(No subject)

[Guest guest]

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 " )

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

[This message contained attachments]

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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?

>

[Guest guest]

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?

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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?

>

[Guest guest]

" 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. "

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

,

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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

> ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

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! >>

[Guest guest]

They cannot deny him his right to contact his congressman. He needs to get

that order in writing.