Faulty Design Created Inherent Risks – Conclusion

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

Edited: December 17, 2017

To conclude this series, Darlow was seeking epidemiological cases of viral hepatitis as a means of assessing whether jet injectors actually transmitted blood-borne viruses. Due to extenuating circumstances that are unique to the hepatitis C virus a lack of epidemiological cases would be expected during Darlow’s time. For instance, hepatitis C was unknown. During the 1970s researchers speculated another strain of hepatitis existed and referred to it as non-A, non-B hepatitis, but otherwise hepatitis C would not be identified until 1989.

Second, during the onset of infection hepatitis C is most often asymptomatic, meaning there are no observable signs or symptoms. Those infected that do experience symptoms of decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea, muscle or joint pains, and weight loss would not think to attribute these general symptoms to the unknown and unidentified hepatitis C virus.

Third, within a military population, where soldiers were subjugated to rigorous exercise and harsh conditions, symptoms would have been, and in fact were, misdiagnosed or unreported. Soldiers were told to “toughen-up” rather than seeking an infirmary. Therefore military medical records are most often negative for any signs or symptoms of hepatitis C.

Research has shown chronic hepatitis C can remain asymptomatic for ten- to twenty-years later. Fast forwarding ten- to twenty-years and what do we observe amongst our now veteran population? Numerous diagnoses of hepatitis C, non-A, non-B hepatitis, and hepatic abnormalities. The epidemiological cases that Darlow sought have now emerged.

Fast forward another twenty-years and the VA has recognized in over 140 claims that a jet injector was a probable source of a veterans Hepatitis C infection. See the article – Military Jet Gun Injections Transmitted Hepatitis: an assessment of VA claims.

Unequivocally, jet injectors widely-used within the United States armed forces transmitted hepatitis C.
The proof of the pudding is, in fact, in the eating.

This article was originally published on January 23, 2016 and can be viewed here.

 

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018

Hepatitis Transmitted Through Protector Cap of Jet Injector

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

Edited: December 17, 2017

“Currently, there exists a steadily growing danger of epidemic diseases (AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and other viral diseases transferred through blood) being transmitted between individuals through the use of needleless injectors,” wrote several Russian and American inventors in their 2004 patent (U.S. Patent 6802826).

The patent continued to state,

In the past, jet injectors such as Ped-O-Jet, Ammo-Jet, and similar mass campaign jet injectors were brought to health care systems. Such injectors had no provision for preventing the transfer of blood-borne pathogens except through the complicated disassembly and disinfecting process. In mass immunization campaigns these types of injector systems fell out of favor starting in the mid and late 1980’s when it was determined that bodily fluids are easily transmitted from one patient to another (U.S. Patent 6802826).

The inventors claimed to have resolved the risk of transmission via jet injectors by inventing a single-use protector cap to cover the external nozzle surface. This concept was supposed to eliminate the previous risks and hazards imposed by multi-use nozzle jet injectors.

Kelly and colleagues (2008) tested the safety of this protector cap needle-free injector (PCNFI) known as the Jet Injector for Mass Immunization (JIMI) or more technically known as the HSI-500. The protector cap consisted of four coaxial orifices that the jet stream had to penetrate before continuing unimpeded to the patient’s skin. “The series of four coaxial orifices is designed to reduce retrograde passage of infectious material from the injection site onto the nozzle.”

 

 

 

 

The following slides, provided by Felton International, demonstrate the theory behind this technology.

hsi-500-slide-1hsi-500-slide-2hsi-500-slide-3hsi-500-slide-4hsi-500-slide-5

Jet injections were given to Hepatitis B carriers in Beijing, China. The photo below captured the injections.

Kelly study- HSI-500 JIMI_Injection

Despite the cap’s design to prevent cross-contamination, “the study ended early because the PCNFI failed to prevent contamination in the first batch tested (8.2% failure rate).” Hepatitis B was cross-contaminated within 8.2 percent (17/208) of the injections.  Bleeding was reported within 8.8 percent (50/570) of the injections.

