Nigerians Recall Mass Jet Injector Vaccinations As Children

April 20, 2017

Nigeria 1969

During the 1960s and 1970s, mass vaccination campaigns sought to eradicate diseases such as polio, measles, and smallpox from the face of the earth. Vaccination teams from the US Public Health Service, the World Health Organization, and the non-profit Christian organization, Brother’s Brother Foundation, trekked the globe to educate foreign governments and medical personnel, isolate infectious pathogens, and to immunize all.

These medical expeditions have been well documented within government reports and photographs. Autobiographies by several health officials have also recorded the journeys. Yet never have these events been told by those who received the vaccinations. For the first time ever, those who received mass jet injector vaccinations in Nigeria as children tell what they remember.

 
What do you remember most of about the mass jet injector vaccinations?

“I remember getting my inoculation in 1968/69 in elementary school in Ibadan!! Gosh, I still remember it so vividly because it was so painful, and it left that unique mark,” reminisced a gentleman.

“Yes, I’m looking at the scar on my left arm,” said another gentleman.

“We called it ‘numba’ in primary school,” said a lady.

Another lady said, “Numba…like a bite mark on your arm!”

“The injections were quite painful then,” another gentleman recalled. “I still remember the horror on our faces when the health workers arrived at our school in 1975 and our headmaster delivered us unto their hands. I have never seen so many crying children in such close proximity—we were all united in terror.”

Another gentleman said, “Still on my left arm. Everyone collected ‘numba.’”

“Frightful,” declared yet another man. “The health workers hold that thing like it’s a pistol. The searing pain and the sure abscess that follows, who can forget!… some of the pupils running away and refusing to be vaccinated, chiefly as a result of the pains. We were vaccinated—this was in the late 1970s—against such diseases like polio, measles, and yellow fever.”

Nigerian child is receiving a smallpox vaccination

Was the whole village and community vaccinated all at once? I asked.

“The vaccination was done at the village level and it usually took 1 to 2 days to complete before they moved onto the next village within the community. The event took place at the village primary school, hence the pupils were first vaccinated before adults,” said the first gentleman.

Were there any fears with use of the jet injector?

“To the best of my knowledge, there was none, aside from the pains associated with the vaccination and the attendant abscess the most often (would say up to 80% developed into abscess).”

Another gentleman wittily reflected, “ A man was receiving what he will never understand.”

Many photographs captured looks of concern and apprehension and rightfully so. What were they to think as unknown foreigners arrived in their village with an unheard of device that resembled a pistol to prevent them from an unheard of disease? Success of the vaccination campaign was only the result of local officials who ensured the injections were safe.

Nigerian children were photographed as they received vaccination

Are these devices still used in your childhood village today? If not, when was the last time you remember jet injectors being used?

“The last time I remembered it being used was around 1981 and I can’t remember it still being used afterwards. Reason would be that the community’s clinic was ‘upgraded’ to a cottage hospital and most of the immunizations for kids took place there.”

Although vaccinated as young children, the experiences were so unique and fearful that they were forever imprinted within their memories. In fact, almost all who have been inoculated with these devices have not forgotten the experience.

* Names were withheld for privacy.

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2017.

Babies and Breadwinners: 1961 Mass Polio Vaccination Campaign

April 4, 2017

Paralytic poliomyelitis, most commonly referred to as polio, once immobilized a nation in fear as the disease paralyzed children with no known cause. In the early 1950s, there were roughly 20,000 cases of polio diagnosed per year. In 1952, at the height of the epidemic, the disease took more than 3,000 lives (Sokol, 1997). Thankfully within the same year, Jonas Salk created an effective vaccine. In 1955, after almost three years of testing, the Salk polio vaccine was announced to the world. Salk’s vaccine was a medical relief to the nerves of many.

Babies and Breadwinners

Babies and Breadwinners was a government film documenting the mass Polio Vaccination Campaign of 1961. “This title referred, of course, to those two poorly immunized groups, the children five years and under and the young adults,” wrote Dr. Maynard Mires in the Delaware Medical Journal (Mires, 1961).

The film, produced by the Communicable Disease Center (more presently known as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention), was to be informative and encouraging in the implementation of mass vaccination campaigns across the nation.

Set in the city of Columbus, Georgia, the film documented the first of three phases of a vaccination campaign. Thirty-eight locations were set-up across the city over eight days. Vaccinations were free. People walked up, were vaccinated with the Hypospray Multidose Jet Injector, and then continued on their merry way. “A simple injection means polio protection.”

