Wednesday, December 21, 2005

If you are thinking about going into the military, you need to know that after 9-11, Congress passed a law called Project Bioshield that gives the Secretary of Defense the power to order soldiers to take experimental vaccines without telling them they could die or be permanently injured and without getting their voluntary consent.  After 9-11, many states also passed laws that gave power to
government health officials to arrest and forcibly vaccinate
citizens without their informed consent.

Now Congress wants to pass another law that would give more power to government officials to declare a potential emergency – whether the emergency is real or not – and force you and every other American to take vaccines – whether they are experimental or not; without giving you a choice.  And without giving you the information you need about the vaccine’s side effects!  And if you get hurt, you won’t be able to go to court to find out if the drug company or the
doctor who gave you the vaccine could have done a better job
protecting you from harm. The soldiers hurt by the Anthrax Vaccine, just like the children hurt by the mandatory childhood vaccines, had no voice and had no choice.  If you want to make sure that you have the freedom to decide which vaccines you are wiling to risk your life for, you need to get informed, get involved and stand up for your rights, just like the band Anthrax is doing. -Barbara Loe Fisher, President and co-Founder of National Vaccine Information Center

Holidays Huh?

As the holidays approach and Congress gets ready to adjourn, some
> Senators and Representatives in Congress with financial ties to the
> pharmaceutical industry are trying to pull a fast one on you and your
> family. These same politicians did the same thing in 2002 when they
> tried to
> sneak in liability protection for Big Pharma by inserting the
> thimerosal
> rider into the Homeland Security Bill.
> Last night, legislators writing the Department of Defense (DOD)
> Appropriations Bill slipped in language in the Conference Report AT
> MINUTE giving vaccine manufacturers TOTAL LIABILITY protection if
> experimental vaccines injure or kill citizens whenever the Secretary of
> Health declares an "emergency." That "emergency" could include
> everything
> from a "potential" bioterrorism attack to a potentially bad flu year.
> And you may not have a choice about whether or not to take those
> experimental vaccines if your Governor follows the lead of the
> Secretary of
> Health, declares an "emergency" in your state and trots out the state
> militia to arrest, quarantine and forcibly vaccinate you and your
> family.
> Laws passed at the state and federal level since September 11, 2001
> allow
> all of this to happen (go to and read a letter to Col.
> Robert
> P. Kadlec, M.D., a staffer to Senator Burr which summarizes state and
> federal legislation since 9-11.).
> and make your voice heard before it is too late. CALL NOW AND PROTECT
> To find out who your Senator is, go to
> To find out who your Representative is go to .
> CALL YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE by dialing 202-224-3121.
> Every call or fax makes a difference. DON'T GIVE UP! OUR VOICES ARE
> The Christian Science Monitor
> December 15, 2005 edition
> A measure to shield drug manufacturers from lawsuits in an effort to
> encourage them to develop new vaccines is likely to be quietly
> attached to a
> "must pass" defense appropriation bill within the next few days.
> If the US Secretary of Health and Human Services declares that
> vaccines were
> being distributed during a national health emergency, such as a flu
> pandemic, the bill would make it very difficult for people who felt
> they had
> been harmed by vaccines to pursue legal action against the
> manufacturer.
> A broad swath of consumer-rights groups and open-government advocates
> had
> succeeded in slowing the progress of a bill containing similar
> provisions
> sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina. That measure,
> introduced in October, would also establish a Biomedical Advanced
> Research
> and Development Agency (BARDA) that critics say would be exempted from
> public and congressional scrutiny. Congressional staffers have been
> meeting
> with concerned groups, including a meeting planned for Wednesday, to
> revise
> Senator Burr's bill. A revised version isn't expected to be introduced
> until
> next year, though its future would be uncertain if the vaccine
> liability
> shield is enacted separately first.
> "It looks like the liability-protection language is in [the defense
> bill],
> which will be very difficult for [members of Congress] to vote
> against,"
> says Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information
> Center, a consumer watchdog group in Vienna, Va. Backers of the
> liability
> shield, led by Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) of Tennessee,
> "were
> very smart in that strategy," says Ms. Fisher, who calls it "a threat
> to
> civil rights, to access to the judicial system, and to human rights."
> The possibility of an avian flu epidemic, as well as the use of
