Accountability of DoD, FDA and BioPort Officials For the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization
Program (AVIP)
Committee on Government Reform Hearings for the
United States House of Representatives
October 3rd and 11th, 2000
Officials Held Accountable
Mr. Ken Bacon,
|
Dr. Sue Bailey, M.D.
|
LTG (Dr.) Ronald Blanck, D.O.
|
Dr. Gerard N. Burrow, M.D.,
|
Hon. William S. Cohen
|
Mr. Charles Cragin
|
Hon. Rudy de Leon
|
COL (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, M.D.
|
Mr. Fuad El-Hibri
|
Dr. Robert Myers, D.V.M.,
|
Mr. David Oliver (RADM, USN, ret.)
|
Maj Guy Strawder,
|
MGen Paul Weaver
|
Kathryn C. Zoon, Ph.D.,
|
Issue: |
DoD denials of adverse reactions. |
Question(s): |
Why have DoD public affairs officials repeatedly denied adverse reactions caused by the anthrax vaccine, while anthrax vaccine victims were simultaneously being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and being visited by the Army Surgeon General, LTG Blanck? |
Who said it: |
Mr. Ken Bacon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs |
Statement |
Fact |
|
Comments at a DoD press briefing, 21 Jan 1999: "It's proven itself safe and reliable. It works, and it does not have side effects... We have given now I think shots to nearly 170,000 people in the military... All these people are fine." Comments at a DoD press briefing, 30 Jun 1999: " I've had three shots. My hair is growing more robust than ever. (Laughter) I sleep better. I eat better, run farther. It's been nothing but a great experience. (Laughter)"
|
|
|
Issue: |
Squalene in anthrax vaccine. Misleading servicemembers, military families, and the American public about the existence of an unapproved substance in the DoD anthrax vaccine. |
|
Question(s): |
Why does Mr. Bacon, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, still issue categorical denials of the existence of squalene in the anthrax vaccine 15 months after FDA experts found it in five lots of anthrax vaccine? |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. Ken Bacon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs |
Statement |
Fact |
At a DoD press briefing, 28 Sep 2000: Reporter: On the same subject, what can you say about reports that squalene has been found in some of the vaccine lots? Bacon: There have been recurrent reports of squalene. We have never found any confirmation of those reports. These reports go back to the use of anthrax vaccine during the Gulf War period. Squalene has not been used in vaccines for a long period of time, and we're not aware that there was any squalene in any of the vaccine. |
AVA 020 11 ppb squalene AVA 030 10 ppb AVA 038 27 ppb AVA 043 40 ppb AVA 047 83 ppb Diphtheria 22 ppb Tetanus 29 ppb |
Issue: |
SecDef Cohen's 4 preconditions for implementing AVIP. Misrepresenting to Congress that DoD's "independent expert" contracted to perform a review of the medical aspects of the anthrax vaccine policy was qualified to review the safety of the anthrax vaccine. |
|
Question(s): |
Why did Dr. Bailey, a physician herself, infer to Congress that a professor of obstetrics and gynecology who subsequently admitted to "no expertise in anthrax" was qualified to perform DoD's "independent review" of the AVIP? |
|
Who said it: |
Dr. Sue Bailey, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs |
|
Statement |
Fact |
|
In testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Shays, 24 March 1999: Dr. Bailey. "The safety of our AVIP was also confirmed by an independent review of the program. Dr. Gerald Burrow, who serves as Special Advisor for Health Affairs for the President of Yale University, conducted the review." |
Dr. Gerard Burrow's letter to Congressman Christopher Shays, 26 April 1999: "The Defense Department was looking for some [sic] to review the program in general and make suggestions, and I accepted out of patriotism. I was very clear that I had no expertise in Anthrax and they were very clear they were looking for a general oversight of the vaccination program." |
Issue: |
Endorsements of anthrax vaccine. Misrepresenting to Congress the American Academy of Pediatrics position on the anthrax vaccine. |
|
Question(s): |
Why did Dr. Bailey, a physician, use an out-of-date policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics to infer to Congress that this organization endorsed the anthrax vaccine? |
|
Who said it: |
Dr. Sue Bailey, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs |
|
Statement |
Fact |
|
Before the House Government Reform Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Shays on 24 March 1999: Dr. Bailey. "In addition, the Committee on Infectious Disease, American Academy of Pediatrics (1994), states that "the vaccine is effective in preventing or significantly reducing the occurrence of cutaneous and inhalation anthrax in adults." |
"The vaccine is effective in preventing or significantly reducing the occurrence of cutaneous anthrax in adults, and it causes minimal adverse events. No data on vaccine effectiveness or reactogenicity in children are available, and the vaccine is not currently licensed for use in children or pregnant women." "The vaccine is effective for preventing or significantly reducing the occurrence of cutaneous anthrax in adults, and it causes minimal adverse events. While protection against aerosol challenge has not been evaluated in humans, multiple studies in animals have shown the vaccine to be effective. No data on vaccine effectiveness or safety in children are available, and the vaccine is not licensed for use in children or pregnant women." |
Issue: |
Squalene in anthrax vaccine. Misleading servicemembers, military families, and the American public about the existence of an unapproved substance in the DoD anthrax vaccine. |
|
Question(s): |
Why does the Department of Defense still have categorical denials of the existence of squalene in the anthrax vaccine on their AVIP website over 15 months after FDA experts found it in five lots of anthrax vaccine? |
|
Who said it: |
|
|
Statement |
Fact |
|
Comments in a DoD News Service article on 24 Jun 1999, which was still on the DoD Defenselink website on 28 Sep 2000: Bailey countered reports that the vaccine was somehow tainted with a substance called squalene. Squalene is a substance that appears naturally in everyones body, she explained. "You also find it in a lot of beauty products and in some health food products," she said. "But, squalene has never been used in the anthrax immunization vaccine production, and it is not now present." Following the reports, DoD contracted with a civilian laboratory that tested the vaccine for squalene and "found there is no squalene in the anthrax vaccine we are using," she said. |
While the physiological impact of these amounts of squalene is subject to debate, it is clear that DoD was wrong about the presence of squalene in the vaccine. And it has never issued a statement correcting their denials to either servicemembers or to Congress. |
Issue: |
Safety and efficacy. Misrepresenting to Congress that adequate studies of the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine exist. |
Question(s): |
