Task 4: Annotated Bibliography

Task 4: Annotated Bibliography

 

Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, A.V.I.P., (n.d.).  Myths and Facts About Anthrax Vaccine.  Retrieved May 25, 2007 from Military Vaccine Agency Website:  http://www.anthrax.mil/resource/qna/qaAll.asp?cID=321 .

This document is published on the U.S. Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program website.  In it are government authorized facts and statements correlating to many myths about the vaccine.  It is intended to educate military members that have concerns over the vaccines safety.  Details about the effects on men, women, pregnancies, and long term are covered.  This publication was released after the DoD reinstated the mandatory vaccination program (A.V.I.P., n.d.).

 

Cummings, M. (2002).  Anthrax and the Military.  Nation, 275(1), 24-24.  Retrieved May 13, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Mary L. Cummings is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and former Navy fighter pilot.  She submitted the article in response to the Pentagon’s 2002 decision to change the anthrax vaccination program to a more limit recipient basis.  The new policy would require only high-risk military personnel to be vaccinated, but Cummings voices disapproval over use of the current vaccine.  She details the Food and Drug Administration policy on the current vaccine and believes the vaccine is not held to standards by the military.  Furthermore, it is explained how the vaccine is still an experimental drug and should not be used on any military members until it is proven effective.  A brief, but very enlightening article that every military member and citizen should read (Cummings, 2002).

 

Kerr, C. (2003).  Anthrax Vaccine gets Cold Shoulder from Troops.  CMAJ:  Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(10), 1308.  Retrieved May 13, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

This Canadian based article depicts the United Kingdom’s military member stance of the anthrax vaccine.  It states that U.K. soldiers have the option not to receive the vaccine.  More than half of U.K. soldiers decline the vaccine despite the Ministry of Defense’s firm stand that the vaccine is safe.  This article is extremely important in illustrating an international viewpoint of the anthrax vaccine.  The author is a writer for the Canadian Medical Association Journal (Kerr, 2003).

 

Knickerbocker, B. (2000).  An Airman’s Vaccination becomes Test of Loyalty.  (Cover story).  Christian Science Monitor, 92(49), 1.  Retrieved May 13, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Published prior to September 11, 2001 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Knickerbocker discusses a United States Air Force major that refused the anthrax vaccine and was then sent to face a court martial.  The major was in good standing and was serving as a commanding officer at the time.  The author also describes a few other \accounts of enlisted military members facing similar punishments for refusing the vaccine.  These examples support the idea that refusing the vaccine, despite serious health concerns, will bring punishment by the military on its members.  There is a discussion about whether those that refused are justified, or should they have followed orders like so many other members have.  The article presents a fair point of view of both the contesters and supporters of the vaccine.  He is a special correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor (Knickerbocker, 2000).

 

Nasir, J. & Roy, M. (2006).  A 43-Year-Old Colonel with Chills, Diaphoresis, and Headache.  Military Medicine, 171(4), 340-343.  Retrieved May 13, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

This is a case study done at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C.  It discusses an active duty Colonel’s claim that his medical condition is the effect from the anthrax vaccine.  The study traces over the medical and travel history to rule out potential exotic diseases.  After many intensive tests, the doctors find that the patient is suffering from a rare disease.  This case study is important in bringing to light that many claims by military members about the anthrax vaccine may indeed be false.  Both authors are officers and doctors at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (Nasir, & Roy, 2006).

 

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2003).  Anthrax Vaccine:  What you need to Know.  Vaccine Information sheet, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware:  Author.

A fact sheet distributed at military clinics and hospitals nation wide.  In it are details about the vaccine, who does or does not receive it, and the risks of the vaccine.  Also there is are detailed steps on what to do if you suspect that the anthrax vaccine has caused undo illness.  This is a great instruction tool, but is not distributed widely and freely enough.  Many military members do not know of its existence (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2003).

 

 

Williams, L. (2004).  Hero Punished for Criticizing Vaccine.  Retrieved April 4, 2007 from Vaccines in the Military website:  http://poisonevercure.150m.com/anthrax1.htm.

This article refers to an airman that received the anthrax vaccination at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and had some adverse side effects.  The airman sought treatment, but was reprimanded by his superiors because he tied his medical condition to the vaccination.  Lee Williams writes for the Delaware News Journal and used the airman as an example of a larger issue in the military with the anthrax vaccination program.  This is a solid example of what a military member may go through if they challenge the validity of the anthrax vaccine (Williams, 2004).

 

Leave a Reply