Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 see also www.noanthraxvaccine.net regards craig Meryl Nass <mnass@...> wrote: > From: ZaidMS@... > Date: December 13, 2006 12:31:12 AM EST > mnass@... > Subject: Press Release > > NEW LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING LEGALITY > OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S ANTHRAX > VACCINATION IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM > > Action Against Pentagon, HHS And FDA Seeks To > Again Stop Government’s Illegal Vaccination Program > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- > > Two years after an earlier lawsuit shut down the Department > of Defense’s (“DoD”) Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program, > another six military servicemembers and Defense Department civilian > contractors filed suit today in the United States District Court > for the District of Columbia to request that a federal judge once > again declare that the anthrax vaccine is an unapproved drug and > unlawful without informed consent. The identities of the plaintiffs > are being withheld for fear of retaliation by the government. Each > of the plaintiffs faces either termination from employment or > criminal prosecution if they refuse inoculation with the vaccine. > The lawsuit is being filed as part of a class action effort on > behalf of all military servicemembers and civilians facing > inoculation purportedly to prevent aerosolized exposure from anthrax. > > This past October 2006, the DoD announced it was > reinstituting a mandatory inoculation program (applicable to those > serving in the Korean and Middle East theatres) after having > administered it on a voluntary basis for two years in the aftermath > of a court order to do so. The DoD’s action follows the Food and > Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) pronouncement of December 19, 2005 > of a Final Rule and Order declaring the vaccine to be safe, > effective, and not misbranded as protection against all forms of > anthrax. The FDA is aloso a defendant in the currnet case. > > " FDA’s certification of the vaccine, which is based on > slipshod statistical analysis, and an improper use of testing data, > as well as DoD’s alteration of the vaccine dosing schedule, render > the vaccine a drug unapproved for its applied use under current > federal law, " said J. Michels, Jr., co-counsel in the > litigation and a partner in the Chicago law office of McGuire Woods > LLP. " Under these circumstances, the vaccine may not be > administered to service members without their informed consent. It > is patently illegal " , he added. > > Internal government documents, many of which are described in > the lawsuit, > reveal a history of regulatory violations and scientific concerns > regarding the DoD's > Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program (“AVIP”). A 1994 report by > the Senate > Veterans Affairs Committee concluded that the vaccine could not be > expected to protect > troops against airborne anthrax and should be considered > experimental. In February 2000, the House of Representative's > Committee on Government Reform recommended the termination of the > mandatory AVIP. In December 2003 and again in October 2004, a > federal judge declared the vaccination program illegal until the > FDA acted. > > “The AVIP is a public relations program fueled by > bureaucratic concerns rather than science that flouts FDA precedent > to such a degree that all logic has been thrown out the window. The > FDA has disgraced its reputation by statistically manufacturing > supporting evidence in order to support an unlawful military > policy,” said Mark S. Zaid, Esq., a Washington, D.C. lawyer serving > as co-counsel in the litigation. Zaid added that all available > threat information indicates the residents of the Washington, D.C. > area are likely at far greater risk of exposure to anthrax than > members of the military serving in Korea or Iraq. > > In December 1997, the DoD ordered the inoculation of all 2.5 > million active duty > personnel, regardless of duty station or responsibilities. The > immunization series calls for > six injections of the vaccine over a period of 18 months, followed > by annual booster > shots. Vaccinations began in March 1998, but in July 2000 the scope > of the mandatory > vaccination program was reduced due to the continuing inability of > the vaccine manufacturer, BioPort, to comply with federal > manufacturing standards. After a four-year hiatus, the FDA allowed > BioPort to resume production in January 2002. Inoculations were > temporarily halted by a federal judge in December 2003, and the > mandatory program was permanently stopped in October 2004. Since > that time approximately 50% of those offered the vaccination declined. > > Nearly 500 active-duty service-members have refused the > vaccine, and more than 100 have been court-martialed. Additionally, > approximately 500-1000 pilots and flight crew members have quit, > resigned or transferred from the Air National Guard or Reserves > rather than take the vaccine. The vaccine is voluntary in the > Australian, British and Canadian militaries, as well as for U.S. > Department of State employees even though they serve in the same > geographical region as that of U.S. military servicemembers. > > J. Michels, Jr., is a partner in the Chicago office of > McGuire Woods LLP > (www.mcguirewoods.com), and previously represented Major Sonnie > Bates and Captain Buck, the highest military officers to > refuse the anthrax vaccine, and was the author of a high-profile > legal memorandum analyzing the illegality of the AVIP; the subject > matter of which he testified on before Congress in October 2000. > Mr. Michels served as co-counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. Rumsfeld et al, > which declared the mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. > > Mark S. Zaid is a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in > representing individuals employed within the United States > Intelligence and Military communities. He also serves as the > Executive Director of The Madison Project > (www.jamesmadisonproject.org), a non-profit organization that > educates the public on national security issues including the > anthrax vaccine controversy. Mr. Zaid has represented dozens of > anthrax refusers, including service as senior defense counsel in > nearly one dozen courts-martials. He testified before the House of > Representatives regarding the AVIP in March 1999, and was co- > counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. Rumsfeld et al, which declared the > mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. > > ## > A copy of the Complaint is attached. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > _________________ > This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the > person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential > information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, > dissemination or distribution of the contents of this e-mail by > anyone other than the addressee or his or her agent for such > purposes is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail > in error, please notify me immediately by telephone, facsimile or e- > mail and purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. > > Mark S. Zaid, Esq. > Mark S. Zaid, P.C. > 1920 N Street, N.W. > Suite 300 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > (202) 454-2809 direct > (202) 293-4827 fax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 If I missed it, sorry...but what happened to the original 6 and that lawsuit? Press Release > > NEW LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING LEGALITY > OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S ANTHRAX > VACCINATION IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM > > Action Against Pentagon, HHS And FDA Seeks To > Again Stop Government's Illegal Vaccination Program > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- > > Two years after an earlier lawsuit shut down the Department > of Defense's ( " DoD " ) Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program, > another six military servicemembers and Defense Department civilian > contractors filed suit today in the United States District