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, 4 ... 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
Dugway 1981



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 4
Location: West Lafayette, IN

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply for Gary M. RE: autoimmunity & installations. Reply with quote

This post is in reply to Gary's posts of Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:32 pm (subject: Reply to DKehl, RE: Pneumonia Vaccines, etc.) & Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:06 pm (subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: Blanks Etc.).

Gary,

First, "THANK YOU" for your book! I have purchased many copies, to give to my family, friends, and doctors, and have notified everyone else about it by E-mail! It has given me the validation I've been searching for, after more than two decades of severe suffering, following being administered obviously experimental inoculations, under very bizarre circumstances, against my will and without my informed consent, at Dugway Army Proving Grounds, UT in 1981, immediately after which I began experiencing the autoimmune symptoms you describe.

When I first heard of "Gulf War Syndrome," while serving on the Chairmanís Staff (General Powell) at the Pentagon, I knew that I was suffering from essentially the same illness. Subsequently, I pieced together the anthrax / squalene association and my having been given unneeded / unexplained inoculations while assigned to THE facility when and where a "new" anthrax vaccine was being developed. I've been telling this story ever since but, being a voice of just one, haven't been taken seriously by an ill- / uninformed medical establishment.

Because of my experience, I believe that the anthrax / squalene association has existed at least since 1981 at Dugway Army Proving Grounds, UT.

Thank you!

Sincerely,
George C. Richwine
Major, USAF (Retired)
San Diego, CA
richwine@pacbell.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply to emidan611, RE: Reply to Gary's previous post Reply with quote

Dear emidan611: In response to your question:


emidan611 wrote:
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


...you can write your Senator and your Congressman about this issue. If you are a member of the military, there is a certain initiative underway to get this issue addressed by DOD.

I did not look at the legal issues closely in my book, but this is what I suspect it true: when the Army indeminifies a company like BioPort it doesn't mean BioPort is "immune" to legal action. I need to research this a lot more, but I think it means the Army, as BioPort's insurer for the manufactuer of anthrax vaccine, must pay for any injuries due to BioPort's negligence.

I do not believe the legality of the experiments on troops means the private corporations that entered into strategic partnerships with the Army and the NIH (to develop new medicines and vaccines) are subsequently bullet-proof. I suspect that private corporations are still vulnerable to litigation.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe The Rutherford Institute, which is now representing Sgt. Jason Adkins from Dover AFB, intends to challenge the applicability of the Feres Doctrine when troops have been experimented upon. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee issued a report in 1994 saying that this doctrine should not apply to military personnel injured in unethical military medical experiments.

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





PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply to Dugway 1981, RE: autoimmunity and installations Reply with quote

Dear Dugway 1981 (Major Richwine): Do you know which vaccines you were given at Dugway in 1981? That year, 1981, was the year that Dr. Edgar Ribi, founded the company Ribi Immunochem Research, Inc. in Hamilton, Montana. Dr. Ribi, formerly affiliated with both the military and the NIH, developed an microbial adjuvant emulsified in squalene. In 1981, many NIH scientists were already using squalene as an emulsifying agent or "vehicle" for its experimental vaccine adjuvants.

Around 1986-87, the Army began calling Ribi's prototype adjuvant, "Triple Mix" or "Tri-Mix," and began incorporating Tri-Mix into the earliest versions of Fort Detrick's second generation anthrax vaccine. I need to re-check my documents, by I seem to recall that in 1994, for reasons the Army has never explained, it indeminified Ribi Immunochem for the use of the Ribi Adjuvant System (the commercial name for Triple Mix) in U.S. military personnel.

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





PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:24 am    Post subject: SQUALENE-LACED ANTHRAX VACCINE AND WHERE GIVEN (UPDATED) Reply with quote

To All: With your help, I've updated this list. Thank you. It is a work in progress, so please keep the information coming.


