0 Nerd-Its - +

RE: 2 Control Group proof

Comment a comment by Anonymous, published on 12 November 2009
Navigate to the top level to view all replies to the article Is the Door Closed on Squalene and Gulf War Syndrome?
Navigate up one level to see this comment's parent.
other nerds have left 13 comments below

The Lloyd Report was an independent public inquiry into Gulf War Illness and took evidence from many medical experts and veterans as well. It was a lengthy enquiry and you can see who gave evidence etc if you want to look into that further.

You quote an official military report that says there was no squalene in the vaccines. That is, of course, a lie. Without directing you to particular experts, you can search on anthrax vaccine & Gulf War Syndrome and see that for yourself.

In the US, the DoD used a private limited company to manufacture the anthrax vaccine and for a time, court proceedings successfully stopped mandatory vaccination of troops. Medical records were “lost” and there was ongoing development & experimentation with the vaccine to try to keep apace with biological weapon threats, with troops effectively being used as guinea pigs.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
1 Nerd-It - +
RE: 2 Control Group proof by mikeforbes :: NR6

You quote an official military report that says there was no squalene in the vaccines. That is, of course, a lie.

“Of course” it is a lie? Why? What evidence do you have?

… there was ongoing development & experimentation with the vaccine to try to keep apace with biological weapon threats, with troops effectively being used as guinea pigs.

Again, what sort of evidence do you have of this? Where did you find out that there was “experimentation” done with the anthrax vaccine? If you have no such evidence, I can only conclude that you are either relying on studies and reports that are flawed and inferior to the ones linked in the article, or that you are just making shit up.

Posted 12 November 2009, Hide, Parent, Reply
0 Nerd-Its - +
RE: 2 Control Group proof by Anonymous :: NR0

RE proof of past experimentation with anthrax vaccine:

A Congressional report by the House of Representatives Government Reform Committee, titled “Unproven Force Protection,” determined the Department of Defense and the FDA violated the law due to the anthrax vaccine’s “investigational” status. The report recommended, “While an improved vaccine is being developed, use of the current anthrax vaccine for force protection against biological warfare should be considered experimental and undertaken only pursuant to FDA regulations governing investigational testing for a new indication” (Congress HR 106-556, 2000, ). The report’s “Findings” added, “Efficacy of the vaccine against biological warfare is uncertain. The vaccine was approved for protection against cutaneous (under the skin) infection in an occupational setting, not for use as mass protection against weaponized, aerosolized anthrax.”

Reference: Congressional Report HR 106-556. (2000, April 3). Unproven Force Protection. Washington, DC: GPO. p. 4. Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_reports&docid=f:hr556.106; and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_reports&docid=f:hr556.pdf

In 2004 a U.S. federal court deemed anthrax vaccine to be “an investigational drug and a drug being used for an unapproved purpose. As a result of this status, the DOD is in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1107, Executive Order 13139, and DOD Directive 6200.2.”
Reference: Sullivan, E. (2004, October 27). Permanent Injunction Against the Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. E. 501 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.D.C. 2004). p. 32. Retrieved from http://www.anthrax.mil/documents/library/AnthraxSJtOrder_Op.pdf

In 2008 another federal court affirmed the prior court’s ruling stating that the “undisturbed factual and legal findings,” and clarified that “Prior to the FDA’s December 2005 rulemaking, it was a violation of federal law for military personnel to be subjected to involuntary AVA [anthrax vaccine] inoculation because the vaccine was neither the subject of a presidential waiver nor licensed for use against inhalation anthrax.”

Reference: Robertson, J. (2008, March 14). Dingle, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR), et al., Defendants. pp. 18-19. Retrieved from https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv2350-31

Posted 12 November 2009, Hide, Parent, Reply

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: cell phones in How To Beat Traffic Mathematically
  2. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  3. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  4. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  5. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  6. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  7. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  8. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  9. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  10. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

The Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate?

View Results, All Polls
6 votes, 0 comments