Unyielding: Marathons Against Illegal Mandates

"Read and heed Unyielding. It’s born from the principles our nation required of Colonel Rempfer to ensure the integrity and readiness of America’s armed forces. The author’s meritorious victories during decades of professional dissent mirrored the unique heritage of our Air Force and constitutional founders. Buzz lived the code and donned the armor of integrity, which protected him from reprisal. May his call to erase the inequities and punishments over anthrax and COVID mandates unify the compassion of all Americans."

—Rod Bishop, Lieutenant General, USAF (retired)

Defending our nation’s armed forces was Colonel Buzz Rempfer’s job as a fighter pilot. Every American should be grateful that he internalized his oath and used his fighter pilot skills to dutifully attack and help halt illegal mandates.

—Thomas G. McInerney, Lieutenant General, USAF (retired)

"Unyielding in one word describes Colonel Tom Rempfer’s personal courage during his quest over twenty years to spotlight the physical dangers and injustices created by the mandatory military anthrax and covid vaccinations. Tom’s deep sense of duty compelled him to challenge the mandates coming from higher authorities at great personal career risk. He came under intense pressure throughout this ordeal, but he never compromised his deep sense of duty to stand tall in the face of fire as his inspiring book chronicles. Tom’s quest is to seek the facts and the truth and hold people accountable who intentionally ignore the ‘truth.’ Colonel Rempfer was not only a warrior in the air, but more importantly, a warrior in the moral fight for what is right versus wrong."

—Joe Arbuckle, Major General, US Army (retired)

"Buzz Rempfer shacks the target in his memoir, Unyielding! As the USAFs first pilot-physician to fly the F-22 Raptor, I know firsthand that fighter pilots are the first to admit their mistakes, and the debrief is where our lessons are learned and corrected regardless of rank. We have a tenacious commitment to excellence. Buzz once again hits the nail on the head and recognizes that doctors ‘debrief’ but often less transparently than fighter pilots. If there’s one thing I learned as a dual qualified asset, it’s that physicians and public policymakers should remember their oaths respectively—first, do no harm; and second, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Buzz upheld his oath!"

—Jay T. Flottmann, MD, USAF (retired); Pilot-Physician (F-15C, F-22, T-38)

Men of Honor. They were who I sought to emulate during my lifelong journey in uniform. The truest virtue of a warrior is revealed in his story. When you find those warriors like Col. Tom ‘Buzz’ Rempfer, you will know a man of honor stands.

—LTC Pete Chambers, DO retired), US Army (retired), Special Operations Flight Surgeon, Green Beret

"I have deep regrets for submitting to seven investigational anthrax vaccinations during my military career. Perhaps my admission will motivate others to read and scrutinize Colonel Tom Rempfer’s (Ret) David versus Goliath manuscript, inculcated through a twenty-five-year saga. Colonel ‘Buzz’ Rempfer is a model leader; principled, self-sacrificial, professional, and unyielding in his pursuit of truth. His intestinal fortitude, and ability to assiduously sift through the myriad minefields of law, corruption, and intransigent leadership, produced a masterpiece. I firmly believe his analysis will be utilized to educate future generations of military leadership.

My twenty-year personal association with Colonel Rempfer includes listening to Buzz discuss the entire anthrax debacle with a reserve general during a memorable London flight. As is typically the case, Tom handled the discussion with exceptional grace, respect, expert communication, and empathy. He charitably tutored this ‘very sharp’ general on the institution’s well-meaning, but woefully controversial, implementation of the mass vaccine mandate. In a nutshell, Buzz is in a league of his own. It is an honor to be a ‘Pal’ of this All-American Hero."

—Dr. Scott Keller (DSS); Lt Col USMC/USAF, ret.; F-16, F-18, F-5, TA-4, B-787, B-777, B-767, B-757, MD-80

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas L. Rempfer

Foreword copyright © 2024 by Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo

All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018.

Skyhorse Publishing books may be purchased in bulk at special discounts for sales promotion, corporate gifts, fund-raising, or educational purposes. Special editions can also be created to specifications. For details, contact the Special Sales Department, Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018 or [email protected]

Skyhorse® and Skyhorse Publishing® are registered trademarks of Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.®, a Delaware corporation.

Visit our website at www.skyhorsepublishing.com.

Please follow our publisher Tony Lyons on Instagram @tonylyonsisuncertain

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on file.

Cover design by David Ter-Avanesyan

Cover illustration by Bob Englehart

Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-64821-045-7

eBook ISBN: 978-1-64821-046-4

Printed in the United States of America

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the US government. The public release clearance of this publication by the Department of Defense does not imply Department of Defense endorsement or factual accuracy of the material.

Unyielding was cultivated in the spirit of freedom of speech and honest academic inquiry. Just as his Naval Postgraduate School thesis was approved and published on the DTIC.mil website, Colonel Rempfer’s objective in publishing this memoir includes the hope that the work might be thoughtfully considered in military and government realms, his target audience.

Prepublication security and policy review of this book ensured information damaging to the national security was not inadvertently disclosed. Military members have a responsibility to submit for pre-publication review any works intended for public disclosure. This author complied with those requirements since the book’s fundamental premise is to follow the institution’s rules, while requiring our government and military institutions to do the same.¹

ENDORSEMENT BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., ESQ.

