Old shots may still stop smallpox

Chicago Tribune ^ | 08/18/03 | Jeremy Manier

[bedolido]

Most people vaccinated against smallpox decades ago still have some protection against the disease, according to a new study that supports the growing belief that the U.S. may be less vulnerable to a terrorist attack with the deadly virus than experts once feared.

Some researchers doubt that vaccines given before 1972, when the U.S. stopped routine smallpox vaccination, still impart immunity, but even those who question the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine now say a return of smallpox would be unlikely to spark an epidemic. They cite the millions of vaccine doses the U.S. has stockpiled since 2001, intense efforts to teach physicians how to spot smallpox, and the largely successful response to the sudden appearance of SARS earlier this year.

Mathematical models predicting rapid spread of smallpox have often presumed that doctors would be ignorant of the disease and ways of limiting its transmission, said Dr. Thomas Mack, a smallpox expert and professor of preventive medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles. But the situation with SARS, which is about as infectious as smallpox, showed that a quick response can rein in even a completely new disease.

"In fact, smallpox would have been contained much faster" than SARS, said Mack, who studied smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan in the 1960s. "If somebody were to import smallpox, the effect would be analogous to a hand grenade, not a dirty bomb."

In the study released Sunday, Oregon researchers found that people vaccinated before 1972 had antibodies against smallpox up to 75 years after being vaccinated--the longest-lasting protection shown to date. The results were published in the journal Nature Medicine.

[wimpycat]

I'd be interested in getting re-vaccinated just to see if I got an immune "take". That's the only way you'd really know (aside from being exposed to actual smallpox) if your old vaccine had any effectiveness.

[NYFriend]

BCG (vaccine for TB) has been show to protect even after anti-bodies can no longer be detected in the blood (so-called memory effect). Smallpox could be different, we can't know without the kind of studies no one will want to try.

[Digger]

As Paul Harvey would do the rest of the story, remember who the players were that got the bid for the new vaccine?? The sheeple were fooled again. GW & the group just put another tax on ya. Yep, somebody someday will have to pay for this vaccine. That's a tax in my think'in.

[LurkedLongEnough]

I'd be interested in getting re-vaccinated

You don't sound wimpy to me, wimpycat.

Although I too am interested whether the old vaccination would protect me, I seriously am against volunteering for another painful, pus-filled scab to find out.

If you do, then post results, willya?

[wimpycat]

Given the size of my vaccination scar, I'm sure I had a helluva reaction the first time around---but then, I was a year old, and don't remember it. Maybe that's why I'm so oblivious to the inconvenience and possible risks. My mom had it done 2 or 3 times back in the 50's (for nursing school) and she says the lesion itches like the very devil.

But, if the vaccine becomes available to me (I'm not in a high priority group) and I DO get the vaccine, I'll be sure to post the results. In fact, I may keep a sort of journal and post it on FR.

[AnAmericanMother]

Me too.

One of my multiple vaccinations produced a scar that you can just about cover with a quarter (it's still there and very much visible). I was revaccinated multiple times, possibly as many as four or five, because we traveled in third world countries quite a bit when I was a child and teenager. I have no idea which one "took" because I was always revaccinated over the existing scar.

I figure I'll be a good candidate for re-vaccination since there are probably still some antibodies coursing around in my system. I will "try it on the dog" before I vaccinate my kids, for sure.

[wimpycat]

You had an "immune take" if the fresh lesion(s) was very small compared to the original lesion. My vaccine scar is about the size of a nickel and I think my mom's is, too. When she got re-vaccinated (I don't know if she was vaccinated on the existing scar or not), the lesion was like a very small dot, like about the size of a BB. That was an immune "take".

I'm thinking (hoping) the vaccine would still have at least some value, like even if I were to catch smallpox, I might still get sick, just not quite as sick as somebody as an unvaccinated person, and hopefully the scarring wouldn't be as bad.

[AnAmericanMother]

I simply don't remember the details! (This was back in the 60s when I was a pre-teen and teenager.) I do remember itching like crazy at some point though, so I'm sure one of my revaccinations "took" (I was vaccinated as an infant in the early 50s).

The cholera and yellow fever vaccinations were much more memorable. Those are REALLY bad and make you pretty sick for several days with fever, swollen arm, etc. - but still beat a bout with the real thing.

[wimpycat]

If they are anything like anti-malarial drugs, no thanks! My husband told me about his anti-malarial drugs in his Navy days. From what I hear, it'll knock you flat and keep you tethered to the toilet for quite awhile. Talk about leaving one clean as a whistle, so to speak. He said it was like turning a faucet on full blast.

[AnAmericanMother]

The anti-malarial drugs have always been difficult, very bad side effects. The newest ones like Malarone are much better than the old chloroquinone (a charming side effect of which is to turn your teeth yellow. Fortunately bleaching works on this one.)

But it beats malaria, 'cause once you've got it it's very hard to get rid of.