Hill bemused by vaccine refusal

February 12, 2003

DEFENCE Minister Robert Hill has said he can not
understand why some troops have refused anthrax
vaccinations.

He said Australian troops sent to the Middle East had
to be vaccinated against biological or chemical
threats for their own safety.

Three crew of the HMAS Kanimbla, which has been
deployed to the Gulf, have left the ship after
refusing to take an anthrax vaccination.

Electrical engineer Able Seaman Simon Bond said he and
two others had been airlifted off.

He claimed he had been threatened with administrative
action if he failed to take the vaccination in a move
that had caused a morale issue on the Kanimbla.

Senator Hill said today he was surprised at the stance
of some personnel.

"There have been some service personnel that have been
reluctant to be vaccinated which I don't quite
understand because I'm advised that it's a perfectly
safe vaccination," he told ABC radio.

"There would be no surprise that they were going to be
protected against any possible threat.

"That's what they would expect of us and that's the
undertaking that we gave to them and to the public."

Senator Hill said the troops were vaccinated to ensure
they were adequately protected in the event of
biological or chemical warfare after any attack on
Iraq.

"I would have thought they'd be unhappy if they
weren't being vaccinated, that doesn't make sense to
me," Senator Hill said.

"We send them on this mission best equipped to achieve
their goals successfully and safely and in relation to
threats that are of a chemical or biological nature,
we are having to provide special equipment and
particular vaccinations and inoculations and the like.

"Their concern would be if they weren't being properly
protected ... if they weren't being properly equipped
to meet the threat."

The Department of Defence said anyone refusing the
vaccine would be sent home for their own safety, not
because they were being disciplined.

Net data a 'health hazard'
Adrian Lynch
FEBRUARY 11, 2003 

HOSPITAL library staff have been warned against "blind
acceptance" of medical material posted on the
internet.

Mary Peterson, library services deputy director of
Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Institute of Medical
and Veterinary Service, issued the warning as South
Australia introduced an online information system
containing access to two million public hospital
patient records for use by doctors and nurses. 

The system, developed over four years, contains
medical drug databases, prescribing aids, medical
dictionaries and links to journal articles. 

Peterson says the system gives users a "quick look-up
facility when treating patients". 

It can be remotely queried from "a point of care such
as a bedside, a ward office or a library". 

Users can access the system using laptops, tablets,
personal digital assistants and wireless telephony. 

"It supplies fresh-in-mind information that can then
be integrated into patient care decision-making. 

"It can prevent mistakes by giving alerts for adverse
drug interactions." 

Peterson says the system will be of great use to
district nurses attending patients because the nurses
will be able to remotely update patients' records and
seek expert advice while attending to the patient
"instead of carrying around a large folder of files". 

"Beware of stuff that can be got from the internet
because it is not always accurate," she says. 

"On our systems we use only information material from
reliable sources."

Anthrax row is not immune to wild claims of anti-vaccine lobby
source
February 13 2003

Controversies about vaccination safety are generally not based on scientific
facts, writes Julie Leask. 
 

The decision of sailors on Australian warships in the Persian Gulf to refuse
anthrax vaccination raises some interesting questions about the safety of
the anthrax vaccine and our often-contradictory response to health risks.

The action of Able Seaman Simon Bond of HMAS Kanimbla and the surrounding
publicity is unprecedented in Australia. But for some years, lobby groups of
servicemen and women in the United States have opposed the vaccine believing
that it causes the host of symptoms known as "Gulf War Syndrome" which
includes chronic fatigue, headaches, muscle pain, skin rashes, hair loss,
memory loss and other symptoms.

While this is a real syndrome, the best evidence indicates there is no link
to anthrax vaccination. In fact, there is substantial evidence affirming the
safety and efficacy of anthrax vaccination for people at high risk, such as
military personnel.

Last year, the US Institute of Medicine released a report concluding that,
"people receiving the vaccine do not face an increased risk of
life-threatening or permanently disabling effects".

But this has not deterred lobby groups in the US which continue to assert
their claims and lobby on behalf of military personnel. Joining their
opposition is a small but vocal anti-vaccination lobby which claims vaccines
cause anything from asthma to cancer.
 

Controversies about vaccine safety arise from time to time. They are often
the result of a scientist or disease-specific patient support group whose
vivid claims capture the imagination of the public, spread rapidly and cause
unfounded alarm.

For example, the recent scare about the unproved link between the measles
mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, which caused unnecessary distress to
numerous parents. This hysteria spread despite overwhelming evidence
affirming the safety of the MMR vaccine. 

The role of the anti-vaccination lobby in spreading myths about vaccination
should not go unacknowledged. Such groups will welcome the opportunity to
lobby against all vaccines and Australia's anti-vaccination lobby,
co-ordinated from northern NSW, is very active and strategic in publicising
its claims.

The internet is also a hotbed of anti-vaccination information and people
such as Bond wanting to research vaccination will quickly find a barrage of
"studies", personal stories and advice. 

It is difficult for people with limited skills in discerning strong from
weak epidemiological evidence and often no medical background, to make
informed decisions. The decision to be vaccinated often boils down to trust
and some find it hard to trust orthodox medical opinion.

