Judge: No adverse action against Navy sailors for refusing vaccine

[Superbadbrutha]

What does the OATH say...............Constitution.................hmmm.........Courts under our gov't have the authority to overrule a out of control POTUS........

If you kick them out under a Injunction against Brandon............You are in VIOLATION of that oath.

Bullshit when you are deployed you are REQUIRED to take shots without question, if you refuse them you go home. It's just that simple.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That is his new name............Oh well.........I have ZERO RESPECT FOR HIM............NONE.

You can have zero respect for Biden if you choose, but I would suggest that if you are going to use right wing talking points, you should use them correctly. "Let's go Brandon" is a way of saying "fuck Joe Biden", not a derogatory way of referring to Biden as a person. But, you've been confused and used references wrong before, so why should this time be any different?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bullshit when you are deployed you are REQUIRED to take shots without question, if you refuse them you go home. It's just that simple.

Actually, they don't normally kick you out of the military, you just aren't allowed to deploy to the area requiring them. Part of the overseas screening for personnel deploying to areas outside of the continental US is for them to get required shots for that area. If they refuse, they simply do not go to the area in question. And, if a person gets orders overseas, you can bet they are willing to take the shots, because getting overseas duty is kinda cool. At least.................that's what the deal was when I was active duty from '82 to '02. If you refuse the shots, they take away the orders and send you someplace that is here in the States.

 

[eagle1462010]

Part of that oath also states that in addition to supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, you have to obey the orders of those appointed over you, if they are lawful orders. If the military says to get vaccinated as a condition of being able to serve, you get vaccinated or you go home.

I don't care how many times you say it. The court ruled against your boy Brandon.

 

[eagle1462010]

You can have zero respect for Biden if you choose, but I would suggest that if you are going to use right wing talking points, you should use them correctly. "Let's go Brandon" is a way of saying "fuck Joe Biden", not a derogatory way of referring to Biden as a person. But, you've been confused and used references wrong before, so why should this time be any different?

I'll post exactly how I want........if you are offended then oh well.

Courts ruled in favor of the Seals.........PERIOD. It's in Brandon's court now.........

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't care how many times you say it. The court ruled against your boy Brandon.

Actually, it's just a preliminary injunction, and the military hasn't yet made vaccines mandatory for all members, but it's coming soon. By the way, the court ruled against a NASCAR driver? What for?

 

[eagle1462010]

Actually, it's just a preliminary injunction, and the military hasn't yet made vaccines mandatory for all members, but it's coming soon. By the way, the court ruled against a NASCAR driver? What for?

So. The military lost in the Anthrax case......never got overturned...........It's an Injunction...........meaning courts have ruled.........your turn Brandon.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'll post exactly how I want........if you are offended then oh well.

Courts ruled in favor of the Seals.........PERIOD. It's in Brandon's court now.........

Go ahead and post what you want, but using references in a wrong way like you are doing just makes you look ignorant and stupid. And no, it wasn't all the courts, it was just one judge, and it's a PRELIMINARY injunction, not one set in stone. When the military finally makes it mandatory for all service members to have the vaccine (and it's gonna happen soon), that court case will no longer stand. But, choose to believe in your own stupidity if that is what helps you sleep at night. And yeah, when the military does make it mandatory, those SEALs will get the shot, or they will go home. There is nothing that says that military service is a right. If they don't want the shot, cool..............they can go home and find a job that doesn't require vaccination.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Well no....

Pentagon unveils new religious liberty policies after pressure from conservative lawmakers

While critics of the new regulation are concerned that this will encourage military superiors to push their religious beliefs on their fellow service members, proponents of the rule have hailed it a victory for religious liberty.

www.militarytimes.com

Carl knows everything, just ask him.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bullshit when you are deployed you are REQUIRED to take shots without question, if you refuse them you go home. It's just that simple.

The Courts have ruled.............It's now up to Brandon to overturn them. He keeps losing in court.

