Testing the anthrax vaccine on children debate., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 25-10-2011 @ 10:44 AM by nixie_nox
The Obama administration is wrestling with the thorny question of whether scientists should inject healthy children with the anthrax vaccine to see whether the shots would safely protect them against a bioterrorism attack.

www.washingtonpost.com

My opinion, absolutely not.

The effect is unkown. It is another vaccination on top of the 27 vaccinations children get. 21 of those are before the age of six.

The chances of being caught in a bioterrorism attack are next to none. An attack on the scale of 911 can occure every month and your chances of being involved are 1 in 100,000.

I believe that the harm vaccines can cause far outweigh any bioterroism risk.

This article is informing. In the case of an anthrax attack, you do have 24 hours to take an anti-biotic. Every state has an emergency stockpile of anti biotics and vaccines.

The vaccine is over concern that if a wide spread distributed attack, how do you protect people long term?

Is this going too far in the name of safety?


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 11:08 AM by nixie_nox
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck



So far the only people getting vaccinated are military personnel going overseas, so only roughly 2 million people have received it.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has received this vaccine.

The people who are deciding this are panels of bioethicists. But I don't know how much this particular group is linked to big pharma.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 11:10 AM by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash



Natural occurring anthrax doesn't not spread that easy. When they are talking about using it as a bio terrorist weapon, they are worried about mass exposure.Imagine a dirty bomb or a drop from a plane.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 11:20 AM by muzzleflash
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to
post by muzzleflash



Natural occurring anthrax doesn't not spread that easy. When they are talking about using it as a bio terrorist weapon, they are worried about mass exposure.Imagine a dirty bomb or a drop from a plane.


It's potential to spread is a joke compared to many other bio-weapons.

For example ebolapox.

More recently, Alibek claims, the Vector researchers may have created a recombinant Ebola-smallpox chimera. One could call it Ebolapox. Ebola virus uses the molecule RNA for its genetic code, whereas smallpox uses DNA. Alibek believes that the Russian researchers made a DNA copy of the disease-causing parts of Ebola, then grafted them into smallpox. Alibek said he thinks that the Ebolapox virus is stable -- that is, that it will replicate successfully in a test tube or in animals -- which means that, once created, Ebolapox will live forever in a laboratory, and will not uncreate itself. Thus a new form of life may have been brought into the world.


"The Ebolapox could produce the form of smallpox called blackpox," Alibek says. Blackpox, sometimes known as hemorrhagic smallpox, is the most severe type of smallpox disease. In a blackpox infection, the skin does not develop blisters. Instead, the skin becomes dark all over. Blood vessels leak, resulting in severe internal hemorrhaging. Blackpox is invariably fatal. "As a weapon, the Ebolapox would give the hemorrhages and high mortality rate of Ebola virus, which would give you a blackpox, plus the very high contagiousness of smallpox," Alibek said.


Where is my ebolapox vaccine? Seriously, this is getting absurd.
You would need 350 different vaccines to stay safe from potential bio-attack.

There is no real defense, it's not practical.

link added
edit on 25-10-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 02:10 PM by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash



I agree with you in that you can't vaccinate against everything. You bring up a valid point there.

But a viral pandemic and a bacterial infection are two different things and would be handled a little differently. Why anthrax may not be the worse, it does have staying capability in the environment causing waves of re infection, and it can be powdered everywhere, where viruses can be contained to a certain extent. Viruses don't live long outside the body.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 06:03 PM by muzzleflash
reply to post by UdderlyInsane



In May 1881 Louis Pasteur performed a public experiment to demonstrate his concept of vaccination. He prepared two groups of 25 sheep, one goat and several cows. The animals of one group were injected with an anthrax vaccine prepared by Pasteur twice, at an interval of 15 days; the control group was left unvaccinated. Thirty days after the first injection, both groups were injected with a culture of live anthrax bacteria. All the animals in the non-vaccinated group died, while all of the animals in the vaccinated group survived.[33] The human vaccine for anthrax became available in 1954. This was a cell-free vaccine instead of the live-cell Pasteur-style vaccine used for veterinary purposes. An improved cell-free vaccine became available in 1970.[34]


So yes you can gain resistance after being exposed, although keep in mind it also states that it reacts differently with each species, and Pasteur did this to several farm animals.

There is some information about vaccines as well.

An anthrax vaccine licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and produced from one non-virulent strain of the anthrax bacterium, is manufactured by BioPort Corporation, subsidiary of Emergent BioSolutions. The trade name is BioThrax, although it is commonly called Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA). It was formerly administered in a six-dose primary series at 0, 2, 4 weeks and 6, 12, 18 months, with annual boosters to maintain immunity. On December 11, 2008, the FDA approved omitting the week 2 dose, resulting in the currently recommended five-dose series.[26]

Unlike NATO countries, the Soviets developed and used a live spore anthrax vaccine, known as the STI vaccine, produced in Tbilisi, Georgia. Its serious side-effects restrict use to healthy adults.[27]


Anthrax wiki
BioThrax wiki

The approved US FDA package insert for Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed contains the following notice:

The most common (>10%) local (injection-site) adverse reactions observed in clinical studies were tenderness, pain, erythema and arm motion limitation. The most common (>5%) systemic adverse reactions were muscle aches, fatigue and headache.

Serious allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock, have been observed during post-marketing surveillance in individuals receiving BioThrax™.


Anaphylaxis is defined as "a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death".[1]

Anaphylaxis

Prognosis
There have been cases of death occurring with minutes.[11]


There are risks that some serious side effects can occur it appears.

The Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed contains aluminium hydroxide as an adjuvant.[3] Each dose of the vaccine contains no more than 0.83 mg aluminum per 0.5 mL dose. This is near the allowed upper limit of 0.85 mg/dose.[11] The BioPort anthrax vaccine also contains 0.0025% benzethonium chloride as a preservative, and 0.0037% formaldehyde as a stabilizer.[3] In 2007, tests with mice of the anthrax vaccine using aluminum hydroxide adjuvant were reported as resulting in adverse neuropathy symptoms.[12]


The more I look into this subject, the less it seems to weigh on the benefit vs risk scale.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 08:42 PM by nixie_nox
reply to post by muzzleflash



Most vaccines have nasty stuff in them and just about anything can cause an allergic reaction. What I take great issue with is how insanely little information is given to a person receiving a vaccine. when does a health care professional ever tell you what is in it, what the side effects are, and what is the failure percentage.


reply posted on 25-10-2011 @ 10:26 PM by muzzleflash
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to
post by muzzleflash



Most vaccines have nasty stuff in them and just about anything can cause an allergic reaction. What I take great issue with is how insanely little information is given to a person receiving a vaccine. when does a health care professional ever tell you what is in it, what the side effects are, and what is the failure percentage.


Well, sometimes you can find a good physician who will inform you about anything you ask them.

However it is becoming more and more common that there are professionals who honestly do not know these answers themselves, and that's understandable to an extent because there are decades worth of information out there to study research and learn about.

I am a bit disturbed by that issue, and I hope that we raise the bar rather than lower it in this particular field.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus
  Posted 8 days ago with 64 member flags
DIY lets cure cancer simple as that
  Posted 4 days ago with 19 member flags
Why are dead people waking up around the world?
  Posted 7 days ago with 12 member flags
Dying For A Smile
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags
Harvard To Be Tried for Alzheimer\'s Research Fraud
  Posted 7 days ago with 10 member flags
Man loses penis to flesh eating bacteria
  Posted 7 days ago with 9 member flags