Court > for the District of Columbia to request that a federal judge once > again declare that the anthrax vaccine is an unapproved drug and > unlawful without informed consent. The identities of the plaintiffs > are being withheld for fear of retaliation by the government. Each > of the plaintiffs faces either termination from employment or > criminal prosecution if they refuse inoculation with the vaccine. > The lawsuit is being filed as part of a class action effort on > behalf of all military servicemembers and civilians facing > inoculation purportedly to prevent aerosolized exposure from anthrax. > > This past October 2006, the DoD announced it was > reinstituting a mandatory inoculation program (applicable to those > serving in the Korean and Middle East theatres) after having > administered it on a voluntary basis for two years in the aftermath > of a court order to do so. The DoD's action follows the Food and > Drug Administration's ( " FDA " ) pronouncement of December 19, 2005 > of a Final Rule and Order declaring the vaccine to be safe, > effective, and not misbranded as protection against all forms of > anthrax. The FDA is aloso a defendant in the currnet case. > > " FDA's certification of the vaccine, which is based on > slipshod statistical analysis, and an improper use of testing data, > as well as DoD's alteration of the vaccine dosing schedule, render > the vaccine a drug unapproved for its applied use under current > federal law, " said J. Michels, Jr., co-counsel in the > litigation and a partner in the Chicago law office of McGuire Woods > LLP. " Under these circumstances, the vaccine may not be > administered to service members without their informed consent. It > is patently illegal " , he added. > > Internal government documents, many of which are described in > the lawsuit, > reveal a history of regulatory violations and scientific concerns > regarding the DoD's > Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program ( " AVIP " ). A 1994 report by > the Senate > Veterans Affairs Committee concluded that the vaccine could not be > expected to protect > troops against airborne anthrax and should be considered > experimental. In February 2000, the House of Representative's > Committee on Government Reform recommended the termination of the > mandatory AVIP. In December 2003 and again in October 2004, a > federal judge declared the vaccination program illegal until the > FDA acted. > > " The AVIP is a public relations program fueled by > bureaucratic concerns rather than science that flouts FDA precedent > to such a degree that all logic has been thrown out the window. The > FDA has disgraced its reputation by statistically manufacturing > supporting evidence in order to support an unlawful military > policy, " said Mark S. Zaid, Esq., a Washington, D.C. lawyer serving > as co-counsel in the litigation. Zaid added that all available > threat information indicates the residents of the Washington, D.C. > area are likely at far greater risk of exposure to anthrax than > members of the military serving in Korea or Iraq. > > In December 1997, the DoD ordered the inoculation of all 2.5 > million active duty > personnel, regardless of duty station or responsibilities. The > immunization series calls for > six injections of the vaccine over a period of 18 months, followed > by annual booster > shots. Vaccinations began in March 1998, but in July 2000 the scope > of the mandatory > vaccination program was reduced due to the continuing inability of > the vaccine manufacturer, BioPort, to comply with federal > manufacturing standards. After a four-year hiatus, the FDA allowed > BioPort to resume production in January 2002. Inoculations were > temporarily halted by a federal judge in December 2003, and the > mandatory program was permanently stopped in October 2004. Since > that time approximately 50% of those offered the vaccination declined. > > Nearly 500 active-duty service-members have refused the > vaccine, and more than 100 have been court-martialed. Additionally, > approximately 500-1000 pilots and flight crew members have quit, > resigned or transferred from the Air National Guard or Reserves > rather than take the vaccine. The vaccine is voluntary in the > Australian, British and Canadian militaries, as well as for U.S. > Department of State employees even though they serve in the same > geographical region as that of U.S. military servicemembers. > > J. Michels, Jr., is a partner in the Chicago office of > McGuire Woods LLP > (www.mcguirewoods.com), and previously represented Major Sonnie > Bates and Captain Buck, the highest military officers to > refuse the anthrax vaccine, and was the author of a high-profile > legal memorandum analyzing the illegality of the AVIP; the subject > matter of which he testified on before Congress in October 2000. > Mr. Michels served as co-counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. Rumsfeld et al, > which declared the mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. > > Mark S. Zaid is a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in > representing individuals employed within the United States > Intelligence and Military communities. He also serves as the > Executive Director of The Madison Project > (www.jamesmadisonproject.org), a non-profit organization that > educates the public on national security issues including the > anthrax vaccine controversy. Mr. Zaid has represented dozens of > anthrax refusers, including service as senior defense counsel in > nearly one dozen courts-martials. He testified before the House of > Representatives regarding the AVIP in March 1999, and was co- > counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. Rumsfeld et al, which declared the > mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. > > ## > A copy of the Complaint is attached. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > _________________ > This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the > person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential > information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, > dissemination or distribution of the contents of this e-mail by > anyone other than the addressee or his or her agent for such > purposes is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail > in error, please notify me immediately by telephone, facsimile or e- > mail and purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. > > Mark S. Zaid, Esq. > Mark S. Zaid, P.C. > 1920 N Street, N.W. > Suite 300 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > (202) 454-2809 direct > (202) 293-4827 fax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 If I remember correctly, the litigation and Judge Sullivan's decision depended on the anthrax immunization not having been approved by the FDA. The FDA violated its own published rules in retroactively " approving " AVA, but there was no getting around the FDA's applying to the letter if not the spirit of complying with the initial complaint and Judge Sullivan's original opinion. I haven't gone through the current complaint in detail (power failures here in the Seattle area due to a series of severe storms), but reading the press release leads me to believe that the current complaint includes complaints against the FDA for the FDA's violating its own rules. Federal agencies' actions in that respect are clearly illegal, and complaints against them are clearly justiciable in the federal courts. In a sentence, as I understand it, the current complaint not only seeks to suspend AVIP, but now seeks to do so on the basis of FDA procedural misconduct. The FDA hadn't committed its latest heinous deed when the previous complaint was initiated, so contending that illegality wasn't possible. That's my take on it, anyway. If I got it wrong, we will find out quickly and I will stand corrected. =========================================================================== Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. -- F. Kennedy =========================================================================== ..> Press Release ..> > ..> > NEW LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S ..> > ANTHRAX VACCINATION IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM ..> > ..> > Action Against Pentagon, HHS And FDA Seeks To Again Stop ..