Pentagon: Vaccines may have killed soldier

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Soldier_Death.html
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- A Fort Bragg paratrooper's death may have been caused by vaccinations he received for smallpox and influenza, the Pentagon said.

Pfc. Christopher "Justin" Abston, 26, of Smiths Grove, Ky., died unexpectedly in his barracks Dec. 4, 16 days after receiving the vaccines.

"The expert panel cautioned that the findings pointing to vaccinations were neither probable nor unlikely, but they do suggest the possibility that the vaccines may have caused Abston's death," the Army statement said.

The statement said the smallpox vaccine Abston received is known to cause an inflammation of the heart muscle or myocarditis, a condition found at his autopsy.

No vaccinia virus - the main ingredient of smallpox vaccine - was found in his heart muscle, but evidence of another virus, parvovirus B19, was detected. Natural infection with parvovirus B19 is another known cause of heart inflammation and death, the statement said.
more...

Our soldiers are used as human test labs for vaccines and drugs.

That's a bit over the top, don't you think? They're sent to places in the world where viruses that they're not exposed to in U.S.-- deadly diseases-- still circulate. They'd have no immunity without vaccination. Is that what you advocate? Many more would die that way.

There is always a risk associated with vaccination. Generally it's a small risk, but we reached the point some years ago in this country where the risks of smallpox vaccination were actually higher than the risk of exposure to smallpox, which has been nearly eradicated, so we stopped immunizing against smallpox. Statistically, that means that one or two people out of every few hundred thousand given the smallpox vaccination is likely to be harmed by the vaccination itself. Accepting that risk-- which we did for EVERYONE in the U.S. throughout much of the 20th century-- is not the same as using them "as human testing labs for vaccines...".

Well, explain to me then why nearly every member I spoke to in the 3rd ID returning from deployment in Iraq early this year(late January)were all given 'vaccines' at Ft Benning before being allowed to enter civilain space? Several of them told me the shots were explained as 'bird flu vaccinations'..These guys were out in the field for months and months; they had no idea whatsoever about the H5N1 threat.

Can you say W_T_F?

Come on. You've spoken with people who say they were given an experimental H5N1 flu vaccine against their will? You should provide some documentation for that claim. It is illegal to test drugs on human subjects without their express consent, and not only is it medically unethical to do what you've suggested, it makes no scientific sense. There is no way to obtain reliable data on the outcomes, at least not as you've explained the scenario. Furthermore, there is no reason to immunize soldiers returning from Iraq against H5N1 flu-- any that were exposed to it abroad would already have antibodies from that exposure, not to mention the minor detail that they would have gotten sick and many would likely have died.

I said they told me that they were given what was reffered to as a 'bird flu vaccination'. I didn't distinguish H5N1 at all, and I didn't say they were given anything against their will, either. Anecdotal is all I have, unfortunately, but neither can you provide proof that they WEREN'T given one. The point is, these kids don't interface with their superiors much beyond "Yes Sir, No Sir", and in the 4 years I spent in close proximity to Ft Benning, I never once ran across any of these guys that questioned or even researched what shots they were given; to them it was just another requirement they accepted. And sorry, I wasn't in a position to get sworn affidavits from Army personel against the Army itself; you're kidding, right?

I admit it's completely anecdotal, but it's something to think about. All things considered, if you recognize fascist elements in the US Government today, you can't ackowledge that and NOT assume their going to leave a vast human resource untapped for vaccine experimentation..But that kind of naivette is what keeps these assholes in power I guess. Matter of fact, I'd say they count on it.

You're doing a heckuva job there, buddy!

My BIL was given the Anthrax vaccine and a "mystery vaccine" when he was in the Army. Within a few months, he had gotten very, very hairy. He's blond, and had no chest hair, back hair, etc., and what he had was light. Well, suddenly he was covered with thick, dark hair... and is to this day, almost a decade later. Several of his men started getting killer migraines and had fainting spells, men that were always fine before that.

NO FEMALE SOLDIER was given the "mystery" vaccine, only the Anthrax.

Hmmm....

They also gave them stuff which they found out later was speed. The military still does this.

And, like in "Jarhead," they were forced to take these vaccines AND forced to sign "no fault" waivers.

LSD experiments? Atomic bomb experiments? They've been doing this forever.

..."I know a guy who said" stories? You might believe that your BIL's experience represents some sinister mad scientist experimentation on soldiers, but there's no evidence for that. Many men continue to develop secondary sex characteristics, especially body hair after puberty. I couldn't grow any but the scragliest beard until I was 40. Now I have a dense carpet of facial hair (and I suspect, a disgustingly hairy ass, LOL).

What possible reason would the military have for performing medical experimentation on any wide scale that might endanger the performance of its personnel? That doesn't rule out incompetence, of course, but what you're suggesting is like cutting off the fingers of all the watchmakers working at the watch factory in support of someone's experiments on the effects of fingerlessness.

It comes from my BIL. We all rented a house together before he and my sister were married. He was quite hairless and blond. He isn't now. He was given unnamed vaccines and made to sign a waiver that listed "Unnamed Vaccine." Men don't suddenly sprout hair like that just for the hell of it... not at that age unless something happens to them.

They HAVE performed medical experiments of soldiers in the past -- that's a FACT. Who said it was an experiment per se? But, the medicine was experimental.

Sorry you think my very Republican BIL is a liar... and sorry you put so much faith in a fucked up institution that overall doesn't give a damn about its soldiers.

I lived in a military town for several years, I have several family members in the service, and more who used to serve. The stories they tell are way worse than mystery vaccines.

...whose motives are anything other than self-preservation, and I don't think they're very competent at that. I just think that it's intellectually sloppy to simply accept conspiracy theories with any greater ease than conspiracy theorists would accept the alternative explanations. Most good conspiracy theories at least make logical sense.

As for your BIL-- I wasn't calling him a liar and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I was saying that there might be a very wide gulf between his opinions about what happened to him-- and he admits that the details were concealed from him (which does not make them automatically sinister, BTW)-- and what the military actually immunized him against. In other words, what your BIL conveys are his hypotheses, not facts. Speculation isn't lying, but it should not be accepted as gospel either.

If the MIC wanted you to use that skill, it would have been issued.
The MIC has a l-o-n-g history of using soldiers as guinea pigs. They're doing it now! You don't deny that, do you, Mike?

In one sense tactics are always ongoing experiments. But would the military shoot soldiers up with a vaccine they thought might reduce their combat effectiveness just to experiment on them? Why?

Would they try something that had not completed clinical trials, or use a vaccine that might be a bit too risky in a litigious commercial environment? Maybe-- but that's more generally incompetence, IMO, than sinister intent. It would still have to pass the overall battle readiness question-- I simply cannot believe that the military has ever conspired to deliberately make soldiers too ill to fight, or that they would be willing to risk that except under the most extraordinary circumstances. That's ultimately what this comes down to-- the degree that the military deliberately risked sickness and injury to personnel. It just isn't in their interest to accept as much risk as people seem to think they routinely impose.

at the TMC every damn month to get shot with gods knows what. Because we were a rapid deployment unit we had to get vaccinated more often and I got my butt chewed more than once for simply asking what it was they were putting in my body. The rote response was "It's a gov't issue body now." How comforting that was.

in a fundie church that pointed at the risk associated with childhood vaccines. Every vaccine has the risk of side effect; the government has assumed legal liability.

Their risk assessment was accurate, in a narrow sort of way. Their kids had a higher risk of dying from a given vaccine than from the disease. But their risk assessment crucially depended on everybody else's kids being subjected to the disease. Sort of an odd application of the commons effect.

That assessment fails in under different assumptions. Most people, however, rank an risk that's in front of them and more 'real', although less likely, than one that they've never encountered and seems less 'real.'

A smallpox vaccine ... now there's something that has to have an interesting set of assumptions underlying its administration.

One would be very hard pressed to find wild smallpox these days.

When I went to Nam had to get 22 shots they did not tell us what they were. Hell look at the Statement From DOD saying we have to see how troops with PTSD act on meds in combat.