LOT NUMBERS

Squalene-Positive [per FDA and SRI]:
FAV 008, FAV 020, FAV 030, FAV 038, FAV 043, FAV 047

Have Induced Anti-Squalene Antibodies [per Tulane Med School]:
FAV 041, FAV 070 and FAV 071

Associated with Autoimmune-Related Symptoms or Fullly Diagnosed Autoimmune Diseases in Troops [per Tulane]:
FAV 017, FAV 048b, FAV 066, FAV 068, FAV 069, FAV 073, FAV 074, FAV 075, FAV 078


LOCATIONS

FAV 008
Dover AFB (Delaware); Fort Bragg (North Carolina), BioPort (administered to workers); Shipments of FAV 008 were also sent to Israel, Germany, Taiwan and Canada.

FAV 017
Osan, South Korea; Camp Hovey(near Camp Casey) S. Korea; Tripler Army Medical Center (Hawaii); Camp Lejeune (North Carolina); Fort Stewart (Georgia); 18th MEDCOM APO AP; Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Eleleson AFB (Arkansas), U.S. Air Force Academy (Colorado); Fort Drum (New York); Fort Campbell (Kentucky); Langley AFB (Virginia); Ellsworth AFB (South Dakota); Mountain Home AFB (Idaho); MacDill AFB (Florida); Pearl Harbor (Hawaii); Offut AFB (Nebraska); Barksdale AFB (Arkansas); Portsmouth (Virginia); Moody AFB (Georgia); Buckley ANG (Colorado); Malmstrom AFB (Montana); Fort Lewis (Washington); Davis-Monthan AFB (Arizona); Beale AFB (California); Fairchild AFB (Washington); Barkdale AFB (Arkansas); Virgnia Beach (Virginia)

FAV 020
Al Jaber, Kuwait; U.S.S. Independence (Persian Gulf); U.S.S. San Jacinto (Persian Gulf); Saudi Arabia; Fort Hood (Texas); A shipment of FAV 020 was also sent to Australia.

FAV 030
Al Jaber, Kuwait; Dover AFB (Delaware); Michigan ANG (Michigan); Holloman AFB (New Mexico); Perry Point (Maryland); Naval Station Everett (Washington); Norfolk (Virginia); Cannon AFB (New Mexico); Holloman AFB (New Mexico); McChord AFB (Washington); Shaw AFB (South Carolina); Nellis AFB (Nevada); Fort Lewis (Washington); Travis AFB (California); Fort Bliss (Texas); Fort Dix (New Jersey); Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Seymour-Johnson AFB (North Carolina); Hickham AFB (Hawaii); Peterson AFB (Colorado); McConnell AFB (Kansas); Camp Pendleton (California); Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (Pennsylvania); Redstone Arsenal (Alabama); F.E. Warren AFB (Wyoming); Shipments of FAV 030 were also sent to Germany and Canada.

FAV 038
Osan, South Korea; U.S.S. Roosevelt; Hill AFB (Utah); Fort Benning (Georgia); BioPort (administered to workers); Westover AFB (Massachusetts)

FAV 041
Al Jaber, Kuwait; Westover AFB (Massachusetts); Dover AFB (Delaware); Michigan ANG (Michigan); Dharhan, Saudi Arabia; Tyndall AFB (Florida)

FAV 043
Osan, South Korea; Wright-Patterson AFB (Ohio); Tennessee ANG (Tennessee); Dover AFB (Delaware); Fort Bragg (North Carolina); Oklahoma ANG (Oklahoma); Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Travis AFB (California); Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (Pennsylvania); Fort Sill (Oklahoma); Key Field (Mississippi)

FAV 047
Travis AFB (California); Dover AFB (Delaware); BioPort (administered to workers); Westover AFB (Massachusetts)

FAV 048b
Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Fort Hood (Texas)

FAV 070
Dyess AFB (Texas); Fort McCoy (Wisconsin)

FAV 071
Dover AFB (Delaware); Camp Lejeune (North Carolina); Naval/Marine Corps Reserve Center (Pennsylvania)

FAV 073
Fort Hood (Texas); Fort McCoy (Wisconsin); Naval/Marine Corps Reserve Center (Pennsylvania)

FAV 078
Al Jaber, Kuwait


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





PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:41 pm    Post subject: WHY IT'S LEGAL TO EXPERIMENT ON TROOPS W/O INFORMED CONSENT Reply with quote

To All: The federal regulations permitting the administration of investigational new drugs (INDs) and vaccines to troops without informed consent have existed at least since the early 1980s; my records show that some regulations permitting this activity have been around since the 1960s.