Oh well. Unfit to lead.

 

[eagle1462010]

Go ahead and post what you want, but using references in a wrong way like you are doing just makes you look ignorant and stupid. And no, it wasn't all the courts, it was just one judge, and it's a PRELIMINARY injunction, not one set in stone. When the military finally makes it mandatory for all service members to have the vaccine (and it's gonna happen soon), that court case will no longer stand. But, choose to believe in your own stupidity if that is what helps you sleep at night. And yeah, when the military does make it mandatory, those SEALs will get the shot, or they will go home. There is nothing that says that military service is a right. If they don't want the shot, cool..............they can go home and find a job that doesn't require vaccination.

And that RULING STANDS til OVERTURNED PERIOD.

It's in Brandon's court now..............PERIOD.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So. The military lost in the Anthrax case......never got overturned...........It's an Injunction...........meaning courts have ruled.........your turn Brandon.

Might wanna do some reading up on that. People were discharge, and there was lots of medical research done on the vaccine. Incidentally, that vaccine wasn't to be given to all military personnel, just those deploying to the areas where the possibility of exposure to anthrax existed. And, after lots of research by those in the medical field, they determined that the vaccine wasn't required, so that is why it was never overturned. However, there were people who refused the vaccine that were discharged.

Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1990s[edit]​

In 1998, the Clinton administration required the inoculation of all military members with the anthrax vaccine known as Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) and by the trade name BioThrax.[8][9]

In 1999 at Offutt Air Force Base, the first ever Anthrax refusal court-martial in the United States Air Force was prosecuted. In the case of U.S. v. Bickley, Captain Jeffrey A. Lustick, USAF, prosecuted an airman's refusal to submit to the immunization. The airman was convicted and later administratively separated from the U.S. Air Force.[10]

2000s[edit]​

In June 2001, the DoD halted vaccinations due to non-FDA approved changes in BioPort's manufacturing process.[11]

On October 15, 2001, military members filed a FDA Citizen Petition highlighting the fact that the license for AVA had never formally been finalized by the FDA in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR § 10.30 as Docket # 01P-0471.[12] The Petition was later utilized as the foundational basis for a Preliminary Injunction by a Federal Court to temporarily halt the program [Doe v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003)].

On June 28, 2002, in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks and leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all military personnel were required to receive AVA in addition to their other vaccinations of smallpox.[13] The military does give this vaccination regularly as well as Japanese encephalitis (JEV) when the service member is to be deployed to Southeast Asia, and other vaccines such as pneumococcal, tetanus, among others.[14]

While some military personnel had questions about the safety of the vaccine, it was considered a lawful order at that time, and this made refusing the vaccine at peril of the subordinate, including possible discharge (i.e., losing their job and any benefits depending on the type of discharge). This pressure, at least for the National Guard and Reserve pilots and crewmembers, became a deciding retention factor.[15]
Later that month, the DOD made it policy to include any personnel spending 15 days or more in high anthrax-risk areas, such as the Persian Gulf or the Korean peninsula.[16]

In December 2003, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Department of Defense could not force military personnel to take the vaccine unless through a special order by the president.[17]

In October 2004, for about 8 days in (October 20–28), anthrax vaccinations were resumed,[18] but then an injunction against mandatory vaccination was filed on the basis that AVA was not proven to work against inhalation anthrax.[19] The ruling held that the mandatory program was illegal. The DoD was now required to either let the individual member choose under an informed consent policy, or allowed the president to bypass this requirement by executive order (Doe v. Rumsfeld, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2004)).[20] For military members who had started the vaccination (which usually takes build-up and booster shots), they tended to continue the vaccination program under informed consent. For those who had a choice, they usually decided against it.[21][22] The government stated that they will resume the vaccination program under informed consent in April 2005.

