Talk:Anthrax vaccine adsorbed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link[edit]

Link to anthrax vaccine database [http://www.whale.to/vaccines/anthrax.html], put here as allopaths will remove it from article page. john 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better an allopath than a, well, uhhh.... -path. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A psycho-path? I wouldn't go there if I was you, allopaths manage to finish off 780,000 people every year in the USA alone, according to one account---Death by Medicine----Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD (2003/4)! john 16:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good you've cited their qualifications. I wouldn't believe they were MDs, John. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Third leading cause of death, I think that is accepted now, certainly 120,000 figure (USA) is accepted. Also medical blunders cost the NHS $6 Billion every year which is around 10% of its budget. Also only 5% of ADR's get reported, eg vaccine ones. john 14:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is your actual source for the NHS statistics? And is it your own conjecture that of the vaccine ADRs 5% is reported? JFW | T@lk 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adjuvants/Excipient[edit]

I'm not sure that either of these words is correct. Please provide an authoritative source. --JWSchmidt 14:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct and incorrect. The aluminum is the adjuvant (PMID 15935874) and the others are excipients (as mentioned in the article, benzethonium chloride is a preservative, and formaldehyde is a stabilizer) InvictaHOG 16:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stuff about military vaccination.[edit]

Well, as one of the few, the proud, the vaccinated, I have found that there is a load of info about the military's vaccination program, with it's starts and and stops and EUAs, whatever those are. There is a lot more to be explained, but my brain is hurthing (maybe from the anthrax vaccination?). If someone else with some gusto could go at it, and make some more sense out of the mess, it would be appreciated. thanks, Rhetth 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that almost this entire article is pro-vaccine and coincidently, almost all of the references are from government sources. It reads like it was written by a military recruiter. No mention of the vaccine's victims or the types of illnesses caused by the vaccine. No mention of vaccination against your will under penalty of court martial. And by the way, congress passed sweeping liability protection for vaccine manufacturers in 2006, so you can't even go after the vaccine maker if you die or become incapacitated. The timing is just a coincidence I'm sure. 132.18.128.6 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert F. Garry, TULANE UNIVERSITY[edit]

Hmmm..., this is michael vines and he is a smart guy, but does he deserve a whole section which is bigger than the entire article by itself? I think Rainbowrising needs to pare it down a little, or take it out until it can be more concise. Rhetth 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Biothraxvial.jpg[edit]

Image:Biothraxvial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following text is false:

the VAERS system is a passive system, meaning that there is no notification process within the military to inform either troops or outprocessing servicemembers of its existence, let alone instructions for completing the paperwork.

As a member of the armed forces, I can state that I was informed of VAERS both verbally, and in writing by means of a business-card sized handout with the VAERS URL and subsequent vaccination date. I have received these handouts at every vaccination I received since my initial in May 2005.

The controversy section[edit]

I have a problem with these two paragraphs:

"For more information, see "Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment that is Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims"[18] by Gary Matsumoto, published by Basic Books. Gary Matsumoto reports that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins directed the addition of MF59 squalene adjuvant in AVA batches created in the 1990's. Squalene exposure can result in auto-immune illneses by sensitizing the human body to attack its own cell tissue.

Since when was "For more information" accepted in an encyclopedic article?

For first-person victim reports, see the documentary film "A Call to Arms" [19] by Scott Miller. This film was compiled over eleven years and exposes the scandalous manner that the US and the UK military have dealt with harming and then treating their veterans."

Bias and agenda being pushed here. I'm gonna remove these two passages since they seem to have been inserted to push a POV.Eik Corell (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABthrax error[edit]

The article incorrectly states that ABthrax is a vaccine. It isn't; it is an Ab against Bacillus anthracis Ag which is immediately effective as a treatment for inhalation anthrax but which confers no immunity. (Which is what makes it so interesting, and why no doubt that it's worth $8,000 a dose.) Unfortunately, correcting the article requires explicating this difference, which I haven't the time to do just now. But if you have an interest... Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed&oldid=1198814730"