> biological
> weapons, have spurred interest in stepping up production of new
> vaccines.
> Shield-law proponents has argued for years that the world's giant
> drugmakers, so-called Big Pharma, would never take much interest in
> that
> arena until they were given strong protections against lawsuits.
> You "want to harness" Big Pharma "to really kick this thing off," says
> Christopher-Paul Milne, assistant director of the Center for the Study
> of
> Drug Development at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. "They have the
> resources and the expertise and the manufacturing capacity to get
> [development of new vaccines] done in a short period of time."
> Today, five or six big companies are making vaccines compared with
> more than
> 20 several decades ago, Dr. Milne says. "Some of that is because of the
> consolidation of the companies," he says, but some is the result of
> the high
> risk. To attract Big Pharma, "the potential rewards are going to have
> to be
> high," he says. In a national emergency, vaccines might have to be
> produced
> quickly, and perhaps without sufficient testing. In that kind of
> high-risk
> scenario, "you're talking about the need for liability protection," he
> says.
> Senator Burr's bill, the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug
> Development Act, would require plaintiffs to prove "willful
> misconduct" by
> drugmakers. " 'Willful misconduct' is usually pretty egregious
> activity,"
> Milne says. "It's going to be hard to sort all that out to a jury or a
> judge. It's a pretty high threshold."
> "I would have to prove some scientist at Merck or some CEO somewhere
> had
> made a determination to hurt me," said Chris Mather, a spokeswoman for
> the
> Association of Trial Lawyers for America, characterizing the bill to
> the
> Associated Press last month.
> If a liability shield is embedded in the defense bill, it may not
> contain
> secrecy provisions that raised strong protests from open-government
> advocacy
> groups. The Burr bill would nearly exempt BARDA from the Freedom of
> Information Act (FOIA) or the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which
> reports
> on the activities of government agencies.
> BARDA would also be screened from the kind of normal cost-accounting
> procedures other agencies must follow, says Pete Weitzel, coordinator
> of the
> Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, whose member
> organizations
> include the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Society of
> Professional Journalists. Those groups, along with seven other CJOG
> members,
> signed a letter Nov. 3 asking that the secrecy measures be stripped
> from
> Burr's legislation.
> The level of secrecy that BARDA would operate under "is to the best of
> my
> knowledge unprecedented," Mr. Weitzel says. "I don't know of any other
> agency in the government that has been given that kind of authority."
> Even
> the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency are subject to some
> aspects of
> FOIA, he says.
> "[The Burr bill] was breathtaking in its scope in the way it wanted to
> completely exclude this new agency from FOIA," adds Lucy Dalglish,
> executive
> director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
> Rep. Dave Weldon (R) of Florida, a medical doctor, has been among those
> worried that too-strong liability protections for drugmakers might
> cause
> people to hesitate to take vaccines in the event of a pandemic. In
> 1976, the
> government's swine-flu vaccine program collapsed when public fears
> spread
> about potential harm from the vaccine.
> In a letter last week to congressional leaders, a group of a half-dozen
> consumer advocacy groups, including Public Citizen and the Consumer
> Federation of America, wrote: "Broadly shielding [drug] manufacturers
> from
> responsibility for gross negligence, recklessness, and other egregious
> behavior, and leaving victims with no recourse, may cause more public
> harm
> than the pandemic disease itself."

Latest Info

Interesting how when given a chance to comment for one of the stories, DoD could not be reached for comment - now that the FDA has again supported the criminal conduct, opinions now seem to fly - this is quite a lie Grabenstein made coming only two weeks apart.

In addition, if it is true that the anthrax vaccine is 'as safe as other vaccines', and if over 20,000 hospitalizations following the anthrax vaccine were not reported in a two-year period, then, what does this tell us on the safety of all vaccinations?

On Dec. 18th, '05, Grabenstein stated:
(See below for full editorial)

We use the scientific methods taught in America's best universities to assess vaccine safety and side effects. Reports to the national adverse-event database on the anthrax vaccine, as well as hospitalizations, were rigorously analyzed. Results showed that hospitalizations among anthrax-vaccinated troops and unvaccinated troops occurred at the same rate for the same diagnoses. I personally shared safety findings with Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and the public as the information accumulated.

