or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Is this for real or an onion? Anthrax vaccine trials in children?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is this for real or an onion? Anthrax vaccine trials in children?

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 

I don't know this newspaper, but this is seriously wrong if this is true!

 

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=354859&paper=81&cat=104

post #2 of 44

sorry, i put a post about the wrong disease...


Edited by emmy526 - 10/25/11 at 2:55am
post #3 of 44

It's real, unfortunately. Of course, as usual in vaccine studies, other vaccines are used as the controls, not real placebos. So the adverse effects of the anthrax vaccine will be compared to the adverse effects of other vaccines, which will make the adverse effects appear to be less severe and less common.

 

Vaccine proponents usually claim that other vaccines are used as controls because it would be "unethical" to "withhold" proven vaccines. But the anthrax vaccine is not currently used in children. So of course, that argument can't be used.

post #4 of 44


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
but the fact of the matter is that nearly 18 percent of children in the older vaccinated group suffered serious adverse events from the vaccine, while more than 13 percent in the youngest group suffered the same. And more than 150 children from both groups died during the study (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...).Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033951_malaria_vaccine.html#ixzz1bj4jOe6N


This article is misleading.  It should have stated "following" rather than "from."  Nearly 18 and 13 percent of the children in the respective groups had very bad things happen to them in the period following vaccination, but that doesn't mean they were caused by the vaccine.  

 

Some of the reactions such as cases of seizures, allergic reaction, and possibly meningitis likely were related to vaccination.  But other reactions reported as part of those numbers were most likely not related, such as 85 cases of HIV (30 deaths), 90 cases of salmonella, 58 cases of malnutrition, 28 of kwashiorkor, a death from measles, 5 deaths from drowning, 2 deaths from head injuries... the list goes on.  

 

They track adverse events so they can investigate whether they could be caused by the vaccine and compare rates of adverse events by type with what occurs in the control group and what would be expected  for the population.  Just looking at the total number really doesn't tell you much of anything at all without analysis and comparison. 

 

Also, I'm not sure why an article about a malaria vaccine was cut and pasted to a thread asking about anthrax vaccine trials?  But given the devastating effects malaria can have in developing nations, an effective and safe vaccine for it is a worthy goal to be working toward.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #5 of 44

Oh DEAR JUDAS!  People in the military got kicked out for refusing that one!  Anthrax?  WTF?!

post #6 of 44

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/possible-study-of-anthrax-vaccines-effectiveness-in-children-stirs-debate/2011/10/13/gIQAFWLdDM_story.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1

 

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.

The other option is to wait until an attack happens and then try to gather data from children whose parents agree to inoculate them in the face of an actual threat.A key working group of federal advisers in September endorsed testing, sparking objections from those who consider that step unethical, unnecessary and dangerous. The National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), which advises the federal government, is to meet Friday to vote on its working group’s recommendation

A key working group of federal advisers in September endorsed testing, sparking objections from those who consider that step unethical, unnecessary and dangerous. The National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), which advises the federal government, is to meet Friday to vote on its working group’s recommendation.

 

post #7 of 44

Where are these children's parents? Or are they going to experiment on foster kids and institutionalized kids? Classy, either way.

post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

 

The other option is to wait until an attack happens and then try to gather data from children whose parents agree to inoculate them in the face of an actual threat.

A key working group of federal advisers in September endorsed testing, sparking objections from those who consider that step unethical, unnecessary and dangerous. The National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), which advises the federal government, is to meet Friday to vote on its working group’s recommendation.

 


 

 

Absolutely ridiculous.  There has never BEEN an anthrax attack in the U.S.  I'm so glad to see our tax dollars hard at work here.  

 

post #9 of 44

Since it's a bacteria... an antibiotic will do the trick if it's discovered.  It's important to know exactly what Anthrax is and how it's spread.  If someone wants to release a bio weapon of Anthrax it could possibly be obvious.  Anthrax is spread by spores.  Skin, breathing it in and ingesting it.  That's why it affects mostly animals that graze.  Yes Anthrax can kill you however there have been only one case I believe in the US and it had to do with a drum that a woman was either using or working on that had been shipped here from somewhere else.  The sending of powder through the mail... yeah that's really not going to work.  The person who handled the "powder" would be sick and the people that opened it would also be sick.  It's slightly ridiculous and over played.

post #10 of 44
Thread Starter 

It is true... I just saw an article about this in the Washington Post. This is really... well to put it nicely very questionable. I wonder whose kids will be recruited to be part of the study. That's the part I really want to know, cause quite frankly, no sane parent would sign up their kid to be part of a trial for a disease that maybe, maybe not be part of a terrorism attack and a vaccine that already has a bad report card. I mean seriously???? ... and why oh why do I have a feeling military kids will be most likely guinea pigs? Because the military peds on base are the WORST vaccine pushers (and yes, they do like to threaten with lies, I have seen it many times by now). And parents get scared of them and comply to everything. Even MMR shots for 9 months olds. Yup, has happened. Last year.

post #11 of 44

I find this troubling, but I don't know enough about how likely it is that there will be future anthrax attacks or the vaccine and it's potential risks to have an opinion either for or against it.   I do, however want to address a couple points here. 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

Absolutely ridiculous.  There has never BEEN an anthrax attack in the U.S.  I'm so glad to see our tax dollars hard at work here.  

 


 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

Since it's a bacteria... an antibiotic will do the trick if it's discovered.  It's important to know exactly what Anthrax is and how it's spread.  If someone wants to release a bio weapon of Anthrax it could possibly be obvious.  Anthrax is spread by spores.  Skin, breathing it in and ingesting it.  That's why it affects mostly animals that graze.  Yes Anthrax can kill you however there have been only one case I believe in the US and it had to do with a drum that a woman was either using or working on that had been shipped here from somewhere else.  The sending of powder through the mail... yeah that's really not going to work.  The person who handled the "powder" would be sick and the people that opened it would also be sick.  It's slightly ridiculous and over played.


Just because it is an bacteria does not mean that a few doses of antibiotics will make everything okay.  Inhaled anthrax is fatal more often than not even with treatment, and while the non-inhaled is not nearly as deadly as the inhaled, it still has a high enough death rate to be very scary.  

 

The sending of powder does work and has been done in the US.  In 2001, in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks, a number of letters containing anthrax spores were sent to a couple senate offices and news corporations  and such.  5 people died and 17 others were sickened.  These include people who opened letters themselves and those in their offices, postal workers who handled the mail (the particles were small enough that some could pass through the paper envelopes), and at leas one person who wasn't connected to the offices but whose mail had likely been contaminated by one of the anthrax envelopes while being processed.  In addition to the price paid in human life and health, decontamination and cleanup following the attacks cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  It's believed that only a small number of letters were sent.  It could have been much, much worse.  It got a lot of news coverage at the time.  Not nearly as much as the twin tower attacks themselves, of course, but still, not sure how you missed it.  

 

 

 

post #12 of 44

http://www.naturalnews.com/033988_anthrax_vaccine_medical_experiments.html

(NaturalNews) There is currently no known threat of a bioterrorism attack, let alone any sort of tangible threat of widespread anthrax poisoning. And yet a group of advisers to the federal government's National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB) are now suggesting that healthy children be injected with an untested anthrax vaccine just to see if it offers any sort of protection from anthrax poisoning.

This outlandish proposal marks a new low in the federal government's public display of respect for human life, and is one that many are decrying as completely unethical and just plain dangerous. And yet the Obama administration's NBSB is very seriously considering approving it, and will vote on it this upcoming Friday.

Daniel B. Fagbuyiof from the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, recently tried to defend the proposal to theWashington Post(WP) by generating fear about a potential future biological attack. He alleges that if children do not get the vaccine now for research purposes, they will end up getting an untested version of it later.


Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033988_anthrax_vaccine_medical_experiments.html#ixzz1bw0U3FZy

 

"The sending of powder through the mail... yeah that's really not going to work.  The person who handled the "powder" would be sick and the people that opened it would also be sick.  It's slightly ridiculous and over played."

 

there was an elderly woman in my state who died from anthrax after she opened her mail and inhaled it. 

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-22/health/anthrax.death_1_inhalation-anthrax-anthrax-strain-anthrax-cases?_s=PM:HEALTH

 


Investigators sought answers Thursday as to how an elderly Connecticut widow in a quiet New England town contracted inhalation anthrax, which killed her one day before Thanksgiving.

Ottilie Lundgren, 94, became the nation's fifth anthrax fatality since letters laced with the deadly bacteria began turning up in the mail last month.

 

post #13 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 It got a lot of news coverage at the time.  Not nearly as much as the twin tower attacks themselves, of course, but still, not sure how you missed it.  

 

 

 



Uh, I didn't miss it.  It just wasn't an attack, or at least not in the way a vaccine given to children would be necessary.  Don't forget, the suspect was an American scientist who killed himself and was determined to be the culprit despite very little evidence against him.  The enemy is us. 

post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Uh, I didn't miss it.  It just wasn't an attack, or at least not in the way a vaccine given to children would be necessary.  Don't forget, the suspect was an American scientist who killed himself and was determined to be the culprit despite very little evidence against him.  The enemy is us. 

 

So it is only an attack if the perpetrator is foreign?  What was it then, a naughty prank that just happened to kill people? I'm confused. 

 

One of ones sickened was an infant, but you're right in that I don't think they would have had any reason at that time to vaccinate children.  Still, it shows the potential -what if next time whatever crazy individual or terrorist organization or whatever built on this and sent many more letters?  Or started dispersing it through ventilation systems of shopping malls or at public events?

 

It does sound a bit far fetched to me at this point in time, and like I said, I don't actually have an opinion on this because I don't know enough about why their reasons for considering this or the vaccine to have one.  I just wanted to clarify that curing Anthrax is not as simple as prescribing a round of antibiotics, there has been more than one case, that Anthrax has been used deliberately in an attack (or whatever you want to call it... an anthrax incident?) in the United States, and that it was by sending letters through the mail.  

 

 


 

 

post #15 of 44
We were "invited" to have our daughter join the swine flu vaccine trials. I told them HELL no. There is no WAY she'd be getting an anthrax vaccine. I'm very aware of the possible side effects from having family working for the federal government.
post #16 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

So it is only an attack if the perpetrator is foreign?  What was it then, a naughty prank that just happened to kill people? I'm confused. 

 

One of ones sickened was an infant, but you're right in that I don't think they would have had any reason at that time to vaccinate children.  Still, it shows the potential -what if next time whatever crazy individual or terrorist organization or whatever built on this and sent many more letters?  Or started dispersing it through ventilation systems of shopping malls or at public events?

 

It does sound a bit far fetched to me at this point in time, and like I said, I don't actually have an opinion on this because I don't know enough about why their reasons for considering this or the vaccine to have one.  I just wanted to clarify that curing Anthrax is not as simple as prescribing a round of antibiotics, there has been more than one case, that Anthrax has been used deliberately in an attack (or whatever you want to call it... an anthrax incident?) in the United States, and that it was by sending letters through the mail.  

 

 


 

 

 

Yeah, actually I think of it as more like a malicious prank than an attack.  Sorry to confuse you, but I do appreciate the condescension. 
 

 

post #17 of 44

Problem is, I was working Intel during 9/11.  There is no evidence that supports your claim.  As far as Anthrax being deadly.  Yes it is.  However the first set of Americans that got the Anthrax vaccine will not tell you it's harmless.  My brother will not tell you it's harmless.  Pick and choose I say.  Now of course we can all hope they have made some advances in that department.  Hope.  I will not be fear mongered.  I spent my time in the military world and I'm well aware of how to read between the lines. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

I find this troubling, but I don't know enough about how likely it is that there will be future anthrax attacks or the vaccine and it's potential risks to have an opinion either for or against it.   I do, however want to address a couple points here. 

 

 



 

 


Just because it is an bacteria does not mean that a few doses of antibiotics will make everything okay.  Inhaled anthrax is fatal more often than not even with treatment, and while the non-inhaled is not nearly as deadly as the inhaled, it still has a high enough death rate to be very scary.  

 

The sending of powder does work and has been done in the US.  In 2001, in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks, a number of letters containing anthrax spores were sent to a couple senate offices and news corporations  and such.  5 people died and 17 others were sickened.  These include people who opened letters themselves and those in their offices, postal workers who handled the mail (the particles were small enough that some could pass through the paper envelopes), and at leas one person who wasn't connected to the offices but whose mail had likely been contaminated by one of the anthrax envelopes while being processed.  In addition to the price paid in human life and health, decontamination and cleanup following the attacks cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  It's believed that only a small number of letters were sent.  It could have been much, much worse.  It got a lot of news coverage at the time.  Not nearly as much as the twin tower attacks themselves, of course, but still, not sure how you missed it.  

 

 

 



 

post #18 of 44

Experimenting on foster/institutionalized kids.....their classic modus operandi.

 

 

 

post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

Problem is, I was working Intel during 9/11.  There is no evidence that supports your claim.  As far as Anthrax being deadly.  Yes it is.  However the first set of Americans that got the Anthrax vaccine will not tell you it's harmless.  My brother will not tell you it's harmless.  Pick and choose I say.  Now of course we can all hope they have made some advances in that department.  Hope.  I will not be fear mongered.  I spent my time in the military world and I'm well aware of how to read between the lines. 
 

 


 

Are you saying that there is no evidence that Anthrax sent through the mail killed five people?

 

I didn't make any claims about the vaccine or the safety of it or lack thereof, and you agree with me that Anthrax is deadly, so I'm not sure what else you could mean?

 

post #20 of 44

I am saying, I have yet to actually see real concrete evidence that shows deaths in the US from Anthrax.  A news article?  Wiki?  Not my kind of sources. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Is this for real or an onion? Anthrax vaccine trials in children?