Fwd: Meryl NassWhy is Bush Buying 75 Mil doses of Anthrax Vax?

March 17, 2004

--- http://rense.com

Why Is Bush Buying 75 Million

Doses Anthrax Vac For Public?

By Meryl Nass, MD

mnass@g...

3-14-4

The Washington Post's otherwise excellent article on the US

government's plan to contract for 75 million new doses of recombinant

anthrax vaccine, published March 11, 2004, leaves out some important

background:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51691-2004Mar11.html

1. Apart from the 2001 smallpox vaccine fiasco, no entity has ever

before contracted for nearly a billion dollars' worth of untested

drug or vaccine.

Let's explore the Sept-Nov 2001 smallpox contract first.

* Soon after DHHS contracted with Acambis for a total of 209 million

doses of smallpox vaccine, it came to light that the US actually had

a stockpile of smallpox vaccine of between 85 and 105 million doses.

* It also turned out that the old vaccine had been tested in college

students at various dilutions, and a 20% (1 in 5) dilution yielded as

much protection as full strength vaccine. Thus the existing US

stockpile was sufficient to vaccinate at least 400 million people

before any additional vaccine was purchased. However, that did not

stop DHHS from purchasing nearly a billion dollars of new vaccine,

which used the identical virus strain that was in the older vaccines.

2. The Acambis smallpox vaccine (209 million doses ordered before

this recombinant vaccine had even been created) is unlikely to ever

be used, barring a smallpox epidemic, since it employs the same

vaccinia virus strain that caused a number of cardiac problems and

several deaths in the 38,000 civilian health care workers vaccinated.

(It did the same in military troops, who are still receiving it, but

those deaths have been covered up--I had a letter published in JAMA

[2003;290:2123-4] about this.)

A less reactogenic smallpox vaccine was also ordered by DHHS, for

people who were not expected to tolerate the original vaccine.

However, only 15 million doses of this vaccine, called modified

Ankara, were purchased.

3. Acambis's VP Tom Monath was shown by Judith in the August

7, 1998 NYT to have misrepresented himself as a CDC employee, rather

than a private vaccine developer, in a meeting with President Clinton

in which he pushed hard for production of bioterrorism vaccines. Why

did DHHS contract for smallpox vaccine with a small unknown company

that had been so tarred?

4. VaxGen (another start-up that is likely to get some or all of the

DHHS recombinant anthrax contract) similarly has been investigated by

the London Times and The Guardian for improper manipulation of its

stock price, has faced several lawsuits by investors, pulled out of a

Thai AIDS vaccine trial when close to completion, leaving its

partners very unhappy, and to my knowledge has never brought a

product to market. Why contract with VaxGen to produce a vaccine

created a number of years ago at Fort Detrick?

(I am aware that VaxGen has so far only received $80 million from

DHHS for 3 million doses, but is anticipated to get a much larger

contract for some or all of 75 million doses.)

5. Vaxgen's own head to head trial of its rPA (recombinant protective

antigen) anthrax vaccine versus the licensed Biothrax/AVA vaccine

showed the recombinant vaccine had over twice the systemic adverse

reaction rate (39% vs 18%) as the original. Yet Vaxgen claimed it

compared favorably in terms of safety.

6. The WP article is correct in that " many " postal workers refused

AVA in 2001-2: 99% to be exact.

7. Effectiveness testing of anthrax vaccine in animals cannot predict

human effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness varies all over the map

depending which experimental animals are chosen. And no correlates of

protection have been identified yet that permit extrapolation from

animals to humans. In fact, in older studies from the 1980s and 1990s

performed at Fort Detrick and Porton Down, UK, rPA vaccines were LESS

effective in animal models than the currently licensed vaccines.

8. Why rush to order this huge stockpile, which according to DHHS is

not expected to be available until two years after the contract is

signed, when the vaccine shows no strong evidence of being either

safe or effective in humans? There exists no immediate need. Is

someone afraid that complete testing will show up its flaws?

9. Is the reason for purchasing now, before testing is complete and

licensing assured, to head off development of more promising

approaches, such as Human Genome Sciences' privately developed

monoclonal antibody ABThrax, which reported very positively on an

early clinical trial last week, and derail development of other drugs

that are cheaper, more effective than vaccine and only need be given

after an actual exposure, not before?

10. Lest anyone be misled that this vaccine is an improvement on the

currently licensed anthrax vaccine, it was selected because it had

been developed a number of years ago at Fort Detrick but never used,

ie it happened to be available when the government decided to replace

the existing anthrax vaccine. It is definitely more pure, but

unfortunately its purity has not been shown to improve safety or

effectiveness. There is no good reason for it to require fewer doses

either. In fact, its primary ingredient, PA (protective antigen) has

been demonstrated to have significant toxicity. For example,

injecting it into the cerebrospinal fluid of monkeys caused complete

cessation of brain electrical activity for several minutes, in

studies performed at Fort Detrick in the 1960s, but these studies may

not have been reviewed by those involved with vaccine contracting.

Meryl Nass, MD

Moount Desert Island Hospital

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609

H 207 276-5092

W 207 288-5082 ext 220 or pager 441

http://www.anthraxvaccine.org

--- End forwarded message ---

March 17, 2004

Increasingly, vaccination-effects data show a tendency towards the

dumbing down of recipients. Language impairment and autism are the

embarrassing endpoints for the CDC and pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps

the reasons behind the ACIP's notion of mandating flu shots for everyone

and behind anthrax vaccines for everyone are twofold: as a voting

population, the body politic will be a tad dumbed down, and the

vaccinations will create a distrubution of adverse sequelae that will

require chronic medications (and thus generate chronic profits). The

challenge is: can the ACIP and its associated vaccine-gestapo impose

their delusionary decrees before the growing citizens' awareness of

vaccines adverse effects puts a stop to the madness.

scap_64 wrote:

> --- http://rense.com

>

> Why Is Bush Buying 75 Million

> Doses Anthrax Vac For Public?