Why did LTG Blanck, the Army Surgeon General, tell the House Armed Services Committee that "a group reviewed all of the studies on safety and efficacy" of the anthrax vaccine, when, in contrast, the Institute of Medicine later found "a paucity of published peer-reviewed literature on the safety of the anthrax vaccine -- in fact, only one 38 year-old study of a different anthrax vaccine"? |
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 30 Sep 1999: "The most recent paper in vaccine done by a group reviewed
all of the studies on safety and efficacy, and that was published in 1998, and their
conclusion was, we see no reason for further studies on safety. This is a safe vaccine. We
believe it to be effective based on the studies that we have." |
From the Institute of Medicine preliminary report on the safety of the anthrax vaccine, 30 Mar 2000:
|
Issue: |
Investigational New Drug application. Misrepresenting to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Investigational New Drug application prepared by the U.S. Army (USAMRIID) for the anthrax vaccine manufacturer to submit to the FDA on 20 Sep 1996 applied only to the facility, not to the vaccine. |
|
Question: |
|
|
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 13 April 2000: 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." |
"The purpose for filing this IND is to conduct clinical investigations designed to investigate changes in the approved labeling for the licensed product. The potential labeling changes would affect the specific clinical indication, route, and vaccination schedule for AVA [anthrax vaccine absorbed]." |
Issue: |
Independence of DoD's "Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee"(AVEC). Misrepresenting the autonomy of the panel of experts commissioned by DoD to review anthrax vaccine adverse reaction reports (VAERS). |
||
Question(s): |
|
||
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
||
Statement |
Fact |
||
Written testimony submitted by LTG Blanck before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, 30 Sep 1999: "The AVEC represents a special panel of experts commissioned by the AVIP Agency in early 1998 to review any signaling event that would identify problems stemming from the anthrax vaccine. These experts come from the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA); a component of the Department of Health & Human Services sponsored Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To date, the AVEC has found no pattern of causality stemming from the use of the anthrax vaccine." |
Subject: Re: FW: Vaccine Expert Panel Review of Anthrax Vaccine Author: COL Fred Gerber Date: 10/22/98 11/20 PM "OK, but you see the problem with us not being there is NOT being included in the loop of what's already been done re: fixing the VAERS report form and procedures, etc. Last thing we want is them coming up with an entirely new solution set up after we've already worked one. Think about this one and be sure we don't let them [AVEC] go down a road we don't need going down." |
Issue: |
Relevance of animal models for human efficacy. Misrepresenting to the House Armed Services Committee that the FDA has accepted animal models as a legal substitute for efficacy testing |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the House Armed Services Committee on 30 September 1999: Gen. BLANCK. "So what we have done with full FDA concurrence is develop several animal models, and that is part of how we know that this protects against the strains the mechanism and all of that kind of thing." |
|
Issue: |
Efficacy against multiple strains. Misrepresenting to the House Armed Services Committee the efficacy of the anthrax vaccine against all strains of anthrax. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the House Armed Services Committee on 30 Sep 1999: Mr. GILMAN. "General Blanck, let me ask you another serious
question. I understand that there are many, many strains of anthrax. Does this vaccine
that you are using apply to all of the strains or just to one or two of the strains of
anthrax?" General BLANCK. "No, it applies to all of the strains." |
|
Issue: |
Genetically altered anthrax. Misrepresenting as "rumors" publicly reported statements regarding bioengineering of anthrax, which can be genetically altered to cause a degradation of the effectiveness of the anthrax vaccine. |
Question(s): |
Isn't it true that there have been published reports of bioengineering of anthrax in such a way that the current vaccine's effectiveness is really unknown? |
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 13 Apr 2000: Gen Blanck: "Yes, we worry about the genetically engineered strains of bacteria that have been written about and talked about. We have not seen any, nor do we have access to any, so it is unknown as to whether our vaccine would protect against that..." (later) Sen. Warner: "To your knowledge, has any foreign nation or other group that we might have knowledge of manufactured anything that is beyond the strains that we have? GEN. BLANCK: Nothing that I have knowledge of. We keep hearing rumors and we need to look into what the former Soviet Union has." |
"Moreover, there is no way to be certain that the pathogen used in tests measuring vaccine efficacy will be sufficiently similar to the pathogen that U.S. forces might encounter to confer immunity." "In the case of most military and all terrorist attacks with biological weapons, vaccines would be of little use. " |
Issue: |
Current anthrax vaccine "state of the art"? Misrepresenting to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the current anthrax vaccine is a state-of-the-art vaccine. |
Question: |
|
Who said it: |
LTG Ronald Blanck, then-Army Surgeon General |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 13 Apr 2000: SEN. WARNER: "In my opening statement I carefully used the phrase, wrote it out myself, "state of the art," so that this vaccine meets state of the art knowledge on all strains, and it is your professional judgment that it will inoculate against them?" GEN. BLANCK: "Yes, sir. This is a current vaccine, meets all the standards, it will protect against all natural strains. We are working, as Mr. Oliver has testified, on a new, even further advanced recombinant vaccine." |
|
Issue: |
SecDef Cohen's 4 preconditions for implementing AVIP. Was the "independent expert" contracted by Undersecretary of Defense Rudy De Leon to review the medical aspects of the anthrax vaccine immunization program qualified to perform this review? |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Dr. Gerard N. Burrow, M.D., DoD's "independent expert" hired to perform an independent review of the proposed anthrax vaccine immunization program. |
Statement |
Fact |
