Gee, don't you kinda think a sore arm and a 48 hr flu is kinda more
preferable to full blown Anthrax? How many died. That's a pretty common
result from an inadequately treated Anthrax infection, isn't it.

Now, let's examine this rationally. A soldier in the field is usually
pretty busy making sure a bullet doesn't give him lead poisoning. He may
be a long way from serious medical help. So the services give their
people a whole bunch of vaccinations. Some of them make recipients sick.
That's okay, they're still in an area in which they can reach immediate
medical attention. If they're sick they get off duty until they recover,
in a hospital with doctors and nurses and advanced medical equipment
and, golly gee, everything. Now, are you seriously suggesting they
should not receive a vaccination because it may make them slightly ill
and be deployed into an area where they may be exposed to Anthrax with
fatal results?

Donald L Ferrt wrote:

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=international&category=general%20news&story_id=287424&y=2004&m=2

Anthrax risk kept secret Defence chiefs under fire over side-effects
from Iraq vaccine
Sunday, 22 February 2004

DEFENCE chiefs admitted yesterday keeping secret a spate of serious
side-effects from a controversial anthrax vaccine which was later
given to troops bound for Iraq.

So many Afghanistan-bound personnel suffered adverse reactions to the
vaccine that the entire anthrax vaccination program was suspended for
two months in November 2001.

Almost three in four of the troops receiving the jab suffered
side-effects, including swelling and pain in the injected arm and a
flu-like illness which kept some on sick leave for up to 48 hours,
confidential defence documents issued under Freedom of Information
laws revealed. A further 97 crew posted to the Gulf aboard HMAS Darwin
had also fallen ill from the vaccine.

Despite never locating the exact cause of the problem with
British-made batches of the vaccine, vaccinations were resumed without
telling troops heading to Iraq a year later of the concerns.

Defence health services director-general Tony Austin said the troops
were already headed to a stressful environment and he saw no evidence
that the problems were likely to recur. "We were in a position where
all we would have been able to tell them was that there had been a
problem, we had not been able to identify a cause from that and we had
absolutely no evidence to suggest that we were likely to see that
again, based on overseas experience and our own experience when we
reinstituted the program in Iraq," Air Commodore Austin said.

"So I think to have advised people of that would have been quite
counterproductive. I think that would have increased anxiety levels
amongst our people."

No further cases of unusual rates of adverse reactions had been found
in subsequent vaccinations, he said.

Environmental factors, such as heat, demanding physical work and
emotional stress, could have been responsible for the side-effects.

But while he could not guarantee that the vaccine was 100 per cent
safe, he could reassure troops who had received the vaccine and their
families that their health had not been jeopardised.

Last year, 52 defence force personnel were banned from serving in Iraq
after they refused orders to take the anthrax vaccine.

But Opposition defence spokesman Chris Evans demanded a public
explanation from Defence Minister Robert Hill after Air Commodore
Austin told a Senate committee last week that the ADF had no concerns
about reactions or side effects to the vaccine.

"The Defence Department hasn't been honest with the troops, hasn't
been honest with the Parliament, and the Minister needs to provide
answers as to what's gone on here," Senator Evans said.

- AAP