Well, I guess that would be me to some account.. never thought I would be a member of the tree hugger organizations out there... but for this cause So Be It!!!!

walk a mile in my shoe's or the many others who Service before Self was their way of life.. only to be cut short by some son of a bitch, lining his wallet with Blood Money!!!!

MICHAEL FUMENTO SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
America's new 'opt-out' military


January 5, 2004

Anthrax is the "No. 1" biological or chemical weapon against which we need to protect our troops, according to Dr. Philip Russell, former commander of the U.S. Army Research and Development Command at Fort Detrick, Md. But the decision of a single federal judge would strip away that protection in a ruling that soldiers who don't want to be vaccinated against anthrax can simply refuse, even though it would weaken their units in case of an anthrax attack.

The decision of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the D.C. District Court, which will be binding until the full court can hear the trial or the Supreme Court overturns it, was based on 1998 federal legislation that says service members cannot be forced to take experimental drugs.

Granted, it was a piece of bad legislation based not on scientific evidence but rather on kowtowing to "Gulf War Syndrome" activists.

Yet this "experimental drug" that the good judge claimed made soldiers "serve as guinea pigs" received FDA approval in 1970. Further, regardless that it has been approved for 33 years and that over a million servicemen and women have received it, if it's FDA-approved then by definition it's not experimental. Case closed; game over; choose your own metaphor.

The only "experimental" aspect of the vaccine is that its original purpose was to protect against natural anthrax from sheep, not weaponized bacteria, and that anthrax from sheep usually comes from cuts and not inhalation.

But the plaintiffs didn't sue because they thought the vaccine might not be helpful. After all, what would they lose if it didn't work since there are no alternative vaccines? Rather, the suit was based on hysteria that began circulating in the late 1990s.

Statements by self-proclaimed experts about supposed symptoms were spread rapidly by e-mail, news groups, and Web sites that should have as their URLs www.paranoia.com and www.conspiracy.org.

Thus, one Web site provided "The Detailed Story for Fifty Service Members at One Installation Alone," with a mouse click taking you to "shocking information of health for those at Dover Air Force Base." These mere 50 alleged victims had among them a symptom list longer than the stock tables in the Wall Street Journal. They claimed such bizarre symptoms as "lesions that turned into moles all over the body," "dry ear canals," "grayouts," "tightness in hands and wrists," and "pain in both toes." (Both?)

As these symptom rumors were making the rounds, physician and Lt. Col. Tom Luna, who supervised the Dover vaccination program, told me that the only common ones were "local reactions such as sore arm, redness, swelling at injection site."

But further research has supported the military's position. "FDA continues to view the anthrax vaccine as safe and effective for individuals at high risk of exposure to anthrax," a spokeswoman told Congress in 2000. (After the judge's decision it issued a "final rule and final order" that the vaccine "is safe and effective for the prevention of anthrax disease – regardless of the route of exposure.")

The National Academy of Sciences and its Institute of Medicine issued a March 2002 report on the vaccine. It found "no evidence that vaccine recipients face an increased risk of experiencing life-threatening or permanently disabling adverse events immediately after receiving AVA (the vaccine's initials), when compared with the general population" nor "over the longer term."

In statistics the government keeps on all self-reported adverse reactions to all U.S.-licensed vaccines, out of 27 vaccines tracked in 2001 only six had a lower percentage of adverse events than AVA. One vaccine (combined diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus) had an adverse report rate 35 times that of AVA.

Interestingly, the 2001 adverse event AVA rate was merely a sixth that of 1999. Why? Because 1999 was the height of the anthrax vaccine hysteria.

As to effectiveness, the NAS found "The available evidence from studies with humans and animals, coupled with reasonable assumptions of analogy, shows that AVA as licensed is an effective vaccine for the protection of humans against anthrax, including inhalational anthrax, caused by any known or plausible engineered strains of B. anthracis."

But Judge Sullivan, in his infinite wisdom and by virtue of having a law degree, allegedly looked at this same evidence and demanded anthracis vaccinus interruptus.

What's next? Can a soldier refuse to carry a machine gun because it's too heavy, or be allowed to opt out of operations he considers overly dangerous? President Bush must revoke this scienceless, senseless privilege and Congress must repeal the law it passed back in those halcyon pre-Sept. 11 days. We cannot defend our country with an opt-out military.

Fumento (U.S. Army Airborne, 1978-82) is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and author of "BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World." He can be reached via e-mail at (Removed so he does not get floods of emails)
I emailed him and will post it here...
I'm going to find out if this BOY has had his round of shots???

Hog

read your article
America's new 'opt-out' military

Michael,

I am curios after reading your article listed above.. how many rounds of these shots have you personally received? and not to dig to deep into your hippa rights what were the lot numbers and manufacturer on these?

