Prepared Citizens

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  • Previous Posts

  • Michael Osterholm Quotes:

    “What we need to be doing now is the basic planning of how we get our communities through 12 to 18 months of a pandemic.”

    “Ninety-five out of 100 will live. But with the nation in crisis, will we have food and water? Are we going to have police and security? Will people come to work at all?”

    “It's the perfect setup. Then you put air travel in and it could be around the world overnight.”

    “We can predict now 12 to 18 months of stress of watching loved ones die, of wondering if you are going to have food on the table the next day. Those are all things that are going to mean that we are going to have to plan -- unlike any other crisis that we have had in literally the last 80-some years in this country.”

  • US Health and Human Services

    Secretary Michael Leavitt

    "If there is one message on pandemic preparedness that I could leave today that you would remember, it would be this:

    Any community that fails to prepare with the expectation that the federal government or for that matter the state government will be able to step forward and come to their rescue at the final hour will be tragically wrong,

    not because government will lack a will, not because we lack a collective wallet, but because there is no way that you can respond to every hometown in America at the same time."
  • Joseph C. Napoli, MD of Resiliency LLC

    "I think a new meaning is evolving for resiliency and resilience.

    In some contexts the words are being used to mean the strength to resist being impacted by an adverse event rather than either the “capacity to rebound” or “act of rebounding” from adversity.

    Therefore, resiliency and resilience appear to be assuming the meaning of fortitude, that is, “the strength or firmness of mind that enables a person to encounter danger with coolness and courage or to bear pain or adversity without despondency” as defined in the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.

    If so, we are coming full circle with science accepting a religious moral virtue – fortitude – as written in the Bible’s Book of Wisdom"

  • Faith Based Resources

    John Piper
    Jonathan Edwards
    Pink-Saving Faith
    Pink-Christian Ethics

    "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves"
    (2 Corinthians 13:5).

    Why Faith Groups Must Care

    When the Darkness Will Not Lift by John Piper


    Be Not Afraid
    Overcoming the fear of Death
    by Johann Christoph Arnold

    While I am not a professional journalist, I do embrace the code of ethics put forth by the Society of Professional Journalists and the statement of purpose by the Association of Health Care Journalists and above all else I strive to "do no harm".

  • Recent Comments

    preparedcitizens on Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH…
    bryansail33 on Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH…
    preparedcitizens on Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH…
    bryan on Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH…
    Catherine Mitchell on What Are You Throwing Awa…
  • Definitions

    from Wikipedia

    Pandemic Influenza

    An influenza pandemic is an epidemic of the influenza virus that spreads on a worldwide scale and infects a large proportion of the human population.

    In contrast to the regular seasonal epidemics of influenza, these pandemics occur irregularly, with the 1918 Spanish flu the most serious pandemic in recent history.

    Pandemics can cause high levels of mortality, with the Spanish influenza being responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people.

    There have been about 3 influenza pandemics in each century for the last 300 years. The most recent ones were the Asian Flu in 1957 and the Hong Kong Flu in 1968.

    Seasonal Influenza

    Flu season is the portion of the year in which there is a regular outbreak in flu cases.

    It occurs during the cold half of the year in each hemisphere.

    Flu activity can sometimes be predicted and even tracked geographically. While the beginning of major flu activity in each season varies by location, in any specific location these minor epidemics usually take about 3 weeks to peak and another 3 weeks to significantly diminish.

    Individual cases of the flu however, usually only last a few days. In some countries such as Japan and China, infected persons sometimes wear a surgical mask out of respect for others.

    Avian (Bird) Flu
    Avian influenza,

    sometimes Avian flu, and commonly Bird flu refers to "influenza caused by viruses adapted to birds."

    "Bird flu" is a phrase similar to "Swine flu", "Dog flu", "Horse flu", or "Human flu" in that it refers to an illness caused by any of many different strains of influenza viruses that have adapted to a specific host.

    All known viruses that cause influenza in birds belong to the species: Influenza A virus.

    All subtypes (but not all strains of all subtypes) of Influenza A virus are adapted to birds, which is why for many purposes avian flu virus is the Influenza A virus (note that the "A" does not stand for "avian").
    Adaptation is non-exclusive.

    Being adapted towards a particular species does not preclude adaptations, or partial adaptations, towards infecting different species.

