian Ocean after Sept 11th to support US 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 court-martialed 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.
>
>
>
> I would 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.
>
>
>
> Mr. President, 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 unfair to our brave young men and women in
uniform,
> and
> in the case of Private Hazley, to her child. Again, this policy has
forced
> 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. First
of
> all, I would note 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 clearly
> 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 Defence 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 is also 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 non-existent
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 Majority Leader, himself, 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."
>
>
>
> I believe that the current policy of this Administration does not take
> adequately take soldiers and their families into consideration. 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."
>
>
>
> Mr. President, 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." Mr. President, 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.
>
>
>
> I request unanimous consent for the text of the resolution to be printed
in
> the RECORD.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:59:47 -0500
> From: "VERACARE"
> Subject: Researchers Caught Faking AIDS data in NIH funded research
>
>
> ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
> http://www.ahrp.org
> Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
> Tel: 212-595-8974
> e-mail: veracare@ahrp.org
>
> FYI
>
> The Washington Times reports that three researchers from the University of
> Maryland, department of pediatrics admitted faking data that gave high
marks
> to reduced incidence of HIV in teenagers counseled about "safe sex" in an
> enhanced
> widely used school program. The study involved 861 African American
> teenagers
> (aged 12 to 16) living in Baltimore housing projects. The study was
> published in
> the journal Pediatrics--yet the journal still hasn't retracted the fake
> findings.
>
> Taxpayers were defrauded over $1 million. Even more disturbing than the
> breach
> of research integrity by the individual researchers involved, is the
absence
> of
> institutional oversight or accountability for millions of taxpayer dollars
> spent
> on dubious and even fraudulent research. Officials at the National
> Institutes
> of Health (NIH) who funded the study and officials of the Office of
Research
> Integrity who are paid to ferret out research fraud, exhibit arrogance
when
> they won't even deign to comment!
>
> Congressman Mark Souder is right when he said:
> "This scandal underscores the need for oversight of all federal
programs --
> even NIH -- to ensure taxpayer dollars are not misspent and science is not
> manipulated."
>
>
>
> The Washington Times
> www.washingtontimes.com
>
> Researchers fake AIDS study data
> By Robert Stacy McCain
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> Published December 5, 2003
>
> Three Maryland researchers have admitted fabricating interviews with
> teenagers for a study on AIDS prevention that received more than $1
million
> in federal funds.
> Lajuane Woodard, Sheila Blackwell and Khalilah Creek were employed by
> the University of Maryland at Baltimore's department of pediatrics as
> researchers on the study, funded by a grant from the National Institutes
of
> Health (NIH).
>
> The three admitted they made up interviews with teenagers, which they
> had claimed took place from May to August 2001, for the study on
preventing
> the transmission of HIV, the virus that
> causes AIDS. The fabrication was first reported in the journal Research
USA.
>
> The study was designed to evaluate the impact of "safe sex" counseling
> on black teens in Baltimore housing developments. Congressional staffers
> said the study, titled "Effectiveness of Standard Versus Embellished HIV
> Prevention," received more than $1 million in NIH funds in 1999.
>
> "It is terribly troubling that federally funded research on a topic as
> sensitive and important as HIV prevention for children, some as young as
13,
> would be intentionally manipulated," said Rep. Mark Souder, Indiana
> Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee on criminal justice,
drug
> policy and human resources. "If not caught, the lives of countless
children
> may have been put at risk by ineffective, perhaps dangerous, prevention
> messages developed from this fabricated research."
>
> Results of the Baltimore study were published in January in the
journal
> Pediatrics by a group of nine researchers led by Ying Wu of West Virginia
> University.
>
> The study's objective was to determine whether enhancing an existing
> AIDS prevention program called Focus on Kids by adding "parental
monitoring"
> would have an effect on the children involved.
> Editors of Pediatrics said yesterday they were investigating the
> reported fabrications.
>
> The study involved "817 black youths aged 12 to 16 years," and found
> that youth whose families participated in the enhanced Focus on Kids
program
> showed "significantly lower rates" for a variety of risk behaviors,
> including sex without condoms and use of cigarettes and alcohol.
>
> The Focus on Kids program is a widely used "safe sex" curriculum
> advertised by its publisher, ETR Associates, as "proven effective."
> "We would not comment on this," said Constance Burr, spokeswoman for
the
> National Institute for Mental Health, the NIH division which funded the
> study. Officials at the Office of Research Integrity had no response to
the
> report.