My uncle President John F. Kennedy observed that moral courage is a rarer commodity than physical courage in war. Tom Rempfer has both. Rempfer is the pilot you want flying your jet and the soldier you want beside you in the foxhole. Tom lives in the thrall of a relentless and noble idealism that has left him actually believing what he learned during four years at the Air Force Academy about honesty, hard work, and accountability. He has steadfastly refused to trade those values for expedience.

Tom was unyielding in his struggle to stop the Defense Department from coercively injecting an experimental, untested, unlicensed, worthless, and dangerous, zero-liability anthrax vaccine into a million military service members during the 1990 first Gulf War, and again starting in 1998.

The vaccine was a multimillion-dollar boondoggle to enrich crooked military contractors and their government cronies, and a monumental theft of millions of taxpayer dollars. The military brass, intelligence agencies, and public health regulators unleashed an arsenal of sinister tactics to force soldiers to take the illegal jab and to muzzle doubts, and marginalize, gaslight, silence, and destroy dissenters like Rempfer. American soldiers were the losers.

In retrospect, the anthrax vaccine program was a trial run for imposing experimental, unsafe, and untested vaccines on the entire population during the COVID era. The anthrax jab’s striking parallels with the current COVID-19 vaccine fiasco deserve our attention. Understanding the tactics that the vaccine cartel used then to hide the vaccine’s problems and bulldoze the opposition will help us protect ourselves in the future.

Tom’s example as an ultimately successful advocate gives us hope that we may one day restore our constitutional rights and rule of law to America.

—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Esq., author, The Real Anthony Fauci and The Wuhan Cover-Up

ENDORSEMENT BY PETER A. MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH

As documented in Colonel Rempfer’s Unyielding, the genetic COVID-19 vaccine mandates on an unwilling fighting force has been a disaster for the US military for three reasons: 1) those forced to take the investigational injections every six months against their will have been mentally broken, 2) vaccine recipients face high rates of heart damage, blood clots, neurological disease, autoimmune illness, and malignancy, 3) the mentally strongest and fittest of our fighting forces have declined the vaccines and are facing dismissal or have left the service. The military should have been tracking the accumulating ranks of those who contracted the respiratory illness and featured natural immunity as the crisis progressed. By the colossal blunders of ignoring natural immunity and willful blindness to COVID-19 vaccine safety, our military leaders all the way up to the commander in chief will be held accountable and will face justice for the irreparable damage done to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to defending and serving our country. Colonel Rempfer’s Unyielding commands this accountability of senior officials. May God bless them and guide them from further destruction of the mind, body, and soul.

—Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, coauthor,

The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Biopharmaceutical Complex

DEDICATION

To

My wife who put up with me.

My family who supported me.

Our three children, niece, and nephew, who all enlisted and served.

Finally, to my country and military, for teaching the ideals that motivate this work.

CONTENTS

Foreword by Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo

Acknowledgments

Preface

Prologue

MILE 1: PART ONE—Unyielding (2011)

MILE 2: The USAF Academy (1983 to 1987)

MILE 3: The Fighter Pilot (1987 to 1994)

MILE 4: Anthrax Vaccine 101 (1995 to 1998)

MILE 5: Tiger Team Alpha (1998 to 1999)

MILE 6: Mutual Support (1999)

MILE 7: Information Warfare (1999 to 2000)

MILE 8: Unproven Force Protection (1999 to 2000)

MILE 9: The Military Times (2000)

MILE 10: The OODA Loop (2000 to 2001)

MILE 11: Lobbying (1999 to 2001)

MILE 12: The Perot Factor (1999 to 2002)

MILE 13: Anthrax Letter Attacks (2001)

MILE 14: Citizen Petition 1 (2001)

MILE 15: Judicial Review (2003 to 2005)

MILE 16: Amerithrax (2001 to 2010)

MILE 17: Learning to Overcome (2006 to 2015)

MILE 18: How to Make You Whole (2011 to 2022)

MILE 19: PART TWO—Pandemic (2019 to 2023)

MILE 20: Fauci Effect (1984 to 2022)

MILE 21: Citizen Petition 2 (2021)

MILE 22: Natural Immunity? (2021)

MILE 23: Federal Mandates (2021 to 2023)

MILE 24: www.Hoping4Justice.org

MILE 25: Whistleblower 1-2-3

MILE 26: HEED Your Training

FINISH LINE: The Debrief

Afterword

Epilogue

Appendix A: Adjutant General Unyielding Letter Denying Appeal of the Illegal Firing

Appendix B: USAF Inspector General Reprisal and Hiring Violations Substantiation

Appendix C: SecDef-Level Memo Ordering Command Credit and Promotion Consideration

Appendix D: Acting Secretary of the Air Force John P. Roth Promotion Letter

Appendix E: 1994 Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Staff Report, SR 103–97

