While many factors can influence an individual’s decision to leave the military, surveyed Guard and Reserve pilots and aircrew members cited the anthrax immunization as a key reason for leaving or otherwise changing their military status. Since September 1998, an estimated 25 percent of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and Reserve in this population transferred to another unit (primarily in a non-flying position), left the military, or moved to inactive status. While several reasons influenced their decision, when asked to rank the one most important factor, the anthrax immunization was the highest, followed by other employment opportunities, and family reasons. Further, about one in five (18 percent) left before qualifying for military retirement benefits. Additionally, 18 percent of those still participating in or assigned to a unit reported their intentions to leave within the next 6 months. These individuals also ranked the anthrax immunization as the most important factor for their decision to leave, followed by unit workload and family reasons. Each of these groups—those who have left and those who plan to do so–had accumulated an average of more than 3,000 flight hours, which symbolizes a seasoned and experienced workforce.[i]
The impact of the anthrax program on the Armed Services was substantial. DoD representatives continued to assert that the impact was negligible and that the refusals and courts-martial were only a misinformed minority. This is because the Armed Forces have to answer to Congress for recruiting goals and retention and how money is being spent. Even if the DoD doesn’t have to answer to servicemembers, it does have to answer to Congress for end-strength and staffing. If the anthrax vaccine program was a significant cause of members leaving the service, Congress could quash the program on those grounds alone. Thus, when asking the DoD about the AVIP’s effect on retention and recruiting, the answer was always “minimal”.[ii]
Both anecdotal and empirical evidence, however, show exactly the opposite.
Servicemembers left both active duty and reserve forces because of the anthrax vaccine program. Those who had no other alternative were refusing the vaccine outright and suffering the consequences. Unfortunately, the DoD did not want to know how bad the statistics were and as of October 2000, they still were not tracking refusal numbers or reasons people left the service. When the GAO recommended that exit surveys include a question about whether or not the anthrax vaccine was a factor in their decision to leave, the DoD objected to the question as being “leading” and that it would result in survey bias.[iii] In the study conducted on National Guard and Reserve aircrew, the GAO found significant numbers of people who cited the anthrax vaccine as the number one reason for either transferring to a new unit or for leaving the Guard or Reserve.[iv] As the GAO noted, “[t]hese components [Reserve and Guard forces] provide essential support to critical defense operations on a worldwide basis. They provide strategic and tactical airlift, aerial refueling, aeromedical evacuation, and augment DOD’s overall fighter force.”[v] Not noted in these reports, but important to understand, is that most Reserve and Guard aircrew are made up of former active duty servicemembers. While it is not definitive, neither is it a stretch to opine that the views of this particular segment of Guard and Reserve society is closely reflective of the views of their brethren on active duty. The numbers reveal two disturbing trends.
First, pilots and aircrew left or transferred in significant numbers because of the anthrax vaccine: to the tune of one out of every four (1/4). Of the remaining members, another 18% (about one out of five) indicated that they were leaving within the next 6 months (the survey was conducted from May to September 2000) and they listed the anthrax vaccine as the number one reason. This means that if a unit started with some baseline number of aircrew, it initially lost 25% citing the AVIP as the number one reason. Therefore, the unit is (setting aside new acquisitions for the moment) at 75% of its prior strength. At the same time, one fifth of the remainder will leave within six months. That cuts the unit down to 65% of original strength. The most disturbing aspect of this trend is that new acquisitions will not return the unit to its former functioning as the members leaving had an average experience level of 3000 flight hours, a fairly significant experience level.[1]
Second, adverse reactions were being massively underreported. The GAO survey of 1253 Guard and Reserve aircrew found that of the forty-two (42) percent who had received one or more shots
86 percent reported experiencing side effects or adverse reactions. About 60 percent indicated that they had not discussed any side effect to the anthrax vaccine with military health care personnel or their supervisors—some (49 percent) citing as their reasons fear of losing their flight status, adverse effects on their military or civilian careers, and ridicule. Seventy-one percent reported that they were unaware of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Slightly less than 6 percent of those who had a reaction reported to this system.[vi]
Here is proof that the VAERS system, upon which the DoD bases its .007 percent adverse reaction rate, is only being reported by 6% of those having adverse reactions. Perhaps it would be better to say that adverse reaction reports are being underreported by a factor of just under 20 (approximately 17). These numbers, as well as the anecdotal evidence, seem to correspond more closely to the AVA package insert’s serious adverse reaction rate of .2 percent.
