Formation of a formal anthrax vaccine opposition organization

[Guest guest]

Subject: Formation of a formal anthrax vaccine opposition organization

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:35:08 EST

From: KERNLHANDY@...

anna_nim@...

Greetings to all.

Hopefully everyone is settling into a holiday routine with family and friends

by now. I certainly wish that any vacation or celebrations are enjoyable for

each of you.

Before the year and millenium are over, I want to provide you a progress

report on constituting a formal anthrax vaccine opposition organization and

some of the thinking and planning that has gone into this process. Forgive

the length of this note, but in case anyone wishes to forward it to other

parties interested in contributing to this effort, some of the background

here may be useful for them.

First let me mention that the final decision to proceed with this effort has

not come about without some major soul-searching on my part, and certainly on

the part of those I consulted with, as well as all of you, I'm sure. There

has been a sense of heaviness connected with contemplating this action, that

it should even be necessary. It is a serious matter.

In taking this step, we recognize that so far all attempts to communicate

legitimate concerns about the anthrax vaccine program to the administration

and DOD have been mostly been met with taunting and arrogance. The numerous

congressional letters to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and

Secretary of Health and Human Services are not enough. At least ten hearings

this year directly or indirectly related to this issue are not enough. Two

pieces of legislation are not enough. High reaction rates, serious

illnesses, desertions, refusals, retirements, resignations, transfers,

consistently negative mass media covereage, surveys showing vast disapproval,

criticism and warnings by all kinds of experts, stockpile quarantines, new

lot failures, allegations of political and financial corruption -- all these

are not enough to secure any substantive adjustment to the policy.

We each wish this were not the case. We wish the proponents of this program

were more responsive, more truly interested in service member welfare. The

only real progress, a slowdown in Phases II and III from recent FDA

inspections, is only an inevitable consequence of poor product design and

lack of quality. The current situation sees little movement in the

commitment to pour taxpayer dollars into a black hole which produces nothing

of value for national defense and is actually harming service members. The

outrage against this program will continue to expand.

I awoke this morning with a renewed sense of purpose in the realization of

what is at stake and what must be done. I was reading several articles early

and came across some rather motivating material. I read in one article where

Congressman Shays had said in a hearing to Gulf War Veterans, " We need to

make sure that no one ever again has to go through what you are going

throught right now. " Within just a few years of those remarks, this

administration policy has already violated that promise. And I read how

early in this century, Marine Corps Major General Smedley , a 2 time

winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, reflected bitterly on his service

that often he unknowingly had simply served the interests of big business.

And finally, I read from the author of a book on the 1979 accidental and

lethal anthrax release in Severdlosk, Russia. A respected sociologist, she

wrote an article this year -- Soldier's Rights and Medical Risks: the Protest

Against Universal Anthrax Vaccinations. The article discusses unnecessary

risks, how economically-oriented policies can create those unnecessary risks,

the phenomenon of consumer-based skepticism, confusing anthrax virulence with

its probability for use, the body's ability to ward off all but the most

overwhelming inhalation, how the Severdlosk release resulted in only 66

deaths out of 40,000 exposed (mostly aged or immune system-compromised

individuals died), and the dangers of centralized power and increased budget

expenditures from bio-scare tactics.

So although taking this next step to form an organization is unlike anything

many of us have done, it is perhaps one of the most necessary. I talked with

veterans groups, attorneys, the Family Research council and several of you on

final details to get to this point. Here are some specifics which reflect

those inputs:

- Final name -- should be National Organization of Americans Battling Unneces

sary Servicemember Endangerment. Still will have the acronym NO ABUSE, for

short. Reason for changing Unlawful to Unnecessary is twofold. First,

policies are in effect now which are deemed lawful, but which need changing

and second, arguing whether a policy is a necessary risk has some favorable

implications in a court of law, I'm told. Is that risk proper or is it

reckless endangerment? That question gets to the second word adjustment in

the organization name. Experimentation was changed to Endangerment to

capture the essence of the issue better and address the risk aspect. Using

this term also allows a focus on unnecessary risk as it may get expressed in

other forms such as the " forced march " which resulted in the death of an

airman recently. Many of you may have read about this situation in which the

medics told the service members requesting relief that the only way they were

going to get in the ambulance is if they were dead, which unfortunately

happened. This is the same kind of callous mentality with which the AVIP is

being administered, " you won't get in the VAERS system unless you're

hospitalized or miss work. "

- Format -- for this organization will be a 501c4. This doesn't preclude a

PAC in the future or a traditional 501c3, either. Some veteran's

associations have at least two. Right now, the advocacy group format allows

several advantages: much quicker formation time (2 months, maybe, vs a c3

which could take up to a year), and avoiding the negative connotations of a

PAC. Funding a PAC is more of a challenge than we might be ready for at this

point, as well. But if we're a lobbying group, we need to figure out how to

be as effective as the Sierra Club on environmental matters.

- PO Box # -- Yesterday, I established an address for the organization by

renting a post office box. Official address which is effective now is -- NO

ABUSE, INC., P. O. BOX 70186, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20024-0186

- Commitment of Contributions and Handling of Funds -- Jim , the

attorney who offered his services at the Defense Forum Foundation Luncheon on

this topic, will hold contributions in a trust fund with his law firm,

and Swankin, until incorporation expenses need to be paid and then the

balance will be transferred to an official account bearing the NO ABUSE

corporate name. Jim and his partner have been involved in anti vaccine and

biologics cases for nearly 3 decades. He started with Ralph Nader's group in

the early 70s and helped the organic foods industry break through early

opposition in getting its market niche established.

- Next Steps

-- Finish Incorporation (Will work either with a Delaware firm which

helped me incorporate or with Jim )

-- Create By Laws and Goals (Can draft from sample forms and in

consultation with anyone on this list)

-- Choose Board of Directors (Should be diverse, high profile/expertise,

and representative of current activities)

-- Plan Activities (Web site, Press release, major rally in February,

support for certain refusers, as able)

-- Create Opportunities for Monthly Funding (Website mechanism, bank

drafts, CFC, etc.)

I intend to put some more structure to these ideas in a document and

communicate progress again shortly after the first of the year. Please

express your ideas to me anytime before then. I think Pat Eddington's

comments especially on media timing and who to notify were most helpful and

we should all be grateful to him for his thorough review of our intentions.

I am also particularly grateful he mentioned the need to address the Feres

Doctrine as an additional purpose. That is a must in my mind, along with the

purposes of opposing the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program and Executive

Order 13139 allowing the use of non-FDA approved drugs on military members.

So with the support that has already been expressed, I write to tell you the

door is officially open to proceed with this project. Those of you who

indicated your willingness to send money for initial funding, please do so at

this time and by January 31st, 2000. I think accepting $100 or more as

charter memberships over the next 6 months may have merit, and we'll be

reviewing other ideas to generate contributions, as well. When the draft

by-laws are available, we'll be deciding how best to use incoming funds and

what are the priorities for getting the most effect in Congress to generate

support for the current legislation. Please spread the word and solicit

contributors, as well.

With great appreciation and determination,

Redmond