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 11 comments below

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

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

Your references are impeccable … except you completely misinterpret, then misunderstand, then misrepresent them.

Let me explain it in simple terms:

  • The anthrax vaccine itself (that is, the fluid in the syringe) was not experimental. It was, and is, the same vaccine that has been used for decades by veterinary workers to prevent cutaneous (skin) anthrax from exposure to the spores carried on certain farm animals.
  • That same—non-experimental—vaccine was and is given to DoD troops to prevent anthrax from potential exposure to biological weapons.
  • Biological weapons exposure is more likely to cause pulmonary (inhalation) anthrax than cutaneous (skin) anthrax, mainly due to the physics of its delivery and the probability that troops’ skin would be protected by clothing.
  • Therefore, the intended use of the vaccine when it is given to DoD troops is different than when the exact same vaccine is given to veterinary workers.
  • Just in case you missed that: The vaccine is the same. The targeted spore-borne pathogen is the same (Bacillus anthracis). The only difference is the method that the vaccine recipient is expected to come in contact with the bacteria—skin or inhaled.
  • The FDA’s rules at the time stated that even if a given vaccine was deemed “safe and effective” for protection against Disease “x” (in this case, cutaneous anthrax), it was technically not approved for use if you said you really wanted to protect against Disease “y” (in this case, pulmonary anthrax).
  • Because of this semantic technicality, a great many people like you threw a fit, causing a public controversy. DoD then made the vaccine optional.
  • In December 2005, the FDA changed its rules. DoD made the vaccine mandatory again.

Does that clear it up for you?

Posted 12 November 2009, Hide, Parent, Reply

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: Please read the Book of Mormon! // Jake is way off base in God before Country in the Military
  2. RE: nerdy? in God before Country in the Military
  3. RE: Now it's, "Please watch Expelled"? in God before Country in the Military
  4. RE: Nursing Question in Nurse Does "Right Thing", Goes To Jail
  5. RE: nerdy? in God before Country in the Military
  6. Nursing Question in Nurse Does "Right Thing", Goes To Jail
  7. RE: nerdy? in God before Country in the Military
  8. RE: Please read the Book of Mormon! // Jake is way off base in God before Country in the Military
  9. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military
  10. RE: Discussing Book of Mormon anachronisms in God before Country in the Military

What is OmniNerd?

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

Voting Booth

Legalizing medical marijuana?

View Results, All Polls
28 votes, 1 comment