On Dec. 4th, 2005, this was stated:

Col. John Grabenstein, director of the military's vaccine agency, said no one from the military intentionally misled Congress or the public. He said the 20,765 hospitalizations merely followed vaccinations in time, without documented proof of a cause-and-effect relationship.

He said a statistical analysis showed that those who'd been vaccinated weren't more likely to be hospitalized or likely to seek medical treatment than those in the military who hadn't been vaccinated from 1998 through 2000.

Some medical experts say this approach doesn't adequately address the problems of many people who report illnesses after anthrax vaccination. That's because the approach is limited to comparing rates of illness involving one symptom or disease - instead of the complex combination of symptoms and illnesses that many veterans report after getting their shots.

The data that the Daily Press used to document the underreporting of hospitalizations came from a report that Grabenstein supplied in response to the newspaper's request. It's never been made public until today.

It covers 1998 through 2000, when the Pentagon did detailed evaluations every three months to compare hospitalizations, clinic visits and medical treatment data for those who'd been vaccinated, compared with troops who hadn't. This quarterly analysis stopped and hasn't been done since, Grabenstein said.

The practice of not reporting all hospitalizations continues.

Quarterly analysis of the vaccine's effects ended just as the nation's only manufacturing site for the drug regained its license. That was in 2002, after federal inspections found many safety and other problems that prompted a shutdown and renovation that began in early 1998.

The decision to discontinue the quarterly health monitoring program means that the biggest gap in research about the vaccine remains: There are no systematic long-term studies of the health of those who've taken the drug. Most studies that the Pentagon cites as support for the vaccine's safety involve monitoring that lasted days to a few months.

Grabenstein said he decided to halt the quarterly studies after consulting the chairman of the Institute of Medicine panel and its staff, and with doctors affiliated with the military. He acknowledged that he didn't consult the general who ultimately was responsible for the anthrax program.

The chairman of the institute panel, Brian Strom, said he didn't recall what was discussed at the time about the quarterly reports. But he said, "I think they should continue to be using it," in case there's a problem.

Another panel member, Linda Cowan, said she's sure the committee expected quarterly reviews to continue and pointed to a number of the panel's recommendations and findings that she said clearly contradicted Grabenstein's interpretation of its report.

Grabenstein said those were among the reasons that the full number of hospitalizations was not reported. Another reason, he said, was that examinations of the data showed that if there were adverse effects from the vaccine, they were so infrequent, they weren't detectable by statistical analysis. Doing this type of analysis - instead of simply reporting the incidents to VAERS - provided a more definitive look at the health effects of the vaccine, he said. As a result, "we decided not to file" public reports about all hospitalizations, he said. Those considerations weren't relayed to Congress or the public.

In December 2003, Pentagon officials conducted a news conference to rebut a judge's ruling that the shots had been given illegally and that troops had been used as "guinea pigs." Grabenstein was asked whether he had "any data on the numbers of people who have had bad adverse reactions to the vaccine and would have required hospitalization."

He said that only 69 hospitalizations had been reported to VAERS for the anthrax vaccine from 1998 through 2000. A panel of civilian experts had analyzed each, he said, and decided that 11 were results of the shot. The 69 cases were "a complete, exhaustive list of what was reported," Grabenstein said.

Grabenstein told the Daily Press that his statement wasn't misleading. He said no one should expect all hospitalizations after vaccination to be reported to VAERS - despite the Pentagon's written policies - because the number included cases unrelated to the vaccine, sometimes years after vaccination.

The memo, "Policy for Reporting Adverse Events Associated With the Anthrax Vaccine," serves as the standing order for all military personnel. It reads: "For the purposes of reporting anthrax vaccine adverse events, a Form VAERS-1 must be completed and submitted using service reporting procedures for those events resulting in a hospital admission or time lost from duty for greater than 24 hours or for those events suspected to have resulted from contamination of a vaccine lot."

The memo lists additional circumstances requiring a report, but nothing that would permit excluding hospitalizations after vaccination. It refers to the Pentagon's formal regulations, which don't include the exclusions that Grabenstein cited.