Babies and Breadwinners- 1961

The film also documented the lack of sterilization between jet gun inoculations. In the photo above, taken from the event in downtown Columbus, the vaccinator held the Hypospray Jet Injector in one hand and appropriately held the patient’s arm with his other hand. The jet injector was attached to a motor enclosed in a carrying-case on the table. Also placed upon the table, near the center, is a vaccine vial and a red protective cap to cover the jet injector nozzle when not in use. Upon the far right side of the table is a microphone belonging to the cameraman in the black suit. There appears to be a material object on the bench below the table, although this object remains unclear. As the video demonstrates, a nurse standing to the right side wipes the patient’s arm with cotton dipped in acetone. The jet injector, however, was used consecutively person after person. The nozzle was never wiped in between vaccinations.

1961 Babies and Breadwinners- turning of the lever

Video footage also captured vaccinators reaching toward the nozzle following injections. A snapshot of the video, above, demonstrates this action. A 1966 self-instructional lesson by the CDC, titled “Jet Injector Operation, Model K3,” pictured below, informs vaccinators how to use the Hypospray Multidose Jet Injector and explains this behavior. Before administering an injection the vaccinator must turn the cocking lever from the “Fill” position to the “Injection” position. Then immediately following the injection, the cocking lever must be turned-back to the “Fill” position to allow the vaccine vial to fill the drug reservoir with the next dosage.

1966 CDC- Hypospray Multidose Jet Injector Instructions

The video footage also captured a disregard for protocol. The CDC’s operating instructions stated, “Squeeze trigger for full THREE SECONDS (count: ‘One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three’).” Yet the film repeatedly documented vaccinators holding the jet injector for only one second, as shown in the clip below. Also note the nozzle was never wiped or cleansed in between injections.

In two instances the video captured the wiping of the injection site immediately following the jet injection. The incidents were unique as the video demonstrates the majority of the vaccinees did not have their arm wiped. In the following clip, a nurse cleansed a girl’s arm with cotton dipped in acetone whereupon a vaccinator administered an injection. Afterwards the nurse immediately wiped the girl’s arm, in a downward motion, with the same cotton. (You may need to watch twice to capture the motion). The girl then clutched her arm as her mother carried her away. The nurse discarded the dirty cotton which accidentally landed on the table. Then the next child stepped forward to receive a vaccination. The jet injector nozzle was never wiped or cleansed.

In another clip, a boy, appearing in the foreground, had just received a vaccination. Holding a piece of cotton within his left hand he wiped the injection site on the deltoid area of his right arm.

So why was the post-injection wiping important?

If the jet gun was held firmly against the vaccinee’s skin, and immediately following the injection there was a need to wipe the injection site of the vaccinee, then whatever was on the vaccinee’s arm was also on the nozzle of the jet injector. Despite the fact that we do not know what was being wiped, whether the substance was blood, splash-back of vaccine after after penetrating the outer layer of skin or a combination thereof, this footage demonstrates at that time the jet injector was contaminated and no longer sterile.

In our series, Faulty Design Created Inherent Risk, Mitragotri (2006) demonstrates through microcinematography the nozzle becomes contaminated through a phenomenon known as splash-back.

The complete video can be accessed here.
References:

  • (Mitragotri, 2006) Mitragotri S. Current status and future prospects of needle-free liquid jet injectors. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5:543–548, 2006.
  • (Mires, 1961) MH Mires. Babies and Breadwinners. Delaware Medical Journal. September 1961. pp. 270-272.
  • (Sokol, 1997) Sokol B. Fear of Polio in the 1950s. [Online Article] Available at: http://www.plosin.com/beatbegins/projects/sokol.html.

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.

Fair Use Notice
In accordance with the Fair Use Law (17 U.S.C. § 107), copyrighted sources cited within this website are distributed without profit and are presented for educational, research, and in some cases critical analysis purposes. For these reasons authorization from the copyrighted holders has not been obtained. If you wish to use the copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond the Fair Use Law 17 U.S.C. § 107, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

HCVets Attempts to Hijack Jet Infectors Research

 

March 16, 2017

Recently a newspaper article stated, “Researchers for HCVets.com, an online support group for vets with hepatitis C, found more than 100 successful appeals of regional decisions between 1992 and 2014 that didn’t [sic.] entertain jet guns as a causative factor for a vet’s hepatitis.”