There is a separate 1987 FDA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding that not only permits experiments on troops with a DHHS waiver of informed consent; it allows DOD to then classify that trial so that no one knows about it. This MOU states that it is DOD's prerogative to classify such trials for national security reasons without spelling out the criteria for determining why a trial should be cloaked in this manner.

These laws exist, in part, because the U.S. public health establishment (not just the military) wants to know the effects of INDs on humans, effects that sometimes only become apparent after these experimental drugs and vaccines have been given to large numbers of people. It's a game of percentages. And these percentages become clearer when tens of thousands of people get the new drug, instead of a few dozen. The military is just about the only place to organize a trial of this size.

That being the case, it becomes expedient to test new drugs and vaccines on people who cannot sue for damages. Because of the Feres Doctrine, military personnel have not been able to seek redress for injuries due to medical malpractice.

Now add to this equation a 1980s phenomenon: the FDA "fast tracking" INDs through the licensing gauntlet, and the NIH and DOD forming "strategic partnerships" with big drug companies to co-develop new drugs and vaccines. So there's big money involved in this too.

Below are the federal regulations permitting this activity:

Quote:
21 CFR 50.23

[PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Paragraph (d)(1) of this section was amended at 64 FR 396, 399, Jan. 5, 1999, effective May 20, 1999. For the convenience of the user, paragraph (d)(1) has been set out twice below. The first version is effective until May 20, 1999. The second version is effective May 20, 1999.]

(a) The obtaining of informed consent shall be deemed feasible unless, before use of the test article (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section), both the investigator and a physician who is not otherwise participating in the clinical investigation certify in writing all of the following:

(1) The human subject is confronted by a life-threatening situation necessitating the use of the test article.

(2) Informed consent cannot be obtained from the subject because of an inability to communicate with, or obtain legally effective consent from, the subject.

(3) Time is not sufficient to obtain consent from the subject's legal representative.

(4) There is available no alternative method of approved or generally recognized therapy that provides an equal or greater likelihood of saving the life of the subject.

(b) If immediate use of the test article is, in the investigator's opinion, required to preserve the life of the subject, and time is not sufficient to obtain the independent determination required in paragraph (a) of this section in advance of using the test article, the determinations of the clinical investigator shall be made and, within 5 working days after the use of the article, be reviewed and evaluated in writing by a physician who is not participating in the clinical investigation.

(c) The documentation required in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall be submitted to the IRB within 5 working days after the use of the test article.

(d)(1) [Effective until May 20, 1999.] The Commissioner may also determine that obtaining informed consent is not feasible when the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) requests such a determination in connection with the use of an investigational drug (including an antibiotic or biological product) in a specific protocol under an investigational new drug application (IND) sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD's request for a determination that obtaining informed consent from military personnel is not feasible must be limited to a specific military operation involving combat or the immediate threat of combat. The request must also include a written justification supporting the conclusions of the physician(s) responsible for the medical care of the military personnel involved and the investigator(s) identified in the IND that a military combat exigency exists because of special military combat (actual or threatened) circumstances in which, in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the military mission, preservation of the health of the individual and the safety of other personnel require that a particular treatment be provided to a specified group of military personnel, without regard to what might be any individual's personal preference for no treatment or for some alternative treatment. The written request must also include a statement that a duly constituted institutional review board has reviewed and approved the use of the investigational drug without informed consent. The Commissioner may find that informed consent is not feasible only when withholding treatment would be contrary to the best interests of military personnel and there is no available satisfactory alternative therapy.