>
> In the past year, House Republicans have repeatedly criticized NIH
> funding of sex research projects, including a $147,000 grant to a
> Northwestern University professor who paid women to watch pornography
while
> measuring their sexual arousal.
>
> In July, the House rejected on a 212-210 vote a measure sponsored by
> Rep. Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania Republican, that would have
eliminated
> federal funding for five sex studies.
>
> But investigation of federally funded sex research has come under fire
> by critics, including Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat. In
October,
> responding to a list of research grants questioned by some House
> Republicans, Mr. Waxman wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
> G. Thompson: "I urge you in the strongest possible terms to denounce this
> scientific McCarthyism. Imposing ideological shackles on this research
would
> be a serious public health
> mistake."
>
> More recently, the New England Journal of Medicine denounced
> congressional probes of research grants. Such scrutiny risks turning sex
> research into a "political football," warned the journal's editor, Dr.
> Jeffrey Drazen.
>
> "Science should have oversight from Congress but it ought not to be at
> the level of specific grants," Dr. Drazen told United Press International.
>
> But Mr. Souder said the admissions of fabrication in the Baltimore HIV
> study show the importance of congressional oversight.
> "This scandal underscores the need for oversight of all federal
> programs -- even NIH -- to ensure taxpayer dollars are not misspent and
> science is not manipulated," the congressman said.
>
>
> Copyright ? 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (? ) material the use of
which
> has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such
> material is made available to advance understanding of ecological,
> political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical,
> and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a
'fair
> use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the
> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
> material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
> general interest in receiving similar information for research and
> educational purposes. For more information go to:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
> copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',
you
> must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
> __________________________________________________ ______________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:54:16 EST
> From: darocksmom@aol.com
> Subject: Orlando Sentinel: Anger over [anthrax] vaccines festers -- 5 Dec
> 2003
>
>
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...120503dec05,1,
> 4080582.story?coll=orl-news-headlines
>
>
> Anger over vaccines festers
>
>
> By Laurin Sellers | Sentinel Staff Writer
>
> Posted December 5, 2003
>
>
>
> When Zack Johnson enlisted in the Navy in 1996, he planned to make it a
> career.
>
>
> That was before the Miami resident refused to take a mandatory anthrax
> vaccination -- a decision that left him court-martialed, jailed and booted
> out of
> the military without so much as a customary bus ticket home.
>
>
> Still, Mike Girard would trade places with him any day.
>
>
> A former senior airman at Patrick Air Force Base, Girard started the
> six-shot
> series of anthrax vaccination in February. After the second shot on March
4,
> he vomited for two weeks straight. The rash, joint pains and memory
problems
> that followed eventually forced him out of the service.
>
>
> "I would rather have taken 30 days in the brig and a dishonorable
discharge
> than to live like this every day," Girard said recently.
>
>
> Despite vastly different choices, the two men have ended up in the same
> place
> -- alongside hundreds of American veterans who say the vaccine shattered
> their lives.
>
>
> Their plight is attracting interest from a growing number of supporters,
> most
> recently U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who says the military's
mandatory
> anthrax-immunization program should be stopped and re-evaluated.
>
>
> Bingaman introduced a resolution Nov. 25 asking Secretary of Defense
Donald
> Rumsfeld to review the vaccine program, reconsider actions taken against
> soldiers who refuse it and re-evaluate the current threat of anthrax and
> smallpox
> attacks on U.S. troops. Bingaman hopes to bring the resolution up for a
vote
> next year.
>
>
> "This experience has cost me much more than just a career," said Johnson,
> who
> was given a bad-conduct discharge in 1999, one step above a dishonorable
> discharge, for refusing the vaccine because of concerns about its safety
and
> efficacy.
>
>
> Foes say testing needed
>
>
> John Richardson, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force
Reserve
> and a leading foe of mandatory anthrax shots, said "hundreds of soldiers
> have
> been sickened and hundreds thrown out of the military because of this
> vaccine."
>
>
> Richardson and others, including the National Gulf War Resource Center in
> Washington, D.C., accuse the military of forcing an unproven and
potentially
> dangerous vaccine on American troops, claiming it has not gone though the
> rigorous
> testing required for other immunizations.
>
>
> It's a charge the Department of Defense has denied. However, on Nov. 19,
the
> Pentagon acknowledged for the first time that vaccinations might have led
to
> the death of Army nurse Rachael Lacy, who died in April after receiving
> shots
> for anthrax, smallpox and three other diseases.
>
>
> At least 10 other soldiers have died after receiving vaccinations,
according
> to Bingaman, who cited CBS News and UPI reports in his resolution and who
> last
> week urged the military to make the anthrax and smallpox shots voluntary.
