Quote: Alyssa Myracle

Makes you scratch your head a little, doesn't it?
You trust the FDA if you want.

I know better.

I don't know how much do I trust the FDA, but why are they advocating companies producing and selling mercury-containing drugs when they warned everyone not to eat fish? It doesn't make sense just because they are concerned about high concentration of Hg in fish.


Guess what? If companies kept producing many Hg containing drugs, people are buying and using them. There are vaccines that contain Mercury so even they can be found in our everyday products like eye drops, ear drops, nasal mist, and eye ointments.

Chemists and Biochemists know that they stay in the system for a long time. It only builds up more Hg because Hg likes to interact with S-H group. It become harder to remove it.
There are numerous researchers who have proven numerous times that mercury caused health problems.

I am just very concerned. I sometimes feel like the FDA and big pharm companies are being a scapegoat because they both have a lot of money and power. A lobbyist will advocate a big pharm company if they are willing to pay for his campaign ads. If the lobbyist has been elected in the state, he will have some power over the FDA to return the big company a favor.

Double post sorry!

I do not know your sources of information, but I quote from the CDC

Use of Anthrax Vaccine in the United States
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Membership List, October 2000

I do not attach the entire article, just the portion on inhalation anthrax. Notice this is 2000, and there are many other studies, I just chose to quote the CDC.

Vaccine Efficacy

The efficacy of AVA is based on several studies in animals, one controlled vaccine trial in humans (64), and immunogenicity data for both humans and lower mammalian species (47,49,57,65). Vaccination of adults with the licensed vaccine induced an immune response measured by indirect hemagglutination in 83% of vaccinees 2 weeks after the first dose and in 91% of vaccinees who received two or more doses (57,65). Approxi mately 95% of vaccinees seroconvert (make antibodies to anthrax, PDG) with a fourfold rise in anti-PA IgG titers after three doses (57,65). However, the precise correlation between antibody titer (or concentration) and protection against infection is not defined (57).

The protective efficacy of the alum-precipitated vaccine (the original form of the PA filtrate vaccine) and AVA (adsorbed to aluminum hydroxide) have been demonstrated in several animal models using different routes of administration (49--52,57,62,63,66--69). Data from animal studies (except primate studies) involve several animal models, preparations, and vaccine schedules and are difficult to interpret and compare. The macaque model (Rhesus monkeys, Macaca mulatta) of inhalation anthrax is believed to best reflect human disease (31), and the AVA vaccine has been shown to be protective against pulmonary challenge in macaques using a limited number of B. anthracis strains (52,62,70--73) (Table 2).

In addition to the studies of macaques, a study was published in 1962 of an adjuvant controlled, single-blinded, clinical trial among mill workers using the alum-precipitated vaccine --- the precursor to the currently licensed AVA. In this controlled study, 379 employees received the vaccine, 414 received the placebo, and 340 received neither the vaccine nor the placebo. This study documented a vaccine efficacy of 92.5% for protection against anthrax (cutaneous and inhalation combined), based on person time of occupational exposure (64). During the study, an outbreak of inhalation anthrax occurred among the study participants. Overall, five cases of inhalation anthrax occurred among persons who were either placebo recipients or did not participate in the controlled part of the study. No cases occurred in anthrax vaccine recipients. No data are available regarding the efficacy of anthrax vaccine for persons aged <18 years and >65 years.

I could not cut and paste Table 2, it can be found here

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/r915a1t2.gif

I would have to look up the original studies for all the details, as this summarizes 5 independent studies of vaccination of macaques, but I will summarize, just from the table. In study 1, 7/7 monkeys were protected from 50X LD50 given 16 days after vaccination. (LD50 is defined as the dosage that kills 50% of naive animals and is determined experimentally for each strain of pathogen, and each animal species, or sometimes each animal strain). In study 2, 4/4 monkeys were protected from a 100x LD50 challenge either 16 or 34 days post immunization. In the third study, 10/10 animals survived after 10X LD50 1 year after immunization, and 6/7 after 2 years. In the fourth study, 10/10 survived a 200X LD50 challenge 8 weeks post immunization, 3/3 after 38 weeks, and 7/8 after 100 weeks. In the 5th study 10/10 animals survived a 200X LD50 dose given 12 weeks after immunization. All challenges were to inhalation anthrax. All experiments showed a very high degree of statistical significance, the p values, the chance that these survivals could have occurred by chance were well below the standards accepted by scientists everywhere.

