Sorry but this is media sensationalism. Same with those that blame vaccinations for their kids’ autism.
Yes there will always be negative reactions to vaccinations, but taking a few of those cases out of context does not provide a scientific rationale for halting vaccinations programs.
But like much of the hubbub about DDT, vaccines have saved FAR more lives than they’ve cost.
Sorry but there is no such thing as “safe” military service. I feel sorry for those that suffered adverse reactions, but there is no way that military medicine could anticipate or prevent them.
Coverup? I don’t think so.
I’ve always considered any vaccination I received in the military to be deadly.
lol, clueless…
I guess your satisfied with your plight as a pawn then. If I have to take a vac, so should the f’kers that are sending me into combat; bush
Just normal sensationalism reporting from the news media. I rarely agree with John, but he very much put the hammer on the nail when he called it.
In fact, the whole news story was probably done on a VERY slow newsday to have even gotten onto the air.
Allergic reactions to vaccines has always been known, and accepted. Its terrible when it happens but there is only so much you can do to screen people.
As I recall, there has been an ongoing “news story” about suspect military vaccinations and experimental drug dosing since I first joined (1979)… as pointed out, the story makes it out on otherwise slow news days and really gets the attention of those mouth breathers that are attracted to side show attractions such as the “Gorilla Woman.”
Did I get an assload of shots over the last 26 years? Yep…
Did I get sick as a dog from some of those shots? Yep…
Did the vaccinations work to ward off all of the intended problems? Nope…
Do I regret that there are some that got a lot sicker than I ever did? Sure, my prayers are with them…
If I had it to do all over again, would I forgo the shots and run it alone? Not a chance…
Actually I gave thousands of these vaccinations. I was a Hospital Corpsman. The military gives MILLIONS of these shots a year. At best <1% results in a severe adverse reaction.
You do the math. You want to make a charge of coverup…the burden of proof is on you.
I guess you’re satisfied with your plight of being a media pawn.
Clueless is right if you think vaccinations for all should be halted because of 1%? Really you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
PS. I bet Bush gets far more vaccinations than any of us. As a corpsman I received more vaccinations than the average Grunt.
Vaccination is different than innoculation. One uses dead virus, the other uses live. These reactions are usually not to the vaccine, but the medium in which it’s made.
Everytime these shots are given, the recipients are screened for allergies to things like eggs.
This is pure media hype and its too bad that there are suckers that buy into it.
Ok so you gave vaccinations but as far as you know you never gave anyone anything as a test to see how humans react to it.
Because you never saw it it never happened??
Explain to me why his records omitted the vaccination until some hell was raised?
Tackleberry,
The military screws up personnel records all the time to include their medical records. I went to Guam in 2002 and in order to go I had to get all kinds of stuck. I left and went to another unit and they determined that I needed some more vaccinations because someone did not document it properly. It didn’t matter that I had an overseas screening and there was no way I could have gone w/o them.
Do some people have reactions? I bet they do, just like in the civilian world. I have had the anthrax series as well and there is nothing wrong with me.
I’ve given thousands of such vaccinations, that’s a pretty significant statistic sample. I’ve seen a handful of bad reactions (less than 5), usually handled with some epi, and a trip to the hospital.
If this were anywhere near the problem that is claimed, I guarantee I’d have seen LOTS more.
His records may have been “omitted” because he pissed off the wrong medic…or someone made a mistake…or any number of reasonable explanations. It happens REGULARLY. The military is a bureaucracy.
I don’t deny that adverse reactions occur, but claiming a coverup is a whole different kettle of fish and requires a SUBSTANTIALLY higher standard of proof.
That burden is on those who make the claim to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
do you think this could be part of the issue?I found this at the FDA website http://www.fda.gov/CbER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#tox
They have much more info on this there if you are interested.