On December 15, 2005, the FDA re-issued a Final Rule & Order[23] on the license status of AVA, clearing the way for mandatory vaccination reinstatement. After reviewing extensive scientific evidence and carefully considering comments from the public, the FDA again determined that the vaccine is licensed for the prevention of anthrax, regardless of the route of exposure. Pertaining to the previous ruling, the DC District Federal Appeals Court declined to vacate or overturn the injunction in 2006, instead mooting the case based on the FDA's new 2005 licensing of the vaccine.[Doe v. Rumsfeld, 127 Fed. App'x 327 (D.C. Cir. 2006)]

On October 16, 2006 the military announced intentions to resume vaccinations for select personnel again, but the vaccinations remained voluntary until further guidance by the DoD.[24] The DoD's official resumption status of the program awaited publication of service messages.[25]

On December 13, 2006, a new class-action lawsuit,[26] filed on behalf of six unnamed plaintiffs, revived the legal battle over the military's mandatory anthrax immunization program. According to court documents, the basic premise of the lawsuit is the plaintiffs' claim that the vaccine is "unapproved for its applied/intended use." The lawsuit says that "plaintiffs will suffer substantial and irreparable injury if they are forced to take the vaccine," which the suit says has not been properly approved by the government, despite the FDA issuing its "final rule" on the vaccine on December 15, 2005. The suit also says the DOD has failed to follow presidential orders and federal laws that require the government to obtain informed consent before giving an unapproved and experimental vaccine to anyone.

On February 8, 2007, the military has resumed mandatory vaccinations of certain troops. Specific policies and troop selection varies according to branch of service.[27]

By August 2007, the original court affirmed that the AVIP was not substantially justified prior to the consequent FDA licensure and requisite rule making for the vaccine in December 2005. The Court ultimately granted "prevailing party" status for the plaintiffs against defendants DoD and FDA [Doe v. Rumsfeld, 501 F. Supp. 2d 186, 188 (D.D.C. 2007)].

By March 2008, a different Federal Judge affirmed the prior ruling in its opinion regarding corrections of records writing, "Taken as a whole, Judge Sullivan's decisions in Doe v. Rumsfeld conclude that, prior to the FDA's December 2005 rulemaking, it was a violation of federal law for military personnel to be subjected to involuntary AVA inoculation because the vaccine was neither the subject of a presidential waiver nor licensed for use against inhalation anthrax."[28]

By August 6, 2008, an FBI press briefing theorized that the "failing" anthrax vaccine immunization program led as the primary motivator in the fall 2001 anthrax letter attacks allegedly perpetrated by U.S. Army scientist Bruce Ivins. FBI documents reveal the FDA "suspended further production" of anthrax vaccine just prior to the attacks (Ivins' emails and FBI analysis available on pp. 12–16 of affidavit).[29] Failed potency tests prevented FDA approval. FBI released emails by Ivins showing the vaccine "isn't passing the potency test" and that "no approved lots" were available just prior to the letter attacks. The FBI explained Ivins' involvement with the failed potency tests. FBI affidavits also documented Ivins receiving the highest Defense Department honors for "getting the anthrax vaccine back into production". The U.S. Department of Justice press statements theorized Ivins’ anthrax letter attack motive: "by launching these attacks, he creates a situation, a scenario, where people all of a sudden realize the need to have this vaccine."[30]

On October 1, 2008, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, declared a need "to provide targeted liability protections for anthrax countermeasures" because "I have determined there is a credible risk that the threat of exposure of B. anthracis and the resulting disease constitutes a public health emergency" until the year 2015.[31] Emergent BioSolutions immediately prepared to supply 14.5 million doses of anthrax vaccine by 2011.[32]