A scientist will read this and conclude that the vaccine works very well. A person who does not accept vaccination can also read it and see only the qualifications in the words. But the facts, the level of protection, are there in black and white. Nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, but if a vaccine protects against up to 200X the LD50 of a deadly pathogen, it is a damn good vaccine. There is a very good reason that the Army requires this vaccine. Remember that even a sick soldier is a danger to all the company, and if disease runs through the ranks, the army grinds to a halt very fast. I have done a little research on bioterrorism, which I will not comment on publicly. I am not an expert, but I do know that infectious agents are a serious risk, especially to our armed forces. In fact, the Army and Navy have historically supported basic research in vaccine development for many years, far more then I have been in science. They have a good reason for this support.

Eric,

You feel that only Pharma and lobbyists support the vaccine. This is simply not true. All the doctors and researchers I know support this vaccine (Gardasil), and have given it to their kids. Just because you don't see them on television, that does not mean they do not support the product. A good doctor will not just parrot a drug company, they will bring their education and experience to the decision.

 Quote:

However, the precise correlation between antibody titer (or concentration) and protection against infection is not defined

The only scientific evidence that the vaccine protects human beings against inhaled anthrax is anecdotal at best- one, accidental, uncontrolled and unplanned anthrax outbreak.
That hardly fits the established scientific method, now does it?

Oh yeah, and that study was done on a precursor vaccine to the one currently being administered to the military- instead, the US Govt gives an untested vaccine to it's soldiers.

The test you are talking about, was done in the 60's, with a much older vaccine, produced by a completely different company.

Would ANY other vaccine be licensed based on one accidental outbreak?

Has anyone bothered to conduct tests into the negative effects of this vaccine? Nope.
How about reproductive effects? Nope.

Until just a few years ago, the vaccine was NOT licensed by the FDA for inhaled anthrax vaccination.
The FDA did not license the vaccine for use against inhaled anthrax, until after the DOD was forced, by order of the Supreme Court, to halt it's mandatory vaccination program.

For all your involvement in vaccines, you seem remarkably ignorant about what was a HUGE scandal, for years.
Try googling "bioport anthrax dod scandal".

Ever wonder what REALLY causes Gulf War Syndrome?

The Army dumped how much money into anthrax vaccine, and how many attacks have there been on US troops using anthrax?

All that money would have been better spent on some decent damned body armor, a weapon less prone to malfuntion than the M16A2, fielding the MRAP faster and better friggin' food.

Because at the end of the day, how many soldiers have died due to anthrax exposure?
How about due to the crappy IBA and new-gen Kevelar helmet?

The Army and Navy support testing experimental vaccines on troops, something which I'm not exactly a huge fan of.

Where else can you find such a large population of otherwise healthy individuals, who cannot refuse to participate?

Perfect breeding ground for medical tests.
I signed up to fight for my country, not be a friggin' guinea pig.

Thank you for remaining civil to each other.

NO ONE here is arguing from a POV of wanting to harm someone else.

The PSA has a very involved page on mercury
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/index.htm
You can read it and see if you think mercury in eyedrops is more of a hazard then mercury in the general environment, and how best to control your exposure. I think it is perfectly sensible to minimize exposure to environmental hazards, whether man made or natural. I will just quote one portion from the EPA.

Sources of mercury. Mercury is an element in the earth's crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Pure mercury is a liquid metal, sometimes referred to as quicksilver that volatizes readily. It has traditionally been used to make products like thermometers, switches, and some light bulbs.

Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions. EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Burning hazardous wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as the improper treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment. Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources.

How many people on this board who are concerned with environmental hazards smoke cigarettes or use other tobacco products? Drive without a seat belt? Drink and drive (ever). Do you all use sunscreen, have regular checkups? All the women over 40 have yearly mammograms and all women over 18 have yearly PAP smears? All the men over 50 have yearly PSA and DREs? Everyone over 50, or younger if you have family history, you have all had a colonoscopy? You all know your blood pressure, blood sugar and chloresterol levels? You all eat a heathy diet well balanced with fruits and vegetables, and low in red meat? You are all slender, or at least not very overweight? I may be forgetting something, but I think you get the point.

