Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:977-978 (23 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7472.977-c
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORJefferson discussed some of the major flaws of the study by Brachman et al with respect to policies making certain vaccines compulsory in the US military.1 2 Additional shortcomings of the study by Brachman et al have been described in fuller detail elsewhere.3-5 For example, the often reported rate of 92.5% effectiveness for the anthrax vaccine sounds impressive but should be considered against the actual results in which 99.7% (378/379) of vaccinated workers avoided anthrax infection compared with 96.4% (399/414) of placebo workers. Thus the vaccine protected only an additional 3.3% of workers compared with no treatment.
Moreover, officials from the Department of Defense continue to ignore criticism of the 2002 Institute of Medicine report on the anthrax vaccine.w1 w2 At least three major studies in England, Canada, and the United States had found problems with the anthrax or other vaccines among military veterans.w1 The report mentioned on page 93
Walter R Schumm, professor
School of Family Studies and Human Services, Kansas State University, Justin Hall, 1700 Anderson Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66506-1403, USA Schumm@humec.ksu.edu