Replies

I don't agree with the decision to ban Former Lurker. The effect of banning someone who cares passionately about an issue is often to eliminate all discussion of that issue. For example, I thought that the position of black jade on pipelines being the primary cause of the war in Afghanistan was mistaken. Nonetheless, the oil industry does play a major role in the events of the middle east. Eliminating discussion of that is a loss if that is a subject which you are curious about. The stakes on the smallpox issue are higher and more personal than those on the oil pipeline issue. Former Lurker's position that no vaccine has ever done any good is probably wrong. Nevertheless, I have problems with the Bush administration's position for the following reasons:

1) It has not been proven to me that Iraq has smallpox.
2) It has not been proven to me that Iraq has the means to deliver and deploy smallpox effectively.
3) Because of 1 and 2, the government's response seems based on speculation about what might happen rather than an actual threat.
4) It is not clear to me that cowpox is sufficiently harmless that it's widespread distribution poses no threat.
The fact that vaccination with cowpox was an improvement over variolation with smallpox does not mean it is without risk.
5) It has not been sufficiently explained how cowpox differs from smallpox. I mean this biologically and not just in terms of symptoms.
6) The vaccine is a live virus and not a killed virus.
7) The method of preparing the live virus is not the safest method which is cell culture adaptation which as noted above uses a human virus which has been weakened by being grown in a chicken embryo. Instead it is an unweakened live virus from a related cow disease.
8) If smallpox has been eradicated from the human population then mandatory widespread vaccination could have the effect of reintroducing it in the form of a similar disease.
9) The ratio of public health risks to public health benefits in vaccinating a population in which a disease does not exist is different from the ratio of risks to benefits in vaccination of a population where the disease is already prevalent.
10) The patriot act protects the pharmaceutical industry from being sued if the vaccine causes harm.

FormerLurker was not banned due to his stance. He was banned because he had a habit of belittling and insulting anyone who disagreed with his version of Revealed Truth.

If you wish, I will Freepmail you a response to your post in typical FormerLurker fashion.

In short, if you can't play nice...you get sent home.

There are plenty of anti-vaccine people on FR who don't resort to thread spamming and hurled insults. If anything FL's ban will improve the discussion on the topic. I know there are numerous times I've avoided threads on topics I know interested FL because I didn't feel like getting into the usual BS arguement with him. He didn't discuss anything, he tried to shout people down and when opposed ran crying to moderators and would eventually resort to profanity laiden freepmails.

I don't agree with the decision to ban Former Lurker. The effect of banning someone who cares passionately about an issue is often to eliminate all discussion of that issue.

Former Lurker didn't care about the issue, he cared about posing as the Sole Possessor of All Truth, regardless of the lies and tinfoil spam he needed for his narcissism.

Former Lurker's position that no vaccine has ever done any good is probably wrong.

And an absolute menace to public health. Don't forget that.

Nevertheless, I have problems with the Bush administration's position for the following reasons:

1) It has not been proven to me that Iraq has smallpox.

So? Who are you?

2) It has not been proven to me that Iraq has the means to deliver and deploy smallpox effectively.

So? Why did President Bush take the smallpox vaccination booster?
Why did the CDC stockpile 300,000,000 doses of the vaccine?
Why are Europe and the G-7 and Canada and Mexico and Israel and Jordan suddenly interested in immunizing their populations from smallpox?

3) Because of 1 and 2, the government's response seems based on speculation about what might happen rather than an actual threat

Gotcha, "not been proven to me" = "government's response seems based on speculation about what might happen rather than an actual threat."

. 4) It is not clear to me that cowpox is sufficiently harmless that it's widespread distribution poses no threat.
The fact that vaccination with cowpox was an improvement over variolation with smallpox does not mean it is without risk.

Well, since cowpox (or a close relative) was used for almost 200 years with overwhelming benefits to the human race, I don't know what it will take to convince you.
No one's claiming anything is without risk, what we're talking about is lowering risks. Cease the false dilemmas and straw men already.

5) It has not been sufficiently explained how cowpox differs from smallpox. I mean this biologically and not just in terms of symptoms.

Yes it has. Do your homework. One virus is Vaccinia, the other is Variola.

6) The vaccine is a live virus and not a killed virus.

Big deal. As you noted, it's a live virus that's not the same as the one for which we're being immunized.
Since smallpox is more lethal and contagious than most other viruses, it poses a unique risk, and warrants unique solutions if that's all we have.

7) The method of preparing the live virus is not the safest method which is cell culture adaptation which as noted above uses a human virus which has been weakened by being grown in a chicken embryo. Instead it is an unweakened live virus from a related cow disease.

So? The vast, vast majority of those vaccinated come out of it healthy, unscathed, and immunized against smallpox.
Hold your breath, if you like, for a risk-free universe.

8) If smallpox has been eradicated from the human population then mandatory widespread vaccination could have the effect of reintroducing it in the form of a similar disease.

No, scientifically impossible. There has never been a case where one disease has become an already existing disease. This is hysteria. Why not fear that vaccine scars will provide portals for an invasion from another dimension?
Also, we aren't talking about "mandatory," that's a red herring.

9) The ratio of public health risks to public health benefits in vaccinating a population in which a disease does not exist is different from the ratio of risks to benefits in vaccination of a population where the disease is already prevalent.

The vaccine will be voluntary. Wring your hands if you like, while the rest of us provide you with herd immunity.

10) The patriot act protects the pharmaceutical industry from being sued if the vaccine causes harm.

Good. The voluntary vaccine will carry an implicit consent waiver. Cutting through the lawyers and the red tape is a good thing..