The reality is HCVets DIDN’T conduct any such research because I did. This nefarious attempt by Patricia Lupole to hijack my research stems from hostility after I stopped collaborating with her group last summer. HCVets has no legal right to this research.

Just because I collaborated with HCVets from September of 2015 to August of 2016 does not give HCVets the rights to my intellectual property. Never did I sign any agreement stating that my creative ideas were the property of HCVets and no such agreement was ever mentioned. Just because I used my own research in speaking with VA headquarters does not give HCVets any legal rights to this research, especially since the research was disseminated in early 2015 under the name Jet Infectors.

This is further substantiated by the screenshot image below which shows the info for the file concerning this article. In the photo you will see the filename of the document, “Jet Infectors – study info,” was created on March 22 of 2015 and last modified on August 8th of 2015. The bottom half of the photo captures an image of the first page of the document with the title, Jet Infectors: A Twenty-One Year Assessment of the Nexuses Between Jet Injectors and Blood-Borne Pathogens Via Veteran Affairs Court Cases.

Jet Infectors study created 2015

In January of 2016 I updated my article on BVA appeals, and published the update on my website on February 1 of 2016, as evidenced here on web.archive.org (a website that after a url is uploaded it is forever imprinted, as it appeared on that specific date, in its database). Scroll down to the Table of Contents and you will see on February 1 of 2016, I published the article titled, Military Jet Gun Injections Transmitted Hepatitis: a 22-year assessment of VA claims.

If you click on the article or access it here, you will see the Copyright Notice at the bottom of the article which clearly states, “© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2016. Unauthorized 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.”

Sometime thereafter in February of 2016, Tricia Lupole posted my article on her website as evidenced here, to which she includes the URL to my article, my contact information at jetinfectors@gmail.com, and the Copyright Notice at the end of the article. She accurately cited my work.

On February 16 of 2016, Tricia Lupole posted my article on HCVets Facebook page, where she appropriately credits my website. “From the Blog Jet Infectors.”

Screenshot_2017-02-27-08-22-32

The fact that Tricia repeatedly and appropriately cited my article in 2016 unravels her preposterous claim in February of 2017 that I did the research for HCVets or that she has a legal right to my research.

Lastly, I feel the need to clarify Tricia’s repeated assertion that I worked for her as a Legislative Coordinator. In a fictional world of make believe Tricia is the Executive Director of HCVets. However, in reality this is nothing more than a puffed-up assertion to make HCVets seem grandeur than reality. I never worked for HCVets. I was never hired or paid for my work. HCVets is nothing more than a group of veterans and their family members working hard at obtaining justice, which is in itself respectable. The group does not need to puff itself up. I am certainly not a Legislative Coordinator. I am purely, simply, and always will be the son of a veteran who advocated on behalf of his father and on behalf of veterans…nothing more, nothing less.

 

Following my post, more lies have emerged from the mouth of Tricia Lupole that are not backed by any evidence.

In recent post, she purported: “The Information formally on this page was provided to HCVets.com on Aug. 8, 2015 with the consent of Shaun Brown.”  However, the following email demonstrates I was not in contact with HCVets until August 25 of 2015.

Or her claim that multiple-use nozzle jet injectors were used until 2006 after the DoD had already banned the devices in 1998. Yet there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. An extensive review of various documents, photographs, and videos has yet to demonstrate the use of MUNJI devices between 1998 and 2006. During the discontinuation of MUNJI devices, officials requested to use a disposable-cartridge jet injector. DCJIs have a single-use disposable cartridge which house the drug reservoir, nozzle, and plunger. Once used the cartridge is discarded. DCJIs eliminate the risk of cross-contamination. Numerous documents, videos, and photographs have demonstrated the use of a DCJI known as the Biojector 2000 within the Armed Forces during this time.

 

Unlike Tricia Lupole, I can back everything I say with evidence.

 

1971 NIH Conference Recognizes Bloody Jet Injectors Pose Risk For Hepatitis

February 9, 2017

NIH’s discussion on the risk of transmitting hepatitis via jet injectors in 1971 was completely forgotten and almost forever lost within the pages of an archaic book. Jet Infectors discovery casts new light on this old issue. What was once lost and forgotten is now rediscovered.

Jet Infectors strives to publish accurate, intriguing, and worthy content. Countless hours are poured into research, networking, writing and editing. As always Jet Infectors encourages the sharing of its posted content as long as credit is given to Jet Infectors. Plagiarism will not be tolerated.