> Government's ..> > Illegal Vaccination Program ..> > ..> > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- ..> > ..> > Two years after an earlier lawsuit shut down the ..> Department of ..> > Defense's ( " DoD " ) Anthrax Vaccination Immunization ..> Program, another ..> > six military servicemembers and Defense Department civilian ..> > contractors filed suit today in the United States District ..> Court for ..> > the District of Columbia to request that a federal judge ..> once again ..> > declare that the anthrax vaccine is an unapproved drug and ..> unlawful ..> > without informed consent. The identities of the plaintiffs ..> are being ..> > withheld for fear of retaliation by the government. Each of the ..> > plaintiffs faces either termination from employment or criminal ..> > prosecution if they refuse inoculation with the vaccine. ..> > The lawsuit is being filed as part of a class action ..> effort on behalf ..> > of all military servicemembers and civilians facing inoculation ..> > purportedly to prevent aerosolized exposure from anthrax. ..> > ..> > This past October 2006, the DoD announced it was ..> reinstituting a ..> > mandatory inoculation program (applicable to those serving in the ..> > Korean and Middle East theatres) after having administered it on a ..> > voluntary basis for two years in the aftermath of a court ..> order to do ..> > so. The DoD's action follows the Food and Drug Administration's ..> > ( " FDA " ) pronouncement of December 19, 2005 of a Final ..> Rule and Order ..> > declaring the vaccine to be safe, effective, and not misbranded as ..> > protection against all forms of anthrax. The FDA is aloso ..> a defendant ..> > in the currnet case. ..> > ..> > " FDA's certification of the vaccine, which is based ..> on slipshod ..> > statistical analysis, and an improper use of testing data, ..> as well as ..> > DoD's alteration of the vaccine dosing schedule, render ..> the vaccine a ..> > drug unapproved for its applied use under current federal ..> law, " said ..> > J. Michels, Jr., co-counsel in the litigation and a ..> partner in ..> > the Chicago law office of McGuire Woods LLP. " Under these ..> > circumstances, the vaccine may not be administered to ..> service members ..> > without their informed consent. It is patently illegal " , he added. ..> > ..> > Internal government documents, many of which are ..> described in ..> > the lawsuit, reveal a history of regulatory violations and ..> scientific ..> > concerns regarding the DoD's Anthrax Vaccination ..> Immunization Program ..> > ( " AVIP " ). A 1994 report by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee ..> > concluded that the vaccine could not be expected to protect troops ..> > against airborne anthrax and should be considered experimental. In ..> > February 2000, the House of Representative's Committee on ..> Government ..> > Reform recommended the termination of the mandatory AVIP. ..> In December ..> > 2003 and again in October 2004, a federal judge declared the ..> > vaccination program illegal until the FDA acted. ..> > ..> > " The AVIP is a public relations program fueled by ..> bureaucratic ..> > concerns rather than science that flouts FDA precedent to such a ..> > degree that all logic has been thrown out the window. The FDA has ..> > disgraced its reputation by statistically manufacturing supporting ..> > evidence in order to support an unlawful military policy, " ..> said Mark ..> > S. Zaid, Esq., a Washington, D.C. lawyer serving as ..> co-counsel in the ..> > litigation. Zaid added that all available threat ..> information indicates ..> > the residents of the Washington, D.C. ..> > area are likely at far greater risk of exposure to anthrax than ..> > members of the military serving in Korea or Iraq. ..> > ..> > In December 1997, the DoD ordered the inoculation of all 2.5 ..> > million active duty personnel, regardless of duty station or ..> > responsibilities. The immunization series calls for six ..> injections of ..> > the vaccine over a period of 18 months, followed by annual booster ..> > shots. Vaccinations began in March 1998, but in July 2000 ..> the scope of ..> > the mandatory vaccination program was reduced due to the ..> continuing ..> > inability of the vaccine manufacturer, BioPort, to comply ..> with federal ..> > manufacturing standards. After a four-year hiatus, the FDA allowed ..> > BioPort to resume production in January 2002. Inoculations were ..> > temporarily halted by a federal judge in December 2003, and the ..> > mandatory program was permanently stopped in October 2004. ..> Since that ..> > time approximately 50% of those offered the vaccination declined. ..> > ..> > Nearly 500 active-duty service-members have refused ..> the vaccine, ..> > and more than 100 have been court-martialed. Additionally, ..> > approximately 500-1000 pilots and flight crew members have quit, ..> > resigned or transferred from the Air National Guard or ..> Reserves rather ..> > than take the vaccine. The vaccine is voluntary in the Australian, ..> > British and Canadian militaries, as well as for U.S. ..> > Department of State employees even though they serve in the same ..> > geographical region as that of U.S. military servicemembers. ..> > ..> > J. Michels, Jr., is a partner in the Chicago office of ..> > McGuire Woods LLP (www.mcguirewoods.com), and previously ..> represented ..> > Major Sonnie Bates and Captain Buck, the highest military ..> > officers to refuse the anthrax vaccine, and was the author of a ..> > high-profile legal memorandum analyzing the illegality of ..> the AVIP; ..> > the subject matter of which he testified on before ..> Congress in October ..> > 2000. ..> > Mr. Michels served as co-counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. ..> Rumsfeld et al, ..> > which declared the mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. ..> > ..> > Mark S. Zaid is a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in ..> > representing individuals employed within the United States ..> > Intelligence and Military communities. He also serves as ..> the Executive ..> > Director of The Madison Project ..> (www.jamesmadisonproject.org), a ..> > non-profit organization that educates the public on ..> national security ..> > issues including the anthrax vaccine controversy. Mr. Zaid has ..> > represented dozens of anthrax refusers, including service ..> as senior ..> > defense counsel in nearly one dozen courts-martials. He testified ..> > before the House of Representatives regarding the AVIP in ..> March 1999, ..> > and was co- counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. Rumsfeld et al, ..> which declared ..> > the mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. ..> > ..> > ## ..> > A copy of the Complaint is attached. ..> > ..> > ..> > ..> _____________________________________________________________ ..> _________ ..> > _________________ ..> > This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the ..> > person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential ..> > information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, ..> > dissemination or distribution of the contents of this ..> e-mail by anyone ..> > other than the addressee or his or her agent for such purposes is ..> > strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, ..> > please notify me immediately by telephone, facsimile or e- ..> mail and ..> > purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. ..> > ..> > Mark S. Zaid, Esq. ..> > Mark S. Zaid, P.C. ..> > 1920 N Street, N.W. ..> > Suite 300 ..> > Washington, D.C. 20036 ..> > (202) 454-2809 direct ..> > (202) 293-4827 fax ..> ..> ..> ..> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 The injunction that was placed on the AVIP was satisfied when the FDA approved the anthrax vaccine for all uses, including inhalation. Technically, the DoD could have put the AVIP in a mandatory state a long time ago when the requirement from the judge was satisfied. This lawsuit is based on the same premise, only now including the FDA and DHHS for not following their own rules and procedures in licensing ava correctly. In short - the same problems still exist eight years later. A quick read to understand this, go to: http://military-biodefensevaccines.org/ - under " Featured Information " on the front page, click on the 2nd link, " Anthrax Vaccine: Twenty Year History of Legal and Regulatory Problems " Mercer <merjunk@...