One related outcome of the study points to the most serious flaw and consequence of the AVIP: the loss of trust in low-level military leadership. There is perhaps nothing more tenuous, and yet necessary and essential, to a military organization than the trust that flows from those being led to their leaders. Unfortunately, in an effort to quash dissent, senior military leaders adopted a leadership style that was characteristic of the Soviet bloc armed forces we stood against for some fifty years – leadership by fear and threat of punishment. In the long run it did not work for those countries and our country is even more ill-suited for that style because of the free-flow of information within the United States. Quite simply, whenever a senior officer makes some factual assertion or claim about the AVA, or the anthrax program, or the manufacturer, or the threat of anthrax, it is a short trip to the library, internet, or other source of information for a soldier to check the veracity of that statement.
The results of the GAO survey showed that while “[m]ost Guard and Reserve pilots and aircrew members support immunization programs in general . . . relatively few appear to support the anthrax program or future immunization programs for other biological warfare agents.”[vii] If the correlation between Reservists and active duty members is valid, servicemembers appeared to recognize what the DoD was not willing to discuss publicly; using vaccines against diseases like the public at large is entirely acceptable, but using vaccines as pretreatments for chemical-biological warfare is a different matter entirely and people are understandably hesitant to allow their bodies to become the future battleground, particularly with the DoD calling the shots. The hard data validates this conclusion.
Almost three out of four (74 percent) of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and Reserve believe that immunizations in general are moderately to very effective, and 60 percent believe that immunizations are moderately to very safe. On the other hand, 65 percent, or two out of three servicemembers, reported little or no support for the anthrax immunization.[viii]
This statistic is interesting also because it shows that the DoD’s extensive education campaign was entirely ineffective. The reason for this is, unfortunately, because as more facts were uncovered, it became increasingly clear that the program evolved from telling less than the whole truth, to spin, to (in many cases) outright fabrication. There is nothing more damaging to the trust from subordinates to seniors than for subordinates to believe that their senior leaders have lied and are continuing to lie to them. In fact, several Reserve officers filed a complaint against two senior military officers involved in the anthrax program from the very beginning.
One of the charges in the IG complaint alleges that Colonel Arthur Friedlander, an Army doctor, lied under oath at a Canadian court-martial. A Canadian soldier was being court-martialed for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine, the same one produced by Bioport. The prosecution in that case called Dr. Friedlander as one of its witnesses. On cross-examination, Dr. Friedlander was questioned regarding his knowledge of the 1996 Investigational New Drug license amendment submitted by MDPH, along with the Department of Defense.
Attorney: If I’m going to suggest to you, sir, that the drug was licenced for cutaneous anthrax only and that there has been a subsequent amendment for coverage for inhalation anthrax, would you agree with me or disagree with me?
Col Friedlander: I’m not aware of that . . .
[Later]
Attorney: In particular, the fifth paragraph, it says that the office, and this is referring to the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense, quote: “‘managed and funded efforts leading to the submission of a Biologic Licensure Application amendment to the FDA,’ including data to support its proposal ‘to license the vaccine to provide protection against aerosol exposure to anthrax.’” Is that something you’re familiar with, sir, or would you disagree with that statement?
Col Friedlander: I’m not sure the details of this. I do know that there were questions that were raised, since there are no direct studies in humans with this vaccine, and that a statement was made by the FDA that the use of the vaccine in the Gulf War against the threat of aerosol use of spores was not inconsistent with the product licence. . . .
