Guest guest Posted June 5, 1999 Report Share Posted June 5, 1999 Randi, Yes- this is a very good place for vaccination information. New Atlantean Press is one of the best resources for books and information that support informed and voluntary consent to vaccination. I have many of their books and can highly recommend them. This is a very enlightened and responsible company. > > http://thinktwice.com (Gateway to " New Atlantean Holistic Books " and the > " Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute " ) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 1999 Report Share Posted June 7, 1999 Randice1@... wrote: > > From: Randice1@... > > Hey.. can anyone out there help me with two questions? > 1) I'm looking at the GAO's report from April. It states in there that " The > anthrax vaccine being given to US military personnel was licensed in 1970. " > On page 2) it states " After a 1962 study on the vaccine's effects in mill > workers, its manufacturing process was changed, and the Michigan Department > of Public Health took over as the vaccine's producer. This changed vaccine > was licensed in 1970 by the Division of Biologics, National Institute of > Health, to be manufactured by MDPH " . > My question... am I reading this correctly? > Question 2) Something that struck my curiousity in May when the " special > team " came in to investigate those that fell ill. LTC told me that > a squallene test was performed on lot FAV020 and no squallene was found. He > further stated that they were in the process of testing lot FAV030. Here's > my question. From the first hearing, General Blanck stated, he believed, > that when a lot expired it was " disposed of " . Lot FAV020 has been expired > for some time has it not? Lot FAV030 also expired. Here's my question..... > how can you perform any tests on lots that are " supposively " disposed? > Can anyone help me out with that? Thanks. > Randi The only clinical trial of an anthrax vaccine (published) in the west was Brachman's trial, reported in 1960 and 1962. It used an earlier vaccine than the currently licensed vaccine. That trial was submitted in support of the license for the current vaccine (discussed in the April 29 hearing) but current vaccine uses a different anthrax strain and different production conditions. According to a presenter at the Detrick meeting, no lots have been destroyed for failing supplemental testing (they are quarantined instead...later to be resurrected?) I remain curious about the frozen lot. Since vials of 016, 017 and 019 have been used, which " frozen " lot remains unused? Meryl Nass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 1999 Report Share Posted June 7, 1999 Same way routinely used doesn't mean ROUTINELY USED. Dave (no subject) From: Randice1@... Hey.. can anyone out there help me with two questions? 1) I'm looking at the GAO's report from April. It states in there that " The anthrax vaccine being given to US military personnel was licensed in 1970. " On page 2) it states " After a 1962 study on the vaccine's effects in mill workers, its manufacturing process was changed, and the Michigan Department of Public Health took over as the vaccine's producer. This changed vaccine was licensed in 1970 by the Division of Biologics, National Institute of Health, to be manufactured by MDPH " . My question... am I reading this correctly? Question 2) Something that struck my curiousity in May when the " special team " came in to investigate those that fell ill. LTC told me that a squallene test was performed on lot FAV020 and no squallene was found. He further stated that they were in the process of testing lot FAV030. Here's my question. From the first hearing, General Blanck stated, he believed, that when a lot expired it was " disposed of " . Lot FAV020 has been expired for some time has it not? Lot FAV030 also expired. Here's my question..... how can you perform any tests on lots that are " supposively " disposed? Can anyone help me out with that? Thanks. Randi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 1999 Report Share Posted June 7, 1999 Same way routinely used doesn't mean ROUTINELY USED. Dave (no subject) From: Randice1@... Hey.. can anyone out there help me with two questions? 1) I'm looking at the GAO's report from April. It states in there that " The anthrax vaccine being given to US military personnel was licensed in 1970. " On page 2) it states " After a 1962 study on the vaccine's effects in mill workers, its manufacturing process was changed, and the Michigan Department of Public Health took over as the vaccine's producer. This changed vaccine was licensed in 1970 by the Division of Biologics, National Institute of Health, to be manufactured by MDPH " . My question... am I reading this correctly? Question 2) Something that struck my curiousity in May when the " special team " came in to investigate those that fell ill. LTC told me that a squallene test was performed on lot FAV020 and no squallene was found. He further stated that they were in the process of testing lot FAV030. Here's my question. From the first hearing, General Blanck