Randi Airola
Letters to the editor: Anthrax shot is best protection for troops
December 18, 2005

The recent series in your paper on the anthrax vaccine does not accurately reflect the actions or intentions of the Defense Department. We care deeply about the health of U.S. service members and strive to provide the best care and protection possible. Vaccination is the best round-the-clock protection for people who could be attacked with anthrax spores.

We use the scientific methods taught in America's best universities to assess vaccine safety and side effects. Reports to the national adverse-event database on the anthrax vaccine, as well as hospitalizations, were rigorously analyzed. Results showed that hospitalizations among anthrax-vaccinated troops and unvaccinated troops occurred at the same rate for the same diagnoses. I personally shared safety findings with Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and the public as the information accumulated.

I encourage your readers to visit www.anthrax .mil, where details about all 20 safety studies are posted. The best single source is a 265-page report published by civilian physicians from the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. This report found anthrax vaccine to be as safe as other vaccines, a conclusion supported by the FDA.

While vaccines can in very rare instances cause serious health problems, vaccination remains one of the best ways to keep our children, our troops, our retirees and our entire military family healthy.

Col. John Grabenstein

Gulf veterans 'find it more difficult to conceive'

14/07/04 - Health section

Gulf veterans 'find it more difficult to conceive'

Soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are more likely to experience
problems trying to have a baby compared with other servicemen, research
revealed today.

A study of more than 40,000 men found a small increased risk of
infertility among Gulf veterans. Pregnancies among Gulf soldiers and
their partners also took longer to conceive, according to the study
published on

The research came as an independent inquiry was under way to
investigate illnesses among those deployed to the Gulf during the 1991

The Ministry of Defence, which funded the study, has always denied the
existence of a so-called Gulf War Syndrome, insisting there was no
single cause of the illnesses suffered by veterans of the war.

Support groups claim about 6,000 veterans have suffered unexplained ill
health since the conflict, and more than 600 are said to have died.

The latest study, by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, questioned 24,379 male Gulf veterans, matched with a
comparison group of 18,439 other servicemen.

The team, led by Noreen Maconochie, found that 732 Gulf veterans (7%)
and 370 other servicemen (5%) had been to see a doctor over fertility
concerns since the Gulf War.

Using information from the soldiers, the researchers calculated that
failure to achieve a conception was 2.5% for Gulf veterans compared
with 1.7% among non-Gulf veterans.

Failure to achieve a live birth was also higher among those who served
in the Gulf - 3.4% compared with 2.3%.

Among the planned pregnancies, Gulf veterans took longer to conceive -
9.1% took more than a year compared with 7.8% of non-Gulf veterans.

The researchers said that the effect did not decline with the amount of
time since the war.

And it was not affected by whether the men had had children before the
war or not.

Vaccines against anthrax and the plague, nerve agents from Iraqi
chemical weapons storage facilities, pesticides and exposure to
pollution from burning oil wells have been cited as possible causes of
ill health in Gulf veterans.

Find this story at

Sick Individual Look Here!

As everyone has heard, the FDA has once again asserted that the anthrax vaccine is safe and effective - the fradulent battle continues. As always, per my guidelines, I'm once again requesting from those ill permission to use your information for legal, congressional and media purposes.
Whether you've responded "okay" before in the past or not, please continue to do so, so I'm not releasing anyone's information that you don't want released. To make sure our information is updated, please send me your permission as well as:

address (complete):
tel # (home):
tel # (cell):

email address:

dates of anthrax vaccine:

diagnosis/symptoms (dates, even if approximate):

VAERS report filed?:

By whom? (include dates, even if approximate):

DoD disability rating? (include dates, even if approximate):

VA disability rating? (include dates, even if approximate):

This message needs to go far and wide - we need a lot of responses. The above applies to anyone that can document that they received the anthrax vaccine (even GWV's) - as well as anyone that may have also received a "cocktail" of immunizations, as long as the anthrax vaccine can also be documented.

Please respond as soon as possible. As always, any questions, please feel free to email or call me.

Randi Airola


Please help sponsor our web site.  Sponsors contact our webmaster at


Send mail to with questions about the Vaccine A or Autoimmune illnesses.

Contact our webmaster.

Copyright © 2004 Vaccine A Resource Center, Inc.

for More Information Contact:

Vaccine A Resource Center, Inc.
Suite 506
Lawton, OK 73505


Executive Director E Colon:
President E Colon:

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)