Attorney: If I was to suggest to you, sir, that we’ve heard evidence that the vaccine was licenced for cutaneous anthrax and that there was an application placing the drug into IND status with the FDA for three reasons: one, is to change for inhalational anthrax; two, was to change the route of administration; and, three, to change the scheduling of the drugs, would you agree with that or do you know?
Col Friedlander: I know that there have been studies dealing with trying to reduce the number of doses and to look at the route of administration.
Atty: So are you saying, sir, that you’re not familiar with what I’ve said, or you disagree with it?
Friedlander: No, no. I don’t know that I’d have to look back at the documents that you’re referring to.
Atty: Okay. So you’re not saying the drug is not in an IND status for those three variations?
Friedlander: You know, I’m not clear what you’re saying in terms of I mean, I’m not quite clear what that means, in other words. There are studies that have been done, that I’m involved with, looking at reducing the number of doses and changing the route of administration.[ix]
Here, Colonel Friedlander repeatedly denies having knowledge about the license amendment for the anthrax vaccine or the vaccine’s investigational status. This is impossible because Colonel Friedlander was personally involved on three occasions in DoD meetings, during which he specifically briefed the three reasons for the IND application, including an FDA license amendment to add an indication for inhalation anthrax. For example, at the October 20, 1995, meeting of the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense (JPOBD) Colonel Friedlander presented a briefing “covering three topics: (1) evidence for a reduction in the number of doses of anthrax vaccine, (2) evidence for vaccine efficacy against an aerosol challenge, and (3) progress towards an in vitro correlate of immunity.” [x] At this same meeting, Dr. Friedlander acknowledged that “there was insufficient data to demonstrate protection against inhalation disease.”[xi]
At another meeting on Feb 9, 1996, which was a follow up to the October meeting, Colonel Friedlander presented another briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”.[xii] The meeting minutes show that Friedlander discussed the need for the study to show a correlation between animal and human immune response to the vaccine – a recognition that the anthrax vaccine had never demonstrated efficacy for inhalation anthrax in humans.[xiii] This shows an intimate knowledge on Colonel Friedlander’s part about the FDA’s requirements for human studies to prove efficacy of the vaccine.
Finally, on November 10, 1997, Colonel Friedlander presented another briefing to DoD and contractor representatives entitled “Supplement to AVA License.” This was 14 months after the submission of the IND application by the manufacturer, which was submitted in September 1996. The briefing slides clearly show the three changes sought (including an indication for inhalation anthrax) and that Colonel Friedlander was responsible for the pre-clinical portions of these studies intended to obtain FDA approval for these changes.[xiv]
There are only two possible conclusions to be reached when re-reading Colonel Friedlander’s denials at the Canadian court, and neither is particularly favorable. In the best light, he completely forgot everything he knew about the anthrax program and his participation in it. In the worst light, he intentionally lied under oath. In either case, these types of inconsistent statements by senior military officers involved with the program break down the trust between service members and their leaders. This is not even close to being the only instance of this happening.
There was a separate complaint filed by 74 Guard and Reserve officers surrounding statements made by Major General Paul Weaver before Congress. The complaint cited testimony before the House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations. At a Sept. 29, 1999, hearing in front of the House, Weaver stated:
“So, when I hear all of these other figures about these mass resignations [due to members refusing the anthrax vaccine], and what not, they’re just not there. There are challenges with explaining, with discussing, as they all are, with the members of their unit, on the anthrax issue. But when it really gets down to it, we’ve had 10,700 people inoculated for anthrax in the Air National Guard, with one known refusal.”[xv]
The problem with this testimony is that months before his statement to that Committee, Weaver had been made aware of the resignations of pilots from both the Connecticut Air National Guard and Wisconsin ANG. In the case of the Connecticut pilots, a memo was forwarded to Weaver about the Connecticut resignations. Additionally, both the Wisconsin and Connecticut resignations received widespread media coverage, including the Connecticut resignations being referenced by former Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon on Jan. 21, 1999. While ultimately the DoD IG did not punish Major General Weaver, it did find that his statement “lacked the necessary element of ‘straightforwardness,’ and so was inconsistent with guidelines for honesty as set forth by the Joint Ethics Regulations (JER).”[xvi] Major General Weaver later qualified what he meant by a refusal, which he defined as a person who had a commitment to the ANG and could thus be subject to disciplinary action, as opposed to someone who could simply resign because their status allowed them to. There were some emails by staff members prior to the General’s testimony that confirm that this definition was being contemplated, but it is clear no such qualifiers were made in the broad statement made to Congress – only one “refusal”, period.
