Safety of Smallpox Vaccine among Military Recipients Questioned_JAMA

[Guest guest]

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/11/03.html

 

 

Safety of Smallpox Vaccine among Military Recipients Questioned_JAMA

 

Mon, 3 Nov 2003

 

The government's hasty and ill-advised smallpox vaccination policy for US

civilians was roundly rejected by scientists and the public alike. Scientists

agreed that public concerns about the vaccine's adverse effects were valid.

Military personnel, however, were given no choice--500,000 were inoculated.

Surely their reactions to the vaccine are not appreciably different from what

civilians might have experienced--unless it is claimed they are of a different

species.

 

An exchange of letters in The Journal of the American Medical Society (see

below) by Dr. Meryl Nass, a board member of the Alliance for Human Research

Protection, and Drs Grabenstein and Winkenwerder et al, revolves around the

veracity of the military claims about the safety of the smallpox vaccine.

 

Dr. Nass disputes the claim by Dr. Grabenstein that the adverse event rates

following smallpox vaccine were derived from active surveillance of 500,000

soldiers. Active surveillance means after you give a drug or vaccine you go back

periodically and ask the recipients if they are okay or having any symptoms. It

is expensive and time-consuming, and you then need to look into which symptoms

might be vaccine-related. It would have cost many millions to do active

surveillance on 500,000 soldiers--it is simply never done with such large

groups. Since Dr. Grabenstein is a PhD pharmacoepidemiologist there's no

question that he knows the difference between active and passive surveillance.

 

Dr. Nass is contacted by sick soldiers every day, she can, therefore, vouch for

the fact there has been no active surveillance, and when they got sick, they

heard only denials the vaccine might have any relationship to their illness.

 

Dr. Nass' response to Dr. Grabenstein's published letter follows.

 

Safety of the Smallpox Vaccine Among Military Recipients

 

To the Editor: Dr Halsell and colleagues [1] reported that myopericarditis

occurred at a rate of 1 per 12 819 primary vaccinees in the US military.

Similarly, Drs Grabenstein and Winkenwerder [2] found that between 0.5% and 3.0%

of military vaccine recipients needed short-term sick leave. Both groups of

authors concluded that adverse events occurred at rates below historical rates,

and that a mass vaccination program could be carried out safely. In both

reports, however, vaccine complications were derived using passive rather than

active surveillance. Therefore, the very favorable comparison of military

adverse effect rates to historical rates is misleading.

 

Furthermore, claims that no deaths were associated with the military vaccination

program and that no women developed myopericarditis are incorrect. Two military

deaths have in fact been reported to be associated with smallpox vaccination.

[3-4] One occurred in a previously healthy 22-year-old female reservist who died

1 month after receiving both anthrax and smallpox vaccines. According to the

autopsy report, this was associated with pericarditis.

 

Similarly, the rate of myopericarditis found by the US Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) in civilians under active surveillance was more

than 7 times higher than the military rate: 1 in 1725 vaccinees, of whom 71%

were women. [5] Furthermore, the CDC reports that 2 women are now known to have

developed dilated cardiomyopathy following smallpox vaccination. [6] The total

number of serious adverse events among civilians from January 24 through June

20, 2003, is 71, or a rate of 1 in 500 smallpox vaccinations. [6] These events

included 5 myocardial infarctions and 1 stroke.

 

The letter by Dr Nass, as originally submitted to THE JOURNAL, was previously

posted at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/nassletter.pdf. - ED.

 

Meryl Nass, MD

Mount Desert Island Hospital

Bar Harbor, Me

 

1. Halsell JS, Riddle JR, Atwood JE, et al. Myopericarditis following smallpox

vaccination among vaccinia-naive US military personnel. JAMA.

2003;289:3283-3289. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

 

2. Grabenstein JD, Winkenwerder W Jr. US military smallpox vaccination program

experience. JAMA. 2003;289:3278-3282. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

 

3. Roos R. Military smallpox vaccinee dies of heart attack; ACIP considers

options. March 28, 2003. Available at:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/bt/smallpox/news/acipheart.html.

Accessibility verified September 26, 2003.

 

4. Meincke P. Soldier dies after smallpox vaccination [transcript]. Chicago

local news. ABC television. April 9, 2003. Available at:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/040903_ns_smallpoxdeath.html. Accessibility

verified September 26, 2003.

