Fwd: Colossal waste of taxpayer money on anthrax and smallpox vaccine for CIVILIANS

[Guest guest]

DARocksMom

Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:01:24 EDT

Colossal waste of taxpayer money on anthrax and smallpox vaccine for

CIVILIANS

 

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

Promoting openness and full disclosure

http://www.ahrp.org

 

FYI

 

Two probing articles in the Washington Post (Marilyn Thompson) and Chicago

Tribune (Peter Gorner) in the past week have discussed problems with the

military's anthrax vaccine program, and a request for bids by the Department

of Health and Human Services, to purchase 75 million doses of anthrax

vaccine for civilians.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28133-2004Mar26?language=printer

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0403280345mar28,1,5984425

..story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

 

Both Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and soldiers 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 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 other treatments:

http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/media/pdf/LearningfromAdverse.pdf.

In the rush to purchase vaccine in November 2001, DHHS contracted for 209

million doses of smallpox vaccine, for a total cost of $850 million dollars.

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 volunteered to

receive the vaccine, ending the program well before 10 million people were

vaccinated, as initially proposed.

 

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. " " 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 Sept. 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 Secretary Brown of

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

and there is no approved funding for this purchase.

During the same hearing, Congressman Wamp inquired of Secretary 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 the

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 this year, 2004:

Subcommittee Chairman ROGERS: 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.

 

The big question is whether the federal government is so interested in the

rapid purchase of huge stockpiles of untested drugs and vaccines, before

there is a verified threat assessment, and before an unbiased scientific

assessment of the drugs' value has been made:

a) to save lives,

b) to give the appearance of being prepared, or

c) to secure the benefits of giving lucrative government contracts to drug

corporations.

 

Contact: Meryl Nass, MD

Member of the Board

The Alliance for Human Research Protection

 

Tel. H 207 276-5092

Cell. 207 522-5229

mnass

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0403280345mar28,1,5984425

..story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

CHICAGO TRIBUNE

U.S. war on anthrax has its risks: Rush to stock new vaccine has scientists

wary

By Peter Gorner

 

March 28, 2004

 

Some scientists are questioning a U.S. government plan to spend as much as

$1.4 billion on an unlicensed, experimental anthrax vaccine to be stockpiled

in case bioterrorists attack American cities.

 

Although the vaccine has been tested in animals, testing in humans is in its

early phases and the vaccine has not yet demonstrated its effectiveness,

making the purchasing plan premature, according to critics.

 

But the Bush administration, as a follow-up to its promise to have enough

smallpox vaccine on hand for every American, said it hopes that within two

years the country will have sufficient quantities of the new anthrax vaccine

to inoculate 25 million people.

 

That, along with the storage of antibiotics that already have proved their

effectiveness against anthrax spores, could serve as countermeasures against

a feared biological agent.

 

" As the lead federal agency for public health and medical response, we are

moving forward to ensure our nation is protected against anthrax, " said

Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

But an anthrax expert, Dr. Meryl Nass, of Bar Harbor, Maine, cautioned that

the public " should not be misled that this vaccine is an improvement to the

currently licensed vaccine.

 

" This one is definitely more pure, but unfortunately its purity has not been

shown to improve safety or effectiveness, " said Nass, a former government

consultant who led the campaign against the existing vaccine after getting

reports from military personnel of mystifying and serious side effects.

 

After a terrorist attack, the U.S. plan calls for the entire population of a

city to be inoculated with the new vaccine, while also taking antibiotics

until immunity develops.

 

After that, with regular booster shots, people theoretically would be immune

to anthrax, even if spores lingered for years, as they have been shown to

do.

 

Nass said that most " shocking " is the government's contention that the new

vaccine would enable cities contaminated with anthrax to be habitable.

 

`Most bogus thing'

 

" Where's the science behind that? It's the biggest, most bogus thing of

all, " she said.

The only currently licensed anthrax vaccine in the U.S. is a mixture of

proteins produced by a weakened form of Bacillus anthracis, the bacterium

that causes the deadly disease in animals and people.

 

Developed for animal-hide workers in the 1950s and used primarily by the

military, the vaccine requires six injections over 18 months and has been

associated with severe side effects.