I myself have had a round of 3 jabs, late 1999 for all of them. in early 2000 my body started doing things that I could not nor my Doctor figure out what was up...I've never missed a deployment for my Country. 4 tours to the region in the middle east every time I volunteered to do so with the last one being my proudest moment. to give a little payback for what took place on 911. I've seen your credentials at the bottom of your article also Airborne... Nice... myself I wanted a retirement with my career field in Weapons...I'm drawing up short since my last tour in 2002 because my body came home with Injury's some that my doctor could put a finger on some that he could not for months.. I am now on 9 medications to function, when just 4 1/2 yrs ago I took 1000 mg of Vitamin C and was good to go.. I've spent 18 good years in the military and "NOW" looking down a barrel of what if's.. I've had nothing but Excellent performance appraisals throughout... tons of awards.. been everywhere they've (My Country) has asked me to be... and now for the past 20 months been "battling" the same group of folks I did my missions with and for.. because I cannot function like I used to and because of this I am Useless to them?? I've never opt out of a damn thing in my life.. especially when it came to protecting and service to my country... but I have recently told my command.. I would have rather spent 20 months in the Afghani Mountains fighting an enemy I know is there rather than go through the treatment from my own command and co-workers because my body will not allow me to perform like it used to...who benefits from these shots really?? when I hear of 130,000 of my brothers and sisters deploying to Iraq to Finally end the BS.. and then I read there are 4000 non combat related illnesses coming home from Iraq.. there are 625 soldiers sitting in Ft. Stewart non combat fit to fight because many of them are Ill from adverse reactions to the shots... every other day one or two members of the Military are dead or sick because of adverse reactions to the shots. in the past 3 months there have been 7 deaths across the nation known and suspected from reactions to the shots... so then you post this about what next? Opt Out program??
I see nothing wrong with a soldier taking his own life into his hands to Fight On for his Country.. if you do Sir.. we need to sit down and discuss where we both being Veterans differ on this issue??

BTW do you know who benefits from these shots??? I mean Truly...

Sincerely
Russell K Walls TSGT
USAF ANG 1985 to Present

If the judge's decision does not get overturned, the Pentagon is going to have an awful lot to answer for to the taxpayers.....

This is an act of a beyond arrogant organization.


http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040102&cat=news&st=newshealthanthraxvaccinedc 

U.S. Army Buys $30 Million in Anthrax Shots
Updated 8:34 PM ET January 2, 2004


By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Defense Department announced on Friday a $29.7 million order for anthrax vaccine based on the assumption that a federal judge's ban on mandatory inoculations will be reversed.

Privately held BioPort Corp. of Lansing, Michigan, was awarded the Army order on Wednesday as part of a $245.6 million contract, the Pentagon said.

The move demonstrates confidence "we will resume the anthrax vaccination program as it existed before the judge's order," said Bryan Whitman, a Defense Department spokesman.

On Dec. 22 U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan barred the Pentagon from "inoculating service members without their consent."

In a preliminary injunction, he ruled the vaccine used in the Pentagon's mandatory program was an "investigational drug" being used for what was an unapproved purpose.

The Pentagon said the next day it would administer the vaccine only on a voluntary basis until the legal issues were sorted out.

On Tuesday the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the anthrax vaccine was safe for use in protecting U.S. troops against inhaled exposure to the potentially deadly bacteria.

The Bush administration then asked the court to lift the ban on mandatory shots.

The administration also has asked for a stay of the order for all service members except the six plaintiffs while the court weighs the government's motion for a complete lifting of the ban.

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the Army's order for the new vaccine doses could amount to a case of fraud, waste and abuse.

"If the judge's decision stands, the Pentagon may have just wasted millions of dollars," he said.

Defense officials say 1 million service members have been vaccinated since the program started in 1998. Only about 10 have refused to take the shots since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against Washington and New York.

Anthrax is considered the top biological weapon threat. It can be transmitted in three ways -- through inhalation of the spores, into a cut in the skin, or by eating contaminated meat.

Inhaled anthrax is by far the deadliest form. In 2001 five Americans died from anthrax inhaled from contaminated mail.

hanks, Hog! Keep us abreast!

NOT GOOD NEWS TODAY!!!!!

Okay... this is what I understand from the briefing on the hearing today. If I were to try and lay everything out as presented to me, I'm sure I'll get it incorrect, so, I can only go with what I know.
Round 1 was won by those opposing the AVIP.
Round 2 was won by the DoD; and the judge ruled that the injunction only applies to the six plaintiffs, due to the FDA's new ruling.
So, as of today, the only persons not mandated to take the shot are those 6 plaintiffs that are on the lawsuit.
Where's it heading next? Next Tuesday at noon both sides meet to see if they can come up with an agreement. On Wednesday both sides meet with the judge to discuss the agreements, or lack thereof, if this is the case. (I don't know how it will go on Tuesday).
If there is no agreement, apparently the judge will decide on Wednesday. If there are no agreements by both sides, then the case moves forward. Even with the case moving forward however, shots are still being resumed.
So what does this mean? Those who were happy about not having to take any more shots and being free to do so, will now either a) have to take the shots, or b) not take the shots, and take whatever military action happens. There's much more to this, but, I don't trust myself to relate to all what I heard. I'll try to get a more in-depth review in writing to pass on, but, you basically have the bottom line.
In the meantime, be prepared for round 3. If this continues to go in this manner, it's going to be a very long hard fight. Special thanks to those working their butts off for this: Mark Zaid, Lou Michels, JR, TR, Meryl and Russ.