In a letter to Undersecretary of Defense Rudy DeLeon, 19 Feb 1998: "At your request, I have reviewed the Department of Defense plan to immunize the force against the biological warfare threat of anthrax. I have made several visits to the Pentagon, have had a number of telephone conferences and have consulted extensively with experts in allergy, immunology and infectious disease " " The anthrax vaccine appears to be safe and offers the best available protection against wild-type anthrax as a biological warfare agent. Steps have been taken to ensure the safety and quality of the department's vaccine stockpile ." " I would like to thank Dr. Edward Martin for facilitating my access to information. I am particularly indebted to CAPT John Mateczun, MC, USN for his assistance and to the dedicated men and women in the various services who shared their knowledge with me. I hope this report is helpful to you and would be glad to provide assistance during implementation." |
In a letter to Congressman Christopher Shays, 26 April 1999: "The Defense Department was looking for some [sic] to review the program in general and make suggestions, and I accepted out of patriotism. I was very clear that I had no expertise in Anthrax and they were very clear they were looking for a general oversight of the vaccination program." Note:
|
Issue: |
The threat. Senior DoD officials misrepresenting the threat to Congress, servicemembers, and the American people |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Hon. William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense |
Statement |
Fact |
In an op-ed titled, "Preparing for a Grave New World", Washington Post, 26 July 1999:
(One year later .) William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, "Force Protection Is My Priority", Army Times, 31 Jul 2000: "At least 10 countries have or are developing anthrax as a weapon." |
Testimony of Thomas J. Welch, Ph.D., Deputy Asst. to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical Matters, hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Committee on Government Affairs, US Senate, 28 July 1988:
GAO report (after reviewing DoD's threat data), "Medical Readiness: Safety and Efficacy of the Anthrax Vaccine" (T-NSIAD-99-148), 29 Apr 1999:
Dr. Jonathan Tucker, former UN biological weapons inspector in Iraq:
Milton Leitenberg, senior fellow,
|
Issue: |
Coercion/Punishment for refusing the anthrax vaccine. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. Charles Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs *(Note: Mr. Cragin was named as an acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs during the 105th Congress. This title lapsed after the White House declined to nominate Mr. Cragin for Senate confirmation.) |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the House Government Reform Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Shays on 29 September 1999: "If someone is going to resign, Mr. Shays, they are certainly not going to be subject to any penalties. That is one of the points of the Guard and Reserve." |
|
Issue: |
Compliance with shot protocol in FDA license. Misrepresenting DoD's intention to follow the FDA licensed shot protocol. |
Question(s): |
-- Does Mr. Cragin considers this to be an example of adhering to the FDA shot protocol? -- Why was DoD sending untrained ROTC cadets who could serve no useful combat role to a so-called high-threat area? Does this mean South Korea is actually not a high-threat area? Is this why the South Korean military does not vaccinate its troops for anthrax? |
Who said it: |
Mr. Charles Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs *(Note: Mr Cragin was named as an acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs during the 105th Congress. This title lapsed after the White House declined to nominate Mr. Cragin for Senate confirmation.) |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the House Government Reform Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Shays on 29 September 1999: Mr. Shays. "So you are abiding by the FDA's [6 shot] protocol?" Mr. Cragin. "We are abiding by the FDA protocol to the greatest extent possible in inoculating this force." |
The military has deviated from the protocol by:
|
Issue: |
The biowarfare threat. Misrepresenting the threat and the historical context of the anthrax vaccine immunization program to Congress. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. Charles Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs *(Note: Mr Cragin was named as an acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs during the 105th Congress. This title lapsed after the White House declined to nominate Mr. Cragin for Senate confirmation.) |
Statement |
Fact |
Responding on behalf of Secretary of Defense William Cohen in a letter to 35 members of Congressmen, 16 May 2000: " In closing, let me share a true story from an earlier era. In 1898, the British were preparing to fight the Boer War. Their senior leadership considered giving all their troops the recently approved Typhoid Vaccine. Opposition arose, some protests were held, some in their Parliament objected, and that vaccine was made voluntary. Fourteen thousand troops elected to take the shot. The troops went to war and 59,000 came down with typhoid. Nine thousand of them died while a perfectly safe and effective vaccine remained on the shelf. We cannot allow the last chapter of the anthrax story to be a BOER War analogy!" |
" unsafe and hazardous and could be responsible for the important symptoms reported by so many persons who took that vaccine." " France's belief that allied troops were victims of their own protective measures were based on a long series of meetings with U.S. medical experts." The French military physician noted that while about 16% of US Gulf War veterans have complained of ailments associated with Gulf War syndrome, less than 1% of French troops had similar symptoms. The French did not use the anthrax vaccine, but will study whether their servicemembers stationed with US forces took the vaccine and other biowarfare drugs. |
Issue: |
Endorsements of anthrax vaccine. Misrepresenting to Congress that the American Public Health Association supports the DoD anthrax vaccine policy. |
Question(s): |
Why did Mr. Cragin use a medical reference book to convince Congress that the American Public Health Association supports DoD's use of the anthrax vaccine instead of confirming the Association's stance by contacting them directly (or referencing their website)? |
Who said it: |
Mr. Charles Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs *(Note: Mr Cragin was named as an acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs during the 105th Congress. This title lapsed after the White House declined to nominate Mr. Cragin for Senate confirmation.) |
Statement |
Fact |
Responding on behalf of Secretary of Defense Cohen in a 16 May 2000 letter to 35 bipartisan Members of Congress: "Comment -- A reading of that association's 17th Edition of the American Public Health Association's Control of Communicable Diseases Manual (James Chin, MD, MPH editor) specifies a preventive measure for exposure to anthrax is to "immunize high risk persons with a cell-free vaccine prepared from a culture filtrate containing protective antigen. Evidence indicates that this vaccine is effective in preventing cutaneous and inhalational anthrax; it is recommended for laboratory workers who routinely work with B anthrax and workers who handle potentially contaminated industrial raw materials. It may also be used to protect military personnel against potential exposure to anthrax as a biological warfare agent. Annual booster injections are recommended if the risk of exposure continues." |
|
Issue: |
Retention and recruiting impact of AVIP. Misrepresenting to the House Government Reform Committee the retention impact of the anthrax vaccine program on the Guard and Reserve. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. Charles Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs *(Note: Mr Cragin was named as an acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs during the 105th Congress. This title lapsed after the White House declined for undisclosed reasons to nominate Mr. Cragin for Senate confirmation.) |
Statement |
Fact |
Mr. Charles Cragin, testimony before National Security Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, 29 Sep 1999: "We should not look to a single-factor explanation, such as concern about anthrax vaccinations, to account for the decline in recruiting and retention that has generally characterized the Total Force in recent years. According to the Chiefs of the Reserve components, recent recruiting and retention trends do not show any substantial increase or decrease attributable to the anthrax vaccination program. And although the military recruiting market has posed significant challenges to all Services, both active and reserve, in the past few years, we currently see no appreciable impact as a result of implementation of the anthrax vaccination program." |
|
Issue: |
Retention. Misrepresenting to the House Government Reform Committee that DoD would make an effort to ascertain the retention impact of the anthrax vaccine immunization program (AVIP). |
Question(s): |
Why doesn't the current DoD survey of Reserve Component military personnel include any questions about the impact of the anthrax vaccine on the morale and retention of reserve component personnel? |
Who said it: |
Mr. Charles Cragin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs *(Note: Mr Cragin was named as an acting assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs during the 105th Congress. This title lapsed after the White House declined to nominate Mr. Cragin for Senate confirmation.) |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before National Security Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, 29 Sep 1999: Rep. Shays: " First off, I make an assumption that you are intending to measure AVIP impact on readiness or retention. Should I make that assumption?" Mr. Cragin: "...So I think it stands to reason that medical readiness from that perspective would be looked at, yes sir." Rep. Shays: "And also retention." Mr. Cragin: "We would look at retention and a number of issues. Readiness certainly is affected by retention. There is not question about that." |
The Reserve Components for which Mr. Cragin is responsible are currently conducting a survey of both federal Reserve and National Guard personnel.
|
Issue: |
SecDef Cohen's 4 preconditions for implementing AVIP. Did Undersecretary of Defense Rudy De Leon insure that the "independent expert" he contracted to review the medical aspects of the anthrax vaccine immunization program had access to relevant information regarding the manufacturer's failure of an FDA inspection that occurred concurrent with the "independent expert's" review? |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Hon. Rudy de Leon, then-Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (now Deputy Secretary of Defense) |
Statement |
Fact |
From remarks by Mr. de Leon to US troops in Kuwait, quoted in an Armed Forces Press Service report, 16 Apr 1998: "De Leon said it is safe and effective, and has been in use for years. "We asked an outside expert panel, led by the dean of the medical school at Yale University, to take a fresh look at the vaccine," De Leon said. They certified the program as safe, he said." From Dr. Burrow's report to Undersecretary of Defense De Leon, 19 Feb 1998: "The Safety and Efficacy of the Departments Stockpile- The vaccine has been approved by the FDA, and there are an adequate number of doses in the current anthrax vaccine stock pile. As directed by DOD, a supplemental testing program started in January 1998 and all batches are scheduled to be tested by November 1998. The decision to perform supplemental tests was based on a March 11, 1997 letter to MBPI from FDA, outlining a number of systemic issues. The FDA directed MBPI to do a comprehensive review to demonstrate that deviations in biologic product lines did not impact anthrax vaccine quality and integrity. These results of this review should be available in the near future. There appear to be procedures in place to assure the integrity of the system." |
"The February [1998] inspection, as stated, disclosed many significant deviations to FDA regulations. In addition, the inspection resulted in the request by FDA that Michigan quarantine 11 lots of anthrax vaccine held in storage pending review of additional information to be submitted by Michigan regarding the lack of investigations into possible problems with potency sterility in particulate matter." This FDA-ordered quarantine occurred prior to the submission of the report by Dr. Burrow, DoD's "independent expert.", Dr. Burrow asserted in his report that, "there appear to be procedures in place to assure the integrity of the [stockpile] system." Significantly, DoD representatives were aware of the quarantine and were allowed to participate in conference calls between the manufacturer and the FDA. It is unclear whether they ever informed their "independent expert" of the lot quarantine or of the "significant deviations" from manufacturing practices mandated in federal law found during FDA's 4-19 Feb 1998 inspection of the manufacturer.
|
Issue: |
Allied/Non-U.S. use of the anthrax vaccine. Misrepresenting to Congress the use of the anthrax vaccine by a U.S. ally. |
Question(s): |
Why did Mr. de Leon imply to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the British were using the anthrax vaccine when the British vaccine policy is voluntary and over 70% of their servicemembers do not submit to the vaccine? |
Who said it: |
Hon. Rudy de Leon, then-Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (now Deputy Secretary of Defense) |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 12 Jul 2000: SEN. WARNER Quickly, other nations, how are they facing this threat? I mean, it knows no boundaries in terms of military forces. most of our operations today are joint operations with our principal allies. What are they doing, Mr. Secretary? MR. DE LEON: The British are immunizing their forces. They, too, have gotten in the same bind that we are in. SEN. WARNER: I understand they have had to suspend their source. MR. DE LEON: Right. This is not a high profit market, and so -- SEN. WARNER: We understand that, but in other words our allies only one ally so far, you mentioned. MR. DE LEON: The British. SEN. WARNER: -- encountering the same problems. MR. DE LEON: Correct.
|
" unsafe and hazardous and could be responsible for the important symptoms reported by so many persons who took that vaccine." " France's belief that allied troops were victims of their own protective measures were based on a long series of meetings with U.S. medical experts." The French military physician noted that while about 16% of US Gulf War veterans have complained of ailments associated with Gulf War syndrome, less than 1% of French troops had similar symptoms. The French did not use the anthrax vaccine, but will study whether their servicemembers stationed with US forces took the vaccine and other biowarfare drugs. |
Issue: |
Safety of the anthrax vaccine. Misrepresenting to medical professionals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that credible studies have proven the anthrax vaccine to be safe. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, chief, bacteriology division, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) |
Statement |
Fact |
In the Journal of the American Medical Association, 8 Dec 1999: "All the serious adverse events noted, other than local reactions, occur in the absence of immunization [i.e. after the injection needle is withdrawn from the servicemember] and it may not be possible to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship... While the possibility of a rare, previously unknown adverse effect occurring during large-scale use of AVA [anthrax vaccine] exists, there is no evidence that such problems have occurred in nearly 30 years of use... " |
From the Institute of Medicine preliminary report on the safety of the anthrax vaccine, 30 Mar 1999:
|
Issue: |
Purpose of the Investigational New Drug application. Misrepresenting, under oath, to a Canadian court-martial in March 2000, knowledge that one of the purposes of the Investigational New Drug application submitted by the anthrax vaccine manufacturer on 20 Sep 1996 was to modify the product license to add an indication for inhalation anthrax. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, chief, bacteriology division, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) |
Statement |
Fact |
From the trial testimony, under oath, to a Canadian court-martial on 30 March 2000, specifically that he was unaware of the change to indicate inhalation exposure: Defense counsel: If I'm going to suggest to you, sir, that the drug was licensed 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? Colonel Friedlander: I'm not aware of that. (later ) Defense counsel: If I suggest to you, sir, that weve heard evidence that the vaccine was licensed 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? Colonel 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. Defense counsel: So are you saying, sir, that youre not familiar with what Ive said, or you disagree with it? Colonel Friedlander: No, no. I dont know that Id have to look back at the documents youre referring to. Defense counsel: Okay. So youre not saying the drug is not in an IND status for those three variations? Colonel Friedlander: You know, Im not clear what youre saying in terms of I mean, Im not clear what that means, in other words. There are studies that have been done, that Im involved with, looking at reducing the number of doses and changing the route of administration. Defense counsel: Okay. Thats not actually what Im asking, sir? Colonel Friedlander: Yes. Defense counsel: Okay. Maybe if I can make myself clearer. Weve heard evidence that he drug was licensed for cutaneous anthrax and that its now been proposed, presumably by DOD, to make three changes: one, is make it a countermeasure for inhalational anthrax as opposed to cutaneous; two, change the route of administration; and, three, the schedule of dosages, and that because its an amendment, the drug has gone into IND status for that purpose? Colonel Friedlander: You know, I cant answer that question. You have to talk to the people actually directing that study. Defense counsel: So youre saying youre not sure? Colonel Friedlander: Thats right. |
Despite his assertion that he was "not aware" of the purpose of the Investigation New Drug application filed by the manufacturer on 20 Sep 1996, Col (Dr.) 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:
|
Issue: |
Investigational New Drug application. Misrepresenting to the House Government Reform Committee the significance of the Investigational New Drug (IND) application submitted by the anthrax vaccine manufacturer (MBPI) on 20 Sep 1996. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. Fuad El-Hibri, President and Chief Executive Officer, BioPort Corporation |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the House Committee on Government Reform 30 June 1999: "We continue to hold an Investigational New Drug application -- IND 6847 -- to improve administration of the anthrax vaccine. Further work is currently on hold while the parties consider the costs and benefits of proceeding in the context of overall program priorities (such as getting the upgraded facility in operation). This IND was started by MBPI in tandem with the DoD in 1996. It has two major objectives: to reduce the number of doses in the current anthrax vaccination schedule and to further evaluate an immunological correlate of protection." |
|
Issue: |
Significance of failed FDA inspections. BioPort Corp. corporate officers misrepresenting the significance of the FDA's March 1997 Notice of Intent to Revoke letter, and the FDA's subsequent 20 Feb 1998 inspection report that found the "The manufacturing process for Anthrax Vaccine is not validated." |
Question(s): |
Why did the FDA, as a federal regulator, allow a consumer of the product -- the Department of Defense -- to have a say in its enforcement of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? |
Who said it: |
Robert Myers, D.V.M., Chief Operating Officer, BioPort Corp. and former Executive Director, Michigan Biologic Products Institute |
Statement |
Fact |
In a letter to the editor published in the Washington Post, 7 Feb 2000: "A failed inspection leads to immediate closure of a facility and/or seizure of product to protect the public health and safety. This has never happened The FDA has noted, at several hearings and in communications with Congress, that BioPort has made progress in achieving its compliance goals." |
"In 1997, the FDA gave notice that it would revoke the manufacturer's license if it did not comply with regulations. The Canadian military largely dismissed the notice " In the three years I have been in this job, I have done it about three times," said Elengold, deputy director for operations for the FDA's Center for Biologic Evaluation Research. "It is a very serious tool. We view it . . . to be equivalent to an injunction . . .where we get a court to order compliance." The company failed to comply completely and a year later still faced the possibility of losing its license, according to Elengold. The FDA held off pulling the license, in part because it would have left the U.S. Department of Defence -- which had just announced that all soldiers were to receive anthrax vaccine -- with no domestic source. "This is a one-source product so we tend to try to work with firms and put additional monitoring steps in to avoid revoking the license," said Elengold. The prestigious British medical journal Lancet reported at the time that "a plea from the Pentagon has prevented an 'eleventh-hour' closure of the only U.S. producer of anthrax vaccine," according to an e-mail to DND medical headquarters in February 1998. Elengold confirmed the Pentagon sat in on a crucial call to the company in which he discussed revoking the license. A compromise was reached when the company agreed to voluntarily quarantine 11 questionable vaccine lots containing more than one million doses."
|
Issue: |
Shipping adulterated and misbranded product. Bioport corporate officers misrepresenting whether the anthrax vaccine manufacturer has shipped products quarantined by FDA or subject to recall. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Robert Myers, D.V.M., Chief Operating Officer, BioPort Corp. and former Executive Director, Michigan Biologic Products Institute |
Statement |
Fact |
In a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, 7 Feb 2000: "We will never release a product that is not safe and effective. Our record has proven that in the past and our high standards will assure that in the future." |
Mr. Mark Elengold, deputy director of operations, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, revealed in a 25 Jun 2000 article in the Vancouver (Canada) newspaper, The Province that the anthrax vaccine manufacturer (MBPI) shipped about 100 doses of a quarantined lot (FAV 016) that was given to the Canadian Defense Minister and Canadian soldiers. The article stated: "We asked [the manufacturer] to suspend lot release and rather than force a recall, we asked that they agree to voluntarily hold it and agree not to distribute it without further clearance from us," said Mark Elengold, deputy director for operations in the FDA's Center for Biologic Evaluation Research. "They [the manufacturer] should have stopped using it once it is quarantined," said another FDA spokesman." [end quote from article]. "A portion of the lot was labeled with an expiration date of September 8, 2001, rather than the correct expiration date of February 3, 2001. Bioport employees will be traveling to distribution points and correcting the mislabeled vials. |
Issue: |
Manufacturer (DoD contractor) competence. Misrepresenting the competence and qualifications of a defense contractor's management to the Senate Armed Services Committee, despite the contractor having repeatedly abrogated the terms of its contract and requiring several financial bailouts from DoD., |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. David Oliver (RADM, USN, ret.), Principal Deputy Under Secretary Of Defense For Acquisition And Technology |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 13 Apr 2000: Mr. Oliver: "...The interesting thing about it [Bioport] is the director is really excellent, a guy named Dr. Bob Myers [sic]. And I think that everybody at the FDA and we and everybody else respects him and understands what he is doing. It is great." Mr. Oliver made a similar supportive comments about this defense contractor during a DoD press briefing on 13 Dec 1999: Reporter: But if they're the only producers in the country, what's the stick for getting this solved? Why does it -- what avoids it (sic) from just drifting on and being a problem forever? Mr. Oliver: Because I think the [Bioport] people are inherently good people. The people are inherently good people. People understand the problem. We're going to put a lot of assets in this. This is no different than all the depots that exist across this great country and lots of other things for which the government runs, because it feels like it must. It's absolutely no different. And the reason that works is because you have good people."
|
|
Issue: |
Regulatory compliance. Misleading the press and military servicemembers about the anthrax vaccine manufacturer's long history of regulatory non-compliance. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Mr. David Oliver (RADM, USN, ret.), Principal Deputy Under Secretary Of Defense For Acquisition And Technology |
Statement |
Fact |
Statements at a DoD press briefing, 13 Dec 1999: Mr. Oliver: " In addition, what you had was a facility in which you were doing a safe and effective vaccine for a fairly limited number of people for years and years and years, and you have a use demonstrated . Essentially what we did was tore down that tried and proven facility, which is the same facility that's produced all the vaccine that people have taken and will take under phase one, and we're building a whole new facility." (later ) Reporter: I guess that brings me back to Jim's question, which is, Why tear it down? You said it was a tried-and-true facility that was working. Why tear it down before you have another tried-and-true facility? When you look back on the decision, do you think that was a smart -- Mr. Oliver: I was driving west at the time -- (laughter). Q: Do you think it was a smart decision? Mr. Oliver: I was driving west, I was looking at the sunset -- I don't know. Q: You have -- Q: Can you answer that, please? |
|
Issue: |
Squalene in anthrax vaccine. Misleading servicemembers, military families, and the American public about the existence of an unapproved substance in the DoD anthrax vaccine. |
Question(s): |
Why does the Department of Defense still have categorical denials of the existence of squalene in the anthrax vaccine on their AVIP website over 15 months after FDA experts found it in five lots of anthrax vaccine? |
Who said it: |
Maj Guy Strawder,
|
Statement |
Fact |
An article still on the DoD Anthrax Vaccine website on 28 Sep 2000 -- 15 months after the FDA found squalene in five lots of the anthrax vaccine: "It's beyond speculation," Strawder said. "It's just pure fiction. There is absolutely nothing to hide about this program There has never been squalene in the anthrax vaccine, not now, not back during the Gulf War, not ever," Strawder said. Major Strawder's denial of the existence of squalene in the anthrax vaccine is just one of many untrue documents relating to the presence of squalene currently on the DoD AVIP website. Another, titled "Anthrax Ingredients", states the following in Q/A format: 8. Does the anthrax vaccine contain squalene? No. The anthrax vaccine does not use squalene and never has. Scientists have been testing squalene as a way of increasing antibody responses to vaccines, but it has never been used in human anthrax vaccines. Reports of squalene in the anthrax vaccine have been published on web sites of groups opposed to the AVIP and, recently, in an article in Vanity Fair magazine. None of these claims has any objective evidence associated with them |