The sum total of these kinds of parsings, misrepresentations, or flat-out lies, is a disintegration in the trust between those being led and those who are supposed to be doing the leading. When 74 officers are filing a complaint because of a General officer’s mis-statements before Congress, there is a serious problem. The DoD’s refusal to acknowledge in sworn testimony before Congress that such a problem even exists, rather than making it go away, only exacerbates the problem and further erodes trust in senior leaders. The final example of this is the most disturbing because at best, it illustrates a severe disconnect between senior military leaders and those they lead and have led (i.e. veterans) and at worst, it is a case of an intentional coverup of experimentation on service members.
In testimony to the Senate Armed Service’s Committee on 13 April 2000, then-Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Ronald Blanck misrepresented the purpose of the Investigational New Drug application prepared by the Army for the manufacturer. The Senator who queried LTG Blanck was unfamiliar with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and accepted LTG Blanck’s testimony without question. This question goes directly to the heart of the legal status of the vaccine and the General either lied or was grossly misinformed. It is difficult to believe that the United States Army Surgeon General was not “in the know” about the DoD’s plan to amend MBPI (and then BioPort’s) license.
SEN. ROBERTS: General Blanck, the annual Congressionally mandated chemical and biological defense program report to Congress submitted on March 15, 2000, states: “The Department submitted data to the FDA last year to license the vaccine to provide protection against aerosol exposure to anthrax.” My question is why is the Department seeking a license for the vaccine when the license for the anthrax vaccine has existed since 1970?
GEN. BLANCK: It is really for the facility, not for the vaccine per se.
SEN. ROBERTS: Oh, I see, okay. All right. That clears that up.
There is a big difference between seeking a license change for a new facility and getting a new indication for the vaccine itself. In light of emails later discovered regarding DoD’s people “on site” and the supplemental testing conducted by the DoD, even in a light most favorable to the General, if he wasn’t lying, then he was either completely misinformed by his subordinates about what was going on (which isn’t reassuring in any way) or completely misunderstood the FDA regulatory process, which doesn’t speak well for his knowledge as the Surgeon General. Furthermore, in 1994, General Blanck, when he was the Commanding General of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, briefed a Congressional committee that
Therefore, its [AVA’s] safety, particularly when given to thousands of soldiers in conjunction with other vaccines, is not well established. Anthrax vaccine should continue to be considered as a potential cause for undiagnosed illnesses in Persian Gulf military personnel because many of the support troops received anthrax vaccine, and because the DOD believes that the incidence of undiagnosed illnesses in support troops may be higher than that in combat troops.[xvii]
Just a few years prior, General Blanck asserts that the DoD believes that the AVA should be considered a cause of Gulf War Illness. Yet after his promotion to Surgeon General of the Army and the launch of the AVIP, he tried to disavow these statements. It would be understandable if General Blanck’s change in position were due to some scientific evidence that proves that the AVA is or was not a potential cause of Gulf War Illness. Unfortunately, the evidence continued to mount that the AVA was a possible source of Gulf War Illness. The DoD consistently opposed any study that showed a link between vaccines or other medicines that were given to soldiers and Gulf War Illness. The evidence supporting this would eventually become conclusive and the VA would acknowledge pyridostigmine bromide pills as causal of GWI for VA benefit purposes.