    In this way strains of influenza viruses are adapted to multiple species, though may be preferential towards a particular host.

    For example, viruses responsible for influenza pandemics are adapted to both humans and birds.

    Recent influenza research into the genes of the Spanish Flu virus shows it to have genes adapted to both birds and humans; with more of its genes from birds than less deadly later pandemic strains.

    H5N1 Strain

    Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, also known as A(H5N1) or simply H5N1, is a subtype of the Influenza A virus which can cause illness in humans and many other animal species.

    A bird-adapted strain of H5N1, called HPAI A(H5N1) for "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of subtype H5N1", is the causative agent of H5N1 flu, commonly known as "avian influenza" or "bird flu".

    It is enzootic in many bird populations, especially in Southeast Asia. One strain of HPAI A(H5N1) is spreading globally after first appearing in Asia.

    It is epizootic (an epidemic in nonhumans) and panzootic (affecting animals of many species, especially over a wide area), killing tens of millions of birds and spurring the culling of hundreds of millions of others to stem its spread.

    Most references to "bird flu" and H5N1 in the popular media refer to this strain.

    As of the July 25, 2008 FAO Avian Influenza Disease Emergency Situation Update, H5N1 pathogenicity is continuing to gradually rise in wild birds in endemic areas but the avian influenza disease situation in farmed birds is being held in check by vaccination.

    Eleven outbreaks of H5N1 were reported worldwide in June 2008 in five countries (China, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam) compared to 65 outbreaks in June 2006 and 55 in June 2007.

    The "global HPAI situation can be said to have improved markedly in the first half of 2008 [but] cases of HPAI are still underestimated and underreported in many countries because of limitations in country disease surveillance systems".

    Pandemic Severity Index

    The Pandemic Severity Index (PSI) is a proposed classification scale for reporting the severity of influenza pandemics in the United States.

    The PSI was accompanied by a set of guidelines intended to help communicate appropriate actions for communities to follow in potential pandemic situations. [1]

    Released by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on February 1, 2007, the PSI was designed to resemble the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

    From the Massachusetts Health and Human Services


    refers to separating people who are ill from other people to prevent the spread of a communicable disease.


    refers to separating and restricting the movement of people who have been exposed to a communicable disease and are not yet ill.
  • Additional Information

    Creative Commons License
    Prepared Citizens by Catherine "Jackie" Mitchell is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
    Based on a work at

    The posts on this site are subject to change. Mostly due to errors in spelling or grammar. I never said I am a professional journalist. I have new appreciation for the job that they do. Also, not all comments made by others will make it onto this site. Comments that advertise a commercial product do not get posted most of the time.

    View blog top tags
  • standingfirm

The Public’s Trust and Compelled Vaccines

Posted by preparedcitizens on November 24, 2008

A major report on Gulf War Illness was released last Thursday. The report, for me, reiterates the why we must not compel anyone in the general public to take vaccines.

But the issue is not so simple as the mistrust that adjuvants in these vaccines cause when it comes to the subject of vaccine use during a pandemic or other widespread infectious disease outbreak. The new third generation DNA based vaccines are a cause for concern just based on their newness and unknowableness given their lack of widespread testing and long term use.

Many variables effect a vaccines safety and not just the adjuvants used. And many variables are possibly implicated in Gulf War Syndrome, not the adjuvants used in the vaccines. How the vaccines are produced, especially when manufacturing massive amounts of vaccine and the storage of these vaccines (especially during a pandemic when the power may have an impact on a vaccine safety) are all considerations that must weigh heavily on public health decisions made pre-pandemically.

What we decide now when cooler heads prevail, should determine how we proceed during a pandemic. Waiting for a time to make decisions, that may become quite local during an infectious disease outbreak where we will be “on our own”, when fear of those who are ill or infected is widespread or when logic, reason and sound science may be in short supply, is not a good course to follow.

“First, do no harm” is an important ethical and moral principle. In the days ahead when people may be hungering to use widely untested vaccines to stop the spread of pandemic influenza, there may be more pressure exerted on those in the public who desire to not take them. What is in the vaccine, how it has been stored, how it has been manufactured, may actually do more harm than good and there will not be time to properly test and evaluate what is being used to inoculate us. Public fear can be compelling. Public pressure unavoidable.

