Re: Mr. Moyed's ignorant critique of Sonnie Bates

[Guest guest]

Note to the list: Sorry for the mix-up with the blue and black text. I am

resending this with proper quotations for Mr. Moyed's comments.

Mr. Moyed,

I respond to your recent article. Your comments are indented, mine are not.

> Only a fool would refuse vaccination

> By RALPH MOYED

> rmoyed@AOLcom

> 10/25/2001

>

> This may come as a shock to Sonnie Bates, but when my kidney went on the

> blink I called a doctor, not a jet pilot.

There are plenty of doctors who think that the current anthrax vaccine

is unsafe. The Institute of Medicine said that there is not enough

published data to support whether the vaccine is either safe or

effective. This is the same finding as the General Accounting Office and

the Committee of Congressional Reform, headed by Congressman Shays.

> Sonnie Bates will be remembered as the officer at Dover Air Force Base

> who was fortunate enough to be given an honorable discharge after

> refusing an order to be vaccinated for anthrax. He still insists -- even

> as people die from inhaling anthrax apparently sent through the mail by

> bioterrorists -- that the vaccine is dangerous. He said he intends to

> continue his fight to prevent it from being administered.

Sonnie Bates is a man of utmost integrity. A person who stands up for

what he believes in, despite the consequences. The first inhalation

anthrax death could certainly be attributed to the newness of the

attacks, but the Washington DC deaths are because of inappropriate

response by the government.

> God save us!

God can, but only if you are a believer.

> Yet Sonnie seemed surprised that an anonymous critic would say he is

> " disgusting. " The critic's real violation of good taste was in not

> stating his name. When I say something nasty about any individual my

> name is properly affixed.

I can appreciate your doing so. I had a band director who used to say,

" If you're going to play a wrong note, I want it to be the best wrong

note you've ever played. " I think you're playing a wrong note about

Sonnie and the anthrax vaccine.

> What's more, I would not have chosen the word " disgusting " to

> characterize Sonnie Bates. What he is is depressing, stubborn, a bit

> foolish, full of unaccountable hubris, and a loose cannon. He took a

> stand against anthrax vaccination that cost him his military career, and

> he won't give an inch after the anthrax attacks.

What Sonnie did was make an informed decision and stood behind it.

> I have always wondered if an enlisted man who did the same thing, who

> disobeyed an order, would be allowed to leave the service with an

> honorable discharge.

Some have, some haven't. Every case has been different because it has

been up to the local commanders to deal with each case. Many have been

successfully appealed from general discharges to honorable discharges.

> Sonnie Bates decided the vaccine was unsafe after several men in his own

> unit came down with a variety of illnesses after being vaccinated.

> Scientists and intelligent laymen call that anecdotal evidence and

> disregard it, as a wise man would dismiss a rumor.

Sonnie Bates, and others in his unit, investigated the anthrax vaccine

after more than 70 members of his unit became seriously ill after

receiving the anthrax vaccine. Many in his unit refused to reveal their

conditions for fear of losing their flying careers. Their findings

included FDA inspection reports dating back to 1993 that indicate a

pattern of incompetence and filthy manufacturing equipment. They also

uncovered correspondence between Bioport and the FDA asking for

amendments to the license so that the vaccine could be used against

inhalation anthrax - something that to this date has not been officially

granted, meaning that in its current use, it is an experimental use and

should require informed consent - something that is not being granted to

the military. Compare the government's website

(http://www.anthrax.osd.mil) to those of the supposed " rumormongers " and

make your own decision.

Sonnie Bates' site - http://www.majorbates.com

Dr. Meryl Nass' site (ah, a doctor, not a pilot!) -

http://www.anthraxvaccine.org

Anthrax Vaccine Network - http://www.anthraxvaccine.net

Tom Colosimo's site (see what the vaccine did to him!) -

http://www.tomcolosimo.com

Madison Project's site -

http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/anthraxvault.html

And there are many, many more links in each of those.

> Conspiracy theory

>

> Bates could offer no scientific evidence that the illnesses his

> associates suffered had anything to do with the anthrax vaccination. The

> vaccine has been given the nod by the Defense Department, the Centers

> for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration,

> the latter subject to a cleanup of a section of the manufacturer's

> plant.