The problem with the dissembling and misstatements by senior military leaders isn’t just the loss of trust from the junior servicemembers. When all of the dissembling continually concerns the anthrax vaccine, it only serves to make people more suspicious of the program. The DoD repeatedly complained that it was “internet misinformation” undermining the program, but the real culprit was the DoD’s own misinformation that served to erode all faith in this program. This pattern of deception was most evident when the issue of the anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illness came up. The DoD showed just how far it would go to protect the AVA.
[1] In the Marine Corps, for example, someone with 3000 flight hours would most likely be a Major returning to a squadron for a second tour or already into a second tour.
[i] GAO 01-92T p.6
[ii] Statement of MajGen Paul Weaver, USAFR (see background brief).
[iii] GAO T-NSIAD-00-36 p.37
[iv] GAO 01-92T
[v] Id. p. 1.
[vi] GAO 01-92T p.5-6
[vii] GAO 0192T p.4
[viii] Id. p.4
[ix] Canadian court-martial trial transcript, Judge G.L. Brais, 30 Mar 2000, Office of the Chief Military Judge, Canadian Forces
[x] LTC David Danley, “Minutes of the Meeting on Changing the Food and Drug Administration License for the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) Anthrax Vaccine to Meet Military Requirements”, held on 20 Oct 1995 meeting; Joint Program Office for Biological Defense memorandum, 13 Nov 1995.
[xi] Id.
[xii] Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, Minutes of the Anthrax License Amendment Issues Meeting, briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”, 9 Feb 1996.
[xiii] Id. Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, Minutes of the Anthrax License Amendment Issues Meeting, briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”, 9 Feb 1996.
[xiv] Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, briefing titled “Supplement to AVA License” (slides), meeting attended by USAMRIID and contractor representatives, 10 Nov 1997
[xv] House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations. Sept. 29, 1999
[xvi] Reported by Dave Eberart, Stars and Stripes, May 11, 2001, quoting from March IG Report.
[xvii] Senate Report 103-97, note 143
Any questions? No?
I’ll be lurking.
As I’ve mentioned, this posts at midnight my time, so I’ll have to leave it until morning. Glad to see it back this week! Still itching to hear what happens to your client. (Haven’t read above, but from the opening ‘graphs, it doesn’t seem as if you’re covering that this time.)
See you in the morning!
I usually check back in the am. It’s 10 pm for me and I’m wiped. No, back to my client soon, however. This just covers a bunch more lies by the government, specifically, a number of
politicians in uniformmilitary leaders.“Any questions?”
I know better 😉
Good article.
A good morning. No on to the topic.
Sorry but really reading all this, it seems to me you want anthrax to win. What side are you on Ozy? Human or bacteria? Are you some sort of species traitor? In the pocket of Big
Bacillus ?
::ponders changing her handle. Thinks better of it. Takes another glug of coffee::
You know, like the Villain in Avatar who decided to seriously endanger all humanity otherwise his smurf girlfriend might be sad.
Sorry Ozzy, these things post too late for a proper read through, at this hour I just want to snark. New cartoon to hide from the family Thanksgiving day at 10am Packer Country time. night yall.
Oh, gettin’ while the gettin’s good, eh?
I usually wait until lunch break.
Well, before I read this I’ll say,it’s too cold, and thank the Glibs for helping give us a hand up, we are freezing with a purpose. Mil is getting old and Alzheimer’s, so we are hanging out for Thanksgiving, meanwhile we are setting up some walk throughs for a new place,,
My previous company liked me so they want me for new project, more supervisor and training this time,
That sounds awesome, Yu. I hope everything lines up properly for Yu…er, you.
We have everything lined up ,this is icing on the cake, thanks
Outstanding!
The most critical part is getting my stuff out of CA, and a Glib friend is helping, he’s here now.,.
Go live a happy life, Yusef. That’s all we want for you.
We are doing it, not wishing, thanks Mike
Yu
That was fucking amazing, I have heard some throat singing, but that was great
The term throat singing always makes me think of. .. something else.