Most shockingly, the published data demonstrates but the researchers failed to discuss, that cross-contamination of HBV occurred without any visible bleeding at the injection site. In 7 out of the 17 injections that tested positive for cross-contamination researchers observed no visible bleeding at the injection site (see Table 1 within the study). This indicates that cross-contamination of blood-borne viruses successfully occurred within microscopic levels of blood not visible to the human eye.
The study also demonstrated retrograde flow allowed blood-borne pathogens to permeate the single-use protector cap and enter the jet injectors internal fluid pathway.

Lastly, Kelly noted there was “no significant viral destruction from passing HBV through the injector.” This means that the virus, after undergoing retrograde flow from the human into the jet injector at a high velocity, through the four coaxial orifices that make-up the protector cap, and then being ejected again, was not destroyed but still alive and infectious. The implications were down-right scary.

Following this study, research on developing protector cap needle-free injectors for immunizations was abandoned.

 

Acknowledgments:
Special thanks to PATH for supplying a paid copy of this study.

References:

 

This article was originally published on January 17, 2016 and can be viewed here.

 

 

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018
Fair Use Notice (17 U.S.C. § 107)

Mitragotri’s Photographic Evidence – Splash-Back was Inevitable

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

Edited: December 17, 2017
Samir Mitragotri, while a chemical engineer at the University of California, visually captured the discharge of jet injectors using high-speed microcinematography (Mitragotri, 2006). The photos in the following link demonstrate a close-up look at the jet injection process. Most importantly, notice in the images when the high velocity stream penetrates the skin there is extensive splash back.

Have a closer look (pun intended).

“The black region at the top of each image shows the outline of a jet injector with the protrusion in the centre showing the position of the nozzle,” said Mitragotri. “The black region at the bottom shows the outline of human skin.” The white space between the two black regions is a gap, approximately a few millimeters wide between the jet injector and human skin.

In the photo where the time equals 0, the jet injector has been activated.

By the time of 40 μs (i.e., Microsecond) the jet stream appears from the orifice and by 160 μs the jet stream makes initial contact with the skin. For reference purposes one microsecond equates to one millionth of a second.

From 280 μs to 1 ms (i.e., Millisecond) the penetration of the jet stream caused excessive splash back. Mitragotri stated, “The typical volume of the liquid splashed in the image at 400 μs is around 100 nl [i.e., Nanoliter] (Mitragotri, 2006).

The deposition of the liquid medicament between 2 to 5 milliseconds (ms) causes a wheal, or rather a bulge under the skin. This wheal will diminish over time as the ejected fluid absorbs into surrounding tissues.

Mitragotri’s photographic evidence leaves no dispute, during the natural injection process that was intended by the manufacturer, the nozzle frequently became contaminated. Thus, the jet injector became unsterile and therefore unsafe. Moreover, this evidence corroborates the testimonies of veterans who visually saw blood on the nozzle of the jet injector during their military mass vaccination campaigns.

 

References:

  • (Mitragotri, 2006) Mitragotri S. Current status and future prospects of needle-free liquid jet injectors. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5:543–548, 2006. Accessible at: http://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2076.

 

This article was originally published on January 17, 2016 and can be viewed here.

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018
Fair Use Notice (17 U.S.C. § 107)

Faulty Design Created Inherent Risks

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

Edited: December 17, 2017

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” wrote H.M. Darlow. In the British physician’s 1970 letter-to-the-editor of a medical journal, he cited the lack of epidemiological cases of viral hepatitis to uphold the safety and sterility of jet injection technology. Darlow was quick to ascertain his professional opinion despite the notable asymptomatic feature of viral hepatitis and the emergence of non-A non-B hepatitis during his time. Darlow, like others, was so caught-up in the infatuation and hype of jet injection devices that he refused to acknowledge the risks and hazards.

