Studying why people refuse anthrax vaccine--DUH?

[Guest guest]

This study has several interesting features. First, " research "

designed to improve government propaganda is classified as science.

Second, this so-called science is important enough to be managed

through the Office of the CDC Director. Does spin supercede science

at CDC? You be the judge.

Finally, it is of interest that only about 1% of postal workers took

the vaccine when offered in 2001-early 2002, but 66% of lab workers

apparently accepted the vaccine. Although an Army spokesperson

claimed that 50% of eligible soldiers accepted anthrax vaccine once

it became voluntary, other reliable information puts the acceptance

rate at under 10%. Are lab workers less sophisticated than soldiers

and postal workers? Are CDC's statistics accurate?

Meryl Nass, MD

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006 Aug 21; [

Factors influencing laboratory workers' decisions to accept or

decline anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA): results of a decision-making

study in CDC's anthrax vaccination program.

Fowler GL, Baggs JM, Weintraub ES, SW, McNeil MM, Gust DA.

Immunization Safety Office, Office of the Chief Science Officer,

Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Atlanta, GA, USA.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory technicians, laboratory supervisors,

decontamination/remediation workers, and environmental investigators

are at increased risk for repeated occupational exposure to Bacillus

anthracis. In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

(ACIP) recommended pre-exposure vaccination for these occupational

groups. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) the factors that influenced an

individual's decision to either accept or decline Anthrax Vaccine

Adsorbed (AVA), and (2) if laboratory workers' concern about AVA

safety was related to their information needs and trust in the

information provided. METHODS: We conducted a decision-making survey

of 404 participants at 44 Laboratory Response Network laboratories

located throughout the United States. All participants were enrolled

between October 2002 and December 2004, and all were eligible to

receive AVA according to the 2002 ACIP recommendations. Chi-square

tests and multivariate logistic regression were used in the analyses.

RESULTS: The response rate of eligible individuals at participating

laboratories was 94% (404/430). Sixty-six percent of respondents

accepted and 34% declined AVA. Laboratory workers who declined AVA

were more likely to rate their risk of exposure to inhalation anthrax

as low (OR = 6.9; 95%CI 1.7, 28.3), report being very concerned (OR =

4.1; 95%CI 1.8, 9.3) or concerned (OR = 2.0; 95%CI 1.3, 3.1) about

the safety of the vaccine, report that they did not trust the

information provided in the Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) (OR =

2.3; 95%CI 1.1, 4.5), and to be enrolled in the study during 2002 (OR

= 24.7; 95%CI 6.4, 95.3) or 2003 (OR = 5.0; 95%CI 2.5, 9.8), the

first 2 years of the study. Furthermore, we found a significant

association between a participant's level of concern about the safety

of AVA and their perception that they received enough information and/

or trusted the information in the VIS. CONCLUSIONS: Low perceived

necessity, concern about the safety of the vaccine, and a lack of

trust in the VIS were associated with the decision of laboratory

workers to decline AVA. Results of this decision-making study may be

used to try to improve acceptance rates of AVA among persons

considered at high risk, and may inform educational efforts for other

adult vaccines. Copyright © 2006 Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Meryl Nass, MD

Mount Desert Island Hospital

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609

207 288-5081 ext. 220