stated, he believed, that when a lot expired it was " disposed of " . Lot FAV020 has been expired for some time has it not? Lot FAV030 also expired. Here's my question..... how can you perform any tests on lots that are " supposively " disposed? Can anyone help me out with that? Thanks. Randi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 1999 Report Share Posted June 13, 1999 [This message contained attachments] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 cj0715@... wrote: > > From: cj0715@... > > My husband was the first soldier at Ft. Hood to deny the anthrax vaccine. He > was told by his company commander he would be made an example of. And he has. > > He received a field grade article 15, 45 days extra duty, loss of 1/2 his pay > for 2 months and demotion to an e-1. > > I am proud of my husband. He has 7 days left of extra duty. His unit was > briefed and they were told not to have any communication with us. We have > lost all of our friends. > > By the grace of God he is being chaptered out. No talk of a courtmartial. > We are going home, where we will fight for all the soldiers, sailors, airmen > and marines who do not want to take this shot. > > I am proud of you all!! Hold your head high and drive on. > My son is at Ft. Hood. I am sure that he and his wife would like to speak to you. If you send me aseperate email I will give you their address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 cj0715@... wrote: > > From: cj0715@... > > My husband was the first soldier at Ft. Hood to deny the anthrax vaccine. He > was told by his company commander he would be made an example of. And he has. > > He received a field grade article 15, 45 days extra duty, loss of 1/2 his pay > for 2 months and demotion to an e-1. > > I am proud of my husband. He has 7 days left of extra duty. His unit was > briefed and they were told not to have any communication with us. We have > lost all of our friends. > > By the grace of God he is being chaptered out. No talk of a courtmartial. > We are going home, where we will fight for all the soldiers, sailors, airmen > and marines who do not want to take this shot. > > I am proud of you all!! Hold your head high and drive on. > My son is at Ft. Hood. I am sure that he and his wife would like to speak to you. If you send me aseperate email I will give you their address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 1999 Report Share Posted June 30, 1999 In a message dated 6/30/99 10:28:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bearone@... writes: << bearone@... (Bootlegger) >> Did you attend the Ft Hood Townhall Meeting.... If you did can you tell me what happen.... I was at the PAC Oversight Hearing...... MIKE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 Each of the Joint Chiefs except for the Navy rep have taken their shots ... the chief of staff of the Air Force sent " an all commanders " message out stating that all general officers were to start the series immediately ... no matter about up coming retirements or the like. Even my boss who is a one star, and leaves the service in 11 months took the first and second shots. ( dispite all the info i gave him, and the fact he falls into the exempt catagory ). jr (no subject) >From: " Bourgeois " <brianb@...> > >Does anyone know the vaccination status of our Commander in Chief or Joint >Chiefs of Staff? If I remember correctly, the Navy Joint Chief is scheduled >to take his in 2003 (after his retirement). Lead by example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 Each of the Joint Chiefs except for the Navy rep have taken their shots ... the chief of staff of the Air Force sent " an all commanders " message out stating that all general officers were to start the series immediately ... no matter about up coming retirements or the like. Even my boss who is a one star, and leaves the service in 11 months took the first and second shots. ( dispite all the info i gave him, and the fact he falls into the exempt catagory ). jr (no subject) >From: " Bourgeois " <brianb@...> > >Does anyone know the vaccination status of our Commander in Chief or Joint >Chiefs of Staff? If I remember correctly, the Navy Joint Chief is scheduled >to take his in 2003 (after his retirement). Lead by example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 Just more proof that this is all about money. Jon wrote: > From: " Jon " <jrivera@...> > > Each of the Joint Chiefs except for the Navy rep have taken their shots ... > the chief of staff of the Air Force sent " an all commanders " message out > stating that all general officers were to start the series immediately ... > no matter about up coming retirements or the like. Even my boss who is a > one star, and leaves the service in 11 months took the first and second > shots. ( dispite all the info i gave him, and the fact he falls into the > exempt catagory ). > jr > > (no subject) > > >From: " Bourgeois " <brianb@...> > > > >Does anyone know the vaccination status of our Commander in Chief or Joint > >Chiefs of Staff? If I remember correctly, the Navy Joint Chief is > scheduled > >to take his in 2003 (after his retirement). Lead by example? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 Just more proof that this is all about money. Jon wrote: > From: " Jon " <jrivera@...> > > Each of the Joint Chiefs except for the Navy rep have taken their shots ... > the chief of staff of the Air Force sent " an all commanders " message out > stating that all general officers were to start the series immediately ... > no matter about up coming retirements or the like. Even my boss who is a > one star, and leaves the service in 11 months took the first and second > shots. ( dispite all the info i gave him, and the fact he falls into the > exempt catagory ). > jr > > (no subject) > > >From: " Bourgeois " <brianb@...> > > > >Does anyone know the vaccination status of our Commander in Chief or Joint > >Chiefs of Staff? If I remember correctly, the Navy Joint Chief is > scheduled > >to take his in 2003 (after his retirement). Lead by example? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 At 12:57 PM 7/2/99 -0500, you wrote: >From: " Jon " <jrivera@...> > >Each of the Joint Chiefs except for the Navy rep have taken their shots ... >the chief of staff of the Air Force sent " an all commanders " message out >stating that all general officers were to start the series immediately ... >no matter about up coming retirements or the like. Even my boss who is a >one star, and leaves the service in 11 months took the first and second >shots. ( dispite all the info i gave him, and the fact he falls into the >exempt catagory ). >jr So they say...but do you know what really was injected into them???? Sheri ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA wwithin@... Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours Nevada City California http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin International Tours, Weekend Wellness Retreats, Workshops, Homestudy Courses, Homeopathic Education, Vaccine Dangers Information/Workshops CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters Coordinator for Western Nevada County Y2k Preparedness Network Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 This simple truth says volumes...n Bourgeois wrote: > From: " Bourgeois " <brianb@...> > > Does anyone know the vaccination status of our Commander in Chief or Joint > Chiefs of Staff? If I remember correctly, the Navy Joint Chief is scheduled > to take his in 2003 (after his retirement). Lead by example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 Hmmmm?? But...will they really get the shots? How many general officers have GWI?? I rest my case. n Jon wrote: > From: " Jon " <jrivera@...> > > Each of the Joint Chiefs except for the Navy rep have taken their shots ... > the chief of staff of the Air Force sent " an all commanders " message out > stating that all general officers were to start the series immediately ... > no matter about up coming retirements or the like. Even my boss who is a > one star, and leaves the service in 11 months took the first and second > shots. ( dispite all the info i gave him, and the fact he falls into the > exempt catagory ). > jr > > (no subject) > > >From: " Bourgeois " <brianb@...> > > > >Does anyone know the vaccination status of our Commander in Chief or Joint > >Chiefs of Staff? If I remember correctly, the Navy Joint Chief is > scheduled > >to take his in 2003 (after his retirement). Lead by example? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 " Stinky " Regarding Lot #044 as quoted from the FDA report dated 2/4-20/98... " --Lot FAV044 was filled on 1/7/98. It had an " invalid " potency test on 12/8/97. There is no investigation into this invalid test. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 Shaunee, I'm running into similar difficulties at Misawa. You'll find better info. on the FDA web page. Go to the CBER section. Many people who monitor this list have tons of great data. The Major needs to check his information again. The FDA found lots being used that were expired and improperly relabled. Also there are people in the military who were given shots from bad batches of the vaccine; only to find out it was bad after the fact. Now, the information is available about the inspections that the FDA performed. However, there are missing pages and some of the paragraphs have been blacked out. Keep looking and dig deep. It's all there......... DAVID Nighthawk832@... >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> >Reply-onelist ><onelist> >Subject: (no subject) >Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:57:08 -1000 > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > >Does anyone have any information from a research lab or college? The >commanders and public health people are saying none of our information is >from credible sources. They have also said Gulf War Syndrome is made up >and that agent orange did not affect anyones health and it was just a >simple pesticide. They have also said anthrax has been used for fifty >years by at least 60,000 veterinarians. The Major at public health said >even thought the plant was cited by the FDA it did not affect the quality >of the vaccines. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 Stinky One more thing. The surgeon General of the Army testified under oath (Senate Report 103-97) that the vaccine should be considered as a possible cause for the undiagnosed illness in Gulf War Veterans. He also discussed that fact that it is not proven to be fully effective in a biological warfare scenario. If your commanders want credible sources, they have two options: Admit that the Amry is correct and the vaccine is not safe, or, they could say that the Army Surgeon General is not a credible source. In either case it's a lose-lose situation for the military. Now you're begining to see the problem? Stick with it!......... DAVID Nighthawk832@... > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > >Reply-onelist > ><onelist> > >Subject: (no subject) > >Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:57:08 -1000 > > > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > > > >Does anyone have any information from a research lab or college? The > >commanders and public health people are saying none of our information is > >from credible sources. They have also said Gulf War Syndrome is made up > >and that agent orange did not affect anyones health and it was just a > >simple pesticide. They have also said anthrax has been used for fifty > >years by at least 60,000 veterinarians. The Major at public health said > >even thought the plant was cited by the FDA it did not affect the quality > >of the vaccines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 Stinky One more thing. The surgeon General of the Army testified under oath (Senate Report 103-97) that the vaccine should be considered as a possible cause for the undiagnosed illness in Gulf War Veterans. He also discussed that fact that it is not proven to be fully effective in a biological warfare scenario. If your commanders want credible sources, they have two options: Admit that the Amry is correct and the vaccine is not safe, or, they could say that the Army Surgeon General is not a credible source. In either case it's a lose-lose situation for the military. Now you're begining to see the problem? Stick with it!......... DAVID Nighthawk832@... > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > >Reply-onelist > ><onelist> > >Subject: (no subject) > >Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:57:08 -1000 > > > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > > > >Does anyone have any information from a research lab or college? The > >commanders and public health people are saying none of our information is > >from credible sources. They have also said Gulf War Syndrome is made up > >and that agent orange did not affect anyones health and it was just a > >simple pesticide. They have also said anthrax has been used for fifty > >years by at least 60,000 veterinarians. The Major at public health said > >even thought the plant was cited by the FDA it did not affect the quality > >of the vaccines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 , you'll notice that the phrases are not in quotation marks in my email. I do not have the report in front of me and I could not quote the exact words. My goal was to make some information available and to give a reference to it. The report that I referenced does have some interesting and substantial data about the anthrax vaccine and the program. I know that one of the words he used is investigational. I think that's pretty specific. Thanks for helping me clarify to all who read it the way you did. DAVID >From: kkramer@... (Kramer, ) >Reply-onelist ><onelist> >Subject: Re: (no subject) >Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:37:20 -0500 > >From: kkramer@... (Kramer, ) > > > Re: (no subject) > > > >From: " david robinson " <nighthawk832@...> > > > > > >Stinky > > > >One more thing. The surgeon General of the Army testified under oath > >(Senate Report 103-97) that the vaccine should be considered as a >possible > >cause for the undiagnosed illness in Gulf War Veterans. He also >discussed > >that fact that it is not proven to be fully effective in a biological > >warfare scenario. If your commanders want credible sources, they have >two > >options: Admit that the Amry is correct and the vaccine is not safe, or, > >they could say that the Army Surgeon General is not a credible source. >In > >either case it's a lose-lose situation for the military. Now you're > >begining to see the problem? > >Stick with it!......... > > > >DAVID Nighthawk832@... > >Testifying that " it should be considered as a possible source " is not an >admission to anything. It isn't the same as saying there is credible >evidence to suggest that it is a possible or even probable cause. Perhaps >there is more substance to what he said, but that statement is really >useless for your purpose. > >Also, " to be not proven to be fully effective in a biological warfare >scenario, " isn't the same as saying it is ineffective. It may be just >saying that it hasn't been tested in a real life situation so far. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 In a message dated 7/11/99 1:05:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Shaunee.Hall@... writes: << They have also said anthrax has been used for fifty years by at least 60,000 veterinarians. The Major at public health said even thought the plant was cited by the FDA it did not affect the quality of the vaccines. >> Shaunee, Respectfully request your " Major " to produce the data on the 60,000 Vets and ask him to show you the FDA report. If he can't, show him the transcribed version on this website. The only way to address this policy is with the facts -- just as the SECDEF mandated in his DoD directive, education and communication of the facts is required. Good luck and keep the faith, Tom " Buzz " Rempfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 1999 Report Share Posted July 11, 1999 Re: (no subject) >From: " david robinson " <nighthawk832@...> > > >Stinky > >One more thing. The surgeon General of the Army testified under oath >(Senate Report 103-97) that the vaccine should be considered as a possible >cause for the undiagnosed illness in Gulf War Veterans. He also discussed >that fact that it is not proven to be fully effective in a biological >warfare scenario. If your commanders want credible sources, they have two >options: Admit that the Amry is correct and the vaccine is not safe, or, >they could say that the Army Surgeon General is not a credible source. In >either case it's a lose-lose situation for the military. Now you're >begining to see the problem? >Stick with it!......... > >DAVID Nighthawk832@... Testifying that " it should be considered as a possible source " is not an admission to anything. It isn't the same as saying there is credible evidence to suggest that it is a possible or even probable cause. Perhaps there is more substance to what he said, but that statement is really useless for your purpose. Also, " to be not proven to be fully effective in a biological warfare scenario, " isn't the same as saying it is ineffective. It may be just saying that it hasn't been tested in a real life situation so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 1999 Report Share Posted July 12, 1999 david robinson wrote: > > From: " david robinson " <nighthawk832@...> > > Stinky > > One more thing. The surgeon General of the Army testified under oath > (Senate Report 103-97) that the vaccine should be considered as a possible > cause for the undiagnosed illness in Gulf War Veterans. He also discussed > that fact that it is not proven to be fully effective in a biological > warfare scenario. It is noteworthy that the military is willing to use a vaccine on 2.4 million service members that has not been proven to be 'fully' effective in a biological warfare scenario and is considered as a possible cause for the 'undiagnosed' illness Gulf War Veterans. In fact, it has not even been proven partially effective in a biological warfare scenario. Is there in fact, even one documented case of the Anthrax vaccine saving just one human life from inhalation Anthrax, biowarfare or otherwise? There is evidence that people are currently developing the same symptoms as those vets with 'undiagnosed' gulfwar illness after taking a vaccine that has never saved even one human life exposed to inhaled anthrax. Therefore what could possibly justify it's use on 2.4 million service members? Gretchen -owneronelist If your commanders want credible sources, they have two > options: Admit that the Amry is correct and the vaccine is not safe, or, > they could say that the Army Surgeon General is not a credible source. In > either case it's a lose-lose situation for the military. Now you're > begining to see the problem? > Stick with it!......... > > DAVID Nighthawk832@... > > > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > > >Reply-onelist > > ><onelist> > > >Subject: (no subject) > > >Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 17:57:08 -1000 > > > > > >From: " Shaunee \ " Stinky\ " Hall " <Shaunee.Hall@...> > > > > > >Does anyone have any information from a research lab or college? The > > >commanders and public health people are saying none of our information is > > >from credible sources. They have also said Gulf War Syndrome is made up > > >and that agent orange did not affect anyones health and it was just a > > >simple pesticide. They have also said anthrax has been used for fifty > > >years by at least 60,000 veterinarians. The Major at public health said > > >even thought the plant was cited by the FDA it did not affect the quality > > >of the vaccines. > > > --------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 1999 Report Share Posted July 12, 1999 Latest update: 66% - YES << Please vote... I just checked the web page and so far out of 414 votes, only 56% think that military should have the right to refuse the vaccine... Here is our opportunity to support the troops! >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 1999 Report Share Posted July 20, 1999 They cannot deny him his right to contact his congressman. He needs to get that order in writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.