The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index The Perseus Books Group Message Boards
Book discussion forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SQUALENE-LACED ANTHRAX VACCINE AND WHERE IT WAS GIVEN
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Vaccine-A
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
forrest shalom
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:51 am    Post subject: where to in israel? Reply with quote

shalom gary,

do you happen to know where the tainted antrax vaccine went to inside israel?

thanks,

forrest
Back to top
ex-WRAMC staff



Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Up North Michigan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:03 am    Post subject: get involved! Reply with quote

To Gulf War Vet2,
Thank you for writing your congressmen. Recently a new organization has formed, a political action comittee at:www.mvacpac.org, and click the link, 'get involved",
Stay abreast of all the recent information, by educating yourself and others, this agenda can get more recoginiton.
_________________
GWI, non-deployed, 100%, former WRAMC staff on first Gulf War Center, ill from adjuvant induced autoimmune disease.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply to DKehl, RE: Pneumonia Vaccines, etc. Reply with quote

Dear DKehl: I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that you have cold/flu symptoms; and in a light of those symptoms, are you asking if it is advisable to get injected with a pneumococcal vaccine?

Gulf War veterans, active duty military personnel vaccinated between 1998 and 2000, and troops vaccinated for Operation Iraqi Freedom, have reported cold/flu-like symptoms following anthrax vaccination. Troops injected with anthrax vaccine for Operation Iraq Freedom have also developed "aseptic" pneumonia, which is fluid in the lungs resulting from inflammation caused by something other than bacterial or viral infection.

As noted by the former Surgeon General of the Army, LTG James B. Peake, in a memo issued to the commanders of Regional Medical Commands on 10 February 2004, one other cause of "aseptic" pneumonia is autoimmunity. At least one Army spokesman (COL Bruno Petrocelli of CHPPM) has stated, on-the-record, that the Army has averted any pneumonia-related fatalities by resorting to steroid therapy for pneumonia patients who did not respond to antibiotics. Steroids are a standard medication for autoimmune disease. There is a pneumonia that results from autoimmune inflammation of blood vessels (vasculitis) called Churgs-Strauss Syndrome.

The most commonly reported symptoms among sick miltiary personnel who then developed diseases like lupus or MS following anthrax immunization include the following: chronic fatigue, chronic joint and muscle pain, persistent rashes that are often photosensitive (they worsein in the sun), dizziness, tinnitus (chronic ringing in ears), muscle fasciculations (involuntary muscle twitching), muscle cramping, short-term memory loss.

Achy joints and muscles, and chronic fatigue, can be due to many things besides a cold or the flu; autoimmunity, for instance.

If you have an autoimmune disease process underway in your body, there are many tests to verify this possibility, including: anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-striated muscle antibodies, anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies, anti-microsmal antibodies, abnormal C3 or complement levels, IgA Immune Complexes, IgG Benzene Ring, NK Cell activity and Total Immune Complexes. You should consult your physician about your symptoms and ask him or her whether it is advisable to get any of the aforementioned laboratory tests for autoimmunity.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
DKehl



Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I misinterpreted the previous post that an autoimmune disorder would make you more susceptable to pneumonia. Thank you for clarifying.

DKehl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply to GulfVet2, RE: Coincidence Reply with quote

Dear GulfVet2: I think it behooves military personnel to organize. Create a band-of-brothers and sisters who share your concerns and speak with one voice. There's strength in numbers.

I would also consider contacting organizations like the American Gulf War Veterans Association about what you can do. The officials running AGWVA have been fighting to get Gulf War "Syndrome" recognized as a legitimate, physical illness for many, many years. They can offer valuable perspective and advice on what lies ahead should you choose to undertake this particular struggle.

There is something else you may want to do. If you are interested in knowing more about this, please send your email address to one of my two publicists at Basic Books: Jamie Brickhouse (jamie.brickhouse@perseusbooks.com) or Holly Bemiss (holly.bemiss@perseusbooks.com). Try Holly first. Ask them to forward your address (along with your VACCINE A message forum username "GulfVet2"), and I will email you back with more details.

