Anthrax Vaccines
- Thread starter G-Freeman
- Start date
- Status
O
olazul
Guest
I too think this vaccine should be readily available to the general public.
I do not agree with the political side of the AMA. I would never give them money and feel they have very left wing policies. That said the articles published- on medicine -in JAMA are usually top notch. I also do not believe everything the CDC states blindly.
Actually anthrax is a superb biochemical battlefield weapon, just spray it upwind and let nature do the rest- better hope the wind does not change though!. Not the best if you want to end the world since there is no person to person transmission, but very effective over a 3-5day period on the troops you are facing. Drug resistant strains are plentiful in nature and spores are very hearty by design.
Alan B- All I have is my lowly opinion. I think I see where the misunderstanding is. Hep B in the past has had thimerisol, a preservative containing mercury in it. There was some concern that cumulative exposure (evironment + vaccine)to infants in the first 6mos. of life could be detrimental to development. Therefore the AAP(amer assoc pediatrics) and the CDC stated that the first vaccine could be put off until the child is 2-6mos old unless born to a hep B + female. There is a new vaccine which does not contain thimerisol and is given to newborns. The reccomendation is still to get your child immunized. Here's a link that can probably explain it better than I.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/news/thimerosal-AAP&PHS.htm
I cannot comment on the initial studies of the anthrax vaccine because I have not read them, but since this has been given for several years I would expect the major bugs to be worked out.
And congradulations on the little one!!!!!!!!
FWIW I would probably take the vaccine since I think it makes sense BUT I don't like to be told what to do, particularly when it's the government
I guess that's why I could never have cut it in the military!
question authority- politely,
Olazul
[This message has been edited by olazul (edited October 13, 1999).]
I do not agree with the political side of the AMA. I would never give them money and feel they have very left wing policies. That said the articles published- on medicine -in JAMA are usually top notch. I also do not believe everything the CDC states blindly.
Actually anthrax is a superb biochemical battlefield weapon, just spray it upwind and let nature do the rest- better hope the wind does not change though!. Not the best if you want to end the world since there is no person to person transmission, but very effective over a 3-5day period on the troops you are facing. Drug resistant strains are plentiful in nature and spores are very hearty by design.
Alan B- All I have is my lowly opinion. I think I see where the misunderstanding is. Hep B in the past has had thimerisol, a preservative containing mercury in it. There was some concern that cumulative exposure (evironment + vaccine)to infants in the first 6mos. of life could be detrimental to development. Therefore the AAP(amer assoc pediatrics) and the CDC stated that the first vaccine could be put off until the child is 2-6mos old unless born to a hep B + female. There is a new vaccine which does not contain thimerisol and is given to newborns. The reccomendation is still to get your child immunized. Here's a link that can probably explain it better than I.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/news/thimerosal-AAP&PHS.htm
I cannot comment on the initial studies of the anthrax vaccine because I have not read them, but since this has been given for several years I would expect the major bugs to be worked out.
And congradulations on the little one!!!!!!!!
FWIW I would probably take the vaccine since I think it makes sense BUT I don't like to be told what to do, particularly when it's the government
I guess that's why I could never have cut it in the military!question authority- politely,
Olazul
[This message has been edited by olazul (edited October 13, 1999).]
- Status