Many studies show that people frequently overestimate the risks of some relatively low risk things, like radiation or mercury, and underestimate the risks of other very dangerous things like smoking.

"All that money would have been better spent on some decent damned body armor, a weapon less prone to malfuntion than the M16A2, fielding the MRAP faster and better friggin' food.

Because at the end of the day, how many soldiers have died due to anthrax exposure?
How about due to the crappy IBA and new-gen Kevelar helmet?"

I cannot tell you how angry I am at our government for sending our troops to war with lousy equipment and then blaming the troops for not "making due with what was available." It makes me sick. A friend of mine spent 6 months as a surgeon in Balad and we kept in touch by e-mail. The wounds he treated were horrible. Better food I am sure would be great, but better armor and weapons should not be questioned. Better intelligence to protect from IEDs would be a godsend. It is absolutely disgusting that soldiers families had to send their relatives armor. I thought care packages should contain candy and magazines, but apparently not in this campaign.

The point of the vaccine is that if we don't vaccinate, we are vulnerable to attack, and it would be devastating. I will answer some of your other comments separately.

Alyssa,

I did sign up to be a guinea pig for new vaccines. A friend in biodefense from the Navy asked me if I would volunteer to be immunized with a range of experimental vaccines, and I said yes. This was shortly after the anthrax attacks. As it turned out, he did not follow up, but I do put my money where my mouth is. I do believe in vaccines, and am very concerned about the health of our military.
polly

Polly, you're certainly braver than I am.
Due to the vaccines and exposures to other military chemicals my father had during his 22 years of service, his cancer was ruled to be 100% service-connected.

After ssevere reaction to the anthrax vaccine, several soldiers in my unit were exempted from receiving additional shots in the series (which is comprised of six shots, BTW).

I was exempted from the anthrax vaccine altogether due to a previous contraindiction to some of the vaccine components. Same thing for smallpox.

For any one who wants to do more reading:

The American Academy of Family Physicians, while reccomending the vaccine also has this to say in regards to mandating it and it's safety and effectiveness:

 Quote:

A policy statement developed by the AAFP Commission on Science and approved Feb. 7 by Board Chair Larry Fields, M.D., of Flatwoods, Ky., laid out the Academy's reservations about taking such a hard-line stance, saying it was "premature to consider school entry mandates for HPV vaccine until such time as the long-term safety with widespread use, stability of supply and economic issues have been clarified."......

Some clinicians have voiced concerns that young women may view the vaccine as offering "permission" of another sort, however. Namely, that women will choose to forgo appropriate Pap screening, thinking they no longer have a need for the tests. All the more reason to put off mandating the vaccine, said Kellerman, pointing to the difference between efficacy trials conducted under highly controlled circumstances and the larger, real-world effectiveness trials needed to accumulate reliable data on issues such as vaccine safety and immunogenicity.

"Right now, when we don't have long-term safety data and we've had only an intermediate end point -- abnormal pap smears -- we don’t favor mandating the vaccine, but this does point out the need for continued surveillance and research," said Kellerman. "Perhaps five or 10 years down the road, for example, we may want to take a new look at Pap smear frequency recommendations. But right now, we know this vaccine does not protect against all the virus types that cause cervical cancer, and we don't know how long it will last. We still have a lot to learn."

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/clinical-care-research/20070214hpvvaccine.html

U.S. Government Mandates HPV Vaccine For New US Residents (who will pay for this?):

http://www.naturalnews.com/024234.html


Even foreign scientists are weighing in:

 Quote:

MONTREAL, Quebec — A Canadian professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at McGill University in Montreal is questioning the motives behind the rush to mandate and fund a new vaccine that protects against two viruses that sometimes lead to cervical cancer.

Professor Abby Lippman, who also is active in the Canadian Women’s Health Network, is publishing her comments on the HPV vaccine in the Aug. 28 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ).

Using data from Merck’s own trial reports, Lippman’s article asserts that there are too many unanswered questions as to what the vaccine can and cannot do, and as to the safety of it when administered with other vaccines, to rush into mandating and funding it. Warning that universal immunization for girls and women could have negative effects, Lippman says that governments are making decisions on the vaccine based on “a handful of randomized controlled trials.”

http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/09/17/online_features/hpv_vaccine/doc46126281b5858170581617.txt