Anthrax shots may be required in military – Assoc Press

Anthrax shots may be required in military – Assoc Press

Thu, 1 Dec 2005

After a US District Judge suspended the forced anthrax vaccine program in the military, the Bush Administration is attempting to reinstate mandatory anthrax vaccine inoculations for military personnel.

The less evidence, it seems, that there is to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a drug or vaccine, the more intent the government is on forcing such products on captive populations. the anthrax vaccine has never been approved–it is experimental and was not intended for inhalation anthrax. But contractual agreements seem to trump safety.

The advice knowledgeable former servicepersons are giving to those in the military, is “get involved” and support organizations that are fighting for the human right of service personnel:

The National Gulf War Resource Center at: www.ngwrc.org or
The National Vaccine Information Center at: www.nvic.org.

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974

———————————————————————————————————————————

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Military_Anthrax.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, December 1, 2005 – Last updated 10:01 a.m. PT
Anthrax shots may be required in military
By PETE YOST
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court Thursday to reinstate mandatory anthrax inoculations for many military personnel, while a lawyer for soldiers who refused the shots said anti-anthrax vaccine was never intended for the purpose the Pentagon is using it.

The government is appealing a decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who suspended anthrax vaccinations after he found fault in the Food and Drug Administration’s process for approving the drug. Half a dozen unnamed members of the armed forces are challenging the Pentagon’s program.

Labeling for the anti-anthrax vaccine says it is for individuals with high-risk exposure such as veterinarians and certain industrial workers.

Why isn’t the portion of the definition regarding high-risk exposure broad enough to cover members of the military? asked Appeals Judge David Tatel.

Because the government originally sharply restricted its use, replied John Michels, an attorney for the six members of the military who refused the shots.

“Nobody thought that this stuff was licensed for inhalation anthrax,” said Michels.

At issue is whether federal regulators limited the vaccine’s use to combating anthrax spores transmitted by touch.

“The labeling does not include any limitation,” Justice Department attorney Michael Raab told the judges.

Since 1998, 1.2 million troops have been vaccinated against anthrax in six-shot regimens. Hundreds of service members had been punished or discharged for refusing them.

In April, Sullivan said the Pentagon can resume giving anthrax vaccinations, but only to troops who volunteer for them.

The vaccine is being given primarily to troops who are serving in Korea, the Middle East and South Asia, the Pentagon says. It will also go to soldiers who work in counterterrorism roles related to defense against biological weapons inside the United States.

About one person in 100,000 has a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine, according to the Pentagon.

Over the past six years, the vaccination program has been plagued by manufacturing problems and troop protests.

Started in 1998 with the goal of vaccinating all 2.4 million members of the active and reserve military, the program was radically reduced after factory violations by the nation’s sole anthrax vaccine manufacturer left a dwindling supply of the drug.

Saying troops should not be used as “guinea pigs,” Sullivan ruled in December 2003 the FDA had never approved the vaccine and issued an order stopping its use on troops. A week later, the FDA approved the vaccine, and the shots were resumed only to be halted again by Sullivan 13 months ago.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.