-----Original Message-----
From: Randice <randiceaj@sbcglobal.net>
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:57:10 -0500
Subject: Anthrax shot is best protection for troops, "more Lies for our Troups in harms way"

 
Interesting how when given a chance to comment for one of the stories, DoD could not be reached for comment - now that the FDA has again supported the criminal conduct, opinions now seem to fly - this is quite a lie Grabenstein made coming only two weeks apart.
 
In addition, if it is true that the anthrax vaccine is 'as safe as other vaccines', and if over 20,000 hospitalizations following the anthrax vaccine were not reported in a two-year period, then, what does this tell us on the safety of all vaccinations?
 
On Dec. 18th, '05, Grabenstein stated:
(See below for full editorial)
 
We use the scientific methods taught in America's best universities to assess vaccine safety and side effects. Reports to the national adverse-event database on the anthrax vaccine, as well as hospitalizations, were rigorously analyzed. Results showed that hospitalizations among anthrax-vaccinated troops and unvaccinated troops occurred at the same rate for the same diagnoses. I personally shared safety findings with Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and the public as the information accumulated.
 
On Dec. 4th, 2005, this was stated:
 
Col. John Grabenstein, director of the military's vaccine agency, said no one from the military intentionally misled Congress or the public. He said the 20,765 hospitalizations merely followed vaccinations in time, without documented proof of a cause-and-effect relationship.

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

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

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

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

The practice of not reporting all hospitalizations continues.

Quarterly analysis of the vaccine's effects ended just as the nation's only manufacturing site for the drug regained its license. That was in 2002, after federal inspections found many safety and other problems that prompted a shutdown and renovation that began in early 1998.
 
The decision to discontinue the quarterly health monitoring program means that the biggest gap in research about the vaccine remains: There are no systematic long-term studies of the health of those who've taken the drug. Most studies that the Pentagon cites as support for the vaccine's safety involve monitoring that lasted days to a few months.
 
Grabenstein said he decided to halt the quarterly studies after consulting the chairman of the Institute of Medicine panel and its staff, and with doctors affiliated with the military. He acknowledged that he didn't consult the general who ultimately was responsible for the anthrax program.

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

Another panel member, Linda Cowan, said she's sure the committee expected quarterly reviews to continue and pointed to a number of the panel's recommendations and findings that she said clearly contradicted Grabenstein's interpretation of its report.
 
Grabenstein said those were among the reasons that the full number of hospitalizations was not reported. Another reason, he said, was that examinations of the data showed that if there were adverse effects from the vaccine, they were so infrequent, they weren't detectable by statistical analysis. Doing this type of analysis - instead of simply reporting the incidents to VAERS - provided a more definitive look at the health effects of the vaccine, he said. As a result, "we decided not to file" public reports about all hospitalizations, he said.  Those considerations weren't relayed to Congress or the public.
In December 2003, Pentagon officials conducted a news conference to rebut a judge's ruling that the shots had been given illegally and that troops had been used as "guinea pigs." Grabenstein was asked whether he had "any data on the numbers of people who have had bad adverse reactions to the vaccine and would have required hospitalization."

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

Grabenstein told the Daily Press that his statement wasn't misleading.  He said no one should expect all hospitalizations after vaccination to be reported to VAERS - despite the Pentagon's written policies - because the number included cases unrelated to the vaccine, sometimes years after vaccination.
 
The memo, "Policy for Reporting Adverse Events Associated With the Anthrax Vaccine," serves as the standing order for all military personnel. It reads: "For the purposes of reporting anthrax vaccine adverse events, a Form VAERS-1 must be completed and submitted using service reporting procedures for those events resulting in a hospital admission or time lost from duty for greater than 24 hours or for those events suspected to have resulted from contamination of a vaccine lot."

The memo lists additional circumstances requiring a report, but nothing that would permit excluding hospitalizations after vaccination. It refers to the Pentagon's formal regulations, which don't include the exclusions that Grabenstein cited.
 
 
Randi Airola
517-819-5926
 
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-38790sy0dec18,0,7576781.story?coll=dp-opinion-editorials

Letters to the editor: Anthrax shot is best protection for troops

December 18, 2005
 
The recent series in your paper on the anthrax vaccine does not accurately reflect the actions or intentions of the Defense Department. We care deeply about the health of U.S. service members and strive to provide the best care and protection possible. Vaccination is the best round-the-clock protection for people who could be attacked with anthrax spores.

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

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

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

Col. John Grabenstein