For others, the compelling testimonies of those claiming to be vaccine
victims bring authenticity that seemingly bland assurances from government
agencies just can't match.

Very often, facts are not enough to reassure people worried about vaccine
safety because their manifest concerns are located in more fundamental
issues such as freedom, control or fairness. For Simon Bond the issue was
apparently freedom to decline vaccination without threat of retribution.

A broader issue raised here is our often ambivalent response to health
risks. On one hand we demand vaccines to fight dangerous and frightening
infectious diseases (such as meningococcal C disease) that threaten our
sense of safety and security. 

On the other hand we worry about vaccines (such as MMR) regardless of the
infinitesimal or unproved nature of the risk, ignoring, say, the risk of
measles.

A final irony will not be lost on many readers: Bond feels strongly enough
about the anthrax vaccine to decline it but was willing to face anthrax
itself and other very significant risks to his life while serving in the
Persian Gulf. 

Julie Leask, a researcher at the National Centre for Immunisation Research
and Surveillance, has just completed a PhD on immunisation controversies.

Well, I have seen Julie Leask before but never heard her speak and I have to
say, I'm really not impressed. I can't believe she has done her PhD on this
issue and yet she is so incredibly ignorant! Shocking...

She was on Sally Lome's program (no idea how to spell that) and she said
some very weird things:

1- vaccination is not the cause of gulf war syndrome. it does exist but
nobody knows why. The thing is that people want to find a cause so they look
around for things they were exposed to prior to becoming ill and the see the
vaccines and think that was it - but it's not.

She was asked about the inclusion of squalene in vaccines and she said that
she was not a medical doctor so she couldn't go into those details
(!!!!!!!!) but that people sometimes see nasty ingredients in vaccines and
like to make it sound like they are full of poisons but they are always
there in safe levels and are there to keep the vaccines effective.

She was asked where she thought the sailors who refused the vaccines might
have gotten their information from and said that there are mountains of
unfounded scary information on the internet. Things saying that vaccines
cause everything from cancer to violent crim. That there is a very active
lobby group of people opposed to vaccination who quote really poor studies
and give compelling personal testimony that can't compete with the dry facts
put out by the medical community.

She then said that when these myths take hold, they spread like an
infectious disease and once people have become infected with these ideas, no
amount of facts will persuade them otherwise (interesting analogy that - I
think the government is working on an idea vaccine right now!)

Why are people questioning vaccines now? People are always looking for
causes. They are sick with autism and chronic fatigue and they don't know
why so they have decided it was vaccines.

Now - this next statement is the best (worst) of the lot!!!!!
It is hard for people who don't have a medical background or the skills to
distinguish between good and bad evidence to make a good decision about
vaccination. People are finding it hard to trust medical opinions, even if
those opinions are correct.
There is only a 1:100,000 risk that you would have an acute allergic
reaction to the anthrax vaccine and they are always given in controlled
conditions so there would always be a doctor there to be with you if you
react (I don't know about you, but I feel a LOT better now that there would
be a doctor there to see someone's brain get damaged)
She would absolutely take the vaccine if she were being sent to the gulf.
She has good confidence about decisions made by the authorities (oy vey -
what are Australian schools turning out?) and her 6 month old son is fully
vaccinated for his age and she has confidence in any vaccine in Australia.

Well, there you go. This is the argument they put up against any facts we
have brought out on anthrax vaccine. Sheesh!

Take care,
Meryl

Anthrax vaccine 'safe, effective'

13Feb03 

THE anthrax vaccine was regarded as safe and effective, the nation's chief
health officer has said. 

Eleven Australian sailors are on their way home from the Middle East after
refusing the anthrax vaccine. 

Professor Richard Smallwood, Australia's chief medical officer, today told a
Senate estimates committee that so far no long-term effects of the vaccine
had been established. 
 

"There is quite a bit of information in the literature about safety and
efficacy and as far as efficacy is concerned, it appears it's 90 per cent
plus effective for all forms of anthrax," he said. 
 

"The literature on safety suggests it is a safe vaccine. 
 

Professor Smallwood said about 10 per cent of people taking the anthrax
injection would were likely to get a localised reaction, while a far smaller
number would get a more generalised reaction. 
 

"The figure for those that get a more general reaction, where they feel
rotten and have a fever and feel aches and pains, which may last a day or
three, that figure is variously well below one per cent up to one or two per
cent. 
 

"It's generally regarded as a safe and effective vaccine." 
 

Professor Smallwood said a US-based Institute of Medicine had been studying
the vaccine over the longer-term. 
 

"So far the view is that there is no established long-term effect of anthrax
vaccination," he said. 
 

This report appears on news.com.au. source

For Immediate Release (Feb. 12, 2003)

Some Australian servicemen and women have refused to take the controversial
Anthrax vaccine for fear of the many reactions which have been associated
with it. As a result, at least 3 have been airlifted off of an Australian
Navy ship bound for the Gulf because of their refusal to accept these shots
which are supposed to be voluntary. One of these men was threatened with a
loss of advancement potential as a result of this refusal.

