Alliance for Human Research Protection Fri, 18 Jul 2003 Dear Dr. Campbell and others concerned about ethical research: This is in response to your July 11 comments objecting to AHRP’s criticism of the ethics of two controversial ARDS experiments sponsored by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute conducted at…
Help stop the US government from injecting children with anthrax vaccine in an experiment whose aim is to justify increased expenditure for the vaccine (BioThrax) for civilian stockpile.
Anthrax Vaccine: Its checkered history, excessive stockpile and the human and financial costs By Meryl Nass, MD* The current vaccine (Biothrax, manufactured by Emergent Biosolutions or EBS) has never been proved effective in humans. One human trial took place in the 1950s using a different, Merck-manufactured anthrax vaccine. Efficacy studies…
Part III. The Untouchable Third Rail in Healthcare—The Vaccine Controversy: Core Issues
Autism: Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) data.
The single National Biodefense Science Board panelist who voted against the recommendation in support of an anthrax vaccine test in children was Patricia Quinlisk, M.D., M.P.H. State Epidemiologist and Medical Director Iowa Department of Public Health, who chaired the NBSB panel.
To date, the available evidence about the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine is resoundingly negative. Three US government anthrax vaccine initiatives represent a reckless deviation from the precautionary principle of medical ethics and fiscal responsibility.
Whose children will be sacrificed in an illegal and unethical experiment in the name of Biodefense Preparedness?
Two major analyses of U.S. hospital safety found that: "harm to patients was common and the number of incidents did not decrease over time."
"OHRP shared your concerns and discussed them with the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. They appreciated the concerns and have revised the protocol to address them."
Given multiple prior investigations of Dr. Wakefied’s 1998 paper, why did it take the Lancet editors 12 years to discover a lack of proper IRB approval?
History is about to repeat itself: This is a follow up to a July 26, 2009 I nfomail.