 

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: cardiac-related events

during the civilian smallpox vaccination program - United States, 2003. MMWR

Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:492-496. MEDLINE

 

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: cardiac and other adverse

events following civilian smallpox vaccination - United States, 2003. MMWR Morb

Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:639-642. MEDLINE

 

Letters Section Editor: Stephen J. Lurie, MD, PhD, Senior Editor.

 

JAMA. 2003;290:2123-2124.

 

Safety of the Smallpox Vaccine Among Military Recipients - Reply

 

In Reply: Contrary to Dr Nass's assertion, active surveillance was the primary

source for the published military data on smallpox vaccine safety. [1] Of 18

myopericarditis cases reported, [2] only 3 were found using the Vaccine Adverse

Event Reporting System. Most were first identified among well-observed military

personnel via reports to headquarters or from the Defense Medical Surveillance

System. [3]

 

The death of a 22-year-old female soldier was reported, [1] but pericarditis had

not been diagnosed at that time. At the time of this writing, her death is

classified as " unexplained " by the CDC. The Department of Defense is consulting

with civilian medical experts to determine if this death was related to smallpox

vaccination.

 

There are considerable differences between the military and civilian vaccinee

populations in age and sex mix, underlying health, and access to medical care.

Most military myopericarditis cases are classified as " probable, " whereas most

civilian cases are " suspect. " [4] It is not known if the 2 civilian cases of

dilated cardiomyopathy are incident cases after vaccination or prevalent cases

predating vaccination. [5] Both had multiple risk factors independent of

vaccination. Notably, after smallpox vaccination of 490 000 military personnel,

the Department of Defense has identified no elevated rates of cardiac disorders

other than myopericarditis. [1-2]

 

Adverse events occur among unvaccinated people at certain rates. We would expect

these events to occur in similar vaccinated people at similar rates. The

Department of Defense uses scientific methods to determine whether those rates

are exceeded. Managers of vaccination programs also must use reliable scientific

practices.

 

We also disagree with Nass that the smallpox safety reports issued by the

Department of Defense are misleading. Military reporting began at a public

session of the Institute of Medicine on December 19, 2002. Regular periodic

reports followed, as information accumulated. One of the physicians who analyzed

much of the 1960s smallpox vaccine safety data chairs today's Smallpox Vaccine

Safety Working Group, evaluating both military and civilian safety data. He

considers modern data collection superior to earlier efforts. " Surveillance

techniques used in 2003 are much more comprehensive and sophisticated than those

used in the 1960s " (J.M. Neff, written communication, August 27, 2003).

 

John D. Grabenstein, RPh, PhD; James R. Riddle, DVM, MPH; Mark K. Arness, MD,

MT & MH; William Winkenwerder, Jr, MD Department of Defense Washington, DC

 

1. Grabenstein JD, Winkenwerder W. US military smallpox vaccination program

experience. JAMA. 2003;289:3278-82. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

 

2. Halsell JS, Riddle JR, Atwood JE, et al. Myopericarditis following smallpox

vaccination among vaccinia-naive US military personnel. JAMA.

2003;289:3283-3289. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

 

3. Rubertone MV, Brundage JF. The Defense Medical Surveillance System and the

Department of Defense serum repository: glimpses of the future of public health

surveillance. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1900-1904. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

 

4. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Update: adverse events following

civilian smallpox vaccination - United States, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.

2003;52:819-820. MEDLINE

 

5. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Update: cardiac and other adverse

events following civilian smallpox vaccination - United States, 2003. MMWR Morb

Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:639-642. MEDLINE

 

Letters Section Editor: Stephen J. Lurie, MD, PhD, Senior Editor.

 

JAMA. 2003;290:2124.