Seek support. Based on my own experience, I would say this fight - and it is a fight - is a "hundred rounder" (N.B. professional boxing matches go fifteen rounds). I do not anticipate any single, climactic event that will precipitate the collapse of DOD/FDA propogranda mill on the risks of injecting squalene, or squalene's use in the second generation anthrax vaccine. So I would urge you to find people of like mind, as soon as possible, for support.

Above all, carefully monitor your own health. No one knows your body better than you. If you notice subtle, or not-so-subtle, changes in your health, you may want to consult your physicians about getting lab tests run for autoimmunity, if appropriate. Your physician will help you determine that. If you received anthrax vaccinations from any of the lots confirmed to contain squalene, or vaccine lots suspected of containing squalene, you may want contact Dr. Asa about getting your serum tested for anti-squalene antibodies.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply to Forrest, RE: FAV 008 in Israel Reply with quote

Dear Forrest: The MBPI anthrax vaccine inventory, unfortunately, does not specify where in Israel the tainted doses went.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Trebor
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary, on your post on Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:13 pm, you wrote,

"This was a significant finding because that meant a squalene-positive lot was, in fact, distributed for the first time on 22 January 2002, during Desert Storm."

Did you really mean 2002?

Did the FDA test a "blank" with each separate piece glassware for each separate sample? Or did they just run one blank on a single piece of glassware before all 3 samples (from the same lot, at different testing instances) were tested in that single piece of glassware? In layman's terms, would you explain the step-by-step procedure? e.g. select glassware, run blank, pour in sample, analyze with GLC, discard glass, begin next test with new glassware, run blank...I realize this sounds a bit like lawyering, however, with this information one can better acertain such probabilities that are highly unlikely e.g. fingerprint oils consistently occuring in the same quantities. Thanks in advance for all clarification you can give.

Re: SRI's finding of squalene 3 times at 1-9 ppb in FAV008.
Given the tight plus or minus tolerances one of the doctors mentioned in the book, the DoD should do a simple test: Purposefully cantiminate 100 pieces of glassware with fingerprints, then clean with hexane (to remove the fingerprints). After such thorough cleaning, do a statistical study. Determine the probability of the "fingerprint" oil squalene (out of the 13 oils) being consistently at the same quantities after multiple GLC tests with an inert solution. Dare?
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: FAV 008 Reply with quote

Dear Trebor: I meant 22 January 1991; not 22 January 2002.

Gary
Back to top
GulfVet2
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:59 am    Post subject: Re: Get Involved Reply with quote

To ex-WRAMC staff:

Thanks for the link to the mvacpac site ... I wasn't aware of them. I don't know what more I can do, but I will read all I can and see if there is any way I can help further. I can be a "squeaky wheel" if that's what it takes.

To Gary:

Thanks for the suggestion of AGWVA. I have been on their site, but I need to and will spend some more time there. As far as my health goes, I have had quite a few tests for autoimmunity (Pam gave me a list) and although the doctors agree my problems are autoimmune, they cannot pinpoint any known disease category that I fall into. I have bad days and I have not as bad days. The not as bad days I do as much as I can and the bad days I just take it easy and do what I can. Also, Pam did test my blood and I am positive for the anti-squalene antibodies (2 shots from FAV038 and 1 from FAV047 out of the 5 shots I had to take would do that).
I've been in contact with Jay too and we are trying to get more people from the old days rounded up and involved. I think I know what other way you suggest I can be involved if I sent an e-mail to Holly and I have already taken care of that. (You and I have e-mailed already and I am on that "list"). If it's something else beyond that, please let me know and I will send you an e-mail. Thanks once again for all your help!
Back to top
jowens304
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:13 am    Post subject: my lot# info Reply with quote

My lot #s and locations:

FAV017 02Oct98 and 16Oct98 Camp Hovey(near Camp Casey) S. Korea

FAV020 03Dec98 Ft. Hood, TX I had just arrived to Texas so I assume they just wanted to give me a warm welcome w/ a tainted lot #. "Hook em Horns"

FAV048b 22May00 Ft. Hood, TX 1/82 FA 1st Cav

I found my lot # info in my med records on DA FORM 4700, MEDICAL RECORDS-SUPPLEMENTAL....can't read the rest b/c of the hole punches.
This form gives the date, lot number, site(right/left arm) dose(0.5ml), route(of course SQ), and physician's name. My Marine uncles always told me to make copies of my med records before getting out. I'm thankful I did.


To the author: First of all I just want to thank you for all your work on this subject. I'm not quite finished with your book and I have a few questions concerning the vaccine issue.
I'm not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed so please be patient. Question What would happen if the Government told the truth? Why are they hidding it? Why not just come out and say, 'Sorry. Embarassed We !@#%$ up. We were doing it for the good of the country...blah..blah..our children...our children's children..etc.'? Would the VA go under with claims? I'm not understanding why they can't admit they are wrong. Do they think they're fooling anyone who has read about or researched this topic(with the help of your book)? Thanks

any reply welcome
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: Blanks Etc. Reply with quote

Dear Trebor: The scientists who perform flame ionization GC/mass spec (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) run "blanks" to analyze the contents of a liquid, not to detect contamination of glassware. Flame ionization GC/mass spec was the type of test employed by the FDA's Center of Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to detect low parts per billion concentrations of squalene in anthrax vaccine. Vaccine's are made with water. If the contaminant, in this case squalene, was not present in a "blank" (a vial of plain water), then the scientist running the assay could reasonably conclude that any squalene found in the vaccine did not come from water.

In flame ionization, GC/mass spec, the liquid is vaporized [this makes this test more sensitive than the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method used by SRI when it analyzed anthrax vaccine for the Army]. What's on the vial stays on the vial; it doesn't turn to vapor along with vial's former contents.

That's because mere contact with water won't create an oily suspension of squalene. Squalene is an oil. Like most oils, it is a "hydrophobic" molecule. It doesn't like water. As the old saying goes, "oil and water don't mix." That's why technicians use a chemical solvent like hexane to clean oils off glassware; mere water, which is itself a solvent, won't do the job. So a schmear of squalene on a glass vial is going to stay on the vial.

The hydrophobicity of oils is why scientists add surfactants (surface active agents) to oil emulsions to prevent microdroplets of oil evenly distributed throughout a column of water like a 0.5 cc. dose of vaccine. Surfactants like Tween 80 or Span 85 are essentially detergents that diminish the tendency of oils, in this case, of squalene "microdroplets" to agglomerate into one big glob that would float on the water's surface. These microdroplets also carry the vaccine antigen (the germ, or pieces of it). If the oil separates out, or sticks to the sides of a hypodermic cylinder, injection of this uneven mixture would fail to deliver a reliable dose of antigen + adjuvant into the body.

But this is all academic. The CBER scientist who performed the GC/mass spec analysis of anthrax vaccine wore gloves. The BioPort workers who made the vaccine wore protective clothing replete with hoods; not to mention what? Gloves. No one's skin came in contact with the vaccine at BioPort or CBER. So where did the squalene come from? Over the past six years, the FDA and DOD have cycled through lots of different explanations for squalene's presence in anthrax vaccine. Some of those explanations would be laughable if the consequences weren't so tragic.

In 1998, FDA officials informed a Senate Investigation Unit (SIU) that any squalene detected in anthrax vaccine could have come from where? From eggs. The FDA told the Senate that some vaccine antigens are grown in eggs, and as eggs are rich in cholesterol it stood to reason that they would also contain the cholesterol-related molecule, squalene. Here's why that was a blatant red herring. Since the 1950s, Bacillus anthracis has been grown in a non-protein broth that contains no eggs. The FDA licensed the Army's anthrax vaccine in 1970. The formula for the culture medium is part of the license. So no one should have better than the FDA that the culture medium for B. anthracis was egg-free.