The Department of Defense, the CDC and FDA have also offered no

scientific evidence that the vaccine is safe or effective, but the FDA

has shown that the plant was in such awful condition that they issued a

Notice of Intent To Revoke their anthrax license due to numerous and

repeated violations in 1997, but voluntarily shut down when sold to

Bioport. After 3 years and 150 million dollars in DOD funding, they

still are not approved. After actually reading the FDA inspection

reports, I wouldn't trust Bioport to cook a Pop Tart!

> So how does Sonnie Bates explain the federal agencies' approval of the

> vaccine? I'm not sure. The best I can figure is that it is some kind of

> conspiracy, that all those agencies are in the pocket of the vaccine's

> manufacturer.

Sadly, you are right - hence the FDA petition. Read about it and view

the documentation and see for yourself what the FDA's guidelines are and

how they clearly are being bent or broken in regards to the anthrax

vaccine.

> After President F. Kennedy's assassination and lies about Vietnam

> and Watergate, many Americans are willing to believe the wildest

> conspiracy theories. So I fear that foolish Americans will swallow

> Sonnie Bates' line.

Many soldiers believed that Agent Orange was safe. And the government

just revealed that they used live biological, chemical and nuclear

weapons against unprotected soldiers. Don't forget the Syphillis

experiments against the black soldiers as well. There are times when the

government doesn't tell the truth and shouldn't be trusted.

> The sad truth is that there are plenty of fools in America.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Sonnie Bates and

the other refusers (myself included) are not fooled by the government's

claims. This decision is not based on emotion or rumor, but clear,

overwhelming truth and fact.

> The greatest danger lies not in Sonnie Bates' unsubstantiated claims. He

> is dangerous because he is pushing a lawsuit that would have a court

> declare the vaccine is experimental. In the unlikely event that a judge

> ever granted Sonnie Bates' motion, the vaccine would be difficult, if

> not impossible, to obtain.

Sonnie Bates is asking the FDA to apply its own rules to the anthrax

vaccine, something which they aren't currently doing. Even without his

actions, the vaccine would still be impossible for civilians to get

because DOD owns all of it.

> We have some off-the-wall judges on the federal bench, but I doubt that

> an order blocking the use of the vaccine would stand up on appeal. And

> the president could circumvent such a judgment under emergency powers.

When I need a legal opinion, I go to a lawyer or judge, not you and your

baseless observations.

> Still, I could not guarantee Sonnie Bates' safety if the terrorists

> widened their anthrax attacks.

Is this a threat? I, for one think that the anthrax attacks will spread.

They have it, we know it. Why limit their attacks to small, limited

targets? What is important is how the government reacts. Are you aware

that while DOD was wasting money on Bioport, promising new vaccines and

other protective agents have had difficulty getting funding? Imagine a

nasal spray that prevents inhalation anthrax. It exists, but hasn't been

approved yet. Check out http://www.nanobio.com for more information (it

also protects against colds, flu, AIDS, ebola, and many others and is

completely non-toxic) Why aren't postal workings being issued this

stuff? Why does it take days to determine a positive reaction to

anthrax, when those days could mean the difference between life and

death? How do you defend against a substance that might not be there

with one breath, but might the next?

> What I would do is consider the possible side effects of the vaccine and

> the possible consequences of not being vaccinated. Only a fool would

> refuse the vaccine.

Smart advice, but your pervious comments lead me to believe that you

don't know squat about the vaccine. And it's interesting that you

advocate free choice for yourself, but criticize Sonnie Bates for doing

the same thing.

> What it will take to bring Sonnie Bates down to earth, or more

> precisely, off the limb on which he finds himself, I cannot say.

>

> I think the best course of action would be to tell Sonnie Bates that he

> is absolutely right, which I'm sure he wants to hear. Then go out and

> get vaccinated.

I think the best course of action is for the government to take anthrax

seriously and admit that they dropped the ball. Fast-track the safe and

effective vaccines and protective agents and get it out. Respond to

reports aggressively and take the proper measures. Don't waste our time

and money on an old, unsafe vaccine that takes 18 months to build up

immunity and probably doesn't work against all strains.

> Send e-mail to rmoyedAOLcom (DOT)

I did, and I welcome your response.

Respectfully disagreeing with you,

Blackburn