2010s[edit]​

On February 19, 2010, the FBI released its final summary on the Amerithrax investigation. The "motive", according to the FBI, was detailed on page 8 of the report: "Motive. According to his e-mails and statements to friends, in the months leading up to the anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001, Dr. Ivins was under intense personal and professional pressure. The anthrax vaccine program to which he had devoted his entire career of more than 20 years was failing. The anthrax vaccines were receiving criticism in several scientific circles, because of both potency problems and allegations that the anthrax vaccine contributed to Gulf War syndrome. Short of some major breakthrough or intervention, he feared that the vaccine research program was going to be discontinued. Following the anthrax attacks, however, his program was suddenly rejuvenated." The FBI continued on page 39 finding, "within a few months of the anthrax attacks, the FDA fast-tracked the approval process and approved the Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed ("AVA"), even though it didn't meet the original potency standards. This was a significant development for the anthrax researchers."[33]

To date, the DOD has not announced a reevaluation of the AVIP, nor consideration of correcting the records of previously punished soldiers, in light of the above-mentioned legislative, legal and criminal findings related to the anthrax vaccine.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Courts have ruled.............It's now up to Brandon to overturn them. He keeps losing in court.

Oh well. Unfit to lead.

And that RULING STANDS til OVERTURNED PERIOD.

It's in Brandon's court now..............PERIOD.

You do realize that it took over 20 years for things to finally get worked out, and in light of the medical research done on the vaccine, the military didn't see any reason to go back and overturn the ruling, but there were still people who were discharged for refusing the vaccine that were never let back in, right? Like I said, might wanna read up on it. And, the vaccine was only required for those deploying to areas where they might have a good chance of coming into contact with anthrax weapons, not for everyone in the military. I was active duty during that time and was never asked if I wanted it, nor was I required to get it because I never deployed to areas where it might be used on me. The COVID vaccine is fast looking like it will soon be required for everyone on active duty.

 

[eagle1462010]

Might wanna do some reading up on that. People were discharge, and there was lots of medical research done on the vaccine. Incidentally, that vaccine wasn't to be given to all military personnel, just those deploying to the areas where the possibility of exposure to anthrax existed. And, after lots of research by those in the medical field, they determined that the vaccine wasn't required, so that is why it was never overturned. However, there were people who refused the vaccine that were discharged.

Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1990s[edit]​

In 1998, the Clinton administration required the inoculation of all military members with the anthrax vaccine known as Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) and by the trade name BioThrax.[8][9]

In 1999 at Offutt Air Force Base, the first ever Anthrax refusal court-martial in the United States Air Force was prosecuted. In the case of U.S. v. Bickley, Captain Jeffrey A. Lustick, USAF, prosecuted an airman's refusal to submit to the immunization. The airman was convicted and later administratively separated from the U.S. Air Force.[10]

2000s[edit]​

In June 2001, the DoD halted vaccinations due to non-FDA approved changes in BioPort's manufacturing process.[11]

On October 15, 2001, military members filed a FDA Citizen Petition highlighting the fact that the license for AVA had never formally been finalized by the FDA in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR § 10.30 as Docket # 01P-0471.[12] The Petition was later utilized as the foundational basis for a Preliminary Injunction by a Federal Court to temporarily halt the program [Doe v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003)].

On June 28, 2002, in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks and leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all military personnel were required to receive AVA in addition to their other vaccinations of smallpox.[13] The military does give this vaccination regularly as well as Japanese encephalitis (JEV) when the service member is to be deployed to Southeast Asia, and other vaccines such as pneumococcal, tetanus, among others.[14]


In December 2003, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Department of Defense could not force military personnel to take the vaccine unless through a special order by the president.[17]

In October 2004, for about 8 days in (October 20–28), anthrax vaccinations were resumed,[18] but then an injunction against mandatory vaccination was filed on the basis that AVA was not proven to work against inhalation anthrax.[19] The ruling held that the mandatory program was illegal. The DoD was now required to either let the individual member choose under an informed consent policy, or allowed the president to bypass this requirement by executive order (Doe v. Rumsfeld, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2004)).[20] For military members who had started the vaccination (which usually takes build-up and booster shots), they tended to continue the vaccination program under informed consent. For those who had a choice, they usually decided against it.[21][22] The government stated that they will resume the vaccination program under informed consent in April 2005.