Best of luck on your Calexit. And a happy thanksgiving as well. Really the best holiday of the year.
You too, this the best time of year
I assume he will now start voting for gun control and higher taxes
https://www.gofundme.com/f/v8pdm-getting-to-arizona?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1
5 dollars til halfway
Huh. Ten dollars doesn’t seem like a very ambitious goal.
Meh–$20, same as downtown.
Also–Ta-da! You made your goal, Yusef.
Sorry for the OT, I’m deep into the pale ales and am taking the day off tomorrow to watch the kids. Great Bill Withers concert video here. I hadn’t seen this one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WwgggzBgJfM
Ummm…no!
This was a Guard/Reserve thing only.
What do Guard/Reserve pilots do for a living? They fly for the airlines. There was an unsubstantiated claim, at the time, that the vaccine had caused some g/r pilots to lose their airline jobs. Did it? Didn’t it? IDK. You can argue either way, whether the military can/should mandate bio warfare vaccines, but it wasn’t an issue for the vast majority of the active duty folks. For what it’s worth, I had the shots. Never had an issue. No one I know had an issue. And I don’t hear anything from the active duty side that the anthrax vaccine is the new agent orange. I suspect this entire controversy was an unsubstantiated overreaction from those whose primary livelihood was allegedly threatened.
Yes there was a concern. Was it legitimate? I don’t believe so.
That’s pretty similar to how I felt at the time. Young dumb and full of hooah.
As a non-service member, I’m not gonna white-knight Ozy, as I can’t speak with any knowledge on the subject, other than what’s been provided here.
That said, Ozy has documented quite a lot of illegality on the part of high-ups in the military at the time in question. Hell, he litigated on issues directly tied to this, which is why he has the knowledge that he does. And, it does seem that some service members got sick/had reactions to the vaccine. How many do there need to be in order for the concern to be “legitimate”?
How do you know this, beyond: (1) your anecdotal experience, and (2) the lack of outcry from those who are/were directly affected? On the second part, there are any number of reasons why there aren’t more of those people saying anything–death, ignorance, fear, sense of duty, just to name a few.
I’m not trying to suggest you are in the wrong here, so much as I’m trying to say that Ozy has presented a LOT of evidence here, and, absent a competing stack of contra-positive evidence on this point, his assertion makes sense.
Nothing besides my own experience. I remember the controversy. Thought it was bullshit at the time. Still think it is.
Show me the stack of dead bodies. This is the first I’ve heard anything on this subject in 18 years. What are the alleged symptoms/effects?
I get why G/R pilots were concerned. I get why libertarians would argue this should be voluntary ( I believe that myself). I just don’t think there is any substantiated evidence that the vaccine is harmful.
For what it’s worth, despite my insistence, AND having had the vaccine as a kid, the AF wouldn’t give me the smallpox vaccine because I’d been diagnosed (wrongly, I believe) with eczema. Why is this relevant? It indicates the service does have the best interest of the airman in mind, wrt vaccines.
Was the smallpox vaccine intended for a preventative measure for possible exposure in combat areas? As in, weaponized smallpox? Would that make a difference in receiving one over the other? I don’t know. But, if there is a re-purposing of vaccines, like the story Ozy’s telling, and the rather callous disregard for its manufacture, I’m not sure that the situations are comparable.
Again, not saying you are incorrect about your take on the vaccine, per se. Just that it seems the DoD disregarded the law in quite a big way. And, the way that played out does lend itself to there being harm for those affected (at lest, some who were).
Yes. But it was the same vaccine I’d received as a child.
My biggest contention with that article is the assumption that because the G/R had issues with being forced to have the vaccine, that the active duty did too. I never saw that and, as I pointed out, there are different motivators between the AD and G/R.
It’s been 18 years since the controversy. What are the the alleged detrimental effects?
Point taken.