This morning, on ABC Radio's AM Program, Sen. Robert Hill, the Federal
Defense Minister, was quoted as saying that he did not understand why anyone
would refuse to take the Anthrax vaccine since it was 'perfectly safe'.

The Australian Vaccination Network would like to inform Sen. Hill and the
Australian public that this vaccine is neither perfectly safe nor is it even
marginally effective.

Is the vaccine safe?

As a result of tens of thousands of reports of severe reactions to this
vaccine in American servicemen and women, the GAO, a US government body, did
a study on the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. 1 They found that,
"...although DOD has maintained from AVIP's [The Anthrax Vaccine
Immunisation Program's] outset that the anthrax vaccine is very safe and
causes minimally adverse effects, our survey disclosed that a significantly
large number of vaccine recipients reported experiencing adverse events.
Further, the results of two DOD studies on anthrax vaccine reactions, both
of which used active monitoring systems, as opposed to a passive system such
as VAERS, for gathering information on adverse events are consistent with
and support the results of our survey. The rates disclosed in the survey and
the DOD studies are each significantly higher than those stated in the
vaccine product insert..."

Despite the fact that the AVN's Adverse Reactions Hotline (1800 007 468) has
never been advertised nationally, we have received reports of reactions to
the Anthrax vaccine. In addition, we have obtained reliable reports from
high-ranking military personnel that Australian service personnel have been
subjected to Anthrax vaccine that is past its use-by date. 

In fact, it would be most informative to discover how old the vaccine our
forces are receiving actually is. Our main supplier, Bioport in the United
States, has for some time been unable to keep up with demand for the US
forces because they were shut down for many months due to improper
production procedures. So are we still using out of date vaccines on our
brave men and women?

Is the vaccine effective?

In a report published by the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans
Affairs and International Relations in February 2000 2, it is stated that,
"At best, the vaccine provides some measure of protection to most who
receive it. Just how much protection is acquired, by whom, for how long and
against what level of challenge are questions DOD answers with an excess of
faith but a paucity of science."

The current anthrax vaccines have never been tested for their effectiveness
against airborne Anthrax, the only delivery method possible for weaponised
Anthrax. In addition, because of its limited use, this vaccine has had very
little testing in humans. This fact on its own begs the question, how can
Sen. Hill and other government officials claim the vaccine is safe when
there are not the necessary studies to prove that claim?

Don't our brave volunteers deserve better treatment?

This episode is just one more example of how, when a person volunteers to
serve and protect their country, they virtually give up all rights to decide
how their body will be used and, in some cases, abused.

Service personnel have, for some time now, been used as guinea pigs for
everything from the effects of radiation and biological and chemical weapons
to experimental drugs and vaccines. In most cases, informed consent was not
obtained from them for this purpose.

After the end of World War II, a treaty was signed in Nuremberg which
stated, among other things, that no humans may be subject to medical
experiments without their express informed consent. What the Australian
government and military is doing now in regards those who have taken the
brave step of volunteering at this difficult and uncertain time, is no
different from what the Nazi regime in Germany did to prisoners in their
infamous concentration camps. 

Surely they deserve better treatment than that?

1Anthrax Vaccine: GAO's Survey of Guard and Reserve Pilots and Aircrew
GAO-02-445 September 20, 2002 - GAO reviewed the views of pilots and aircrew
members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve regarding the
Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) of the Department of Defense
(DOD)

source

      From:             "Christine at Phoenix Rising" <christine@phoenixrising.org.au>
   Reply-To:             AVN@yahoogroups.com
        To:             <AVN@yahoogroups.com>
 References:             1

I heard that interview whilst in the car this am. I heard Hill, what appeared to me to be speaking in a very dodgy way and almost losing his temper during the interview and thought the interviewer terrific. When I got home I phoned the ABC and spoke with John Highfield and asked him if I could
email Sherri's email of this morning regarding half the UK troops refusing the vaccine. He was very happy about this and I sent it off with a request that perhaps the ABC could let Seaman Bond know that he is not alone.  John Highfield sent me this response  " Thank you ever so much for drawing the UK information to my attention. It will be a  very valuable
addition to the story we're preparing for The World Today at 1210 on ABC metro (1310 on ABC regional in SA.) I've also passed the info on to Kerrie O'Brien and the 7.30 Report as well as our newsroom and Federal Parliament reporters for follow-up. We really value such feedback".  So thank you Sherri. 

With love Christine

This letter is sent for publication in the letters to the editor section of
the print and web editions of the Sydney Morning Herald. If the editors
choose to change it in any way, it is requested that I be advised of this in
advance. Thank you.

Anti-Choice lobbyists deny scientific facts

Julie Leask's opinion page piece (13/2/03) is typical of the spurious claims
of those opposed to vaccination choice. 

Rather than dealing with the available scientific research indicating that
there is a link between Anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Syndrome, Ms Leask
decides it would be easier to shoot the messenger. She states that, "While
this is a real syndrome, the best evidence indicates that there is no link
to anthrax vaccination."