(d)(1) [Effective May 20, 1999.] The Commissioner may also determine that obtaining informed consent is not feasible when the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) requests such a determination in connection with the use of an investigational drug (including a biological product) in a specific protocol under an investigational new drug application (IND) sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD's request for a determination that obtaining informed consent from military personnel is not feasible must be limited to a specific military operation involving combat or the immediate threat of combat. The request must also include a written justification supporting the conclusions of the physician(s) responsible for the medical care of the military personnel involved and the investigator(s) identified in the IND that a military combat exigency exists because of special military combat (actual or threatened) circumstances in which, in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the military mission, preservation of the health of the individual and the safety of other personnel require that a particular treatment be provided to a specified group of military personnel, without regard to what might be any individual's personal preference for no treatment or for some alternative treatment. The written request must also include a statement that a duly constituted institutional review board has reviewed and approved the use of the investigational drug without informed consent. The Commissioner may find that informed consent is not feasible only when withholding treatment would be contrary to the best interests of military personnel and there is no available satisfactory alternative therapy.

(2) In reaching a determination under paragraph (d)(1) of this section that obtaining informed consent is not feasible and withholding treatment would be contrary to the best interests of military personnel, the Commissioner will review the request submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and take into account all pertinent factors, including, but not limited to:

(i) The extent and strength of the evidence of the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug for the intended use;

(ii) The context in which the drug will be administered, e.g., whether it is intended for use in a battlefield or hospital setting or whether it will be self-administered or will be administered by a health professional;

(iii) The nature of the disease or condition for which the preventive or therapeutic treatment is intended; and

(iv) The nature of the information to be provided to the recipients of the drug concerning the potential benefits and risks of taking or not taking the drug.

(3) The Commissioner may request a recommendation from appropriate experts before reaching a determination on a request submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(4) A determination by the Commissioner that obtaining informed consent is not feasible and withholding treatment would be contrary to the best interests of military personnel will expire at the end of 1 year, unless renewed at DOD's request, or when DOD informs the Commissioner that the specific military operation creating the need for the use of the investigational drug has ended, whichever is earlier. The Commissioner may also revoke this determination based on changed circumstances.

HISTORY:

[46 FR 8951, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 55 FR 52817, Dec. 21, 1990; 64 FR 396, 399, Jan. 5, 1999]


These regulations are a virtual blank check. As they are written, no one is accountable for errors. No soldiers, sailor, airman or marine can get redress for injury as a result of being an unwitting guinea pig in an experiment. The regulations, along with the FDA/DOD memorandum, prevent military personnel from knowing they were subjects in an experiment. Such a system is ripe for abuse. There is considerable scientific evidence showing that such abuse has taken place.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
dlyles
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:08 pm    Post subject: FAV077 Reply with quote

Gary, this was the lot that I recieved, now I have Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Col. Lackland believes that this lot may have been tanted also. Thanks for your great work.
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply to dlyles, RE; FAV 077 Reply with quote

Dear dlyles: Thank your for informing us of your adverse reaction to anthrax vaccine lot #FAV 077. As you know from reading VACCINE A, Guillain-Barre Syndrome was one of the few severe adverse reactions to anthrax vaccine officially acknowledged by the Navy, or any of the armed forces for that matter, in 1998 (I think that was the year, if my memory serves me correctly). After receiving shots from anthrax vaccine lot # FAV 020, a sailor developed Guillain-Barre and had to be med-evaced off his ship for treatment in Bahrain.

