Do you believe the benefits of vaccination outweigh the costs? *

[citood]

5. I read a fascinating book about the anthrax vacinne used in the first gulf war

I wasn't mercury, but a naturally occurring fat called squalene which was the topic. Apparently, in the early days of vaccines, squalene was used to help a vaccine grow (I think eggs are used for this for the flu shot every year as an example).

Anyway, for reasons that aren't completely understood, squalene caused complications in some people - mostly nerve related. And, it hasn't been in widespread use in this nation for 50 years.

Back to the gulf war - we had hundreds of thousands of troops who needed the anthrax vaccine quick...quicker than it could be made. The solution...allegedly...squalene. And, according to this book, this was the underlying cause of "Gulf War Illness". I don't know if the book is 100% accurate or not, but it sounds plausible.

Anyway, its things like this...and the mercury...which get people's tin foil going. The medical establishment never made a big deal about removing the mercury - likely because the first obvious question would be 'what was wrong with mercury', followed closely by 'whom do I sue'. I wish vaccine proponents would shout loud and clear that there is no mercury...but they just mumble it. And, obviously with the squalene, the army isn't too keen on giving direct answers either.

I'm all for vaccines, 100%...we just need to find a better way to more clearly communicate back and forth with the vaccine makers, about what is safe, what the risks are, and why today's vaccines are even safer than before.