On December 15, 2005, the FDA re-issued a Final Rule & Order[23] on the license status of AVA, clearing the way for mandatory vaccination reinstatement. After reviewing extensive scientific evidence and carefully considering comments from the public, the FDA again determined that the vaccine is licensed for the prevention of anthrax, regardless of the route of exposure. Pertaining to the previous ruling, the DC District Federal Appeals Court declined to vacate or overturn the injunction in 2006, instead mooting the case based on the FDA's new 2005 licensing of the vaccine.[Doe v. Rumsfeld, 127 Fed. App'x 327 (D.C. Cir. 2006)]

On October 16, 2006 the military announced intentions to resume vaccinations for select personnel again, but the vaccinations remained voluntary until further guidance by the DoD.[24] The DoD's official resumption status of the program awaited publication of service messages.[25]

On December 13, 2006, a new class-action lawsuit,[26] filed on behalf of six unnamed plaintiffs, revived the legal battle over the military's mandatory anthrax immunization program. According to court documents, the basic premise of the lawsuit is the plaintiffs' claim that the vaccine is "unapproved for its applied/intended use." The lawsuit says that "plaintiffs will suffer substantial and irreparable injury if they are forced to take the vaccine," which the suit says has not been properly approved by the government, despite the FDA issuing its "final rule" on the vaccine on December 15, 2005. The suit also says the DOD has failed to follow presidential orders and federal laws that require the government to obtain informed consent before giving an unapproved and experimental vaccine to anyone.

On February 8, 2007, the military has resumed mandatory vaccinations of certain troops. Specific policies and troop selection varies according to branch of service.[27]

By August 2007, the original court affirmed that the AVIP was not substantially justified prior to the consequent FDA licensure and requisite rule making for the vaccine in December 2005. The Court ultimately granted "prevailing party" status for the plaintiffs against defendants DoD and FDA [Doe v. Rumsfeld, 501 F. Supp. 2d 186, 188 (D.D.C. 2007)].

By March 2008, a different Federal Judge affirmed the prior ruling in its opinion regarding corrections of records writing, "Taken as a whole, Judge Sullivan's decisions in Doe v. Rumsfeld conclude that, prior to the FDA's December 2005 rulemaking, it was a violation of federal law for military personnel to be subjected to involuntary AVA inoculation because the vaccine was neither the subject of a presidential waiver nor licensed for use against inhalation anthrax."[28]

By August 6, 2008, an FBI press briefing theorized that the "failing" anthrax vaccine immunization program led as the primary motivator in the fall 2001 anthrax letter attacks allegedly perpetrated by U.S. Army scientist Bruce Ivins. FBI documents reveal the FDA "suspended further production" of anthrax vaccine just prior to the attacks (Ivins' emails and FBI analysis available on pp. 12–16 of affidavit).[29] Failed potency tests prevented FDA approval. FBI released emails by Ivins showing the vaccine "isn't passing the potency test" and that "no approved lots" were available just prior to the letter attacks. The FBI explained Ivins' involvement with the failed potency tests. FBI affidavits also documented Ivins receiving the highest Defense Department honors for "getting the anthrax vaccine back into production". The U.S. Department of Justice press statements theorized Ivins’ anthrax letter attack motive: "by launching these attacks, he creates a situation, a scenario, where people all of a sudden realize the need to have this vaccine."[30]

On October 1, 2008, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, declared a need "to provide targeted liability protections for anthrax countermeasures" because "I have determined there is a credible risk that the threat of exposure of B. anthracis and the resulting disease constitutes a public health emergency" until the year 2015.[31] Emergent BioSolutions immediately prepared to supply 14.5 million doses of anthrax vaccine by 2011.[32]

