AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nass, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nass, M.
May 2002, Vol 92, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health 715-721
© 2002 American Public Health Association


COMMENTARY

The Anthrax Vaccine Program: An Analysis of the CDC's Recommendations for Vaccine Use

Meryl Nass, MD

Meryl Nass is with Parkview Hospital and Midcoast Hospital, Brunswick, Me, and Maine Medical Center, Portland, Me.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Meryl Nass, MD, 124 Wardtown Rd, Freeport, ME 04032.

The anthrax vaccine was never proved to be safe and effective. It is one cause of Gulf War illnesses, and recent vaccinees report symptoms resembling Gulf War illnesses.

The vaccine's production has been substandard. Without adequate evaluation, the Food and Drug Administration recently approved (retrospectively) significant changes made to the vaccine's composition since 1990. The vaccine's mandatory use for inhalation anthrax is "off-label."

A skewed review of the vaccine literature by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) led to remunerative collaborative research with the army, involving civilian volunteers. Despite acknowledging possible fetal harm, the CDC offered the vaccine to children and pregnant women.

New trends could weaken prelicensure efficacy and safety review of medical products intended for biodefense and avoid manufacturer liability for their use.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
M. M. Weiss, P. D. Weiss, and J. B. Weiss
Anthrax Vaccine and Public Health Policy
Am J Public Health, November 1, 2007; 97(11): 1945 - 1951.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
G. W. Weightman
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTS ANTHRAX VACCINATION
Am J Public Health, November 1, 2002; 92(11): 1707 - 1708.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
V. Sidel, H. W. Cohen, and R. M. Gould
From Woolsorters to Mail Sorters: Anthrax Past, Present, and Future
Am J Public Health, May 1, 2002; 92(5): 705 - 706.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Public Health Association