http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/17/anthrax_vaccine.htm
|
|
The
Woman Behind The Anthrax Vaccine Exposure
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, played a
major role in forming a coalition of military personnel, family members and
outside experts that has opposed the Pentagon's anthrax vaccine immunization
program. She has consulted for the General
Accounting Office, testified before the House Government Reform subcommittee
on national security, veterans affairs and international relations and the
House Armed Services Committee, and provided testimony to the U.S. Institute
of Medicine. Stripes: What is your professional background? Nass: I am an internist in private practice. I treat
many patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and Gulf War
illnesses. Since 1989, I have worked to decrease the threat of biological
weapons. In 1992 I identified the first known use of anthrax in Zimbabwe,
then Rhodesia, during its civil war in 1979. The story can be found in the
book "Plague Wars" by Tom Mangold and Jeff Goldberg. Stripes: What has been your involvement in investigating the
Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program? Nass: I wrote a
short article for ProMED Mail, an Internet mailing list of infectious disease
professionals, in December of 1997 describing the lack of information on the safety and efficacy
of the anthrax vaccine, and
pointing out that it had not yet been ruled out as a contributor to Gulf War
Syndrome. I hadn't realized it at the time, but since the post was on the
Internet, it was "searchable." It came up when people searched
using the term "anthrax." I started getting calls from servicemembers and their
families inquiring about the vaccine. Then I started getting calls from
people who felt they had become ill from the vaccine. The article was cited by The Lancet, an
international medical journal, and was bounced around the Internet. As a
result, I started getting calls from servicemembers and their families
inquiring about the vaccine. Then I started getting calls from people who
felt they had become ill from the vaccine. Then from others researching it. Between my efforts, the work of several
mothers of vaccine recipients and refusers, and some very smart reservists, a
network formed to get information out and to interest Congress in the issue.
This movement grew very organically; none of us had any idea how involved we
would become. Stripes: Can you give a brief history of anthrax as an offensive weapon? Nass: It may have been used by the Germans against pack
animals in World War I. It was studied by the Japanese starting in the 1930s,
and by the United States and Britain in the 1940s, as a means of germ warfare. Scientific American once showed drawings of the
US cluster bombs designed for anthrax during World War II. There was a plan
to use anthrax against six German cities if the war in Europe had persisted. The first large-scale use that we know
about was in Rhodesia, where it appears to have been used to kill cattle
owned by black farmers to prevent them from harboring guerrillas. However,
the poor farmers ate meat from the dead animals, and so nearly 200 human
deaths and 10,000 human cases of cutaneous [skin-infected] anthrax were
documented. Stripes: How about anthrax vaccine in general, their
successes and failures? Nass: There is essentially no good data. The one study
of this vaccine, done in the late 1960s, only performed active surveillance
for 48 hours, and one nurse was discouraged from reporting reactions at the site that administered the most vaccine. We do know, according to William Patrick,
former head of the offensive biowarfare program at Fort Detrick, Md., that
one vaccinated worker took his mask off in an anthrax "hot room" at
Fort Detrick, got a whiff of anthrax and died. Personally, I think the vaccine is better
than nothing for random strains of anthrax that used to be found in woolen
[goat hair] mills. [These mills have all closed in the United States] But I
doubt it will be of much use when specially selected or genetically
engineered strains of anthrax are used as biological weapons. Such highly
virulent strains are very likely to override vaccine-induced immunity. Stripes: Was the DoD anthrax vaccine ever licensed by the
Food and Drug Administration? Nass: It was licensed by NIH [ the National Institutes
of Health] before FDA licensed vaccines, during a
"window"--Congress had asked the licensing agency [the division of
biologic standards] to assure efficacy in the 1960s, but the agency was not
always requiring proof of efficacy at the time of licensure. There is a letter from NIH asking the
manufacturer to collect more data, but then the vaccine was licensed soon
after, and it appears the data were never obtained. Since then, the vaccine
has changed, and various procedures have been instituted, like the procedure
for re-dating
expired lots, without required FDA approval. Stripes: Over time, did the manufacturing process for the
vaccine become degraded and unmonitored? Nass: Yes. It appears that FDA ignored the anthrax part
of the plant for many years, supposedly because their inspectors were not
vaccinated and so could not enter the facility. It seems this sloppy
manufacturer never bothered to go through any of the normally required
processes for adding fermenters, changing procedures, etc. They never validated their procedures, for
example, which is the first and foremost thing you need to do in vaccine
manufacture. You have to prove that your procedures do what they are intended
to do. FDA approved use of the vaccine lots based
on the manufacturer's test data without subjecting the vaccine to outside testing. Eventually, in February 1998, when the FDA
finally did a proper inspection, they quarantined 11 lots formerly approved, and
forced the manufacturer to shut down and rebuild their facility. Stripes: Are there issues with shelf life, varying
strengths of different lots, etc.? Nass: The shelf life (per DOD) appears to be infinite.
It is possible also that when vaccine was sent back to the manufacturer at
the time of expiration--once it shipped from the manufacturer, it only had a
one-year shelf life--that it was remixed with newer vaccine. Thus it is
possible that if some early lots were contaminated, the contamination spread
to later lots. But this is speculation at this point. The scientists who used this vaccine in
animal experiments at Fort Detrick had long pointed out the marked variability
between lots. This heterogeneity is common knowledge, but is very unusual and
should not have been permitted by the FDA. Stripes: Why were critics early on saying that anthrax was inappropriate for "mass
inoculation?" Nass: Even the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] has
said this: See the Dec. 15, 2000, MMWR report on recommendations for the
vaccine. Basically, the
reaction rate is high, the number
of inoculations is higher than for any other licensed vaccine, and the protection is
questionable. Stripes: Why do more women than men have reactions? Nass: We do not know for sure, but women in general are
more susceptible to autoimmune diseases, like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Stripes: Can you cite some cases of reactions you have
personal knowledge about? Nass: Severe rashes, in which all the skin peels off
[Stevens Johnson Syndrome]; endocrine organ failure, in which the testes,
thyroid and adrenal glands stop functioning; many different kinds of
neurological reactions, many autoimmune rheumatological diseases, chronic
fatigue and fibromyalgia. Stripes: Is there really a threat that makes AVIP
imperative? Nass: The GAO in a report published December 2000
claimed that CIA and State said there was no imminent threat. Stars and Stripes March 2001
DR. MERCOLA'S
COMMENT: Dr. Nass is to be commended for her
perseverance and courage. Her web site www.anthraxvaccine.org
is the best resource in the world on the anthrax vaccine issue. Related
Articles: US Congress Told
Anthrax Vaccine is Not Safe
|
|
©Copyright 1997-2001 by Joseph M. Mercola,
DO. All Rights Reserved. This content may be copied in full, with copyright;
contact; creation; and information intact, without specific permission, when
used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission
in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
|
|
Disclaimer - Newsletters are based upon the
opinions of Dr. Mercola. They are not intended to replace a one-on-one
relationship with a qualified health care professional and they are not
intended as medical advice. They are intended as a sharing of knowledge and
information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his
community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions
based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care
professional. |