Main | Open Discussions »

November 25, 2004

Anthrax Vaccine

This is a MUST READ if you are involved in bio-trerrorism or vaccinations. If you are a veteran who has had the Anthrax Vaccine you will want to "read and weep."


anthrax.jpg

Vaccine-A uncovers a story of betrayal—the betrayal of the men and women who serve in the armed forces, the betrayal of medical ethics, and the betrayal of the American people by military and civilian leaders sworn to defend and protect.
COMPLETE STORY HERE:
http://www.hspig.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2163
Thomas Barnes
HSPIG
Managing Director

Posted by hspigorg at November 25, 2004 06:40 PM

Comments

The blogoshphere is a great forum for discussion, what we all need to remind ourselves is that because someone say's "it's so" doesn't mean it is correct........Dan Rather found that out by putting common sense behind personal ideals.
Now for GWS this is a very serious subject to me as I am 100% disabled and have listened and been open to any and all who could come up with a common sense reason backed with documentation for my GWS symptoms.
Gary Matsamoto's book Vaccine-A, was that rare document which just made sense. The more I read and looked and the documentation the more I was convinced. I have 35 years of service, I do not take casually the thought that I could have been a "Lab Rat" I hate to even use the term BUT I am a realist not an idealist, middle management are the people who advise the TOWER if middle management can be corrupted by the enticement of a job once they retire I believe SOME will look the other way.
Those that are honest and principled then are left with a bag of no win decisions......Blow the whistle, and loose my job........Keep quite as LONG AS POSSIBLE...then if asked speak out.
The blogoshphere is now giving these individuals another option to speak out and get their message out without fear of retaliation.
I have a habit of looking for a motive for any action taken by a person, why would a journalist with the credentials of Gary Matsamoto’s stick his neck and reputation out on an issue that he felt wasn't true......I don't think these types of books make that much money??
On the other hand I keep seeing self serving documents and statements from Government Health employees which when researched are a stretch at best from the truth.
I don't think GWS was exposure to petrol chemicals, the reason I feel this way is none of the people living still in the area have GWS. The one compelling answer is that the troops who were not given the Anthrax shot do not have GWS....
The Government states that squalene was ONLY found in part per billion, well lets think about that......if part per billion can make your body respond so that you can test positive for a test that you have been exposed then it appears that it most be enough to cause a reaction.
This is somewhat like what causes cancer...we know what it does how to detect it and in some cases but not all what causes it...
Common sense not political correctness is the call for action in GWS possibly we need people who have some other skills should be used to help in the investigation???
We are the GREATEST Country in the world; those that hate us do so because they envy us. Lets see if possibly "squalene" is the cause of GWS, I personally don't care who finds it out and probably won't be alive because of it to know the answer but lets keep blogging and WE will find the answer, let the "chips fall" were they may. We need some Radio talk hosts to pick up on this issue where are you guys??????
We fought for our Country now support the controversy this is to big to be up-staged by pedophiles and a few wife killers.

Major USA

Posted by: Major USA at December 24, 2004 08:00 PM

The War Within: The Anthrax Vaccine Story

My name is Marilyn Wright. I hold a doctorate in public health education and I wrote this document. I have skeptically and carefully evaluated the evidence presented by Matsumoto and others. I believe this essay accurately summarizes the key points. I am not a veteran nor am I married to one. My son is currently serving in the military. He is not sick. My expertise is translating complex medical information into material the general public can better understand. I teach college classes including medical ethics.

Do not change this document in any way. Otherwise, please DO share it. You can reach me at voyagerheim@yahoo.com.


At the start of Gulf War One, our military leaders believed anthrax attacks against the troops on the ground were a real and potentially devastating possibility. When they looked in their pantry of vaccines, they found only a few doses of an anthrax vaccine that takes six shots over a long period to instill immunity to attack. Further, the pantry had no battlefield detection devices to even know if soldiers had been exposed. Casualties could be very high, the deaths would be ghastly, and press cameras were always at the ready. The military leadership ordered subordinates to find a solution.

Coincidentally, some military and civilian researchers had been working on a new, second generation vaccine for anthrax. One or two shots would do it. Immunity developed quickly and strongly. Soldiers would live to fight another day. It was safer to manufacture since whole anthrax particles were not used, only bits and pieces. As the saying goes, any port in a [desert] storm. The researchers knew that it would be a bargain with the devil. The new vaccine was not approved by the FDA and there was no time to get the approval. It seemed OK, at least it worked. Protecting the troops was a matter of national security, of wartime readiness and of avoiding bad press from lots of dead young Americans. And there was a prime opportunity to test the new vaccine out by vaccinating troops that badly needed the vaccine.

Besides not having FDA approval, there was the reaction problem. It was possible that a number of troops would have symptoms from the new fast-acting vaccine. Some reactions would be mild, some immediate, some later, and some severe. The reactions were due to the very thing that pushed the immune system to hurry up and make antibodies to anthrax. The additive supercharged the immune system, leading to the immune system attacking its own body. But in combat, deaths and injuries are calculated into the formula. The good of the many outweigh the good of any one individual. Some soldiers would possibly be sacrificed to protect the larger group.

Batches of the new vaccine were made up with varying strengths of the immune boosting agent. This is typically done to see which strength of the ingredient works best. In this case the ingredient was squalene, an oil. It also goes by the name MF59. Without this immune system super booster, the new vaccine was essentially useless. Unfortunately squalene, even in tiny amounts when injected into the body, overcharges the immune system. Experiments had been published clearly proving that squalene injections caused the immune system to attack its own muscles and nerves and other parts of the body.

A seemingly logical defense for using squalene is that squalene can be safely eaten. You can swallow it and not have a problem. Like hot sauce, eating it is one thing, but injecting it can lead to an entirely different response. The amount was very tiny, but as is the same with many other injectables, when you start counting molecules, even a tiny amount contains millions of invading molecules. Squalene is a powerful immune system stimulant; it doesn’t take much. The information that squalene was safe enough to eat or be rubbed on the skin, lead researchers to decide that injecting it would be an acceptable risk given the circumstances of imminent warfare.

To avoid political problems, the vaccination program was kept quiet. Most soldiers did not know, or probably much care, what this next shot contained. Until they started getting ill. Soldiers were under orders to take the shot, coded as Vaccine A, and could not refuse at the risk of dishonorable discharge. They were not told what the vaccine was, often it was not recorded on their shot record, or their record was ‘lost’ by the establishment. Then soldiers in specific base locations started getting sick. Some had been to war, others had not. Some were able to document that they had been given Vaccine A, with the magic immune system booster squalene. Symptoms of an immune system consuming itself appeared and the CDC recognized Gulf War Syndrome.

So, good intentions, faulty intelligence, failure to follow vaccine licensing rules, and arrogance combined to allow vaccination of troops with a hazardous substance. Someone had forgotten or ignored solid research showing squalene was very bad news for the lab animals injected with it. And now the same symptoms were showing up in veterans. And only veterans who got the shot got sick, whether or not they were exposed to ground conditions in Iraq. Some sick vets had never even left the U.S. It was the vaccine that was the common denominator.

In the meantime, the government and the manufacturer of squalene were moving forward with plans to develop other vaccines using the new wonder ingredient. Scientists with big reputations were on board. Government agencies and private manufacturers became entangled with one another, including the hiring of retired government personnel to work in the laboratory. This black hole of duplicity drew in more and more government agencies. A few agencies tried to look objectively at the situation, and they were mostly told the truth, but not the whole truth. The topic is so complex that the average legislator or investigator could not recognize the partial truths for what they were. For example, the partial truth was that squalene had been proven safe to use for humans. The whole truth was that the study documenting its safety was a study of cosmetic application to the skin, a far cry from injecting the substance.

Meanwhile, government supported research on the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome included testing ideas of toxic chemical exposure, bug bites, flea collars and other possible causes until the media and researchers tired of the circus and abandoned the sick veterans. Physicians labeled victims of Gulf War Syndrome as hysterics and malingerers. The story is so twisted, complex and huge that it easily overwhelms most attempts to comprehend its entirety. Researchers with pocketfuls of government grants were not particularly inclined to turn their keen skills on to an issue that would bite the hand that provided the grants. Few scientists or organizations are able to live without federal funds. However, several people that were not beholden to the US government did start to look at the situation. Dr. Pam Asa and reputable investigative journalist Gary Matsumoto were among those that took a more careful look at the events. They discovered the immune system booster was squalene and looked up the research on its side effects. Published literature was clear that squalene caused the immune system to attack its own body. These self-attacks by the immune system were leading to rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia (a muscle disorder), chronic fatigue, cysts and a host of other problems.

Dr. Asa with the help of others developed a new blood test that could spot antibodies to squalene. Sure enough, squalene antibodies were present in those vets complaining of Gulf War Syndrome. Regular people do not have this antibody since antibodies are only made after the blood is exposed to the invader molecule. News reporters standing alongside the troops did not have squalene antibodies (or Gulf War Syndrome), but then they had not received the unlicensed, experimental, secret Vaccine A.

To summarize: the documentation is exacting, the threat is real, the program is about to resume using the same excuse that protecting the troops is worth it. But the sacrifice of a few troops for herd immunity really counts if it is your son or husband or significant other who withers and declines from the peak of physical health to a weak, exhausted, mentally confused shell.

Bodily reactions to squalene are surprising common. Some are devastating; some are gruesomely fatal. The Supreme Court has ruled that even obvious negligence by the military does not allow soldiers to sue for damages, but contracted manufacturers may not be immune from lawsuits. Generally if the military breaks you they are responsible for fixing you. Besides refusing to recognize they broke these vets, the big problem here is that there IS no ‘fix’ for autoimmune disorders. Some can be controlled. Others are fatal.

What to Do?

Here are some suggested steps you can take to help yourself and others.

p If you or your loved one is ordered to take the second generation (not the six shot) Anthrax vaccine, decide ahead of time what you will do.

p If you decide to comply, have a sample of your blood taken by a private physician before the shot to document the lack of squalene in your blood. If you have symptoms, have your blood taken again to look for the presence of squalene antibodies. This will help you as a participant in any class action lawsuits.

p Demand documentation in your vaccination card that you received anthrax vaccine and the lot number of the vaccine.

p Don’t wait for the military or VA medical system to decide what sickness you have. Go to an immunologist or rheumatologist since they are accustomed to dealing with autoimmune disorders.

p Keep copies of all your medical records.

p Check in with the Homeland Security Policy Institute Group, a nonprofit that does NOT take government funds, to get the latest information on medical care, legal care, and support. Available at http://www.hspig.org

p Check the web and blog sites for information.

p Contact your congressional representatives and tell them what happened to you. Do it in writing. Keep a copy. Send it certified, return receipt.

p Even if you are not in the military and have not had the shot, tell your congressional representative to put their body where their mouth is and take the shot themselves.

p Tell your representatives to stop the vaccines containing squalene.

p Do not take flu shots from overseas, some contain squalene.

p Read Vaccine A by Gary Matsumoto. Research PubMed for your own interest and proof on the negative effects of squalene on living things.

p Complain to medical ethics panels that this vaccine is harming people.

p Put the word out however you can to alert Gulf War vets, to alert current military personnel and to alert elected officials, that the cat is out of the bag, that the public is aware and alarmed about this harmful ingredient in the ‘new’ vaccines.

p Don’t take government reassurances at face value; there are documented instances of the government lying by omission of crucial information on this topic.

Posted by: Marilyn Wright at December 18, 2004 08:01 AM

GOVEEXEC.COM

Link Here

*****

December 15, 2004

Defense seeks emergency authority to resume anthrax vaccinations

By Chris Strohm
cstrohm@govexec.com

The Defense Department has asked the Health and Human Services Department for emergency authority to resume its anthrax vaccination program for military personnel, Government Executive has learned.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz issued a Dec. 10 memo asking HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to declare an emergency in order to justify using the vaccine for protection against inhaled anthrax. The military's anthrax vaccination program was suspended in late October by a federal judge in response to a lawsuit filed by six anonymous plaintiffs. The lawsuit argued that the vaccine was not proven to protect against inhaled anthrax, and led to health problems.

In the memo, Wolfowitz said he has "determined there is a significant potential for a military emergency involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with anthrax."

[...]

Full text also posted in HSPIG Forums Site at:

Link Here

Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org

Posted by: Ron Wright at December 16, 2004 05:10 PM

I had read about the squalene "contamination" before,and had assumed it was due to carelessness.
(!)
I note Chiron has been having problems with its flu vaccine. Squalene related ?

Final note: The use of the term "informed consent" with respect to members of the armed forces seems a bit disingenuous.If you are an enlisted person, NOBODY asks your consent for ANYTHING ! You are herded through a "reception line",swabbed,injected,and sent on your way.

Posted by: mrmeangenes at December 14, 2004 12:56 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:05 pm Post subject: Reply to GulfVet2, RE: Coincidence?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear GulfVet2: I obviously didn't think it was purely coincidental either. The trail of evidence is too complicated for TV, and almost too complicated for newspapers; hence the book. The DOD/FDA stonewalling on this issue - which has been documented by the GAO, Congressman Jack Metcalf, and the House Government Reform Committee - has been so formidable that I felt it necessary to write a book to lay it all out. Even pressure from Congress couldn't pry loose the facts that you've read in VACCINE A.

I took a page from my old employer's play book at Fox News Channel - "We Report. You Decide." I reported; now you decide.

What I reported in VACCINE A, you won't hear from the Department of Defense or the FDA. I think officials from DOD/FDA/NIH - the three federal agencies working in concert to "fast track" the second generation anthrax vaccine with squalene - will continue to stonewall, obfuscate and lie about squalene and its injurious effects until they are forced to testify about it under oath. With the help of veterans like yourself - the people who arguably need the most protection from unethical human experimentation - that could happen.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:55 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:56 pm Post subject: Reply to GulfVet2, RE: Update to your list

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear GulfVet2: Thanks for helping make the list (of what went where) more comprehensive. I find the "SQ" annotation in your records very odd. SQ is a routinely used abbreviation for subcutaneous, which is utterly redundant in this case because the licensed protocol for the administration of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) is subcutaneous. Unless other people were getting the shot by a different method. Interestingly, all the embedded reporters I know from Gulf War 2 say they were injected IM, or intramuscularly. In 1996-97, Fort Detrick began a study protocol to investigate a new two-dose priming schedule, which involved lengthening the time interval between shots and changing the "route of administration" from SQ to IM. IM is not the FDA-approved way to inject AVA. Coincidentally, the following year, 1998, the year the NIH formed the NIH Working Group with the FDA and DOD to "fast track" rPA102 with squalene, all these squalene "contaminated" vaccine lots turned up in the vaccine supply administered to U.S. troops. As I am sure you are all too painfully aware, FAV 038 contained a 27 parts per billion concentration of squalene; FAV 047 contained 83 parts per billion. In pharmacology, scientists "dose range" with twofold serial dilutions (as I describe in the book); they also conduct "dose escalation" studies to observe the effects on a patient of incremental increases inthe dosage of a drug.

Given DOD's track record of experimenting on troops, and the fact that there exists in the code of federal regulations rules (Title 21, Part 50.23) that make the administration of experimental drugs and vaccine to troops without informed consent perfectly legal, do you think the "SQ" annotation in your records, and the escalating dosages of squalene that you received in anthrax vaccine, are merely coincidental?

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:54 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:05 pm Post subject: Update to your list

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary,
For your list ... I received shots from lots 38 and 47 at Westover ARB in Massachusetts.

Also, in your book you mention "SQ" as an annotation behind the dose on one persons shot record. I have that annotation once in mine too. It was behind my 3rd anthrax shot which was from lot #38. It is the only place I have an annotation like that in any of my shot records for nearly 20 yea

Posted by: GulfVet2 at November 29, 2004 02:53 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:27 pm Post subject: Reply to DKehl and twill, RE: FAV 070, FAV 071, FAV 073

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dkehl and twill: Thank you for letting me know about FAV 071 and FAV 073 being administered at the Naval/Marine Corps Reserve Center in Reading, Pennsylvania and FAV 070 and FAV 073 being administered at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.

FYI: Rachael Lacy - who died after anthrax immunization at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin - received shots from anthrax vaccine lot number FAV 073. The autopsy report from the Mayo Clinic (where she died) said Lacy had a "lupus-like illness." The Mayo Clinic medical examiners said Lacy also had pneumonia and the same eosinophil infiltration in her lungs(eosinophils are a specific type of immune cell) - the same immune cells found in the lungs of soldiers in Iraq suffering from the "mysterious" outbreaks of pneumonia that did not respond to antibiotics. These cases of aseptic pneumonia did, in fact, respond to steroids, which are the standard medication for the treatment of autoimmunity.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:51 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:13 pm Post subject: Reply to forrest shalom, RE: israeli batch FAV 008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear forrest shalom: According to an inventory from the Michigan Biologic Products Institute (MBPI), now BioPort, a total 360 doses of squalene-positive anthrax vaccine lot # FAV 008 were sent in three shipments to Israel. MBPI sent the first batch of 120 doses there on 30 June 1991. MBPI sent the second batch of 120 doses a year later on 15 June 1992. The third batch of 120 doses went to Israel about a year after that on 9 August 1993.

Based on information from the website run by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DOD subcontractor SRI (Stanford Research International) found 1-9 ppb concentrations in three separate doses of FAV 008. This was a significant finding because that meant a squalene-positive lot was, in fact, distributed for the first time on 22 January 2002, during Desert Storm. In other words, this was evidence that Desert Storm veterans could have received anthrax vaccine administered during the Gulf War. Batches of FAV 008, again, went to Israel, Germany, Taiwan and Canada.

FYI: The Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Infectious Diseases and Analytical Chemistry at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (Ness-Ziona, Israel) engineered a recombinant anthrax vaccine that contained anthrax spores derived from an anthrax strain that does not produce toxin or capsules. The Israeli spore vaccine contained no adjuvant. Israeli reseachers demonstrated that this vaccine made from a spore-forming strain conferred protection (in female Hartley guinea pigs and mice) that was superior to the U.S. licensed protective antigen-based vaccine. Here's the reference:

Cohen S, Mendelson I, Altboum Z, Kobiler D, Elhanany E, Bino T, Leitner M, Inbar I, Roseberg H, Gozes Y, Barak R, Fisher M, Kronman C, Velan B, Shafferman A, Attenuated nontoxinogenic and nonencapsulated recombinant Bacillus anthrax spore vaccine protect against anthrax, Infection and Immunity, 2000 Aug; Volume 68, Number 8, pgs. 4549-58.

Yours sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:50 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I received lots FAV 070 and 073 and Ft McCoy Wi. Just more to add to your list

Posted by: twill at November 29, 2004 02:49 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:21 am Post subject: israeli batch: FAV008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i am in contact with an israeli who may have been given anthrax shots.
do you have any more data on FAV-008? i am going to ask my friend to
notify the israeli government about this. any more information that you may have on this batch sent to israel would be appreciated greatly!

todah rabah (thank you very much)

forrest shalom

Posted by: forrest shalom at November 29, 2004 02:49 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:27 pm Post subject: Reply to DKehl and twill, RE: FAV 070, FAV 071, FAV 073

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dkehl and twill: Thank you for letting me know about FAV 071 and FAV 073 being administered at the Naval/Marine Corps Reserve Center in Reading, Pennsylvania and FAV 070 and FAV 073 being administered at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.

FYI: Rachael Lacy - who died after anthrax immunization at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin - received shots from anthrax vaccine lot number FAV 073. The autopsy report from the Mayo Clinic (where she died) said Lacy had a "lupus-like illness." The Mayo Clinic medical examiners said Lacy also had pneumonia and the same eosinophil infiltration in her lungs(eosinophils are a specific type of immune cell) - the same immune cells found in the lungs of soldiers in Iraq suffering from the "mysterious" outbreaks of pneumonia that did not respond to antibiotics. These cases of aseptic pneumonia did, in fact, respond to steroids, which are the standard medication for the treatment of autoimmunity.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:46 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:13 pm Post subject: Reply to forrest shalom, RE: israeli batch FAV 008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear forrest shalom: According to an inventory from the Michigan Biologic Products Institute (MBPI), now BioPort, a total 360 doses of squalene-positive anthrax vaccine lot # FAV 008 were sent in three shipments to Israel. MBPI sent the first batch of 120 doses there on 30 June 1991. MBPI sent the second batch of 120 doses a year later on 15 June 1992. The third batch of 120 doses went to Israel about a year after that on 9 August 1993.

Based on information from the website run by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DOD subcontractor SRI (Stanford Research International) found 1-9 ppb concentrations in three separate doses of FAV 008. This was a significant finding because that meant a squalene-positive lot was, in fact, distributed for the first time on 22 January 2002, during Desert Storm. In other words, this was evidence that Desert Storm veterans could have received anthrax vaccine administered during the Gulf War. Batches of FAV 008, again, went to Israel, Germany, Taiwan and Canada.

