Department of Research
ANTHRAX VACCINE & GWS

The Anthrax Vaccine, Depleted Uranium, & Gulf War Syndrome (GWS)

Many questions surround the safety and health of the anthrax vaccine, and this report will examine both this vaccine as well as the mysterious illness that has afflicted many veterans of the Gulf War in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia known as Gulf War Syndrome or GWS. The anthrax vaccine is an issue of special concern to many because it has been mandated that all American soldiers, as well as many civilian employees, receive the full set of shots with the intention of making the troops temporarily immune to the biological warfare version of the anthrax disease. Many people see this vaccination program as yet another GWS in the making and they have some valid reasons for thinking this. Indeed, the more it is investigated, the more sordid the story of the anthrax vaccine program becomes.

Is Battlefield Safety an Oxymoron?

The military and the civilian realm of American society have very different interpretations of health and safety. The military’s purpose is to fight wars and win and this inevitably involves deaths both on our side but hopefully more on their side. The US military has come a long way on safety issues during peacetime training but still when it comes to a war zone safety is low on the General’s priority list because winning the war is the first priority and causalities are figured into the equation; in combat death is not just an option it's a reality.

The Gulf War was a typical example of this philosophy at work. The Iraqi theatre was a shooting combat zone and the goal of the leadership both in Saudi Arabia and in Washington D.C. was to make the American and coalition soldiers survive long enough to win the war, anything else was (theoretically) just a bonus. This logic meant that the troops were exposed to hazards and safety problems that wouldn’t have been acceptable during peacetime or even during training.

Before and during the Gulf War untested drugs were handed out like candy and everyone was shot-up with unproven vaccines. Soldiers were exposed to depleted uranium remnants and dust from tank shells and A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft strafing runs. Meanwhile, oil fires burning for weeks left the air horrendously polluted with toxins too numerous to count. Nasty local insects, rodents and reptiles made life hazardous for everyone in the area at the moment and afterwards through the unsafe use of chemical pesticides even to include wearing animal flea collars. Not to mention the diseases endemic to the region and a local populace that doesn’t know what the word ‘bathe’ means. Combine that all with the low level use of chemical weapons and even those same munitions being demolished and thrown into the air! Is it really that shocking that some people came back from the Gulf sick? Hardly. Indeed the southern Iraqi people are experiencing very high rates of birth defects and other illness, most likely from the depleted uranium that is in the ground and air and will probably remain so forever. In many ways Gulf War Syndrome is just another tragic example of preventable friendly fire.

This is no excuse for the Veterans Administration (VA) and other government agencies that have been slow to recognize after-effects and health problems with Gulf War vets. This is typical bureaucracy especially prevalent in the military health sector, as anyone who has had to deal with a VA hospital knows. The problem is evidently compounded by the fact that all those drugs that were handed out during the war weren’t catalogued or recorded at all; either that or the records were "lost"! Malpractice and concomitant lawsuits are, needless to say, not an issue to military medical personnel. So what were the pills and vaccinations for? Who knows, various experimental drugs, quack and quick solutions, even nerve gas antidotes as some have suggested - perhaps the atropine injectors weren’t good enough?

More ‘Friendly’ Fire Courtesy of the Anthrax Vaccine?

Because of the past record of sloppy medical care as well as the substandard safety levels associated with the military, many people see dangerous similarity between the latest anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Syndrome problems. And the manufacturer of the vaccine has certainly had more than its fair share of production problems. BioPort Corp. Headed by Fuad El-Hibri, originally from Lebanon, more than doubled the price it charges to the government from $3.50 a dose to over $10 because they claimed they would be bankrupt otherwise. The company bought a vaccine production plant from the state of Michigan right before declaring themselves to be nearly insolvent leading to speculation as to whether this is just poor financial planning or an ignoble attempt to squeeze more cash out of the federal government. Since BioPort is a private company it does not have to release financial reports, but we do know that in seven years they have managed to turn a $4.5 million investment into a $450 million dollar biotech company precisely because they are the sole producer and supplier for the anthrax vaccine in the country at a time when fear and panic about everything related to terrorism and biological weapons, real or imagined, grips the public and policy-makers alike. [2]

The just-too-convenient appearance of this setup has not escaped the attention of one intrepid reporter, Bob Evans of the Daily Press (Newport News). His four part investigative series into the anthrax vaccine program, BioPort, and the government has revealed the hazards of the vaccine as well as likely corruption between current and former government and military personnel to support lucrative deals for the sole manufacturer.

But the U.S. government was not keen on letting a foreign-owned company control its anthrax vaccine. The only other bidder was also based overseas.

So Fuad El-Hibri played a trump card: A family friend, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. William Crowe, was made a director.

Crowe put no money into BioPort but got about 10 percent of the stock, government records show. El Hibri says Crowe immediately advised him to apply for U.S. citizenship. [2]

The production side seems corrupt, possibly inept too, and neither aspect is likely to endear anyone not on the payroll to their cause. Besides that problem is the actual safety of the vaccine. Government officials claim it has been safe and FDA approved for nearly 30 years but that only applies to veterinarians who work with animals. Those people are at risk for a very simple and fairly benign version of anthrax, not a modified or potentially more virulent biological warfare version. Nor has this vaccination been proven to be effective against airborne anthrax viruses as would be encountered in combat. 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 vaccines s safety involve monitoring that lasted days to a few months. [1] And in fact, “a federal judge ruled last year [2004] that the drug had never been adequately licensed for protection against anthrax use in warfare. [1]

Like all medications this vaccination needs to be tested in an environment similar to what it is intended to protect against. Ideally one would need a sample of that enemy biological warfare agent that some people continue to claim as a dire threat to every human on the planet and especially the military. Obviously that is not likely, but we must also realize that even if we tested the vaccine for a specific pathogen when the next war arrives the disease may well have mutated either on its own or with the help of an aggressive regime.