Perhaps Ms Leask should read the study, Self-Reported Changes in Subjective
Health and Anthrax Vaccination as Reported by over 900 Persian Gulf War Era
Veterans 1? If she would, she might be surprised to learn that, "A 1999
study of United Kingdom service members by Unwin et al recently found
significant relationships between anthrax and other vaccinations, reactions
to those vaccines, and later health problems for male current or former
active military Gulf War veterans. Likewise, in 2000 Steele 2 and in 1998
Gilroy 3 found possible adverse effects of vaccination on Gulf War
veterans."

Another study which was published in an army journal 4, evaluated a cohort
of 98 British soldiers who volunteered to receive the Anthrax vaccine in
1998. Adverse reactions were experienced by 63% of the vaccinees.

This list represents only a portion of the available medical literature
describing the real risks of Anthrax vaccination.

Ms Leask claims that "It is difficult for people with limited skills in
discerning strong from weak epidemiological evidence...to make informed
decisions". Once again, Ms Leask displays the incredible arrogance of those
opposinig choice who think that anyone without a medical background is
incapable of making decisions about their own or their family's health. She
claims that these decisions should be based on trust and yet, 19,000 deaths
each year in Australia from preventable medical error have proven that this
trust is misplaced.

It is just this attitude of trust and acceptance which led to a tragedy
aboard the HMAS Darwin three days ago. A government source revealed that a sailor had an immediate reaction to his Anthrax vaccination. This person had to be revived at least 5 times and his current condition is unknown. Had he been advised in advance of the risks of the vaccine, this may not have occurred. However, people like Ms Leask believe that 'simple' sailors can't understand this information and so, the tragedy occurred.

In the end of her article, Ms Leask demonstrates quite clearly that the
shameful disregard felt toward brave Australian service personnel during the Vietnam war still exists. She questions why Able Seaman Bond, who took a stand against receiving the Anthrax vaccine and was threatened by his
commanding officer and sent home, would balk at the risk of vaccination
whilst accepting the risk of war.

She misses the point completely. All Australian servicemen and women are volunteers. They have put up their hands when we were in danger and said
they would protect us. They have offered to place their lives and their
bodies on the line for the good of all Australians and they have done so
willingly. They love their country enough to die fighting to preserve it.
What they did not do, however, is volunteer to be used a guinea pigs for the testing of experimental drugs and vaccines.

The Anthrax vaccine is not licensed in Australia making it, by definition,
an experimental vaccine. According to the Nuremberg Code of 1947, you cannot
force anyone to take part in an experiment. They must volunteer. Australian
forces never volunteered to take part in this experiment and they should not
be denigrated by anyone, least of all someone so blatently opposed to
personal choice on this issue.

The Australian Vaccination Network, a national pro-choice organisation with
more than 1,500 members, has lobbied for almost 10 years for the rights of
all Australians to receive the most up-to-date and complete information on
all health issues, before making any medical decisions. We believe that
everyone is capable of making these choices if given the opportunity,
information and support. 

Meryl W. Dorey
National President
The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.
PO Box 177
Bangalow NSW 2479
Ph 02 6687 1699 - FAX - 02 6687 2032 - E-Mail meryl@avn.org.au
www.avn.org.au

References:

1- Schumm, Walter R. et al; Psychological Reports; 2002, 90, 639-653.
2- Steele L.; Prevalence and patterns in Gulf War Illness in Kansas
veterans: Association of symptoms with characteristics of person, place and
time of military service. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:991-1001.
3- Gilroy, G. Inc, (1998) Health study of Canadian forces personnel involved
in the 1991 conflict in the Persian Gulf. Vol 1 (Prepared for the Gulf War
Illness Advisory Committee, Department of National Defence) Ottowa, Ontario;
Department of National Defense.
4- Hayes, SC and World, MJ; Adverse Reactions to Anthrax Immunization in a
Military Field Hospital, J R Army Med Corps 2000; 146:191-5

From: PartyFoto@aol.com [mailto:PartyFoto@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2003 6:51 AM
To: letters@smh.com.au
Subject: Response to Julie Leask's article about Sailor's Right To Choose.
 

Let us not lose sight of the issue here and that is An Australian's Freedom
of Choice.  Julie Leask writes that the sailor's choice to decline the
Anthrax Vaccination only raisea the issue about the safety of such a
Vaccine.  I say it also raises the issue of Freedom of Choice.  I for one
know that the safety of this vaccine is very much in question at this time
due to the fact that the sole facility to produce this vaccine was closed
down due to unsanitary practises. 

     I don't understand why Ms. Leask refuses to recognize all the reported
adverse reactions following these and other vaccinations and only recognizes
the Pharmaceutical company's reports that vaccinations are safe.  How many
adverse reactions reports and how severe need they be before they are
recognized?  Why does the public recognize them and not the politicians and
other figures who make the rules? 