FYI: The Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Infectious Diseases and Analytical Chemistry at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (Ness-Ziona, Israel) engineered a recombinant anthrax vaccine that contained anthrax spores derived from an anthrax strain that does not produce toxin or capsules. The Israeli spore vaccine contained no adjuvant. Israeli reseachers demonstrated that this vaccine made from a spore-forming strain conferred protection (in female Hartley guinea pigs and mice) that was superior to the U.S. licensed protective antigen-based vaccine. Here's the reference:

Cohen S, Mendelson I, Altboum Z, Kobiler D, Elhanany E, Bino T, Leitner M, Inbar I, Roseberg H, Gozes Y, Barak R, Fisher M, Kronman C, Velan B, Shafferman A, Attenuated nontoxinogenic and nonencapsulated recombinant Bacillus anthrax spore vaccine protect against anthrax, Infection and Immunity, 2000 Aug; Volume 68, Number 8, pgs. 4549-58.

Yours sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:45 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I received lots FAV 070 and 073 and Ft McCoy Wi. Just more to add to your list

Posted by: twill at November 29, 2004 02:44 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:21 am Post subject: israeli batch: FAV008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i am in contact with an israeli who may have been given anthrax shots.
do you have any more data on FAV-008? i am going to ask my friend to
notify the israeli government about this. any more information that you may have on this batch sent to israel would be appreciated greatly!

todah rabah (thank you very much)

forrest shalom


p.s thanks a million for the info on how much and when squalene tainted anthrax vaccine was sent to ft. bliss.

Posted by: forrest shalom at November 29, 2004 02:43 PM

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:00 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I received lot #'s FAV 071 and FAV 073 at the Naval/Marine Corps Reserve Center in Reading, PA. Just an FYI to your list.

DKehl

Posted by: DKehl at November 29, 2004 02:42 PM

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject: Reply to forrest shalom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear forrest shalom:

According to a confidential inventory from Michigan Biologic Products Institute (MBPI), MBPI sent a shipment of 2,900 doses of anthrax vaccine lot # FAV 030 (a lot confirmed by FDA tests to contain squalene) to the Army's Fort Bliss on September 10, 1998.

Based on Tulane University Medical School's anti-squalene antibody data from military personnel recently injected with anthrax vaccine for deployment to Iraq, there are reasons to believe that some of the current lots #'s in the vaccine supply administered to U.S. military personnel contains squalene.

It is impossible to know with any degree of certainty if your cousin received injections from a squalene-positive lot without having those lots tested for squalene, or without having other people injected with those lots test positive for the antibodies.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:41 PM

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:26 am Post subject: fort bliss?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gary,

when was the "bad" anthrax sent to ft. bliss?

my cousin is in the marines and i just found out he has taken two
anthrax shots so far (within the past two months or so). he is scheduled
to take 4 remaining for a total of six.).

do you think it has squalene?

thanks,

forrest

Posted by: forrest at November 29, 2004 02:40 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:53 am Post subject: SQUALENE-LACED ANTHRAX VACCINE AND WHERE IT WAS GIVEN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI: Here again are the lot numbers for squalene-laced anthrax vaccine (and lots suspected of containing it). Following the lot numbers are some of the locations where these lots were administered. The location list is only partial, and based on available information from patient medical records, a Michigan Biologics Product Institute (MBPI) inventory and data from Tulane University Medical School.


LOT NUMBERS

Squalene-Positive [per FDA and SRI]:
FAV 008, FAV 020, FAV 030, FAV 038, FAV 043, FAV 047

Have Induced Anti-Squalene Antibodies [per Tulane Med School]:
FAV 041, FAV 070 and FAV 071

Associated with Autoimmune-Related Symptoms or Fullly Diagnosed Autoimmune Diseases in Troops [per Tulane]:
FAV 017, FAV 048b, FAV 066, FAV 068, FAV 069, FAV 073, FAV 074, FAV 075, FAV 078


LOCATIONS

FAV 008
Dover AFB (Delaware); fort Bragg (North Carolina), BioPort (administered to workers); Shipments of FAV 008 were also sent to Israel, Germany, Taiwan and Canada.

FAV 017
Osan, South Korea; Tripler Army Medical Center (Hawaii); Camp Lejeune (North Carolina); Fort Stewart (Georgia); 18th MEDCOM APO AP; Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Eleleson AFB (Arkansas), U.S. Air Force Academy (Colorado); Fort Drum (New York); Fort Campbell (Kentucky); Langley AFB (Virginia); Ellsworth AFB (South Dakota); Mountain Home AFB (Idaho); MacDill AFB (Florida); Pearl Harbor (Hawaii); Offut AFB (Nebraska); Barksdale AFB (Arkansas); Portsmouth (Virginia); Moody AFB (Georgia); Buckley ANG (Colorado); Malmstrom AFB (Montana); Fort Lewis (Washington); Davis-Monthan AFB (Arizona); Beale AFB (California); Fairchild AFB (Washington); Barkdale AFB (Arkansas); Virgnia Beach (Virginia)

FAV 020
Al Jaber, Kuwait; U.S.S. Independence (Persian Gulf); U.S.S. San Jacinto (Persian Gulf); Saudi Arabia; A shipment of FAV 020 was also sent to Australia.

FAV 030
Al Jaber, Kuwait; Dover AFB (Delaware); Michigan ANG (Michigan); Holloman AFB (New Mexico); Perry Point (Maryland); Naval Station Everett (Washington); Norfolk (Virginia); Cannon AFB (New Mexico); Holloman AFB (New Mexico); McChord AFB (Washington); Shaw AFB (South Carolina); Nellis AFB (Nevada); Fort Lewis (Washington); Travis AFB (California); Fort Bliss (Texas); Fort Dix (New Jersey); Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Seymour-Johnson AFB (North Carolina); Hickham AFB (Hawaii); Peterson AFB (Colorado); McConnell AFB (Kansas); Camp Pendleton (California); Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (Pennsylvania); Redstone Arsenal (Alabama); F.E. Warren AFB (Wyoming); Shipments of FAV 030 were also sent to Germany and Canada.

FAV 038
Osan, South Korea; U.S.S. Roosevelt; Hill AFB (Utah); Fort Benning (Georgia); BioPort (administered to workers)

FAV 041
Al Jaber, Kuwait; Westover AFB (Massachusetts); Dover AFB (Delaware); Michigan ANG (Michigan); Dharhan, Saudi Arabia; Tyndall AFB (Florida)

FAV 043
Osan, South Korea; Wright-Patterson AFB (Ohio); Tennessee ANG (Tennessee); Dover AFB (Delaware); Fort Bragg (North Carolina); Oklahoma ANG (Oklahoma); Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota); Travis AFB (California); Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (Pennsylvania); Fort Sill (Oklahoma); Key Field (Mississippi)

FAV 047
Travis AFB (California); Dover AFB (Delaware); BioPort (administered to workers)

FAV 048b
Grand Forks AFB (North Dakota)

FAV 070
Dyess AFB (Texas)

FAV 071
Dover AFB (Delaware); Camp Lejeune (North Carolina)

FAV 073
Fort Hood (Texas); Fort McCoy (Wisconsin)

FAV 078
Al Jaber, Kuwait

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:39 PM

: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:30 am Post subject: Reply to da phritzi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear da phritzi: In addition to allergic and autoimmune diseases, oil adjuvants have been known to cause degenerative bone and joint disease. Unfortunately, if you got an anthrax shot during the Gulf War, you didn't win the lottery; you lost it. And that's painful for me to say. Your afflictions are all too familiar.

As someone who was out there at the time, I can say that all the men and women I met were highly motivated; you had jobs to do, a war to fight. You kicked Republican Guard butt. Iraqi pilots were so scared they wouldn't even engage. The kind of people I met were not the types to come home and feign illness for money or psychologically crumble from stress. Just the opposite; they were tough and ambitious. They were fighters, not whiners.

Thanks for writing. You've still got a warfighter's spirit; they broke your body, but not your will. Stay strong inside 'cause there's still more fighting to do. It's been nearly fourteen years, and government officials are only now admitting that Gulf War illness is a real physical ailment. They should not be allowed another fourteen years before they acknowledge that an untold number of these ailments have resulted from vaccine-induced autoimmunity with accompanying neurological injuries.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 02:00 PM

Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:06 am Post subject: found book thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Da Phritzi,
Please go to http://www.milvacs.org/Sick/AdverseReactions.html

Posted by: DaRocksMom at November 29, 2004 02:00 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:58 pm Post subject: found book thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

found your book( someone left it in the wrong place at the book store)bought it immidiately. read time 4hours served in reyad & alcars saudia rabia fall 92 &95 took one predeployment shot each time i threw away my shot records after i realized that the gov screwed me up, i do remember an anotation for anthrax scribble 43. at the current time i am diagnosed with the auti immune disorder psoriatic(skin rashes) arthritus spondiloanthropy(degenerative bone and joint condition culminating in the fusing of the spine) this condition typically affects 1 in 500,000 people. iguess i won the lottery. i have noticed that a great many vets suffer from the cover all of degenerative bone/joint disorder. i have fibromyalgia, cfs, hyperaccusis(bionic hearing), as well as upper and lower ibs. my veiw point on my condition is simply this, there was nothing that i ran into in sa that i did not run into any where else, before or since, that was abnormal to my envoronment, except for the anthrax vacccine. i arived after the main conflict, didnt use ptabs, wasnt radid, gased, or toxed, i did eat some horse meat but the french chef said it was ok if i can be of assistance to anyone write me at bop3291, 71133-3291 i think that the book is right on target ant the va/dod/gov/other responsible parties are upset that science and the internet is preventing them from hidding their dirty little secrets like they did for agent orange and shad. and dont forget that the va doesnt like to admit to any service related condition until 80% of the participants are dead. i also find it ironic that the flu shortage we are currently experiancing is related to both chiron and squaline. if you are a vet or family member reading this, dont give up fighting the va, since they reopened claims and are reconsidering previously denied claimes if resubmitted. claimes can be proven by a single diagnosis, symptomology, history, condition, eye witnesses, or prescibed medicine grouping nexus. this book, vaccine a is a blessing to all pgw I era vets
in the fact that it clearly documents the madrid of associations causing our condition. each veteran family should have one for referance. the only drawback i could say about the book is that it could have listed a much larger symptom/condition listing than it did. could someone out there start a sypmtom/ condition servay. gm, we cant express our gratitude enough, and im a bitchy guy, definatly not an ass kisser. will buy more books later.

Posted by: da phritzi at November 29, 2004 01:58 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:01 pm Post subject: Reply to ex-WRAMC staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear ex-WRAMC staff: Yikes! I wish I had a chance to talk to you while I was writing Vaccine A. I'm disturbed, but not surprised, to hear that Dr. Roy was disingenuous with me about the somatoform and somatization disorder diagnoses being WRAMC "committee" decisions. FYI: I suspect that Pam Asa and Paul Rodriguez (Insight Magazine, 1997) might have been right about HIV vaccines being administered to troops during Gulf War I, but I could not find any documents or specific clinical evidence to support this idea.

Two things leave me suspicious about the possibility: (1) the contagiousness of GWS in some families, and (2) the birth defects. Oil adjuvants cause allergic and autoimmune disease which are not contagious. Oil adjuvants have been shown cause miscarriage (due to the induction of anti-phopholipid antibodies), but have not been demonstrated to cause birth defects.

There is something that might be a problem. An HIV vaccine using a recombinant live vector and the HIV envelope gene. A recombinant live vector, using vaccinia, is contagious. Peer reviewed data shows that patients inoculated with vaccinia shed virus for nine months or more. That means family members could catch a vaccinia infection from anyone who'd been immunized with it for smallpox, or immunized with vaccine as a recombinant live vector for the HIV envelope gene. Fort Detrick also made a recombinant vaccinia vector for anthrax protective antigen, but I'm not sure there's a good case to be made for its risks.

Where birth defects are concerned, the issue is the aforementioned HIV envelope gene - one the most highly conserved portions of the genome. As Dr. Asa explains it, this gene is a potential cause of birth defects. As you will recall, there was an unusually high number of babies with Goldenhaar Syndrome born to Gulf War vets. A recombinant PA vaccine could not, based on what I've read so far, account for any birth defects. Dr. Asa suspects that a recombinant HIV vaccine is another story.

If the recombinant HIV vaccine with the env gene (as opposed to the gag gene) is a problem, it would not have shown up in at least one of the populations to which is prototypes were administered as "immunotherapy" (in other words, as a possible cure for someone already sick, as opposed a classic vaccine that's supposed to prevent the illness from occurring in the first place) - homosexual men who were already HIV positive. As a rule, I think, homosexual men do not have children unless they adopt them, so birth defects would not have shown up in this population. If there is such a problem with this vaccine, however, it could have shown up among healthy heterosexual men. In one Goldenhaar case examined by Dr. Asa, a woman gave birth to a Goldenhaar baby after being impregnated by her Gulf War veteran husband before he deployed, but after his immunizations.

Again, I did not feel I had enough evidence to get into all this in Vaccine A, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:57 PM

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:50 pm Post subject: psychosomatic disorder (somatization disorder)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first Gulf War Illness Center was opened on the Infectious Disease/HIV ward at WRAMC. Ever wonder why? refer to Insight Mag's reference to tainted HIV vaccinations. Veteran's beware, there are more than just tainted anthrax. vax.
98% of the patients that went through CCEP, (comprehensive clinical evaluation program) were given the somatization disorder diagnosis and deemed problem patients, personality disordered characters drawing the press into hushed up territory. Believe me, there was an unspoke of tension among staff, that things there were not to be talked about.
Michael Roy was the clinical director in name only, Col. Chung, who headed the infectious disease department really ran the show. under Gen. Blanck. They were looking for leishmeniosus (sp?). Patients who came through were given basic blood tests, which we all knew was to be sent to WRAIR for research, and then sent to subspecialty clinics for particular problems, back in '94 we saw a lot of G.I. problems. These patients were not staffed (talked about) in big meetings with other subspeciality doctors as Roy stated in your book. They were brought into this clinic to be controlled, and to control the G.I. outcry. Then they were hand stamped as crazy, and sent out unvalidated. I was the mental health officer that completed all the patient historys as they came into the clinic, and I never diagnosed one of them having somatization disorder. Maj. Roy made that diagnosis.
This was the beginning of deterring the masses from the truth, that of course still exists today, now in Round 3 with the squalene in anthrax.

Posted by: ex-WRAMC staff at November 29, 2004 01:56 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:45 pm Post subject: ROTC Cadets

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the summer of 2000, higher doses than indicated of anthrax vaccine were accidentally administered to cadets participating in ROTC advanced camp at Fort Lewis, Washington. The nature, rates and severity of short-term side effects in relation to vaccine doses were assessed.

In total, 73 cadets with orders for follow-on training in Korea were scheduled to begin the anthrax vaccine series during Advanced Camp 2000 at Fort Lewis, Washington. On 16 June 2000, 25 cadets received 1.0 milliliter (ml) of the vaccine as their first doses, twice the amount (0.5 ml) recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The accidental “doubled” doses were given when medical personnel administering the vaccine misunderstood instructions provided by a physician who explained how some residual vaccine remains in the needle hub after, for example, administering 1.0 ml of a vaccine. The medical personnel, who had substantial previous experience in giving anthrax vaccine in 0.5 ml doses, interpreted this guidance to mean that they were to give 1.0 ml of the vaccine. After 25 doubled doses had been administered, clinic personnel realized that they did not have enough vaccine to immunize all cadets who were scheduled. The problem was immediately identified, and actions were implemented to assure correct subsequent dosing.

In summary, cadets who received doubled first doses of anthrax vaccine had higher rates of several self-reported reactions. All reactions to the vaccine were mildand self-limiting, and none affected cadet training.

This was hushed very quickly in the media and a congressional hearing followed.

Gary, how are these cadets today? Long-term side effects reported? Were any of these reported to VAERS? I do NOT believe the studies or the reporting! Can you somehow find out for me how these cadets are today? I have waited almost 5 years for the TRUTH.

Thank you for your time and efforts!

Posted by: DaRocksMom at November 29, 2004 01:54 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:29 pm Post subject: Reply to Guest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Guest: While I am grateful to people such as yourself who might think that I am brave for having written this book, I was driven to write it less by courageousness than by a sense of indebtedness. I believe that I am in your debt, and in debt to the other men and women like you, who are this nation's strong arm in war ... and in peace, a great deterrent to our enemies. It is you who are brave, and I thank you.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:52 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:54 pm Post subject: Reply to "an airmen"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear "an airmen": Over the past half century, unethical human experiments have been carried all too often out on people considered "expendable" (the poor, the terminally ill and the mentally handicapped). What greatly concerned me as I researched this book was the possibility that the military doctors and scientists who planned these experiments might have considered troops at war expendable precisely because some unknown percentage of them would die in battle anyway. The men and women who pledged themselves to defend this nation and its Constitution by serving in the armed forces did so with the understanding that they might one day die from an enemy's bullet or bomb. But just because airmen such as yourself have chosen a career that has you "dodging SCUDS in Dharhan or SAMs over Baghdad" does not mean that you are expendable. Your life counts. Although you've chosen a career in which you stand a greater chance than most Americans of being asked to surrender your life in the performance of your duties, I've yet to read any regulation that says your duties include being the unwitting subject of potentially lethal medical experiments. Americans fought a war of independence partly in defense an individual's right to self-determination. On those grounds alone, I would argue that human experimentation without informed consent is not only illegal, it is un-American. Thank you for the decades that you spent in the service of our country

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:51 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:34 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Matsumoto,

I also want to thank you for writing this book. My experiences have not been unlike the airman's in the previous post, only that mine were more recent. I am so grateful that people like you and Dr. Asa have the courage amidst the challenges that the government has thrown at you to stand up for what is right and expose the truth.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:50 PM

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject: thank you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Matsumoto

I have recently retired from the United States Air Force. And I believe I was one of many at my base to be part of this "experiment". Apparently, back in the late 90s, our base got a "bad batch" and suffered an inordinate amount of problems with the vaccine.
Dr Asa forwarded me this link and I plan to buy the book immediately.
I had the anthrax series beginning in 1998 and concluding in 2003. Two weeks after my final vaccination I started to experience peripheral neuropathy in my toes/feet and fingers/hands. I have been to many specialist in 18 months. Fortunately, they have ruled out MS, Lupus and other auto-immune problems. But as you know, the incubation period could be years. I feel like I have a ticking bomb inside of me.
In the past few years I have seen members of a small military community suffer massive strokes, heart attacks and contract MS and Lupus.
I am a loyal patriot....I support our cause overseas and my brothers/sisters in arms. But I never thought that after twenty years in the military and dodging SCUDs in Dhahran or SAMs over Baghdad..that my scariest threat would come from within.
Thank you for your work. Sometimes it takes just as much courage to stand up to the system as it does to march into battle.

Godspeed

Posted by: An Airman at November 29, 2004 01:49 PM

: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:18 am Post subject: Reply to gulfvet2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear gulfvet2: Vaccine A lays out the case, and cites the evidence, for why the information propogated on the FRONTLINE website (to which you are directing people) is ludicrous. The FRONTLINE film, The Last Battle of the Gulf War, merely promotes the annointed government narrative on Gulf War illness promulgated from 1996 until very recently. Its message can be summarized this way: Gulf War illness does not exist. Gulf War veterans have been reporting a wide range of unrelated symptoms with only one factor common to all: stress.

I believe this particular FRONTLINE report is a journalistic travesty, and an affront to all the Gulf War veterans who have demonstrable physical illness; specifically, fully diagnosed autoimmune diseases accompanied by neurological injury. Stress, as I maintain in Vaccine A, is - along with chemical weapons, mycoplasma infections and depleted uranium exposures - a red herring.

So gulfvet2, the question is why would you direct the readers and contributors to this forum to a FRONTLINE website that propogates information that my book not only discredits, but website that is manifestly outdated, propogating information that is now being openly abandoned by government researchers who are admitting in 2004, with what I consider unconscionable tardiness, that there are sick Gulf War vets who suffer from neurological damage as opposed to the effects of psychosomatic illness?

How can you, at this late date, and with what is presumably a passing familiarity with the subject matter of this forum (given that you even know of its existence), still find a website asserting that Gulf War illness does not exist "very interesting?"

Would you care to explain why?

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:48 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm Post subject: Link to the media report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about the MSNBC link, but here is one for frontline that is very interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/syndrome/

Posted by: GulfVet2 at November 29, 2004 01:47 PM

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:17 pm Post subject: Link to the media report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you know if a link to the news report on Tuesday with MSNBC is available online? I heard about the interview, but I didn't get a chance to see it.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:46 PM

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:43 am Post subject: P.S. TO SLATE ON SQUALENE EMULSION RC529-SE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RC529-SE is a squalene emulsion from Corixa Corporation. RC529-SE’s squalene contents can be confirmed in two patents: (1) U.S. Patent 6,303,347 (Oct. 2001), and (2) 6,764,840 (June 2004).

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:44 PM

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:39 am Post subject: FACTUAL ERRORS IN SLATE REVIEW OF VACCINE A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO THE EDITOR OF SLATE, RE: “ANTHRAX SCARE: Did the military secretly doctor its anthrax vaccine?”


Dear Sir:

I would like to correct the following errors in Mr. Cohen’s review of my book VACCINE A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs are Only the First Victims. Jon Cohen’s text is highlighted:


Paragraph Four: “Although it is not currently in any FDA-licensed vaccines and has caused autoimmunity in some animal experiments, it is, as we learn two-thirds of the way into the narrative, in a flu vaccine that’s licensed in Europe and has been safely injected into tens of millions of people.”

Correction: Cohen incorrectly attributes to me the assertion that the squalene emulsion flu vaccine, FLUAD™, has been safely injected into “tens of millions of people” in Europe. Mr. Cohen may have gotten this figure from some other source, but not from my book, and not from the reference that he cites in his review. The only figure that I have seen (published in a scientific paper on FLUAD™) puts the number of recipients of this vaccine the late 1990s somewhere around 600,000. The weblink in the body of his text, provided by Cohen to support the assertion that “tens of millions of people” have been safely injected with FLUAD™, connects SLATE readers to a Chiron Corporation (Chiron makes FLUAD™) press release, which says nothing about the number of people injected with FLUAD™. The phrase “tens of millions” or even the word “millions” does not appear anywhere in this document.

Paragraph Eight: “the trace amounts, they suggested [FDA officials], could have come from a technician’s fingertip.”

Correction: When FDA officials disclosed in September 2000 that they found squalene in anthrax vaccine, the agency’s Mark Ellengold suggested to Congress that the trace amounts of squalene probably came from the organism. They did not suggest that it could have come from someone’s fingertips. I clearly state this in the book. What’s more, I interviewed the FDA scientist who performed the GC/Mass spec analysis of seven lots of vaccine (five anthrax lots, one diphtheria and one tetanus); he said he wore gloves, which is standard operating procedure in this lab when running a GC analysis. He also ran “blanks” (plain water); these blanks did not contain squalene. Thus no one’s skin came in contact with the vaccine, or the water in blanks, or the glassware.

Suggesting that the squalene contents of anthrax vaccine is a result of fingertip contamination, an assertion for which FDA provides no supporting data. It is also, on the face of it, a counter-intuitive assertion; given squalene’s hydrophobicity (it repels water and won’t go into solution without being turned into micro-droplets, which must then be treated with a surfactant, a kind of detergent, to remain in suspension).

Greasy fingertips are just the latest in a long series of unsupported explanations for squalene contamination in anthrax vaccine from DOD and FDA. In 1998, the year the NIH formed the NIH Working Group with DOD and FDA to “fast track” the licensure of the new vaccine, FDA officials suggested to Senate investigators that any squalene in the vaccine could have come from eggs because many vaccine antigens are grown in eggs and eggs are rich in cholesterol (and theoretically the cholesterol precursor, squalene). In fact, anthrax is grown in a non-protein broth which contains no eggs or egg products. Later, DOD stated correctly, but misleadingly, that squalene is found in many plants and animals. Still later, both DOD and FDA stated for several years that squalene is “probably” found in the organism. Squalene is, indeed, found in many plants and animals. One place it is not found, however, is in Bacillus anthracis. Bacteria do not biosynthesize lipids as complex as squalene. This has been demonstrated with atomic precision. According to GC/Mass spec analyses of bacteria, they do not make lipids with more than 17 carbons atoms and are monounsaturated (1 double bond); squalene contains 30 carbon atoms and polyunsaturated (6 double bonds).

Paragraph Ten: “Wyeth made an FDA-licensed tetanus vaccine until it dropped out of the business in 2001, and Connaught is part of what’s now called Aventis Pasteur, which has an FDA licensed diphtheria vaccine.”

Correction: In this one sentence alone, Cohen makes three errors:

(1) Wyeth did not make an FDA-licensed tetanus vaccine;
(2) Wyeth did not drop out the vaccine business;
(3) Connaught did not make an FDA-licensed diphtheria vaccine.

We both made errors here. I had a dyslexic moment and transposed Wyeth diphtheria and Connaught tetanus; I referred to Wyeth tetanus and Connaught diphtheria. Cohen did the same thing. As he a result, he made three errors in one sentence (I made two).

In my book, I erroneously state that the FDA found trace quantities of squalene in an unlicensed Wyeth tetanus vaccine and an unlicensed Connaught diphtheria vaccine. In fact, the FDA tested an unlicensed monovalent diphtheria vaccine from Wyeth, which is still in the vaccine business. Cohen would have been correct had he stated that Connaught made an FDA-licensed tetanus vaccine, and was later bought out by Aventis-Pasteur.

As Cohen neglects to mention in his review, I cite several peer-reviewed studies that report data showing that bacteria (including Bacillus anthracis, Corynbacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani) do not biosynthesize complex lipids like squalene. As stated previously, and I think it bears repeating here, there is, in fact, atomically precise evidence that bacteria do not make lipid molecules containing more than 17 to 19 carbon atoms, and have more than 1 double bond. Squalene is a 30-carbon molecule with 6 double bonds. I report this in my book. He also omits from his attack any reference to the incontrovertible evidence that bacteria do not make squalene. In light of this peer-reviewed data, repeatedly in other laboratories, I have argued in my book that it is incumbent upon the FDA to explain how it found squalene in the seven lots of vaccine (five anthrax, one diphtheria and one tetanus) that it tested in June 1999.


Paragraph Eleven: “He [Matsumoto] writes that “by questioning the safety of squalene, Asa imperiled more than 80 percent of the existing NIH-sponsored clinical trials to prevent HIV. This is fiction. Here is a list of 2001 list of AIDS vaccines in clinical trials and in the pipeline. Only one product, not yet tested in humans, uses squalene, and many don’t use adjuvants at all. Chiron Corp. did use squalene in earlier human tests of an experimental AIDS vaccine, but that project crashed and burned because of the unimpressive results with the HIV ingredients in the vaccine, not the adjuvant.”

Correction: Cohen’s assertions, once again, are incorrect. In making this particular attack, he takes what I have written in Chapter Eight (pg. 145) out of context. He refers in this paragraph to information specific to a period in time, 1991-1997, not 2001. From 1991-97, the GAO reports there were nineteen clinical studies with HIV vaccines, sponsored by NIAID and AVEG (AIDS Vaccine Evaluation Group), or NIAID and DIR (Division Intramural Research). GAO investigators got their information directly from NIAID officials. This information can be found in the GAO report, GULF WAR ILLNESSES: Questions About The Presence of Squalene Antibodies in Veterans Can Be Resolved (GAO/NSIAD-99-5, pg. 21). According to the GAO, there were nineteen trials with prototype HIV vaccines in this time period. All of them contained Chiron’s squalene emulsion adjuvant MF59. That’s 100 percent. If anything, then, based on the GAO’s reporting, me saying Asa’s antibody evidence “imperiled more than 80 percent of existing NIH-sponsored clinical trials to prevent HIV” was a rather generous underestimation. The GAO Appendix, citing data provided by NIAID and AVEG, not only specifies nineteen different NIAID clinical trials with an HIV vaccine emulsified in MF59 (a squalene emulsion), NIAID provided the GAO with the dates of each trial, the IND numbers for each trial, and the number of subjects in each.

When I informed Cohen of the GAO’s information during a telephone on Wednesday, November 18th, Cohen, without seeing the GAO report, flatly declared the GAO “wrong.” An unwillingness to review a document before declaring it wrong is, to me, a clear demonstration of bias.

In a weblink, Cohen directs SLATE readers to a 2001 survey paper on HIV vaccines, then misinforms readers when he writes, based on this paper, that “only one product, not yet tested in humans, uses squalene, and many don’t use adjuvants at all” (Johnston M, Flores J, Progress in HIV Vaccine Development, Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 2001(1): pg. 504-510) . To the contrary, in Table 2, the authors list Candidate vaccines in pre-clinical development. At least four of these vaccines, maybe more, rely on squalene emulsions:

(1) DNA, Sindbis replicons expressing multiple genes, novel recombinant envelope proteins [NIAID/Chiron];
(2) DNA expressing multiple HIV genes, DNA expressing cytokine gene and peptide boost [NIAID/Wyeth-Lederle];
(3) Vaccinia-env and envelope proteins [NIAID/St. Jude];
(4) Gp120 and regulatory proteins in novel adjuvants [GlaxoSmithKline].

In a cursory search of NIAID databases for current HIV vaccine trials involving a prototype HIV vaccines emulsified in squalene, I found several of them in quick succession:

(1) A Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of 100 mcg of Env 2-3 in MF59, Sponsor: NIAID/Biocine, Study ID Numbers: AVEG 005C, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000632 [Study Completed ca. 2002];
(2) Safety and Immune Response to a Combination HIV Vaccine Regiment in HIV Uninfected Adults, Sponsor: NIAID, Clade B Recombinant, Oligomeric gp 140/MF59 Adjuvant, Study ID Numbers: HTVN 049, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00073216 [Currently recruiting];
(3) Safety of and Immune Response to a New HIV Vaccine HIV CTL MEP, Sponsor: NIAID, HIV CLT MEP administered with RC529-SE adjuvant, Study ID Numbers: HTVN 056, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00076037 [Currently recruiting].

Additionally, in a cursory search of PubMed, the data for the National Library of Medicine, I found many recently published papers on HIV vaccines emulsified in squalene. Here’s just one of them, concerning a Duke University pre-clinical trial with a HIV vaccine and squalene administered to monkeys:

(1) Egan MA, et al., A comparative evaluation of nasal and parenteral vaccine adjuvants to elicit systems mucosal HIV-1 peptide specific humoral immune responses in cynomolgus monkeys, Vaccine, 22 (2004), pgs. 3774-3788. (These particular researchers were at Duke University).

That NIH-funded HIV vaccine investigators rely on squalene emulsion adjuvants to create viable HIV vaccine prototypes is extremely well documented, and easily verifiable.

Cohen incorrectly asserts that I wrote “fiction.” Contrary to the impression that he tried hard to convey in this paragraph, replete with a weblink, Cohen’s reference does not support his assertion. I can provide you with hard copies of all the above documents.

Paragraph Twelve: “The shaky premise of Vaccine A falls apart completely when Asa and Garry—and, separately, military researchers—compare squalene antibody levels in people who received the anthrax vaccine and controls who did not. Logically, if the vaccine contained different amounts of squalene, vaccinated people should have higher levels of squalene antibodies than the unvaccinated. Asa and Garry found the antibodies in eight of 25 vaccinated people (32 percent) and three of 19 controls (15.8 percent). “This difference is not statistically significant in this size sample,” they reported in a 2002 paper.

Correction: Cohen takes this information out of context, omitting the critically important data that immediately follows the sentence that he quotes in order to bolster his case against my book and its allegedly “shaky premise.” Asa and Garry state: “Further analysis revealed that ASA [anti-squalene antibodies] were associated with specific lots of vaccine. The incidence of ASA in personnel in the blinded study receiving these lots was 47% (8/17) compared to an incidence of 0% (0/8; P < 0.025) of the AVIP participants receiving other lots of vaccine. Analysis of additional personnel that in all but one case (19/20; 95%), ASA were restricted to personnel immunized with lots of vaccine known to contain squalene. Except for one symptomatic individual, positive clinical findings in 17 ASA-negative personnel were restricted to 4 individuals receiving vaccine from lots containing squalene. ASA were not present prior to vaccination in preimmunization sera available from 4 AVIP personnel. Three of these individuals became ASA positive after vaccination. These results suggest that the production of ASA in GWS patients is linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of anthrax vaccine.” [from Abstract]

(Asa PB, Wilson RB, Garry RF, Antibodies to Squalene in Recipients of Anthrax Vaccine, Experimental and Molecular Pathology, 73; 2002, pgs. 19-27).


SUMMARY:Cohen makes an astonishing number of factual errors in a scant four pages. In at least two instances, he imputes information to me that I did not report. To support his argument, he selectively reports facts taken out of context, from my book, as well as from other sources. The references that I single out for criticism above do not support his assertions.

It is Cohen's prerogative to embrace DOD’s unsupported ex cathedra pronouncements on the amount of squalene required to initiate an immune response (the equivalent of “2000 pounds of mayonnaise”—relative to what the FDA found in anthrax vaccine), but I have quoted many scientists in the book who have concluded otherwise; not to mention Chiron Corporation, the manufacturer of the squalene emulsion licensed for use in flu vaccine in Europe, MF59. According to Chiron’s published data, its scientists have initiated an immune response in animals with 80 ppb concentration of MF59. Anthrax vaccine lot FAV 047 contained 83 ppb.

Cohen is entitled to disbelieve my book, and there’s no mistaking that he does, but he’s not entitled to invent facts, or misrepresent them, in order to persuade others to share his disbelief. Please make the appropriate corrections. If you require hard copies of documents to verify my corrections, please contact my publicist, Jamie Brickhouse, at Basic Books. His number is (212) 340-8000.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:44 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:42 pm Post subject: VA Dovcumentation regarding MS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DKehl wrote:
Does the VA have any documentation online showing that MS within 7 years of service is considered service related? If so, where can I find a copy?

Thanks!


Here is a link on information of what the VA has on service connection regarding MS. The top section is general rating information, but a little further down, it lists Neurological Disorders: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6cb88841cd27ce5e4e7c3ff0eb4c4073&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.5&idno=38

Here is a link to the only information I can find on the VA website regarding presumptive eligibility of MS: http://www.va.gov/ms/vfaq/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=53

I hope this helps.

Posted by: emidan611 at November 29, 2004 01:42 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:41 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the VA have any documentation online showing that MS within 7 years of service is considered service related? If so, where can I find a copy?

Thanks!

Posted by: DKel at November 29, 2004 01:40 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Anthrax Vaccination timeline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For whatever reason, the VA automatically associates MS as being service connected if it occurs within 7 years of separation of service. I found this interesting, and surely someone has to ask "why"?

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:39 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:10 am Post subject: Anthrax vaccination timeline...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the last paragraph of Chapter 5 on page 88, it states, " On January 5, 1991, the U.S. military finally started immunizing its troops against anthrax." That is incorrect. While stationed at Hurlburt Field Air Force Base (Special Ops), right before being deployed to Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield, I received an Anthrax vaccination on August 29, 1990. They were going to send me with no gas mask, and when the commander found out, she pulled me from the deployment. I never deployed and in February 1991, I left the service. Within a year from the administration of the Anthrax shot, I started to notice certain symptoms happening to me. After a few years, through the VA healthcare system, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I am now a service connected disabled veteran (without them admitting the shot caused my disability).

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:39 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:34 am Post subject: Hives and miscarriage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have an increasing number of people reporting the hives which respond to standard treatments for allergic reactions and they seem to be chronic. Of interest is the fact that when tested for what these patients are allergic to, they have no reaction which is puzzling for all concerned. We do not know what this will mean for the future for these patients. It is always best to work with your physicians and keep them informed of any new or different symptoms.

It is believed that about 33% of all pregnancies are lost in miscarriages due to no known reasons. Many women go on to have successful pregnancies. Having said that, any medical condition can have an impact on pregnancies and may affect the ability to have a successful pregnancy. It is important to get as much information about your physical condition, discuss it with your OB and weigh the options. For example, if a patient has antiphospholipid antibodies either as a condition alone or in association with lupus, the blood clots more readily. These can lead to strokes, other blood clots, and miscarriages. It is important to determine if this or some other autoimmune condition is present and how to best deal with it. It is important when you have multiple Drs. to help facilitate communication among all of them in partnership in your medical care. I hope you will get the help and answers that you need. I wish you the very best in your efforts.

Posted by: Dr. Asa at November 29, 2004 01:37 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:00 am Post subject: Reply to Army Reservist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Army Reservist: I am upset to hear about your persistent rash and miscarriage, especially because I believe there is a strong possibility that both resulted from your squalene-tainted anthrax vaccinations. My suspicions are based on more than the fact that both occurred post-immunization; and that you were healthy and had no known allergies before your injection with squalene. They are based on the known effects of oil adjuvants in animals and humans. Here's what Army doctors and FDA scientists are not telling you: (1) urticaria has not only been observed in patients injected with squalene emulsion adjuvants in approved NIH-funded clinical trials, it has been observed in military personnel who've received injections from the squalene-positive anthrax vaccine lots (FAV 008, FAV 020, FAV 030, FAV 038, FAV 043, FAV 047). Urticaria, as you are now probably aware, is one of the symptoms associated with the allegedly undiagnosable Gulf War Syndrome; (2) pregnant animals injected with oil adjuvants have spontaneously aborted their fetuses. As you have read in this forum, both men and woman have experienced reproductive difficulties following anthrax vaccination. The vaccine's manufacturer, BioPort, even warns pregnant women not to take it. According to BioPort's January 2002 package insert, an unpublished Department of Defense study shows that women who received anthrax vaccinations during their pregnancies subsequently gave birth to children with defects. As for the prospects of your urticaria going away, and of having a risk-free pregnancy in the future, I am going to ask Dr. Asa to comment on that. I can say this much. Both urticaria and miscarriage are, in fact, associated with anthrax vaccination; BioPort has already admitted this. As stated in the aforementioned package insert, BioPort says patients injected with anthrax vaccine have suffered "hypersensitivity reactions" (allergic reactions such as urticaria) and have developed autoimmune diseases following anthrax vaccinations. The insert also states vaccine recipients have also suffered "spontaneous abortions" - in other words, they have miscarried. Tellingly, these phenomena were only observed in patients injected with anthrax vaccine after 1990 when the Army's second generation anthrax vaccine was first ready for clinical trials. As someone injected with two of the vaccine lots confirmed by the FDA to contain squalene, and because both your complaints - urticaria, a hypersensitivity reaction, and miscarriage - are both known consequences of injection with an oil adjuvant - I believe you have suffered injury from an unethical experiment. Whether the Department of Defense or the FDA concede this in the near term, both have publicly referred to squalene as a "contaminant." Therefore, by their own admission, you have been injected with "contaminated" vaccine. Scientific data from laboratories on four continents have shown that injecting squalene into animals causes autoimmune disease. At a minimum, then, the Army should be paying for your medications. If you are not yet being treated by a board certified rheumatologist, please ask your primary care physician for a referral. Your problem requires a specific kind of intervention, monitoring and management. If you have an autoimmune process underway in your body, you need to know about it. There are tests that can determine that. Please get those tests. Dr. Asa can tell you which ones to request. Autoimmune diseases - undiagnosed and untreated - can get progressively worse. Clinical testing can rule out autoimmunity, or alert you to a problem that requires attention. Some people, by virtue of their unique genetic makeup, are less susceptible to the ravages of chronic, adjuvant-induced autoimmunity. I hope you are among these fortunate peop

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:36 PM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:03 pm Post subject: Hives and miscarriage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just finished reading the book. I picked it up in a bookstore last night, and I could not put it down. I am an Army Reservist, and I was given three anthrax vaccine shots in 1999, just prior to and during a 2/3 week TDY trip to Korea. At the time, I was very healthy and had never had any allergies or other medical problems. Several weeks after the third shot, I started getting unexplained systemic hives all over my body. Several months later, I had a miscarriage. To this day, I have to take medication to keep the hives under control (otherwise, I cannot sleep or otherwise function, I just itch all over my body). I have not tried to have another baby because I'm afraid to get pregnant when I seem to have an unexplained auto-immune disorder. The Army is not paying for my medication, which is pretty expensive (lucky for me I have insurance, but I must still make the co-payments). Army doctors have told me that the hives are not due to the anthrax vaccine, but that I must have an allergy to something, and that when people get older, they can suddenly develop allergies. I have gone to an allergist and he could not figure out what I was allergic to. When I read your book, I realized that I was shot with vaccine from lots FAV043 and FAV038, which contained squalene. I saw mention in your book about urticaria (hives), but I'm wondering if you have more information about this. Am I really going to have hives for the rest of my life as a result of this? And has anyone looked into the impact of this vaccine on females of child-bearing age? I was told that taking the vaccine would not harm my future ability to bear children.

Posted by: Army Reservist at November 29, 2004 01:35 PM

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:10 pm Post subject: Infertility after anthrax shot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adjuvants are indeed known to cause testicular dysfunction. Additionally, if your husband received squalene in his anthrax shots and developed antisperm antibodies, the sperm would be damaged resulting in infertility. The fact that you all did have a healthy child prior to the immunizations, but now have this problem afterward, would suggest a possible connection. Your husband may wish to explore the issue of antisperm antibodies with his Dr. I wish you the best and hope you get the answers you need.

Posted by: Dr. Asa at November 29, 2004 01:34 PM

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject: Reply to SSGTSWife

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear SSGTSWife: I am sorry to hear about your husband's difficulties and hope that the two of you will be able to have more children. If your husband received anthrax shots containing squalene there is a possibility that this vaccine additive is the cause of his infertility. Squalene is an oil added to vaccines to elicit a more robust response from the immune system. The technical term for it is "adjuvant" (pro: ADD-joo-vuhnt). Although the precise manner in which oils do this is still subject to debate, it has been known since early part of the 20th century that vaccine adjuvants containing oil were toxic. What is especially relevant to your husband's case is the fact that oil adjuvants have been proven to cause testicular dysfunction. Since the 1950s, scientists at the National Institutes of Health have known oil adjuvants cause "aspermatogenesis," which is the cessation of sperm production. If your husband received shots from Lot #'s FAV 008, FAV 020, FAV 030, FAV 038, FAV 043, FAV 047, he received immunizations containing squalene; that would be another clue about the origins of your husband's infertility. Another clue is the "temporal association" between your husband's problem and his vaccinations. As you point out - and you are thinking like a scientist here - you gave birth to a healthy child prior to your husband's anthrax vaccinations. These facts alone are grounds for suspecting a vaccine connection. If your husband got injected from lots of squalene-positive anthrax vaccine, then he was immunized with a substance known to cause damage to male sexual organs and the cessation of testosterone and sperm production in animals. Because I did not spend a great deal of time addressing this specific pathology in Vaccine A, I'm going to ask Dr. Pamela Asa to answer your question too.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:34 PM

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:48 am Post subject: Infertility?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My husband had his first shot starting in 1998 after the birth of our 1st and only child. He didn't start having "physical" reactions to the anthrax shot until his 3rd one. With each shot the reactions got worse, three shots later, he was finally given a medical waiver to stop getting this vaccine. To this day, he has shown many of the symptoms that I have read on my research of the anthrax vaccine, but nothing as severe as I have read. I didn't start to research the anthrax vaccine until last year, when we were told that we would be unable to conceive another child the "normal" way, due to his sperm motility and the deformed shaped of his sperm. Our daughter was born in 98 before he received the first dose, is this a coincidence? Maybe I am looking for someone/thing to blame, but we both seem to think that the vaccine is the cause of his issue. I haven't been able to locate any information to see if his issue is ever been related to the anthrax vaccine, and I was wondering if maybe someone knew anything about this.


I look forward to reading your book!
Thank you for your time.

Posted by: SSGTSWife at November 29, 2004 01:33 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:24 am Post subject: Reply to pnalin@sigecom.net, RE: VaxGen's rPA102

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear pnalin: As I explain in Vaccine A, I believe the BioPort product, Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA), aka BioThrax, is safe. I have reported the evidence that the pathology associated with anthrax vaccination is autoimmunity, and there is nothing in the licensed anthrax vaccine that has ever been demonstrated to induce this specific type of illness. There are two new things about rPA102: the way its made (it's genetically engineered), and the adjuvant squalene. So the new vaccine is essentially the same as the old one, except the new one is purer, which makes it weaker, which is why it requires a more powerful adjuvant like squalene. Otherwise, the chief pharmaceutical ingredient for both the old and new vaccines is the same anthrax protein called protective antigen.

A single protein vaccine, that contains nothing of the organism from it is supposed to protect, is technically not a vaccine at all. It is a toxoid. Toxoids are legendary for their weakness (as are most immunizations against bacteria; viral vaccines work much better).

The only "radical scientific departure" from the old vaccine is the adjuvant. The old vaccine used alum; since 1987, prototypes of the new vaccine have been mainly formulated with squalene emulsions.

The VaxGen version of rPA102, in theory, only contains alum. But can you trust that information, knowing that the NIH, FDA and DOD have mounted a coordinated effort since 1998 to "fast track" this vaccine with a squalene emulsion adjuvant, then six lots of anthrax vaccine, mostly made in 1998, turn up positive for squalene? Then, when squalene is found in six lots of anthrax vaccine, the FDA dismisses the squalene as probably "naturally occurring" and probably "harmless trace amounts."

Here're the ramifications of that response. If squalene just happens to turn up in trace quantities in rPA102, the FDA can once again say: "No problem." rPA102 only uses alum (just like the old vaccine that turned up contaminated with squalene). So any squalene subsequently discovered in rPA102 can be thus dismissed as a natural contaminant that "probably" wouldn't harm a soul.

Tulane's data from June 2004 shows that military personnel injected with anthrax vaccine for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have developed antibodies to squalene and illness.

Adding an oil adjuvant to rPA102 is, in fact, a "radical scientific departure" from any vaccine that has been licensed before. I maintain that it is squalene that makes rPA102 exponentially more alarming that the licensed BioPort product, BioThrax, which has one chief liability: its weakness. The Army thinks BioThrax won't work. That's why the Army's been trying to replace BioThrax with a new and improved anthrax vaccine for the past twenty-five years.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:31 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:21 pm Post subject: New Vaccine: Weak Weaponized Protection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pnalin,
My two cents from what I've learned assuming you haven't read chapter. As an officer in the Armed Forces, I'm very concerned about this and the temptations such brings for abuse. This isn't a radical change by any means, just another "high tech retread" as the book discusses in detail. Gary provides multiple references to prove this assertion, the majority of which are from the DoD itself!

The bottom line from my vantage: The new recombinant "rPA" vaccine is just as weak as the last; same engine, just more RPMs. This is because it's even more "purified". When they purify a particular by-product of the anthrax bacteria's waste, call it Protective Antigen, they take away important molecular attributes that would otherwise create unique antibodies. The problem: if they use other components of anthrax waste such as Lethal Factor and Edema Factor, they harm the individual, hence the names--so the Army definitely stays away from those. So we're stuck with just using one by-product of the anthrax spore's waste, that being Protective Antigen aka PA. They can slice and dice it all they want--the same ingredients won't change the flavor--as USAMRIID's Joe Jemski demonstrated, PA alone failed to protect against the serious weaponized versions of anthrax--the Ames and New Hampshire strains (pg. 36). And the list goes on...

What's sad is they measure the "effectiveness" of the new vaccines by the output of antibodies. Who cares if they're the "right" antibodies, they just want antibodies--so they lose focus on the big picture. You're probably hearing alot of spin & hype out there about how the new vaccine is more "potent". It's more potent alright. But you have to understand how they're defining "potent". Potent as far as many antibodies, not potent as far as protection is concerned--protection comes with a myriad of unique antibodies produced--that's what actually protects us from the agent--chopping off key epitopes and such off these molecules is where all this goes downhill (Gary talks about epitopes in his book). With all fairness, I must say it's all we got, but it's extremely weak in regards to producing the variances of antibodies required to protect against the most likely strands an enemy would use against us (i.e. the Ames strain used after 9-11).

This weakness brings in another interesting fact. Because the vaccine is so weak (purified the heck out of), it brings in the temptation to use a booster in times when it concerns "national security" (seen as an option under US patent 6,387,665 at the end "Example 3"). So goes the story how some of today's Army scientists defied valuable logic gained by their predecessors (Wright, Sterne, Jemski) using a cleaner, "more potent" vaccine.

My personal wishes for your soldier's safe return. I am an officer in our Armed forces who deeply cares about their safety. -Sincerely BR

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 01:30 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:21 pm Post subject: New Vaccine: Weak Weaponized Protection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pnalin,
My two cents from what I've learned assuming you haven't read chapter. As an officer in the Armed Forces, I'm very concerned about this and the temptations such brings for abuse. This isn't a radical change by any means, just another "high tech retread" as the book discusses in detail. Gary provides multiple references to prove this assertion, the majority of which are from the DoD itself!

The bottom line from my vantage: The new recombinant "rPA" vaccine is just as weak as the last; same engine, just more RPMs. This is because it's even more "purified". When they purify a particular by-product of the anthrax bacteria's waste, call it Protective Antigen, they take away important molecular attributes that would otherwise create unique antibodies. The problem: if they use other components of anthrax waste such as Lethal Factor and Edema Factor, they harm the individual, hence the names--so the Army definitely stays away from those. So we're stuck with just using one by-product of the anthrax spore's waste, that being Protective Antigen aka PA. They can slice and dice it all they want--the same ingredients won't change the flavor--as USAMRIID's Joe Jemski demonstrated, PA alone failed to protect against the serious weaponized versions of anthrax--the Ames and New Hampshire strains (pg. 36). And the list goes on...

What's sad is they measure the "effectiveness" of the new vaccines by the output of antibodies. Who cares if they're the "right" antibodies, they just want antibodies--so they lose focus on the big picture. You're probably hearing alot of spin & hype out there about how the new vaccine is more "potent". It's more potent alright. But you have to understand how they're defining "potent". Potent as far as many antibodies, not potent as far as protection is concerned--protection comes with a myriad of unique antibodies produced--that's what actually protects us from the agent--chopping off key epitopes and such off these molecules is where all this goes downhill (Gary talks about epitopes in his book). With all fairness, I must say it's all we got, but it's extremely weak in regards to producing the variances of antibodies required to protect against the most likely strands an enemy would use against us (i.e. the Ames strain used after 9-11).

This weakness brings in another interesting fact. Because the vaccine is so weak (purified the heck out of), it brings in the temptation to use a booster in times when it concerns "national security" (seen as an option under US patent 6,387,665 at the end "Example 3"). So goes the story how some of today's Army scientists defied valuable logic gained by their predecessors (Wright, Sterne, Jemski) using a cleaner, "more potent" vaccine.

My personal wishes for your soldier's safe return. I am an officer in our Armed forces who deeply cares about their safety. -Sincerely BR

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 01:29 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:49 pm Post subject: VaxGen $878 BioShield Contract for Anthrax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand the November 5, 2004 contract requires VaxGen to continue to develop this newer vaccine for FDA approval, however, the government plans to purchase the vaccine before it is licensed. Although the company is really quite new, they have outstanding cooperation with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases AND U.S.Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (Fort Detrick, MD). Even though the company's AIDS vaccine was a bust in 2003, the research dollars are now pouring in. I sure hope they can get their finances back in line so they can return to NASDAQ.

Gary, is this new approach (rPA102) really a radical scientific departure, or potentially just as alarming as BioPort's product? I have one of those human guinea pigs serving in Operation Enduring Freedom overseas right now.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:27 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:50 am Post subject: Squalene antibody tests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The test for antisqualene antibodies has been done for research purposes only and is not done on a regular basis as yet. It seems there are many who are interested in getting the test. I will discuss this situation with my colleagues in New Orleans, Dr. Bob Garry at Tulane Medical School and Dr. Russell Wilson at Autoimmune Technologies. I will post information after we have decided what the best course of action may be. Thank you for your interest.

Posted by: Dr. Asa at November 29, 2004 01:25 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:49 am Post subject: Squalene antibody tests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The test for antisqualene antibodies has been done for research purposes only and is not done on a regular basis as yet. It seems there are many who are interested in getting the test. I will discuss this situation with my colleagues in New Orleans, Dr. Bob Garry at Tulane Medical School and Dr. Russell Wilson at Autoimmune Technologies. I will post information after we have decided what the best course of action may be. Thank you for your interest.

Posted by: Dr. Asa at November 29, 2004 01:24 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:09 pm Post subject: test

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My fiance just recently has experienced some medical issues which could be related to the anthrax vaccine. He started the shots in the Navy and finished them when he transferred to the Army. Could you also provide me with the information as to where he can have the antibody test done?

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:23 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:28 am Post subject: Reply to zpg2002, Antibody Test

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear zpg2002: I'm going to get Dr. Pamela Asa to get on contact with you about this.

Sincerely,
Gary

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:22 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 11:41 pm Post subject: squalene antibody tests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary, I just started your new book and it is incredible what you have reported. I would like to know were or how one would go about having a squalene antibody test.

Thanks

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:21 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject: Reply to ex-WRAMC Staff, RE: GW1-FAV 001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear ex-WRAMC: If you've tested positive for antibodies to squalene and have been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, then I think it's fairly certain that you were injected with an early version of Fort Detrick's second generation anthrax vaccine emulsified in squalene. Based on comments made in this forum by other sick GW veterans who received anthrax injections in September 1990 (more than three months ahead of the mass immunization program that began on 5 January 1990) it sounds like you guys got "special" treatment. Right now that's just a suspicion based on anecdotal evidence, but if you've got anti-squalene antibodies and an autoimmune disease - both constitute clinical evidence that you were injected with an experimental vaccine.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:19 PM

Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:49 am Post subject: GWI-FAV 001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to your comments to the fella in Alabama. Interesting that you mentioned the first lots that weren't tested by FDA during GWI because I received one shot in Sept. of 1990, and I've been ill for 11 years. I was supposed to deploy with the 2AD out of Ft. Hood, but at the last minute I did not go. I fell off my chair when I read Garry and Asa's first research documentation which had almost 100% of non-deployed GWI vets to have antibodies to squalene.
_________________
GWI, non-deployed, 100%, former WRAMC staff on first Gulf War Center, ill from adjuvant induced autoimmune disease.

Posted by: ex-WRAMC staff at November 29, 2004 01:18 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:07 pm Post subject: Reply to Guest1, RE: New Anthrax Vaccine Paper (11/04)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Guest1: Good detective work! You have the makings of an investigator. R-700 is a variation of the Ribi Adjuvant System, and a descendant of the Triple Mix or Tri-Mix squalene emulsion that Fort Detrick used in the original prototypes of the second generation anthrax vaccine. As you know, but others who are just hearing about this thanks to your sharp eye, R-700 contains something called TDM (synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate) and MPL, another lipid moledule (squalene is a lipid) called monophosphoryl lipid A. Every 0.5 mg vial of this adjuvant contains 44 microliters of squalene.

In the 1990s, the military incorporated Chiron's MF59 squalene emulsion into the new anthrax vaccine; the British used the Ribi Adjuvant System. In addition R-700, the Defense Department is also running trials with another adjuvant called CpG 7909, which is a DNA-based adjuvant (CpG 7909 is a nucleotide) combined with either Chiron's MF59 and PROVAX. Both MF59 and PROVAX are squalene emulsions.

COMMENT: The fact that USAMRIID scientists, at this late date, are finally adding extra anthrax organism components (i.e. capsule antigens) to a new anthrax vaccine tells you this: there are still doubts about the new one. If they are confident that rPA102 will work, then why continue to invest time and money into a new design? Contructing yet another new prototype is a tacit admission by Army scientists that a vaccine based on one protein, protective antigen (PA), is inadequate. Army scientists have known since the early 1960s that a truly effective anthrax vaccine must contain multiple anthrax components. The use of immunostimulants like squalene beginning in the late 1980s was already evidence that Fort Detrick scientists knew that an anthrax vaccine based on protective antigen only will provide less than desirable protection.

The Russians make a live-spore vaccine for humans that is considered 100% effective. French scientists at the Pasteur Institute have come up with a new vaccine that contains whole spores. Scientists at Harvard have developed an alternate anthrax vaccine that contains capsule antigens in addition to PA. Only getting around in 2004 to making an anthrax vaccine with more than PA is outrageous, because Fort Detrick's top scientists said this had to be done as early as 1963-4. A new generation of Army scientists said it again in the 1980s; as did British scientists in the 1980s at Porton Down.

Here's the simple, but highly inconvenient fact that the Army and the FDA still don't want to accept: the only vaccine that'd guarantee good protection against a wide range of anthrax strains is one made from a combination of anthrax cells and spores; attenuated or killed.

Thanks for the information! The first I heard about the USAMRIID crew's new paper and their use of the RAS variation, R-700, was from you!

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:17 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am Post subject: Just Published - New Anthrax Vaccine work with squalene

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The USAMRIID crew is apparently still at it, with more work with squalene-based adjuvant in a new anthrax vaccine. Check out VACCINE, November 15, 2004, volume 23, pages 43 to 47. THe article is "Anthrax Capsule Vaccine Protects Against Experimental Infection." They used Corixa's R-700 adjuvant, and listed SOME of the adjuvant's components, but they "somehow" neglected to mention that squalene was part of the adjuvant. Is the Army still developing squalene-based anthrax vaccines? This article might seem to suggest so. It might also seem to some people that in not mentioning the presence of squalene in their anthrax vaccine, they're actually trying to hide the fact. Comments from Gary M. and others???

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 01:16 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:35 pm Post subject: FDA's SQE in Tetanus & Diptheria

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you digging in those references in the back of the book, here's some clarification I got from the expert regarding squalene found in tetanus and diptheria.

If you link to http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/licvacc.htm, you'll find the FDA's licensed vaccines list. On the list, you'll see the diptheria/tetanus combination vaccines (two things in one). Gary mentioned these are called "bivalent" vaccines. When you reference http://www.anthrax.mil/media/pdf/squalene/FDAsqualene1.pdf, the FDA tested "monovalent" tetanus toxoid made by Connaught. Likewise, the FDA tested "monovalent" diptheria toxoid made by Wyeth. The bivalent tetanus/diptheria toxoid is a different product.

So if you look at the FDA footnotes on this webpage, don't be confused if you see a bivalent vaccine such as Aventis Pasteur's diptheria/tetanus that has a footnote that says "Aventis Pasteur, Ltd obtained product ownership from Connaught Laboratories, Ltd, effective February 24, 2000". Just remember, the FDA did NOT test any bivalent vaccines. If you're a novice like me, you could easily misunderstand the difference.

Bottom Line: "FDA tested a diphtheria toxoid made by Wyeth, which is not licensed. FDA tested a monovalent tetanus toxoid by Connaught; this is not licensed either. A bivalent tetanus/diphtheria toxoid is a different product."

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 01:14 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:51 pm Post subject: Reply to RobertW of Alabama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Robert: According to declassified U.S. Army documents, when Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd, 1990, the U.S. had a 1988 contract with the Michigan Department of Public Health to deliver 300,000 doses of anthrax vaccine. In August 1990, MDPH had only delivered a fraction of this order. If you received an anthrax shot as early as August 1991, then it is likely that your specific dose came from a lot that pre-dated the FAV series. Based on the MBPI inventory, FAV 001 (68,630 doses) was first distributed on 5 September 1990. The only batches proven to contain squalene are those for which there is data from the FDA and SRI; I have no information on any other lots.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:12 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Thanks and Follow-up Question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RobertW of Alabama wrote:

Follow-on Question:
Were there many lots floating around in late 90 and early 91 or primarily just one lot FAV 008- do you know based upon your research.

Thanks Gary- RobertW of Alabama


I would like to know that also. I received a shot in August of 1990 and I am wondering if that shot was also contaminated, was is part of the FAV 008 batch? I have no entry of the shot in my shot records, but we all knew we were getting the anthrax shot, and we also signed something stating that we received it.

I would also like to thank you for writing this book.

Posted by: emidan611 at November 29, 2004 01:12 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:19 pm Post subject: Thanks and Follow-up Question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Gary- I feel silly about my "three" interpretation. Thanks for the clarification.
(1) Why was Vaccine A - a licensed vaccine - a secret, but not Botox, which was experimental?
Answer: I do not know.
Comment: Who knows- nice to be made aware of another experiment. For what it's worth we called it "botulism toxoid"... same thing? ...realizing soldier slang is not concerned with scientific accuracy- but apparently it ought to be. I also thought we got something to assist with future potential exposure to "nerve gas", to maybe provide us a better chance of survival above and beyond atropine injections that would be administered upon exposure (not a pleasant thought). It could have been misinformation, bad guessing from the country boy medical NCO or cover for something else. NO way to know. We were so totally trusting, unsusispious and unknowledgeable as it pertained to immunizations. We were like little children. This abuse is much like abusing a child. We were our nations children- wanting to fight to defend our nation's honor. We grew up taking shit from the communists in the 60s, 70s and 80s. We were ready to demonstrate the american way, professionally- we loved and trusted our government- we though wrongs in the past were fully past. Perhaps that is SSDD same-story-different-day.

(2) If the time-to-immunity was six months with the old vaccine, why bother using it? The war ended in less than two months.
Answer: I do not know.
Theory: They do it for Money and power. It had nothing to do with the war. It has everything to do with "creating a need"- "Falsified" and "Manipulated" need- some might argue WMD? I won't go there- I think that is why the topics "Other Vaccines" and "Separate Vaccine - $50Mil to stop deaths in 6 out of 960,000" found their way to your Message Board. Create the need, the money, power and board positions follow. All these bestowed upon those who pass the money around-

(3) If the FDA-licensed shot protocol requires the first three shots to be given at 0, 2 and 4 weeks, how come you got three shots at 0, 1 and 2 months? Answer: I don't know, I could be a little wrong.
Explaination: I did absolutely receive three. It is possible that they were given at 1, 2 and 4 weeks. I remember most, keeping up with when the next one was due, so as to not screw it up. I absolutely know there were three for me. I wish I were 100% certain of the interval. Perhaps we did not follow up because the war ended or perhaps I am unaware of other vaccines I received later- hard to know, being unconcerned, trusting and unaware-

(4) If the Army's new vaccine worked faster with fewer shots (in theory, with just one or two) and it was supposedly safe, why not use it if could save a lot of lives? I would. I don't know the answer to that.- Were you leading me to an answer? O don't know.

(5) Why give troops just one or two shots out of the six shot series? Was it just a coincidence that the new vaccine, in theory, only required one or two shots? I have no idea.

Follow-on Question:
Were there many lots floating around in late 90 and early 91 or primarily just one lot FAV 008- do you know based upon your research.

Thanks Gary- RobertW of Alabama

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 01:11 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:22 am Post subject: Reply to Robert W, RE: Vac-A Lot # FAV 008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Robert W: I didn't make this reference to lot #FAV 008 clear enough, and I'm sorry about that. As I understand DOD's information, SRI tested three doses drawn from lot FAV 008 and found squalene concentrations in each dose, ranging from 1 to 9 parts per billion. This data did not refer to any instructions to give each recipient three doses.

Here are a few facts to ponder:

(1) Anthrax vaccine was licensed; botulinum toxoid was not;
(2) With the licensed anthrax vaccine, the estimated "time-to-immunity" (the amount of time it takes to acquire immunity following immunization) was six months;
(3) The licensed FDA protocol requires the first three shots to be given at 0, 2 and 4 weeks. Three more shots in the basic series follow that at six months, one year and eighteen months; an annual booster is required to maintain immunity. This is because in the early 1960s, Fort Detrick scientists discovered that injections with the chief pharmaceutical ingredient in the vaccine, a protein secreted by the organism called protective antigen (PA), produced transient immunity. Antibody titers to PA disappeared after about three months without a booster.
(4) The Army's new and improved anthrax vaccine allegedly produced the same amount of immunity in less time with one or two shots;
(5) 150,000 troops received anthrax immunizations; most only got one or two shots. Three was highly unusual.

So here are my questions corresponding to the aforementioned facts:

(1) Why was Vaccine A - a licensed vaccine - a secret, but not Botox, which was experimental?;
(2) If the time-to-immunity was six months with the old vaccine, why bother using it? The war ended in less than two months.
(3) If the FDA-licensed shot protocol requires the first three shots to be given at 0, 2 and 4 weeks, how come you got three shots at 0, 1 and 2 months?
(4) If the Army's new vaccine worked faster with fewer shots (in theory, with just one or two) and it was supposedly safe, why not use it if could save a lot of lives? I would.
(5) Why give troops just one or two shots out of the six shot series? Was it just a coincidence that the new vaccine, in theory, only required one or two shots?

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:10 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject: Question to Gary M, Ref: Quoting you concerning FAV 008-1991

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question to you Gary M.:
Ref: your comments concerning FAV 008 -1991
I quoted one of your previous posts below and have a question or two.
Given this quote:
BioPort's precursor, the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH), distributed 72,600 doses of squalene-positive lot number FAV 008 on 22 January 1991 (one week after the commencement of Desert Storm). Later, in June 1991, MDPH distributed an additional 125,800 doses of FAV 008. There were 6 more batches of anthrax vaccine given the designation FAV 008...

My Comment and Experience at that time: That's alot of doses. One thing I haven't heard anyone else speak of and that I think was BS and suspicious is that my vaccines at that time were "classified". It is the only time in my career EVER, that such a thing EVER happened. That's more a side note. Ther real comment is this: I received anthrax and other vaccines right at the time those 72,600 doses of squalene-positive lot number FAV 008 were released. I received an additional two doses, one each month, for two subsequent and consectuive months, total of three-

Also Given Your Quote:
Per SRI: FAV 008 - three doses containing 1-9 ppb

The Question:
Is this a no-brainer? =FAV 008 -that I received FAV 008 anthrax vaccines at that time with exactly those dosing instructions? -or were there other lots I might have received?
Were multiple lots in distribution during those months, or is it pretty much a no brainer, this lot number, administered as a number of three = "definately" what I got -or- "most likely"- or- perhaps- "without a doubt"- or perhaps -"no way to know", what I received.

I would like your honest opinion. The "three doses" really got me. That was not true for everyone. Some got one, some got more from what I understand. I'm sure many got less or more than they were supposed to, but being the good trooper I was, I did exactly as instructed... Duty, you know- doing the right thing whether anyone is notices or not.

Your thoughts-
Respectfully your friend in Alabama,

Robert W from Alabama

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 01:09 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:24 pm Post subject: Vaccine-A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Matsumoto, Dr. Pam Asa, Dr. Robert Garry and others who worked for us who are sick and ones you saved. We owe you all more than just a thank you and your efforts and successes mean more than we can ever put into words. This is all about informing, educating, and reporting. The magnitude of this injustice is bigger than most can imagine. The reality for us who are sick is very hard to accept. I haven't given up hope yet. I'm in the defensive mode at this time doing everything I can to inform without having to suffer the consequences of military discipline. I will soon be medically retired and then I will be free to do alot more. For those who are sick contact your Congressmen and Senators and demand justice. I look forward to a brighter day!!

TennVol

Posted by: TennVol at November 29, 2004 01:08 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:29 pm Post subject: By the way-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "government" doesn't do it. "People" in the government do it. They do it for the money and power.

Posted by: Guest and friend at November 29, 2004 01:07 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject: Thank You- for passing along your experience

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank You,
It was you, I served and not the "government".
Thank You- your post means more than you know

Posted by: Guest and friend at November 29, 2004 01:06 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:14 am Post subject: I've grown tired and livid!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm starting to get more livid as time goes on, since maybe I actually understand things a bit more clearly. It just seems the government has this pattern of harming the men and women who actually want to go out and make a difference in our country. The really sad thing is I think the government in their sick twisted heads are basically saying well there is a good chance half if not more will not return home so we can get away with this. But they never do, they’re always survivors and people live to tell their story and we can't help but feel utterly sad and helpless for them. But, my question is why don't we learn...why can't we question the government? Why can't we stand up against them before it’s too late? Isn't this a country were we are suppose to be free?! Freedom of speech?! The pattern never fails, soldiers leave and if not right after arriving home or several years later something occurs in their bodies...I was never personally injected or exposed to any chemical whether it be Agent Orange from Vietnam, Depleted Uranium, and now anthrax vaccine and the list can go on and on. I grew angry with the government at the tender age of 6 when my father was taken from us due to Agent Orange from Vietnam. It was a struggle to watch him go through this so I can only imagine what the families today are going through...it’s not easy and the government certainly doesn't like the finger pointed in there direction. We need to fight against them and the men and women affected with these diseases should never give up! My father was very ill to fight his own battle so we his family did. The government will do anything to cover up their horror. This includes your medical records, to keep you quiet they may even hush you to somewhere or even change your death record so you look like a crazy person who doesn't deserve benefits and you know what!!!??? Don't let them ever get you!!! Fight them! But again why can't we do anything before it gets to this point? Sorry for how long it is and those who read it Thanks for your time. It's much appericated.
~SKA

Posted by: SKA at November 29, 2004 01:05 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:41 pm Post subject: Reply to Paris, RE: Squalene Positive Anthrax Vaccine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Paris: The following information, most of which you will not find in the book, is taken from a confidential anthrax vaccine inventory leaked to me by a BioPort official:

FAV 008
BioPort's precursor, the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH), distributed 72,600 doses of squalene-positive lot number FAV 008 on 22 January 1991 (one week after the commencement of Desert Storm). Later, in June 1991, MDPH distributed an additional 125,800 doses of FAV 008. There were 6 more batches of anthrax vaccine given the designation FAV 008, distributed at various junctures from January 15th 1992 through October 23rd, 1998. These distributions account for an additional 211,930 doses of a squalene-positive antharx vaccine lot.

FAV 020
The inventory states that squalene-positive lot FAV 020 produced 214,300 doses. MDPH, reconstituted as BioPort, began distributing this batch on February 17th, 1998 - the same year the NIH formed the NIH Working Group with FDA and DOD to "fast track" the licensing of the new vaccine.

FAV 030
FAV 030, in which the FDA also found squalene, yielded 207,720 doses. These were first distributed on May 11th, 1998. Again, this is the very year when NIH inaugurated its working group to support the second generation vaccine. It was also the year that DOD drafted a memorandum of understanding, dubbed CANUKUS, to develop the new vaccine with the cooperation of the Canadian and UK governments.

I do not have similiar information for other lot numbers.

RE: Administration of Shots. I have no information about what individual medics or nurses knew about the lots numbers. I suspect that in most cases they knew nothing.

According to patient medical records submitted to Dr. Asa and to attorney, Alan Milstein in a lawsuit unrelated to the Tulane research, there was a discernible pattern in the lot numbers administered to patients who received squalene-positive anthrax immunization. These records show that most patients received a three-shot series from squalene-positive vaccine lots; then they received doses from lots not proven to contain squalene, and not associated with the induction of anti-squalene Abs or autoimmunity.

In general, the three-shot series were from the same squalene-positive lots; in the few instances where the lots number varied, the squalene concentrations were nearly identical (i.e., FAV 008, FAV 020 and FAV 030 have been shown to contain concentrations ranging from 9 ppb to 11 pbb).

Interestingly, in 1998, the same year that selected anthrax lots turned up positive for squalene, the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) endorsed a prospective DOD study to "prime with two or three doses of anthrax vaccine and boost at some reasonable interval or when deployment or travel demands it" N.B. (AFEB 15-1a, 98-11, 28 April 1998). "Prime with two or three doses." That year, 1998, DOD began administering to many active duty military personnel - based on records possessed by Dr. Asa and Alan Milstein - a de facto three-shot series of squalene-positive anthrax vaccine. Was that "priming" in addition to dose-ranging?

I think this bears further investigation.

Yes, the official position is that each lot should be nearly identical in its contents. That was one of the stated goals in making the new vaccine: to make it more consistent from batch to batch; the old vaccine was - as Forest Gump's momma used to say - a bit like "like a box a chocolates. You never knew what you're gonna get." Making the vaccine by recombinant DNA methodology is a more controlled process, supposedly yielding more consistent results.

However, contrary to the position that the constituents of every lot are identical, the FDA found squalene in the following concentrations:


Per FDA

FAV 020 - 11 ppb
FAV 030 - 10 ppb
FAV 038 - 27 ppb
FAV 043 - 40 ppb
FAV 047 - 83 ppb

Per SRI:

FAV 008 - three doses containing 1-9 ppb


If these concentrations represent forensic scientific evidence of a controlled experiment - and I maintain that they do - I believe paperwork will exist on it, but I do not have it. One of my goals in publishing Vaccine A was to bring sufficient public pressure to bear on DOD and DHHS to release the documentation related to all classified vaccine trials on military personnel, which have been conducted without informed consent.

Paperwork has been difficult to pry out of DOD; what I have, I mostly received through the Freedom of Information Act. DHHS has refused to even acknowledge receipt of my FOIA requests (submitted five years ago), let alone release any documents.

The stonewalling and outright deception on this matter began shortly after Desert Storm. For years, DOD officials informed the media that all the short records from the war had been lost. The absence of such records was a problem for anyone trying to correlate illness with anthrax vaccine. According to many veterans - at the time the shots were given - members of DOD's shot teams administering anthrax vaccine refused to enter any notation about the shot in soldier's WHO immunization cards.

However, DOD did not inform the media that all soldiers receiving anthrax immunizations during the first Gulf War signed rosters, documenting that they had received the shot. According to an IOM study published in 1995, those records had been located (but IOM didn't say where). Later, the Army declassified biodefense records from the war, showing that the anthrax shot rosters went to FORSCOM (Forces Command) and then to the Army Surgeon General's office in Falls Church, Virginia. Yet, DOD officials did nothing to correct the erroneous reporting in the press that all the records were missing.

What's more, according to a declassified 1991 briefing from General Ronald Blanck, who was in charge of biodefense immunizations in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, to the Joint Chiefs, Blanck was about to instruct his minions to run a retrospective study on Gulf War veterans to measure their antibody titers to anthras - comparing the titers between those troops who received one shot, and those that received two. Blanck could not order such a study, had he not known the locations of the anthrax shot roster in September 1991 when he was recommending that this study be done.

So, there is considerable evidence (in declassified Army documents) that officials in DOD Health Affairs and the Army Surgeon General's Office have a lot more information than they are disclosing to troops, let alone the general public.

In the eight years since Insight Magazine first broke the story about anti-squalene antibodies in sick troops (supposedly given an experimental HIV vaccine with squalene), DOD, FDA and NIH have made no mention about the second generation anthrax vaccine with squalene, even though it has been - in terms of manpower and money invested in R&D - the number one biodefense initiative of the past two decades. They have made no mention of what now amounts to twenty-six peer-reviewed scientific papers on squalene's ability to induce autoimmune disease in animals. GAO investigators have reported a systematic under-reporting of adverse reactions among Air Force Guard and Reserves receiving anthrax shots during 1998-2000.

I'd wager, there's a lot more DOD and DHHS officials aren't saying, and won't say, until they are forced to testify under oath. That's not going to happen, I think, without public pressure from the good citizens of this country (assuming you are from this country with a pseudonym like "Paris") like yourself.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:03 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many doses are in one lot?

What criteria (if any) is used by the medic or nurse giving the shot to decide which lot to use?

If an experiment were being conducted wouldn't it be necessary to keep giving the same people shots from the same lots?

What I'm saying is - according to the "official position" all the lots are the same - right? So it shouldn't matter if my first shot comes from lot no. FAV 073, my second shot comes FAV 072 and the third from FAV 055.

But if a properly controlled experiment was being conducted wouldn't it be necessary to ensure that a very specific sequence of shots are given from the lots that are part of the experiment? Wouldn't there be paperwork showing this? In other words, wouldn't a medic or nurse have orders to use specific lots on specfic persons? Does this paperwork exist? What do those giving the shots have to say about this?

Posted by: Paris at November 29, 2004 01:02 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject: Vac-A w/Squalene and/or Linked to Antibodies & Autoimmun

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To All: Based on data from Tulane University Medical School, and medical records submitted by military personnel to Dr. Asa, this the complete list the vaccine lot numbers that Tulane considers problematic (I forgot to mention three of them in earlier postings):

Squalene-Positive [per FDA and SRI]:
FAV 008, FAV 020, FAV 030, FAV 038, FAV 043, FAV 047

Have Induced Anti-Squalene Antibodies [per Tulane Med School]:
FAV 041, FAV 070 and FAV 071

Associated with Autoimmune-Related Symptoms or Fullly Diagnosed Autoimmune Diseases in Troops [per Tulane]:
FAV 017, FAV 048b, FAV 066, FAV 068, FAV 069, FAV 073, FAV 074, FAV 075, FAV 078

I recommend directing any questions concerning this data to either Dr. Pamela B. Asa or Dr. Robert F. Garry.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:01 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject: Reply to Dr. Moreno's Follow-Up Response

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Moreno:

Please allow me to reiterate my belief that you are an honorable man and that your criticisms of Vaccine A were made in good faith.

You are clearly an eminent scholar who is, even as we disagree on substantive issues concerning my book, doing important work in the service of U.S. military personnel.

For your research on the DOE human radiation experiments, Project Shad and more, may I be among those who most loudly applaud your past and present efforts. I know that I am, along with the men and women in serve in the U.S. armed forces, a beneficiary of your work. All my nieces and nephews are now draft age; one nephew in is in the Marine Corps awaiting deployment to Iraq.

If I have appeared ungracious towards Mr. Butterworth or Laurie Garrett in my book, then I apologize, but only about my tone. In general, it is not easy to criticize without such criticism appearing unduly harsh. However, criticize I must, because their errors were intentionally amplified by DOD's wide dissemination of their attacks on the Vanity Fair article, which were distributed to members of Congress and the media. Having spoken to Mr. Butterworth on more than one occasion, I believe that he, too, was well meaning in his attacks on Vanity Fair, and acted in good faith. Nevertheless, I believe his assertions, which are still being trafficked on the Internet, required rebuttal for the benefit of those people who've been injected with squalene in the past, and those at risk of being injected with it in the future.

All this could be settled if selected DOD and DHHS officials be forced to answer, under oath, and before a committee whose members have no ties to the defense or pharmaceutical industries, these two questions: (1) Did DHHS grant DOD a waiver of informed consent for the testing of the second generation anthrax vaccine on military personnel, or, in a separate protocol, the testing of squalene emulsion adjuvants on military personnel?; and (2) Did DOD defy existing requirements for such a waiver and administer IND drugs and vaccines to U.S. troops with the best of intentions, but in error?

Then, as with the DOE documents on the human radiation experiments, all the DOD and DHHS documents regarding the testing of oil adjuvants on troops (Incomplete Freund's Adjuvant and squalene emulsions), should be declassified and released, unredacted, to the public.

It does not help if scholars such as yourself remain tepid on this issue; or worse, balk at it. Even GAO investigators, investigators with the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and members of the House Government Reform Committee have complained about DOD and FDA stonewalling and obfuscation on the matter of squalene.

Because classified clinical trials on troops lack accountability and are open to corruption, I believe the practice of running such experiments without informed consent should stop. To inject accountability into this system, the Feres Doctrine should be reinterpreted or scrapped, and reparations should be paid to those military personnel who've been harmed by these injections.

Sincerely,

Gary Matsumoto

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 01:00 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:24 pm Post subject: Follow-up Reply, Dr. Jonathan D. Moreno, RE: WashPost Review

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Matsumoto,

Thank you for your reply. I have never made any secret of my affiliations, paid or unpaid. I hope in your posting you will note that my work on the human radiation experiments controversy 10 years ago helped result in uncovering decades of federally supported research; that I published the first and only comprehensive history of government atomic, biological and chemical experiments since World War II; that I am the only bioethicist to have written about the exposure of sailors and soldiers to nerve agents during the 1960s ("Project 112" of SHAD); that my uncompensated service on the National Research Council's committee to review the Pentagon's radiation dose reconstruction has contributed to an overhaul of that program and fairer assessment of the veteran's' exposures; and that my current projects include a book on the threat that national security neuroscience research poses to our civil liberties and further threatens traditional limits on the exposure of civilians to weapons of war. I look forward to seeing this information on your website.

I wish you best of luck in your work.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:59 PM

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:57 am Post subject: Thank You Thank you Thank you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary,
Sincerly appreciate you taking the time to explain the serious flaws/contradictions of Col Carl Alving's research. I have copied your response for further reference & to share with others who want to know at work. Fabulous summary! -Trebor

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:58 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:28 pm Post subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: Alving's Antibody Assay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSPICUOUS OMISSIONS: This list is endless. I offer you this abridged list, starting with Alving's dead pigs. As you will recall from my book, and my first message in this series, Alving immunized miniature pigs with cholesterol-laden liposomes. As a result, they went into shock and died. But he omits this fact from all of his post-1989 (the year he published his pig data) papers on what he claims are "naturally occurring" autoantibodies to cholesterol. In his squalene papers, he makes no reference to any of the twenty-six peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating squalene's ability to induce incurable autoimune disease and neurological injury in animals. Not one of them gets a mention. He's repeatedly published that the Tulane assay has been "severely criticized," while neglecting to point out that he and Col. Grabenstein - two Army officers who are in the direct firing line on this issue - are the only two scientists who have publicly made such criticisms. No one else has. He fails to disclose his financial conflicts of interest in declaring autoantibodies to squalene a benign phenomenon, and that squalene is a safe and effective adjuvant. Since the mid-1990s, Alving has had business ties with Medimmune - a company that has been developing vaccines made with Chiron's proprietary, squalene-based adjuvant, MF59. When Alving went to Dover Air Force Base in May 1999 to refute my allegations in Vanity Fair, he did not tell a single person attending these briefings (organized by former Air Force Surgeon General Charles Roadman) that the GAO had been investigating his (Alving's), role in adding squalene-based adjuvants to a "more potent anthrax vaccine for Desert Shield." Finally, in his attacks on Tulane, Alving has never mentioned the Army's new anthrax vaccine and his particular contribution to it - squalene and cholesterol-based adjuvants. If squalene and cholesterol are as safe to inject as Alving maintains they are, why not openly discuss the data to the contrary? Alving has no excuse for not knowing about this data; some of it - concerning cholesterol autoantibodies - is his own. Military personnel are entitled to know all the facts, not just some of them, about a substance that could cause them grave and irreversible inju

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:57 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:12 pm Post subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: Alving's Antibody Assay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COHORTS: Okay, here are my problems with Alving's ill-defined cohorts. They are ill-defined, because Alving omits the immunization history of the people in each cohort. This is a particular issue with the first group of patients: Fort Detrick alumni. Alving selected this specific patient population from individuals who were not only alumni of Fort Detrick, they were alumni of Fort Detrick's Special Immunization Program. Volunteers for the Special Immunization Program are frequently among the first to try out USAMRIID's experimental vaccines - like rPA102 (the second generation anthrax vaccine) and all of its prototypes that contained squalene. Oh, did Col. Alving mention that in addition to rPA102 and its precursors, he also helped develop the Defense Department's malaria vaccines that contain squalene? And did he mention that the Army was the lead agency in developing America's first prototype HIV vaccines that all contained squalene? And did he mention, as I pointed out earlier, that Fort Detrick's doctors and scientists often test with their new vaccines on volunteers in the Special Immunization Program? No? I thought not. It is entirely conceivable that because these individuals were all participants in Fort Detrick's Special Immunization Program, that they were all injected with squalene emulsion adjuvants in experimental vaccines for anthrax or other infectious diseases. To eliminate questions arising from this possibility, Alving should have published the immunization history for each of these patients.

Here's another problem with the cohorts drawns from Fort Detrick alumni and the good citizens of Frederick, Maryland. They're old. Alving says their average age is 58. If you look at his tables, the youngest patient in the Fort Detrick group is, in fact, 58; the oldest was 82. In immunology, age matters. That's because your blood gets thicker when you get older. So by deliberately selectingly elderly patients, Alving deliberately chose subjects who would invariably have stickier serum. This would generate higher "background" levels of non-specific antibody binding - phenomenon illustrated by Alving's own data. In his Fort Knox cohort, for which the average age, according to Alving, ranged from 17 to 21, there wasn't a single patient who tested positive for IgG autoantibodies to squalene - even at his eye-poppingly dense 1:25 concentration of sera. With the elderly patients, whose sera is already more densely concentrated, coupled with Alving's dubious 1:25 dilution, he was, in immunological terms, "stacking the deck." Alving was insuring through blatant selection bias and his inappropriate dilutions that he would get a specific result - which was this: all God's creatures have autoantibodies to squalene. The scientists at Tulane University Medical School have demonstrated otherwise with their assay system (upon which Alving based his) that relies on a 1:400 dilution.

