Unfortunately this horrible vaccine will never have the truth told about it in any real sense now that there is Anthrax hysteria out there. Those who look to the government and shriek for their action will all be persueded that this vaccine is the savior of their lives.
That is a risk they will take. One that I will not. I testified in congress about this vaccine, I did my homework and I will not take it. Even if it means they lose this pilot from the ranks.
By Anita Manning, USA Today
The anthrax vaccine is effective and safe enough to use to protect U.S. soldiers, says a panel of medical experts. But there are not enough studies to assure its safety for wide use by the public, and a better vaccine is needed, according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute of Medicine.
"The issue takes on particular urgency since the recent use of anthrax spores in the mail system," says Brian Strom of the University of Pennsylvania, who chaired the institute committee that investigated the anthrax vaccine.
The vaccine has been given to about 2 million people, mostly U.S. military personnel. In the USA, only one manufacturer, BioPort Corp. of Lansing, Mich., is licensed to produce it.
Some service men and women have reported disabling and chronic illnesses — including joint pain, vision and skin problems, and chronic fatigue — that occurred after they received anthrax shots. Fears of vaccine reactions have led more than 400 to refuse the shots, often ending their military careers.
But the panel, which advises the government on scientific issues, found no evidence that the vaccine was responsible for those ills, saying it is as likely to cause side effects as any other shot given to adults. Unlike other vaccines, anthrax shots are given six times over 18 months, followed by annual boosters.
"The anthrax vaccine, like any other drug, has risks associated with it," Strom says. Because the disease is not passed from person to person, and the number of people at risk is limited, "there is no reason for broad use of it," he says.
"Its side effects, coupled with the long series of doses required, are among the realities that underscore the need for a new and improved alternative," Strom says.
The Department of Defense sponsored the study, and Strom points out that the panel was not asked to review military policy or recommend whether the public should be vaccinated. That said, "it is effective, it is safe enough to use in populations at high risk."
Most of the information on the vaccine pertains to preventing anthrax before exposure to the bacteria's spores. Strom says the information on its effectiveness after exposure is limited, but he would advise its use, along with antibiotics, by anyone exposed to the microbe.
After postal workers, Capitol Hill employees and others were potentially exposed to anthrax sent through the mail last fall, those at high risk for exposure were given antibiotics and were offered anthrax vaccine. Most postal workers refused, citing safety concerns, but the report says that as of Feb. 25, 192 people had begun receiving the vaccine.
The report states that more data are needed on long-term health problems.
Physician Meryl Nass of Freeport, Maine, who is a critic of the DOD's anthrax vaccine program, says research unconnected to DOD is needed.
Until that happens, she says, "the public will not receive valid scientific data."
____________________________________
"...safe enough to use to protect U.S. soldiers, says a panel of medical experts. But there are not enough studies to assure its safety for wide use by the public, and a better vaccine is needed."
If a better vaccine is needed, then why is it still considered "safe" for the military?