Appendix F: Federal Register Proposed Rule Excerpts, December 13th, 1985

Appendix G: Department of Defense (DoD) Anthrax Vaccine Licensing Amendment

Appendix H: FDA Notice of Intent to Revoke and Inspection Details

Appendix I: FDA Inspection Reports Noted Manufacturing Process Not Validated

Appendix J: Indemnification for Anthrax Vaccine

Appendix K: Career Immunization Record Documenting Fully Immunized Status

Appendix L: 1985 US Army Request for Proposal for New Anthrax Vaccine

Appendix M: Congresswoman Nancy Johnson Press Release

Appendix N: Note from H. Ross Perot to Karl Rove

Appendix O: White House Advisor Karl Rove Memo to DepSecDef Paul Wolfowitz

Appendix P: May 5th, 1998, Memo from Fort Detrick US Army Contracting Officer

Appendix Q: Brigadier General Eddie Cain Emails

Appendix R: Memo to SecDef Rumsfeld on Minimizing Anthrax Vaccine Use

Appendix S: CJCS Memo Dubbing Anthrax Vaccine a Centerpiece

Appendix T: GAO-02-181T—Changes to the Anthrax Vaccine Manufacturing Process

Appendix U: Minutes and Slides Related to the October 20th, 1995, DoD Meeting

Appendix V: Investigational New Drug (IND) Application for Inhalation Anthrax

Appendix W: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Amerithrax Press Conference

Appendix X: USAF Reserve Memo Barring Accession after Anthrax Vaccine Refusal

Appendix Y: Under Secretary of Defense Robert L. Wilkie Memo

Appendix Z: Sergeant James D. Muhammad’s Military Times Corrections Case Article

Appendix AA: Air Reserve Personnel Center Colonel Promotion Letter

Appendix BB: Air Force Notification for Promotion Board and Retroactive Date of Rank

Appendix CC: Excerpts from the 1994 Civilian Medical Textbook Vaccines

Appendix DD: Andersen Email to Fauci Challenging Evolutionary Theory

Appendix EE: 1989 Department of Defense Letter to Senator John Glenn

Appendix FF: Letter from Colonel George Bud Day, USAF, Medal of Honor

Appendix GG: President Clinton Addressing Previous Military Experimentation

Appendix HH: Department of Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review Clearance

Notes

Index

About the Author

FOREWORD

BY DR. PHILIP G. ZIMBARDO

My professional life involved studying and teaching about the social forces humankind endures, both good and bad. Ideally, some of your students internalize your best efforts and apply your teachings in their own observations of the world. Colonel Thomas Buzz Rempfer’s book exemplifies that outcome, regardless of whether you agree with his methods or conclusions. The colonel’s tale serves as a real-life Stanford Prison Experiment or another chapter in The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.¹

Tom’s unyielding journey serves as a testimony to the application of academic inquiry while also combating situational forces. His story unfolds continuously across an over thirty-year military career and through multiple professional dilemmas lasting over two decades. I am confident the sincere goal in telling his story is to help readers understand the factors that led to serious divides and mistrust in our armed forces during the anthrax vaccine controversy.

The commonalities in the ethical dilemmas posed by the anthrax vaccine controversy twenty-five years ago, and the subsequent equally controversial COVID-19 vaccine mandates today, illuminate the imperative to study these events diligently and dispassionately. By understanding and reversing the situational ethics gaps, and by not repeating the same mistakes, unity and trust might again be restored.

Col Rempfer’s experience witnessed military leadership at the highest levels ignoring violations of the law, while turning a blind eye to illegal mandates of experimental vaccines on America’s soldiers. After federal courts ruled the program illegal, the government failed to reverse punishments and invented a new Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) law as a work-around to the court’s injunction. The precedent EUA law application ensured no penalty or loss of entitlement for the troops who continued to choose not to be vaccinated. Almost twenty years later our government forgot that EUA legal precedent, jeopardizing COVID-19 vaccine mandates executed under the same law. As a direct result, this author had his livelihood placed in jeopardy again, twice in a twenty-five-year span over two different vaccine mandates.

Current and future public servants we entrust to ensure the government lives up to the high ideals expected by our citizens should read Unyielding. By following this road less traveled of courage exhibited by the bottom of the chain of command, we can hope to change the negative paradigm into a constructively positive one. Tom shares his saga since it was his final duty to explain this marathon-like journey of discovering the situational breakdowns, which fostered mistrust and division. The colonel’s unyielding effort to help correct records for the previously punished troops further defied his bosses but defined his duty.

This book is a testimonial to that paradoxical challenge of righting wrongs, and offers a recipe on how to prevail through unyielding persistence. Though the author was able to fend for himself, overcome the obstacles, to survive and continue to serve, what about the troops and citizens who could not? Many were discharged and fired without justice before the final legal rulings. Could our nation be committing the same errors and fomenting the same injustices today?

Based on this lifetime account of ever-broadening controversial mandates spanning twenty years, we cannot say this has not happened before. By considering the lessons from Unyielding: Marathons Against Illegal Mandates future generations have a starting point to alter the trajectory of such controversial and divisive mandates before we allow them to be injected and infect our lives and history again.

Read this book and contemplate the content, pro or con. Reflect on how we as malleable human beings can be united, while overcoming the situational forces employed to divide us. Decide for yourself where the bad apples hang, and which actors fill the bad barrels. The parallels to current events deserve our attention. These behavioral patterns must be fully recognized to reverse current division and to restore trust in our public health establishment.

—Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo

Professor Emeritus

Stanford University

Yale University (MS, PhD)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Role Model, Mentor, Flight Lead, and Dear Friend—Lieutenant Colonel Russell E. Dingle.