As for the effects, I am going off what Ozy has written in reference to GWS. From what I understand, it has been pretty much dismissed as a factor (at least, overall), but, it also appears that there is a lack of plentiful research into it, and, there is an argument to be made that the government will cover its own ass, considering how the DoD (along with other agencies throughout history) behaved. Yes, that is conspiratorial thinking, to a degree, but, one that does have some grounding in that behavior I mentioned.
Since you seem to have been more “impacted” by this than I was (not at all on my part), you do, obviously, have experience that I don’t, and, I don’t want to come across as attacking you on the matter–glibs gotta stick together. Or, you know…do, like, whatever, man!
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I don’t trust the military as far as I can throw them.
I just don’t think this is a legitimate controversy.
FdA – Let me start my reply by saying that as a career guy when I bumped into this issue, I had the same exact feelings you did. Let me also ask you to come around for the next chapter.
Now, let me say you’re completely in the wrong, but this is how the military ‘worked’ this issue. They made anyone who refused into a coward. I had a client who had G6PD deficiency – similar to sickle cell – and it’s not uncommon among black soldiers. How does the AVA interact with G6PD? No one knows. Certainly, no one knew then – and that doesn’t even begin to address the problems that were identified like the change in the entire manufacturing process, including repeated failures of every. single. inspection.
You think the government is good at manufacturing things??
The reason that the controversy existed in the first place was because pilots in Dover – a reserve transport squadron – who also had day jobs, had adverse reactions in significant numbers. Mil said, “Meh, so what?” but it cost guys their livelihood and ability to take care of their families because they were med down for flying.
Maybe you need a pile of bodies, but you sound a little more like “Meh, my ox wasn’t gored, so fuck ’em; no big deal.” You’re just wrong on this.
Okay, Oz. It’s no longer 2300 and I’m no longer intoxicated.
To be honest, I had no idea this wasn’t a stand alone post (I guess the “Chapter 16” in the title shoulda been a hint…but…drunk). I’ve spent the morning skimming your previous chapters. Your legal argument seems sound, to me, as a layman. Sounds like the military fucked the entire thing away, from a procedural/legal standpoint. I only take exception to two things in Chapter 16 and they involve the only two things I’m qualified to speak to.
1. The following statement:
Having been an active duty pilot during that time period, I saw none of this. I don’t recall any active duty pilots refusing the vaccine nor do I remember it even being an issue. Sure we read about what was going on in the Guard and Reserve, discussed it and most people shrugged their shoulders. Talking to my Guard buddies, however, was a different story. They seemed pretty animated, but their concerns appeared anecdotal and I was never convinced of a link. (But I wasn’t concerned with losing a lucrative airline job, either)
To be perfectly honest, I can’t even recall what they were claiming the adverse effects were. I didn’t run across their specific claims in 16 or in any of the skimming I did this morning. Perhaps you could touch on those in future installments?
2. You imply that the vaccine was a major contributor to pilots leaving their G/R jobs and those that left ranked the vaccine as being the biggest reason.
While I have no doubt that some of them had actual concerns about the vaccine, I don’t think it really means as much as you suppose. Here’s why I believe that:
During the time period in question, the economy was booming, the airlines were hiring at an unprecedented rate, active duty pilots were pissed off by the quality of life on active duty and were bailing out as fast as they could sign their paperwork (I was one of them). Many pilots left the AD before being hired by an airline and a very large number of those went G/R for a paycheck until they got hired.
THEN they got hired and didn’t need the G/R gig anymore. They got out of the AD because of the hours and now they’re holding down two jobs, at least one of which (sometimes both) requires an all day commute on each end. SO they leave the G/R. This happens all the time when the airlines are hiring. It’s normal.
As far as those leaving indicating that the vaccine was the biggest reason.?.?.? I think it was simply a convenient excuse. Those guys used the G/R when they needed them and now feel guilty for letting down the unit that trusted them. So do you say, “I’m leaving because I don’t want to work this hard.” Or do you blame it on the vaccine?
…anyway… Enjoy reading your account and am looking forward to future installments.
