RE: 2 Control Group proof

GEEZ ARE YOU FULL OF BS!

Your references are impeccable … except you completely misinterpret, then misunderstand, then misrepresent them.
Let me explain it in simple terms:
• The anthrax vaccine itself (that is, the fluid in the syringe) was not experimental. It was, and is, the same vaccine that has been used for decades by veterinary workers to prevent cutaneous (skin) anthrax from exposure to the spores carried on certain farm animals.
YOU SAID IT, THE SAME ANTHRAX VACCINE THAT WAS USED FOR DECADES. THE SAME STUFF THE DOD ITSELF SAID WAS UNACCEPTABLE: 1989 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT B. BARKER WRITES IN A LETTER TO SENATOR JOHN GLENN THAT “CURRENT VACCINES, PARTICULARLY THE ANTHRAX VACCINE DO NOT READILY LEND THEMSELVES TO USE IN MASS TROOP IMMUNIZATIONS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS; A HIGHER THAN DESIRABLE RATE OF REACTOGENICITY AND, IN SOME CASES, LACK OF STRONG EFFICACY AGAINST INFECTION BY THE AEROSOL ROUTE OF EXPOSURE.” HTTP://WWW.SSKRPLAW.COM/LAWYER-ATTORNEY-1482385.HTML

• That same—non-experimental—vaccine was and is given to DoD troops to prevent anthrax from potential exposure to biological weapons.
WAS THIS THE SAME WMD THREAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR IN IRAQ?

• Biological weapons exposure is more likely to cause pulmonary (inhalation) anthrax than cutaneous (skin) anthrax, mainly due to the physics of its delivery and the probability that troops’ skin would be protected by clothing.
TELL THAT TO ALL RUSSIANS THAT WERE EXPOSED DURING THE COLD WAR!

• Therefore, the intended use of the vaccine when it is given to DoD troops is different than when the exact same vaccine is given to veterinary workers.
SINCE WHEN ARE BIOLOGICS LICENSED ACCORDING TO INTENT?

• Just in case you missed that: The vaccine is the same. The targeted spore-borne pathogen is the same (Bacillus anthracis). The only difference is the method that the vaccine recipient is expected to come in contact with the bacteria—skin or inhaled.
HOW MANY ANTHRAX STRAINS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? ARE YOU SAYING ANY RISK IS WORTH THE PROTECTION BENEFIT YOU GET FOR WHICH STRAIN? HOW MANY STRAINS? ALTERED STRAINS?

• The FDA’s rules at the time stated that even if a given vaccine was deemed “safe and effective” for protection against Disease “x” (in this case, cutaneous anthrax), it was technically not approved for use if you said you really wanted to protect against Disease “y” (in this case, pulmonary anthrax).
HOW CAN YOU CALL THIS A TECHNICALITY? DO YOUR LUNGS AND SKIN FUNCTION IN THE SAME WAY?

• Because of this semantic technicality, a great many people like you threw a fit, causing a public controversy. DoD then made the vaccine optional.
THE DOD WAS FORCED TO MAKE THE ANTHRAX VACCINATION OPTIONAL DUE TO AN UNFORTUNATE SET OF HISTORICAL DISTORTIONS, PROCEDURAL MISTEPS, AND OVERSIGHT BYPASSES.

• In December 2005, the FDA changed its rules. DoD made the vaccine mandatory again.
CORRECT! THE SAME VACCINE THE DOD DID’NT WANT IN 1985 AND 1989.

Does that clear it up for you?
CLEAR AS MUD.

It was nice to read a rebuttal to the previous post. At first I just assumed all of the references were biased, but then, upon reading your post, it becomes clear what was really going on. Interesting stuff and a fairly skillful bait-and-switch technique for the anti-vaccine crowd. I had missed that part about the vaccine only being “experimental” in that it was trying to prevent anthrax from a different source. Very elucidating.