Since Darlow’s letter-to-the editor the medical community has made great strives. Physicians have identified HIV in 1980 and hepatitis C in 1989. The asymptomatic progression of viral hepatitis (i.e., HBV and HCV) is now understood to last 10 to 20 years. The transmissibility of viral hepatitis is understood to be in picolitres, or rather traces of blood that are invisible to the human eye. Further studies have assessed the safety and sterility of jet injectors and have found results contrary to Darlows. Moreover, the advent of the Internet has allowed access to medical and scientific journals to nonprofessionals. No longer are studies hidden in journals only accessible to the privy of the academic elite. Now the truth-seekers can and will unveil the truth.

The proof of the pudding is, in fact, in the eating. However for Darlow it appears his pudding was served too early. Research on the safety and sterility of jet injectors has shown otherwise. In this series we will explore scientific studies which reveal jet injectors consisted of faulty designs that created inherent risks.

The process of jet injection succumbs to the following three undesirable phenomenon listed below. These phenomenon have been associated with all jet injectors. Click on the links to read more.

 

Disposable-cartridge jet injectors, which are discarded after a single-use, do not pose a threat of cross-contamination since a new cartridge is used for every injection.

References:

  • (Darlow, 1970) Darlow HM. Jet vaccination. British Medical Journal 4(734):554, 1970.

 

This article was originally published on January 17, 2016 and can be viewed here.

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018
Fair Use Notice (17 U.S.C. § 107)

We miss you Dad!

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 17, 2016

missing-you-at-christmas

When God saw you getting tired
and a cure was not to be
He put his arms around you
and whispered come to Me.
He didn’t like what you went through
and He gave you rest.
His garden must be beautiful
He only takes the best.
And when we saw you sleeping
so peaceful and free from pain
we wouldn’t wish you back
to suffer that again.
Today we say goodbye
and as you take your final rest
that garden must be beautiful
because you are one of the best.
-Unknown
(adaption to Frances and Kathleen Coelho’s poem)

“Death ends a life, not a relationship.” Morrie Schwartz

What Has Changed Within These Photos?

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 9, 2016

In attempting to create a collage of the military’s mass jet injector vaccinations, my mother, a Registered Nurse with over forty-years experience, noticed a peculiar change amidst the photographs. The jet injection procedures remained the same. Recruits and soldiers were still lined-up in a single line and expeditiously vaccinated with a shot in his or her upper arm. The same brand of jet injector was used up until the late 1990s. So what changed?

Jet Infectors collage

The vaccinators administering the vaccinations started wearing latex gloves and eventually protective eyewear.

The question arises: If blood was not present during these campaigns and there was not a risk of cross-contamination of blood and blood-borne pathogens as the VA purports than why such a change in safety protocol?

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018

Research shows, Jet Gun Injectors are a Risk Factor for Veterans Hepatitis C

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 9, 2016

In a draft document titled, Department of Veterans Affairs: Hepatitis C Infection and Drug Therapy, dated July 25, 2014, the VA estimates “there could be approximately another 42,000 HCV patients who have not yet been tested.”  This figure was reported again last May in a Newsweek article. Mind you this comes  two-years after the CDC heavily encouraged all baby boomers to be tested for hepatitis C and heavily advertised the following recognized risk factors of injection drug use, blood transfusion and organ transplant before 1992, receiving clotting factor concentrates before 1987, being a hemodialysis patient, being a healthcare worker, being HIV positive, having signs or symptoms of liver disease, and being a child born to a HCV positive mother.  Additional risk factors identified by the VA include: tattoos, acupuncture, engaging in high-risk sexual behavior, having a venereal disease, and being in jail more than 48 hours.
If 42,000 veterans do not fit into the risk factors recognized by the CDC and VA, then why would they think to be tested?  Presumably, because these veterans, like my father and like many other veterans across this great nation, do not conform to those risk factors.  For many veterans their only risk was their military vaccinations via jet injection. Recognizing this as a high risk factor for hepatitis C will help identify and treat these 42,000 veterans who are unknowingly living with hepatitis C.