> wrote: Randi J. Airola, © 517-819-5926 http://military-biodefensevaccines.org To receive MBVP E-news: http://military-biodefensevaccines.org click on MBVP Chat List and join. The Chat List provides biodefense information and allows subscribers to interact with one another. This is a public domain. Opinions expressed by individuals are the responsibility of the individual. The MBVP Chat list is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which is a non-profit (501C3) educational organization. Donations are tax deductible as provided under law. NVIC does not receive Government subsidies. To support the MBVP of NVIC, go to http://www.nvic.org/makingcashdonations.htm and become a member of NVIC. NVIC publishes a free E-News newsletter with daily analysis and commentary by Co-Founder/President Barbara Loe Fisher on infectious diseases and vaccine research, regulation, policymaking, legislation, and informed consent issues. To receive NVIC E-news: http://www.nvic.org and sign up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Thanks, ! _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Star Strider Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:01 PM Subject: RE: Fwd: Press Release If I remember correctly, the litigation and Judge Sullivan's decision depended on the anthrax immunization not having been approved by the FDA. The FDA violated its own published rules in retroactively " approving " AVA, but there was no getting around the FDA's applying to the letter if not the spirit of complying with the initial complaint and Judge Sullivan's original opinion. I haven't gone through the current complaint in detail (power failures here in the Seattle area due to a series of severe storms), but reading the press release leads me to believe that the current complaint includes complaints against the FDA for the FDA's violating its own rules. Federal agencies' actions in that respect are clearly illegal, and complaints against them are clearly justiciable in the federal courts. In a sentence, as I understand it, the current complaint not only seeks to suspend AVIP, but now seeks to do so on the basis of FDA procedural misconduct. The FDA hadn't committed its latest heinous deed when the previous complaint was initiated, so contending that illegality wasn't possible. That's my take on it, anyway. If I got it wrong, we will find out quickly and I will stand corrected. =========================================================================== Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. -- F. Kennedy =========================================================================== ..> Press Release ..> > ..> > NEW LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S ..> > ANTHRAX VACCINATION IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM ..> > ..> > Action Against Pentagon, HHS And FDA Seeks To Again Stop ..> Government's ..> > Illegal Vaccination Program ..> > ..> > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- ..> > ..> > Two years after an earlier lawsuit shut down the ..> Department of ..> > Defense's ( " DoD " ) Anthrax Vaccination Immunization ..> Program, another ..> > six military servicemembers and Defense Department civilian ..> > contractors filed suit today in the United States District ..> Court for ..> > the District of Columbia to request that a federal judge ..> once again ..> > declare that the anthrax vaccine is an unapproved drug and ..> unlawful ..> > without informed consent. The identities of the plaintiffs ..> are being ..> > withheld for fear of retaliation by the government. Each of the ..> > plaintiffs faces either termination from employment or criminal ..> > prosecution if they refuse inoculation with the vaccine. ..> > The lawsuit is being filed as part of a class action ..> effort on behalf ..> > of all military servicemembers and civilians facing inoculation ..> > purportedly to prevent aerosolized exposure from anthrax. ..> > ..> > This past October 2006, the DoD announced it was ..> reinstituting a ..> > mandatory inoculation program (applicable to those serving in the ..> > Korean and Middle East theatres) after having administered it on a ..> > voluntary basis for two years in the aftermath of a court ..> order to do ..> > so. The DoD's action follows the Food and Drug Administration's ..> > ( " FDA " ) pronouncement of December 19, 2005 of a Final ..> Rule and Order ..> > declaring the vaccine to be safe, effective, and not misbranded as ..> > protection against all forms of anthrax. The FDA is aloso ..> a defendant ..> > in the currnet case. ..> > ..> > " FDA's certification of the vaccine, which is based ..> on slipshod ..> > statistical analysis, and an improper use of testing data, ..> as well as ..> > DoD's alteration of the vaccine dosing schedule, render ..> the vaccine a ..> > drug unapproved for its applied use under current federal ..> law, " said ..> > J. Michels, Jr., co-counsel in the litigation and a ..> partner in ..> > the Chicago law office of McGuire Woods LLP. " Under these ..> > circumstances, the vaccine may not be administered to ..> service members ..> > without their informed consent. It is patently illegal " , he added. ..> > ..> > Internal government documents, many of which are ..> described in ..> > the lawsuit, reveal a history of regulatory violations and ..> scientific ..> > concerns regarding the DoD's Anthrax Vaccination ..> Immunization Program ..> > ( " AVIP " ). A 1994 report by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee ..> > concluded that the vaccine could not be expected to protect troops ..> > against airborne anthrax and should be considered experimental. In ..> > February 2000, the House of Representative's Committee on ..> Government ..> > Reform recommended the termination of the mandatory AVIP. ..> In December ..> > 2003 and again in October 2004, a federal judge declared the ..> > vaccination program illegal until the FDA acted. ..> > ..> > " The AVIP is a public relations program fueled by ..> bureaucratic ..> > concerns rather than science that flouts FDA precedent to such a ..> > degree that all logic has been thrown out the window. The FDA has ..> > disgraced its reputation by statistically manufacturing supporting ..> > evidence in order to support an unlawful military policy, " ..> said Mark ..> > S. Zaid, Esq., a Washington, D.C. lawyer serving as ..> co-counsel in the ..> > litigation. Zaid added that all available threat ..> information indicates ..> > the residents of the Washington, D.C. ..> > area are likely at far greater risk of exposure to anthrax than ..> > members of the military serving in Korea or Iraq. ..> > ..> > In December 1997, the DoD ordered the inoculation of all 2.5 ..> > million active duty personnel, regardless of duty station or ..> > responsibilities. The immunization series calls for six ..> injections of ..> > the vaccine over a period of 18 months, followed by annual booster ..> > shots. Vaccinations began in March 1998, but in July 2000 ..> the scope of ..> > the mandatory vaccination program was reduced due to the ..> continuing ..> > inability of the vaccine manufacturer, BioPort, to comply ..> with federal ..> > manufacturing standards. After a four-year hiatus, the FDA allowed ..> > BioPort to resume production in January 2002. Inoculations were ..> > temporarily halted by a federal judge in December 2003, and the ..> > mandatory program was permanently stopped in October 2004. ..> Since that ..> > time approximately 50% of those offered the vaccination declined. ..> > ..> > Nearly 500 active-duty service-members have refused ..> the vaccine, ..> > and more than 100 have been court-martialed. Additionally, ..> > approximately 500-1000 pilots and flight crew members have quit, ..> > resigned or transferred from the Air National Guard or ..> Reserves rather ..> > than take the vaccine. The vaccine is voluntary in the Australian, ..> > British and Canadian militaries, as well as for U.S. ..> > Department of State employees even though they serve in the same ..> > geographical region as that of U.S. military servicemembers. ..> > ..> > J. Michels, Jr., is a partner in the Chicago office of ..