In theory the vaccine would protect since the antibodies would be produced.
It can be used in conjunction with antibiotics to inactivate any vegetative
cells that pop up after antibiotic therapy is ended. Does anyone want to be
a guinea pig?
You state that there is much resistance in the military - does a few hundred
out of the whole military constitute "much"? I don't think so. The few have
been vocal enough to exaggerate the claims. The vaccine has been in use for
at least 30 years with little or no side effects.
The reason why the program is stalled now is that when the military decided
to vaccinate all the soldiers the production capacity for the only company
that makes the vaccine could not handle it. So with government loans and
contracts they built a new production line and factory. The construction
took longer than expected and now that it is ready to start up the FDA has
not certified the line - there were some regulatory failures. Until they
correct the faults they cannot produce the vaccine. Even when they get up
to full production there wouldn't be enough for the whole US population.
As to linking this with Gulf War syndrome - there is no evidence. There is
no evidence that anything that the troops were given caused the problems.
The syndrome is real - science hasn't PROVED exactly what the cause is.
Theory and conjecture is rampant but not proof.
> From: "Tom Keske" <TKeske at mediaone.net>
> Organization: Road Runner
> Reply-To: "Tom Keske" <TKeske at mediaone.net>
> Newsgroups: bionet.microbiology
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:47:50 GMT
> Subject: Anthrax Vaccine Program?
>> ANTHRAX VACCINE PROGRAM?
>> Supposedly, skin-contact infections with anthrax give about
> a 20% fatality rate, but inhalation infections give about a
> 90% fatality rate. If antibiotics are given before the onset
> of symptoms for inhalational anthrax infection, then the
> mortality rate is lowered only to about 80%. If symptoms
> have already appeared, then the antibiotics may do little good.
>> On the other hand, the anthrax vaccine is supposed to be
> about 93% effective. This means that the vaccine is
> quite effective, while antibiotics are comparatively
>> If these figures are correct- a large and interesting "if"- then
> it makes little sense for the government response to be simply
> to stockpile antibiotics, to try to rush them to the scene
> of an outbreak. The only logical program would be one
> of vaccination, which would supposedly save many more lives.
>> Trusting the data and the vaccines is another matter.
> The military has had a large program, but it is still
> controversial and still has significant resistance.
>> Also, it is not so clear that the vaccines are useful
> against inhaled, weaponized anthrax. The vaccine
> studies to date have been using people who have a
> natural, occupational exposure to anthrax, not an
> exposure to a biowarfare scenario.
>> The shameful cover-up concerning Gulf War Syndrome
> is another powerful reason not to trust government
> figures concerning anthrax vaccine safety. It is entirely
> possible that health side-effects have been masked
> sometimes with a dubious diagnosis of "stress" or
> "being a cry-baby".
>> The situation is a dilemma, because we certainly are in need
> of a vaccine. We need to know the truth, with neither
> blind trust nor blind paranoia clouding our judgement.
>> This brings us to another interesting thought. The U.S.
> Congress is now clearly a "risk" group, for anthrax,
> as surely as participants in the previous Gulf War
> were known to be at risk.
>> It would make sense to vaccinate the entire Congress
> and their staffs. If the Congress does not do this, the
> public certainly should expect an explanation as to
> why not. The Congress certainly has had no sympathy
> for U.S. servicemen or women who wished not to
> get the vaccine. To see Congress taking the vaccine
> would certainly help allay any public anxiety over
> the safety of the vaccine.
>> It would also help to know what the likely geographical
> reach of an anthrax attack in a major city would likely
> be. For how large of a radius should people consider the
> vaccine, if the government decides to offer one?
>> If the government does not opt to make the vaccine freely
> available to the general public, then that would prompt
> another logical question: Is this because the safety of
> the vaccine is not as clearly known, as has been claimed?
> Might the safety claims have been overstated, simply
> to avoid objections from military personnel, and
> possible litigation over side-effects?
>> Tom Keske