The death of a Bioport employee has been linked to the Anthrax vaccine. Note, they seem to be saying “linked”, not necessarily caused, currently.
Bioport is currently the only supplier of this vaccine, and it’s history has been tumultuous at best.
The US military is currently the major (if not only) purchaser of this vaccine. Our armed service personnel have been required to get this vaccine, and this has caused significant problems, since many refused due to concerns for their health.
This opens, in my mind, several potential issues:
How necessary ** is ** this vaccine? Given the questions of it’s safety, the questions of it’s ability to protect, and balanced with that how likely is it there would be exposure.
Should our military structure be allowed to require such treatment for it’s personnel when there are unanswered health questions?
What do we do now with the personnel who refused to be innoculated and suffered disciplinary action?
This has been fascinating to me, personally, since the lab is in my hometown and has been controversial during the time of it’s sale, etc.
The link, I believe, not only links to THAT article, but to related ones, where, for instance, recently there was a problem with the FDA approval for this vaccine.
The Anthrax vacinne is considered a threat because it’s easy to produce, even in developing countrys and easy to use as a weapon. Because it’s a spore, it’s easily carries on the wind, and can infect people over a large area. How likely is there to be exposure? Beats me but Ive alway preferred the once of preventionvs. a pound of cure approach.
Most definately as they’d be more likely to face the threat. Though it would likely make a good terrorist weapon as well. As for unaswered health question, I’m not sure there are any, like most vaccines it’s inactive. Veternarians (it’s carried by animals) and lab workers have been vaccinated against it since 1970. Try this site for more.
As I recall it, the big “controversy” over this started with an internet site. Yes, my opinion is that the DOD was right if they disciplined any soldiers refusing to take the vaccine. Without going into to much unneccesary stuff. soldier have to be mission ready, refusal to take a required vaccine would to me cause a reduction in mission capability.
The mention of the FDA in the article doesn’t give much detail, so I’ll suspend comments on it till I see more.
Seems to me like we need the anthrax vaccine. Anthrax has been known to be used as a weapon. If they know that our troops are vaccinated from it, they are less likely to lob it at as and perhaps hurt others in the process.
For a complete contradiction of what I just wrote, ask me about missile defence =)
Funny you should mention that. You should check into the “employer drug testing” thread to hear how it’s no employers’ business what ya do on your own time, and just 'cause you KNOW they are going to test, doesn’t mean, apparently, that you should avoid working for them if you object to it.
I understand that this is what a soldier signs up for.
However. At this point, they are still requiring the vaccine. The DOD has launced an investigation into the death of the Bioport employee.
Don’t I recall something about the army testing LSD and a bunch of other things on their recruits without their knowledge?
This site also includes a link to a DoD site regarding the vaccination project.
The deal with vaccination is, inhaled anthrax (which is how military personnel would be exposed to it via biological warfare) kills you within a couple of days. If there were some kind of massive release of the bacterial spores, people could die before there was time to treat them all. Plus, if you inhaled anthrax spores and *you didn’t know it *, you might think you were getting a cold. A couple of days later, your breathing problems would get worse. Within hours of that, you would find yourself unable to breathe, turn as blue as Cookie Monster, then die. It just kills so fast that you’re better off being vaccinated if there’s any chance that you may be exposed to anthrax.
I have taken the full spectrum of the Anthrax vaccinations without any apparent ill-effects. It is indeed a lawful order, and it is indeed true that my enlistment oath specifies that I must obey such an order. I could well have refused, but only at the cost of my career in the military.
That being said though, there are a number of skeptical folks out there who doubt that anthrax is any kind of threat at all. Yes, we have all been told that enemies and terrorists could very easily whip a batch up and have us all hacking phlegm up until we die (expectorating to expiration;) but the fact remains that nobody has done so yet. This “killer technology” has been around for 15 years and no terrorists have ever, to my knowledge, used anthrax in an attack, partly because it needs a decent delivery system and favorable weather conditions, and partly because it’s a very inefficient weapon for their purposes. The whole “anthrax is a dire threat” business is 10% truth and 90% scaremongering.
Sorry for the semi-hijack, but I take charges of inconsistency or hypocrisy seriously.
wring, The Army is qualitatively different from private employment. I must have employment, I don’t have to join the Army. Had I chosen a career where drug testing, mandatory vaccination, or almost total submission to authority constituted a significant rational requirement, I would accept them in my case, but I would still argue against it in cases where it was not necessary.
Any person may freely choose to give up their rights; but if they do make that choice they should abide by it. I myself have not made that choice, I have not chosen such a career, and I will resist attempts to take my rights away. Soldiers, pilots and such have explicitly and freely given up some of their rights.
I always ask, and if it’s a requirement, I decline employment. At one job, the requirement was imposed after I joined, and I quit. I am fortunate in having the luxury to do so. I stay completely within the process: I support making mandatory drug testing illegal except in cases where it is required to perform the fundamental tasks.
Actually, I agree with your position that once you sign on with an employer (private/govenment/military etc.) you’ve signed on to their rules. Work for Mickey D’s? gonna wear a uniform. Work for the FBI? those bad shoes are required (that was a joke). However, in several threads I’ve been involved in of late here, there are people who argue that it is NEVER ok for an employer to “violate your personal right to freedom on your off time” by say, testing for drugs etc. There’s even one I started on Parental Responsiblity where folks are arguing that it’s ok for a parent to “use” their child’s urine to avoid detection in such a test. Go figure. if you want to debate that issue, the thread is there.
I’m in Lansing, where the BioPort lab is. The history of this company is long, tangled and highly controversial here. Originally it was a State owned facility, and was sold, despite protests (not strong enough). Since Bioport has taken over, they’ve gotten this huge order from the DOD to supply the anthrax vaccine. They fell behind on production, demanded and got more advance $$, the FDA has stepped in questioning certain aspects of the lab production, and now a dead employee.
When the military first started the vaccine, my stance was “you signed up, choice now is to quit or do what they say”. Especially in the military, I can’t understand how ANYONE doesn’t understand that they’ll tell ya what to do, when, how etc.
I am not in a position to evaluate the “need” for the vaccine. To me, that issue was decided by folks other than me. Don’t want the vaccine? don’t enlist.
BUT, to me, with this death, the picture has changed. What would it hurt for the military to suspend the vaccinations for a short while to wait for the results of the investigation into this man’s death?
And I’m one of them. I should not have to accept a restriction if it’s not necessary to the job and the situation is not fully consensual.
I can do my job suficiently well whether or not I smoke pot on the weekends. Thus such a restriction is not necessary. An employer has much more immediate economic power than most individuals, thus the lack of full consensuality especially given the widespread prevalence of testing and the correlation between low wages and high testing rates.
In my particular case, the power differential is not so large. Merely by objecting to a policy, I am usually in a position to affect its adoption. But my situation is rare. Most people have to accept widespread policy, regardless of its necessity or morality, or starve.
It is necessary for a soldier to accept an order that may entail his death. You simply cannot have a military if a soldier can legally say, “No, I think that order might kill me, I’m not going to follow it.” Since numerous alternatives to service in the Armed forces exist, and those alternatives do not require submission to dangerous orders, the choice to serve in the military is fully consensual.
The drug restrictions in the Olympics has the same character of necessity and consensuality. And, as I’ve said in the IOC debate, whether the rule is flawed is one debate, whether the individual should suffer the consequences of a truly consensual decision is another.
In the case at hand, we have difficulty evaluating the rule with a risk/reward analysis. By publicly requiring the vaccine, no one will now use anthrax against the US Military. The probability of its use absent the vaccine becomes a matter of abstract speculation.