     Perhaps Ms. Leask has not done a thorough job of research for her PhD
on Immunisation controversies?  It seems to be a one-sided report, the side
of the pharmaceutical companies.  We all know that the pharmaceutical
companies stand to lose a great deal of money if the public's confidence in
their products is reduced in any way.  Shareholders stand to lose a lot of
money in investments also.  It is a viscious cycle and so is being
vaccinated with unsafe so-called immunizations.  Don't take the Freedom to
Chose away from the boys who will fight the good fight or from the public.
The public does not demand vaccines.  They demand SAFETY and CARING and
HONESTY in reporting.

Rhonda Kolarik-USA 

source
  _____ 

Print this page <Javascript:printable()> 
Vaccine dangerous: US expert 

13feb03

THE anthrax vaccine is dangerous and troops should not be compelled to take
it, an American expert has said.

Eleven Australian troops who were deployed to the Middle East are already
heading home after refusing to take the vaccine. 

Meryl Nass, of the US Vaccine Advisory Board, said today it had been linked
in three separate studies to Gulf War Syndrome. 
 

"In particular the anthrax vaccine is dangerous," she told Channel 9. 
 

"People who take it and give it should be well aware of the risk-benefit
analysis before they go ahead and get themselves injected. 
 

"What we do know is that there is a high rate of initial reaction and in the
Gulf War population, there's a high rate of chronic disease." 
 

Ms Nass argued that vaccinating troops against anthrax provided some
deterrent, but also invited the enemy to use other biological or chemical
weapons. 
 

"If you vaccinate your troops all that does is invite the enemy to choose a
different agent to use against you if that's what their plan is," she said. 
 

Defence Minister Robert Hill has insisted the vaccine is perfectly safe. 
 

He said he would take it if he had to visit the troops during their
deployment.

From:             pete <flash@attglobal.net>
   Reply-To:             AVN@yahoogroups.com
        To:             AVN@yahoogroups.com
 References:             1

my emailed response to the paper .

-----------------------------
I would suggest that as an act of faith in her own beliefs that Julie be asked to receive the vaccine herself publicly.

There is no science, no though leadership and no intelligence in that article, just critisism, and mainly unwarrented and opinionated speculation by someone who 'just got a phd' and has obviously never tried to research any of the real facts.

I expect a higher level of accuracy and integrity from your paper, this is not 'the Sun'.

Oh Christine - you little bewdy! Her supervisor is none other than Simon
Chapman and she co-wrote with him the lovely piece on the effect of the
anti-immunisation lobby in the media (which came to the dubious conclusion that even though only about 4% of media reports contained any information from our side, we had too great an effect!) and wrote as lead researcher an 'expose' on antivaccination websites.

Thanks for writing and sharing!

Meryl

-----Original Message-----
From: Christine at Phoenix Rising [mailto:christine@phoenixrising.org.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2003 11:44 AM
To: AVN@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AVN] FW: Response to Julie Leask's article about Sailor's
Right To Choose.
 

I have sent this off to the editor
Christine
 

Letters to the Editor
letters@smh.com.au

Re: Ms Leask's article 

As someone with two degrees, three children and a family member who
following routine vaccination became brain damaged and horrendously
epileptic, I find Ms Leask's remarks totally off the mark.  Following the
brain damage of my family member, I researched the topic and found that
there were many, many people similarly affected.  In the US today hundreds
of millions of dollars are paid in compensation to victims of vaccine damage so Ms Leask's reliance on the following quote concerns me a great deal:

"Last year, the US Institute of Medicine released a report concluding that,
"people receiving the vaccine do not face an increased risk of  life-threatening or permanently disabling effects" 

If Julie Leask arrives at the conclusion identified in her article following
the usual research required for a PhD, then I would be interested to know
the supervisor of her work and the institution, which granted her this
award.

Yours sincerely 
Christine Lisle-Williams 

War veteran says vaccines made her ill
 

A Gulf War veteran is blaming mass vaccination for her chronic illnesses.

Former naval engineer Jody Parrish has congratulated 11 Australian sailors
who have been sent home from the Middle East after refusing to have anthrax
vaccinations.

Mrs Parrish, 31, was given several injections during the 1991 war and she
says she now suffers from fatigue, memory loss, anxiety attacks, irritable
bowel syndrome and skin irritations.

She says her 86 colleagues from HMAS Westralia are also ill.

"They are saying that a lot of the medication is quite safe but it's just
too coincidental and too much of a proven fact that too many people are
sick," she said.

"We've all pretty much got the same conditions, same illnesses and we all
live in different states and we all served in the same war."
source

I never thought I'd say this, but good on you Kerryn Phelps! 
*******************************
Sailors treated unfairly: AMA chief

13Feb03 

AUSTRALIAN troops should have been warned of the anthrax vaccination on land
where they had access to independent medical advice, Australian Medical
Association president Kerryn Phelps has said. 

Eleven sailors have been removed from Australian warships enroute to the
Persian Gulf because they refused to be inoculated against anthrax. 

"They should have asked for their consent prior to sailing, then they would
have had the opportunity to get independent medical advice from a GP or an
infectious disease specialist," Dr Phelps said today. 
 

"They would have had the opportunity then to exert their civil rights and
say: 'I do not want to be vaccinated' and then the Kanimbla could have been
appropriately manned with people who were prepared to have the vaccine." 