2010s[edit]​

On February 19, 2010, the FBI released its final summary on the Amerithrax investigation. The "motive", according to the FBI, was detailed on page 8 of the report: "Motive. According to his e-mails and statements to friends, in the months leading up to the anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001, Dr. Ivins was under intense personal and professional pressure. The anthrax vaccine program to which he had devoted his entire career of more than 20 years was failing. The anthrax vaccines were receiving criticism in several scientific circles, because of both potency problems and allegations that the anthrax vaccine contributed to Gulf War syndrome. Short of some major breakthrough or intervention, he feared that the vaccine research program was going to be discontinued. Following the anthrax attacks, however, his program was suddenly rejuvenated." The FBI continued on page 39 finding, "within a few months of the anthrax attacks, the FDA fast-tracked the approval process and approved the Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed ("AVA"), even though it didn't meet the original potency standards. This was a significant development for the anthrax researchers."[33]

To date, the DOD has not announced a reevaluation of the AVIP, nor consideration of correcting the records of previously punished soldiers, in light of the above-mentioned legislative, legal and criminal findings related to the anthrax vaccine.

H. Rept. 106-556 - THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: UNPROVEN FORCE PROTECTION

House report on THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: UNPROVEN FORCE PROTECTION. This report is by the Government Reform

www.congress.gov

Congressional hearings information where they trash the Anthrax program. As usual............it wasn't even needed. Aerosol weapons of Anthrax had zero need for the vaccine.

It was another PANIC PORN operation and they used the military as lab rats that was basically USELESS.

 

[eagle1462010]

You do realize that it took over 20 years for things to finally get worked out, and in light of the medical research done on the vaccine, the military didn't see any reason to go back and overturn the ruling, but there were still people who were discharged for refusing the vaccine that were never let back in, right? Like I said, might wanna read up on it. And, the vaccine was only required for those deploying to areas where they might have a good chance of coming into contact with anthrax weapons, not for everyone in the military. I was active duty during that time and was never asked if I wanted it, nor was I required to get it because I never deployed to areas where it might be used on me. The COVID vaccine is fast looking like it will soon be required for everyone on active duty.

I understand people took a fall for saying NO...........Some may fall now........But that program was later reported that it WAS BS..................i just showed congressional records on that from the time frame...............

The court ruling ended it........because people said NO.

 

[eagle1462010]

H. Rept. 106-556 - THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: UNPROVEN FORCE PROTECTION

House report on THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: UNPROVEN FORCE PROTECTION. This report is by the Government Reform

www.congress.gov

Findings in Brief

1. The AVIP is a well-intentioned but over-broad response
to the anthrax threat. It represents a doctrinal departure
overemphasizing the role of medical intervention in force
protection.
2. The AVIP is vulnerable to supply shortages and price
increases. The sole-source procurement of a vaccine that
requires a dedicated production facility leaves DOD captive to
old technology and a single, untested company. Research and
development on a second-generation, recombinant vaccine would
allow others to compete.
3. The AVIP is logistically too complex to succeed.
Adherence to the rigid schedule of six inoculations over 18
months for 2.4 million members of a mobile force is unlikely,
particularly in reserve components. Using an artificial
standard that counts only shots more than 30 days overdue, DOD
tolerates serious deviations from the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] approved schedule.
4. Safety of the vaccine is not being monitored adequately.
The program is predisposed to ignore or understate potential
safety problems due to reliance on a passive adverse event
surveillance system and DOD institutional resistance to
associating health effects with the vaccine.
5. Efficacy of the vaccine against biological warfare is
uncertain. The vaccine was approved for protection against
cutaneous (under the skin) infection in an occupational
setting, not for use as mass protection against weaponized,
aerosolized anthrax.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I understand people took a fall for saying NO...........Some may fall now........But that program was later reported that it WAS BS..................i just showed congressional records on that from the time frame...............

The court ruling ended it........because people said NO.

Actually, the first court ruling DIDN'T end it, it just brought it to light for lots of medical investigation, and the military decided that since the vaccine wasn't proven one way or the other after 20 years of research, they decided not to fight it. With the COVID vaccine? It's a lot different, and the research thus far has already shown significant benefits, which is why a lot of private businesses are requiring their people to get the vaccine (not just the military). I'm betting that by the end of this year, the COVID vaccine is going to be one of the required vaccines in the military, and people will get the shot (if they haven't already had it), when they report to boot camp, just like the many vaccines that are already administered there.

