Re: Air Force Magazine February 2000

[Guest guest]

Yes, I asked the question today of the idiots that run the AVIP website

(1-877-GET-VACC). His response was, 2,000 per day was a " NORMAL " production

day. More could have been made, prodution increase. I said, " then that means

they have redated alot of the vaccine " . His response was " yes " under FDA

guidelines, and they tested each and every lot. I told him that this still

did not come close to the amount of vaccine used (over 1.3 million given)

plus what they used on us during Desert Storm (200,000+). He got defensive

and told me every lot of vaccine passed FDA standards and guidelines. They

are safe and effective, or they are not used. This guy is good, he almost

had me convinced!!%#^ & % " He knows who I am, he knows that I'm against this

program " ! I'm glad they know, I want everyone to know, I DON " T LIKE BEING

POISONED, NOR, DO I LIKE MY FELLOW SOLDIERS BEING POISONED WITH THIS JUNK!!!

They can label me as a refuser, trouble maker, whatever choice of words they

choose, I just don't care, just like they don't care for our soldiers and

their health. I HOPE THEY ARE MONITORING THIS TOO!! BECAUSE THEY ALL CAN

KISS MY $!@#^!$^....

Sorry, but it really burns me up for them to say they care, if they did,

they would put a stop to this insanity!

Charlie

>From: " Mark A. " <clarkm1@...>

>Reply-onelist

>onelist

>Subject: Re: Air Force Magazine February 2000

>Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 19:17:15 -0500

>

>OK, 2000 X 12 is 24,000 doses per year of vaccine. If that was the

>production capacity of the plant, how can the DOD have the stockpile of

>vaccine they say they do, and where did it come from? 10 years of

>stockpiling is still only 240,000 doses of vaccine--far less than they

>have already administered. Am I missing something here? Has anyone

>looked into this?

>

>Mark

>

>Siobahn wrote:

> >

> > From: Siobahn <lisa@...>

> >

> > Didn't remember seeing anyone post this article.

> >

> > Anthrax Program Faces More Problems

> >

> > The Pentagon's controversial effort to vaccinate all members of the US

> > military against anthrax just keeps running into problems.

> >

> > First, it was some service personnel refusing the shots, saying they

> > believed the vaccine's efficacy and safety remain unproven. Now, a new

> > anthrax vaccine production plant has failed to pass an FDA

> > inspection-leading the Department of Defense to postpone the second

> > phase of vaccinations for at least six months.

> >

> > On Dec. 13, DoD officials announced that only troops deploying to the

> > high-threat areas of Korea and the Persian Gulf will receive shots. It

> > could take up to a year for the sole US producer of the vaccine, Bioport

> > Corp., of Lansing, Mich., to bring its new high-volume facility on line.

> >

> > " ly, it has been more difficult than the department and Bioport

> > expected to move from a small state-regulated production facility to a

> > large, modern production facility that meets the state-of-the-art FDA

> > requirements, " said Sue , assistant secretary of defense for

> > health affairs.

> >

> > The old facility-since torn down to make way for the new one-rolled out

> > only 2,000 doses per month. The new one is expected to produce a maximum

> > of 400,000 per month.

> >

> > An FDA inspection found about 30 deficiencies in the new plant that must

> > be addressed before it can be certified. Until then, the Pentagon will

> > use a stockpile of one million doses produced at the old facility for

> > high-priority inoculations.

> >

> > So far 383,000 personnel have received the anthrax shots, according to

> > DoD. Officials estimate the Pentagon is currently using about 75,000 per

> > month to handle troops deploying to the high-threat areas.

> >

>

______________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/00 9:35:56 AM Hawaiian Standard Time,

lisa@... writes:

<< So far 383,000 personnel have received the anthrax shots, according to

DoD. Officials estimate the Pentagon is currently using about 75,000 per

month to handle troops deploying to the high-threat areas.

>>

The 75,000 per year is 37.5 years of production being used every month.

[Guest guest]

Mark, that is what I've been saying all along. So far, 152 years of maximum

production has been used or is in storage. Since there was a very small

demand rate for the product before 1998 and 250,000 doses were used in Desert

Shield (10.4 years of production at maximum capacity) where did this stuff

come from?

[Guest guest]

OK, 2000 X 12 is 24,000 doses per year of vaccine. If that was the

production capacity of the plant, how can the DOD have the stockpile of

vaccine they say they do, and where did it come from? 10 years of

stockpiling is still only 240,000 doses of vaccine--far less than they

have already administered. Am I missing something here? Has anyone

looked into this?

Mark

Siobahn wrote:

>

> From: Siobahn <lisa@...>

>

> Didn't remember seeing anyone post this article.

>

> Anthrax Program Faces More Problems

>

> The Pentagon's controversial effort to vaccinate all members of the US

> military against anthrax just keeps running into problems.

>

> First, it was some service personnel refusing the shots, saying they

> believed the vaccine's efficacy and safety remain unproven. Now, a new

> anthrax vaccine production plant has failed to pass an FDA

> inspection-leading the Department of Defense to postpone the second

> phase of vaccinations for at least six months.

>

> On Dec. 13, DoD officials announced that only troops deploying to the

> high-threat areas of Korea and the Persian Gulf will receive shots. It

> could take up to a year for the sole US producer of the vaccine, Bioport

> Corp., of Lansing, Mich., to bring its new high-volume facility on line.