Thimerosal Toxicity
The various mercury guidelines are based on epidemiological and laboratory studies of methyl mercury, whereas thimerosal is a derivative of ethyl mercury. Because they are different chemical entities - ethyl- versus methylmercury - different toxicological profiles are expected. There is, therefore, an uncertainty that arises in applying the methylmercury-based guidelines to thimerosal. Lacking definitive data on the comparative toxicities of ethyl- versus methylmercury, FDA considered ethyl- and methyl-mercury as equivalent in its risk evaluation. There are some data and studies bearing directly on thimerosal toxicity and these are summarized in this Section.
Allergic responses to thimerosal are described in the clinical literature, with these responses manifesting themselves primarily in the form of delayed-type local hypersensitivity reactions, including redness and swelling at the injection site (Cox and Forsyth 1988; Grabenstein 1996). Such reactions are usually mild and last only a few days. Some authors postulate that the thiosalicylate component is the major determinant of allergic reactions (Goncalo et al. 1996). In a clinical setting, however, it is usually not possible to determine whether local reactions are caused by thimerosal or other vaccine components.
The earliest published report of thimerosal use in humans was published in 1931 (Powell and Jamieson 1931). In this report, 22 individuals received 1% solution of thimerosal intravenously for unspecified therapeutic reasons. Subjects received up to 26 milligrams thimerosal/kg (1 milligrams equals 1,000 micrograms) with no reported toxic effects, although 2 subjects demonstrated phlebitis or sloughing of skin after local infiltration. Of note, this study was not specifically designed to examine toxicity; 7 of 22 subjects were observed for only one day, the specific clinical assessments were not described, and no laboratory studies were reported.
Several cases of acute mercury poisoning from thimerosal-containing products were found in the medical literature with total doses of thimerosal ranging from approximately 3 mg/kg to several hundred mg/kg. These reports included the administration of immune globulin (gamma globulin) (Matheson et al. 1980) and hepatitis B immune globulin (Lowell et al. 1996), choramphenicol formulated with 1000 times the proper dose of thimerosal as a preservative (Axton 1972), thimerosal ear irrigation in a child with tympanostomy tubes (Rohyans et al. 1994), thimerosal treatment of omphaloceles in infants (Fagan et al. 1977), and a suicide attempt with thimerosal (Pfab et al. 1996). These studies reported local necrosis, acute hemolysis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, acute renal tubular necrosis, and central nervous system injury including obtundation, coma, and death. (IOM)
Several animal studies have evaluated the toxicity of thimerosal. In 1931 Powell and Jamieson reported acute toxicity studies in several animal species. Maximum tolerated doses not associated with death of the animals were 20 mg thimerosal/kg (rabbits) and 45 mg/kg (rats). Blair evaluated the administration of thimerosal intranasally for 190 days and observed no histopathological changes in the brain or kidney (Blair et al. 1975). Magos et al. directly compared the toxicity of ethyl- versus methylmercury in adult male and female rats administered 5 daily doses of equimolar concentrations of ethyl- or methylmercury by gavage (Magos et al 1985). Magos concluded that ethylmercury, the mercury derivative found in thimerosal, is less neurotoxic than methylmercury, the mercury derivative for which the various guidelines are based.
One final piece of data regarding thimerosal is worth noting. At the initial National Vaccine Advisory Committee-sponsored meeting on thimerosal in 1999, concerns were expressed that infants may lack the ability to eliminate mercury. More recent NIAID-supported studies at the University of Rochester and National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD examined levels of mercury in blood and other samples from infants who had received routine immunizations with thimerosal-containing vaccines. [Pichichero ME, et al. Lancet 360:1737-1741 (2002)] Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies. Further, mercury was cleared from the blood in infants exposed to thimerosal faster than would be predicted for methyl mercury; infants excreted significant amounts of mercury in stool after thimerosal exposure, thus removing mercury from their bodies. These results suggest that there are differences in the way that thimerosal and methyl mercury are distributed, metabolized, and excreted. Thimerosal appears to be removed from the blood and body more rapidly than methyl mercury. NIAID is sponsoring a follow-up study with larger numbers of infants in Buenos Aires where thimerosal-containing vaccines are still administered to children. See the NIH/NIAID vaccines/thimerosal web site http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosalqa.htm.