Tuesday, October 26, 1971
Bethesda, Maryland

U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Jesse Steinfield, convenes a conference to discuss the status and efficacy of tuberculosis vaccinations. Prominent health officials, physicians, and professors arrive at the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences, within the National Institute of Health complex, for the three-day conference.

Amongst the thirty-eight attendees are such prominent officials as the—

  • Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Dr. Jesse Steinfield
  • Director of the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board Commission on Immunization and co-inventor of the Ped-O-Jet, Dr. Abram Benenson
  • Assistant Director of Research Service for the Veterans Administration [Department of Veterans Affairs], Dr. James Matthews
  • Assistant Executive Vice President of the American Medical Association, Dr. William Barclay
  • Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, Dr. Dorland Davis
  • Special Assistant to the Office of the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Earl Chamberlayne
  • Director of State and Community Services Division for the Center for Disease Control, Dr. J. Donald Millar

Dr. Sol Roy Rosenthal, the Director of the Institution for Tuberculosis Research at the University of Illinois takes the podium to present his findings upon the mass BCG vaccinations of British schoolchildren. Several minutes into his presentation, he appropriately raises concern about the presence of blood during these mass vaccinations with jet injectors.

“During the high pressure injection, traces of blood may cover the inside of the bell adjacent to the skin and the possibility of transfer of infectious hepatitis must be considered,” said Dr. Rosenthal.

_________________________________

Rosenthal saw what so many other health officials failed to see during the 1960s. The mass skin-testing and vaccination programs, along the introduction and implementation of multi-dose jet injectors, and the increased incidence of viral hepatitis all during this era prompted Rosenthal to assess the safety of vaccination devices. He questioned if jet injectors were jet infectors.

Not only did Rosenthal witness and participate in the mass BCG vaccinations of schoolchildren but he also evaluated a multi-dose jet injector, the Hypospray Model K-3, for blood contamination during the immunizations. His findings are reported in his 1967 article, Transference of Blood By Various Inoculation Devices.

Rosenthal’s observation of bloody jet injectors and the risk this posed compelled him to present his findings within this NIH conference in 1971.

_________________________________

With a room of captivated health officials and peers, Rosenthal expounded upon his findings.

Sampling the inside of the bell and testing for hemoglobin by the benzidine method, it was found that with one apparatus 22 of 248 samples gave positive benzidine tests (8.9 percent) and with another similar apparatus and a different operator 46 of the 139 samples gave positive tests (34 percent)…Visible bleeding from the site of inoculation was noted in 50 percent of the tests and may have been responsible for the variations in the size of the wheals (DHEW, 1972).

_________________________________

A benzidine test detects for the presence of blood. The test is conducted by swabbing a sample and then placing the swab into a test tube. A benzidine solution is mixed and then poured into the test tube. When benzidine oxidizes with hemoglobin a chemical reaction causes the sample to turn a blue-green color; thus indicating the sample is positive for blood.

Based upon Rosenthal’s findings, 8.9 % and 34% of the samples from the jet injector nozzle were contaminated with blood. In all, 68 out of 387 (17.6%) of the samples were positive for blood contamination.

Before continuing several clarifying points need to be made. The “bell,” aforementioned by Rosenthal, refers to the spherical shape of the nozzle. This is explained in greater detail within his article, in which he wrote, “The principle involved in this instrument is to depress the skin by a central post [referring to the nozzle]; the depth of the depression is governed by the free margin of a bell that surrounds the post” (Rosenthal, 1967).

Second, Rosenthal’s statement that “blood may cover the inside of the bell” does not refer to the internal components of the nozzle. The procedural methods of the study never mentioned any disassembling of devices for testing. His statement is, however, referring to the central point of the nozzle. This skin-contacting portion of the nozzle was swabbed and tested for blood.

Lastly, the mention of the word “infectious hepatitis” can be of great confusion. Infectious hepatitis is an outdated medical term referring to what is now identified as the Hepatitis A virus, which is primarily acquired from ingestion of contaminated food and water. Rosenthal’s use of the word at the 1971 conference is incorrect by todays standards. However, within his 1967 article, he appropriately used the terms viral hepatitis and parenteral hepatitis. Viral hepatitis is an inclusive term which acknowledges all forms of hepatitis (A, B, C, D, E). Parenteral hepatitis refers to hepatitis that is acquired through means other than the mouth such as through blood and bodily fluids and is primarily associated with Hepatitis B, C, and D.

