[Dave S]

Because we didn't have 20,000 deaths when this EXACT vaccine was used 25 years ago.

I didnt say 20,000 deaths, I said 20,000 deaths or severe reactions. Also 25 years ago, we vacinated only children, a small percentage of our entire population. I was vacinated back in the 50's and havent been vacinated again since then. Also the US population is much larger today than it was back in the 50-60's, therefore a percentage of that larger number leads to a larger total number people POTENTIALLY at risk for adverse effects.

My own thought but there are quite a few people who are more at risk from an immune standpoint today than in the 60's. More people with AIDS/HIV, allergies, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc. These people with immune problems are likely to be more at risk, either from direct immunization or close association with someone that was immunized.

I recall the number from several documents I read the other day when I did a search on Google. I believe it also matched up with a similar number from a Wall Street Journal article.

[bonesmccoy]

Thanks for the opportunity to argue this public health policy.

The argument you are making suggests that the risks associated with vaccination administration outweigh
1. the economic effects of side effects due to immunization
2. the strategic effects of neutralizing the biological weapons argument using known vaccines.

I disagree with you on both accounts.

First, It is true that the small pox immunization is a live virus. However, it is ALSO true that physicians routinely give other live virus immunizations. If DryVax has risk of secondary infection of immunocompromised people, the solution is very obvious. AIDS patients and immunocompromised people should stay away from people with open small pox sores. This is the same recommendation that the AAP advocates in it's position statements on MMR-II and Varivax use (both live virus immunizations).

Secondly, where are the cases of HIV+/AIDS patients DYING from a vaccine given to a different person? We have heard about "theoretical" risks for such infections. The scenario is that a child is given a live virus immunization, like the old polio vaccine, MMR-II, or Varivax (for chickenpox). Theoretically, the child sheds live vaccine virus and somehow infects the HIV+/AIDS patient. However, we have never seen case reports published for these theoretical concerns. If you have references to the specific cases, please publish the link here.

Thirdly, the strategic importance of immunizing the current generation of children against small pox has greater implications. Anthrax, smallpox, and other biological weapons can be effectively neutralized by the skillful use of vaccines.

This is probably the only category of WMD which can be totally neutralized by strong governmental policy.

Only liberal democrats appear to prefer to leave our nation's children vulnerable to this kind of biological blackmail.

I find it disgusting!

[FITZ]

My own thought but there are quite a few people who are more at risk from an immune standpoint today than in the 60's. More people with AIDS/HIV, allergies, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc. These people with immune problems are likely to be more at risk, either from direct immunization or close association with someone that was immunized.

There would be some risk to these people with the vaccine being out there but they would be much better off if the population was vaccinated before smallpox breaks out. The immune-compromised would need time to build up immunity and also would benefit by having many people able to donate pheresed plasma with antibodies against smallpox.

They should offer careful vaccinations first to those with weakened immune systems so they'd be somewhat protected when everyone else is vaccinated (voluntary vaccinations).