AVA 020 11 ppb squalene AVA 030 10 ppb AVA 038 27 ppb AVA 043 40 ppb AVA 047 83 ppb Diphtheria 22 ppb Tetanus 29 ppb |
Issue: |
Retention impact of anthrax vaccine. Misrepresenting to the House Government Reform Committee, under oath, the impact of the anthrax vaccination immunization program (AVIP) on Air National Guard retention.. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
MGen Paul Weaver, Director of the Air National Guard |
Statement |
Fact |
Before the House Government Reform Subcommittee chaired by Congressman Shays on 29 September 1999: "So, when I hear all of these other figures about these mass resignations, 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." (statement above is available on videotape)
MGen Weaver made a similar statement to Rep Benjamin Gilman of New York, who wrote to the DoD office of Legislative Affairs on 16 May 1999: "In a meeting in my office approximately six weeks ago, General Weaver made the incredible claim that only one Air National Guard pilot has quit due to anthrax. Never mind that my staff has met with twenty of the more than thirty pilots who resigned from the 301st Airlift Squadron stationed at Travis AFB in California, and has talked with numerous other pilots from units around the country." |
The following losses had occurred in the Air National Guard prior to MGen Weaver's statement, under oath, to Congress on 29 Sep 1999:
|
Issue: |
Retention impact of anthrax vaccine. The Director of the Air National Guard misrepresenting his false sworn testimony to Congress to thousands of ANG personnel when asked about it during a closed-circuit video-teleconference on the AVIP policy on 26 Oct 1999. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
MGen Paul Weaver, Director of the Air National Guard |
Statement |
Fact |
During a closed-circuit Air National Guard video-teleconference, 26 Oct 1999: "So, I was very much aware, when I said one refusal that was a refusal of a person who had a commitment to the Air National Guard. My additional testimony also reflects that I was also very much aware that people did .did walk who again were volunteers of our Air National Guard Family." (statement is available on videotape) |
Review of MGen Weaver's written and verbal testimony to the House Government Reform Committee on 29 Sep 1999 revealed that he did not in any way qualify his remarks which asserted only "one know refusal."
|
Issue: |
Efficacy of anthrax vaccine for inhalation anthrax. Misrepresenting to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Bioport vaccine is the same as the vaccine tested in the 1962 Brachman study and that the Brachman study inferred efficacy against inhalation anthrax. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 12 Jul 2000: Dr. Zoon: Yes. Well, the BioPort vaccine is the only licensed anthrax vaccine in the United States. I am not familiar with other countries' licensed vaccines, but I can comment on the anthrax vaccine absorbed here in the United States, the one produced by BioPort. Clearly, there is a lot of interest in looking at other vaccines on an investigational level for new approaches to immunization against anthrax, but this particular vaccine, as mentioned, has been licensed since 1970. There is a fair amount of clinical data that was generated by Brachman, et al., back in the fifties with millworkers looking at protection of this vaccine for both cutaneous and in several cases of inhalation anthrax, and the data from that particular study showed a protection against both the cutaneous and the inhalation anthrax, the numbers, though, being small with the inhalation anthrax.
|
"The lack of cases of anthrax in an uncontrolled population of approximately 600 persons in the Talladega mill can hardly be accepted as scientific evidence for the efficacy of the vaccine." Despite concluding that "the assumption of efficacy appears speculative", the Public Health Service licensed the vaccine in 1970 without receiving any additional efficacy data on the Michigan anthrax vaccine. Instead, they accepted information on a different anthrax vaccine, produced by Merck, and used in the 1962 Brachman study. "The statistical analysis of the data indicates that the vaccine was effective in protecting against cutaneous anthrax infections. When inhalation anthrax is considered, the limited experience with this form of the disease makes the data less significant in showing effectiveness of the vaccine." "No assessment of the effectiveness of the vaccine against inhalation anthrax could be made because there were too few cases." Col. (Dr.) Friedlander: " So the conclusion they [Brachman, et.al.] drew was that it was protective against cutaneous disease, not sufficient cases statistically to say whether it was effective, in that setting, against inhalational anthrax because there weren't enough cases. There was a suggestion it was, but not any proof that it was. That's the only data that exists in humans in any study. Defense counsel: "Is this the Brachman study that ..." Col. (Dr.) Friedlander: "This is the Brachman study." |
Issue: |
DoD pressure on FDA to allow AVIP. Misrepresenting to Congress that FDA had "no official role" in DoD's implementation of the anthrax vaccination immunization program (AVIP). |
Question(s): |
-- If so, would the implementation have required DoD to obtain a Presidential waiver of informed consent required under federal law (10 USC 1107)?