Dr Phelps was not convinced by US assurances that the vaccine was safe.

"Let's see their evidence," she said. 

"I'd be asking some of my colleagues in infectious diseases about the risk
of the vaccine (before I'd take it)." 

She said she intended to ask the Royal College of Physicians for an opinion
on the risks of the vaccine. 

"So what do you do? Pop a whole lot of people on a ship, send them off into
the middle of the ocean and then say: 'Oh, by the way, sign this consent
form to say that you've been fully informed about the risks of this
vaccine'. 
 

"I don't think that's fair." 
 

This report appears on news.com.au. 

source

Tuesday, 11 February, 2003, 16:08 GMT 
Anthrax jab rejected by half troops
 

Troops are offered a vaccine to protect against anthrax

More than half of British service people heading to the Gulf have refused a
voluntary Anthrax vaccination, the Liberal Democrats have revealed. 
Defence spokesman Paul Keetch MP said that of the 16,538 service personnel
offered the jabs only 8,103 accepted. 

If the vaccine is safe and the threat real, why pass the buck to our
troops to decide?
 
 

Paul Keetch

That was despite the fact the government believes Anthrax poses a "real threat to our armed forces", according to Defence Minister Lewis Moonie. 

He said that there were "no reservations" over recommending the injection but it would still remain voluntary "in accordance with long-standing medical practice". 

But that prompted Mr Keetch to accuse the government of failing to show leadership over the vaccines. 

"By making immunisation voluntary, the Government has sown confusion among
service personnel. 

"Soldiers are being asked to judge for themselves the possibility of
anthrax infection in the Gulf. If the vaccine is safe and the threat real,
why pass the buck to our troops to decide? 

"The government is exhibiting a real lack of leadership at a time when the
public expects clarity about the risks, and indeed the necessity, of war." 

'No waiver' 

Mr Keetch's comments come just days after the government rejected
suggestions troops were being asked to sign waivers to say they will not
claim compensation if they become ill after having vaccinations. 

There had been reports that soldiers preparing to go to the Gulf were being
asked to sign the waiver when they were given jabs, including the anthrax
vaccine. 

The wife of an RAF solider from Bury St Edmunds, wrote to the Daily
Telegraph to say her husband, who is about to leave for the Gulf, had been
asked to sign a waiver when he was offered vaccinations. 

She wrote: "He was told, if he wanted to have these jabs, he had to sign a
disclaimer saying that, if he had illness in the future, he couldn't claim
compensation." 

The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association said earlier in the
week that it had been contacted by a female member of 16 Air Assault
Brigade who said she had been asked to sign a waiver. 

It has also expressed concerns over the safety of the vaccine. 

Shaun Ruisling, chairman of the association, said: "These are great concerns. 

"It seems to be the case that soldiers are damned if they do have the
vaccine and damned if they don't." 

'Opposite' 

But Mr Moonie told the BBC that soldiers were "categorically not" being
asked to sign waivers. 

"They are not being asked to sign. 

"When someone refuses a vaccination, not when they take one, a record is
kept - signed by the doctor and the person - to say they understand they
have been offered the vaccination and they have refused to do it. 

"So it's the exact opposite of what's being said." 

Dr Moonie said the Ministry of Defence had very good public health reasons
for wanting its troops to take all the vaccinations on offer, including
anthrax. 

He said they were told they should have the vaccines, but it was still
voluntary. 

He said it was safe and had been given for many years without any cases of
serious side effects being noted. 

However, he admitted that full immunisation took about six months, but
there was some immediate protection from the jab. 

ailors refusing anthrax vaccine picketed by peers
 

The Australian Navy has been accused of using standover tactics on sailors
being sent home after refusing anthrax vaccinations.

Luis Lim says his step-daughter is one of the sailors sent home from the
Persian Gulf for refusing the injections.

Mr Lim says the sailors are being treated terribly.

"The crew members who remained chastised them, accused them of being
cowards," he said. 

"The senior officers on the ship have told them that they are not welcome on
the ship, not even to attend the ship's vale, and some other personnel have
said that they should have their medals taken away from them for service
that they've already participated in."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-13feb2003-48.htm

Minister defends anthrax jabs

13Feb03 

THE refusal by some military personnel to be inoculated against anthrax
could not be understood considering the potential danger of active duty in
the Middle East, Defence Minister Robert Hill has said. 

Eleven Australian sailors are on their way home from the Gulf after refusing
the anthrax vaccine. 

But Senator Hill said that in the opinion of the Australian Defence Force
(ADF), inoculation was in the best interests of military personnel entering
the Gulf. 
 

"The view of the ADF is that they have a duty of care to those that they put
in harm's way," Senator Hill said today at the Australian International Air
Show. 
 

"In this particular situation there are threats associated with possible
biological and chemical weapons, and we believe that our personnel should be
properly protected against those threats." 
 

When questioned whether he understood the fears of military personnel
unwilling to be inoculated, Senator Hill replied: "No, I don't understand at
all, because the inoculation is for their safety. 
 