Here is proof that the VAERS system, upon which the DoD bases its .007 percent adverse reaction rate, is only being reported by 6% of those having adverse reactions. Perhaps it would be better to say that adverse reaction reports are being underreported by a factor of just under 20 (approximately 17). These numbers, as well as the anecdotal evidence, seem to correspond more closely to the AVA package insert’s serious adverse reaction rate of .2 percent.
*raises hand again*
Didn’t even realize for twenty years that the adverse reaction I experienced was even related to the Anthrax vaccinations. And I took sick days from my civilian job for what I thought was the worst flu of my life. Fuck you very much big green weenie. Fun Travel
AdventureAnthrax.Fun Travel
AdventureAnthrax.I just realized. Aviator turned JAG lawyer. When’s Catherine Bell going to show up in khakis in this narrative?
Pffft…Tease!
Thanks for the good articles Ozy. The military really thought it had a load of human guinea pigs. Years ago I was talking to a Naval vet who told me a story about him and his shipmates getting gassed by what was probably an herbicide in San Diego in the 70’s. He later developed brain cancer and had the titanium plate where they took out a piece of his mainframe. He pulled his cap off and gave it a knock for me. Terrible stuff.
Did his hair still part the correct way?
Another good report Ozy. I know from experience that the anthrax program was causing some retention issues in part of ARSOF and was the source of a great deal of cynicism in every part of the ARSOF community that I was in contact with. This from a community where many, myself included, received experimental rabies vaccine.
By noon EST on 9/11/2001 the issue was overcome by events and prepping for war. I don’t recall getting a booster (I had already completed the five shot series) before heading overseas in 2003, 2007 or 2008. They gave me another smallpox and all the usual others.
Thanks, Ozzy, interesting stuff.
Also, you know who else didn’t take an anthrax vaccine?
Sister Zoot?
Oh, wicked, bad, naught evil Zoot!
The first person to answer this comment will be granted some unexpected good luck next year
Any word from Major Decoverly?
https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/southeastern-pa/bill-cosby-vows-no-remorse-expects-to-serve–year/article_dd3ec49e-1034-11ea-8d3b-972d9a3df375.html
So not woke.
He would not gain their forgiveness nor a second chance. He has nothing to gain by seeking either from them.
When you’re filled with the hate and insanity like the woke ones are, there is no capacity for forgiveness.
Slight math quibble, but if I’m figgering this right, it makes your case a tiny bit stronger:
From baseline of 100, loss of 25% leaves 75. One-fifth of the remaining 75 = 15, leaving unit at 60% of original strength.
It’s early here, and I haven’t had a lot of coffee yet, but is my calculating correct?
Good stuff, as always, Ozy! You’re doing important work!
0.8*0.75=0.6, so your math checks out.
I won $4 in the lottery!
On a $10 ticket. ?
I won $10 on a $10 ticket.
You should have just given 6 bucs to s hooker.
Don’t go blowing it on prostitutes and killing your kids and stabbing your wife now.
I don’t have a wife or kids.
I have a girlfriend.
#humblebrag?
*bows to your Superior Wisdom
You already killed them, didn’t you?
Thanks OZY, another interesting article. In addition to the efficacy (or not) of the anthrax immunizations is the revelation that senior military officers speak incoherently/lie/double speak. I thought that was reserved for junior officers trying to avoid the recognition of too much to drink, foolish behavior, etc. I was never affected by the controversy but I certainly remember lining up and getting lots of shots. I did learn junior officer doublespeak, however.
I was assigned to an Air Force base in Europe, 1 of 2 army officers. Came time for my physical and I got it from a flight surgeon. One of the tests to be administered was for color blindness. The flight surgeon disregarded that since I obviously had been tested before for that. Army kicked the physical back, wanting the color blindness test. The AF flight surgeon refused, sending a note to the Army explaining that color blindness is present at birth and not an acquired problem. The Army then stopped bothering me and the doctor.
Thanks, Ozy, for reminding us that politics don’t end with elections. Bureaucracies are bureaucracies, CYA is the name of the game.