The rate of recovery from Guillain Barre varies; I hope that you are among those who get better soonest.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
RobertW
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:23 pm    Post subject: Units Reply with quote

Hi guys,
Just a thought-
From your posts and information that continues to trickle in, alot of us are learning a great deal about contaminated Vaccine Lots and the Locations where the contaminated Lots were issued. I do believe it would be greatly benificial for a great number of people if we strived to obtain UNIT information (if at all possible). Units, Particularly Battalions receive the distribute vaccines at their aid stations (ARMY). Perhaps in some cases Brigade or Division administered the shots as a part of a large orchestrated POM (i.e. POM for 101st as a whole could be the "Immunizing Headquarters" entry) - so we could add Immunizing Hqs to our list below:

RECOMMEND YOU DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME HERE
Squalene Positive?
Lot #:
Location:
Unit:
Immunization Headquarters:
Year and month if known:

It would be nice if ONLY SQUALENE POSITIVE PERSONNEL responded (to be sure of the quality of the data).
then again- who am I to orchestrate such an effort and not nurture it to completion-
Back to top
USAFFirefighter



Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Posts: 5
Location: Grand Forks ND

PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:24 am    Post subject: Additional Anthrax inoculation site Reply with quote

Hello fellow Anthrax victims,

The following LOT's have been administered at Misawa AB in Japan or I should say I received the following SQUALENE filled shots?

LOT # 47, and 008.

47 was my first, with 008 being my 2nd and 3rd. I have done the full 6 shot series.

With that being said I have complained of memory loss for almost 3 yrs. I have seen my own AF doctors, a Navy Neuro surgeon and in Sept was sent to Trippler for a neuro psych evaluation. Fell free to contact me if you have any questions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr Tibbs
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:53 pm    Post subject: Where to go from here??? Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Matsumoto and fellow posters,

I am a former Marine and Gulf War Vet. I was deployed from December 1990 through May 1991. Each member of our unit was forced, some physically restrained, to take an injection of an unknown substance. Additionally we were told it was not going to be documented in our medical records for "Operational Security" reasons. The word leaked it was an anthrax vaccine and we were ordered not to write about it in letters home nor speak about it on the telephone. (If we were to ever see a telephone of course) The command's reasoning for the secrecy was that they didn't want Saddam to know where the limited supply of the vaccine was being used because he would use his anthrax weapons against unprotected troops. Of course being uneducated jarheads this elementary school psychology worked wonders and the letters and phone calls started pouring out. Eventually the vaccine was added to our medical records. I don't know what lot numbers we received and I have requested my medical records twice with no response from the government. I was attached to the 3rd MAW - MWSS 273, MP Company. We were at Ras Al Mishab when we received the vaccine. My civilian doctors are quite competent and are truly concerned about my health; however, they have hit a dead end and don't know what to look for next. The VA is doing typically what the VA does best. (I will leave it there) I am experiencing issues with my lungs, liver, kidneys and bone marrow and I have had bouts with the flu, chills, sweats and high temperatures several times a year since Desert Storm. I would love to talk with anyone who might have information about the vaccine we received so I can add it to the list of illnesses we are trying to rule out.

Thank you and have a wonderful holiday season!

Mr Tibbs
Back to top
MrTibbs
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:03 pm    Post subject: Just bought the book Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Matsumoto,

I posted my previous message prior to buying your book. As I read the introduction [page xviii] I was blown away to find your account of the attempt to cover up the use of this vaccine. I would tell my friends and family members about how we had no choice but to get the injection then not talk about it. They just couldn't believe our government would "experiment" on the members of its armed forces. I look forward to finishing the book and I thank you for having the courage and conviction to stand up and say enough is enough. I can imagine you have many people around you to assist with your continued research and if you find yourself in need of another don't hesitate to contact me.

Best wishes,

Ron
Back to top
sargekacz
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:34 am    Post subject: Vaccine Link to Cancer? Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:
To add to the locations that the FAV041 was administered, I received shots 1-3 (series of 5?) of the Lot FAV 041 at Truax Field (ANG), WI. The shots were given in 1999. In August 2001 I was diagnosed with psuedomyoma pertonei cancer, initially causing a burst appendix. I had added surgeries in November 2001 and August 2003 to remove additional cancer along with parts of my colon, intestine, gall bladder and spleen. Has there been any other links to cancer from the vaccine? It seems to be a strong connection, considering I was in my 40's and healthy before that.