It is important to note these terms were used before the identification of Hepatitis A in 1973. Hepatitis B, identified in 1967, was still a new discovery. It is likely the word infectious hepatitis was incorrectly used as a synonym for parenteral hepatitis. The fact that Rosenthal’s study tested jet injectors for blood contamination affirms this point.

_________________________________

Following Rosenthal’s presentation a discussion ensued amongst the attendees and a consensus was reached. The written account of the consensus stated,

The jet method of vaccination would save time as compared to the intradermal method. The possibility of transfer of infectious hepatitis, however, is not excluded. When compared to using disposable units of the multiple-puncture method, the time for vaccination is about the same for both. By the latter method, transference of infectious hepatitis is entirely ruled out; no expensive apparatus is needed, and it can be applied for mass vaccination as well as for individual vaccinations (DHEW, 1972).

Lets put this into perspective. Amongst the attendees of the conference were top health officials, elite scientists, and top-notch doctors and all concurred on the following points:

  • Blood contamination upon jet injectors during mass vaccinations occurs.
  • The risk of transmitting hepatitis via mass jet injections is not excluded. In other words the risk exists.
  • When compared to other vaccination methods, the jet injector is too risky and too expensive, and thus should not be used when more viable options are available.
  • The Multiple-puncture method for BCG vaccination is a safer, more versatile, and more economical approach.

In 1972, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) published an overview of the conference, in a publication titled, Status of Immunizations in Tuberculosis in 1971. The book included synopses to all presentations and outlined the ensuing discussions. Overtime numerous copies of the publication survived but were rarely ever referenced.

status-of-immunization-in-tuberculosis-in-1971
References:

  • (DHEW, 1972) Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. Status of Immunization in Tuberculosis in 1971; DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 72-68, pp. 185-187. Washington, D.C., 1972.
  • (Rosenthal, 1967) Rosenthal SR. Transference of blood by various inoculation devices. Am Rev Respir Dis. October 1967; 96(4):815-819.

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.

Fair Use Notice
In accordance with the Fair Use Law (17 U.S.C. § 107), copyrighted sources cited within this website are distributed without profit and are presented for educational, research, and in some cases critical analysis purposes. For these reasons authorization from the copyrighted holders has not been obtained. If you wish to use the copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond the Fair Use Law 17 U.S.C. § 107, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Secretary McDonald Recalls His Own Bloody Military Jet Injections

January 7, 2017

“I can well remember, as most Veterans my age can, standing in line with my 82nd Airborne Division unit, with blood streaming down our arms as the air injectors were used to give us inoculations before deployments,”

wrote Robert McDonald, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in a January 2nd email.

No matter gender, rank or branch of military service, veterans can easily recall their military vaccinations via jet infectors. Veterans remember visually seeing blood on the nozzle of the device and seeing blood at the injection site. The obscure devices which resembled a handgun attached to an air hose line were novel objects that caught the attention of every man and woman who had the opportunity to experience one. Yet it was the pain from the high velocity of liquid medicament being injected into them along with the visible presence of blood on the jet injector and at the injection site that left a remarkable impression in every veteran’s memory.

The Secretary’s statement came after thanking him for taking my initial inquiry concerning veterans with Hepatitis C and jet injectors seriously and to bid him farewell on his unknown future.

The statement acknowledges what veterans have been stating for years—the military’s assembly-line inoculations with jet gun injectors were bloody. In the Secretary’s own words, “Blood streaming down our arms.”

McDonald is not the first Secretary of the VA to address concerns about jet injectors and the high prevalence of Hepatitis C within Vietnam era veterans. Former Secretary Anthony Principi told journalist Mike McGraw of the Kansas City Star Newspaper in an interview, ”We need to look at the air gun” (McGraw, 2003).

Discussions about military jet injections between VA Headquarters and myself are currently ongoing. One of the main issues at hand is to address the many discrepancies and various opinions about these devices amongst VA staff and how these inconsistencies affect veterans.

secretary-mcdonalds-jan-2-2017-response

References:

© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2017.

Seeing is believing: A Close-up of the Bifurcated Needle

January 2, 2017

Jet injectors were once used to administer smallpox vaccinations. Although with the invention of the bifurcated needle, administration of smallpox vaccine became simpler, faster, and more practical than with jet injectors.

Fenner and colleagues (1988) wrote,

A few disadvantages of jet injectors emerged during the campaigns in which they were used. In contrast to the simplicity of bifurcated needles, the jet injector required meticulous care and maintenance and considerable repair skills, which could not always be provided despite all the efforts to prepare a detailed, profusely illustrated manual.

As shown in the diagram below, bifurcated needles consisted of a forked-end. In between the forks, or prongs, held a droplet of smallpox vaccine. The vaccinator would perform the multi-puncture technique by pricking the skin with the ends of the prong. The technique consisted of pricking the skin 15 times within a small circular area.

bifurcated-needle

(WHO, 1968)

During the smallpox eradication campaign of the 1960s and 1970s bifurcated needles were reused. Sterilization of the needles were performed by placing 100 needles into a specialized plastic container which would then be submerged into boiling water. Holes in the bottom of the container would let-out the water (Fenner et al., 1988).

Both the jet injector and bifurcated needle have been implicated in spreading the hepatitis C virus amongst those who received smallpox vaccinations in Pakistan. “These results suggest that the widespread prevalence of hepatitis C infection in Pakistan may be an unintended consequence of the country’s smallpox vaccination program” (Aslam, 2005).

Weniger, Jones and Chen (2008) concluded, “Some iatrogenic infections with HBV likely occurred in countries where unsafe MUNJIs [Multiple-use Nozzle Jet Injectors] and unsterile BNs [Bifurcated Needles] were used.”
Statistical analyses and professional opinions by leading experts carry a lot of evidentiary weight. Although photographic evidence creates a new perspective to understanding.

Seeing is believing! These close-up images of the bifurcated needle magnify the reality that this instrument could have easily became infected with blood-borne pathogens.

Here is the Bifurcated Needle.
The tip of a bifurcated needle used to vaccinate individuals wit

Here is the Bifurcated Needle with smallpox vaccine between the prongs.
Close up of the tip of a bifurcated needle used to vaccinate ind

Here the image is magnified 41 times.

Roughened surface at the tip of a bifurcated smallpox vaccinatio
When magnified 187 times, striations in the metal emerge. Crevices appear within the prong area.
Oughened surface at the tip of one of the prongs of a bifurcated

When magnified 747 times, the bifurcated needle appears to be a completely foreign object. The metal appears porous. Ridges and valleys emerge within the prong area.
Roughened surface at the tip of one of the prongs of a bifurcate
Now is it so hard to imagine blood or viruses getting within these porous regions or getting attached upon the sharp microscopic ridges of the metal?

Today, bifurcated needles are still used in administering smallpox vaccine. Although now they are intended to be single-use, disposable needles. One needle, one patient.

Hmm…if only the jet injector nozzle was also photographed with a magnifying camera.

ped-o-jet-close-up

Acknowledgements:
Photos are courtesy of http://www.pixnio.com and are published under public domain.

References:

  • (Aslam et al., 2005) Aslam M, Aslam J, Mitchell BD, Munir KM. “Association Between Smallpox Vaccination and Hepatitis C Antibody Positive Serology in Pakistan Volunteers.” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2005 Mar;39(3):243-6.
  • (Fenner et al., 1988) Fenner F, Henderson DA, Arita I, Je〉ek Z, Ladnyi ID. Smallpox and its Eradication, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1988 (ISBN 92 4 156110 6).Available at: http://www.who.int/smallpox/9241561106.pdf.
  • (Weniger, Jones, & Chen, 2008) Weniger BC, Jones TS, & Chen RT. The Unintended Consequences of Vaccine Delivery Devices Used to Eradicate Smallpox: Lessons for Evaluating Future Vaccination Methods. 2008.
  • (WHO, 1968) World Health Organization. Instructions for smallpox vaccination with bifurcated needle. World Health Organization, Geneva. 1968. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/67962/1/SE_68.2.pdf.

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.

Fair Use Notice
In accordance with the Fair Use Law (17 U.S.C. § 107), copyrighted sources cited within this website are distributed without profit and are presented for educational, research, and in some cases critical analysis purposes. For these reasons authorization from the copyrighted holders has not been obtained. If you wish to use the copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond the Fair Use Law 17 U.S.C. § 107, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Military Jet Gun Injections Transmitted Hepatitis: An Assessment of VA Claims

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

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.
bva-jet-injector-cases-1993-2016-1bva-jet-injector-cases-1993-2016-2bva-jet-injector-cases-1993-2016-3

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 case 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)
  • 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.