> > McGuire Woods LLP (www.mcguirewoods.com), and previously ..> represented ..> > Major Sonnie Bates and Captain Buck, the highest military ..> > officers to refuse the anthrax vaccine, and was the author of a ..> > high-profile legal memorandum analyzing the illegality of ..> the AVIP; ..> > the subject matter of which he testified on before ..> Congress in October ..> > 2000. ..> > Mr. Michels served as co-counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. ..> Rumsfeld et al, ..> > which declared the mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. ..> > ..> > Mark S. Zaid is a Washington, D.C. lawyer who specializes in ..> > representing individuals employed within the United States ..> > Intelligence and Military communities. He also serves as ..> the Executive ..> > Director of The Madison Project ..> (www.jamesmadisonproject.org), a ..> > non-profit organization that educates the public on ..> national security ..> > issues including the anthrax vaccine controversy. Mr. Zaid has ..> > represented dozens of anthrax refusers, including service ..> as senior ..> > defense counsel in nearly one dozen courts-martials. He testified ..> > before the House of Representatives regarding the AVIP in ..> March 1999, ..> > and was co- counsel in Doe#1 et al. v. Rumsfeld et al, ..> which declared ..> > the mandatory vaccination program unlawful in 2004. ..> > ..> > ## ..> > A copy of the Complaint is attached. ..> > ..> > ..> > ..> __________________________________________________________ ..> _________ ..> > _________________ ..> > This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the ..> > person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential ..> > information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, ..> > dissemination or distribution of the contents of this ..> e-mail by anyone ..> > other than the addressee or his or her agent for such purposes is ..> > strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, ..> > please notify me immediately by telephone, facsimile or e- ..> mail and ..> > purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. ..> > ..> > Mark S. Zaid, Esq. ..> > Mark S. Zaid, P.C. ..> > 1920 N Street, N.W. ..> > Suite 300 ..> > Washington, D.C. 20036 ..> > (202) 454-2809 direct ..> > (202) 293-4827 fax ..> ..> ..> ..> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 My pleasure! *I* hope that the 'new' action will this time ALSO embrace the " refusers " who wisely chose to embrace scientific reality over DOD fantasy (and egregious propaganda that would have even inspired the admiration of f Gobbels), not only those (like me) who already were permanently injured by the Bioport (etc.) anthrax immunization and had it change our lives (definitely NOT for the better), or who IF immunized will almost INEVITABLY be at risk for the all-too-well-known anthrax-immunization-related autoimmune disorders that cause severe, progressive disability, and all too frequently, death. NBC (the network) just informed me that the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq is now costing us all $10,000,000 per hour. What's worse is that the DOD civilians are wasting millions of dollars defending themselves against Veterans (of whom I am one) seeking justice that is by statute ours, and should NOT require prolonged litigation. The NICE thing is that the DOD will have to not only pay ME in the final outcome, but ALL my legal expenses as well. Are they brainlessly stupid, or what? ( " Or what " is NOT an option!) Peace and Justice, =========================================================================== Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. -- F. Kennedy =========================================================================== ..> RE: Fwd: Press Release ..> ..> ..> ..> If I remember correctly, the litigation and Judge Sullivan's ..> decision depended on the anthrax immunization not having ..> been approved by the FDA. ..> The FDA violated its own published rules in retroactively ..> " approving " AVA, but there was no getting around the FDA's ..> applying to the letter if not the spirit of complying with ..> the initial complaint and Judge Sullivan's original opinion. ..> SNIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 FYI Torrey klcst@...<mailto:klcst@...> LifeLyme of Texas www.lifelyme.org<http://www.lifelyme.org/> CENTRAL FLORIDA RESEARCH, INC. 245 N. Seminole Avenue Lake Alfred, FL 33850 September 24, 2007 Central Florida Research, Inc. is happy to announce that we have received our Florida State License dated February 19, 2007, and are now accepting specimens for Borrelia burgdorferi by Flow Cytometry testing. The CFR lab and 'Bb by Flow' blood antigen test for Lyme disease are both CLIA approved. Sandi Lanford The Lanford Foundation -Lifelyme, Inc. Tallahassee, FL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2007 Report Share Posted September 28, 2007 One of the most telling comments is the following which was at the end of the article: " Investors are cautioned against placing undue reliance on forward-looking statements. " At the risk of sounding negative on this research, let me say that much of the piece spoke to 'Tumor Response' or 'shrinkage of the tumor. Chemotherapy and Radiation almost always provide some 'response' by which they mean shrinkage, which also has nothing to do with survivability. However we'll keep watching this stuff just as we have ever since The War On Cancer was initiated by Nixon. Joe C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2007 Report Share Posted September 28, 2007 > > One of the most telling comments is the following which was at the end of the article: > > " Investors are cautioned against placing undue reliance on forward- looking statements. " > > At the risk of sounding negative on this research, let me say that much of the piece spoke to 'Tumor Response' or 'shrinkage of the tumor. Chemotherapy and Radiation almost always provide some 'response' by which they mean shrinkage, which also has nothing to do with survivability. > > However we'll keep watching this stuff just as we have ever since The War On Cancer was initiated by Nixon. > > Joe C. > From palliative to operable " A phase I trial in patients with disease amenable to short-course palliative radiotherapy was initiated, with 18 patients treated to date. " Patients entered the trial for palliative treatment and some ended up having tumor responses with their once non-operable tumors becoming operable. Good news indeed. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 Part of the article said: " Patients entered the trial for palliative treatment and some ended up having tumor responses with their once non-operable tumors becoming operable. Good news indeed. " There's nothing new about chemotherapy or radiation, for that matter, causing tumors to shrink making them more accessible. This has been going on for decades and this press release did nothing to change that. A question then might be, if one is seeking alternative measures, is that desirable? In many cases it isn't. In many cases people seeking alternative measure do not want either of those allopathic treatments. Joe C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 sweet, dude At 12:50 PM 11/30/2008 -0800, you wrote: >Bayard, what do you think. I sent this to Jeri, the new Immunics >practicer who knows everyone. I gave her two titles and left the venues >open. They will be filled tomorrow. call me at 702-655-7303, that is >where I am right now until 5pm pacific time. > > > > > From: Dr. Tapz <drtapz@...> > > Subject: Press Release > > " From: This sender is DomainKeys verifiedMark Whaley " > <markwhaley@...> > > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 8:44 PM > > For Immediate Release > > > > > > An International Movie Taping of " A Gift To > > Humanity " > > / Pubic Invited to be in the Audience. > > > > > > A Gift to Humanity Movie made in Sedona on Dec. 14, 2008 > > Public is invited to participate as the Audience. > > > > > > The movie " Gift To Humanity " will be shot in > > Sedona, Arizona on Sunday December 14, 2008, at 2:P.M. to 5 > > p.m. At > > > > Located at > > Come and be a part of a new beginning as, > > incredible information and wonderful new paradigms that will > > serve you for a Lifetime. are shared that the audience will > > have fun participating in. > > > > Bring your loved ones and your youth, this is for everyone > > > > This movie will be shown worldwide starting Christmas week > > and will be > > > > made available on the internet so that it can be shared > > with relatives and > > > > friends. > > > > Put this on your calendar and we will see you there for an > > event that you > > > > will remember with fondness and gratitude. Seating is > > limited so please > > > > get there early to ensure you have a seat. This is a first > > in the World > > > > and we welcome you. > > > > > > > > Media, Contact: Dr. , 1-800-542-4203, or 928-239-8233 > > > > > > We are awaiting word from " " , to confirm > > being there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Nice job! Winnie PRESS RELEASE Vaccinations Group > > PRESS RELEASE > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > > CONTACT: Cassandra Alls > > PHONE: 443.995.2622 – cbsunshine@... > > January 7, 2009 > > > > > > MARYLAND COALITION FOR VACCINE CHOICE > > > > ANNAPOLIS, MD – In July 2008 The land Coalition for > Vaccine > > Choice (MDCVC) support and resource group was established. A > new > > mom, Cassandra Alls became concerned with the controversial > news, > > reports and stories about vaccinations. Wanting the best for > her > > child she began relentlessly researching the topic on her own > and > > decided that true informed consent and choice needed to be > given to > > parents in land and all states. The MDCVC was created for > > land residents that are concerned with the safety of > > vaccinations, support informed consent and strive for passing > a > > philosophical exemption to vaccinations. Members are welcome > to > > share resources and ideas on how to educate the public on > > vaccinations, promote informed consent and to support a bill > for > > philosophical exemptions. Cassandra says, “We know that not > > everyone agrees or understands why some question or refuse > > vaccinations. It is our goal that parents become fully > informed as > > to the risks, benefits and statistics of the vaccinations and > the > > diseases. The amount of vaccinations has significantly > increased > > since I was a child.” Due to the overwhelming information on > both > > sides of the issue, Cassandra also published the “Vaccine > > Information Resource Guide: A Parents Discovery” to help other > > > parents with a place to start researching the information on > their > > own. > > > > > > > > The introduction of Cassandra’s book states, “As new parents > we > > thought we had all the information we needed in preparing for > our > > daughter. Once she arrived and a few doctor visits later, I > had a > > pit in my stomach and hesitation about all the scheduled > > vaccinations. At our daughter’s six-month appointment, the > doctor > > wanted to giver her a flu shot and the several shots she > already > > received. My mind was spinning thinking this is too many shots > for > > a little baby. The doctor said without these vaccinations she > > > could get sick and die. We passed on the flu shot that day, > and > > went home to think about it. Still misinformed and misguided, > my > > husband and I went to a clinic they were having. We walked in > and > > saw all the people herded in this office. It was overwhelming. > My > > husband said, " Well this is how they make a ton of money " . > Our > > daughter got the first shot and we never went back for the > second. > > Later I discovered that the flu vaccine still contains mercury > and > > they are not 100% effective. I spent the next several months > > reading and researching for myself. I looked at the > ingredients of > > the vaccines and decided there was no way in the world I was > going > > to inject my daughter with those substances. I looked further > and > > found that the risks of vaccine reaction and injury outweigh > any > > possible benefits that vaccines claim. The more I read and > > discovered the more frustrated and outraged I became. Both > parents > > and medical professionals want to protect the health of children. > > > > > > > > But the mainstream thought of the medical profession does not > > consider the issue of the ingredients or over vaccinating as a > > > problem at all. This aloofness or lack of concern is a grave > > mistake. Doctors and government institutions that should be > > watchdogs seem to be steered only by the CDC without a second > > thought. There are too many special interests involved. The > > problem is that vaccines have become a big business and like > all > > businesses they want to increase profits. How do they do > that? > > They make more vaccines and create an ambush of a vaccination > > schedule that is highly toxic and damages the brain, immune > system, > > and from birth begins antibiotic resistance. More than twenty > plus > > years ago 1 in 100,000 children had autism. The number today > is 1 > > in 150 autistic children. It is worth seriously examining the > > connections between a trend like this (and there are others) > and > > the increase number of vaccinations. Do you want to trust the > > government and doctors to make decisions about your child’s > welfare > > without you first being able to make informed judgments? A > good > > family friend has four daughters. The youngest is the only one > that > > grew up with a learning disability and the only one that was > born > > after the induction of mass vaccinations. Coincidence? Are > > vaccines needed? In some cases possibly, but they absolutely > need > > to be safe, effective and on a limited schedule. Parents need > to be > > the best advocates for their children. Should we continue to > > blindly trust the government and our doctors to make decisions > in > > our best interest? There are many myths about vaccinations > and the > > diseases. Besides certain laws that apply only to government > > medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the > mandatory > > use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical > treatment > > is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment. You do > have a > > right to say no. You have a choice. Parents need to dismantle > all > > the information and see that there is already enough evidence > that > > vaccines can be harmful. The enormous number of children with > > vaccine injuries is enough evidence for me. We all have a > choice. I > > personally will not voluntarily put anything that is toxic or > > potentially damaging into my daughter’s developing body. In > our > > opinion, and statistics will show, that there is more of a > chance > > that your child will have a vaccine reaction then contract a > disease.”> > > > > > > The MDCVC can be found on Groups and FACEBOOK. > Cassandra’s > > book, The Vaccine Information Resource Guide can be purchased > on > > www.lulu.com > > > > > > > > To find out more information on vaccinations and support > groups in > > your state visit www.nvic.org or www.thinktwice.com > > > > ### > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Congratulations! And I pray you enlighten many. Health & blessings, *Isn't it better to be safe, than sorry... *http://www.EcoCleanInfo.com <http://www.ecocleaninfo.com/> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:30 PM, cassandra alls <cbsunshine@...