Fed Judge: Get your Anthrax off my body!

[Tmy]

I heard a report that a Fed judge has ruled that the pentagon cant force soilders to take the anthrax vaccine. He mentioned somthing about soilders not being lab rats for the Pentagon to experiment on.

GO JUDGE!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
I heard a report that a Fed judge has ruled that the pentagon cant force soilders to take the anthrax vaccine. He mentioned somthing about soilders not being lab rats for the Pentagon to experiment on.

GO JUDGE!

Don't they pump soldiers full of different stuff before boot camp?

[Tmy]

Yeah but isnt the Anthrax vaccine a little iffy. I dont think they have enough info on risks/benifits of it. So in a sense they are testing it on the soilders.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but isnt the Anthrax vaccine a little iffy. I dont think they have enough info on risks/benifits of it. So in a sense they are testing it on the soilders.

Nonsense. The vaccine has been around for 40+ years and has been tested in humans. They are currently conducting trials to reduce the number of injections required (right now it is 6 over an 18 month period followed by annual booster). Stupid ruling by the judge, IMO.

Source: cdc anthrax vaccine info (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4915a1.htm)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
I heard a report that a Fed judge has ruled that the pentagon cant force soilders to take the anthrax vaccine. He mentioned somthing about soilders not being lab rats for the Pentagon to experiment on.

GO JUDGE!

I have to ask. If anyone that refuses the shots contracts anthrax while in a combat enviroment, generally not too close to a decent medical facility, and later develop complications of some sort if they indeed survive, would you support their attempt to sue the government for not protecting them from the hazard, as we all know someone is bound to try just based on human nature. Would you give them life-long disability benefits? Would you do the same to a guy that shot himself in the foot through the negligent use of a firearm?

[Luke T.]

Here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/22/national/main589812.shtml) is a link to the story.


The Pentagon must stop forcing servicemen and women to take the anthrax vaccination against their will, unless President Bush signs a special order, a judge ruled Monday.

Now if that isn't political, what is?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Troll


I have to ask. If anyone that refuses the shots contracts anthrax while in a combat enviroment, generally not too close to a decent medical facility, and later develop complications of some sort if they indeed survive, would you support their attempt to sue the government for not protecting them from the hazard, as we all know someone is bound to try just based on human nature. Would you give them life-long disability benefits? Would you do the same to a guy that shot himself in the foot through the negligent use of a firearm?

Yeah I'd give the solider disabilty if hes injured in battle.

Would you court martial a pilot who refused a kamakazi mission? Would you think its ok for the army to force a women soilder to have breast reduction surgery, so her equitment could fit better?

[Luke T.]

The judge ruled that the anthrax vaccinations fell under a 1998 law prohibiting the use of certain experimental drugs unless people being given the drug consent or the president waives the consent requirement.

Experimental? I thought veterinarians have been taking these shots forever.


Congress passed the law following fears that the use of such drugs may have led to unexplained illnesses among veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War that have come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome.

Ah. That pesky Gulf War Syndrome which infects the brains of congressman and senators.

In his ruling, Sullivan pointed to the apparent risk in receiving the anthrax vaccination, noting that the rate of adverse reaction was recently revised upward from 0.2 percent to between 5 percent and 35 percent. Six deaths are attributed to the vaccine, Sullivan said.

So we can't get the math to narrow it down more than somewhere between 5 and 35 percent? :eek:

[Luke T.]

That phrase. "Adverse reaction." I wonder how they define that.

I had the anthrax series of shots. The second one caused my arm to turn red and it hurt for a few days. That happened to a lot of guys. Nothing fatal or crippling. Just a minor annoyance. I wonder if that counts as an adverse reaction in the judge's figures.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy


Yeah I'd give the solider disabilty if hes injured in battle.

Would you court martial a pilot who refused a kamakazi mission? Would you think its ok for the army to force a women soilder to have breast reduction surgery, so her equitment could fit better?

Must you ask questions that are not relevant?

But to play along with you're obvious lack of knowledge about the military, I'll answer your questions. The answer is not only a no on my part, but a no on the part of the military given that what you described would constitute an unlawful order in each case and you don't have to obey them.

My point is simply that choice or own negligence can result in injury. If I refuse to carry a weapon or protective gear while in combat, it's my fault if I sustain any injuries. Apply that to preventative measures such as vaccines.

[Tmy]

Does the anthrax vaccination even work? How many service men have ever died of anthrax anyway. Whats the likely hood of an attack?

Is this a case of the cures being worse than the disease.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Luke T.
That phrase. "Adverse reaction." I wonder how they define that.

I had the anthrax series of shots. The second one caused my arm to turn red and it hurt for a few days. That happened to a lot of guys. Nothing fatal or crippling. Just a minor annoyance. I wonder if that counts as an adverse reaction in the judge's figures.

I had the series as well. No reaction to it whatsoever. But some guys and some itching. Also took 8 months worth pyridostigmine bromide or what was referred to as our little white NAP pills.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does the anthrax vaccination even work? How many service men have ever died of anthrax anyway. Whats the likely hood of an attack?

Is this a case of the cures being worse than the disease.

There are a few postal workers who wish they had had the anthrax vaccination.

[Tmy]

Well there are 6 service men who died from the vaccination. I bet they wished they skipped it.

Would the vaccine have saved the postal workers??? If you get vaccinated are you immune???

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well there are 6 service men who died from the vaccination. I bet they wished they skipped it.

Would the vaccine have saved the postal workers??? If you get vaccinated are you immune???

Apparently it does make you immune, or at least resistant. At least immune enough to convince veteranarians to get it for several decades now.

6 servicemen out of how many? That would be my math formula for estimating the number of adverse effects. Unless there are others who have permanent health problems from it.

I bet the rate is on par with the polio vaccine. But I'm no doc.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Experimental? I thought veterinarians have been taking these shots forever.

They have been, for at least 30 years. And there is now experience with over 1,000,000 military personnel.

Originally posted by Luke T.

So we can't get the math to narrow it down more than somewhere between 5 and 35 percent? :eek:

These are typical adverse reactions numbers, and are not serious. Ever get a tetanus booster and your shoulder is sore for a few days? That's an adverse reaction.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does the anthrax vaccination even work? How many service men have ever died of anthrax anyway. Whats the likely hood of an attack?

Is this a case of the cures being worse than the disease.

Yes, the vaccine does work. It was demonstrated in a human trial on fur workers in the 60s. An outbreak of anthrax occured, and only struck the unvaccinated population. Contrary to the report above, there have been no deaths linked to the vaccine. In the initial assessment of U.S. military with over 1,000,000 vaccinated in 98-00, only two deaths were reported, and both found to be coincidental (unrelated to the vaccine).

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well there are 6 service men who died from the vaccination. I bet they wished they skipped it.

Would the vaccine have saved the postal workers??? If you get vaccinated are you immune???

Untrue. Read the link attached earlier. Typical scare tactic used by anti-vaccination kooks that try to argue that any deaths associated with vaccines are caused by them. Most if not all are unrelated. And yes, the vaccine would've saved the postal workers.

[Troll]

There have been zero deaths and zero longterm side-effects of the anthrax vaccine among all posters who have received the vaccine among people in this thread.

After we return from a standard 6 month deployment courtesy of the USMC's taxi service, the Navy, one of the many guys on the deployment, a guy in my platton discovered he was anemic. His initial thoughts were that the malaria pills they gave us caused it. It turned out he was anemic prior to that according to a physical he took two months prior to the WestPac while applying for the sherrifs department. He finished his tour, went back to Texas and ate a shotgun. I'd hardly blame the pills for his suicide, but you can see where you can't stop digging once you hit the first connection that makes sense.

[Agammamon]

Problems with the vaccine:

The FDA has never finalised approval. So even though it's been around for 40+ years it's still an experimental treatment.

Bioport had been threatened with a shutdown by the FDA for quality control deficiencies, including gasket material in the vaccine matrix.

Unapproved manufacturing changes before GWI mean even if it had been licensed that license would have been invalidated. The GAO has issued 12 reports verifying the unapproved changes.

Based on a Navy study the FDA reclassified the vaccine due to a risk of birth defects.

The very report that the Pentagon uses to justify the charges against service members itself states that the vaccine is only "reasonably safe" and that a new vaccine is urgently needed.

Service members are denied the ability to present arguements concerning the illegality of the vaccination mandate.

A 1999 congressional testimony states that "There have been 3 reports of serious illness coincidentally associated with vaccination. . . reports involved hypersensitivity pneumonia. . .".

A 2003 government study on adverse reactions concluded that the vaccine was the "possible or probable" cause of pneumonia in some service mebers.

[Tmy]

There seems to be a whole lot of confusion here. On one side , the anthrax vaccine is near perfect and has been in effect for 40+ years. On the other side, its experimental, has been used by the military for less than 10 years, has a recation rate of maybe 30%!!!!?????

Whats with all the contradiction. I would figure that a fed judge would be provided with the latest trial proof by the govt side. Why was he not swayed?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Problems with the vaccine:

The FDA has never finalised approval. So even though it's been around for 40+ years it's still an experimental treatment.

Wrong. It is approved by FDA. The only experimental treatment aspect is for the CDC recommended usage of the vaccine as a post-exposure prophylaxis. And there is a second study underway to reduce the number of injections from 6 to 5.

Originally posted by Agammamon
Bioport had been threatened with a shutdown by the FDA for quality control deficiencies, including gasket material in the vaccine matrix.

Unapproved manufacturing changes before GWI mean even if it had been licensed that license would have been invalidated. The GAO has issued 12 reports verifying the unapproved changes.

Possible. But many drug manufacturers get cited by FDA for such issues.

Originally posted by Agammamon
Based on a Navy study the FDA reclassified the vaccine due to a risk of birth defects.

The very report that the Pentagon uses to justify the charges against service members itself states that the vaccine is only "reasonably safe" and that a new vaccine is urgently needed.

Service members are denied the ability to present arguements concerning the illegality of the vaccination mandate.

A 1999 congressional testimony states that "There have been 3 reports of serious illness coincidentally associated with vaccination. . . reports involved hypersensitivity pneumonia. . .".

A 2003 government study on adverse reactions concluded that the vaccine was the "possible or probable" cause of pneumonia in some service mebers.

All vaccines have adverse reactions, some serious. The fact is the incidence of very severe adverse reactions, as with all vaccines, is extremely low.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tmy
There seems to be a whole lot of confusion here. On one side , the anthrax vaccine is near perfect and has been in effect for 40+ years. On the other side, its experimental, has been used by the military for less than 10 years, has a recation rate of maybe 30%!!!!?????

Whats with all the contradiction. I would figure that a fed judge would be provided with the latest trial proof by the govt side. Why was he not swayed?

Nobody said it was "near perfect". The person claiming it is experimental is mis-informed, it is approved by FDA. The minor and serious adverse reaction incidence is similar to most other approved vaccines.

The contradiction comes from a growing anti-vaccination movement based on ignorance and fear. Judges, unfortunately, are not scientists.

[Tmy]

Oh no Btox!!! The Anthrax people have gotten to you too!!!:p

[BTox]

Yes, vaccines are all a big conspiracy. Just as Rouser - he'll give you all the gory details! ;)

[Tmy]

Dont even get me started on that big scam known as THE FLU VACCINE!!!