or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Anthrax Trials to Begin in Children
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anthrax Trials to Begin in Children - Page 2

post #21 of 46

Anthrax can be treated by administering antibiotics or in severe cases there is an inhaleable monoclonial antibody treatment.

 

What they are discussing, these clinical experiments trials on children is ridiculous.

 

Do you understand the current BioThrax vaccine is contains 1200 mcg of Al in EACH injection (The highest mcgs in any vaccine currently licensed in the US). Currently the recommendation is a 3 shot-injection schedule at 0, 3, 6 months with two boosters at 12 and 18 mos following initiation of series....with ANNUAL BOOSTERS following that.

 

Ahhhhh, now we see why the push for trials....

post #22 of 46
I think the only reason theyre considering it is because of the possibility of a major attack, in which case the supply of things like antibiotics and antibodies may be limited.

I'm not sure if your last line is supposed it be sarcastic or not, but yeah, that kind of is why they are discussing the ethics of trials, to sort out dosage, etc.

I still think all of this outrage is kind of premature. There aren't even any studies proposed and there are still major hurdles before there could be.
post #23 of 46

In a country like the US the supply of antibiotics seems just fine. And if it was a concern, why not stockpile appropriate antibiotics? Much cheaper than stockpiling Tamiflu. Just saying....

 

The trials make absolutely no sense, were halted now anyways, and all you really need to do is follow the money. The company that makes the vaccine only has this product and nothing else. And guess who they donate money to! That is not sarcastic in the least, it's just so painfully obvious, there isn't even an effort to pretend otherwise.

post #24 of 46

...premature...hmm, maybe - i guess we could wait until a clinical trial is initiated and children are needless endangered.

smile.gif

 

I believe forming an opinion early on and being vocal about is absolutely benefical - especially when it effects children

post #25 of 46

I don't think they are really worried about running out of antibiotics.  The problem is that even with prompt treatment, anthrax, the worst sort, still has a pretty high mortality rate.  Nearly half the people in the Anthrax attacks in the US a little over a decade ago died. 

 

It makes sense to me that the people responsible for ensuring we are prepared for these possible attacks want to do everything they can to ensure that is the case. 

 

However, I really don't think it's ever going to happen.  Trials of malaria vaccines in children in areas with a lot of malaria can be justified by the high expectation that the vaccine will benefit the child.  While anthrax attacks may be a real threat, the risk to any particular child is so low right now that it is extremely unlikely for that particular child will be exposed that it is nearly certain that the anthrax vaccine being tested will be of no benefit to that particular child.  

 

Am I the only one experiencing deja vu from this?  

post #26 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

I don't think they are really worried about running out of antibiotics.  The problem is that even with prompt treatment, anthrax, the worst sort, still has a pretty high mortality rate.  Nearly half the people in the Anthrax attacks in the US a little over a decade ago died. 

 

It makes sense to me that the people responsible for ensuring we are prepared for these possible attacks want to do everything they can to ensure that is the case. 

 

However, I really don't think it's ever going to happen.  Trials of malaria vaccines in children in areas with a lot of malaria can be justified by the high expectation that the vaccine will benefit the child.  While anthrax attacks may be a real threat, the risk to any particular child is so low right now that it is extremely unlikely for that particular child will be exposed that it is nearly certain that the anthrax vaccine being tested will be of no benefit to that particular child.  

 

Am I the only one experiencing deja vu from this?  

i know of one case in my state where the old lady died after aquiring inhalation anthrax, and it was not diagnosed in time to receive proper meds. How many others did that happen to, and did not receive meds in time and died due to that instead of the anthrax itself?  I don't know... i just know of this lady in my state, not too  far from where i live. 

post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

I don't think they are really worried about running out of antibiotics.  The problem is that even with prompt treatment, anthrax, the worst sort, still has a pretty high mortality rate.  Nearly half the people in the Anthrax attacks in the US a little over a decade ago died. 


It makes sense to me that the people responsible for ensuring we are prepared for these possible attacks want to do everything they can to ensure that is the case. 


However, I really don't think it's ever going to happen.  Trials of malaria vaccines in children in areas with a lot of malaria can be justified by the high expectation that the vaccine will benefit the child.  While anthrax attacks may be a real threat, the risk to any particular child is so low right now that it is extremely unlikely for that particular child will be exposed that it is nearly certain that the anthrax vaccine being tested will be of no benefit to that particular child.  


Am I the only one experiencing deja vu from this?  