|
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In written testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, 12 Oct 1999: FDA has not had an official role in the development or operation of the Department of Defense's Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, including the AVIP tracking system or the program's adverse event reporting system. In March 1997, DoD briefed FDA about their draft plan for the possible use of the anthrax vaccine to inoculate U.S. military personnel according to the FDA approved labeling for six doses administered on a specified schedule over eighteen months. Subsequently, FDA learned that the DoD plan had been adopted. In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: "FDA did not have an official role in the development or operation of the DoD's Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, including the AVIP tracking system or the program's adverse event reporting system " "In March 1997, DOD briefed FDA about their draft plan for the possible use of the anthrax vaccine to inoculate U.S. military personnel according to the FDA-approved labeling for six doses administered on a specified schedule over 18 months. Subsequently, FDA learned that DOD had formally adopted this plan." |
|
Issue: |
Adverse reactions. Misrepresenting the statistical significance of adverse reactions reported through the VAERS passive reporting system. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: "Since the beginning of VAERS operations in 1990, through June 30, 2000, 1404 reports of adverse events associated with use of the anthrax vaccine have been reported to VAERS. FDA understands that from 1990 to present, approximately 2,000,000 doses of the vaccine were distributed. Of those reports, 73 are considered serious events, which are events considered either fatal, life threatening, or resulting in hospitalization or permanent disability. These reports are for diverse conditions, such as hospitalization for severe injection-site reaction, Guillain-Barré syndrome, widespread allergic reaction, aseptic meningitis and multi-focal inflammatory demyelinating disease None of these events, except for the injection site reactions, can be attributed to the vaccine with a high level of confidence, nor can contribution of the vaccine to the event reported be entirely ruled out." |
The limitations of the VAERS reporting system have been widely reported in medical literature, including by the FDA:
|
Issue: |
Efficacy. Misrepresenting the efficacy of the anthrax vaccine |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: "The only known effective prevention against anthrax is the anthrax vaccine." |
"For those of us working with the [anthrax] vaccine, we do not have specific information on the efficacy of the existing vaccine for the prevention of inhalation anthrax and we probably never will."
|
Issue: |
Scope of licensed usage. Misrepresenting that military personnel, other than those conducting research, fall into the categories of persons indicated in the FDA approved license to take the anthrax vaccine. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: "FDA continues to view the anthrax vaccine as safe and effective for individuals at high risk of exposure to anthrax, when used in accordance with the approved labeling." |
"Immunization with Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed is recommended for
individuals who may come in contact with animal products such as hides, hair, or bones
which come from anthrax endemic areas and may be contaminated with Bacillus anthracis
spores; and for individuals engaged in diagnostic or investigational
activities which may bring them into contact with B. anthracis spores
(1,5). It is also recommended for high-risk persons such as veterinarians and others
handling potentially infected animals. Since the risk of exposure to anthrax infection
in the general population is slight, routine immunization is not recommended.
|
Issue: |
Enforcement of licensed shot protocol. Misrepresenting to the House Armed Services Committee that FDA has compelled DoD into regulatory compliance with the shot protocol in the approved product license, when it has told the House Government Reform Committee that it has does not have the power to do so. |
Question(s): |
Why did Dr. Zoon tell the House Armed Services Committee that she and the FDA Commissioner had written DoD in Sep 1999 to chastise them for not following the FDA-approved shot protocol without also telling the HASC that she had acknowledged in testimony on 12 Oct 1999 that FDA does "not have authority", in law, to regulate DoD's use of the vaccine? |
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: " Upon learning last year that some DoD personnel reported they had been told that they were fully protected against anthrax after receiving three doses of the anthrax vaccine, both Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and I, sent letters to DoD. In the letters we asked DoD to expeditiously investigate this matter as we are unaware of any data demonstrating that any deviation from the approved schedule found in the approved labeling will provide protection from anthrax infection." |
|
Issue: |
Safety and efficacy. Misrepresenting that the stockpiled vaccine used to-date is safe and effective and has been subject to FDA regulatory enforcement of CGMP's (current good manufacturing practices) required by federal law. |
Question(s): |
Why does Dr. Zoon assert that the vaccine from the stockpile produced in the former manufacturing facility is safe and efficacious when it was produced under circumstances of repeated failed FDA inspections? |
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 12 Jul 2000: Sen. Levin: And are you satisfied that the 2 million doses that have been given were safe and efficacious? Dr. Zoon: The material that has been released and distributed we believe meet all the specifications of the manufacturer and what we have on the license.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: "By manufacturing products in a facility that is operating in a full state of GMP compliance, we can help assure that any product that is released by the company is safe and effective." |
|
Issue: |
Scope of FDA's legal authority. Misrepresenting to Congress that FDA has regulatory oversight responsibility for DoD's deviation from the FDA-approved anthrax vaccine shot protocol, by implying that if FDA had an objection to DoD's off-label use of the vaccine that it would or could exercise regulatory authority to stop DoD. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Kathryn Zoon, Ph.D., Director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation And Research |
Statement |
Fact |
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 12 Jul 2000: SEN. LEVIN: Dr. Zoon, what you are saying is, FDA approves picking up the series where somebody left off, if they only had one or two or three shots in the series of six, is that correct? DR. ZOON: What I said, we do not object to the plan that DOD has outlined.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 13 Jul 2000: " Upon learning last year that some DoD personnel reported they had been told that they were fully protected against anthrax after receiving three doses of the anthrax vaccine, both Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and I, sent letters to DoD. In the letters we asked DoD to expeditiously investigate this matter as we are unaware of any data demonstrating that any deviation from the approved schedule found in the approved labeling will provide protection from anthrax infection." |
|
Issue: |
DoD's mantra of routine use by veterinarians nationwide. Misrepresenting to Congress, Commanders, and Servicemembers that veterinarians in the United States have widely used the anthrax vaccine for over thirty years in order to package and sell a policy to the troops. |
Question(s): |
|
Who said it: |
Literally every Commander in the United States Armed Forces |
Statement |
Fact |
Dr. Sue Bailey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, to Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations Committee on Government Reform; U.S. House of Representatives, March 24, 1999 clear:
"The Department is confident, as is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that the FDA-licensed anthrax vaccine is safe and efficacious for its intended.... The anthrax vaccine has been licensed by the FDA since 1970 and has been recommended for veterinarians, laboratory workers, and livestock handlers in the US for more than 25 years. There have been no long-term side effects reported with the FDA-licensed anthrax vaccine." (And no long-term studies, according to the GAO and the IOM). |
|