Mutual Support

Jen Bard, Esq.; Ted Doolittle, Esq.; Capt Kelli Donley; Col Phil Fargotstein, Esq.; Lt Col Jay Flottmann, MD; Lt Col Perry Forgione; Capt Jeff Frient; Col Juan Gaud; Lt Col Tom Gervais; Larry Halloran, Esq.; Lt Col Jack Heideman; Lt Col Scott Keller, PhD; Capt Wally Kurtz; Capt Enzo Marchese; Arnie Menchel, Esq.; Lt Col John Michels, Esq.; MSgt Rick Mischke; Sgt James Muhammad; Lt Col Dave Panzera; Lt Col Mark Perusse; Col Rick Poplin; Lt Col Dom Possemato; Col Lee Pritchard; Col John Richardson; Lt Col Larry Rizzo; Maj Gary Rovin, DC; Maj Dale Saran, Esq.; Lt Col Bruce Smith, Esq.; Col Sammie Young; Mark Zaid, Esq.; Col Jim Zietlow

Content

Bob Englehart, cover illustrator; Rebecca Schmid, author’s proofreader; Skyhorse Publishing

PREFACE

Where do I begin? How about introducing myself from the eyes of my family? They teasingly liken me to Walter Mitty, I guess due to my sporadic lapses into absent-mindedness. However, I prefer to think it is about how I see the world: sometimes dangerous, but with an optimistic sense of courage and hope. My brother jokingly compared me to Forrest Gump. I’m not sure if it was the simple stuff or the jogging themes. I like to run, even marathons. Either way, he was right. My career was like a marathon. Like Gump, despite running into barriers, I adjusted or turned around, but kept going. My wife joked about the simple part, her favorite name for me being Simple Tom. I do prefer the simple: no manipulation, no compromise. I see the world through the hue of idealism. This simple lens sustained me to endure all the bad and complicated things.

My ancestry possibly offers perspective on how I am wired. Like many Americans, my lineage springs from central and eastern Europe. Earliest family records reveal origins in the Black Forest region of present-day Germany, with later moves to Poland and Ukraine. My Prussian ancestors took advantage of the opportunities, settling in Bessarabia, west of Odessa. Tsar Alexander and Catherine the Great offered Prussian farmers opportunities for free land to farm, without taxation and conscription. When the good deals ended, my relatives took advantage of the Homestead Act in America, and found themselves relocated once again to the Dakotas. Historically they made a good decision, since Germans didn’t fare too well in the upheaval that crisscrossed Ukraine before and after World War II. My family history tells a story about a clan that seized opportunity. It was in our blood to maneuver smartly, preserve life and liberty, all while balancing professional opportunities and experiences. I outmaneuver adversity many times in the pages ahead, just as my ancestors fatefully did from Europe to America.

In contemplating my professional experiences, I reminisce on the unhealthy, intersecting patterns we observed. I detail bad behaviors and illegalities underlying the anthrax vaccine and COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) inoculation mandates. The bad behaviors and illegalities tethered the two ethical dilemmas, occurring over twenty years apart. Critical thinking required reflective contemplation. Particularly with recurring ethical themes, I found myself returning to the foundations of my education and training in order to navigate challenging circumstances. In telling you my story, I reflect across several decades to explain the professional disputes. I employ a marathon metaphor, and use miles as my chapters, in order to illustrate the lengthy effort. Throughout the marathons, I developed my rules of engagement (ROE). I summarize the ROE below and expand on them at the end of the book. The ROE helped me to endure, stay on course, never give in, and to be unyielding, just as my parents, mentors, and leaders taught.

My story begins at a pivotal point in the middle of my military flying career, after surviving the Department of Defense (DoD) anthrax vaccine mandate. I attempted to get my military career back on track after the mid-career anthrax vaccine ethical dilemma, but suffered more turbulence. From there, I chronologically reflect back on my earliest education as a United States Air Force Academy cadet to add perspective on why I felt duty-bound to challenge higher authority. Simply put, they trained us to do so. Yet this directive inevitably cast a shadow on my subsequent progression and triggered the unexpected turmoil later in my career. The story ends almost forty years later in another professional upheaval, this time with COVID mandates targeting my civilian flying career. COVID-era mandates not only affected over two million military members, but also loomed distressingly over hundreds of millions of industrious citizens. Twice in my professional life my jobs were threatened, but I was never alone.

With COVID-shot mandates, Americans gained empathy over what military members endured those many years earlier with the anthrax vaccine predicament. This new, much grander quandary revisited the same themes, requiring the same tools and guidelines to challenge the legally questionable nationwide decrees. The lessons learned and tactics we used almost twenty-five years ago, dusted off for the latest conflict, may be timely and instructive for my fellow American citizens and our troops. But if not, put them in your quiver for the next battle.

What these experiences taught me is there will likely be a next encounter. The other side learns no lessons without accountability. If there is none, they will, almost fatefully, do it again. So be prepared. An iconic aviation novel, Fate Is the Hunter by Ernest Gann, chronicled the pilot’s psyche and its struggles to control fate and fortune in overcoming the dangers of aircraft accidents. But in our Unyielding story, instead of accidents, mandates were the fateful hunter. We did not accept such a fate. We methodically challenged the inevitability of mandates, just as pilots do with accident avoidance. We piloted and controlled our fate like an Ernest Gann story.