"Unfortunately, there are those that are promoting, through web sites,
suggestions of severe adverse reactions but that's not our medical advice. 
 

"Our medical advice is that this is a perfectly safe inoculation and we're
providing it to them for their safety. 
 

"It's our responsibility to do so." 
 

Senator Hill said the Government was not considering a change of policy on
the matter and that no disciplinary action would be taken against those who
refused the inoculation. 
 

Senator Hill said he himself would be inoculated against the anthrax virus
due to the likelihood he would be going to the Gulf sometime during the
deployment. Earlier , Opposition health spokesman Stephen Smith said that
Australian troops heading to the Middle East should be given every
opportunity to make informed consent on receiving anthrax vaccinations. 
 

Mr Smith said there was obviously grave concern on the issue from the
families of defence personnel. 
 

"It's important when these matters are raised that servicemen and
servicewomen have an effective opportunity for informed consent," he said. 
 

"In some respects, the jury's out. There are conflicting reports,
conflicting advice and that's why it's important that our servicemen and
servicewomen be given every opportunity for informed consent." 
 

Government finance parliamentary secretary Peter Slipper said he could only
accept the advice of doctors that there was no danger in taking the anthrax
inoculation. 
 

"I can understand that, given the health impact of service in the Gulf 10
years ago that there would be a lot of people concerned to make sure that in
future years that if they serve in this sphere, their health would not be
injured on a long-term basis. 
 

"Naturally, you can understand concerns. I personally am not a medical
expert and I can therefore only accept the medical advice that the
injections are safe." 
 

Queensland Liberal MP Warren Entsch said it needed to be understood all
those who went on deployment were volunteering to go. 
 

"They are well aware of the risks associated with going into a prospective
military area," he said. 
 

"As far as the anthrax injection is concerned, if such a weapon was used and
the government didn't make every single effort to protect their servicemen
in that area, then I think the (outcry) would be a hell of a lot stronger." 
 

Mr Entsch also cautioned against accepting the word of an HMAS Kanimbla
crewmember who spoke out on television this week with concern about the
injections. 
 

"People do have different points of view and to single out one individual
and suggest that he is a spokesman on behalf of the crew, I think you'd need
to be very cautious on that," Mr Entsch said. 
 

Parents of Australian troops deployed to the Persian Gulf are also warning
their children against being vaccinated for anthrax. 
 
 

Darwin man Lesley Bullard said he e-mailed his son telling him to refuse any
further vaccinations. 
 

His son, aboard HMAS Darwin, was not told of the need to be vaccinated when
he left Australia. 
 

"I want my son to partake in the operations over there should we need to go
to battle, but I don't want him dead before he does go to battle," Mr
Bullard told ABC Radio. 
 

Philip Steele, chairman of the Gulf War Veterans and Peacekeepers
Association, said the Federal Government needed to conduct a study to
determine whether the vaccine was safe. 
 

"They would have liked to have heard it from the Department of Defence
before hearing it in the media, they say that one side-effect of the
injection is possibly that women and men for that matter is that they become
sterile," Mr Steele said. 
 

Meryl Nass of the US Vaccine Advisory Board said the anthrax vaccine had
been linked in three separate studies to Gulf War Syndrome. 
 

"In particular the anthrax vaccine is dangerous," Ms Nass told the Nine
Network. 
 

"People who take it and give it should be well aware of the risk-benefit
analysis before they go ahead and get themselves injected. 
 

"What we do know is that there is a high rate of initial reaction and in the
Gulf War population, there's a high rate of chronic disease." 
 

Meanwhile, Labor has demanded the immediate release of a report on
Australian troops sent to the 1991 Gulf War. 
 

It is understood the report shows Gulf war veterans were at greater risk of
developing psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress, depression
and substance abuse. 
 

This report appears on news.com.au. 

Two women, not vaccinated for smallpox, develop eye infections from
vaccine       By Associated Press, 3/6/2003 18:17 

WASHINGTON (AP) Two women developed infections after touching
soldiers who had been vaccinated against smallpox and then touching their eyes. 

Both illnesses were preventable. Health authorities are reminding
people who get the shot to keep the spot where they were inoculated covered and to avoid touching the skin and the bandages that cover it. 

Even people who have not been vaccinated can become ill if they touch the inoculation site of someone who was. 

Both women are recovering and not expected to have permanent scars. 

The first case involves a 26-year-old woman from the Los Angeles area who slept in the same bed several times a week with a man vaccinated in the military's program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. The man often left his vaccination site uncovered, the CDC was told. 

The woman was hospitalized and treated with vaccine immune globulin, which can counteract the most serious reactions to the vaccine. 

In the second case, an 18-year-old woman handled the bandage of a man vaccinated in the military program. She developed lesions on her arms and then swelling in her eye. The CDC did not say where she lives. 

This brings to three the number of moderate-to-severe reactions among civilians as a result of smallpox vaccinations. Last week, the CDC reported that a 39-year-old Florida nurse appeared to have a rash called generalized vaccinia. 