In 1999, DOD officials stated, correctly, that squalene is found in plants and animals, insinuating that any squalene detected in anthrax vaccine could have come from just about anywhere (except Chiron and the Army). Then in 2000, after it was disclosed that CBER found squalene in five anthrax vaccine lots, both the FDA and DOD said they believed it came from the organism, Bacillus anthracis. Finally, in the fall of 2004, after my book revealed there existed GC/mass spec data showing bacteria in general (including Corynebacteria diphtheraie and Clostridium tetani do not biosynthesize squalene, DOD reissued its Facts on Squalene with a new wrinkle: DOD says it now believes (it offers no evidence to support its belief; it just believes) that squalene came from someone's fingerprints on glassware.

The origin of squalene in anthrax vaccine is a question that concerns culpability and the nature of that culpability. Did someone deliberately tamper with BioPort's anthrax vaccine by adding squalene to it? Or was squalene present due to reckless manufacturing that left a dangerous contaminant in the vaccine? The answer to that question is irrelevant when it comes to safety. Whether someone put squalene in the vaccine, or it got there by some occult meants that has yet to be reliably identified, it is there. It doesn't matter whether the source was an egg, or a plant, or anthrax, or a fingerprint, or the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research for that matter. The source does not change the result. Tulane Medical School has shown that 1-83 parts per billion concentrations of squalene in anthrax vaccine is associated with anti-squalene antibodies and the onset of autoimmune disease. In immunology, a little bit goes a long way, and a little bit of squalene is incontestably in the vaccine.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto


P.S. Could you please confine this message string to reports or queries concerning the location of military installations that received squalene-tainted anthrax vaccine, or vaccine lots suspected of containing it? If you want to discuss fingerprint contamination, please do this in a separate string. Thank you.
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply to jowens304, RE: my lot info Reply with quote

Dear jowens304: First of all, please do not denigrate yourself as one of the duller tools in the shed. You're not. The fact that you're ploughing through VACCINE A is evidence enough of that. This is complicated stuff, but I'm not sure which is more complicated: the science or the psychology. I'd say it's the psychology, which is what you're asking about, I think.

Based on observations of people around me during my professional life, I think it's fair to say that people generally don't like to admit they have made mistakes. I don't. Journalists are among the absolute worst at admitting mistakes. Ever seen a retraction in The New York Times ... in fine print on page 10,037? I made at least one mistake (my critics would say my whole book is one giant mistake) that I can think of in VACCINE A (swapping out Wyeth diphtheria and Connaught diphtheria toxoids, which I wrote as Wyeth tetanus and Connaught diphtheria). That was, even if I say so myself, a minor error that did not affect the overall argument of the book. Nevertheless I hate having made the slightest of errors, however inconsequential.

Now consider the military. How many officers do you know, who got to be officers, having made mistakes, even littles ones? A few maybe? Less than a few? How many officers do you know who got to be officers, let alone senior ones, having admitted making those mistakes? How about none? In the military, as in most bureaucracies, no one gets ahead by being candid about one's mistakes. The natural human tendency is to downplay them or cover them up.

That being the case, let's consider this very big mistake. Well, that would be understatement, wouldn't it? Let's call it, as Saddam might in his inimitable way, the "mother of all mistakes." So which general do you think is going to stand up and then fall on this sword for that one? When was the last time you saw a general fall on his sword for anything? That's because generals are infallible, at least they strive to be perceived that way in a ruthless, unforgiving bureaucracy, which is not much different from your average ruthless, unforgiving corporate bureaucracy in which vice-presidents, presidents, CEOs and CFOs strive to be, at least in outward appearance, infallible.

Not that I'm picking on generals, or CEOs, or presidents here. Most of us aren't any better than they are, and vice versa. They just seem to have a knack for appearing better than the rest of us, which is a pretty valuable skill in corporate life.