> wrote: > > PRESS RELEASE > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > > CONTACT: Cassandra Alls > > PHONE: 443.995.2622 – cbsunshine@... > > January 7, 2009 > > > > > > MARYLAND COALITION FOR VACCINE CHOICE > > > > ANNAPOLIS, MD – In July 2008 The land Coalition for Vaccine > > Choice (MDCVC) support and resource group was established. A new > > mom, Cassandra Alls became concerned with the controversial news, > > reports and stories about vaccinations. Wanting the best for her > > child she began relentlessly researching the topic on her own and > > decided that true informed consent and choice needed to be given to > > parents in land and all states. The MDCVC was created for > > land residents that are concerned with the safety of > > vaccinations, support informed consent and strive for passing a > > philosophical exemption to vaccinations. Members are welcome to > > share resources and ideas on how to educate the public on > > vaccinations, promote informed consent and to support a bill for > > philosophical exemptions. Cassandra says, " We know that not > > everyone agrees or understands why some question or refuse > > vaccinations. It is our goal that parents become fully informed as > > to the risks, benefits and statistics of the vaccinations and the > > diseases. The amount of vaccinations has significantly increased > > since I was a child. " Due to the overwhelming information on both > > sides of the issue, Cassandra also published the " Vaccine > > Information Resource Guide: A Parents Discovery " to help other > > parents with a place to start researching the information on their > > own. > > > > > > > > The introduction of Cassandra's book states, " As new parents we > > thought we had all the information we needed in preparing for our > > daughter. Once she arrived and a few doctor visits later, I had a > > pit in my stomach and hesitation about all the scheduled > > vaccinations. At our daughter's six-month appointment, the doctor > > wanted to giver her a flu shot and the several shots she already > > received. My mind was spinning thinking this is too many shots for > > a little baby. The doctor said without these vaccinations she > > could get sick and die. We passed on the flu shot that day, and > > went home to think about it. Still misinformed and misguided, my > > husband and I went to a clinic they were having. We walked in and > > saw all the people herded in this office. It was overwhelming. My > > husband said, " Well this is how they make a ton of money " . Our > > daughter got the first shot and we never went back for the second. > > Later I discovered that the flu vaccine still contains mercury and > > they are not 100% effective. I spent the next several months > > reading and researching for myself. I looked at the ingredients of > > the vaccines and decided there was no way in the world I was going > > to inject my daughter with those substances. I looked further and > > found that the risks of vaccine reaction and injury outweigh any > > possible benefits that vaccines claim. The more I read and > > discovered the more frustrated and outraged I became. Both parents > > and medical professionals want to protect the health of children. > > > > > > > > But the mainstream thought of the medical profession does not > > consider the issue of the ingredients or over vaccinating as a > > problem at all. This aloofness or lack of concern is a grave > > mistake. Doctors and government institutions that should be > > watchdogs seem to be steered only by the CDC without a second > > thought. There are too many special interests involved. The > > problem is that vaccines have become a big business and like all > > businesses they want to increase profits. How do they do that? > > They make more vaccines and create an ambush of a vaccination > > schedule that is highly toxic and damages the brain, immune system, > > and from birth begins antibiotic resistance. More than twenty plus > > years ago 1 in 100,000 children had autism. The number today is 1 > > in 150 autistic children. It is worth seriously examining the > > connections between a trend like this (and there are others) and > > the increase number of vaccinations. Do you want to trust the > > government and doctors to make decisions about your child's welfare > > without you first being able to make informed judgments? A good > > family friend has four daughters. The youngest is the only one that > > grew up with a learning disability and the only one that was born > > after the induction of mass vaccinations. Coincidence? Are > > vaccines needed? In some cases possibly, but they absolutely need > > to be safe, effective and on a limited schedule. Parents need to be > > the best advocates for their children. Should we continue to > > blindly trust the government and our doctors to make decisions in > > our best interest? There are many myths about vaccinations and the > > diseases. Besides certain laws that apply only to government > > medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the mandatory > > use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical treatment > > is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment. You do have a > > right to say no. You have a choice. Parents need to dismantle all > > the information and see that there is already enough evidence that > > vaccines can be harmful. The enormous number of children with > > vaccine injuries is enough evidence for me. We all have a choice. I > > personally will not voluntarily put anything that is toxic or > > potentially damaging into my daughter's developing body. In our > > opinion, and statistics will show, that there is more of a chance > > that your child will have a vaccine reaction then contract a disease. " > > > > > > > > The MDCVC can be found on Groups and FACEBOOK. Cassandra's > > book, The Vaccine Information Resource Guide can be purchased on > > www.lulu.com > > > > > > > > To find out more information on vaccinations and support groups in > > your state visit www.nvic.org or www.thinktwice.com > > > > ### > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Dear Sue: We spoke briefly on the phone last week and I described a new experimental device that seems to have beneficial effects to help people with lyme. We have been researching this since the middle of 2006 and have just recently begun selling these experimental devices. We wanted to wait until Carol who has been suffering for 15 years was completely well. We are currently working with some volunteers that live nearby. These folks are using the device every other day. These volunteers are reporting major improvements in less than 2 months. You mentioned that you would be interested in testimonials. Please let me know how you would like to see the data. I could send you a copy of some messages posted on another lyme group. Also I believe that they would be glad to talk to you about their experiences. I recently acquired an Olympus BX40 dark field microscope and have some interesting before and after videos. http://meissnerresearch.com/darkfield . It is a real shame that a medical doctor is forbidden to use this device. It makes it so obvious to see what a person is dealing with. In my limited experience it seems like the co-infections are a much larger problem than the lyme Bb. http://meissnerresearch.com/products/dougplus . This is a picture of Carol who was the primary research subject. The device requires no operator skill. Just sit in the chair between the two plates for a certain time like 2 minutes and the frequencies flowing between the two plates interfere with and seemingly disable the Bb spirochete and other co-infections. I have found that colloidal silver is a useful and possibly mandatory adjunct. You have spoken to Key. He built this device for himself with some parts that I sent him. Ask his opinion also. Please let me know how to proceed to get you the information you need. Jim Meissner [ ] OT: Press Release For Immediate Release January 13 2009 Film, Under the Eightball, Debuts Independent film explores the origins Lyme disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Press Release October 6, 2009 From: A. True Ott, PhD, ND V.I.C. (Vaccine Injury Coalition) 1260 S. 1200 W. #3 Ogden, UT 84404 Contact Phone Number: 801-392-1635 Today, October 6, 2009, the Weber/ Health Department began dispensing 'H1N1' " Swine Flu " nasal " flu-mist " vaccines to the general public, with the public announcement that all county " health departments " in the State of Utah would soon follow. These vaccines are said to be " free " to the public - which is a false statement. The manufacturer of the " vaccine " - MedImmune Inc., has been paid handsomely for this serum by the federal government - thus the " vaccine " is not free at all. It has been paid for by our tax dollars. With the federal government, there is no such thing as a truly " free " benefit! The news media has been blindly promoting this vaccine without mentioning the following risks: 1. The vaccine is composed of " live " viruses. The vaccine circular, page 21, section 17.2 warns under the heading " Vaccination with a Live Virus Vaccine " : " Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider that Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is an attenuated live virus vaccine AND HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSMISSION TO IMMUNOCOMPROMISED HOUSEHOLD CONTACTS " . (Emphasis added). In layman's terms, the " live viruses " can be " shed " and cause other people to become infected. 