Posted on 10/31/2011 8:29:24 PM PDT by neverdem
I say you ask for volunteers and do the study.
If we get hit with Anthrax, you may not be able to vaccinate enough people in time to prevent death.
Were I President, I’d vaccinate my children and allow a third party agency verify that my kids were carrying the antibodies.
A vaccine against Anthrax is a big, big deal. I’m very glad there are efforts within government to protect against weapons like this.
A mandate is only a short step away, especially for an administration which thinks it can Constitutionally require you to purchase health insurance (not "care").
Close, test it on the children of these board members, their siblings children, and any one else that is in their family, test all of THEIR children first.
Then test it on all the children in the federal government, including the White Huts two girls.
THEN, they can see if it is safe, then the general population can take it, IF they want to.
My husband is a tough as nails soldier.
I’ve seen him come down with the flu once in 22 years. Other than a mild case of the ‘sniffles’ once a winter, he’s never sick.
The anthrax shot turns him inside out. He’s sick for a week after. It’s the only thing that we *know* will bring him to his knees and he’s had it three or four times. (I’ve lost count, but you can believe that *he* hasn’t!)
Everything that we do medically to our children involves a risk/benefit analysis. There is no way I’d subject my kids to this shot without a good reason.
As another poster pointed out, the odds are that an anthrax attack wouldn’t be a wide-spread crisis. It would be a localized problem.
AT THAT TIME, we break up the already exposed kids into two groups - one that gets the higher dose and kids that get the lower dose. Exposed children would be at risk and it would be ethical to give them the shot. It is not ethical to give a healthy child a vaccination that may harm them when their risk of exposure to the pathogen is nearly zero.
I recall the broadcast, and the word was that what the Ford family received on TV was not the vaccine, but sterile normal saline solution.
There had been many claims of problems with the vaccine (which is why the publicity stunt). Would you risk the life of the POTUS, (recall, this was 1976) or his effectiveness over a shot when you can screen persons in contact with him?
In the end, the vaccine is credited with more deaths than the disease.
The trouble with that approach is that it usually takes a few weeks to generate an immune response as measured by specific antibodies for anthrax, IMHO.
I believe you are correct, but darn, I just don’t see giving this to kids.
That’s because a trial like this one is almost without precedent in modern medical research: It involves giving children a vaccine that is almost certain not to benefit them, and that might harm them,
///
the United Nations, and the New York Times,
wants to give ALL children in the world,
the Gardasil vaccine.
...which ONLY prevents 4 HPV viruses of 126,
and ONLY helps if the child is sexually active.
and then possibly only for 5 years.
at the low cots of $360 for the 3 shots?
A Vaccine May Shield Boys Too (Gardasil )
New York Times ^
UN Wants Billions for STD Vaccination Scheme
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2795479/posts?page=13#13
I suggest we try it on their kids first.
They can take their vaccine a shove it.
Our children aren’t lab rats.
‘I wouldnt allow my child 3,000 yards of that vaccine.’
Let’s try the vaccine on Obama.
“Our children arent lab rats.”
No they are not, and even our soldiers have been harmed by taking the vaccice:
” In this case, protecting means injecting children who will probably face no threat of being exposed to anthrax with a vaccine that has caused the most fit Americans, its servicemen, such severe reactions as heart problems and diabetes.”
“The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in June 2007 that some servicemembers who received the anthrax and smallpox vaccines experienced severe reactions such as migraines, heart problems, and the onset of diseases including diabetes and multiple sclerosis.’
And since there’s such a small chance that our children won’t be exposed to anthrax, imo, and the opinion of experts, it’s not worth the risk.
I think that is the sum of it. The risk outweighs the benefit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.