Epidemiological studies conducted by the VA have attempted to disprove a nexus between jet injectors and hepatitis C. However these studies by Dominitz and colleagues (2005) and Briggs and colleagues (2001) consisted of flaws and therefore are unreliable and invalid.

Boscarino and colleagues (2014) conducted a study titled, “Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Infection Among Vietnam Era Veterans Versus Nonveterans: Results from the Chronic Hepatitis Cohort Study (CHeCS).” Like Dominitz and Briggs’ studies, Boscarino had patients fill-out questionnaires to identify HCV risk factors. Boscarino assessed 526 veterans with HCV (see article Flawed VA Studies on Hepatitis C Risk Factors).
Boscarino’s study implicated the jet injector as a risk factor amongst veterans. “Among veterans reporting ‘other’ exposures, the reason for this was primarily due to veterans reporting exposure to vaccinations or shots in the military.”

Boscarino further stated,

“Vaccinations in the military during the Vietnam War era were often done with pneumatic air-guns, en masse, during military induction and  prior to overseas deployments. Typically, service members received multiple injections as they moved through these vaccination lines. Given this vaccination method, it was not uncommon for veterans to be bleeding by the time they reached the end of the line.”

The researcher stated, “it is noteworthy that neither history of drug abuse treatment nor history of injection drug use was associated with Vietnam era veteran status…studies related to the prevalence of risk factors for HCV among veterans may be biased [hence, referring to Dominitz and Briggs’ studies]. While our findings are not conclusive and may reflect recall, response, and/or sampling biases, they may justify the need for additional research. It is important to stress that the military service exposure findings found for the Vietnam era veterans was not part of our original survey design, but emerged from the coding and analysis of open-ended responses after survey completion.”

Finally, a reputable and valid study found an association between jet injectors and hepatitis C veterans.

References:

  • (Boscarino et al., 2014) Boscarino JA, Sitarik A, Gordon SC, Rupp LB, Nerenz DR, Vijayadeva V, Schmidt MA, Henkle E, Lu M. Risk factors for hepatitis C infection among Vietnam era veterans versus nonveterans: results from the chronic hepatitis cohort study (CHeCS). J Community Health. 29 March 2014.
  • (Briggs et al., 2001) Briggs ME, Baker C, Hall R, Gaziano JM, Gagnon D, Bzowej N, and TL Wright. Prevalence and risk factor for hepatitis C virus infection in an urban Veterans Administration medical center. Hepatology 2001, 34:1200-1205.
  • (Dominitz et al., 2005) Dominitz JA, Boyko EJ, Koepsell TD, Heagerty PJ, Maynard C, Sporleder JL, Stenhouse A, Kling MA, Hrushesky W, Zeilman C, Sontag S, Shah N, Ona F, Anand B, Subik M, Imperiale TF, Nakhle S, Ho SB, Bini EJ, Lockhart B, Ahmad J, Sasaki A, van der Linden B, Toro D, Martinez-Souss J, Huilgol V, Eisen S, Young KA. Elevated prevalence of hepatitis C infection in users of United States veterans medical centers. Hepatology. 2005 Jan;41(1):88-96.

 

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018
Fair Use Notice (17 U.S.C. § 107)

A Risk Factor is a Risk Factor…

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 9, 2016

A risk factor is a risk factor, plain and simple. I am not talking about determining the etiology of veterans’ HCV. I am talking precisely about the inconsistent identification of the jet injector as a risk factor for hepatitis C by VA employees. Some VA staff appropriately acknowledge the jet injector as a risk factor and others erroneously discredit it.

The VA would never allow its staff to recognize the nexus of, per se, blood transfusions and HCV in one case but discredit this same exact nexus in another case. Doing so would be preposterous. Yet this is what is occurring with jet injectors. To allow this inconsistency to remain within VA is iniquitous. Any blood-to-blood contamination poses a risk of infection.

MANY have acknowledged the jet injector as a risk factor. The VA is the only agency that does not accurately recognize the risks and hazards of jet injectors.

