Subject: Caldera statement and comments
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 19:20:16 -0400
From: Meryl Nass <mnass@netquarters.net>
To: "Anthrax-no@onelist.com" <Anthrax-no@onelist.com>

Secy of the Army Louis Caldera "indemnified" MBPI, the manufacturer of
anthrax vaccine, on Sept 3, 1998 (one day before the plant was sold to
Bioport, led by Admiral Crowe). In other words, the manufacturer was
not liable for lack of safety or efficacy. It also may mean that NO ONE
could be sued if/when such problems resulted. ("You can't sue the
government") The following is paragraph 3 from the Memorandum of
Decision he signed:

"The obligation assumed by MBPI [manufacturer] under this contract
involves unusually hazardous risks associated with the potential for
adverse reactions in some recipients and the possibility that the
desired immunological effect will not be obtained by all recipients.
Although AVA [anthrax vaccine adsorbed] has been extensively tested
under the auspices of the Food and Drug Administration, the size of the
proposed vaccination program may reveal unforewarned idiosyncratic
adverse reactions. Moreover, there is no way to be certain that the
pathogen used in tests measuring vaccine efficacy will be sufficiently
similar to the pathogen that U.S. forces might encounter to confer
immunity. These concerns, coupled with the uncertain and evolving state
of product liability law with regard to vaccines, lead me to the
conclusion that the performance of this contract will subject MBPI to
certain unusually hazardous risks."

Undersecretary of Defense (for doublespeak?) Bacon then had this
nonsense to say about the paragraph I've quoted above when asked about
media reports regarding it, at a press conference earlier this week:

"But I do urge you to compare the memorandum that Secretary of the Army
Caldera signed with the [news] article, because there is one fundamental
substitution of a subject in a sentence. I think when you read the
third paragraph of the memorandum--which we'll make available to you in
DDI--and compare it to the article, you'll find it's the old "bait and
switch" trick that none of you would perform, but has been performed in
this case, and I think much to the disservice of a program that has been
designed to protect America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines."

He also makes the usual claim of safety despite the Memorandum: "There
have been 79 adverse reactions out of nearly 900,000 shots given so
far...This has turned out to be an extremely safe vaccine." And "We all
buy insurance for things we don't anticipate will ever happen, such as
fire insurance for houses or libel insurance for newspapers. This was
the company seeking a type of insurance, indemnification from suits,
should they arise."

When will we hear something honest from DOD?

Why are they using vaccine lots that were not supplementally tested?
Are they afraid these lots, too, will fail: as did the 25 out of 31
initially tested?

Where is the Mitretek report on the supplemental testing of the vaccine
lots by MBPI/Bioport?

How many people are chronically ill at Fort Stewart, Fort Benning, Dover
AFB, Boise AFB, Maguire AFB, Travis AFB, etc?

The 603 in the ongoing study at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii
have had four inoculations each. Theirs is the FIRST long term study of
vaccinees: The study has now been in process for 9 months. 20% had a
systemic reaction to one of the first three inoculations. HOW MANY HAVE
DEVELOPED CHRONIC SYNDROMES??? Where are the results?

When will this story receive the reporting it deserves? 240,000
vaccinated so far: what do they count for? 2.2 million to go....more
each day.

Meryl Nass

--
Meryl Nass, M.D.
Parkview Hospital, Brunswick, Maine 04011
email mnass@igc.apc.org
phone (207) 865-0875
fax (207) 865-6975