|
As the Pentagon moves thousands of troops into Iraq, soldiers,
citizen groups and members of Congress are increasingly calling
upon defense officials to stop anthrax vaccinations.
Growing numbers of soldiers are refusing the mandatory anthrax
vaccine, citing the lack of anthrax in Iraq as a reason behind their
stance. The vaccine has accumulated thousands of reports of adverse
reactions ranging from headaches and vomiting to severe autoimmune
and neurological problems and even death. When soldiers refuse,
the punishment is based solely on the discretion of the individual
commander and could range from quiet discharge to imprisonment or
court-martial.
As written in a letter by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:
"The apparent absence of an Iraqi biological warfare capability
raises serious questions about the threat of an anthrax attack
against our troops. The use of a vaccination which appears to
have the potential for serious health consequences for our troops
in an effort to counter a threat that may not exist seems to unnecessarily
expose our troops to risk."
There is no evidence that stockpiles of anthrax exist in Iraq,
but the Pentagon requires soldiers who will be deployed for more
than 15 days to a "high-risk" area for anthrax attack
to receive the vaccine.
Nonetheless, many soldiers are refusing the vaccine, and there
is so much demand for troops that unvaccinated soldiers may still
be deployed. However, most will face punishment for disobeying orders
upon their return. Further, there is much controversy over whether
the Pentagon’s reports of how many soldiers have "separated"
from the military for refusing vaccinations are accurate. The Pentagon
reported only three separations for 2001 and 2002, but vaccine opponents
say the number is much higher.
Washington
Post March 27, 2004
Comment By Dr.
Meryl Nass:
Two probing articles, excerpted above from the Washington
Post, and another from the Chicago
Tribune (registration required), have discussed problems with
the military's anthrax vaccine program, and a new request for bids
by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to purchase
75 million doses of anthrax vaccine for civilians.
Both Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and soldiers have pointed
out that in the absence of any documented threat, there is little
reason to risk potentially serious health consequences from an untested
vaccine.
According to the Tribune, "Published case reports have
linked anthrax vaccine to a host of problems including chronic fatiguing
illnesses, chronic pain syndromes, and endocrine and autoimmune
disorders."
Even Army Surgeon General Peake, responsible for the military
vaccine program, acknowledged in February 2004 that some serious
illnesses in soldiers may be linked to vaccines, and urged military
doctors to seek second opinions from vaccine experts within the
military, when patients do not respond to initial
treatment.
In the rush to purchase smallpox vaccine after September 11,
2001, DHHS contracted for 209 million doses, for a total cost of
$850 million. In 2003, the virus in the vaccine was found to cause
serious heart problems and some deaths in 38,000 civilian health
care workers who had volunteered to receive the vaccine, effectively
ending the civilian vaccination program.
The Tribune article notes that:
"Some skeptics are questioning what they perceive as
the rush by the government to buy several million doses of the
new anthrax vaccine before clinical trials are completed and its
safety and effectiveness evaluated."
The new anthrax vaccine has only completed Phase I tests.
Yet " ... many things are dropped much later as a result
of Phase 3 testing--like VaxGen's AIDS vaccine. Nothing should
be purchased in bulk at this very early stage of testing."
And, "more promising anthrax vaccines are in the pipeline,
but they may fail to attract commercial developers because the
government has already made up its mind, some experts contend."
"Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the government's
assertion that by vaccinating the population of an anthrax-infected
city, its inhabitants could continue to live there safely, despite
continual exposure."
According to the Post:
"Pentagon officials seemed poised to stop the (anthrax)
program before the September 11, 2001 attacks gave it a reprieve."
Current government officials appear to have taken note of this,
acknowledging that a "threat" is needed in order to get
the Senate to pass Project Bioshield, a multibillion-dollar program
to fund drug and vaccine treatments for bioterrorism. The following
excerpts come from a March 24, 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations
hearing, in which Undersecretary Mike Brown of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) responded to the committee:
BROWN: I think, in all honesty,
sir, we're going to have to go to the Senate and we're going to
have to say we have a threat. We have to create this--as you call
it--a marketplace for these particular pharmaceuticals and we
need your authorization to get this done ...
Another surprise is that although the Department of Health and
Human Services has requested bids for 75 million doses of untested
anthrax vaccine (at a cost estimated at $1.4 billion), Project Bioshield
has not been passed by the Senate, and there is no approved funding
for the vaccine purchase.
During the same hearing, Congressman Zach Wamp (R-Tennessee)
inquired of Undersecretary Brown about this:
WAMP: But I want to ask you,
without Project BioShield being enacted and authorized, is that
slowing down your responsibilities of filling up the Strategic
National Stockpile?
BROWN: No, sir. And we're using--we're
trying to use good lawyering and good reading of report language
and other things to continue to make that happen. HHS is moving
forward on request for additional anthrax antibodies. And no contracts
have been let yet. But those requests have gone out, and HHS will
start looking at those. So I hope that we can get some authorizing
language just to make things clean.
So "good lawyering and good reading of report language"
allow this illegal procurement, though DHS would still like "some
authorizing language just to make things clean."
But the fact that Bioshield has not been passed, has not stopped
Vice President Cheney from asking Congress to allow the administration
to "advance appropriate" the remaining $2.5 billion requested
for Bioshield through fiscal year 2008 during the current fiscal
year:
Subcommittee Chairman Hal ROGERS (R-Kentucky):
Now BioShield--again, you're asking for us to advance appropriate
all $2.5 billion of the remaining monies we didn't put in in '04.
And, you know, we've already covered that ground pretty thoroughly
in previous years. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it,
but there's no way we're going to change, the House is going to
change, I think. It's not going to change its position on all
this advance appropriations. We've gone over this time and again.
I've met with the vice president about it personally. And it just,
sort of, is irritating that we keep getting this advance appropriations
request. It's not going to happen. Get a life. So why are we going
over this old ground again?"
The $64,000 question is whether the administration is so interested
in the rapid purchase of huge stockpiles of untested drugs and vaccines,
before there has been a verified threat assessment, and before a
scientific assessment of the drugs' value has been made:
a) To save lives?
b) To give the appearance of being prepared?
c) To secure the benefits of giving highly lucrative government
contracts to new biotech companies?
About
Dr. Meryl Nass
Meryl
Nass, MD is a practicing physician who is known for investigating
the world's largest anthrax epidemic, which occurred during the
Rhodesian Civil War, and uncovering its cause as biological warfare;
for working to strengthen international controls against the development
and use of biological weapons; and for pointing out that untested
drugs and vaccines (such as those for smallpox and anthrax) have
limited effectiveness and cause unexpected illnesses.
Dr.
Nass has lectured widely, testified before several committees
of Congress and the Institute of Medicine, and been quoted by
all major US newspapers and TV networks, and many international
news outlets.
Since
9/11, she has pointed out how to deal with an anthrax attack,
and explained that the United States must pursue more creative
approaches if it is to successfully cope with future biological
terrorism. Unencumbered by funding from the government and biodefense
industry, she provides the unique perspective of a well-informed
and candid critic of our current approach to bioterrorism.
Related Articles:
Anthrax and War: The Marketing
of Disaster (Part 1)
The Woman Behind The
Anthrax Vaccine Exposure
The Anthrax Vaccine Saga:
How Not to Develop a Vaccine Program
US Military Finds That Anthrax
Shots May Cause Birth Defects
US Congress Told Anthrax
Vaccine is Not Safe
FDA Accuses Vaccine
Manufacturer of Failing to Track Reactions
| 