February 19, 2004
The Honorable Tim Holden
2417 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Holden:
It has become painfully apparent that the United States Department
of Defense and their affiliates can say and do anything they want.
They can say anything no matter how large the falsehood or misrepresentation.
They can do anything no matter how many United States citizens
are adversely affected. I imagine our tendency to look the other
way from such large-scale lies and deceit stems from fear. Fear
first manifested during the cold war, now amplified by the war
on terrorism. It appears many feel that any harm our Department
of Defense causes us is a small price to pay for protection against
current or future foreign aggression.
On December 22, 2003, a Federal judge granted a temporary injunction banning the involuntary administration of the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program (AVIP). This ruling focused on the vaccine still being experimental do to the absence of its licensing final rule. On December 30, 2003, the FDA issued its Final Rule "regarding safety and efficacy" of Anthrax Vaccine currently being administered to our troops and others. On January 7, 2003, the same Federal judge overturned his injunction against the Anthrax Vaccination program as a whole. However, he let stand the injunction for the six unnamed complainants only. The judge in this case called the timing of the FDA's decision (initiated in 1985 and finalized just after the temporary injunction) "highly suspicious." The Justice Department lawyer representing the DOD retorted, "I'd stand on a stack of Bibles and tell you it's coincidental." FDA spokesperson Lenore Geld went on to say, "The timing is not related to the ruling. It just so happened that it came out now." I ask, who is minding the store? Who will call these government representatives to be held accountable for such shameless lies and deceit?
I grew up in this country believing in a government system of checks and balances. Where one branch of government held certain powers that kept the other branches from engaging in grossly unethical behavior. Particularly when such behavior benefits the special interests of a few, at the expense of so many. It is apparent that this system of checks and balances is now rarely applied to the Department of Defense (and their affiliates). Our Department of Defense continues to unethically promote its own budget stuffing agenda in defense of the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program.
Our current Anthrax Vaccine was approved for licensing using a 1957 study wholly supported by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. This study could not be considered of valid clinical significance under normally accepted circumstances, yet the FDA defends it as being a "well-controlled clinical trial." The bottom line in the FDA's defense of this study is that (during this original study) "no cases were reported in individuals receiving the complete vaccination schedule of six doses".
So lets hypothetically assume that forty percent of the population of the United Stated is given the Anthrax Vaccine (exactly how many are fully vaccinated is unknown). Shortly thereafter, a once in a century epidemic of Inhalation Anthrax strikes us. Then our vaccine could be labeled as a valid protection if nearly all of those stricken turned out to be those in the unvaccinated group. Does this constitute sound clinical science? Never mind that the current Anthrax Vaccine was manufactured differently from the vaccine used in 1957. Never mind that when the proposed rule for licensing was published in 1985, the FDA panel is quoted as writing, "The vaccine manufactured by the Michigan Department of Public Health has not been employed in a controlled field trial." Never mind that the Department of Defense itself (along with other ardent supporters of the vaccine) labeled the current vaccine as grossly inadequate or even unsafe at one time or another. And never mind that warfare vaccine developers and manufacturers are now getting rich while our troops still go to war without the latest in protective gear.
Part of the DOD's latest public smear campaign directed at December's legal findings has targeted sick veterans. The Department of Defense claims that the vaccine has actually sickened no one. Thus, opponents of the AVIP must try legal maneuvers in order to stop the program. Congressional Testimony, and the commercial movie documentary "Direct Order" are two easily accessible and credible sources that say otherwise. Evidence exists that these sources represent only the "tip of the iceberg."
House Bill H.R. 2548 introduced in the 106th congress, The Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccination Moratorium Act, was buried by a DOD misinformation campaign. Elected Representatives such as Indiana Congressman Buyer, then Chairman of the HASC also blasted it. He stated (during public committee testimony), "If you don't get your air conditioning and your pizza on time you complain...I never showered in five months." This testifying service member deserves our undivided attention and utmost respect. Not the pathetic political grandstanding of a career Military Reserve Officer. Does Mr. Buyer sound like an investigator attempting to learn the facts concerning the testimony set out before him? Or is Mr. Buyer just another example of a status quo conflict of interest that exists in our Government?
Representative Holden, I'm asking you to support any measure that holds the Department of Defense accountable for promoting its totally flawed Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program. It is our duty as United States citizens to stand up for the health and well being of our veterans, past, present, and future. Senator Bingaman has sponsored a Senate resolution regarding the Anthrax and Smallpox vaccines (S. RES. 278). Would you be interested in sponsoring similar legislation in the House of Representatives? If anyone in your office is interested in further discussion concerning this matter, I can be reached at the following phone number: XXX-XXX-XXXX.
This letter will additionally be posted on the Internet and distributed to various interested parties. Further reference sources are available upon request.
Sincerely,
A concerned Gulf War Veteran
Enc: News Article: "Judge clears anthrax shots in the
military" (2 pages)
News Article: "Judge lifts injunction that prevented military
from requiring anthrax shots" (1 page)
News Article: "Anthrax Vaccine Had Unlikely Critic"
(3 pages)
News Article: "Father of dead soldier claims cover-up"
(3 pages)
News Article: GOP representative: "Congress won't halt anthrax
vaccinations" (1 page)
Press Release: FDA's Issuance of Final Rule Concerning Anthrax
Vaccine Reflective of Legal Gamesmanship (3 pages)
Last revised: March 2004