Invaluable Resources Demonstrate MUNJIs Are Inherently Unsafe—Thanks to Dr. Weniger

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

February 21, 2016

A government expert on public health repeatedly warned the public of the risks and hazards of jet injectors. During Dr. Bruce Weniger’s 15 years of service (1995-2010) as the Lead Researcher on Vaccine Technology within the CDC he collected all-things jet infector. He was known as Mr. Jet Injection. Much of the slides, documents, and studies advocates cite originated from the hands of Dr. Weniger. Here is yet another of his invaluable resources.

The Unintended Consequences of Vaccine Delivery Devices Used to Eradicate Smallpox: Lessons for Future Vaccination Methods, a study conducted by Weniger, Jones, and Chen (2008) has been previously reported. Yet missing all this time has been the poster presentation, which provides evidence of jet injector cross-contamination.

Weniger, Jones, & Chen Poster Presentation

Weniger, Jones, and Chen concluded that “iatrogenic transmission of hepatitis B is likely to have occurred as a result of the inherently unsafe design of multi-use-nozzle jet injectors (MUNJIs) such as the Ped-O-Jet®.”

Naysayers will quickly point-out that Weniger, Jones, and Chen’s conclusion specified hepatitis B and therefore these findings do not apply to hepatitis C which is a more heartier and less infectious virus. Let us not forget my interview with Dr. Peter Hoffman on the transmissibility rates of hepatitis C. Whether 10 picoliters or 100 picoliters these viruses are transmissible at microscopic levels not visible to the human eye. Therefore stating jet injectors can transmit hepatitis B but not hepatitis C is a very, very weak argument.

This information, so explicit and powerful, needs no further explanation.

Here is the poster presentation broken-up for easier viewing.

Slide 0 below

Slide 0


Slide 1 below

Slide 1

Slide 2 below

Slide 2

Slide 3 below

Slide 3
Slide 4 below

Slide 4

Slide 5 below

Slide 5
Slide 6 below

Slide 6

Slide 7 below

Slide 7
Slide 8 below

Slide 8

Slide 9 below

Slide 9
Slide 10 below

Slide 10

Slide 11 below

Slide 11

Slide 12 below

Slide 12
Slide 13 below

Slide 13

Slide 14 below

Slide 14.png

Slide 15 below

Slide 15

Slide 16 below

Slide 16
Slide 17 below

Slide 17
Slide 18 below

Slide 18

Slide 19 below

Slide 19
Slide 20 below

Slide 20
Slide 21 below

Slide 21
Slide 22 below

Slide 22

Slide 23 below

Slide 23

Slide 24 below

Slide 24
Slide 25 below

Slide 25
Slide 26 below

Slide 26

Slide 27 below

Slide 27

Slide 28 below

Slide 28

Slide 29 below

Slide 29

Slide 30 below

Slide 30

Slide 31 below

Slide 31
Slide 32 below

Slide 32
Slide 33 below

Slide 33

Slide 34 below

Slide 34

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


Government Jet Injector Webpages Unveiled: ‘404 Not Found’ Errors No More

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

February 21, 2016

How many times have you clicked on a government link for jet injectors and received a 404 Not Found Error?

Over the years our government has whitewashed the severity jet injectors posed upon those who received these vaccinations. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention once had an entire webpage devoted to needle-free injection technology. Although the site,, has since been long taken down. This webpage was the creation of Dr. Bruce Weniger and when he left the CDC so did the webpage.

Department of Defense documents citing the withdrawal of jet injectors have been delinked. Some documents were outright destroyed permissible under the authorization of the Secretary of Navy.

“The document you are seeking is required to be destroyed when 5 years old, per Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Manual M-5210.1 for records designated with a Standard Subject Identification Code (SSIC) of 6200. As this document is dated 20 Apr 98, the record is more than 5 years old and has been destroyed; there are no further records within the Naval Medical Logistics Commend that are responsive to your request. We regret Naval Medical Logistics Command is unable to assist you.” (see FOIA Response Letter Here)

All of these government websites and Internet documents that cited the risks and hazards of jet injectors have been whitewashed. Gone. Covered-up. Concealed. Suppressed.

Or have they?

Fortunately through and the talents of devoted researchers these government sites and webpages have been archived, saved, and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

And abracadabra! They magically reappear (including the DoD document that was purposefully destroyed).