>

> " ly, it has been more difficult than the department and Bioport

> expected to move from a small state-regulated production facility to a

> large, modern production facility that meets the state-of-the-art FDA

> requirements, " said Sue , assistant secretary of defense for

> health affairs.

>

> The old facility-since torn down to make way for the new one-rolled out

> only 2,000 doses per month. The new one is expected to produce a maximum

> of 400,000 per month.

>

> An FDA inspection found about 30 deficiencies in the new plant that must

> be addressed before it can be certified. Until then, the Pentagon will

> use a stockpile of one million doses produced at the old facility for

> high-priority inoculations.

>

> So far 383,000 personnel have received the anthrax shots, according to

> DoD. Officials estimate the Pentagon is currently using about 75,000 per

> month to handle troops deploying to the high-threat areas.

>

[Guest guest]

CHARLIE POE wrote:

>

> From: " CHARLIE POE " <poecharlie@...>

>

> Yes, I asked the question today of the idiots that run the AVIP website

> (1-877-GET-VACC). His response was, 2,000 per day was a " NORMAL " production

> day.

I think Charlie may have meant to say 2,000 per month in the above

quote. Interesting question here. In their pre stockpile days when

ever that began, would it be reasonable to assume they produced about

what they thought they would need for the next year. Therefore, the

constant claims of the vaccine being used for 30 years doesn't apply

for two reasons:

1. The vaccine was being used in such limited quantities. AND

2. They must have been using MUCH fresher vaccine!! They don't have

30 years of history on what happens if you use a REALLY old product.

Are there changes over time in the additives, could they separate

and some are getting an overdose of 'additives'?

I can buy sandwich meat that is slightly contaminated, and not get

sick eating it. But try storing it for a very long time and what

happens? Then worse yet, send it off (shipping) to a picnic....

Maybe there is no comparison to the sandwich meat scenerio, maybe there

is. Would contaminants be consistant throughout the vat? How well is

it mixed before being placed in vials (at all?) I remember reading that

some showed contamination, then later it didn't...Why?

At some point in time, production levels had to go way up perhaps for

several years to achieve a stockpile, but not most of those 30 years.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

CHARLIE POE wrote:

>

> From: " CHARLIE POE " <poecharlie@...>

>

> Yes, I asked the question today of the idiots that run the AVIP website

> (1-877-GET-VACC). His response was, 2,000 per day was a " NORMAL " production

> day.

I think Charlie may have meant to say 2,000 per month in the above

quote. Interesting question here. In their pre stockpile days when

ever that began, would it be reasonable to assume they produced about

what they thought they would need for the next year. Therefore, the

constant claims of the vaccine being used for 30 years doesn't apply

for two reasons:

1. The vaccine was being used in such limited quantities. AND

2. They must have been using MUCH fresher vaccine!! They don't have

30 years of history on what happens if you use a REALLY old product.

Are there changes over time in the additives, could they separate

and some are getting an overdose of 'additives'?

I can buy sandwich meat that is slightly contaminated, and not get

sick eating it. But try storing it for a very long time and what

happens? Then worse yet, send it off (shipping) to a picnic....

Maybe there is no comparison to the sandwich meat scenerio, maybe there

is. Would contaminants be consistant throughout the vat? How well is

it mixed before being placed in vials (at all?) I remember reading that

some showed contamination, then later it didn't...Why?

At some point in time, production levels had to go way up perhaps for

several years to achieve a stockpile, but not most of those 30 years.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

Bull..hit,

These are the individuals who are supposed to have a strategic vision. You

would have thought this was hashed out at the onset. This just bolsters my

confidence? Who's driving?

More " pay no attention to the man behind the curtain " CRAP.

Rich

(stay tuned)

Siobahn wrote:

> From: Siobahn <lisa@...>

>

> Didn't remember seeing anyone post this article.

>

> Anthrax Program Faces More Problems

>

> The Pentagon's controversial effort to vaccinate all members of the US

> military.. "

[Guest guest]

From: " anna_nim " <anna_nim@...>

> 2. They must have been using MUCH fresher vaccine!! They don't have

> 30 years of history on what happens if you use a REALLY old product.

> Are there changes over time in the additives, could they separate

> and some are getting an overdose of 'additives'?

Would contaminants be consistant throughout the vat? How well is

it mixed before being placed in vials (at all?) I remember reading that

some showed contamination, then later it didn't...Why?

These quotes from the inspection report say that is very probable. At least

that's the way I read them.

http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/Anthrax/anthrax1.htm

a. The formulation tank has not been qualified for long term

storage of formulated bulk Anthrax. Storage times have varied from one

week to four months between formulation and filling. Lot FAV033 was

formulated on 8/27/96, however it was not filled until 12/23/96.

b. The formulation tank has not been qualified for mixing time,

demonstrating homogeneity of the suspension. Mixing time is not

specified in the batch record prior to filling and during the filling

operations. The product is (-----WO----) and settles quickly in the

tank.

f. There is no validation of the length of time sublots are held

until they are used in a lot. Sublots have been held longer than 3

years prior to use. There is no stability data to support this hold

time.

n. WFI used in the production of Anthrax sublots in

building (-WO-) transported from building (-WO-) in a stainless steel

tank. There is no validation to assure that the WFI retains it's

critical quality attributes.