The smallpox vaccine is made with a live virus called vaccinia, which
can cause illness if it escapes the inoculation site and infects another
part of the body. Vaccinia can also infect those who come into contact with people who have been vaccinated. 

The CDC also reported three other serious illnesses since the program
began, for a total of four, though all of them are not necessarily related
to the vaccinations. The new cases were a women with a headache and dizziness, a man with high blood pressure and a severe headache and a woman whose gall bladder was removed because of an acute inflammation. 

In addition, the CDC reported 21 nonserious events, including fever,
pain and rash, for a total of 46 since the program began. 

      On the Net: 
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Experts Urge Caution in U.S. Smallpox Plan 
Thu March 27, 2003 05:34 PM ET 
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent experts urged the United States on Thursday to move cautiously in vaccinating half a million Americans against smallpox, citing the deaths of two women who had heart attacks after getting shots.

The Institute of Medicine panel praised the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for quickly getting the plan off the ground -- but said it must pause to examine what was really needed to prepare the country for a biological attack.

The CDC said this week that two women died of heart attacks soon after being vaccinated and five others had shown signs of heart disease or inflammation after getting the shots.

The committee, appointed to monitor the program, said the developments showed the government needed to proceed with care.

"It remains to be seen if they have been moving too quickly," said committee chairman Dr. Brian Strom, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

"I think the question is what is necessary for preparedness and whether in fact additional numbers are needed," he told a telephone briefing. "It's not that we are calling now to stop and take stock. What we are saying is what we have said all along -- is that a pause would be useful."

But the CDC's Dr. Walter Orenstein said fears of a smallpox attack were too urgent. Smallpox was eradicated in 1979 but there are worries Iraq and perhaps other countries or groups have developed smallpox as a biological weapon -- one more likely to be used since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"We would not recommend a pause because of the concern about the need to get prepared, particularly with other events in the world at the moment," Orenstein said.

NEW ADVICE ABOUT HEART DISEASE

The CDC and other experts doubt the cases of heart attack and chest pain were related to the immunizations but said they were being extra careful -- and advised states not to vaccinate volunteers who have heart disease. Two cases of heart inflammation were more likely to have been caused by the vaccine, Orenstein said.

"We are concerned," he said, adding that the special steps taken after the heart disease cases were examples of the agency's cautious approach .

But, he added, it would be impossible to exclude everyone with heart disease risk factors from the program, as heart disease is so common in the United States.

"We would potentially get very, very large numbers of the population and ... it would be very difficult to enhance our preparations," Orenstein said. "What we have tried to do is pick out the people with the very highest risk factors."

The panel also said the government needed to do a better job of telling people about the program and about the actual risk of a smallpox attack.

The CDC said states have vaccinated more than 25,000 health workers, who are now available to vaccinate up to 10 million health and emergency workers and police in case of an attack.

The number is far short of the 450,000 identified as being eligible for the first phase of the vaccination program.

Workers have said they are reluctant to be vaccinated because the shots have a high rate of side effects and because no central program exists to compensate them or their families if they die or become unable to work because of the vaccine.

But Strom said too much attention was being paid to numbers. Instead, states should take a look at whether the right workers have been vaccinated and whether they are coordinated in the right way to respond if there is an attack.

The report also noted that some public health agencies and hospitals were having trouble stretching budgets to cover the costs of the smallpox program, taking away funding from overall bioterrorism preparations, childhood vaccinations and disease surveillance.

The report also said Congress will have to come up with a plan for compensating workers harmed by the vaccine. Congress is working on such a plan now.

source: Reuters

A Department of Defense official said on Friday that the 55-year-old National Guardsman had died in an unidentified U.S. military hospital on March 26, six days after receiving his smallpox vaccination.

Two female health care workers who were recently vaccinated against smallpox have died in the past week of heart attacks.

Col. John Grabenstein, scientific director for the Pentagon's smallpox vaccination program, said the deceased soldier was being treated for high cholesterol and was a smoker at the time he received his smallpox jab.

"We are categorizing this event at the moment as unlikely to be due to smallpox vaccination," Grabenstein said during a conference call with other smallpox vaccination experts and government immunization experts.

"We are not finished with our evaluation," said Grabenstein, who noted that more than 350,000 soldiers had received smallpox shots since late last year when President Bush authorized the vaccination program.

The soldier's death, however, occurred amid growing scrutiny of the campaign. There have been more than a dozen other cases of heart-related complications in U.S. soldiers and health care workers who received the vaccine.

The possibility of a link between the deaths and the vaccine prompted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to recommend this week that people with heart disease not be vaccinated until further notice.

Earlier this month, top U.S. health officials had said that reports of side-effects linked to the current smallpox program were overblown. Smallpox kills about 30 percent of its victims and scars the remainder for life. It was eradicated in 1979.

The United States stopped routine smallpox vaccinations in 1972, but decided to resume them for select groups last year as fears grew that the virus could be used as a weapon by radical groups or countries like Iraq.

When administered in the past the vaccine killed between one to two out of every million people inoculated and caused others to suffer brain damage. But it has never before been linked to heart problems.

source