 

~~~~~~~~~~

 

Dr. Meryl Nass' response:

 

The incorrect claims in the authors' original two papers are magnified in their

Author Response. The following discusses six misleading statements in their

reply.

 

1. They implausibly claim that the adverse event rates following smallpox

vaccine were derived from active surveillance -- of 490,000 mostly deployed

soldiers! Since Grabenstein has a PhD in epidemiology, he should know the

difference between active and passive surveillance. Active surveillance means

that after you give a drug or vaccine you go back periodically and ask the

recipients if they are having any symptoms that may be adverse reactions. It is

expensive and time-consuming, and it necessitates looking into which symptoms

might be vaccine-related. This is why active surveillance is simply never done

with such large groups. Yet Grabenstein et al claim that " reports to

headquarters " and data from the Defense Medical Surveillance System (a database

of outpatient visits and hospitalizations) are forms of active surveillance,

when both are unquestionably passive.

 

2. The military authors support the claim in their June 25, 2003 JAMA article

that no women in the military have developed pericarditis following smallpox

vaccination, by saying that in the case of deceased reservist Rachel Lacey,

" pericarditis had not been diagnosed at that time. " Rachel Lacey, a 22 year old

in excellent health, was placed on active duty February 24, 2003. She received

five vaccinations in one day in early March, including both anthrax and smallpox

vaccinations. She became ill almost immediately, was first hospitalized on March

19, and died April 4.

 

After an autopsy, the Mayo Clinic pathologist diagnosed " lymphocytic

pericarditis with eosinophils, post-vaccination and diffuse alveolar damage " on

both the autopsy report and death certificate. Although it is conceivable that

someone at CDC who never examined the patient has called her death

" unexplained, " the diagnosis of pericarditis had been established well before

Grabenstein et al’s article was published.

 

3. Grabenstein et al point out that most military cases of vaccine-related

myopericarditis are " probable " according to CDC’s case definition, and most

civilian cases are " suspect. " The only way to confirm a case using CDC’s case

definition is with positive viral titres, a test not routinely available. In

standard medical practice, pericarditis is a clinical diagnosis. The difference

between the military " probable " and civilian " suspect " classifications really

means that military cases had to meet a higher burden of proof in order to be

counted, which is another reason relatively few cases were identified. This

allowed the authors to claim the vaccine was much safer than what the Morbidity

and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization

Practices and the Institute of Medicine concluded.

 

4. Next, Grabenstein et al assert that two civilian cases of dilated

cardiomyopathy may be prevalent (pre-existing) conditions, predating

vaccination. But that is not what CDC reported. Both women developed symptoms

shortly after vaccination, both had new onset of left bundle branch block on EKG

and both developed new heart murmurs. Did both have multiple (non-vaccine) risk

factors as Grabenstein claimed? One had untreated borderline hypertension and

obesity at age 52. Not a high-risk patient for congestive heart failure, as the

DoD authors implied.

 

5. Grabenstein et al say, " The Department of Defense uses scientific methods to

determine whether baseline adverse event rates are exceeded " in the vaccinated.

But they fail to reveal any validated research to support their claim, unlike

CDC’s findings in 38,000 vaccinated civilians, that no elevated rates of any

other cardiac conditions were found in 490,000 vaccinated soldiers.

 

6. Finally, Grabenstein et al cite a personal communication from a JM Neff who

said, " Surveillance techniques used in 2003 are much more comprehensive and

sophisticated than those used in the 1960s. " Granted - but is Neff referring to

military surveillance or civilian surveillance? When the military adverse event

rate for myopericarditis is only 14% of the civilian rate, when the rate for

other adverse events is zero, and when case-finding is limited to ICD-9 codes

and reports to FDA, military surveillance is neither comprehensive nor

sophisticated.

 

The problem here is not merely the lack of surveillance for vaccine adverse

events. The problem is a military medical culture in which the mission trumps

good medical practice. In this case, the " mission " dictates putting a good face

on a very bad program. By publishing these articles in the JAMA, the aim of the

military authors was to send the wrong message about smallpox vaccine’s safety

to half the physicians in America. Yet CDC has belatedly acknowledged the

civilian vaccination program as failed. Both the Institute of Medicine and CDC’s

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices have suggested that routine

smallpox vaccinations for civilians should be halted, due to unacceptable rates

of serious adverse reactions.

 

Colonel Grabenstein’s coauthors include the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Health Affairs, Dr. William Winkenwerder, M.D. Dr. Winkenwerder is the top

physician in the Department of Defense, and is responsible for exercising

civilian control over military medicine. Yet he has signed his name to an

article and subsequent rebuttal that are steeped in obfuscation, not science.

What message does that send to the entire military medical corps?

 

Dr. Winkenwerder completed medical school, obtained an MBA at the Wharton School

of Business, and has a record as an able hospital administrator. An Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs who is known for ethical conduct,

clinical knowledge and intellectual honesty would be a welcome change.

 

Meryl Nass, MD

H 207 276-5092

W 207 288-5082 ext 220 or pager 441

C 207 522-5229

 

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.

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard