a rant from the recent past
Jan. 20th, 2004 01:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerSeems like this journal is a good place to store some of the extended writing I've done lately, impassioned speeches that my friends and relations get subjected to because they've been so unwise as to let me have their email addresses. Here's one from a few weeks ago:
Don't know if you listened to NPR this morning, but there was a truly horrifyingly bad story about the recent decision in which a federal judge ruled that members of the military can refuse anthrax vaccinations. When I say "bad," I mean bad in a "if there were journalistic malpractice, David Kestenbaum would be its poster child" way. He brushed over the fact that the manufacturer of the vaccine has raised the "possible side effects" % from under 1% to 5% to 35% (How the hell can someone who manufactures a vaccine that even they admit has negative side effects in as much as 35% of applications get on the radio and call it "safe"!!!!????) He interviewed only a rep from the Army research lab that helped build the vaccine and someone from the manufacturer (I'm praying to G*d they're not a subcompany of ours...) He failed to speak to any victims or victims' families; he failed to speak to any of the lawsuit plaintiffs. He failed to MENTION that servicemembers who refuse to take the vaccine are being courtmartialled, jailed, and discharged (of course, the great thing about the services is that, even if they discharge you, they jail you *first*.) He misrepresents the question of what was at issue in the court case (whether the vaccine is even effective against weaponized aerosol anthrax, rather than cutaneous anthrax). And he didn't mention that even the military ADMITS that the vaccine has KILLED at least one person it's been administered to.
And all this under the aegis of President Bush, who criticized President Clinton during the campaign for supporting the military's plan to innoculate all servicemembers. Funny, when he became president, Bush *increased* the pace of the innoculation program. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that we need to demonstrate that there really *are* WMD in Iraq, so everyone serving there has to be protected against them. Even if it kills them.
Judge Rules Anthrax Vaccines Require Consent
A federal judge rules that the Pentagon cannot require U.S. service members to be vaccinated against anthrax without their consent. The judge sided with military personnel who sued the government on grounds that the vaccine is experimental. Several scientific panels have concluded the vaccine is safe. NPR's David Kestenbaum reports.
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=23-Dec-2003&prgId=3
an equally one-sided story
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/national/23ANTH.html
other, more competent reports
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22760-2003Dec22.html
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/7551995.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/23/anthrax/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/10/anthrax/index2.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax23dec23,1,4821221.story?coll=la-home-nation
Don't know if you listened to NPR this morning, but there was a truly horrifyingly bad story about the recent decision in which a federal judge ruled that members of the military can refuse anthrax vaccinations. When I say "bad," I mean bad in a "if there were journalistic malpractice, David Kestenbaum would be its poster child" way. He brushed over the fact that the manufacturer of the vaccine has raised the "possible side effects" % from under 1% to 5% to 35% (How the hell can someone who manufactures a vaccine that even they admit has negative side effects in as much as 35% of applications get on the radio and call it "safe"!!!!????) He interviewed only a rep from the Army research lab that helped build the vaccine and someone from the manufacturer (I'm praying to G*d they're not a subcompany of ours...) He failed to speak to any victims or victims' families; he failed to speak to any of the lawsuit plaintiffs. He failed to MENTION that servicemembers who refuse to take the vaccine are being courtmartialled, jailed, and discharged (of course, the great thing about the services is that, even if they discharge you, they jail you *first*.) He misrepresents the question of what was at issue in the court case (whether the vaccine is even effective against weaponized aerosol anthrax, rather than cutaneous anthrax). And he didn't mention that even the military ADMITS that the vaccine has KILLED at least one person it's been administered to.
And all this under the aegis of President Bush, who criticized President Clinton during the campaign for supporting the military's plan to innoculate all servicemembers. Funny, when he became president, Bush *increased* the pace of the innoculation program. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that we need to demonstrate that there really *are* WMD in Iraq, so everyone serving there has to be protected against them. Even if it kills them.
Judge Rules Anthrax Vaccines Require Consent
A federal judge rules that the Pentagon cannot require U.S. service members to be vaccinated against anthrax without their consent. The judge sided with military personnel who sued the government on grounds that the vaccine is experimental. Several scientific panels have concluded the vaccine is safe. NPR's David Kestenbaum reports.
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=23-Dec-2003&prgId=3
an equally one-sided story
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/national/23ANTH.html
other, more competent reports
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22760-2003Dec22.html
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/7551995.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/23/anthrax/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/10/anthrax/index2.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax23dec23,1,4821221.story?coll=la-home-nation