2. The virus included in the FluMist vaccine is NOT a naturally-occurring virus, but is a laboratory-created " Influenza Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase VARIANT " that is protected by MedImmune U.S. Patent # 2008/0069821 A1. 3. According to the vaccine circular, this " live-virus " vaccine has not been tested, and is clearly experimental. The FDA has allowed it to be licensed solely under new " emergency " licensing provisions. 4. The vaccine dose contains 0.188 mg. of monosodium glutamate - a well-known brain excito-toxic compound. Placing this amount of MSG directly into the nasal passages can cause neurological adverse reactions. I personally believe that providing this " live virus " spray to citizens will actually CAUSE the feared pandemic to occur. Based on the summer's events in the Southern Hemisphere, the W.H.O.'s " pandemic " has disappeared. The projected " 2nd wave " in Australia and South America did not materialize. Therefore, there is no further justification for " pandemic level 6 " status - and thus, no need for H1N1 live-virus vaccines to be given away " free " . Dr. Ott VIC (Vaccine Injury Coalition) Autism is 1 in 67 children today and it's impossible to have a genetic epidemic! Please learn from our mistake and educate BEFORE you vaccinate! For more information visit www.vacinfo.org or call 800-939-8227 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 The FLAKES have been heard from ________________________________ From: VIC <VIC@...> medicaid Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 8:36:57 PM Subject: [ ] PRESS RELEASE Press Release October 6, 2009 From: A. True Ott, PhD, ND V.I.C. (Vaccine Injury Coalition) 1260 S. 1200 W. #3 Ogden, UT 84404 Contact Phone Number: 801-392-1635 Today, October 6, 2009, the Weber/ Health Department began dispensing 'H1N1' " Swine Flu " nasal " flu-mist " vaccines to the general public, with the public announcement that all county " health departments " in the State of Utah would soon follow. These vaccines are said to be " free " to the public - which is a false statement. The manufacturer of the " vaccine " - MedImmune Inc., has been paid handsomely for this serum by the federal government - thus the " vaccine " is not free at all. It has been paid for by our tax dollars. With the federal government, there is no such thing as a truly " free " benefit! The news media has been blindly promoting this vaccine without mentioning the following risks: 1. The vaccine is composed of " live " viruses. The vaccine circular, page 21, section 17.2 warns under the heading " Vaccination with a Live Virus Vaccine " : " Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider that Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is an attenuated live virus vaccine AND HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSMISSION TO IMMUNOCOMPROMISED HOUSEHOLD CONTACTS " . (Emphasis added). In layman's terms, the " live viruses " can be " shed " and cause other people to become infected. 2. The virus included in the FluMist vaccine is NOT a naturally-occurring virus, but is a laboratory-created " Influenza Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase VARIANT " that is protected by MedImmune U.S. Patent # 2008/0069821 A1. 3. According to the vaccine circular, this " live-virus " vaccine has not been tested, and is clearly experimental. The FDA has allowed it to be licensed solely under new " emergency " licensing provisions. 4. The vaccine dose contains 0.188 mg. of monosodium glutamate - a well-known brain excito-toxic compound. Placing this amount of MSG directly into the nasal passages can cause neurological adverse reactions. I personally believe that providing this " live virus " spray to citizens will actually CAUSE the feared pandemic to occur. Based on the summer's events in the Southern Hemisphere, the W.H.O.'s " pandemic " has disappeared. The projected " 2nd wave " in Australia and South America did not materialize. Therefore, there is no further justification for " pandemic level 6 " status - and thus, no need for H1N1 live-virus vaccines to be given away " free " . Dr. Ott VIC (Vaccine Injury Coalition) Autism is 1 in 67 children today and it's impossible to have a genetic epidemic! Please learn from our mistake and educate BEFORE you vaccinate! For more information visit www.vacinfo. org or call 800-939-8227 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Don't know about the other risks, but number 1 is absolutely true. Nasal mist vaccines contain attenuated live virus and are not recommended for immunocompromised people or their household members. Per my daughter's bone marrow transplant specialist and pediatrician, my family has been advised that we cannot receive it or any other such vaccine. This is not new to the H1N1 vaccine. We live in the Boston area, which is highly reputable for medical care and I assure you my daughter's doctors are not giving us " Flakey " advice. - > > > > The FLAKES have been heard from > > > ________________________________ > From: VIC <VIC@...> > medicaid > Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 8:36:57 PM > Subject: [ ] PRESS RELEASE > > > Press Release > October 6, 2009 > > From: A. True Ott, PhD, ND > V.I.C. (Vaccine Injury Coalition) > 1260 S. 1200 W. #3 > Ogden, UT 84404 > > Contact Phone Number: 801-392-1635 > > Today, October 6, 2009, the Weber/ Health Department began dispensing 'H1N1' " Swine Flu " nasal " flu-mist " vaccines to the general public, with the public announcement that all county " health departments " in the State of Utah would soon follow. > > These vaccines are said to be " free " to the public - which is a false statement. The manufacturer of the " vaccine " - MedImmune Inc., has been paid handsomely for this serum by the federal government - thus the " vaccine " is not free at all. It has been paid for by our tax dollars. With the federal government, there is no such thing as a truly " free " benefit! > > The news media has been blindly promoting this vaccine without mentioning the following risks: > > 1. The vaccine is composed of " live " viruses. The vaccine circular, page 21, section 17.2 warns under the heading " Vaccination with a Live Virus Vaccine " : " Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider that Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is an attenuated live virus vaccine AND HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSMISSION TO IMMUNOCOMPROMISED HOUSEHOLD CONTACTS " . (Emphasis added). In layman's terms, the " live viruses " can be " shed " and cause other people to become infected. > 2. The virus included in the FluMist vaccine is NOT a naturally-occurring virus, but is a laboratory-created " Influenza Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase VARIANT " that is protected by MedImmune U.S. Patent # 2008/0069821 A1. > 3. According to the vaccine circular, this " live-virus " vaccine has not been tested, and is clearly experimental. The FDA has allowed it to be licensed solely under new " emergency " licensing provisions. > 4. The vaccine dose contains 0.188 mg. of monosodium glutamate - a well-known brain excito-toxic compound. Placing this amount of MSG directly into the nasal passages can cause neurological adverse reactions. > > I personally believe that providing this " live virus " spray to citizens will actually CAUSE the feared pandemic to occur. Based on the summer's events in the Southern Hemisphere, the W.H.O.'s " pandemic " has disappeared. The projected " 2nd wave " in Australia and South America did not materialize. Therefore, there is no further justification for " pandemic level 6 " status - and thus, no need for H1N1 live-virus vaccines to be given away " free " . > > Dr. Ott > > VIC (Vaccine Injury Coalition) > Autism is 1 in 67 children today and it's impossible to have a genetic epidemic! > Please learn from our mistake and educate BEFORE you vaccinate! > For more information visit www.vacinfo. org or call 800-939-8227 > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.