Here is the CDC’s Webpage on Needle-Free Jet Injection Technology, as archived on

February 14, 2000

September 12, 2006

Here are the links to the Department of Defenses withdrawal on jet injectors:

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) needle-free injection policy chronology

• (1997-11-20) Ped-O-Jet® manufacturer (Keystone Industries, Cherry Hill, NJ) notifies Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) (Defense Logistics Agency) of intent to withdraw as device supplier over liability concern for bloodborne disease transmission from multiple-use-nozzle design. [Keystone Industries Withdrawal Letter]
• (1997-12-05) DoD Medical Materiel Quality Control Program (MMQCP) issues withdrawal of automatic jet hypodermic injection units (MMQC-97-1169). [1997 Automatic Jet Hypodermic Injection Units:Withdrawal (DPSC 970147) MMQC-97-1169]
• (1997-12-07) DSCP issues Medical Products Quality Control System (MPQCS) device alert (DSCP 970147) as “cautionary measure”, while noting the absence of bloodborne disease transmission case reports over 35 years of military use (followup MMQC-98-1019 dated 1998-Jan-30). [1998 Automatic Jet Hypodermic Injection Units MMQC-98-1019]
• (1998-01-09) Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) concurs with withdrawal of Ped-O-Jet® for “routine immunization”, but availability for “public health emergency”.  AFEB recommends use of “newer technology” devices with disposable parts for skin contact.[1998 (Jan 9) AFEB- Recommendation on Jet Injectors]
• (1998-04-20) Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery updates via BUMED notice 6230 its Immunization Requirements And Recommendations document (3.6Mb .pdf) prohibiting jet injector use until otherwise directed. [1998 (April 20) DoD- BUMED 6230-incomplete version]
• (1998-04-28) AFEB recommends DoD formulate new needle-free injector specifications and support device research and development. [1998 (Apr 28) AFEB- Recommendation on Jet Injectors]
• (1998-07-09) Letter from Dr. Sue Bailey, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, to United States Representative Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV), explaining DoD policy on jet injectors in response to the concerns of a constituent of the Congressman. [1998 Congressman Mollohan Letter] & [1998 DoD – Sue Bailey Letter]
(1998-1999) Manufacturer discontinuation of large multi-dose vials for yellow fever, meningococcal, and tetanus-diphtheria vaccines because of military withdrawal of Ped-O-Jets® capable of using them (MMQC-99-1248 dated 1998-Nov-03 and MMQC-99-1251 dated 1999-Aug-12). [1998 (Nov 3) DoD MMQC-98-1248] [** MMQC-99-1251 NOT YET FOUND**]
• (1998-11-25) Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery authorizes military use of new disposable-cartridge jet injector (Preventive Medicine Directorate). [1998 (Nov 25) Navy Bureau of Medicine DoD Memo]
• Current DoD policies and information available at the Military Immunization Information Source

Additional Sources:

(1995-11-01) Army Regulation 40–562/AFJI 48-110/BUMEDINST 6230.15/CG COMDTINST M6230.4E report Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis stated “Injector nozzles, visibly contaminated with blood must bebdismantled, changed, and sterilized.” [1995 (Nov 1) BUMEDINST 6230.15 – Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis- ADA403195] [1995 (Nov 1) BUMEDINST 6230.15 – Summary of Revisions]

(1996-08-23) Navy Regulation COMNAVRESFORINST 6230.1B report enforces those administering jet injectors are properly trained. [1996 DoD – Navy – 62301b]

(1997-12-09) Defense Logistics Agency memorandum for Staff Director; Defense Medical Standardization Board concerning Jet Hypodermic Injection Units. 1997 (Dec 9) DoD- Defense Logistics Agency- Jet Hypodermic Injection Units

(1999-08) Armed Forces Epidemiological Board’s site visit to MTF Parris Island and observed mass jet injections of recruits in April of 1997. Report cited “jet injector nozzle’s were frequently contaminated with blood, yet sterilization practices were frequently inadequate or not followed.” [1999 AFEB – Report Citing Bloody Jet Injectors and Lack of Sterilization]

(2004-12-21) Navy Regulation BUMEDNOTE 6230 use of jet injectors for routine immunization prohibited. [2004 (Dec) DoD – BUMEDNOTE 6230]

(2012-01-09) Fort Detrick MMQC-12-1004 FDA updated communication on use of jet injectors with inactivated influenza vaccines. [(2012-01-09) Fort Detrick MMQC-12-1004 FDA Update on Jet Injectors]



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

Military Jet Gun Injections Transmitted Hepatitis: an assessment of VA claims

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

Updated December 27, 2016

A Twenty-Three Year Assessment of the Nexuses Between Jet Injectors and Blood-Borne Pathogens Via Veteran Affairs Court Cases

2016 Preliminary Report – Not all 2016 BVA claims have been released.

In an August 2004 Internet post titled, Hepatitis C: Military-Related Blood Exposures, Risk Factors, VA Care, the Department of Veterans Affairs purported, “Although there have been no case reports of hepatitis C being transmitted by a jet gun injection, it is biologically plausible.”

To date the biologically plausible, or rather theoretically possible yet improbable response, has been the VA’s stance on this issue.

However, in spite of the VA’s longstanding statement, a department within the agency is finding otherwise. Within recent years the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA), an informal court within the VA, has received an influx of jet injector cases. Veterans, lacking the more typical risk factors, are recognizing the jet injector as the only causality for his and her hepatitis C. The court’s recognition of these nexuses in a substantial number of cases debunks the possibility as being “only theoretical” and instead establishes the possibility as not only plausible but probable.