Finally, I would add this thought. If, as Col. John Grabenstein of the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) has sometimes stated (he has, on more than one occasion, changed his theory on the provenance of squalene in anthrax vaccine), the FDA found squalene in five lots of anthrax vaccine, because the organism, Bacillus anthracis, makes it. If this is so, then the cohort made up of Fort Detrick alumni, who, as Col. Alving reports, were immunized with the licensed anthrax vaccine, conceivably developed iatrogenically-induced autoantibodies to squalene from injections with anthrax vaccine that contained this oil, allegedly biosynthesized by the microbe. Whether there by unfortunate accident or by pernicious design, trace quantities of squalene have proven sufficient to break the body's natural tolerance for a lipid molecule found throughout the human nervous system - a phenomenon that could lead to neurological damage from autoimmune disease. Neurological damage has been shown to occur in several animal species injected with squalene.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:55 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:56 pm Post subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: Alving's Antibody Assay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE DILUTIONS: As I discussed in my book, serum (the straw-colored fluid in which blood cells are suspended) is gooey. There're lot of things in serum that'll stick to celluose strips (which are used in the Western Blot assay preferred by Tulane) or in the little plastic wells on ELISA plates (which are used in Enyzme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay preferred by Col. Alving). Because serum is so sticky, scientists looking for a specific antibody have to dilute it to eliminate what they call "background," which refers to the "non-specific" sticking of material that has nothing to do with the antibody one is seeking. While the ideal dilution to determine antibody specificity differs with each system (it's not "one size fits all"), it is safe to say that a 1:25 or a 1:50 dilution to make this determination is ludicrous. That a journal specializing in immunological methods published this is, at a minimum, disturbing. Serum at these dilutions is like Elmer's Glue; its components will stick to everything. This is not just a difference of opinion between Dr. Robert F. Garry and Col. Carl Alving. This is Immunology 101. It is that elementary. Assuming Col. Alving has passed Immunology 101, and I maintain that he has, this raises questions about his ethics. In his work with cholesterol autoantibodies, Alving says he used a 1:100 dilution. Based on Alving's own research, this, too, may be way too dense a concentration of serum. In this 1996 paper, Antibodies to cholesterol, biological implication of antibodies to lipids in Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, Alving's published a graph showing that he started detecting titers of cholesterol autoantibodies at a 1:500 dilution. He also detected these autoantibodies at much higher dilutions. While he said these titers reached "baseline" 1:5000, Alving admits that he detected antibody activity as far out as 1:31250. That's one to thirty-one thousand, two hundred and fifty! For the purposes of proving antibody specificity - especially when you register activity at 1:31250 - 1:500 makes a lot more sense than 1:100.

So Alving's work with cholesterol raises questions about his work with squalene. In Alving's March 2004 paper on anti-squalene antibodies, he claims to have detected naturally occuring autoantibodies to squalene with at 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions - naturally occurring autoantibodies that he pointedly did not find in two previous experiments. In his third experiment concerning autoantibodies to squalene, his graphs show that antibody activity ceased at dilutions beyond 1:50. I maintain that this is non-specific sticking. If he's reaching baseline with autoantibodies to cholesterol at 1:5000, how is it that he reaches baseline for autoantibodies to squalene - a lipid precursor to cholesterol - with sera a hundred times more concentrated? Remember, if it's thick; it'll stick - all of it; not just your target antibody. With this kind of technology, the higher the dilution, the higher one's confidence in the specifity of an antibody to the antigen in question - in this case, squalene. So whatever is sticking to Col. Alving's ELISA plates at 1:50, it ain't necessarily autoantibodies to squalene.

1:100 also falls way short of what Tulane University Medical School considers viable. Robert Garry, Pam Asa and Russ Wilson of Tulane University Medical School and Autoimmune Technologies concluded that they could not be certain they were detecting autoantibodies specific to squalene until they diluted patient serum to a 1:400 concentration. That's eight times more dilute than Alving's dilution.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:54 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:31 pm Post subject: Reply to Trebor, RE: Alving Antibody Assay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Trebor: I believe the problems with the Matyas/Alving papers on antibodies to squalene (there are three such papers) can be broken down into four categories: (1) inconsistent data, (2) their dilutions, (3) their cohorts, and (4) conspicuous omissions from their papers. I think it'll be easier to digest all this information in smaller chunks, so I'm going to write separate messages for each category.

INCONSISTENCY: This is pretty straightforward; first Matyas/Alving could not find naturally occurring antibodies to squalene, then, they could. In their first two papers on the induction of antibodies to squalene in mice (Matyas et al., Nov. 2000; Matyas et al., Sept. 2002), Matyas and Alving say they failed to detect naturally occurring antibodies to squalene in mice. However, they induced these antibodies in mice by injecting them with squalene. Interestingly, some of the mice that developed anti-squalene antibodies were injected with a squalene emulsion that was identical in its constituents with the one that Fort Detrick put into its earliest prototypes of the second generation anthrax vaccine ("Triple Mix," aka Ribi Adjuvant System). Then, in an extraordinary and, dare I suggest it, convenient turnabout - which Matyas and Alving decline to explain in their third paper (Matyas et al., March 2004) - they report the discovery of naturally occurring anti-squalene antibodies in mice. How did that happen? This is a polar opposite result from the first two papers. As I point out in Vaccine A, Alving has reversed himself before. He did a similar about face in his research on so-called "naturally occurring" antibodies to cholesterol that, as far as I can tell, only Col. Alving has ever found. Throughout the late 80s and early 90s, Alving published papers saying that he found naturally occurring autoantibodies to cholesterol, which he believed were probably linked to atherosclerotic disease. In other words, these autoantibodies were bad for you. As Alving himself point out, these anti-cholesterol autoantibodies were associated with the type of disease that kills millions of Americans every year. Intuitively, then, Alving's initial hypothesis about these autoantibodies made sense. Attacks on "self" by the immune system is the basis of autoimmune disease. Indeed, his own research seemed to bear this out. In 1989, he disclosed that miniature pigs injected with cholesterol-laden liposomes (an adjuvant for which Alving received a patent in August 2000), developed autoantibodies to cholesterol that resulted in anaphylactoid reactions that killed many of the pigs. Then, in 1995, Alving did a "180" and unilaterally declared that autoantibodies to cholesterol might have a therapeutic benefit. Now they were good for you! It was possible that these autoantibodies lowered cholesterol. Based on what data? Surely not his dead pigs. Alving made no mention of his previous hypothesis, made over the course of many years, that these autoantibodies were associated with atherosclerotic disease; after showing how injecting cholesterol (a lipid like squalene) killed pigs, he never referred to the dead pigs again in any paper he subsequently published on the subject. It was if it never happened. Incidentally, the year Alving announced the potentially salubrious effects of cholesterol autoantibodies, he was already at work on an anti-cholesterol vaccine for humans. He was now developing a vaccine that would theoretically lower your cholesterol by injecting you with it. There was, of course, a big problem with this idea: Alving's dead pigs. Matyas and Alving have now done an identical about face in their research on autoantibodies to squalene. Beginning in 2000, they published data that made it clear that they could not detect naturally occurring autoantibodies to squalene in mice. Suddenly, in the summer of 2004, they reversed themselves. Now they claim they found these naturally occurring autoantibodies. Was there something wrong with their assay system before? Or is there something wrong with it now? What accounts for this self-contradiction? Could it be related to the fact that as a result of their previous work, the Army is a plaintiff in a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by Tulane University for patent infringement? I don't know. Matyas and Alving do not explain their reversal in their latest paper and they have declined repeated requests for interviews.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:53 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:51 am Post subject: The Bottom Line

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked many questions above, (and I can't go back and change my post to restate). My bottom line is this: is there anything more we can see with the 2004 Paper Alving did other than the problems with the dilutions. Are there any references discussing this material (commercial standards, etc) And is there a simple metaphor to explain this alleged bafoonery. Or is it just this simple: Alving should have just started his serum dilution at 1:100 to get better "specificity" data, therefore the data is skewed. Thanks -T

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:52 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:38 pm Post subject: Col Alving's "New" Study (Naturally Occuring SQE A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary,
From my understanding on page 269, the DoD is getting bad data by using lower dilutions to determine positives in serum (using 1:25 and 1:50). I have three questions: Does Col Alving use the term "endpoint titers" as another way to stretch these inaccurate findings to the highest dilution? I noticed they use controls in the graphs. Don't these comparisons show specific binding as compared to another comparative agent in dilution? Or is there something I'm missing in the terminology. Why did the Journal of Immunological Methods (JIM) let this one loose? PS: If it came to trust, it would be with Dr. Robert Garry, however, how do we reconcile this data in laymens terms beyond the mere dilutions? Thanks -Trebor, USAF Officer

External References from Col Alvings JIM report.
Pg 51, Col Alving "Sera were judged to be positive for antibodies to SQE if two dilutions (i.e., 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions for human serum and 1:50 and 1:100 for mouse serum) had absorbances that were greater than 3 times baseline. Baseline was defined as the absorbance at which the dilution curve became horizontal."

Pg 57, Col Alving "A serum sample was scored as positive if it had absorbances greater than 3 times baseline at two dilutions. Dilutions consisted of 1:25, 1:50, 1:100, 1:200, 1:400 and 1:800."

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:52 PM

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:06 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding from the book is that the vaccine is not effective without the squalene. So what's the point in spending $1B on a worthless vaccine? Of course, who would, of their on volition, take the squalene spiked shot anyway?

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:50 PM


Gary M - Author
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:49 pm Post subject: Reply to Paris, RE: The VaxGen Anthrax Vaccine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Paris: The VaxGen anthrax vaccine, rPA102, is "Vaccine A." All of the U.S. Army's prototypes of rPA102 contained experimental adjuvants made with squalene, squalane or cholesterol-based liposomes. In 1998, the year the NIH formed a working group to fast-track the licensure of rPA102, the U.S. and British versions of this genetically engineered anthrax vaccine both contained squalene emulsions. The U.S. version contained MF59; the British version contained the Ribi Adjuvant System. The year after the formation of the NIH Working Group, five lots of U.S. made anthrax vaccine turned up positive for squalene in concentrations that amounted to a twofold serial dilution - commonly used by pharmaceutical companies to try and bracket the optimal dosage for a new medical product. In February 2003, a British laboratory detected squalene in the vials of British-made anthrax vaccine. The concentration was close to one the FDA found in BioPort lot #FAV 043.

Based on published protocols for the approved clinical trials currently underway with rPA102, the VaxGen version contains alum, not squalene. But given the FDA's and DOD's insistence that the squalene concentrations discovered in lots of what were supposed to the licensed anthrax vaccine, it is a frightening possibility that an undetermined number of the seventy-five million doses of rPA102 purchased by the Bush Adminsitration to create a "strategic stockpile" for U.S. civilians, either contain squalene as an alleged natural contaminant, or as a deliberately occult addition to the vaccine.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:49 PM

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:35 pm Post subject: $877.5 million contract to Vaxgen today!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's almost $12 per dose - but here's the big question - is this vaccine the squalene-spiked vaccine?
Do you know, Mr. Matsumoto? Why did the government just spend almost $1B on a vaccine for inhalational anthrax anyway? Who are they expecting to attack us with dry powder weaponized anthrax?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-04-2004/0002356325&EDATE=


Posted by: Paris at November 29, 2004 12:48 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: Reply to Pat Nalin, RE: Your Son's Medical Records

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat: If I am not mistaken, only your son is entitled to receive copies of his military medical records unless you have his written permission to gain access to them. Whoever gave him in anthrax shots should have logged the lot number in your son's WHO immunization card. So he should have a record of his shot. Based on the most recent run of Tulane's assay, other than the six lots of vaccine already proven to contain squalene (FAV 008, FAV 020, FAV 030, FAV 038, FAV 043, FAV 047), only two lots are definitively linked to the induction of anti-squalene antibodies (FAV 070 and FAV 071). However, an additional seven vaccine lots (FAV 048b, FAV 066, FAV 068, FAV 069, FAV 073, FAV 074, FAV 075) are causing the same autoimmune pathology in patients who received vaccinations from lots confirmed to contain squalene.

The first batch of recombinant protective antigen protein, which is the chief pharmaceutical ingredient in the Army's second generation anthrax vaccine, rPA102, was made in a National Cancer Institute lab at Fort Detrick. Other laboratories that had a hand in the developing rPA102 were the Salk Institute, Battelle Memorial Institute, DynPort and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:46 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:03 am Post subject: Yes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I traced Bioport to 1996 Purchase by Fuad El-Hibri. Corporate officers also include. Crowe(USN) Strange isn't it?

Posted by: jblazez at November 29, 2004 12:45 PM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:07 am Post subject: DoD is an acronym for Department of what?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I skimmed your book then loaned it out to a doctor. Would you please tell me how it is possible to obtain my son's military medical records? He had his first innoculation just hours before the current injunction. I fear it is temporary because BioPort Corporation in all its arrogance immediately announced that it was not slowing down production. Has anyone else traced the sole military supplier to the infamous Carlysle group? Reminiscent on a lesser scale to Halliburton????? Please help!!!!!

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:44 PM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:43 pm Post subject: DOUBLE JEOPARDY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are we ABUSING our patriotic young men and women? First we have put many of them in harm's way AND then we continue to use their bodies, without their true consent, for the investigational study of drugs not yet approved by the FDA.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:43 PM

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:41 pm Post subject: Thanks Gary!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Gary for your explanation.
Your work is vividly patriotic. An honor to read & an honor to those soldiers, airmen and sailors who are still "sticking it out" despite the wrongs that have been done to them. Godspeed! -Trebor, USAF Officer

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:41 PM

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:12 am Post subject: P.S. to Trebor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. to Trebor: As I report in my book, bulk quantities of rPA102 were first produced at a National Cancer Institute laboratory on the Fort Detrick "research campus," starting around 1994. What I did not report in my book is this: the Army first planned to use rPA102 in an Army/Michigan Biologic Products Institute experiment entitled: Comparative Study of the Safety and Immunogenicity of Two-dose Priming Schedule of Human Anthrax Vaccine." This protocol was filed in September 1996 by LTC Phillip R. Pittman, MC, USAMRIID(Log No. A-7281). The following year, 1997, MBPI/BioPort made batches of anthrax vaccine that were later proven to contain squalene. These squalene-positive lots were administered to U.S. military personnel, beginning in 1998, the same year the National Institutes of Health formed the NIH Working Group (with DOD and the FDA) to "fast track" the licensure of the new vaccine. NIH and FDA are two agencies under the bureaucratic umbrella of DHHS, which can waive the informed consent requirement for the administration of experimental drugs and vaccines to U.S. troops. LTC Pittman was one of several Army scientists present at the 11 May 1999 briefing at which Air Force Surgeon General Charles Roadman informed Dover AFB pilots and air crew that there was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine administered there. Another Army scientist present at the Dover, Col. Arthur Friedlander, briefing assisted in this dosing experiment. Interestingly, Col. Arthur Friedlander also oversaw the scale-up production of one of the early versions of the Army's recombinant anthrax vaccine. This version, made from baculovirus at the Salk Institute in Swiftwater, PA, proved too difficult to purify, making it impractical as a "PA expression system" for large-scale production.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:40 PM

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:35 am Post subject: Reply to Trebor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Trebor: Here's the short answer: the "p" and "r" are two different things. The "pPA102" to which United States Patent #6,387,665 refers is an artificial strain of Bacillus anthracis; "rPA102" is what this artificial strain produces, a protein called "protective antigen" made by recombinant DNA technology. It is a "recombinant" Protective Antigen (rPA), because it was made by recombining the organism's genes, thus endowing it with certain desirable characteristics. Here's a longer answer for technophiles: .DELTA.Sterne-1(pPA102)CR4 is the name the B. anthracis strain that scientists at USAMRIID genetically engineered in 1985 to make "protective antigen" (PA), which is the chief pharmaceutical ingredient in both the old and new vaccines. B. anthracis poisons its host with a toxin comprised of three proteins: protective antigen, lethal factor (LF) and edema factor (EF). Army scientists call this tripartite toxin a "virulence factor." There is a second "virulence factor" in B. anthracis, an acid capsule that acts like a suit of armor, inhibiting the ability of immune cells to destroy the germ. Army scientists genetically engineered the Sterne strain of anthrax to produce protective antigen only. This artificial strain does not produce the other two toxin proteins (LF and EF) or the acid capsule; and it cannot form spores. USAMRIID created this strain to produce an ultra-pure protective antigen that was free of even the slightest trace of LF and EF, and was free of the capsule. This ultra-pure PA was supposed to be safer to inject. It was. But as I explain in my book, it also made it a less effective immunization. In vaccine design, purity is a liability. This will sound counter-intuitive to most people, because purity is a desirable quality in things we consume every day like the water, food and air. But the most effective vaccines, the classic ones, are impure. In fact, they are sometimes called "dirty" vaccines, because they contain the whole germ, weakened or killed. Most flu vaccines are made from not one, but several strains of the influenza virus. The old and new anthrax vaccines do not contain the organism; they do not even contain a piece of it. PA is just one of three proteins that the germ secretes. That's why the old immunization was so ineffective. Purifying protective antigen meant there was even less material to which the immune system could respond. That's why rPA required a more powerful, immunostimulating additive like squalene. I am very gratified to know that you appreciate the references. As I am challenging assertions made by officials from two of the world's most powerful bureaucracies - the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - I needed to provide readers with the basis of my challenge. Unlike officials from DOD, the FDA, the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), who have dismissed squalene as a non-issue with unsupported ex cathedra pronouncements, I took great pains to document all the data to the contrary. Ironically, these very agencies were often the sources of this contradictory data. The references are a kind of road map. Because of them, you do not have to take my word on anything; you can look everything up and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. Thank you for reading my book.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:39 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have now finished the book. It really is a fantastic work. The author does not attempt to gloss over any shortcomings - he is totally honest. If he doesn't have a particular piece of evidence he says so.
However, most reasonable persons must come away from this book with one conclusion - that is that DoD deliberately added illegal adjuvants to their vaccine. This book cannot be ignored by the US and UK governments. I wonder if they will hold people accountable?

Posted by: Guest 3 at November 29, 2004 12:38 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject: The "New" Anthrax Vaccine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Army's new anthrax patent 6,387,665, is "pPA102" different from VAXGEN's upcoming rPA102 toxoid formula? (are the "p" and "r" the same thing).

BTW: The references in this book are astounding!!! Truly an academic work, free from hearsay. What hurts is what the DoD takes off the record in attempt to conceal vulnerabilities, such as the Q&A noted on Pg. 262, Chap 12, Ref#40 "3. Does the anthrax vaccine contain squalene? Yes.) While this may be appropriate for a private company, it's a foul in government. It relays "contextual" elements otherwise not contained in the original work product.

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:37 PM

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:26 pm Post subject: Op truth helps get word out

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My goal is to get the word out on this vaccine experimentation. I have sent a copy of the book to this organization and they have put some coverage on this site. I am Sgt Eric http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm

i think Mr Masumoto needs all veterans and families of veterans to come together and demand answers for why this continues to happen. Lets get together.

Eric

Posted by: Eric at November 29, 2004 12:36 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Another "Example" from Dover

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

guest wrote:
Anyone seen the latest news on the Ssgt they're making an example of at Dover? There is an article about it in the Wilmington News Journal from 31 Oct. I was disgusted when I read it, and I'm getting angrier every day.


Read the article also. I just called a college buddy I knew at Dover. It's been a while since we talked, but he now works for Dover's wing commander (I'll keep it at that).

This fine officer was somehow abducted by aliens. He wouldn't say a word and was afraid we were being tapped. I barely got a word in about Gary's book. I'm very concerned. There's no such "lockdown" on my airbase for turning down a flight. They better make a decision quick. Kettle's going to burst. Anyone else know what's going on there? Any JAGs out there for comment?

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:35 PM

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Another "Example" from Dover

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

guest wrote:
Anyone seen the latest news on the Ssgt they're making an example of at Dover? There is an article about it in the Wilmington News Journal from 31 Oct. I was disgusted when I read it, and I'm getting angrier every day.


Read the article also. I just called a college buddy I knew at Dover. It's been a while since we talked, but he now works for Dover's wing commander (I'll keep it at that).

This fine officer was somehow abducted by aliens. He wouldn't say a word and was afraid we were being tapped. I barely got a word in about Gary's book. I'm very concerned. There's no such "lockdown" on my airbase for turning down a flight. They better make a decision quick. Kettle's going to burst. Anyone else know what's going on there? Any JAGs out there for comment?