 

[eagle1462010]

GAO: Military anthrax shots caused many reactions, prompted some pilots to quit

www.cidrap.umn.edu

From the survey results, the GAO estimated that 37% of aircrew personnel had received at least one anthrax shot (of the six-dose regimen) by September 2000. Eighty-five percent of the vaccinees reported an adverse reaction, and each shot triggered an average of four or more reactions. Almost a fifth of the reactions were classified as systemic, and a fifth of these lasted more than a week. At the time of the survey, the vaccine product insert listed the rate of adverse reactions at about 30% and the rate of systemic reactions at 0.2%, the report says.




The GAO reported these findings..............

 

[eagle1462010]

Actually, the first court ruling DIDN'T end it, it just brought it to light for lots of medical investigation, and the military decided that since the vaccine wasn't proven one way or the other after 20 years of research, they decided not to fight it. With the COVID vaccine? It's a lot different, and the research thus far has already shown significant benefits, which is why a lot of private businesses are requiring their people to get the vaccine (not just the military). I'm betting that by the end of this year, the COVID vaccine is going to be one of the required vaccines in the military, and people will get the shot (if they haven't already had it), when they report to boot camp, just like the many vaccines that are already administered there.

Yawn. I just nailed you on the Anthrax so now you shift to Covid is different...........

Covid doesn't work as it allows you to get and transmit the virus..........Gives no LONG TERM IMMUNITY.....and requires you to get jab after jab after jab. It does NOTHING TO STOP OMICRON.

It doesn't work...........and again they are ignoring the adverse effects and using propoganda to deny the adverse effects.

 

[ABikerSailor]

H. Rept. 106-556 - THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: UNPROVEN FORCE PROTECTION

House report on THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM: UNPROVEN FORCE PROTECTION. This report is by the Government Reform

www.congress.gov

Findings in Brief

1. The AVIP is a well-intentioned but over-broad response
to the anthrax threat. It represents a doctrinal departure
overemphasizing the role of medical intervention in force
protection.
2. The AVIP is vulnerable to supply shortages and price
increases. The sole-source procurement of a vaccine that
requires a dedicated production facility leaves DOD captive to
old technology and a single, untested company. Research and
development on a second-generation, recombinant vaccine would
allow others to compete.
3. The AVIP is logistically too complex to succeed.
Adherence to the rigid schedule of six inoculations over 18
months for 2.4 million members of a mobile force is unlikely,
particularly in reserve components. Using an artificial
standard that counts only shots more than 30 days overdue, DOD
tolerates serious deviations from the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] approved schedule.
4. Safety of the vaccine is not being monitored adequately.
The program is predisposed to ignore or understate potential
safety problems due to reliance on a passive adverse event
surveillance system and DOD institutional resistance to
associating health effects with the vaccine.
5. Efficacy of the vaccine against biological warfare is
uncertain. The vaccine was approved for protection against
cutaneous (under the skin) infection in an occupational
setting, not for use as mass protection against weaponized,
aerosolized anthrax.

There are many differences between the COVID vaccine and the anthrax vaccine. First, there was only 1 supplier for anthrax, while there are at least 3 major companies who make the COVID vaccine. And, while the anthrax vaccine was in short supply, the COVID vaccine is pretty plentiful, anyone who currently wants a shot can get one now, as opposed to the first few months where it was in short supply while they were getting started on producing it. And, there is also the fact that COVID is world wide and a risk for everyone, whereas the anthrax threat was only in war zones where bio weapons might be used. Like I said, I was on active duty while this was happening, and was never told I had to get the vaccine, because I never deployed to areas where bio weapons might be used against my command (sitting far away out on the water has that benefit).