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018

In Memoriam

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 9, 2016

The majority of veterans afflicted with hepatitis C are from the Vietnam war era.

For those mighty men and women of valor who died as the result of the consequences of their service…we remember you.

IMG_0110
Shaun Brown 2015.

In October 2015, I had the privilege of paying homage to the In Memoriam Plaque at the Vietnam War Memorial in DC. The opportunity allowed me to place the flower shown in memory of my father.

Jet Infectors – Chapter 1 – part 3

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 6, 2016

The Board of Veterans Appeals has granted a significant number of jet injector cases. A review of case law from 1992 to 2014 found the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had ruled upon 1,296 cases that cited the jet injector. From these cases 99 were granted, 672 were denied, 468 were remanded back to the VA Regional Office to seek another medical opinion, and 56 cases were granted but needed to be excluded from the rest of the data because either the judicial rendering did not mention the jet injector, the judicial rendering specifically excluded the jet injector, or the veteran’s symptoms of hepatitis C were documented inservice and therefore service-connection was automatically granted and an etiological cause was unneeded. Out of the 99 cases that were granted: 53 cases explicitly rendered that the jet injector was the etiological cause of veterans’ hepatitis C infection; one case explicitly rendered that the jet injector was the etiological cause of the veteran’s hepatitis B infection; 43 cases rendered that veterans’ military exposures, which included jet injector inoculations, were the etiological cause of the veterans’ hepatitis C infection; one case rendered that the veteran’s military exposure which included jet injector inoculations was the etiological cause of the veteran’s hepatitis B infection; and one case found the jet injector caused an adverse condition in a veteran’s upper arm.
Unfortunately, in spite of these wins VA cases do not set any precedents and therefore do not have any probative value in other veteran-claimants’ cases. The VA only has to abide by precedents established in higher courts, such as the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. Within the VA each veteran must argue his or her case upon his or her own merits according to his or her own situation. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals explained it like this:

“The facts and findings in prior Board decisions pertain to those veterans’ cases and not to the case at hand. While it appears that excerpts from prior Board decisions may indicate that other Veterans Law Judges accepted medical evidence showing a link between the other veterans’ hepatitis C and their in- service exposure to unsanitary air-jet inoculation guns, any finding in those prior Board decisions is based on evidence associated with the record of those veterans in the other appeals. The Board is not bound by findings found in previous Board decisions. Further, any finding made in a prior Board decision pertains only to the veteran who submitted that appeal. Such a finding is based on the evidence related to that veteran’s medical records and the evidence in that veteran’s claims file. Those decisions do not provide any specific findings or evidence to establish a link between this Veteran’s hepatitis C and any aspect of his period of service” (BVA Case # 1040550).

Although, I do not agree with the non-precedential rule established within VA Law and cite it as a hindrance, I also find that it does not stop veteran-claimants from obtaining justice.
Rather the major concern lays with the VA’s claims process for jet injector cases. Whereupon in numerous instances the medical opinions rendered by VA examiners, VA nurses and VA physicians and the renderings concocted by adjudicators within VA Regional Offices has been nefarious, unscrupulous, unjustifiable, deceitful, illogical, and anything but pro-veteran. More often than not the VA has accused our mighty men and women of valor of egregious conduct as a means to discredit their claims for service-connection. In which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals has at times colluded in these malfeasant actions and at other times was bound by judicial procedure and forced to rule unfavorably.
Here is one of numerous examples whereupon the VA has erroneously discredited a veteran’s claim. In a 2008 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) case, a VA physician unjustifiably opined that a veteran-claimants hepatitis C could not be related to any of his military risk factors but was related to some unidentified and unrecognized risk factor. This fallacious evaluation was rendered probative and authoritative by the BVA and the veteran’s service-connection claim was denied. Herein the BVA remarked of the physician’s findings:

“The veteran was afforded a third VA examination in May 2006. The examiner stated that while the virus can be transmitted by needle sticks, those incidents are very low. He also asserted that the risk of obtaining HVC [sic.] from injections from an air gun was less than 20 percent. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner noted that the evidence did not show that the veteran injected street drugs, had blood transfusions, received clotting factor, was on kidney dialysis, had liver disease, or had sex or lived with an infected person. Yet, the examiner reported that medical literature shows that up to 20 percent of people with HVC [sic.] do not have identifiable risk factors. Accordingly, he opined that the veteran’s HVC [sic.] was not the result of air gun injections but mostly attributable to an unidentifiable risk factor.” (BVA case # 0817607)

Here the examiner, who was a VA physician, weighed the veterans hepatitis C risk factors—which were accidental needle stick as a healthcare worker in the military and military jet injector inoculations—against statistical findings in medical studies. The VA physician assessed the likelihood that the veteran’s claim matched those studies. In so doing, the VA physician read that the risk of acquiring hepatitis C from a jet injector was less than 20 percent and in 20 percent of hepatitis C cases the risk is unidentifiable. He then attributed, based upon conjecture and not reality, that the cause must be from an unidentifiable risk. The VA physician gave no credence to the risk factors the veteran did experience and failed to recognize that the veteran may have been a part of the less than 20 percent who acquired hepatitis C from jet injector inoculations.
Secondly, the VA has erred by repeatedly ignoring evidence which demonstrated the jet injector posed a risk of disease transmission. Here is an example of a BVA case that denounces the risk of jet injectors:
“The reviewing medical expert stated that there is no published data regarding HCV transmission via air gun inoculation, and that the Center for Disease Control found that air jet inoculation is a safe and effective method for the administration of vaccines. The report reflects that in a cited medical study of chimpanzees infected with hepatitis B, even when air jet injections were done on these animals, the air jet injector did not become contaminated. VHA opinion, received June 2010.” (BVA Case # 1045074)

It is true, the CDC study on chimpanzees did not demonstrate any cross-contamination of HBV. Although this is the only truth in this medical expert’s statement. The CDC does not think the multi-use nozzle jet injectors once widely used within the Armed Forces are safe. In 1994, the CDC reported

“an outbreak of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission following use of one type of multiple-use nozzle jet injector in a weight loss clinic and laboratory studies in which blood contamination of jet injectors has been simulated have caused concern that the use of multiple-use nozzle jet injectors may pose a potential hazard of bloodborne-disease transmission to vaccine recipients. This potential risk for disease transmission would exist if the jet injector nozzle became contaminated with blood during an injection and was not properly cleaned and disinfected before subsequent injections” (CDC, 1994).

Currently, jet injector technology has discarded multi-use nozzle jet injectors due to the risks associated with the reusable nozzle and fluid pathways. Second generation jet injectors, referred to as protector cap needle-free injectors (PCNFI) which use a disposable protector cap to cover the reusable nozzle and fluid pathway, have failed to prevent the transference of blood and hepatitis B to the next recipient in clinical testing (Kelly et al., 2008). Third generation jet injectors, known as disposable cartridge jet injectors (DCJI) or dick-jees, have a single-use disposable cartridge assembly that houses the nozzle and fluid pathways to prevent any cross-contamination. DCJI’s are the latest jet injector devices undergoing clinical and field testing. Therefore, the VA medical expert picked one snippet of a study to uphold his claim while failing to disclose a full review of the scientific literature.
Another major concern is that the VA has defended its stance based on the axiom that research shows the majority of veterans acquired hepatitis C from injection drug use and blood transfusions, as is the case in VA Cooperative Study 488. In so doing, the VA has attributed the etiological causes for over 287,000 veterans positive with hepatitis C antibodies based on a study that only assessed 52 veterans with hepatitis C antibodies. Herein the sample size of the study is only two-thousandths of a percent (0.02%) of the population.