It isn’t that I am against vaccine use on general principles. I have posted about the positive effects of vaccines. I am against compelling people to take part in, what sometimes seems to be experimentation on the general population. Even after all this time of a raging controversy regarding newer immulogic aduvants, little has been done to study the effects as well as the effects of multiple vaccines taken in a short period of time. If we do not know these . But enough of a question exists in my mind to allow room for doubt and there is this doubt for many, many, people. The American public must not be experimented upon and that is what is occurring when these manufacturing changes take place with very few studies to point to that demonstrate safety.

When Gardasil first came out, that was exactly my thought. I counseled the females in our family to wait, and I am glad that they did. Now, with little long term evidence that the vaccine is safe, it is being made a mandatory vaccine for some groups of people.

Vaccines should never be compelled.

Mandatory vaccination for participation in public school or attendance at camp, is understandable, one can always opt out of participation or choose to homeschool. But now even some homeschoolers are being made to provide proof of vaccination. This is concerning. Forcing the general public to vaccinate in order to leave their home to go to work or worship or to socialize is a strong arm tactic that I can envision in our future as a pandemic approaches. Absolute faith and trust in science and technology as a means to an end is foolishness. Have we not proven time and time again that “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”. Awry, in this case, are lives lost. Certainly not in accordance with the “first, do no harm” principle when the variables that determine vaccine safety cannot be guaranteed in the future.

We must be very careful what we are allowing to be enacted as our public health policies. To bury our heads in the sand now as an apathetic public is a very dangerous approach to the days ahead.

The effects of vaccines and adjuvants used during the Gulf War and the full implications of their use is still unclear. The following report illuminates much but does not confirm anything – there is just more reason for concern and a reason to urge caution about what we allow to be injected or taken into our bodies.

From the report:


Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Scientific Findings and Recommendations:

A report by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veteran’s Illnesses

From the website:

The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses was created by Congress in 1998, and first appointed by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi in January, 2002.  The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on government research relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.

According to its charter, the guiding principle for the work of the Committee shall be the premise that the fundamental goal of Gulf War-related government research is to improve the health of ill Gulf War veterans.   Research priorities will be judged against this standard.

The research priorities are not to reduce the likelihood of further reactions or to determine whether or not vaccines and adjuvants are safe for use by the general population or armed forces personnel now. The guiding principle and premise is to “improve the health of ill Gulf War veterans.”

A general background on just vaccines (there are other chemicals implicated in the report) – from the report:

Vaccines and Gulf War Illness


Vaccines and Gulf War illness. Gulf War veterans received multiple immunizations for deployment. These included the anthrax vaccine, which was given to a large number of military personnel for the first time during the Gulf War. Diverse issues have been raised in relation to the anthrax vaccine’s potential for causing adverse health effects. Due to changes in production methods and quality control measures between 1990 and 2001, it is not known if the safety profile of the anthrax vaccine in current use is the same as that of the vaccine given to Gulf War personnel. Recent studies have indicated
that the current anthrax vaccine is associated with high rates of acute adverse reactions, particularly in
women. No information is available on rates of persistent symptoms or multisymptom illness following
receipt of the anthrax vaccine. Studies have not identified excess hospitalizations or outpatient visits for diagnosed diseases in the weeks and months following receipt of the vaccine. Limitations in the types of information provided by these studies, however, indicate a continued need for long-term follow up, to determine whether excess rates of diagnosed or undiagnosed conditions occur in anthrax vaccine

An excess of circulating antibodies to the natural substance squalene was reported in symptomatic Gulf War veterans in 2000, and investigators suggested this could have been caused by an unapproved vaccine adjuvant in the anthrax vaccine. Testing of potentially suspect vaccine lots by two laboratories identified only trace amounts of squalene, far below levels usually used for vaccine adjuvants. The observed association between Gulf War illness and elevated levels of squalene antibodies was not contingent on anthrax vaccine being the source of this abnormality, however, and has not yet been independently evaluated.

Gulf War epidemiologic studies have not identified any individual vaccine, including the anthrax vaccine, to be a prominent risk factor for Gulf War illness. Several studies have provided indications that personnel who received a larger number of vaccines for deployment have had higher rates of persistent symptoms since the war. Few Gulf War studies have adequately analyzed data collected in relation to vaccines received for deployment, however, to determine whether individual vaccines or combinations of vaccines are independent risk factors for persistent health problems in Gulf War veterans.


