Posted on 10/26/2001 11:09:50 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
Friday October 26 1:31 PM ET
World Health Body Rules Out Mass Smallpox Jabs By Richard Waddington
GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Friday it remained opposed to mass inoculations for smallpox despite fears the virus could be used as a weapon of germ warfare.
Smallpox, once among the world's most lethal diseases, was eradicated over 20 years ago, but the recent anthrax attacks in the United States have raised concerns it could reappear.
However, the vaccine itself can have serious side effects and poses a greater health risk while there are no reported cases of smallpox worldwide, the WHO said.
An adverse reaction to the vaccine can kill one person in a million but there has been no incidence of smallpox since 1978.
``The risk of adverse effects is sufficiently high that mass vaccination is not warranted if there is no real risk of exposure,'' the WHO said in a statement.
The United Nations (news - web sites) body said it asked a committee of experts last week to review its policy guidelines and they had recommended no change. Only those at direct risk of contracting the disease, which used to be fatal in some 30% of cases, should be inoculated, the WHO said.
Smallpox is caused by the Variola major virus and its symptoms are fever, headache and widespread blisters. It is on a list of 11 diseases, including anthrax, that the WHO has warned could be used in a biological weapons attack.
So far three people have died and at least 11 others have been infected in the United States by anthrax delivered through the mail. US officials have said there could be a link between the attacks and last month's suicide hijackings in New York and Washington in which some 5,000 people are thought to have died.
Unlike anthrax, smallpox is highly contagious.
QUICK DETECTION
Another argument against mass inoculation is that the smallpox vaccine can be administered after the disease has been contracted, provided it is detected quickly, WHO head of communicable diseases David Heymann said.
The incubation period for smallpox is seven to 14 days and the vaccine is effective if given within four days of infection.
Most people over the age of 30 will already be protected because countries did not end inoculation until the 1970s.
``I think we can be confident public health systems would pick up the disease very rapidly,'' Heymann added.
The WHO estimates governments have a stockpile of some 90 million doses of smallpox vaccine but it is not known how much would still be usable. The vaccine is no longer made, but the United States and other governments have announced plans to seek fresh production.
Although the virus has been eradicated as a disease, there are still two high-security research facilities--one in the United States and another in Russia--where it is maintained. There have been reports that Iraq and North Korea (news - web sites) could also have samples
Perhaps you should re-check your sources. This is from the CDC website at:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/DocumentsApp/FAQsmallpox.asp?link=2#Q8
Is smallpox fatal?
The majority of patients with smallpox recover, but death may occur in up to 30% of cases.
If someone is exposed to smallpox, is it too late to get a vaccination?
If the vaccine is given within 4 days after exposure to smallpox, it can lessen the severity of illness or even prevent it.
Also, re: your comments: The mortality rate of smallpox is 30%.In a population of 280 million, a vaccinated public would have a death rate of 280 people from reaction to the vaccine--compare those stats with 30% of 280 million--which means 84 MILLION people would die in a widespread outbreak of smallpox.
This is assuming that everyone is exposed and that no one is treated. To say that 84 MILLION would die is pretty unreasonable. Would the fatalities be great in number? Most likely, but this discussion is about the risks and the benefits when we don't even know if there is a threat. To over-react to this potential threat could be tragic, as well could be an under-reaction.
The smallpox vaccine was developed what, 40 years ago?
Couldn't the recent advances in immunization technology be used to to develop a vaccine that has less side effects, and more broad ranging protection than the previous one.
I don't even have a background in this area, but it seems that smallpox should have some unique proteins that make it so dangerous, and that we should be able to develop an effective vaccine to counter not just the smallpox of old, but any variations of the disease that may have been developed in weapons labs.
Oh, even better, and put on your tinfoil hats, what if the U.S.A never stopped vaccinating against smallpox, but hid improved versions of the vaccine in other more comon vaccinations?
I think I'll schedule a couple tetnus boosters with different doctors just in case... ;)
Once you have the symptoms it too later to take the vaccine.