Posted by: Trebor at November 29, 2004 12:34 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:58 pm Post subject: Another "Example" from Dover

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone seen the latest news on the Ssgt they're making an example of at Dover? There is an article about it in the Wilmington News Journal from 31 Oct. I was disgusted when I read it, and I'm getting angrier every day.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:33 PM

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:09 pm Post subject: [size=18]To Protect Your Brother Is to Support Him[/size]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The perpetrators were guilty of a crime, using investigational drugs on an unsuspecting control group – soldiers -this is a fact
your brother is a soldier
I was a soldier once- one who risked much.
FYI- maybe this will get your blood pumping...
A retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was given partial ownership I believe, of the company BioPort, sole source of the vaccine.
Exposure of criminal negligence, conflict of interests, and stopping the criminal and irreparable harm caused to to people like me and your brother is good. Exposing it is the only way to stop it. Even though it might not FEEL GOOD in an Election Year.

Suffering can be noble, if and only if it serves the purpose of causing illegal and harmful practices to stop. This is not minor, this is life and death to some, and just daily pain and suffering to others.
Something needs to be done so that perhaps our sons and daughters don't have to suffer. My daughter dates a West Point Cadet who graduates in May. Though I believe they are not contagious, Autoimmune problems I am sure can be inherited. If this young man, and his classmates and his future sergeants and privates, and his children benefit in the future, that is a good thing... that would be the ethincal and right thing. Have you thought about what this might do to our blood supply- I don't give blood anymore- I was an officer once who made sure we all gave- so contaminated blood may be spread around as well- too tough to swallow- not really, it is all in Gods hands, but suffering does happen and should be stopped.
Thanks, sorry for the length-Rangers Lead the Way
Robert
ps I pray your brother returns home. Sooner than later and well.
Really, I will begin to pray MORE for the Soldiers' safe return.
and yet a little more...
God bless and remember- Truth Today that hurts is far better than the impact of supressing the truth and the harm that causes later.
Mr Matsumoto does this at much personal financial and professional risk to himself I believe. This does not make his life easy. He was successful before this book.
He has a better duty concept than most officers I served with.
He is a courageous man.

see mr Matusumoto's quote from one of the other replys
So it is important to remember that the experiments I have written about in my book were not carried out by U.S. military personnel on others; they were conducted on our own troops by a minority of military doctors and scientists who have misinformed the American people about the old and new anthrax vaccines. And, yes, you are right, these experiments could have repercussions on us all for generations to come. Thank you for your interest and support.

God Bless

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:21 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:37 pm Post subject: Reply to Bill S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill S: It is precisely out of concern for people like your brother that I have written this book. According to declassified documents from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command and Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, troop deployments are considered "research opportunities," so you're brother being in Iraq makes him especially susceptible to becoming an unwitting subject in an experiment. This is a personal issue for me too. One of my nephews by a former marriage is currently stationed in Okinawa with the U.S. Marine Corps. He is on standby for deployment to Iraq. So my family has ties to both the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army [my father and three of my uncles all served in the Army (WWII and Korea); one of them retired a light colonel. I went through two years of Army R.O.T.C., which was mandatory at the college I attended]. With this book, I hope to avert any harm to people like my nephew or your brother through unethical experimentation. My best wishes for your brother's continued safety.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:21 PM

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:59 pm Post subject: support our troops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I suggest that exposing unethical practice by the military does support our troops? It seems to me that the peril of being in Iraq and Afghanistan does not need to be compounded by unnecessary domestic threats to the health of our troops. A book that fights for the safety of our soldiers can do much more for our troops than empty gestures such as tying ribbons on trees.

Posted by: bill - a veteran at November 29, 2004 12:20 PM

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject: Oh, silly me...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here I thought it might actually be considered supportive of our troops if people like Mr. Matsumoto speak out against secretly injecting them with untested drugs against their knowledge, making them sick for life. My bad, I stand corrected, Mr. "bill s."

Posted by: Stacey at November 29, 2004 12:19 PM

Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:09 pm Post subject: Support our troops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't need books like this in the middle of a war, my brother is over there and he deserves our supprt. Everyone is down on Bush but hes just defending what is right.

Posted by: bill s. at November 29, 2004 12:18 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:58 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS to Robert W. of Alabama

I never accessed the Department of Defense website until I saw your link. I inquired as to what FDA hurdles the Department of War had to jump over before the adenovirus vaccine would also be available to our troops. What was even more appalling was to see the $ in contracts issued to corporations for just last week alone. Now I know why I had to send a pillow to my son stationed overseas. And I suddenly feel even sicker. Do you have any suggestions for what dates I should look under to find information pertaining to the anthrax vaccines? There was no link last week to any article ( that I could find )even though the injunction was issued Wednesday. No wonder my son heard about it from me rather than the medical officers where he is stationed 36 hours after the Pentagon release!

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:16 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:11 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Robert W. of Alabama

I too am disabled, but not because I was a guinea pig for the Department of War. It would be nice if a few of us with too much time and a lot of passion could find a way to talk more directly to one another. Have you got any ideas? I'm a newbie to this computer technology.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:14 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:01 am Post subject: VA Benefits for Kehl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am another vet from the Gulf War (both of them) that has been fighting many of the symptoms alone since just after the first war. Dr. Asa tested my blood and I too have the antibodies to squalene. Apparently 3 out of the 5 shots I received were from the bad batches. Most of the doctors I have seen have just brushed me off (VA's and civilian doctors alike) or told me it was all in my head. I have finally found a VA that knows they may not be able to do much for me, but they have admitted that I have GWS and are actually trying to make me more comfortable if not cure me.

There are also two VA's out there (NJ & DC) that have War Related Injury and Illness Research Centers. They are looking into GWS and give me some hope that eventually something will be found to help all the veterans that deserve so much more.

So in answer to your question DKehl, yes, it may be worthwhile to seek out a good VA. I am finding that there are some good doctors out there that actually care and are becoming more aware and more open on the subject. I also think that if more vets step forward to seek out treatment, the more the VA will be aware of how many vets out there are really sick and need medical help. My new VA has also been very helpful in supplying me with an advocate to file for disability benefits. There are many benefits out there that were unknown to me until I found this VA.

I am looking forward to reading your new book Mr. Matsumoto. Unfortunately, I will also have to wait till it comes to a library as I am basically an unemployed, homeless vet. I thank you though, for bringing this issue to light. I hope all the right people read and heed.

Posted by: AnotherVet at November 29, 2004 12:13 PM

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:06 am Post subject: Mr Kehl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have any advise as far as the VA goes. I have not contacted them (yet). I've piled up enough medical history. My doctor says treating me is like treating a pro athlete- but I don't feel so macho about it. Most my problems have been "joint-related" though I've experienced periods of fatigue as well. Mostly I've been sucking it up but only because I have a job that provides sufficent medical insurance to do so.

I don't know how much I'd trust the VA other than for disability- which I'm sure we both have earned. Pride has been in the way for me. Not wanting to go through ridicule and rejection has been another factor. I was in a CT unit and did not deploy in storm/shield. I was fullly vaccinated though and received for the first and only time in my career "classified" vaccines that I remember being some code type though I don't remember the letter (i.e. a, b, c, d, e, etc...). I never doubted my nation or the virtuiosity of the initiatives I participated in. In other words- I never would have thought to question anything like this- not for a minute. It wasn't until years later that I was able to realize that many of the symptoms I had experienced were on checklists and my medical history pointed to fibromyalgia symptoms, except men aren't supposed to get it from what my doc says.

I don't know what else to say- I will post something about recovering from the other effects. It takes a lot of mental toughness, never quitting-ness and grace from God to keep from sinking into a mental abyss as the body continues to cause problems. I'm grateful to not have organs failing but I have muscle tissue breaking down, tearing and not repairing WAY TOO EASY!- Being an athlete- and looking in shape, people say I'm overuse- BUllsh;"!! I say.
One day at a time with this- If I haven't already posted so much- I would continue to post more. But I don't want to look too narcissistic or crazy-
Later- Keep the faith. I hope to read and write more over time... maybe start a thread concerning the mental aspects of recovery and overcoming- instead of focusing on the cause and the problem.

Pam Asa told me about making lemonade, when issued a supply of lemons. I understood that-

So much energy is required to get better- there is not alot of time for suffering and self-pity, even if it is justified or understandable. I no longer have that luxury. But I have learned to REALLY live (better) since all this occurred. Thanks for letting me write all this-
God Bless and stay in touch-
Robert W of Alabama

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:12 PM

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:39 am Post subject: Reply to DKehl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear DKehl: Amen to that. I, too, thank God that we live in a country where such information can be published. It is a testament to the enduring strength of our Constitution and its amendments. I do not wish to add to your anxiety, but as I report in Chapter Twelve of my book, in June 2004, Drs. Wilson, Asa and Garry got troubling results when they ran their assay on another batch of serum samples from military personnal. Based on data from this particular "run," military personnel who received anthrax immunizations for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have developed anti-squalene antibodies - evidence that they, too, were injected with squalene "contaminated" anthrax vaccine. I am very sorry to hear that you experienced health problems following your immunizations. Given the contents of my book, it is cause for concern. Various neuropathies (affecting sensation) and chronic fatigue have been reported by military personnel injected with squalene-positive lots of anthrax vaccine. Neurological damage, as a consequence of autoimmune disease, has been extensively documented in animals injected with squalene. I would urge you to consider having Tulane test your serum for anti-squalene antibodies, and to seek advice from Dr. Asa in particular on other clinical tests that could help determine the precise nature of your illness.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:11 PM

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:28 pm Post subject: thank you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I received the series of vaccines starting in the Fall of 2002 into 2003 in preparation for a deployment that never came. Several weeks after the first shot i started having problems with sensation and fatigue. After two years, countless tests with a neurologist and continuously getting worse, it was refreshing to read your book. I have struggled for a long time thinking that the problems i was having were something my mind was making up on me. Suggestions of malingering, laziness, etc. were coming at me from all angles. After all, even though i have been in the middle east during "peacetime", i was never in the war.
I thank you for writing this book and I thank God we live in a country where it can be published.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:10 PM

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:57 pm Post subject: Thanks Again Gary M- learning more- Collagen Disease (Degen)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Gary M-
for helping me learn more about Collagen Disease and how it probably relates the the problems I've had since about '95-
This is much clearer in my case than "autoimmunity" though I know autoimmunity to be the cause.

Here is a description of plantar fasciatis caused by collagen degeneration... I took out "plantar" and found descriptions of problems in my elbows, right adductor and possibly my left hand-

(sorry I lifted this off the web and lost the source)
XXXXXXXXXXXX start quotes XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The pain is usually caused by collagen degeneration (which is sometimes misnamed "chronic inflammation") at the origin of the ... fascia... This degeneration is similar to the chronic necrosis of tendonosis, which features loss of collagen continuity, increases in ground substance (matrix of connective tissue) and vascularity, and the presence of fibroblasts rather than the inflammatory cells usually seen with the acute inflammation of tendonitis.(1) THE CAUSE OF DEGENERATION IS REPETITIVE MICROTEARS OF THE ... fascia that overcome the body's ability to repair itself.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX end of quote XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
My problem in ALL INSTANCES of my surgically repairs and the ones left to be surgically repaired (left elbow and left heel) this may or may not apply to my knees- I'm not sure yet- the last "scope" provided marginal relief though I know I have ostioarthritis now too.

Bottom line- this description of plantar fasciatis resulting from collagen degeneration certainly applies to other tendons and I've had the microtears and 3 tendon releases in the last three years- due another in January and I'm trying to manage my left elbow without one.

anyway- thanks again
Robert W of Alabama
ps learning to be tough in different ways these days- thanks again

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:08 PM

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:21 pm Post subject: Thanks Gary M

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wept. Thanks again. You are a good man.
Robert W

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:07 PM

Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:49 pm Post subject: Reply to "joint pain - Never Quit"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Robert W of Alabama: Even when I was younger, I could barely run a 6:16 pace for one mile, let alone thirteen of them in a row. You must have been in great shape, which is why a chronic connective tissue illness must be especially frustrating for you. In disputing the theory that stress is the chief factor in Gulf War Syndrome, I have often pointed to veterans such as yourself who were highly-motivated (for me, running a half-marathon would require a high degree of motivation) and physically fit. You are a tough guy (I deliberately use the present tense) -- precisely the sort of individual who is unlikely to feign illness or succumb so profoundly to the stressors of a relatively short war like Desert Storm that it would physically debilitate you to the point of requiring multiple surgeries. You may be aware that in the 1950s and 1960s, doctors often used the term "collagen disease" to loosely refer to the autoimmune disorders that can destroy the body's collagen-rich connective tissues (tendons, cartilage and skin) through inflammation. Collagen is the proteinaceous substance found in the white fibers of the body's connective tissues. Scientists have known for the better part of the 20th century that oil adjuvants can induce collagen disease. Beginning in the 1970s at UCLA Medical Center, laboratories around the world began demonstrating squalene's ability to induce the animal versions of collagen diseases such rheumatoid arthritis and now lupus. I have seen the ravages of such diseases in other veterans and military personnel currently on active duty. I hope my book will help your children understand that in order to endure this, their father must be very tough indeed, and that he must demonstrate that toughness every day of his existence. My best wishes for your continued success in managing a painful and relentless illness.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 12:07 PM

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:20 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry to hear that others are suffering, just as I am. The only hope I have is that this book will cause others to come forward and stop this from happening to more people.

I had at least 3 vaccinations from a lot number that was known to contain squalene. I can't disclose the lot #, my identity, age, nor my symptoms in detail, but I can tell you that it was as recent as 2003. It is still going on, there is still denial throughout the ranks, and people are still getting sick. Aside from the chronic fatigue syndrome and joint and muscle pain, I have all of the symptoms of a specific autoimmune disorder and yes, vital organs are being affected. I wish I could list my specific symptoms, but I can't afford to compromise my identity at this point for fear of retaliation.

If you are reading this, please understand that the people like myself who are still patriots, who are still prepared to fight and die for this country and for freedom, need the support of the public to end this unauthorized experimentation.

The release of Mr. Matsumoto's book will hopefully bring this issue into full view of the public eye, where it belongs.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:06 PM

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:13 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not read this book. I hope it will reach the shelves of my local library so that I can read it, but I currently cannot afford to buy it--too many other priorities.

I too am a Disabled Persian Gulf Veteran currently residing in Alabama. I met Doctor Pam Asa back in 1993 or 1994. I received Vaccine-A at Fort Bliss, TX prior to deployment to theatre. I did not test positive for squalene antibodies, however Dr. Asa explained to me that I may still have recieved the adjuvant and suffered the same conditions even without antibody reactions.

I have to admit that getting away from all of the science did wonders for me. The depression and headaches have never subsided. The short-term memory problems, joint pains, hypertension, IBS, chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia had all but disappeared. I've had a few episodes of chronic fatigue that I tribute to depression--where I feel the need to take late afternoon naps.

Lately however, I've begun experiencing joint pain again. This is very troubling for me because I've struggled so hard to get where I am professionally, and now my strength and dexterity is required of me all the more. Still, I am so much better off then when, in 1993, I could barely walk.

Please understand that I am still a patriot. This is the best country in the world, and I would still give my life in defense of it. Coming forward with the truth is always a good thing. I continue to pray for our troops worldwide that are in harm's way. I continue to pray for those men and women who are placed in authority over us.

Thank you all who are serving and who have served. Service does not only take place on the battlefields abroad. There are battlefields here at home too. Gary Matsumoto is a warrior on one such battlefield. I salute him as an American Soldier as well, fighting for our freedoms and our way of life. Thanks also to Doctor Asa and all the other researchers who have carried the torch--bravely (they alone understand why I use the word 'bravely'). Thank you!

Mark Langenkamp
Veteran and Patriot

Posted by: Mark Langenkamp at November 29, 2004 12:05 PM

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:37 pm Post subject: Thanks Mr Matusomoto- almost 13 years later from alabama

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.I'm waiting for your book to arrive from amazon

maybe someday my family will understand ... how it is that a guy who ran a 6:16 pace on the Kole-kole pass half-marathon, can't run a mile because of neurological and joint pain -and- perhaps my kids will understand that it is not normal to continually go un under the surgeon's knife over degenerating connective tissue, connective tissue tears-degenerating cartlege joint problems.

Not to mention the years I tried to wrestle with these the wrong way (i.e.working through them, not working through them, drinking, fighting with all those around me because I was so miserable, etc... all collateral damage of, though one might argue, not fully caused by, this condition

I will never quit and I am blessed because my body is not yet attacking itself in a manner that would produce cancer, or reject vital organs. Hopefully, I am managing the disease I will carry to my grave- with prayer and moderation and anti-inflams, neurological drugs and glucosamine.
Thanks again,
Robert W. Alabama
ps tough guys hurt too

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:04 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: Keep the Faith- You are a Noble and Good Man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep the Faith- You are a Noble and Good Man.
Fathers who care enough to not be afraid and to get involved are rare.

I believe you are doing right and you are a caring father. Your son is lucky. He is serving the in the military of greatest country on the face of the earth. Unfortunately, an overabundance of money appropriated (TO THE MILITARY???) by Congress, for the Medical R&D Community (IN THE MILITARY???-why) has put him at risk with all the other soldiers who serve. That money would be better spent on many things- I could name a few.

Money spent, that would provide far better protection our soldiers' that deploy:

Realistic and challenging POW and survival training for all deploying soldiers....

Armored vehicle retrofitting (M1113 Gavin Armored personnel carriers) to replace the wheeled vehicles currently in use in IRAQ.

Realistic and challenging vehicular convoy live fire exercises.

EACH OF THESE would potentially save more lives and cause less autoimmune disease than vaccines...
in EACH- there is perhaps less money for high level DoD Officials to pass around to contractors in these scenarios - except the vehicle one- which reflects poorly on Senior Military Strategic Planning and Force Structure decisions- the time they spent deciding on Black Berets and consideration of others training, and of course vaccines... might have been better spent on vehicles that assist in better protecting soldiers from roadside bombs and bullets-

I could go on and on- better ruck sacks, more live fire training, more urban training, more riot control training, more specialty cross-training-

again- more armored vehicle implementation We are still using the same vehicles in urban areas that let us down in Somalia...Blackhawk down
why... money spent here would clearly save lives, but it is not happening as our leaders focus on "lighter" more deployable packages. We have a "deployment" fixation, we need a "fighting fixation" - perhaps then we might win-

sorry for the rant- I am old school

RobertW of Alabama
ps- and I like to win

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:01 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: Keep the Faith- You are a Noble and Good Man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep the Faith- You are a Noble and Good Man.
Fathers who care enough to not be afraid and to get involved are rare.

I believe you are doing right and you are a caring father. Your son is lucky. He is serving the in the military of greatest country on the face of the earth. Unfortunately, an overabundance of money appropriated (TO THE MILITARY???) by Congress, for the Medical R&D Community (IN THE MILITARY???-why) has put him at risk with all the other soldiers who serve. That money would be better spent on many things- I could name a few.

Money spent, that would provide far better protection our soldiers' that deploy:

Realistic and challenging POW and survival training for all deploying soldiers....

Armored vehicle retrofitting (M1113 Gavin Armored personnel carriers) to replace the wheeled vehicles currently in use in IRAQ.

Realistic and challenging vehicular convoy live fire exercises.

EACH OF THESE would potentially save more lives and cause less autoimmune disease than vaccines...
in EACH- there is perhaps less money for high level DoD Officials to pass around to contractors in these scenarios - except the vehicle one- which reflects poorly on Senior Military Strategic Planning and Force Structure decisions- the time they spent deciding on Black Berets and consideration of others training, and of course vaccines... might have been better spent on vehicles that assist in better protecting soldiers from roadside bombs and bullets-

I could go on and on- better ruck sacks, more live fire training, more urban training, more riot control training, more specialty cross-training-

again- more armored vehicle implementation We are still using the same vehicles in urban areas that let us down in Somalia...Blackhawk down
why... money spent here would clearly save lives, but it is not happening as our leaders focus on "lighter" more deployable packages. We have a "deployment" fixation, we need a "fighting fixation" - perhaps then we might win-

sorry for the rant- I am old school

RobertW of Alabama
ps- and I like to win

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 12:01 PM

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:28 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. of Alabama,

I am with you 100% When I gave my son to the US Government in May, I requested that he be returned to us in good health. I actually made that call to my Congressman's office! I don't think they have forgotten either.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 12:00 PM

Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:46 pm Post subject: Almost Forgot- In God I Trust...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In God I Trust...
...all others should be required to obtain my consent.

Robert W of Alabama

ps
con·sent
Pronunciation: k&n-'sent
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin consentire, from com- + sentire to feel -- more at SENSE
1 : to give assent or approval : AGREE...

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:59 AM

Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:00 pm Post subject: Separate Vaccine- $50Mil to stop deaths in 6 out of 960,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERE'S ANOTHER!!! How many problems will this "brain-child" vaccine cause?
Read excerpt below from American Forces Press Service (link provided) CRAZY!!!!! QUOTES... from
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10072004_2004100705.html

"...(Dr.) Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, explained that people exposed to adenovirus –- which is often found in a crowded, stressful environment, such as basic training camps -- may experience fever and other flu-like symptoms. The virus, he said, usually takes three to five days to run its course and most people fully recover without ill effects.