As you read this unyielding journey, place yourself in our shoes. Run with us. How would you right the wrongs? This book encourages leaders to listen more, to reflect, to resurvey judgments, and to contemplate past abuses that fatefully resulted in their fellow citizens and soldiers to reject inequities. What should any human being do when cornered by a government we perceive violated the social contract, did not listen to their own people, and did not follow their own rules? Being unyielding was the answer for me. It is not about patriotism, heredity, or creed, because it is not nationalistic, genetic, or cultural. Unyielding reactions to injustices are a shared human quality, without borders and absent politics. Understanding such unyielding instincts may help readers and leaders to empathize with this approach and to avoid conflict.

I’m just a pilot. My operational mindset may be instructive in understanding this story. When I push up the throttles, my airplane accelerates. If I pull the throttles back, my craft decelerates. I point the nose up, and the plane ascends against gravity. I point the ship down, and it descends carefully. These are the simple mechanics that provide perspective on this unyielding mission. When the vector was wrong, I corrected it. This is a pilot’s mentality—a continuum of reflection and correction. Pilots follow rules, instructions, laws, and expect our leaders to as well.

Based on these instincts, I learned and executed a simple formula to steer the ethical deviations back on course. This professional dilemma checklist protected me and my late role model, mentor, flight lead, and dear friend—Lieutenant Colonel Russell E. Dingle. It may prove valuable for current and future troops as they correct our nation’s heading. Here’s the ROE:

•Be professional at all times, and give no one ammo for anyone to use against you.

•Be reasonable and respectful at all times, even when your adversaries are not.

•Stick to the facts and rules, and avoid challenging purely discretionary matters.

•Be cognizant of your limits and skills, but if others do not follow the rules, prosecute.

•Use the oversight and reporting tools organizations provide to make the system work.

•Wisely, live to fight another day—maneuver smartly—outflank efforts to get rid of you.

•You do not have to lead every battle—work from the background to preserve your energy.

•Continually cross-check your own preconceptions to avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias.

•Never give up, never quit, and avoid voluntary personnel actions that sacrifice redress.

•Most of all, despite the moral duty to be unyielding in the professional realm, always capitulate to win at home with your family—they are your highest duty and priority.

PROLOGUE

Unyielding is a tribute to Russell E. Dingle, Lieutenant Colonel, retired, United States Air Force (USAF). This prologue ends with a timeline for context on the book’s thematic content. The book omits the antagonists’ names where possible, instead focusing on lessons learned, broken processes, and bad behaviors versus the identities of low-level actors. As the lead protagonist, Russ wrote an introduction for this book’s draft in 2003. We did not publish the work at the time, but the effort helped us to compartmentalize the struggle and document the lessons learned. The striking parallels to events several decades later revived its relevance. Russ’s words below, and his stalwart leadership, served as an emotive force across the remainder of my career.

Tom ran the Boston Marathon in 2003. During his run Tom realized that he and I surmounted a marathon of sorts in our battle against the disinformation perpetrated by our own government and military. Tom’s book utilized his run to frame our multi-year journey that began in Connecticut looking for answers from our commander. Tom finished his run, but the outcome of our marathon continued. Our government and military may not have provided the answers, but they provided the tools to discover and win the truth.

Lt Col Russ Dingle passed away September 4th, 2005, after a valiant fight with cancer. As an Air Force officer and fighter pilot, Russ flew over two thousand hours in the A-10 Thunderbolt II, served as an instructor and commander, and earned multiple awards as Top Gun. Lt Col Dingle’s career was distinguished by noble advocacy for military members’ health rights. He testified as an expert witness for the US Congress in 1999. Russ’s exemplary career included over sixteen years of service as a pilot and captain for American Airlines. Russ will always be remembered by his fellow citizens, troops, and loving family as the intellectual heavyweight behind efforts for accountability, as well as for his courage, service, leadership, and honor. Russ’s tireless example exuded idealism, juxtaposed with a healthy dose of cynicism due to the realities of human nature. He worried winning was a fantasy, but fought, nonetheless.

This prologue required a timeline of events, not only for Russ’s and for my travails in challenging the anthrax vaccine program, but also to incorporate the comparable context of COVID inoculation mandates surrounding the pandemic from 2019 to 2023. A thorough understanding of the history, and the patterns of bad behavior, was required in order to fully appreciate the legal and ethical breakdowns during COVID and with the earlier anthrax vaccine immunization program (AVIP). The lessons not learned from anthrax gained renewed relevance when the entire nation faced COVID shot mandates. Predictably, the mandates were promoted through fear, despite unknown safety and efficacy. Embellishment of the threat overshadowed following the laws governing unapproved emergency use authorized (EUA) medical products. As Russ always said, the timeline proved crucial to understanding the depths of the wrongdoing:

1957: First anthrax epidemic in one hundred years occurred during a US Army anthrax vaccine clinical trial at wool mills in Manchester, New Hampshire (NH), where four workers died.

1970: US Government licensed a different anthrax vaccine without clinical trial efficacy data.

1972: FDA (Food and Drug Administration) assumed regulatory control of biologics (vaccines).

FDA had to re-license vaccines with proposed rules, final rules, and public comment.

1985: FDA never finalized anthrax vaccine, proposed rule that noted no required clinical trial.

US Army acknowledged limitations of the anthrax vaccine, asked industry for a new one.

1989: US Army testified about limitations of the existing anthrax vaccine to the US Senate.

1990: Illegal unapproved manufacturing changes to anthrax vaccine prior to the First Gulf War.

One hundred fifty thousand US troops inoculated with anthrax vaccine with inadequate recordkeeping.

1993: First active onsite FDA inspections of military anthrax vaccine manufacturer began.

1994: US Senate critiqued Army use of anthrax vaccine in First Gulf War as investigational.

Anthrax vaccine considered, not studied, as a possible cause of Gulf War Illness (GWI).

1995: First warning letter issued by the FDA to the anthrax vaccine manufacturer for deviations.

1996: Manufacturer applied to the FDA for approval of inhalation anthrax vaccine indication.

1997: FDA issued a notice of intent to revoke anthrax vaccine license due to violations.

US Army acknowledged that the anthrax vaccine was not licensed for biological warfare.

1998: FDA inspected anthrax vaccine plant, finding the manufacturing process not validated.

New law deemed investigational vaccine mandates illegal without a presidential waiver.

Defense Secretary illegally mandated anthrax vaccinations for all 2.4 million US troops.

1999: Congressional hearings began, ultimately finding anthrax vaccine experimental.

The Department of Defense punished and discharged over one thousand refusers.

2000: The FDA continued inspections, finding additional violations of manufacturing practices.

The DoD continued inoculating over a half million troops, while thousands more fell ill.

2001: President George Bush directed a review of the anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illness.

Initial recommendation to the Secretary of Defense— minimize use of anthrax vaccine.

Second anthrax epidemic in US history killed five from letters sent through US mail.

Initial government reports suspected anthrax spores originated from US Army stockpiles.

Dingle and Rempfer filed an FDA citizen petition to challenge the anthrax vaccine license.

2002: Letter attacks led to accelerated anthrax vaccine reapproval after a four-year closure.

More troops fell ill and were punished, imprisoned, fined, demoted, and discharged.

2003: US DC District Court imposed a preliminary injunction against military anthrax vaccine.

Basis included the citizen petition claim of no FDA license and the investigational use.

2004: DC District Court imposed a permanent injunction, ordered FDA to license the vaccine.

2005: The DoD used new Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) law to continue vaccinations.

The Federal Court granted an exception to the injunction only if vaccines were voluntary.

First ever EUA assured the court there would be no penalty or loss of entitlement.

2010: FBI published report accusing a US Army anthrax scientist of letter attacks and lab leak.

Department of Justice findings affirmed motive was to save the failing anthrax vaccine.

Attempts began to correct military records after FBI revelations about anthrax origins.

2019: First military record corrected, including upgrade to a fully honorable discharge, restored rank, separation code allowed reenlistment, award of good conduct medal, and back pay.

The SARS-COV-2 virus from suspected lab leak in China resulted in a global pandemic.

2020: America implemented lockdowns and nationwide countermeasures to contain the virus.

2021: Rapidly engineered COVID EUA countermeasures allowed by public health emergency.

Nationwide EUA product mandates illegally imposed by presidential executive orders.

EUA COVID shot safety, efficacy, and mandate illegality harmed public health and trust.

Unconstitutional mandates struck down by Supreme Court and Federal Court injunctions.

2023: Congress halted DoD mandate—federal mandates rescinded—original shots deauthorized.

Government agencies assessed a lab leak tangentially related to US-funded research as the most likely origin of the pandemic.

MILE 1:

Part One— Unyielding (2011)

My memoir about this marathon of a story spans four decades, from 1983 to 2023. Halfway through my professional marathons, I hit a pivotal juncture in my military career—in 2011. After serving for several years in a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) or drone unit, I was invited to compete in a meritorious selection process to serve as our unit’s next commander. Frankly, I was more than content serving as an instructor pilot and flying the midnight shifts with my fellow crewmembers. Command and rank were not my aspirations, but I followed the encouragement of my colleagues and threw my name in the hat. I knew I wasn’t the top choice of the higher-ups in the chain of command, so I found it intriguing that I was even invited to apply for command.

Per my training, I prepared diligently. That’s what they expected of us. Every young officer should aspire to lead their unit someday and to serve as a worthy steward for their troops. I had already hit some bumps in the road in my military career, so in light of all those past shenanigans, I was honored to be given the opportunity. In preparation for my interview, I reviewed the Air Force’s Core Values, the Honor Code, the Oath of Office, our Principles of War, and my favorite pamphlets on military doctrine. I left no stone unturned.

Our operations were a twenty-four-seven, nonstop environment, so I had just completed a flying shift on the night of the interview. The interview went well and apparently lasted longer than all the others by almost an hour. I gave it my best shot, and it appeared the hard work had paid off. The inside word from the hiring board president was that all of the hiring board members selected me by an uncontestable high margin. Mission accomplished, or so I thought.

I certified as a qualified candidate, interviewed, and all the members of the hiring board evidently selected me as the top officer for the billet. I wasn’t supposed to have the insider knowledge that they selected me, but the board president leaked it. Normally, the military tends to keep internal deliberative processes secret—maybe in case they change their minds. On this occasion, fortunately, the selection panel members couldn’t keep it a secret that all the hiring board members selected me as the highest-ranking applicant by a significant margin out of a field of eight candidates. The hands of the leadership were tied—according to the rules. Perhaps that is why they leaked the results?

Several weeks later, I was ordered to report to a unit meeting in the early hours of the morning where the new squadron commander would be announced. Despite completing another all-nighter shift, I reported as ordered. When I entered the squadron conference room, I noticed they’d ordered a cake. It was odd, particularly in the midst of nonstop flying operations. Eating cake was simply not the priority. The meeting was promptly called to order and some unfamiliar faces were introduced. The newly minted squadron commander was announced as one of them. I was quiet and a bit shocked, having prior knowledge of the leaked results. Obligatory applause filled the room. Needless to say, it wasn’t my name announced, and I didn’t eat cake. I maintained my professionalism and went home to go back into crew rest for the next night’s missions. The result was surprising to say the least. I put my best foot forward, and evidently prevailed in a meritorious selection process, only to be undone by politics or worse.

Being a process-oriented person, I evaluated the situation and determined my next steps. Something was amiss, but I wasn’t aware of the magnitude at that point. I struggled with the decision to ask for some sort of higher-level review of the matter, since I understood the reality of the seniors in the chain of command wanting their chosen officer to be the next commander. Yet still, why did they conduct a meritorious hiring process? Why was a hiring board convened? Why put everyone through the process if, in the end, the bosses tossed the results and just did what they wanted? It was one of those ethical dilemmas they warned us about. What was I to do?

What I did was politely engage the Human Resources Office to figure out the rules pertaining to hiring, and that led me to the regulation called the Meritorious Placement Plan. Those were the rules governing the hiring process, and they were very clear-cut. The rules directed me to the inspector general’s office, the IG. I followed those rules and asked for an inquiry. Very promptly, the local IG got back to me and made it clear they wanted to wrap it up quickly. The next day I received their swift dismissal email, which stated,

This office has determined the allegations concerning the complaint are not substantiated…. A review was conducted in the selection process and it has been determined no misconduct was committed…. The Board’s final selection for a candidate who scored within the 10% Rule is compliant with regulations.

I found the wording and rushed reply quite odd. Reasonably, no thorough investigation could have been conducted in less than a day. Also, inclusion of the 10% figure piqued my curiosity. Sure enough, within the rules, the hiring official had the discretion to select someone other than the top scoring candidate if another candidate scored within a 10 percent margin, but only if certain circumstances applied. The unusual circumstances included that the highest ranked officer had pending disciplinary charges, financial troubles, or security clearance issues. Nothing like that applied. Therefore, I read the rules further and opted to elevate the complaint to the higher United States Air Force IG. That was my procedural right, again, according to the rules.

The Air Force IG was very responsive and promised to be in touch. In short order, though, I was summoned to our higher headquarters to have a one-on-one meeting with our general. I figured he might have caught wind that I elevated the complaint, and we would have some kind of professional discussion to resolve the situation. I have been guilty of being naive and idealistic in the past, and this turned out to be one of those times. Before I drove north for the meeting, my wife even told me, You’re going to get fired. Darn, I love that lady and all her no-nonsense common sense!

Sure enough, within about a minute of my arriving at the meeting, saluting in, and sitting down, I was promptly fired. The boss told me that challenging the chain of command would not be tolerated. The general gave me five weeks’ notice before I would be involuntarily separated, but not for cause. Instead, they called it force management. That was a cypher for we really don’t like you and we’re going to administratively remove you, hopefully blocking you from having any recourse or appeal. I saluted professionally. The general asked me if I had any questions. I responded, No, sir, and departed for home.

Once I returned to my base of operations, I discovered I was grounded from my flight duties the day prior. I was also secretly removed from active duty status so that the general officer I had just met with would have the legal authority to fire me. The general’s subordinate, a colonel, was the behind-the-scenes officer doing all the administrative coordination without my knowledge—setting me up for my exit. He then ordered me to finish my extra duty assignments. I was in the midst of working on writing a CONOP (concept of operations) for the standup of a new local drone detachment. I complied with his directives and put forth an extra-solid effort.

I updated the Air Force IG on what happened, which precipitated a letter from the IG informing our local headquarters that the USAF was officially launching an investigation. As it goes in the military, I knew it would not be a quick process—certainly not in time to save me from the five-week discharge deadline. As I did with the earlier anthrax vaccine issue, I placed my faith in the system, packed my bags, and got to work on finding another unit to serve—again.

Simultaneously, I appealed the force management firing to the general’s boss, as the rules allowed. That, too, was of no avail. I expected it was going to be an uphill battle since it was unlikely anyone would accept responsibility for the potential process violations I suspected. The top general wrote me a response denying my appeal request. The message was consistent. He wrote, "Your unyielding demands that decisions must fully meet your satisfaction before you will accept them undermines leadership and shows a lack of respect. Wow, I had a feeling the top general did not know the full story. I loved his line about being unyielding." I thought that’s what they wanted us to be and how they trained us to conduct ourselves in times of adversity.

Full letter at Appendix A.