Diverse concerns have been raised in relation to vaccines received for the Gulf War, but relatively little reliable information has implicated individual vaccines as prominent risk factors for Gulf War illness. Several issues related to vaccines received by Gulf War veterans have not been adequately addressed by existing research. These include the need for more thorough evaluation of vaccines as risk factors for chronic health problems in epidemiologic studies, a definitive study to conclusively evaluate the previously-observed association between squalene antibodies and Gulf War illness, and the need for longer-term evaluation of symptoms and diagnosed diseases following receipt of the anthrax vaccine.

The Committee therefore recommends the following research:

  • In previously-conducted and future epidemiologic studies of Gulf War veterans, analyze associations between Gulf War illness and individual vaccines, combinations of vaccines, and total number of vaccines received using methods that control for potential confounding by other Gulf War-related exposures.
  • Commission a case-control study to provide clear answers concerning possible associations between Gulf War illness and squalene antibodies. The study should, at minimum, analyze blinded samples from well-characterized symptomatic and healthy Gulf War veterans for the presence of squalene antibodies using each of the assays developed for this purpose. It should also assess whether there is an identifiable link between levels of squalene antibodies in ill Gulf War veterans and receipt of the anthrax vaccine or vaccines more generally. The project should be organized and overseen by qualified investigators not affiliated with the federal government or civilian scientists whose initial work raised the squalene issue in relation to Gulf War illness.
  • Evaluate the association of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) with chronic symptoms, Gulf War illness, and diagnosed diseases in personnel known to have received the anthrax vaccine during the Gulf War. These health outcomes should also be assessed at least five years after vaccination in deployment and era subgroups of personnel in the Millenium Cohort study as well as other groups vaccinated in association with the military’s anthrax vaccine immunization program and federal anthrax vaccine trials.

Why does this matter to us in the general population?

There is an indication in this report that the use of vaccine adjuvants has changed over the years and that change may be implicated in the symptoms that military personnel experienced.

From the report…

Characteristics of the anthrax vaccine used in the Gulf War. The anthrax vaccine licensed for use in the U.S. was developed in the 1950s. The U.S. vaccine, referred to as anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA), is a cell-free filtrate of an unencapsulated strain of anthrax, adsorbed onto aluminum hydroxide. Its immunogenic component is protective antigen (PA), one of three proteins produced by the anthrax
bacillus that contribute to its toxic effects. Aluminum hydroxide acts as an adjuvant to boost the body’s immune response to the vaccine. Although disputed by nonmilitary observers, the Department of
Defense has consistently maintained that all anthrax vaccine used in the Gulf War was manufactured and supplied by the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH), which had been producing AVA since 1970. In 1995, the vaccine manufacturing division of MDPH became known as the Michigan Biological
Products Institute (MBPI). MBPI was sold in 1998 to the private company, Bioport. Bioport is currently a subsidiary of Emergent Biosolutions, which continues to manufacture AVA for the U.S. military under the trade name BioThrax.

It has been necessary for the Committee to distinguish the large amount of information now available on
the anthrax vaccine—pro and con—from the more limited amount of information specifically relevant to anthrax vaccine and the health of Gulf War veterans. An important first question, which the Committee was not able to fully answer, concerns the extent to which research on adverse effects of the U.S. anthrax
vaccine, largely conducted prior to 1972 and again after 1998, can be applied to the anthrax vaccine given
to Gulf War veterans. There are many unknowns surrounding the anthrax vaccine provided at the time of
the Gulf War. This includes a number of indications that AVA has not been an unvarying product with a risk profile that can be assumed to be the same before, during, and after the Gulf War.

The anthrax vaccine used during the Gulf War was the general type developed and tested in the 1950s, but modifications were made in vaccine components and production methods over the years, including major changes made between the 1950s efficacy trial and vaccine licensure in 1970. Specific
changes in the manufacturing process were also made by MDPH in 1990, just prior to the Gulf War, to meet the military’s increased demand. At that time, MDPH changed from glass to stainless steel fermenters and substituted nylon filters for the ceramic filters previously used. The changes sped up processing time and increased production volume for a given lot, allowing more vaccine to be
produced in a shorter time period.
No information is available from testing done by MDPH at the time of these changes, however, to determine possible effects on the vaccine. An investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) suggested that the filter changes
could result in higher levels of proteins in the vaccines
, and that MDPH did not test for anthrax proteins edema factor (EF) or lethal factor (LF). The GAO also reported that results of an unpublished Army
study, conducted in October 1990, found as much as a 100-fold increase in the level of PA in the vaccine after the filter change. It is likely that some of the vaccine lots distributed in the Gulf War were manufactured prior to the 1990
production changes, and some after, raising the possibility of differences among lots given to Gulf War military personnel. Earlier studies, for example, had indicated that AVA lots produced in the 1980s
contained detectable amounts of LF and EF. The type of filters used in the Michigan production plant were again changed in 1997, to a polyvinylidene filter. Therefore, vaccine lots produced in the late 1980s and after the 1990 filter changes might both have differed from vaccine produced after the 1997 filter changes and also from lots produced after extensive changes were made in the Michigan production facility in 1998 and 1999.

Several reports have indicated that acute reaction rates to the Michigan-produced anthrax vaccine did vary between lots. For example, data collected by CDC between 1967 and 1972 in support of AVA licensure
identified significant lot-to-lot variation in rates of acute reactogenicity. Similarly, adverse reactions reported by 1,583 workers who received anthrax vaccine at Fort Detrick between 1973 and 1999
also varied significantly by lot. Of the 32 anthrax vaccine lots used over the 26 year period, highest injection site reaction rates were reported for lots numbered 10, FAV001, FAV004, FAV006 and FAV008. This is of particular interest, since anthrax vaccine lots FAV001, FAV004, and FAV006 were also given to Gulf War troops during the war, and lot FAV008 was  manufactured at about the same time
as lots given to Gulf War troops.

There are other distinctions potentially applicable to Gulf War-era anthrax vaccine. The vaccine is temperature sensitive, and must be kept between two and eight degrees Celsius.138 Reports have described the challenges involved in maintaining a high-quality system for packaging and transporting the
vaccine to ensure it is maintained at proper temperatures. After the 1991 Gulf War cease fire, for example, DOD reports that all unused anthrax vaccine stocks were stored at an Army medical supply
facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Refrigeration malfunctions at the facility in April and May 1991 prompted Army officials to recommend that the vaccine be disposed of, rather than returned to the
U.S. In 1999, DOD had to destroy a shipment of 20,000 vials of anthrax vaccine delivered to a U.S. base in Germany because of vaccine degradation caused in shipment. Since that time, an improved system for packaging and transporting AVA was jointly developed by DOD and Bioport. But during
the Gulf War, it is possible that some vaccine was affected by problems during shipment, storage, or distribution under the difficult circumstances of wartime, mass inoculations, and the harsh desert

Although there are many sources of possible variability in the anthrax vaccine used in the Gulf War, there is little reliable information to indicate whether or how the anthrax vaccine given to Gulf War veterans was actually affected by any of these circumstances. So the question of whether effects of AVA received in the Gulf War can reliably be deduced from studies of vaccine produced in the years before the war, or in more recent years, remains open. If the anthrax vaccine given to Gulf War troops varied in important ways from AVA produced in recent years, adverse effects data from recent studies would tell us little about adverse effects of anthrax vaccine given to Gulf War veterans. If there were problems with specific shipments or lots of the vaccine used during the war, Gulf War veterans or other subgroups who received
those lots might be affected by problems not typical of vaccine recipients overall, problems that could go undetected when all Gulf War veterans are assessed as a single group.

Quality control issues related to vaccine production at the Michigan facility. U.S. FDA regulations require any vaccine lot approved for distribution to pass specific tests that demonstrate the lot’s purity, potency, sterility, and safety. The anthrax vaccine has a three year shelf life, but the
manufacturer may request three year extensions of the expiration date, after retesting and demonstrating
the lot’s potency. As mentioned, FDA identified multiple violations and problems in MBPI/Bioport’s production facility in the late 1990s. But little quality control information is available on anthrax vaccine produced by MDPH at the time of the Gulf War. There were no FDA inspections of the MDPH anthrax
vaccine production facility prior to 1993. Department of Defense inspections, however, identified multiple problems in the MDPH anthrax vaccine production process in 1992, including a lack of stability studies.