However, some people with weakened immune systems or other existing health issues, he pointed out, have developed a more serious illness, and a handful have died after contracting the virus (six deaths in the past five years among about 960,000 recruits).

He noted DoD is spending $50 million to obtain the new vaccine. It's now being tested for safety, he said, in accordance with FDA requirements.

...The old vaccine, Winkenwerder explained, had been dropped by the military during the 1990s. That action, he said, "was an error" and resulted partly from a study that indicated the military no longer needed the vaccine, which had been dispensed to recruits in two-pill doses.

In fiscal 1999, DoD recognized that the adenovirus vaccine was needed after all and provided funding to re-establish production for the next fiscal year. However, under previous scheduling the new vaccine wasn't slated to become available until 2009.

Winkenwerder said he directed the accelerated development of the new vaccine after learning of the resurgence of the virus at military boot camps.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxend of excerpt xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
50 million Dollars!!! ... to what end? to curb slightly the percentage of soldiers who attend sick call and to questionably prevent a death rate of 6 in 960,000??? This can't even be statistically sound. I wouldn't be surprised if the adverse effects from "approved" vaccines are far higher than the problem this vaccine intends to solve!

This STINKS- I smell a rat- or perhaps another effort to PROFITEER at the soldiers' and soldiers' families' risk, health and expense. The volunteer army- did not volunteer for this. They are not expendable.

Can you say Nuremberg War Crime Trials (are our solders that expendable??? is any human being?)

Perhaps vaccine trials should start in Undersecretaries' Offices, or Contracting and Budget Offices, or the Halls of Congress before they are deemed appropriate for our men who serve. They are not lab rats or chimps.

As far as this crazy idea goes...How about a dose of Reality-HELLO! To avert 3 days of sick call we risk this? Hardly Polio!!! People get sick. It is OK- Michael Jordan, President Bush, Oprah, all get sick sometimes. It is how God made us. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO GET THESE MONEY-CHANGERS TO SPREADING IT AROUND- TO STOP PLAYING GOD -with our soldiers -stop giving them and their generations to follow Autoimmune Diseases and Birth Defects because of greed supported by skewed/flawed theory and false need.

Perhaps the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs would propose to "Let it begin with me" in his boardroom. (though visions of Cohen on CNN still dance in my head- bet he or someone knew in advance which lot number he got on CNN?).
I don't propose hurting anyone, but would this be happening if trials started "on the beltway", in the buget offices or the Undersecretaries' Offices? After all... these are suseptable as well "...people exposed to adenovirus, which is often found in a crowded, stressful environment(s)"

Sorry to make it personal SIR, but jeepers!!! I'm amazed
Leave the Rangers, Cooks, Mechanics, Infantrymen, and Tankers alone!!!
If this were made commercially available to each soldier for say... $20... how many do you think would buy it? I was a soldier once. I know the answer is NONE OF THEM!!! Maybe they will get a Lawful (but spiritually unlawful) Order or a big fat lie fed to them before they take another shot-
...(my shot was a big fat "classifed" lie)
I've got to let this thing go- but it all seems so crazy. I guess I'll just have to watch and listen awhile, unless someone has some better idea for me.
I'll get back "life" of praying to maintain an OVERCOMER'S Mindset- this has been salt in old wounds, nothing more.
All I can do is trust God to take care of me. I must not (and encourage you to not) forget, this is only down here- in the end, God is in Charge and they are not god - only little false ones.
Overall "down here" just don't matter that much in the final analysis (Stuart Mosby showed me that-RIP). Justice will prevail when this is finished. Overcomers and hardend veterans who survived remember that in the end- "The last will be first and the first will be last." But I wish we could stop the insanity- I wish there were a way to place controls on all this DANGEROUS medical R&D (and scheming).
In God I Trust...
Robert W of Alabama

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 11:58 AM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:09 pm Post subject: Other Military Vaccines- Yes a GREAT RISK!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though Off Topic- NOT REALLY

I had a similar topic in an earlier post- for good reason
Earlier Topic Name: Separate Vaccine- $50Mil to stop deaths in 6 out of 960,000

This is really NOT OFF Topic when you realize the same process is at work as was for Anthrax in many ways.

The public would never accept risky vaccinations, but they are PUSHED on unsuspecting AND TRUSTING Troops.

Read http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10072004_2004100705.html

Summaryof the article follows:
1. An Army board determines that protection against a minor virus (in pill form) is no longer needed and is obsolete.
2. A year (of funding) passes.
3. (Assumed) Contractor is screaming bloody murder to Military Procurement Points of Contact
4. (Fact) A High level official (DR Winkenwerder) decides the following:

a. to single-handedly override the board's determination

b. to give the contractor authority and money to develop a vaccine

c. to "fast-track" it (which usually implies either no competition required or waivered procedures... etc)

d. to extend the life of the contractual instrument until 2009 (long term security- non performance or results based... easy money)

Evidence of _______________________ you fill in the blank.

Read the article to EASILY understand this bogus money-maker.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10072004_2004100705.html


The so-called "Need" - to vaccinate against soldiers getting ill for 2-3 days in Basic Training

Why Basic Training? -where bulk profits, I mean where large transiet groups live for temporary periods of time- perhaps decreasing the likelihood of unintended adverse effects being attributable to actions that occurred in one unit

...All this because 9 out of 960,000 (I kid you not) have been on record as likely dying in the last 5 years-

9 ot of 960,000 so insignificant... probably similar to, or less than the number of soldiers hit by lightening

adverse reactions to well established vaccines are likely worse
IRONICALLY worse that the problem this vaccine proposes to solve-

unless the problem solved is to get the money into the hands of the contractor from now until 2009- (any board posistions available around 2010?)


..."someone" gets wealthy through a "shortcut", a monopoly over a captive (and trusting) audience-

soldiers take the risk
the usual suspects take the money
some of them take the money between now and 2009
some of them take the money later, benefiting when they are legally able to "serve" on boards... etc...

...smells like, looks like, tastes like...

- perhaps vaccine deals and testing are adverse consequences of having an all volunteer force-

What if DR Winkenwerder's son or daughter served?

Soldiers did not "volunteer" to be expended this way-

Conclusion: Off topic for Specifics- Right on Topic for Repeating "More of the Same" Injustice and Harm to Soldiers
(example: Anthrax Vaccine out, Next Vaccine in)

I propose a law that states:

"In both Times of Peace and of War Soldiers shall only receive the vaccinations required of U.S. tourists who travel to foreign deployment areas".

I was a Special Operations Soldier- I would GLADLY live with the risks that Law would imply.

I would feel much safer under that environment, one in which High-Level Government Officials legislated my vaccines, one in the same with their own.

As an unsuspecting soldier, I thought that the vaccines any tourist received when travelling, were the same as the ones I was given. Well educated, but trusting, I was oh so wrong-
Robert W of Alabama

Posted by: Robert W of Alabama at November 29, 2004 11:57 AM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:11 pm Post subject: Other Vaccines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may be a little off topic. If this particular vaccine is doing this to people who are injected with it, what about the other vaccines that are pushed on people all the time? Chicken pox, measles, mumps, etc.

There are dangerous additives in those also. I've done my research those are just as dangerous. Neither one of my kids have them due to religious beliefs, but I'm sure someday somebody will really force the issue.

Posted by: View previous topic :: View next topic at November 29, 2004 11:55 AM

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:39 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the Congressman approach goes, I don't know if I will be successful, but it only took a few minutes to list a few points on a single page form that was faxed to DC the same day.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:51 AM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:32 pm Post subject: Admistrative Waiver

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is this talk about getting an admistrative waiver for the vaccine? I know I have sufficient cause. Is this as simple as writing your congressman? Or is there a special protocol one has to go through? Thx

Posted by: USAF Member at November 29, 2004 11:51 AM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:05 pm Post subject: mandatory anthrax vaccinations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have pleased by the attentiveness of my senators and congressman since I requested a waiver from the mandatory innoculation for "administrative" reasons, the only angle I could conceive of in 2 days and about 2 hours of research. In all likelihood, DISCHARGE from the military will be the consequence for NOT obeying any order to receive the vaccine. It may not be a pretty discharge, but DOUBLE JEOPARDY (putting our patriots in harm's way AND using their bodies for investigational drug experimentation), the alternative, is the real ugliness here! Please pass the word to anyone who loves someone in the military.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:50 AM

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:57 am Post subject: Reply to Sjogrnsgrl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sjogrnsgrl: Thank you for your support. In the coming weeks, you will see more and more media coverage of my book; the publicity will come in orchestrated waves. It was planned that way. Of course, officials with the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services will use every means possible to limit any attention paid to my book. In response to my initial reporting on this subject in the May 1999 issue of Vanity Fair magazine, officials from both DOD and NIH solicited attacks on my work from sympathetic reporters who knew nothing about Fort Detrick's new anthrax vaccine with squalene, and very little about vaccines and immunology in general. So "word-of-mouth" publicity from reader's such as yourself will be very important in publicizing this book; possibly even more important than the TV and radio interviews that I do, and the ads my publisher places in newspapers like the Washington Post. Thank you for your support, and your help in spreading the word about Vaccine A. If by "Sjogrnsgrl," you are making a semi-cryptic allusion to Sjogren's Syndrome and your gender - and, I am assuming, to the fact that you developed Sjogren's following anthrax immunizations - I want you to know how upset I am that service members such as yourself have, in my view, been injured by unlawful experiments. I wish I could have published this information earlier, but in my efforts to document the events upon which I base these allegations, I received very little cooperation from the Department of Defense, and zero cooperation from the Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS has yet to even acknowledge the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that I filed to the FDA five years ago (in a phone conversation, an FDA officer said my requests had been "kicked up" to DHHS). Just this past week, I received an email from a FOIA officer in Rumsfeld's office, asking me if I still wanted the Office of the Secretary of Defense to act on my requests. I said "sure," but I also confessed to being "non-plussed" about hearing from the SECDEF's office now when I filed these requests way back in 1999 (I filed an expanded set of requests four years ago in 2000). GAO and Congressional investigators looking into the presence of anti-squalene antibodies in military personnel and the detection by the FDA of trace quantities of squalene in anthrax vaccine have complained, openly, about Department of Defense stonewalling on these matters. Fortunately, as you can tell from my notes, there were some pretty big cracks in the wall.

Posted by: Gary Matasumoto at November 29, 2004 11:48 AM

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:25 am Post subject: Informing the Public

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe I just need to be patient, but I've never felt so passionately about something...

I was wondering how this book is being promoted. I bought the last 2 copies at my local Border's on the 16th. The first 3 copies had sold already. I went back today and didn't see any more on the shelves, but they were showing the book in stock. What dictates which books go on the displays in the front of the store? I want more people to know about this! I've emailed everyone in my address book, military or not--and I don't care about how much trouble I'll get in for spreading the word. People need to know about and read this book!

I thought I knew a pretty good deal about this from my own issues and conversations with Dr. Asa and one dear retired Ltc for whom I hold the highest respect, but the more I read, I just can't believe my eyes. I've had hunches (like MF59's connection to the flu vaccine) and then I learn things I thought were impossible are true. I have cried, and I have gotten angry. But mostly I am anxious. I want to see the top blown off of this!!

Posted by: Sjogrnsgrl at November 29, 2004 11:48 AM

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:25 am Post subject: Informing the Public

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe I just need to be patient, but I've never felt so passionately about something...

I was wondering how this book is being promoted. I bought the last 2 copies at my local Border's on the 16th. The first 3 copies had sold already. I went back today and didn't see any more on the shelves, but they were showing the book in stock. What dictates which books go on the displays in the front of the store? I want more people to know about this! I've emailed everyone in my address book, military or not--and I don't care about how much trouble I'll get in for spreading the word. People need to know about and read this book!

I thought I knew a pretty good deal about this from my own issues and conversations with Dr. Asa and one dear retired Ltc for whom I hold the highest respect, but the more I read, I just can't believe my eyes. I've had hunches (like MF59's connection to the flu vaccine) and then I learn things I thought were impossible are true. I have cried, and I have gotten angry. But mostly I am anxious. I want to see the top blown off of this!!

Posted by: Sjogrnsgrl at November 29, 2004 11:45 AM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject: abused heros

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is very sad that we take America's young patriots and subject them to DOUBLE JEOPARDY by putting them in harm's way AND using them to study investigational drugs.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:44 AM

2Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:50 pm Post subject: Latest story in Delaware News Journal (October 31, 2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2004/10/31heropunishedfor.html

This story today is simply unbelievable. This wouldn't even happen in Russia today. This airbase sounds like some Gulag. I cannot believe this is happening in the United States of America. This is no America I want to be a part of.

Posted by: Guest 3 at November 29, 2004 11:43 AM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:38 pm Post subject: Help may be on the way!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By filing a constituent concern with your senators and congressman, an action which really only takes a few minutes, you can draw attention to this issue. If you are in the military OR if you possess General Power of Attorney for someone who is, this option is available to you. Ask for "waiver for administrative or medical reasons." Previously, members of the military who have declined their innoculations HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED from the military, although not necessarily in a pretty way. But why should we subject our patriots to DOUBLE JEOPARDY? First we put them in harm's way, and then we use their bodies to study investigational drugs. Please be aware that the current halt to the innoculation process must only be temporary. At least that's what BioPort Corporation must think because as the sole producer of anthrax vaccine, they have no plans to reduce production as of Thusday, October 28,2004.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:41 AM

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:38 pm Post subject: Military Vaccine Education Center (Against the AVIP)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to welcome anyone that is concerned about the anthrax vaccine, or other further biological vaccines coming down the pipeline to visit the Military Vaccine Education Center (www.milvacs.org) - we are a civilian based organization that is here to help our service members who are ill from the vaccine, help those through the refusal process, and to help see an abrupt halt to the medical experimentation on our service personnel. We are here to support YOU and your families! Feel free to contact us anytime.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:41 AM

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:26 pm Post subject: Just say NO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let people know that if they have General Power of Attorney for a loved one in the military, senators and congressmen can be contacted through their constituent concerns process. If you request a waiver for "administrative" or "medical" reasons, they will be attentive. I have learned that REFUSING to accept the vaccine will result in discharge from the military, although it may not be a pretty one. But what have you got if you no longer have your health? By the way, the current injunction halting the innoculations must only be temporary. At least that's what BioPort Corporation, the nations's sole manufacturer must think. They have not even slowed down their production.

Posted by: Guest at November 29, 2004 11:39 AM

Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:57 pm Post subject: Reply to Eric

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Eric: Thank you for supporting the book. I think your blog will be a terrific resource for active duty military personnel and other veterans, especially those like yourself who have recently returned from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I will do whatever I can to assist you.

Posted by: Gary M. at November 29, 2004 11:37 AM

Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:43 pm Post subject: Started a blog to educate the masses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading this book I am on a mission to seek assistance for those of us that were affected by these inoculations. I was in the gulf from 12/02-07/03. As a medic I gave many shots and also took at least 4 before te DOD decided to limit these shots for imminent threat area. I am on a mission to educate the masses. Please visit my blog and let me know what problems you are having seeking medical assistance.
Here is a link.
http://vaccinea.blogspot.com/

Mr Matsumoto I would like to contact you for more info.

email me at jblazez94@yahoo.com

Thanks

Posted by: Eric at November 29, 2004 11:34 AM

Trebor,
I can't speak for Tom, but as a Reservist, I can share what I know about our medical treatment/benefits. If a Reservist becomes sick, they have to actually be on some kind of status (i.e. active duty orders, Unit Training Assembly(UTA), etc.) for the military to pay for their medical bills. Even then, the member would have to go where the base wants to send them for treatment. And that could be several hours from where they live. With autoimmune diseases, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint when they actually start, so it is very easy for the military to say "pre-existing condition". One of my friends came down with RA after receiving his anthrax shots. Even though he was on active duty orders when he received the shots and became sick, he has been fighting an uphill battle. He continues to fight the system, but may even lose his job in the end because his civilian job is tied to his Reserve job.
When we are called up to active duty, we are eligible for Tri-Care like the regular active duty folks, but once we come off the orders, we have a grace period and then you have to pay for Tri-Care like any other medical HMO. My experience with the reserves has been get them off orders and then let them try to prove it later. Much stonewalling has gone on at my base.
Then there is the retirement issue. If you become disqualified medically in the reserves, you will have a couple of choices. You can take a monetary lump sum (not nearly enough) and separate giving up your future retirement benefits or you can keep your retirement benefits but you have to wait until you are 60 years old before you can collect. The laws that govern the reserves were written back in the days when a reservist actually worked only one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer (that's 39 days a year). For the past 12 to 14 years, the role of the reservist has changed drastically. The average reservist now gives an average of 120 days a year to the reserves.
So in answer to you question, yes, there are ways that the government can get out of paying the reservists what they would have to pay if we were active duty personnel.

Posted by: GulfVet2 at November 26, 2004 12:01 PM

Trebor,
I can't speak for Tom, but as a Reservist, I can share what I know about our medical treatment/benefits. If a Reservist becomes sick, they have to actually be on some kind of status (i.e. active duty orders, Unit Training Assembly(UTA), etc.) for the military to pay for their medical bills. Even then, the member would have to go where the base wants to send them for treatment. And that could be several hours from where they live. With autoimmune diseases, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint when they actually start, so it is very easy for the military to say "pre-existing condition". One of my friends came down with RA after receiving his anthrax shots. Even though he was on active duty orders when he received the shots and became sick, he has been fighting an uphill battle. He continues to fight the system, but may even lose his job in the end because his civilian job is tied to his Reserve job.
When we are called up to active duty, we are eligible for Tri-Care like the regular active duty folks, but once we come off the orders, we have a grace period and then you have to pay for Tri-Care like any other medical HMO. My experience with the reserves has been get them off orders and then let them try to prove it later. Much stonewalling has gone on at my base.
Then there is the retirement issue. If you become disqualified medically in the reserves, you will have a couple of choices. You can take a monetary lump sum (not nearly enough) and separate giving up your future retirement benefits or you can keep your retirement benefits but you have to wait until you are 60 years old before you can collect. The laws that govern the reserves were written back in the days when a reservist actually worked only one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer (that's 39 days a year). For the past 12 to 14 years, the role of the reservist has changed drastically. The average reservist now gives an average of 120 days a year to the reserves.
So in answer to you question, yes, there are ways that the government can get out of paying the reservists what they would have to pay if we were active duty personnel.

Posted by: GulfVet2 at November 26, 2004 11:34 AM

Gary,

You mentioned that Lt. General Ronald Blanck, had stated that most of the service members given the Vac-A, were Reservist, that was quite convenient for the Government as they could continue to monitor them however were not forced into retiring the sick ones who became sick after discharge forcing them to become a VA case without DOD having to foot the medical retirements..........
I do have a website and would like to include your book on the site, and comments into it. The website is accessed daily by thousands of individuals around the world and numerous military. www.hspig.org Homeland Security Policy Institute Group Inc. (Calif. Non profit)
You may contact me directly at tbarnes@hspig.org; I would like to discuss some other related issues with you.

Posted by: LT. T. Barnes at November 26, 2004 11:28 AM

If what I have read is true and I have no reason to doubt it Gary we were grossly deceived. I was an Officer (LT.) Attached to the USN, Port Security Harbor Defense Command, Port of Dammam. We were part of the group that got the shots made up at the Kobar Towers mentioned in the book.
I haven't finished the book yet I am already writing this message, as Gary you finally researched something we have been telling the Military and the VA since day one.
The Vaccines they gave us suppressed our immune system. It was obvious when they gave us the shots, we were all sick for about a week with what seemed like the flu.
As for consent there was none we lined up outside a tent "signed in" on a clip board, we were not told anything other than the "one" of the shots was for Anthrax and not everyone was going to get the shots, we were not given a choice. As a matter of fact a Navy enlisted man was going to be sent back to the States the day of the "shots" he was threatened with court marshal if he didn't take the shot. We received our shots on two different occasions. Note we were in country from September 1990 until we were rotated back to the states in March 1991.
While still in country after the shots I started to have memory problems as well as chronic fatigue. We didn't think much about these types of illness because of the high stress environment.
Upon returning to the states I continued to have memory problems, black outs, hypertension and was later diagnosed with cancer from which I was retired and am 100% disabled.
I had all of the symptoms of GWS when I returned and in fact my name was sent to HQ. by our medical staff because of the classic symptoms. These symptoms have become severe with joint pains, failure to sleep and all of the other classic symptoms I have read in this book.
For additional information I have been in contact with other senior staff officers who were with me and they also suffer from the same problems.
From day one when the GWS was being talked about we brought up the shots and pills but nobody wanted to listen.
Now that it has become clear that we were part of an apparent human experiment, where do we go?????
I have the names of over 300 other servicemen who served with me and also received the shots, I wonder if they are aware of this information????
I was in Viet Nam also and read about project "SHAD" and thought that was something to get mad about, then I found out about the mycoplasma that we also were exposed to, note this also was patented by the Army and given to Iraq prior to the war.
WE HAVE BEEN DECEIVED and it doesn't feel good when your country is expected to be on your side and not hiding the facts.

LT. Thomas Barnes USN/USCG (ret) Los Angeles, California.

Posted by: tbarnes at November 26, 2004 11:24 AM