The licensed anthrax vaccine became the subject of bad publicity and

litigation because of the Pentagon's insistence on mandatory vaccination of

troops. The vaccine's reputation never recovered.

 

During the anthrax-letters panic of 2001, nearly all of the postal workers

at risk refused the vaccine when it was offered.

Nonetheless, some skeptics are questioning what they perceive as the rush by

the government to buy several million doses of the new vaccine, called

rPA102, before clinical trials are completed and its safety and

effectiveness evaluated.

 

Also being questioned is the choice of the main manufacturer, VaxGen Inc. of

Brisbane, Calif., a company whose AIDS vaccine failed inclinical trials in

2003.

" Once again, VaxGen has managed to leverage few scientific data to capture a

significant amount of federal dollars, " said Dr. Steven Wolinsky, an AIDS

researcher and chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Feinberg

Medical School at Northwestern University.

 

" Most of us in the scientific community agree there is meager scientific

evidence to support this effort. As a clinician, I would not offer the

vaccine to people exposed to anthrax spores without providing them with

concomitant drug treatment. "

 

More promising anthrax vaccines are in the pipeline, but they may fail to

attract commercial developers because the government already has made up its

mind, some experts contend.

They also warn of another potential anthrax vaccine boondoggle that would

make the legal, medical and ethical disputes over the existing vaccine,

BioThrax, pale by comparison.

 

Bidding will close April 16 on a contract for 75 million doses of the rPA102

vaccine that is expected to be awarded to VaxGen and Avecia Ltd, a privately

held company based in Manchester, England. Xxx cut xxx

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28133-2004Mar26?language=printer

Washington Post

Growing Doubts On Vaccine In Military

Some Refuse, Citing Lack of Iraqi Anthrax

By Marilyn W. Thompson

Saturday, March 27, 2004; Page A01

 

With each report on the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,

Airman Jessica Horjus asked a question: If inspectors could find no signs of

anthrax, why should the Pentagon risk her health by requiring her to get the

anthrax vaccine?

 

" I have a kid to take care of, " said Horjus, 23, the mother of a 2-year-old,

who lives with her daughter in military housing at Seymour Johnson Air Force

Base in Goldsboro, N.C. " The Air Force can always fill my slot with someone

else, but who's going to fill the mommy slot? "

When a January order came for Horjus to get the vaccine before deploying to

a Kuwait air base about 30 miles from Iraq, the soldier with commendations

and Good Conduct Medals declined. Her commander demoted her and cut her pay

in half, to less than $800 a month. In February, she declined a second and

third order.

 

Horjus is one of a number of soldiers who cite the lack of anthrax in Iraq

as a reason behind their stance against the mandatory anthrax vaccine. As

the Pentagon moves thousands of troops into Iraq as part of a huge rotation

of forces, soldiers, citizen groups and members of

Congress are increasingly calling upon defense officials to stop the

vaccinations.

 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) sent a letter last week to Defense Secretary

Donald H. Rumsfeld asking him to reevaluate the mandatory policy in light of

events in Iraq. " The apparent absence of an Iraqi biological warfare

capability raises serious questions about the threat of an anthrax attack

against our troops, " Bingaman wrote. " 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. "

 

The Pentagon now requires inoculation for any soldier about to deploy for

more than 15 days to what it defines as a " high-risk " area for anthrax

attack. Concerned about reports of illnesses and a death last year that

officials linked to the vaccine, soldiers headed to Iraq, Afghanistan and

elsewhere are asking more questions about the program's rationale.

 

" There is no evidence that stockpiles of anthrax exist in Iraq or with Al

Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere, " Horjus wrote in a memo to the base's

appellate authority. " As a single mother, I cannot afford to unnecessarily

risk my long-term health on a highly-reactive vaccine that supposedly

protects against a threat that cannot be found. "

 

After four years of service, the young mother last week accepted the Air

Force's offer of an other-than-honorable discharge and prepared to return

home to Yorktown, Va.

Vaccine opponents say they are tracking dozens of cases of soldiers who are

refusing the vaccine. The demand for troops is so high that unvaccinated

soldiers may find themselves deployed nonetheless. Some are on duty in and

near Iraq and are closely monitoring the frustrated hunt for banned weapons,

knowing they will face punishment for disobeying orders when they return.

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online by April 15th