Shot in the Line of Duty

Military men--and a politician--battle mandatory anthrax vaccination.

By Katherine A. Mason

New Haven Advocate

January 25, 2001

Uzis, bombers, nukes ... and a sheep virus? As if there weren't already enough ways to get killed or injured while serving your country, the U.S. military is getting set to inoculate millions of servicemen and women with a highly controversial anthrax vaccine. Its intent is to protect against possible biological warfare. But reports of serious side effects are leading military personnel--and some politicians, including Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal--to speak out against what they see as unlawful medical experimentation.

 

Veterinarians and other animal workers have for years occasionally received vaccinations against anthrax, an infectious animal disease that can be fatal to human beings. The military vaccinated 150,000 people who served in the Gulf War in 1991 and began mandatory inoculations in 1997. But the vaccine was never approved for airborne anthrax--the variety that would be encountered in war. And Bioport, the Michigan company that makes the vaccine, shut down in 1999 after repeatedly failing FDA inspections. It reopened this year, and the full-scale immunization program is set to restart in October.

 

Connecticut natives Thomas Rempfer and Russ Dingle hope to prevent the program from getting off the ground. The two pilots were ordered to resign from the Connecticut Air National Guard in 1999 after they refused to take the vaccine and spoke publicly against it. The Guard had asked them to investigate the vaccine as part of a team of concerned servicemen and to present any questions that arose.

 

"The inoculation program was to have been on hold until satisfactory answers were received," Dingle says. Instead, the men were informed that their safety questions would not be answered and that anyone refusing to receive the vaccine would be forced to resign.

 

"I made a personal and professional decision, based on my research, that the anthrax policy was questionable in its legality, and as a military officer I have a duty to challenge such orders," Rempfer says. Both men are now leaders of a national movement protesting the vaccine.

 

Rempfer and Dingle's experiences inspired Blumenthal to directly challenge the FDA's licensing of the anthrax program on the grounds that it is experimental and that Connecticut could be held responsible for sickened personnel.

 

"I am dismayed that the commencement of [the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program] appears to have been made without consideration of what entity, in the state or federal government, would be responsible to State National Guardsmen should any illness or disability occur as a result of the immunization," Blumenthal wrote in one of several letters requesting that U.S. officials reconsider the policy.

 

Blumenthal has reason to be concerned. Evidence is mounting that reactions to the vaccine may have caused some of the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome, and at least 52 people have been hospitalized following inoculation. Yet responses from the federal government have been consistently unsympathetic.

 

"Wearing helmets isn't voluntary because everybody needs protection. The same is true of anthrax vaccination," wrote Defense Department official Charles Cragin in response to Blumenthal's plea.

 

But Robert Johnston, a Yale history and American studies professor who has studied vaccinations programs and their opponents, says the sheer number of military officers opposing the program--400 have so far refused the shots--calls for heightened scrutiny. "There's a history of medical experimentation in the military that has been really dreadful," Johnston says. "When military personnel question any kind of medical procedure, our bells and whistles should go off."

 

For now, however, the U.S. government isn't making a sound.