> By Meryl Nass, MD

> mnass@g...

> 3-14-4

>

> The Washington Post's otherwise excellent article on the US

> government's plan to contract for 75 million new doses of recombinant

> anthrax vaccine, published March 11, 2004, leaves out some important

> background:

>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51691-2004Mar11.html

>

> 1. Apart from the 2001 smallpox vaccine fiasco, no entity has ever

> before contracted for nearly a billion dollars' worth of untested

> drug or vaccine.

> Let's explore the Sept-Nov 2001 smallpox contract first.

>

> * Soon after DHHS contracted with Acambis for a total of 209 million

> doses of smallpox vaccine, it came to light that the US actually had

> a stockpile of smallpox vaccine of between 85 and 105 million doses.

>

> * It also turned out that the old vaccine had been tested in college

> students at various dilutions, and a 20% (1 in 5) dilution yielded as

> much protection as full strength vaccine. Thus the existing US

> stockpile was sufficient to vaccinate at least 400 million people

> before any additional vaccine was purchased. However, that did not

> stop DHHS from purchasing nearly a billion dollars of new vaccine,

> which used the identical virus strain that was in the older vaccines.

>

> 2. The Acambis smallpox vaccine (209 million doses ordered before

> this recombinant vaccine had even been created) is unlikely to ever

> be used, barring a smallpox epidemic, since it employs the same

> vaccinia virus strain that caused a number of cardiac problems and

> several deaths in the 38,000 civilian health care workers vaccinated.

> (It did the same in military troops, who are still receiving it, but

> those deaths have been covered up--I had a letter published in JAMA

> [2003;290:2123-4] about this.)

> A less reactogenic smallpox vaccine was also ordered by DHHS, for

> people who were not expected to tolerate the original vaccine.

> However, only 15 million doses of this vaccine, called modified

> Ankara, were purchased.

>

> 3. Acambis's VP Tom Monath was shown by Judith in the August

> 7, 1998 NYT to have misrepresented himself as a CDC employee, rather

> than a private vaccine developer, in a meeting with President Clinton

> in which he pushed hard for production of bioterrorism vaccines. Why

> did DHHS contract for smallpox vaccine with a small unknown company

> that had been so tarred?

>

> 4. VaxGen (another start-up that is likely to get some or all of the

> DHHS recombinant anthrax contract) similarly has been investigated by

> the London Times and The Guardian for improper manipulation of its

> stock price, has faced several lawsuits by investors, pulled out of a

> Thai AIDS vaccine trial when close to completion, leaving its

> partners very unhappy, and to my knowledge has never brought a

> product to market. Why contract with VaxGen to produce a vaccine

> created a number of years ago at Fort Detrick?

> (I am aware that VaxGen has so far only received $80 million from

> DHHS for 3 million doses, but is anticipated to get a much larger

> contract for some or all of 75 million doses.)

>

> 5. Vaxgen's own head to head trial of its rPA (recombinant protective

> antigen) anthrax vaccine versus the licensed Biothrax/AVA vaccine

> showed the recombinant vaccine had over twice the systemic adverse

> reaction rate (39% vs 18%) as the original. Yet Vaxgen claimed it

> compared favorably in terms of safety.

>

> 6. The WP article is correct in that " many " postal workers refused

> AVA in 2001-2: 99% to be exact.

>

> 7. Effectiveness testing of anthrax vaccine in animals cannot predict

> human effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness varies all over the map

> depending which experimental animals are chosen. And no correlates of

> protection have been identified yet that permit extrapolation from

> animals to humans. In fact, in older studies from the 1980s and 1990s

> performed at Fort Detrick and Porton Down, UK, rPA vaccines were LESS

> effective in animal models than the currently licensed vaccines.

>

> 8. Why rush to order this huge stockpile, which according to DHHS is

> not expected to be available until two years after the contract is

> signed, when the vaccine shows no strong evidence of being either

> safe or effective in humans? There exists no immediate need. Is

> someone afraid that complete testing will show up its flaws?

>

> 9. Is the reason for purchasing now, before testing is complete and

> licensing assured, to head off development of more promising

> approaches, such as Human Genome Sciences' privately developed

> monoclonal antibody ABThrax, which reported very positively on an

> early clinical trial last week, and derail development of other drugs

> that are cheaper, more effective than vaccine and only need be given

> after an actual exposure, not before?

>

> 10. Lest anyone be misled that this vaccine is an improvement on the

> currently licensed anthrax vaccine, it was selected because it had

> been developed a number of years ago at Fort Detrick but never used,

> ie it happened to be available when the government decided to replace

> the existing anthrax vaccine. It is definitely more pure, but

> unfortunately its purity has not been shown to improve safety or

> effectiveness. There is no good reason for it to require fewer doses

> either. In fact, its primary ingredient, PA (protective antigen) has

> been demonstrated to have significant toxicity. For example,

> injecting it into the cerebrospinal fluid of monkeys caused complete

> cessation of brain electrical activity for several minutes, in

> studies performed at Fort Detrick in the 1960s, but these studies may

> not have been reviewed by those involved with vaccine contracting.

>

> Meryl Nass, MD

> Moount Desert Island Hospital

> Bar Harbor, Maine 04609

> H 207 276-5092

> W 207 288-5082 ext 220 or pager 441

> http://www.anthraxvaccine.org

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

March 18, 2004

Re: [ ] Fwd: Meryl NassWhy is Bush Buying 75 Mil doses

of Anthrax Vax?