Now I have four more possibilities for you to consider. First, what do think it would do to military recruiting if everyone young man and woman in America discovered that it is a common practice to test new drugs and vaccines on troops? Do you think they'd darken the door at their local recruiting office knowing there are federal regulations that make experiments on troops perfectly legal? I'd say that would be a big "no." As far as I know, recruiting and retention is already a problem for both regulars and reserves as a result of the mandatory anthrax vaccinations, military salaries lagging behind those offered in to civilians with similar qualifications and now the extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're not going to see any Marine recruiting posters saying: "The Few, The Proud, The Lab Rats," or how 'bout an Army poster saying: "Be All That You Can Be ... be a Guineeeeaaaa Piig!" If this story gets traction with the public, recruiters might has well board up their offices and go home now ... unless, of course, the government repeals these regulations.

Which brings me to my second possibility. The U.S. public health establishment doesn't want those regulations repealed because they provide access to a large, self-replenishing pool of test subjects who can't sue anybody. The public health establishment has been taking advantage of the military's privelege of running such tests on troops for national security reasons as a means to get data that civilian public health officials also want, but can't get by any other means. When the Army first tested an experimental flu vaccine with oil adjuvant on troops at Fort Dix in 1951. There were forty-four thousand troops in that trial. Follow-up studies on these troops were funded by the National Cancer Institue and the IOM, among others. Do you think a Pfizer or SmithKlineBeecham, as deep as their pockets are, could afford to run a clinical trial with nearly fifty thousand subjects? It'd never happen. So when the NIH, IOM/NAS, or AFEB wants some data on a new drug or vaccine on a very large population of people, who yah gonna call? Well, I'd say (just as I said in the book) that the Defense Department's the only game in town.

Here's another reason why the civilian public health establishment doesn't want this particular applecart upset. Big drug companies have been deserting the vaccine business in droves. Vaccines are a low margin/high risk business; they don't make a lot of money compared to a Lipitor or a Viagra. One recent survey showed that the annual revenues for Lipitor alone exceeded the the total combined revenues for every vaccine now made. Vaccines are also risky because they are given to healthy people. If there's a problem, it's more likely to show up in healthy people than sick ones, which can lead to what? Lawsuits. So to keep drug companies in the vaccine business, the government offers them this perk -- the possibility of risk-free testing on U.S. military personnel, who, because of the Feres Doctrine, can't sue DOD for damages due to negligence. Oh, and they can't sue the drug companies either, because DOD indemnifies them.

Which brings me to the fourth and final disincentive to just fessing up, which would be the most logical and honorable thing to do: some people, a priveleged few, are making big money on this. The biotech/biodefense trough is now overflowing with taxpayer dollars and there are a lot of scientists feeding from it.

Of course, my critics would like you to consider one other possibility. That I'm wrong.

I consider that possibility every day. So far, I don't think so.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
boxer1313
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:33 am    Post subject: SQUALENE-LACED ANTHRAX VACCINE AND WHERE IT WAS GIVEN Reply with quote

I was given 2 shots annotated on my shot record as VACCA in Jan and Feb 1991 while I was stationed at KKMC in Saudia Arabia. No one can tell me what they were is this the VACCINE A? There is no lot number listed.
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply to boxer1313, RE: VACCA Reply with quote

Dear boxer1313: According to a memo concerning "Medical Records and Rosters Related to Vaccination Against Biological Warfare Agents" from the office of the Army Surgeon General (21 May 1991), military medical personnel anotated the anthrax immunization as: "Anthrax", "A Vaccination", "A-Vacc", "A-Vax" or something similar." [Italics mine]

I would say "VACCA" is similar to "A-Vacc," wouldn't you?

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
emidan611



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply to Gary's previous post Reply with quote

Gary,

Exclamation Having said all of that in your previous post about the government not admitting they made a mistake, what are we to do since we can't sue the government or drug companies? What is our recourse?

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Vaccine-A All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 2 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP