Feds To Test Anthrax Shot on Kids: U.S. panel backs anthrax experiments on children

[emmy526]

I guess they changed their minds again!!!

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/11/28/experimental-anthrax-vaccine-children/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vaccinationcouncil+%28International+Medical+Council+on+Vaccination%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

[elisheva]

You know what? I vax. I believe in most of the vaccines we have. But THIS. This is unfrickin'believable. This is going to push so many more people away from vaxxing. 

Because now? Now "they" really are as untrustworthy as we suspected. If my kids weren't already vaxxed, I'd be thinking twice in light of this bs 

[elisheva]

Here's a slightly more professional-sounding source (though I have no familiarity at all with this website): http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21113-us-to-test-anthrax-vaccine-in-children-maybe.html

[kblackstone444]

"Experiment", "anthrax" and "children" should never be in the same sentence.  Seriously... is the threat of ANTHRAX so severe that ANYONE needs to be vaccinated against it?  

[stik]

The Vaccination Council Article is very provocatively worded.  It seems to be skipping over a few key points that are highlighted in the article at newscientist.com.  Notably:

Quote:

The government says it will carry out an ethical study of the situation, however, before deciding on the tests. Much may depend on whether anthrax is still perceived as a real risk, after 10 years without a repeat of the 2001 anthrax attack.

In other words, the Feds think it would be good to know the impacts of the anthrax vaccine in children before administering the vaccine to children in a hypothetical future anthrax attack or outbreak, so they would like to test the vaccine in kids.  First, however, they will be carrying out an ethical assessment of the situation, as one does any time one carries out medical testing on human subjects.  This assessment must be carried out and a human subjects review board has to decide that the testing would be ethical, before any testing can take place.  

William C. Douglass Jr. at the Vaccination Council would like you to freak out and imagine government researchers casually counting dead babies post-vaccine-administration, and then exposing the survivors to anthrax spores.  There's no way that plan is getting past a human subjects review board.  Dr. Douglass's website "www.douglassreport.com" invites you to consider his other theories - you should stop using baby shampoo and buy his book of fabulous secret medical knowledge being hidden from you by doctors.  It's like someone printed up a conversation with my crazy MIL.  He also wrote this fascinating article: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/who.htm, in which he claims that homosexuals employed in restaurants are a threat to your health and you can get AIDS from mosquitos.  He appears to be in family practice in Florida, and he appears to be somewhat behind the times in his medical knowledge.  I can't find any information about his credentials or education.  I'm disinclined to put any faith in his assertions.  

To be honest, I don't love newscientist as a source either.  Their reporting seems more balanced, but not professional.  I would love to track this story to its source.  From what I'm seeing today, I think the source may be the same story that was discussed a month or so ago.  

[BeckyBird]

Well, I don't know anything about Dr. Douglass, but one thing is for sure--you should stop using baby shampoo. Not kidding. Try to use non toxic products for your baby. Most baby shampoos have toxic ingredients. I have never used baby shampoo on my DD, and she is just fine without it. Add baby lotions and soaps to the list. Read the ingredients, and try to avoid putting anything toxic on your baby's body. They deserve the best possible care.  

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-01/news/30347901_1_baby-products-johnson-s-baby-shampoo-johnson-johnson

[ma2two]

Federal officials who have the most complete knowledge regarding the anthrax threat to the U.S. should be the ones volunteering their children. If the threat of anthrax is not great enough for them to offer up their children, then nobody's children should be offered up.

[NYMommy2007]

It is fear mongering like this article that keeps people from vaccinating :-(.  I understand wanting to protect your children, but getting all angry over a false article and using this to support your feelings that the government is bad and can't be trusted is not helpful to anyone.  Please do your research.

Recommendation from the National Biodefense Science Board (in 2008)

http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nbsb/Documents/recsum110911.pdf

Pertinent section re-this discussion:

7. Recommendation - The U.S. Government must do a better job of preparing for anticipatable emergencies. By their nature, CBRN attacks are unpredictable. But some scenarios can be anticipated and it is incumbent upon the U.S. Government to plan for them. Such scenarios include the potential exposure of children to anthrax spores; therefore, the U.S. Government should undertake clinical trials to determine the appropriate pediatric dose of anthrax vaccine. Similarly, several other MCMs should be assessed for pediatric dosing. For CBRN incidents that arise before an MCM is licensed, that MCM may need to be administered under EUA status. Rather than wait until a CBRN incident occurs to assemble the scientific data needed by the FDA to issue an EUA, the U.S. Government should draft more mockup pre-EUA dossiers and data sets for the unlicensed/unapproved MCMs most likely to be needed. These preparatory activities would help establish the proper size of an MCM market and speed up distribution activities. Not to prepare

Info on the Board:

http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nbsb/Pages/default.aspx

[ma2two]

NYMommy2007, I trust that you will be volunteering your child(ren) for this study if possible? It would be much less morally reprehensible if educated, informed mothers volunteered their children after doing their research and deciding it to be a moral and necessary study, rather than financially disadvantaged parents who might volunteer their children in order to keep food on the table.

[stik]

Paying people to have their children participate in this kind of study would also never pass a HSRB.  The point is, the US government is NOT actually at this point in time trying to round up a study cohort of children to test the anthrax vaccine on.  They're looking for an ethical way to determine if the anthrax vaccine is safe for children.  

I think that's a worthwhile question, but I can see that designing an ethical study of this issue is going to be problematic.  One approach would be to test a vaccine in children who live in areas where anthrax is endemic.  Theoretically, these children could benefit from vaccination, which children in the US won't unless they are actually exposed (which is unlikely unless there actually is a terrorist attack, and we're really wanting to get the study outcome before an attack, not during/after).  The drawback to that approach is that it smacks of imperialism and exploitation, and children who live and work near cattle in countries where anthrax is endemic are not the US's lab rats.  Another approach would be to work on the formulation of the anthrax vaccine currently used in adults to reduce the side effects for which the anthrax vaccine is known.  Once a formulation with more minimal side effects is achieved, it would make sense to test the anthrax vax on kids, and then use blood tests to check for titers.  There are years of vaccine testing experience to draw on - I imagine there are other viable study designs that researchers who work on new vaccines would be aware of.  

I think we can agree that testing the current anthrax vaccine on children would be a bad thing.  However, the value of knowing if it can be used safely on children transcends the willingness of government officials (or MDC posters) to give their children anthrax shots, and "if you think it's so important, let's give the shot to your kid" is not really a good way to recruit a study cohort.  Scary descriptions of the double-blind model of drug testing in this case are a straw man deployed by vaccine critics to rouse hysteria, not a valid critique of the plan to find out if anthrax vaccination is more or less risky than anthrax for children.  

Edited by stik - 11/29/11 at 5:40pm

[ma2two]

Originally Posted by stik 

Paying people to have their children participate in this kind of study would also never pass a HSRB. 

This one must have passed HSRB. http://blog.al.com/live/2011/11/teens_sought_for_vaccine_clini.html The pay was $75, which could be a lot for a family with financial difficulties.

[erigeron]

^^^That's testing combinations of individual vaccines that are already approved and broadly used in that age group, though. Not really a comparison.

[stik]

Yup.  That's not a new vaccine at all.  They're paying people to take vaccinations as combo shots when they would have been getting those same vaccinations in multiple injections.  

[ma2two]

I guess we'll find out at some point (unfortunately) what (if anything) they will be paying for participation in the anthrax vaccine testing.

[stik]

Ma2Two, you seem adamant that there is no way that this question can possibly be answered ethically.  What do you think would be the appropriate and responsible way to determine whether or not anthrax vaccine should be administered to children in the event of a biological attack?

[ma2two]

There is no appropriate and responsible way, given the information we have at this time. If certain federal officials have other information, they should be the ones volunteering their children, like I said previously.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by stik 

Ma2Two, you seem adamant that there is no way that this question can possibly be answered ethically.  What do you think would be the appropriate and responsible way to determine whether or not anthrax vaccine should be administered to children in the event of a biological attack?

I think there must be a way to ethically determine if the vax is safe for children - other vaxes have been determined as being safe for children so it must be possible for this one as well. I do not work in the scientific community however, so I don't know how it would be done. I personally don't have a problem with the government exploring possible solutions to that question - nothing has been decided, no clinical trials are being undertaken at this time, its just a question being explored. I'd much rather the question be explored and have nothing done, than have children vaxed during an attack without having ever consider the question.  kwim?

[stik]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

There is no appropriate and responsible way, given the information we have at this time. If certain federal officials have other information, they should be the ones volunteering their children, like I said previously.

Don't you think that would be weird?  Assuming that certain government officials have information that an anthrax attack is quite likely within the next ten years.  What if those government officials don't even have children?  Do we then resign yourselves to never answering the question either way?  And if they have the information AND they have children, and therefore they enroll their children in a study which potentially benefits them if the attack comes before the end of the study AND if the vaccine really helps, is it ethical for them to deny vaccination to other children until the study results come in, given that many children could theoretically benefit from anthrax vaccination if there is another anthrax attack, and if the vaccine is shown to be safe? 

One way to look at conducting the study on the children of government officials is to say that since it's so important to their parents who are the only people who have information, they should be the test subjects, which isn't really fair given the risks of this particular vaccine as it is currently formulated, and given that we're talking about innocent children here.  But another interpretation is that, because their parents are politically powerful, the children in the study would be receiving a benefit that is being systematically denied to all other children in the US.  That's not fair either.  We wouldn't be able to assess which kind of injustice is being perpetrated until the study results come back. 

It's clear from this thread that you are going to repeat your one, inflammatory and vindictive suggestion over and over again, and nothing I say will change what you have now repeated three times and will probably repeat again.  However, for people who are reading this to consider a broader array of possibilities, I think it's interesting to consider this as a scientific and ethical problem that is likely to have a complicated solution.  I think holding public officials responsible for acting ethically is a crucial piece of responsible citizenship, so considering what ethical study design would look like is really important - it's also important to understand that simply giving the shots to the children of public officials does not constitute ethical study design. 

[BeckyBird]

Considering the Anthrax vaccine is so reactive with adults, I don't know if there will be an ethical way to test it with children.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Considering the Anthrax vaccine is so reactive with adults, I don't know if there will be an ethical way to test it with children.

And then maybe the answer is that the govt spends some money to have the current vax re-formulated so that it is NOT as reactive with adults, and is then safer, and able to be tested with children.  Use your imaginations folks - this question can be answered in many different ways - it is not a yes or no question, and even if it is, there is lots of room for, "No, not right now but we can take xyz steps to do abc to make it safe and ethical to test on children."

Maybe the vaccine can be re-made in a different way that will make it safer for everyone - adults and children alike.  It's a possible solution.  But if the government never considers the question, they will never come to that conclusion.