In 1993 and 1995, FDA inspections at MBPI revealed a number of problems and violations in product lines unrelated to anthrax vaccine. Additional problems were noted between 1996 and 1998, some of
which did relate to anthrax vaccine production and testing. For example, 1998 FDA inspections identified significant violations related to stability testing, potency testing, assigning expiration dates, and justification for redating expired anthrax vaccine lots that resulted in MBPI quarantining several lots.
FDA issued warnings during this period, and a 1997 notice to revoke MBPI’s license.

MBPI voluntarily ceased vaccine production in January 1998 to undergo extensive plant renovations that
had been previously planned. The facility transferred ownership to Bioport in September 1998. After renovations were completed, the production facility and newly produced vaccine were required to
undergo detailed testing and FDA review before full production could resume, and before newly manufactured vaccine was released for distribution. All plans, processes, and facilities related to
production of the anthrax vaccine received final FDA approval in January, 2002.680

Production changes in the U.S. anthrax vaccine before and at the time of the Gulf War, lot-to-lot variation documented before and after the Gulf War, production violations after the Gulf War, and extensive improvements in the manufacturing process since 1998 all contribute to the Committee’s observation that health effects potentially related to AVA given to Gulf War veterans may not be reflected by vaccine studies conducted prior to 1972 and, again, after 1998. However, any identified patterns of health
problems that relate to AVA more generally, over different periods of time, may be informative about the potential for anthrax vaccine to have contributed to ill health in Gulf War veterans. Therefore, the Committee reviewed available research concerning acute reactogenicity and longer-term health effects of
the anthrax vaccine.

In the news…..

Panel Confirms Gulf War Syndrome Is Real and Causes Are Definable

By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
Published: November 17, 2008

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — The Gulf War illness was caused by pyridostigmine bromide pills taken by U.S. troops to neutralize the effects of nerve gas attacks and by exposure to neurotoxic insecticides, according to a VA advisory panel.

These two factors amounted to a definable scientifically valid illness with significant nervous system symptoms often still affecting veterans of the 1991 conflict in Kuwait and Iraq, said the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses.

Exposures to neurotoxic compounds including insecticides — which thousands of soldiers took as protection against nerve gas — are the most likely causative candidates, added the report.

“Scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans,” the report said.

[This report continues here.]

And a second report

Chemical Exposures in Gulf War Caused Veterans’ Illness

By Crystal Phend, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: March 11, 2008
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

SAN DIEGO, March 11 — Chronic illness among Gulf War veterans may be caused, in part, by exposure to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, including pesticides and nerve agents, according to a systematic review.

These chemicals have consistently been linked to illness in epidemiologic and animal studies and in dose-response to exposure among service members, reported Beatrice A. Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., of the University of California, San Diego, online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The evidence satisfied criteria for causality, suggesting exposure to this class of chemicals “may account for some or perhaps much of the excess illness seen in Gulf War veterans,” Dr. Golomb said.

[This report continues here.]

Being allowed to decide what we take into our own bodies, to determine our own health treatment, is crucial in any free society even when what we do or not do has implications to the health of others. Simply stating that a vaccine is safe and effective is no longer a trustworthy statement. Too many conflicting reports and too many reports from affected and believable individuals have shattered the public’s trust in government and manufacturing sector studies to allow for mandatory vaccination without an opt out clause in my humble opinion, and forced vaccination will prove to be a dangerous path to take in the days ahead when trust will be a crucial factor in resiliency during and after a pandemic.

Now add to this mix new widely untested technology and a pandemic of influenza where the pressure to vaccinate the public will be at a peak.

from Wikipedia:

DNA vaccination is a technique for protecting an organism against disease by injecting it with genetically engineered DNA to produce an immunological response. Nucleic acid vaccines are still experimental, and have been applied to a number of viral, bacterial and parasitic models of disease, as well as to several tumour models. DNA vaccines have a number of advantages over conventional vaccines, including the ability to induce a wider range of immune response types.


The wikipedia article continues on to explain what these “third generation vaccines” are thought to accomplish.

[the page continues here]

And then there is this article: First Positive Results for DNA-based flu vaccine

Now, based on all the conjecture on both sides of this issue, if anyone thinks that I would jump right in and allow myself to be injected with a “third generation vaccine” until it is absolutely proven to be harmless, they have another think coming. Again, just my humble opinion, but my lack of faith in man, science, and technology simply will not allow this leap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s