The general added reference to incidents across several years related to other process problems I attempted to resolve for my unit members— all successfully. The general made clear to the IG that he harbored no animus against me for my unyielding efforts on behalf of my troops. Unfortunately, in those instances I was compelled to point out dereliction of duty, negligence, and corruption when they existed. Obviously, they had been taking notes.

The out-of-context history was all there to attempt to justify the firing, along with the classic good order and discipline catchall phrase. Anytime commanders employ that Hail Mary motto, it’s a hidden and hopeful distraction to make everyone look the other way. The military tends to divert attention from the actual issues of contention. In this case, the issue was alleged command-selection violations or cheating. Instead of looking into serious allegations, they will often change the subject by implying misconduct, even if none occurred. Just the illusion of such allegations is normally sufficient to make observers avoid questioning senior leadership or the legitimacy of the underlying allegations. It’s really poor form, but it’s a time-tested tactic that works—and not just in the military. In my case, no one accused me of any actual misconduct, but none of that mattered at the time. It still meant that I had to find another flying job. Fortunately, I had a good reputation in our mission arena, so I put out the feelers.

For perspective, this wasn’t the first bone of contention. Every time I stood firm on a personnel issue for the members of my unit, I prevailed. That rubbed them the wrong way. The members of my organization appreciated my persistence, and I never regretted holding a hard line against the incompetence or errors often directed at my unit in a prejudiced manner. Once again, however, I was reminded that memories were long, and often there was no reward for sticking to my guns, standing up for my troops, and doing what I believed was the right thing. The one right thing I always did, in the execution of resolving problems, was to be unquestionably professional and never give anyone ammo to say otherwise. It didn’t mean they didn’t try—but it wouldn’t stick. In my case, the IG later confirmed any and all counter allegations were unsubstantiated.

Ultimately, the USAF IG, in findings signed off by the Department of Defense (DoD) IG, validated that the firing was an illegal reprisal following my complaint over the hiring process. Additionally, the USAF IG found six irregularities in the hiring process, to include the suspected alteration of the scoring by someone other than one of the hiring board members [letter at Appendix B]. Rarely were reprisal allegations substantiated. Fortunately, in my case, the IG took the extraordinary added step to thoroughly investigate the underlying hiring controversy.

The investigator could not provide me with a copy of the full report, but fortunately a JAG (judge advocate general) at our base legal office provided me copy of the document. The investigation revealed suspected lying, cheating, and forgery. The substantiated misconduct was so far removed from the expectations of military officers that the DoD IG could not ignore it.

USAF IG summary of findings on substantiated reprisal and hiring procedural violations.

The DoD IG referred court-martial allegations for false official statements, dereliction of duty, and forgery against the officer suspected of changing the scores. But that officer’s chain of command, at some undisclosed level, hurriedly dismissed the charges with a confusing and misleading response. The JAG gave me that whitewash document, too. The investigative process spanned over a year. Another full year transpired for the Air Force to grant corrections based on the substantiated reprisal. The remedy included continued military orders through retirement flying for the new unit that had taken me in, plus repayment of a withheld flight pay bonus.

I felt vindicated, but also held some disappointment with the fact that there was literally zero accountability. Nonetheless, I was thankful. I had substantiated reprisal report findings to help correct my professional records. Regardless of the runarounds, lack of accountability, and the reality that no one ever investigated lower-level investigators, I was grateful. I survived the attempts to end my military service and flew the remaining years of my career with professionals who provided safe harbor during those dark times.

About a dozen former unit members also transferred to the new squadron out of protest. I was eternally indebted to serve my final years performing our mission with such an outstanding group of aviators. We felt safe. That feeling should be an essential characteristic in any healthy military, government, or business setting. Thankfully, my colleagues and I outflanked the unhealthy territory and landed in a safe zone.

Ultimately, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) reviewed the corrections case twice in the subsequent years, since reprisal findings were extremely rare. In 2014, the Defense Secretary made an unprecedented recommendation that the Air Force grant me a command credit in my professional records for the lost leadership opportunity. Command selection served as a key stepping stone for further advancement. The SecDef’s office also recommended retroactive consideration for promotion to the next rank of full colonel. The Air Force’s prompt compliance with the SecDef’s recommendations was a reasonable expectation, but it did not happen.

Two years later, the Air Force’s formal response stated that there were intangible reasons as to why I was not selected for command or promoted. I got that, too—there was history. Nevertheless, the excuse didn’t go over well with the Defense Secretary’s office as they tried to tactfully remedy the ethics violations and substantiated retaliation. Fortunately, the SecDef’s office remained persistent and turned their recommendation into a 2017 directive. In the interim, I reached mandatory retirement, so the remedy processes became retroactive.

The SecDef’s memo effectively ended the adjudication of the case and added perspective on the ignored hiring violations. The SecDef’s office affirmed the evidence is clear and compelling that [the] Applicant was improperly denied command, that actions were arbitrary and capricious, that the conclusions were not supported by the weight of the evidence, and that the weight of the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the original IG conclusions about the alleged violations. The ruling stated that there was no discretion to select another candidate and added that the scores were manipulated to reduce the scoring gap to within 10 percent to enable the selecting supervisor to choose a candidate other than Lt Col Rempfer.

Admitting the scores were manipulated was code for