Additionally, VA Cooperative Study 488 is grossly outdated. The study sampled veterans in 2001 at which time the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) had roughly 100,000 veterans with hepatitis C in their system. Yet from 2001 to 2014 the number of hepatitis C veterans within VHA’s system rose by over 74,000 people, or rather by 74 percent. There is no guarantee that the risk factors for these additional veterans, who were new patients within the VHA system, are reliably represented in that study.
VA Cooperative Study 488 is a unique study that properly assessed the prevalence of hepatitis C antibodies amongst a random sample of veterans. In this study, veterans were randomly selected and then assessed on whether or not they had hepatitis C antibodies. However, this is the limits to this study. Assessing the etiological causes of only 52 veterans with hepatitis C antibodies, as VA Cooperative Study 488 did, is a weak claim in identifying the risk factors for a larger population. This is evidenced based upon the data, which reported spending more than 48 hours in jail posed a greater risk for hepatitis C than military service (which included combat duty and jet injections). Moreover, the researchers themselves stated it would be difficult to detect a nexus between hepatitis C and jet injectors within their data because the study was population-based.
Briggs and colleagues (2001) also conducted a study to assess the prevalence of and risk factors for hepatitis C within a VA Medical Center. The study found 185 veterans, or rather 17.9 percent of the sample, had hepatitis C.  Their study purported,
“History of vaccine in combat or vaccination with an air gun [another name for a jet injector] did not correlate with HCV status (data not shown).  However, these questions were added to the questionnaire during the conduct of the study and information was available from only 211 respondents.”

The researchers explicitly disclosed that not all of the sampled veterans received the same questionnaire consisting of the question to evaluate for jet injectors.  In fact, the researchers stated only 211 veterans or rather 20.4 percent or rather one-fifth of the sampled population received an updated questionnaire.  Yet regardless of this inconsistency the researchers ultimately denounced an association between hepatitis C and jet injector vaccinations within their study. Here, within these two studies, the VA has invalidated the research to obfuscate the jet injector / hepatitis C nexus.
The examples presented herein add to what we already know, the VA is a large bureaucratic administration in desperate need of changes. Please do not misconstrue my stance. I love this country and the principles it was founded upon. Indeed the VA has helped many veterans and has many devoted and talented staff members that make great contributions in the lives of veterans and their families.
However, I find the majority reaction within the VA concerning the hepatitis C epidemic has been inconsistent to the intentions of the administration. The administration needs to be nothing less than 100 percent pro veteran. The administration needs to take the time to unbiasedly learn the etiological causes of hepatitis C veterans.

Veterans and veteran organizations have been relentlessly pushing for these changes within the VA.

References

  • (Briggs et al., 2001) Briggs ME, Baker C, Hall R, Gaziano JM, Gagnon D, Bzowej N, and TL Wright. Prevalence and risk factor for hepatitis C virus infection in an urban Veterans Administration medical center. Hepatology 2001, 34:1200-1205.
  • (CDC, 1994) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General Recommendations on Immunization: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 43:(RR-1):7–8, 1994.
  • (Dominitz et al., 2005) Dominitz JA, Boyko EJ, Koepsell TD, Heagerty PJ, Maynard C, Sporleder JL, Stenhouse A, Kling MA, Hrushesky W, Zeilman C, Sontag S, Shah N, Ona F, Anand B, Subik M, Imperiale TF, Nakhle S, Ho SB, Bini EJ, Lockhart B, Ahmad J, Sasaki A, van der Linden B, Toro D, Martinez-Souss J, Huilgol V, Eisen S, Young KA. Elevated prevalence of hepatitis C infection in users of United States veterans medical centers. Hepatology. 2005 Jan;41(1):88-96.
  • (Kelly et al., 2008) Kelly K, Loskutov A, Zehrung D, Puaa K, LaBarre P, Muller N, Guiqiang W, Ding H, Hu D, Blackwelder WC. Preventing contamination between injections with multi-use nozzle needle-free injectors: a safety trial. Vaccine (2008) 26, 1344-1352.

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016 – 2018
Fair Use Notice (17 U.S.C. § 107)