Testing the anthrax vaccine on children debate.

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 to post by nixie_nox


Not against my child - that's for sure!

As usual humans are the ginea pigs of big pharma, why they don't test it first on their own children and grandchildren? you know the CEOs of big pharma should give away their own family members to test their darn vaccines and crap. Right?

Is this anthrax thing really such a big threat that we've got to randomly start vaccinating people against it? Is it really such a big deal that they want to test it on children?

What exactly do these people know that we don't?

How stupid are they? Children? Really? I would most definitely say no, and seriously question parents that would allow this.

Our children are not guinea pigs, no matter how much the government would like them to be.

This is really odd considering the facts about how difficult it is for anthrax infections to spread. Simple containment measures and protective gear should be more than suffice. Quarantine strategy should be employed.

Anthrax spores can be produced in vitro and used as a biological weapon. Anthrax does not spread directly from one infected animal or person to another; it is spread by spores. These spores can be transported by clothing or shoes. The body of an animal that had active anthrax at the time of death can also be a source of anthrax spores.

Also since anthrax is a bacterial infection (not viral), most antibiotics work, although time is of the essence.

read this whole wiki

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 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.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
How stupid are they? Children? Really? I would most definitely say no, and seriously question parents that would allow this.

Our children are not guinea pigs, no matter how much the government would like them to be.

Obviously they are profiting from it, that's how things work isn't it?

It's a risk vs benefit issue, and the incredibly low risk of a biological attack using anthrax, one of the weaker bio-weapons in the entire arsenal, isn't great enough to justify the very real risks of adverse reactions in the subjects (kids).

Also imagine for a moment what if some of these kids contract live anthrax and spread it mistakenly?

The big question is, if there is the rare attack, would you advocate vaccinating those children to prevent long term exposure?

Yes, without testing for an emergency?

No, not at all.

Yes, only with testing for an emergency?

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

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The big question is, if there is the rare attack, would you advocate vaccinating those children to prevent long term exposure?

I am sick of people telling me what to put in my body, or that of my children.

I advocate people making their own decisions, if they want it, fine, if they don't, fine.

Don't let them fear monger you into testing an unknown chemical cocktail on your body.

Read the info I posted and realize the threat level from this type of weapon is exceptionally low compared to other known biological weapons.

There is no way that this should be allowed. There are too many children born to military families with illnesses that are uncatalogued or unexplained. Military personnel are required to receive this and a yearly booster, they then procreate, and their children become the product of "long term research".

Does anyone know if the immunities are passed from a mother that has received this, through pregnancy or breast milk and if so what would be the effects of vaccinating a child already immune. Would it require a blood titer?

I am worried because my profession will put me about third in line for the shots, first of course they would have to test on some poor country that would let our government inject them with just about anything for food.

I really hope this is not pursued. Thank you for sharing this S&F.

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.

Looks like the non humans are at it again, for them god does not exist but they play god they have reached the full circle to lunacy, next is depopulation because it will save the planet for them selves.

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.

Oh and the current FDA recommendations state as per the wiki's linked above:

However, given the low risk of exposure to anthrax, vaccination of these groups is not currently recommended by the FDA. In particular, "... Safety and effectiveness of BioThrax have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers, or in pediatric or geriatric populations."

So they admittedly don't know what this will do to kids.

I would have to side with the original policy here and hold back on this for now.

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.

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.