>
>
> Since 1998, the DOD has given the anthrax vaccines to nearly a million
> troops. The Pentagon insists the vaccine is effective and safe, with only
1
> in
> 100,000 suffering severe adverse reactions.
>
>
> In 1997, the military intended to vaccinate the entire force but later
> decided to give the anthrax shots only to soldiers headed to "high-threat
> areas."
>
>
> DOD spokesman Jim Turner said there's a good reason for making the shots
> mandatory.
>
>
> "We fight as a team," he said. "You have to be able to count on the fellow
> or
> gal next to you because your life depends on it."
>
>
> Lt. Greg Lowdermilk, 43, who recently spent five months in Iraq, said
making
> the vaccines voluntary would have a huge impact on manpower and morale.
>
>
> "If they don't get the shots, they're nondeployable," said Lowdermilk, a
> combat rescue officer stationed at Patrick Air Force Base. "We have 30
guys
> assigned to our team. If 10 percent don't take the shots, the balance of
> guys have
> to pick up the slack."
>
>
> Lowdermilk, who has received four anthrax shots, said he never suffered
any
> side effects and that the vaccination gave him "peace of mind" while
> overseas.
> He also said he has encountered thousands of soldiers who had the vaccine,
> but
> not one who had a severe reaction.
>
>
> "We're not saying there are no severe reactions. There are some," Turner
> said, adding that the anthrax vaccine's rate of adverse reactions is
> comparable to
> that of other vaccines.
>
>
> They find no comfort
>
>
> That's little comfort to former Air Force security officer Kerri Dorsey,
27,
> of Altamonte Springs, who blames the shots for her multiple sclerosis, or
> National Guard Sgt. Dwayne Fitzpatrick, 42, of Orlando, who said the
vaccine
> left
> him too weak to work.
>
>
> Although the military doesn't keep statistics on how many soldiers have
been
> sickened by the vaccine or how many have refused it, Bingaman placed those
> numbers in the hundreds and urged the military to reconsider mandatory
> anthrax
> and smallpox vaccinations.
>
>
> Dorsey said she began suffering the consequences about a month after
> receiving her fourth anthrax shot in May 1999 at a base in Grand Forks,
N.D.
>
>
> "I had little red dots over my entire body," she said. "They looked like
bug
> bites and itched really bad."
>
>
> When Dorsey's legs turned purple, a neighbor rushed her to a clinic. By
the
> time doctors saw her, Dorsey's body was grotesquely swollen, even her
> tongue.
>
>
> In 2001, the once-active woman who taught soldiers how to shoot and repair
> their weapons was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a condition Dorsey is
> convinced was caused by the anthrax vaccination.
>
>
> Emotional wounds
>
>
> Girard and Fitzpatrick also are certain the shots caused their illnesses,
> but
> both say it was the way the military treated them after they became ill
that
> deepened wounds.
>
>
> When Girard returned to Patrick Air Force Base after 12 days of treatment
at
> Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., he said his
commanders
> and even some of his old buddies ostracized him.
>
>
> "I still respect all the soldiers over there," said Girard, who eventually
> was given a medical discharge. "But I'm extremely angry at how I was
> treated. I
> wasn't wounded in Iraq, I was wounded by friendly fire."
>
>
> When he got sick, Fitzpatrick said he went from being "the No. 1 go-to guy
> to
> being treated like a third-class citizen."
>
>
> Initially reluctant to speak publicly about his ordeal, Fitzpatrick said
he
> feared people would think he was unpatriotic.
>
>
> "It almost makes you wish you had been shot in the head," he said.
>
>
> Johnson, who now works for a title company at $10 an hour, said he had
hoped
> the military judge presiding over his court-martial would listen to his
> reasons for refusing the vaccine.
>
>
> "My honest-to-God feeling was that there was not enough proof that it was
> safe or that it even worked," he said.
>
>
> But the military considered only whether Johnson's order was disobeyed,
not
> why.
>
>
> Others who have been thrown out of the service for refusing the shots
> include
> a breast-feeding mother who feared the vaccine would harm her baby and a
> 26-year-old Polish immigrant who was concerned the shots would affect her
> ability
> to bear children.
>
>
> Richardson and others opposed to the mandatory anthrax immunization
program
> doubt Bingaman's resolution will change things.
>
>
> "It's a baby step," Richardson said. "But this vaccine has problems and
> everybody knows it. We aren't going away."
>
>
> Laurin Sellers can be reached at lsellers@orlandosentinel.com.