In the meantime people are dying from adverse reactions to this vaccine that is of very questionable value to begin with. As more research goes into it, the signs and symptoms begin to form a pattern “Repeated evidence of the same adverse side effect after a vaccination is one of the most telling signs of a systematic problem with a drug or vaccine, as opposed to a coincidental relationship.” [1] Autoimmune problems seem to be a consistent element in deadly reactions to the anthrax vaccine. In some people the vaccine is altering the immune system and tricking it into attacking healthy parts of the body.

During the years covered by the hospitalization report obtained by the Daily Press, dozens of sick veterans who'd received the shot went to Capitol Hill, complaining of various health problems. Some got the shot for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which the vaccine had its first widespread use. Others were members of the military forced to take the shots under a mandatory program that began in 1998.

Their complaints had common themes: Fatigue. Chronic pain in joints and other symptoms of arthritis. Tingling in their feet, arms and hands. Mental lapses. Often, more than one of the symptoms were present, making diagnoses difficult.

Sympathetic doctors testified that these complaints were indicative of autoimmune problems, in which the body's natural protective mechanisms go haywire and start attacking healthy cells and tissue. The doctors said that could result if the vaccine overstimulated the vets' immune systems. [1]

Another element that should be included is that of a chemical called squalene that has been added to many troubled vaccines and may be a link between the anthrax, and other vaccines, and Gulf War Syndrome.

The common factor for the 275,000 British and US veterans who are ill appears to be a substance called squalene, allegedly used in injections to add to their potency.

Squalene is classed as an adjuvant - a chemical which is added to a vaccine to make it more combative. It is a naturally occurring substance in the human body but injecting it is illegal, and past scientific research in rats and mice has found that it causes auto-immune disease. Consequently, squalene in the form of a vaccine is unlicensed for human or veterinary use. [3]

Ultimately the whole concept of a vaccine actually protecting soldiers against a biological warfare agent, one that can be modified to defeat defenses at any time, is ridiculous. Vaccinating a veterinarian who might possibly pick up anthrax from sick sheep is one thing but to go and claim that the entire military force needs the exact same shot, actually six shots over a period of time, that’s simply specious reasoning. I would like to see this vaccine in a full-blown scientific testing scenario with a test and a control group preferably humans too. Then analyze it within a real-world environment against a modern, bio-war version of airborne anthrax. Afterwards write up an official report and have it reviewed and published by a respected scientific journal. Once BioPort cleans up its act and gains a shred of respectability maybe those on the receiving end of the needle would have less to worry about. 11.10.99 & 09.12.05 

Killing courtesy of Lariam?

A related issue that has hit the news recently has to do with another drug being used in the military. This time it's not to prevent anthrax infections but to prevent malaria. The drug's brand name is Lariam or generically known as mefloquine. Some of the informal terms associated with its use include being 'wigged out' and going 'psycho'. That would definitely be bad enough if it happened to anyone but when it happens to battle-hardened soldiers that are armed and trained to kill, well, I don't have to do the math for you on that one.

Lariam has very serious side-effects that are officially acknowledged to include:

Lariam's label warns of psychosis, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, aggression, tremors, confusion, abnormal dreams and rare reports of suicide. It also says mental problems can last long after taking it. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research developed Lariam in the 1970s after troops in Vietnam contracted malaria despite taking chloroquine -- then the standard preventive medication.

Recently several soldiers returned from intensive duty in Afghanistan to Ft. Bragg then killed themselves and their wives, which is why Lariam has been under focus because those soldiers were all influenced by the use of that very drug. Whether Lariam caused them to start killing people they weren't under orders to kill is still open for debate, but the primary issue I'm trying to highlight is that, once again, the government has a substantial interest in NOT admitting fault in the case of a bad drug being used on its employees. "The Army does not want (the truth) released," said Tony Deibler, deputy director of U.S. embassy security in Kabul and a security expert for 26 years with the U.S. diplomatic staff. "If we (the government) admit this, we are opening ourselves up to a multi, multi, multi-billion dollar lawsuit. I love my country, but this is what drives that train."

The UPI news service has put more effort into researching this issue than about any other news service. This, and the above quotes, are from Army Fort Bragg study faces scrutiny.

UPI has interviewed a number of soldiers who say Lariam has given them long-term mental problems since the U.S. military began widely using the drug on over 20,000 troops deployed to Somalia in the early 1990s. U.S. Army officials told UPI they never saw evidence of any problems with the drug there.

"There is so much darkness in your brain and so much violence. And you know what you are capable of," said G. Mayes, a member of the Army reserves who was called up in 1993. Mayes said that while she suffered no mental problems before then, the Lariam the Army gave her brought on hallucinations, confusion, depression, paranoia, suicidal thoughts and even thoughts of homicide that she struggles with to this day.

"You know that no one around you is safe. You do whatever you can to maintain the appearance of normalcy. It is all in your eyes and in your head. You know that if somebody pulls the right stunt, you are just going to snap their little neck and leave them there." 08.11.02

News Headlines

References

1. An Incomplete Picture, by Bob Evans, Newport News Daily Press, December, 2005.
2. How A Company Cashed In On Anthrax, by Bob Evans, Newport News Daily Press, December, 2005.
3. Illegal vaccine link to Gulf war syndrome, by Paul Brown, environment correspondent for The Guardian, July 30, 2001.

Resources

 Content & Design © Freydis
Updated: March, 2008
Created: October, 1999