Five out of 22 is not even close to half. You're exaggerating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
post #28 of 46
Quote:
In most cases, early treatment with antibiotics can cure cutaneous anthrax. Even if untreated, 80 percent of people who become infected with cutaneous anthrax do not die. Gastrointestinal anthrax is more serious because between one-fourth and more than half of cases lead to death. Inhalation anthrax is much more severe. In 2001, about half of the cases of inhalation anthrax ended in death.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/anthrax/needtoknow.asp
post #29 of 46
Both my link and yours, Rrrrachel, state that 22 people were infected. Since the cdc didn't provide any other numbers, like the number who inhaled the anthrax, perhaps you can find a source which provides more information, and can prove the "about half" reference.
post #30 of 46

If you read the wiki article you posted, pek, it states:

 

Quote:

At least 22 people developed anthrax infections, with 11 of these the especially life-threatening inhalational variety. Five died of inhalational anthrax

 

5 of 11 is close to half.

post #31 of 46

Oops, yes was talking about inhalation anthrax, but somehow managed to omit that word.  "even with prompt treatment, anthrax, the worst sort... "  should have read "even with prompt treatment, inhalation anthrax, the worst sort..."

 

Sorry for the confusion. 

 

Also, I found this on Dr. Green's site:  "Stanford researchers found that patients who received antibiotics early in the course of the disease had a reduction in mortality down to 14%. (Holty et al. Abstr Academy Health Meet. 21: abstract no. 1560.)"  http://www.drgreene.com/deadly-anthrax-smallpox/  

 

That is also discussing the inhaled variety of anthrax.  Much better than other mortality rates where some people had delayed care, but still, scary, especially considering that in the attacks they mixed the anthrax with substances to help spread through the air and ventilation systems thus deliberately causing a much greater percentage of cases to be inhaled anthrax than happens in natural anthrax cases. 

 

So it's not because they are worried about running out of antibiotics, but because even with prompt treatment it can still be a very deadly disease. 

post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

If you read the wiki article you posted, pek, it states:

 

 

5 of 11 is close to half.

no matter what kind of math you want to do  22-5 is not "about half" biglaugh.gif and it's not even close either

post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

no matter what kind of math you want to do  22-5 is not "about half" biglaugh.gif and it's not even close either

No but from my understanding the article was talking specifically of inhalation cases and there were 11 of those of which 5 died, so thats where the half came from. Obviously if you are generalizing to all 22 cases, half is not accurate. Its not about bad math, its about clarifying what we are talking about - all anthrax cases or just those of the inhalation variety. 

post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Obviously if you are generalizing to all 22 cases, half is not accurate. Its not about bad math, its about clarifying what we are talking about - all anthrax cases or just those of the inhalation variety. 

If you read back it was pointed out about the 22 and that was questioned.

post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

If you read back it was pointed out about the 22 and that was questioned.

 

Yes, again, it was my fault for being confusing.  I was only talking about inhalation anthrax, of which there were 11, but since I accidentally left out that very important word and instead wrote, "anthrax, the worst sort," it was not really clear that I didn't mean all types, which was 22.  Again, sorry for the confusion.    

 

Those attacks may tell us something about how many of those who inhale anthrax in an attack to expect to die (though it is a small sample), but I don't know that we can use the numbers to assume much about what percentage of cases would be inhalation vs. the other types since I would imagine it would vary a lot depending on delivery method and hte situation in to which it was delivered. I think it is fairly safe to assume that anyone willing to launch such an attack to begin with is likely going to try to do so in such a way as to cause as many cases to be inhalation cases as they can. 

post #36 of 46

Pek asked about the number of inhalation anthrax cases:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Both my link and yours, Rrrrachel, state that 22 people were infected. Since the cdc didn't provide any other numbers, like the number who inhaled the anthrax, perhaps you can find a source which provides more information, and can prove the "about half" reference.

 

and I pointed out that it was in the link she provided.  It's also clear that my response was to her, because I addressed her directly.

post #37 of 46
The original post by pers claimed nearly half died, and even she admitted her error in a later post.

So, to sum up, pers said nearly half died; I said 5 out of 22 is not nearly half; pers admitted she she made a mistake and corrected her remark to be 5 out of 11 inhalation cases; and chickabiddy muddied the waters by trying to make it look like I couldn't read.

Hopefully, we are ready to move past this, now.
post #38 of 46
You were obviously specifically asking about inhalation cases, which was readily available information from the link YOU posted.
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You were obviously specifically asking about inhalation cases, which was readily available information from the link YOU posted.

Reread post #27. My quote of the post by pers doesn't mention inhalation. I believe YOU first mentioned inhalation.
post #40 of 46
You asked a question your own link had already answered.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Anthrax Trials to Begin in Children