Guest guest Posted May 22, 2000 Report Share Posted May 22, 2000 It's all about the " numbers. " Like any other major reportable item by the military, the anthrax vaccine is a reportable item as well. The more service members comply with the vaccine, the better their commands look (on paper) by not having any " protesters. " Also, in the event that we GO to war, it is the (so-called) mindset of the military to send troops who have the entire series. Even though we all know that in real life that is not going to happen. We the service members are not people any more...we are just " numbers. " Food for thought, I don't think I have ever heard of someone who was court martialed for not participating in an HIV test...jeez, that (AIDS/HIV) seems a lot more devastating than the good ol' anthrax vaccine, now doesn't it???? Just a little sarcasm there, but if they are so worried about the anthrax vaccine and not AIDS/HIV...maybe they should watch the news more often...after all, didn't President Clinton say that AIDS could very well be a threat to national security??? Theresa > List: > > Here is some really clever military strategy. My son who is > getting out of the Navy in August has just been informed he will > soon be expected to get his 6th Anthrax shot! He will not deploy > to a " high risk " area ever again and is not in one now. His West > Pac was in the summer of 98. > > Vaccine is running in short supply. People who are deploying to > so called high risk areas are frequently arriving with just one or > a couple of shots under their belt. If they can discharge people > who will never complete the series, why vaccinate people who are > not returning to anything resembling a high risk area and are about > to get out?? Even if the vaccine was actually safe, effective and > necessary this is lousy strategy for the use of a vaccine that is > in short supply. > > Gretchen > ------------- > Below is a link to a story of one's man stand against an entire > town in Texas. This is not Anthrax related. How easily people > surrender the constitutional rights our veterans have fought to > protect. Just another lone refuser of sorts saying " NO WAY! " > > http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/020400/tex_drugtesting.shtml > > footnote: > the story also made the New York Times > http://www.nytimes.com April 17, 2000: > Family in Texas Challenges Mandatory School Drug Test > By JIM YARDLEY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2000 Report Share Posted May 22, 2000 Hi, My name is Diane and my son is stationed aboard the USS WASP. He is due to be discharged Sept. 3, 2000 and the Navy in it's infinite wisdom has decided he must take the anthrax vaccine even though he will not be in long enough to complete the series. At best, he would only receive 3 shots. He has decided to refuse the vaccination and is now suffering the consequences. Diane > List: > > Here is some really clever military strategy. My son who is > getting out of the Navy in August has just been informed he will > soon be expected to get his 6th Anthrax shot! He will not deploy > to a " high risk " area ever again and is not in one now. His West > Pac was in the summer of 98. > > Vaccine is running in short supply. People who are deploying to > so called high risk areas are frequently arriving with just one or > a couple of shots under their belt. If they can discharge people > who will never complete the series, why vaccinate people who are > not returning to anything resembling a high risk area and are about > to get out?? Even if the vaccine was actually safe, effective and > necessary this is lousy strategy for the use of a vaccine that is > in short supply. > > Gretchen > ------------- > Below is a link to a story of one's man stand against an entire > town in Texas. This is not Anthrax related. How easily people > surrender the constitutional rights our veterans have fought to > protect. Just another lone refuser of sorts saying " NO WAY! " > > http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/020400/tex_drugtesting.shtml > > footnote: > the story also made the New York Times > http://www.nytimes.com April 17, 2000: > Family in Texas Challenges Mandatory School Drug Test > By JIM YARDLEY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2000 Report Share Posted May 23, 2000 This makes no sense, even according to the DOD policy. I would challenge. Re: One more for the road > Hi, > > My name is Diane and my son is stationed aboard the USS WASP. He is > due to be discharged Sept. 3, 2000 and the Navy in it's infinite > wisdom has decided he must take the anthrax vaccine even though he > will not be in long enough to complete the series. At best, he would > only receive 3 shots. > > He has decided to refuse the vaccination and is now suffering the > consequences. > > Diane > > > > > > List: > > > > Here is some really clever military strategy. My son who is > > getting out of the Navy in August has just been informed he will > > soon be expected to get his 6th Anthrax shot! He will not deploy > > to a " high risk " area ever again and is not in one now. His West > > Pac was in the summer of 98. > > > > Vaccine is running in short supply. People who are deploying to > > so called high risk areas are frequently arriving with just one or > > a couple of shots under their belt. If they can discharge people > > who will never complete the series, why vaccinate people who are > > not returning to anything resembling a high risk area and are about > > to get out?? Even if the vaccine was actually safe, effective and > > necessary this is lousy strategy for the use of a vaccine that is > > in short supply. > > > > Gretchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.