Thank you for your work,
JEK
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply to USAFFirefighter, RE: Anthrax Inoculation Site Reply with quote

Dear USAFFirefighter: Thank you for informing us of yet another base that received squalene-tainted anthrax vaccine. You're probably aware that memory loss is one of the symptoms most commonly reported by veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome.

Just about every service member I know with anti-squalene antibodies and autoimmune disease has complained about memory loss. It is so prevalent at Dover Air Force Base that some of the afflicted personnel say they've resorted to putting Post-It notes on the dashboards of their cars and trucks to remind themselves to do things they had no trouble remembering before getting jabbed with squalene-tainted anthrax vaccine.

Given the lot numbers you received - FAV 008 and FAV 047 - and the fact that your memory loss is reported by many other vaccine-injured service members who suffer from verifiably physical injuries, I would say you have strong grounds to challenge any attempt to see your memory loss as a psychological phenomenon.

I would urge you to get in contact with immunologist, Dr. Pamela Asa, and discuss your ailments in detail with her; she can advise you on what tests you need to get in order to establish whether you are suffering from autoimmunity. If you have the financial wherewithal to do so, I would also encourage you to ask your primary care physician to refer you to a rheumatologist to determine through laboratory testing if you have an autoimmune processes (like anti-nuclear antibodies) underway in your body. Maybe your physician can run these tests without referring you to anyone else.

Learn as much as you can about this. Knowledge is your best defense.

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





PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply to Mr. Tibbs, RE: "Where to go from here?" Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Tibbs: I know at least two Marines with anti-squalene antibodies and autoimmune problems who served in the Gulf War. One was a tank commander with the 2nd Marine Division, 8th Tank Battalion, a Reserve unit out of Syracuse, New York. The other was a Sea Knight helo pilot with HMM-165 (Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron) from Kaneohe, HI that operated out of Al Jubayl in the early days of Desert Storm. The former tank commander, whose cerebellum shrank to a third of its original size, has not been able to get his shot records; I'm not sure about the helo pilot.

Your symptoms...

Quote:
I am experiencing issues with my lungs, liver, kidneys and bone marrow and I have had bouts with the flu, chills, sweats and high temperatures several times a year since Desert Storm.


...sound all too familiar. As I am advising many contributors to this forum, I would urge you to contact immunologist Dr. Pamela Asa to discuss your case. Your symptoms have been reported by many other veterans suffering from fully diagnosed autoimmune diseases. What is not apparent from your posting is whether you've been tested for autoimmunity. If you haven't, maybe it's time you were.

Thank you for telling us your story.

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





PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply to sargekacz, RE: "Vaccine link to cancer?" Reply with quote

Dear sargekacz: Military personnel injected with anthrax vaccine lot number FAV 041, and no other lots, have developed anti-squalene antibodies and autoimmunity.

Among the "serious adverse events" listed on the most recent package insert for anthrax vaccine (reissued by BioPort on 31 January 2002), are "lymphoma" and "leukemia." According to BioPort, at least one lymphoma case was fatal.

The pre-1987 package insert for BioThrax (anthrax vaccine) from one of BioPort's previous incarnations (Michigan Department of Public Health) does not list cancer among the "adverse events."

I'm not sure if oil adjuvants are a known causative agent for cancer. Animals injected with oil adjuvants have developed sterile cysts, and so have many military personnel injected with squalene-tainted anthrax vaccine. A former C-5 pilot at Dover Air Force Base developed cysts all over his body, including, I believe, in his pericardium. A C-5 loadmaster at Dover developed several cysts, including one, as I recall, in his spine. This spinal cyst required surgical removal.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall Dr. Asa saying that injection with an oil adjuvant has promoted malignant tumor growth in animals. But while I have read scientific papers reporting the occurence of cysts in animals injected with an oil adjuvant, I have not read scientific literature discussing oil adjuvants and cancer - other than as a way to eliminate tumors.

I'm going to ask Dr. Asa to give you more a more authoritative answer to your question about the connection, if any, between injection with oil adjuvants and cancer.

I hope your cancer goes into complete remission. Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
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, 4 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 3 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