Anthrax Vaccine Litigants To File Class-action Complaint Against DOD


Plaintiffs challenging the Pentagon’s 5-year-old mass inoculation program against anthrax will amend their complaint within the next 24 hours to include a class-action certification, according to one of the lead attorneys.

The move constitutes the latest salvo in a legal tit-for-tat with the Bush administration following a federal judge’s Dec. 22 injunction against mandatory anthrax inoculations, which the Defense Department gives military personnel serving abroad in regions where they may face a biological threat.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed with the plaintiffs -- six Defense Department personnel who have been ordered to take the inoculations -- that the vaccine must be considered experimental against inhaled anthrax. The vaccine was initially developed and tested to protect against skin exposure.

The judge says the law allows the Pentagon to inoculate service members only with their informed consent, a prerequisite that could be bypassed if the president issues a waiver based on national security requirements.

In response to the court action, the administration filed an emergency motion Dec. 24, seeking clarification about whether the injunction applied only to the six anonymous plaintiffs. Absent a class action, the Justice Department argues, the court should vacate the injunction or apply it solely to the six personnel who filed the suit.

John Michels, a lead attorney in the complaint, says the plaintiffs believe a class-action certification is unnecessary to invalidate a policy or rule. But he told Inside the Pentagon that he and co-counsel Mark Zaid can demonstrate that every service member or DOD employee ordered to take the anthrax vaccine is similarly affected.

“I don’t think we need a class action to have the court enforce this properly across the military,” he said in a Jan. 2 interview. “There are several cases that say when you invalidate an agency’s rule or policy, it is simply applied to those affected by the rule, without having to be parties to the litigation.”

Michels questions if it is in the government’s best interests to effectively invite a court to certify that all deployable members of the armed services represent a class harmed by the mandatory anthrax vaccine program, given the potential implications for military morale.

“But if that’s where the government wants to take us in this case, I guess that’s where we’ll end up,” he told ITP. Michels is a retired Air Force judge advocate officer now in private practice. He has also represented Air Force Maj. Sonnie Bates and Capt. John Buck, the highest military officers to refuse the anthrax vaccine.

More than 1 million troops have been inoculated with the anthrax vaccine.

Sullivan’s opinion notes that some of the government’s own scientists have said there is insufficient human data to show the vaccine protects against inhaled anthrax.

“The women and men of our armed forces put their lives on the line every day to preserve and safeguard the freedoms that all Americans cherish and enjoy,” Sullivan writes in the opinion. “Absent an informed consent or presidential waiver, the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.”

In response, the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 30 unveiled a “Final Rule” stating that “the efficacy of the vaccine includes all cases of anthrax disease regardless of the route of exposure.” A Wall Street Journal editorial greeted the new rule as “a welcome blow to pseudoscientific hysteria,” adding Sullivan is “notorious for his judicial activism.”

Michels responds that the new rule is “dramatically inconsistent with previous FDA practice” regarding anecdotal evidence of efficacy in humans. Research has been unable to demonstrate a critical correlation between animal and human resistance to anthrax in response to the vaccine, he says.

Within the next day, the plaintiffs may also file an amended complaint challenging the sufficiency of the FDA Final Rule, Michels said.

Meanwhile, Sullivan will hold a hearing tomorrow on the government’s emergency motion to stay the injunction.

Sullivan notes the product insert for the anthrax vaccine, “which originally stated that the adverse reaction rate to the vaccine was 0.2 percent, was recently revised to reflect an adverse reaction rate between 5.0 and 35.0 percent.” At least six deaths have resulted from the vaccine and the estimated risk to pregnant women has been revised upward, he writes in the opinion.

The judge says the administration “alleges that plaintiffs’ claims of injury are purely speculative because adverse personnel actions against them for refusing inoculations may or may not occur. However, the court agrees with plaintiffs that the defendants’ argument ignores the fact that when challenging an investigational drug . . . an inoculation without informed consent or a presidential waiver is the injury.”

-- Elaine M. Grossman

I'm still waiting on this mans reply as to how many rounds of shots he got jabbed with?? anyone can toss **** on the wall and it will stick.. but how many of them walk in the **** thats stuck??

Hog