A review of case law from 1992 to 2016 found the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had ruled upon 1,571 cases that cited the jet injector. From these cases 131 were granted, 770 were denied, 602 were remanded back to the VA Regional Office to seek another medical opinion, and 68 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.

The graph below demonstrates trends overtime concerning jet injector cases that were decided by Veteran Law Judges.

From 2003 to 2008 there was a surge of jet injector decisions, most of which were denied. Despite the fact that these cases were denied, a majority of these cases should have been granted as the Veterans Law Judge failed to appropriately recognize the jet injector as a risk factor and failed to appropriately apply the Benefit of Doubt Law (38 U.S.C.S. § 5107(b)) or the analogous Reasonable Doubt Law (38 C.F.R. § 3.102). When the positive and negative evidence of a case is in equipoise (equal to each other), the benefit of the doubt always goes to the veteran. The veteran prevails and the case is granted. (More will be discussed on this in a future blog post).

Since 2008 there has been a surge in remanded decisions. Meaning the Veteran Law Judges are remanding the case, or rather sending the case back, to the VA Regional Office (VARO), with specific instructions mandated by the BVA court. Usually remanded cases sent back request the VARO to seek another medical evaluation of the veterans’ claim file.

Most remarkably granted cases have been on a slow but gradual incline. This past year tied with 2015 as having the most claims granted despite not all of the 2016 decisions being released yet. The 2016 findings are only a preliminary look at what occurred in BVA decisions this past year.

The 131 cases that were granted can be further broken-down into separate categories. Out of these:

  1. 68 cases explicitly rendered that the jet injector was the etiological cause of veterans’ hepatitis C infection. Meaning in each case medical professionals familiar with the veteran’s case and a Veterans Law Judge both found the jet injector to be the veteran’s source of infection.These cases can be further broken-down:
    • In 32 of these 68 cases, the jet injector was the veterans only risk factor for hepatitis C. This is worth repeating, in these 32 cases the only risk the veteran ever experienced was the jet injector. Herein are 32 documented cases which substantiate the nexus between hepatitis C and military jet injector vaccinations.
    • In 36 of these 68 cases, veterans’ military jet injections were found to be a greater risk factor than other inservice and/or non-service risk factors purported. Meaning these other risk factors were deemed unlikely as the source of veterans’ hepatitis C infection when compared to these veterans’ military jet injection experiences.
  2. One case explicitly rendered that the jet injector was the etiological cause of the veteran’s hepatitis B infection.
  3. 60 cases rendered that veterans’ military exposures, which included jet injector inoculations, were the etiological cause of the veterans’ hepatitis C infection. Meaning the renderings in these cases found multiple inservice risk factors were the probable source of veterans’ hepatitis C. Veterans need only prove that their inservice risk factors of acquiring hepatitis C were equal to or greater than any non-service risk factors. Therefore, determining amongst multiple inservice risk factors as the cause of hepatitis C is unnecessary.
  4. 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
  5. One case found the jet injector caused an adverse condition in a veteran’s upper arm.

Here are the BVA citations to all granted jet injector cases.

Therefore the statement, “Although there have been no case reports of hepatitis C being transmitted by a jet gun injection” is an outright lie. Numerous cases have cited this nexus. These cases were not granted out of sympathy. Oh contrar! Let’s look at the weighing of evidence.

The nexus between military jet injections and veterans’ hepatitis C was cited explicitly in 68 cases. Amongst these cases the evidence was weighed in—

  • 63 cases as “at least as likely or not,” or rather at least a 50 percent likelihood. (Listing of these 63 Citations here  At Least as Likely as Not– Jet injector Appeals Granted).
  • 3 cases as “more likely than not,” or rather a greater than 50 percent likelihood. (see cases Citation # 0945788, # 1525003 and # 1628702)..
  • 2 cases as “due to,” or rather 100 percent related. (see cases Citation # 0531165 and  # 0724695).

The number of cases backlogged and awaiting decisions remains unknown. There are jet injector/hepatitis C cases that have been granted within the VA Regional Office level, however these findings are not published and therefore unknown (personally I am only aware of four such cases).


So why is this article important?

BVA cases are nonprecedential. The outcome of one BVA claim has no legal bearing in other claims.

Although this is true, VA Regulation also states, providing that “[p]rior decisions in other appeals may be considered in a case to the extent that they reasonably relate to the case” (38 C.F.R. § 20.1303). Therefore, to establish jet injectors as risk factors for HCV in your claim the following cases cited above will “reasonably relate.” Although no precedent has been set, the Court, acting as one collective body, will have to show “consistency in issuing its decisions” (38 C.F.R. § 20.1303).

How to Structure A Jet Injector Claim

Copyright Notice
© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2017. Veterans are encouraged to use these documents as evidence within their VA claims. Any other use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.