I'd think that once their is a major outbreak detected the prudent thing to do is vaccinate one's family before the symptoms have a chance to show. But I would wait until a panic somewhere in the country starts to beak.
There is much in the following that directly contradicts what the WHO said and impliedly, frankly, your comment (no offense) about transmission being largely to grieving family members:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n22/ffull/jst90000.html
http://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/special_collection/cpc/mceleney.pdf
http://www.csis.org/homeland/reports/EffectsTerrWMD.pdf [see pp.57 & 64]
They used to think the measles vaccine gave life-time immunity and probably in most people it does, but a few years ago here, we had a few measles show up in high school kids who had been vaccinated as small children. Still they had mild cases only so even partial immunity can be very helpful. The nice thing about the smallpox vaccine is it's a live virus and if the government can't produce enough, people can get themselves infected with it the good old fashioned way. Just like many of us do with kids and chickenpox now.
What's so short-sighted about that thinking is the few people who could be killed by an adverse reaction to the vaccinia virus will also be the first ones killed by the variola virus. It'd be much much better to allow those with healthy immune systems to be vaccinated if they choose, that alone would slow down the spread of smallpox because if no one around the susceptible people could catch smallpox, then they can't expose them to it. The safest thing for people on chemotherapy or who have AIDS is not to have smallpox hit people around them.
I never stated that.
The erroneous comment is consistent with the problematic statements you have made.
I wouold just like to point out a serious lack of understanding on your part.
No cure does not mean 100% death rate.
Please try to be responsible when commenting.
This is not accurate and in fact very far from the actual propensities of the disease.
Even people who are exposed but develop nor symptoms, and thus would not evenb know they were exposed, can spread the virus and infect others by breathing on them because the virus can replicate itself in nasal passages without casuing the disease.
Please do not spread inaccurate information. It is incredibly irresponsible.
Once again I'd like to address this important issue.
Here is a quote from an article in a medical journal, Q J Med 2001; 94: 227-234.
It's titled Bioterrorism and is written by R.J. Bellamy and A.R. Freedman From the Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
Many exposed patients may shed virus from the oropharynx without developing the disease and cause further virus transmission.23
The citiation for this is: Sarkar JK, Mitra AC, Mukherjee MK, De SK. Virus excretion in smallpox. 2. Excretion in the throats of household contacts. Bull World Health Organ 1973; 48:523–7.
I, personally, would feel more secure knowing I had my smallpox vaccination instead of having the thought of a smallpox outbreak in the back of my mind all the time.
FR has a propensity for hysteria caused by bugs. A Y2K pox on all fearmongers.
And suppose only 0.1% of the entire US population gets it.
That is still 280 compared to 84,000.
Same way they got an obviously weaponized anthrax.
Do some reading on biological warfare. Small pox is still out there as a weapon.
I've read some on the now dismantled Soviet biological weapons program, and some on the US weapons program. I haven't seen much on what the Iraqis are doing, nor much on the modern Russians. The sense I get is that smallpox was considered hard to weaponize on any mass scale, too survivable, and too easy to contain. That's why others, such as anthrax, gained ascendency in weapons programs -- easier to weaponize (still not easy), and less survivable. Anthrax may yet prove to be fairly easily contained (in any sense of a mass infection). Normal hygeine (wash hands before eating, don't pick your nose) and a little more alertness to the unusual should protect the average person.
So far all I see are a few selected high profile infections. IMO, we are more at risk of panic than a pandemic.
I would also point out that the WHO is speaking from a world-wide perspective. We should not complain that they are keeping us from "protecting ourselves."
Besides, we do not yet have enough vaccines to vaccinate all the folks who might already be frightened.
As bad as smallpox could prove to be, it is not the worst scenario by any means. If the Iraqis don't have Ebola virus and the stupidity to use it, my biggest concern would be nukes, not bugs.
We must have the courage to change the things we can change here though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.