New Fears About Smallpox Vaccine

Avatar for keeley_14383
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
New Fears About Smallpox Vaccine
15
Thu, 05-08-2003 - 9:31am
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/31/eveningnews/main547073.shtml

"(CBS) Three months into the smallpox inoculation campaign, sources say the government is doing an about-face and will let states stop administering the high-risk vaccine, if they choose, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

That's a sharp contrast to the original rush to vaccinate a half-million health care workers as a frontline defense against a possible bio-terror attack. So far, only 35,000 of the targeted workers have been inoculated."

. . . "An aggressive government surveillance program set up to detect any dangerous trends recently uncovered one: 11 cases of unusual heart inflammation among military troops who got the smallpox vaccine; three civilian deaths are also under investigation.

But CBS News has learned of one high-profile death that hasn't yet been counted – that of NBC Correspondent David Bloom. He died of an apparent blood clot several weeks after getting both the smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

Asked if Bloom's death should be counted and reported since he had the smallpox vaccination and died within a period of weeks, Strom says, "Yes."

Pages

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-13-2003 - 11:06am
This is probably off topic but, regarding links:

I don't like them because, IMHO, it's like using bible quotes to explain yourself. I know a lot of folks read only certain sites and thus quote from only those sites. It gets rather boring simply reading links. It's like they can't answer on their own. Now, if you answer a question then someone says, "Oh yeah? Well, where did you hear that?', THEN I think a link is somewhat helpful. I also don't believe that the folks on the other end of the links are always that much smarter or more informed than those of us on the message boards.

Lucky

Avatar for suschi
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 05-13-2003 - 9:51am
Lucky, RE: the links. The reason why you will find many posters using links in their messages is because they are often demanded of them to back up the information they are posting. Aside from that, you keep saying you want to hear the posters' own words. Have you ever stopped to think how the posters came to believe the way they do today? They didn't just think up the information they are relaying, it had to come from somewhere, and influenced their way of thinking. Our thoughts of today are a culmination of information we have processed along the way. So I'm not sure what your aversion is to the link issue.

And RE: your statement,

"Right now, there is no smallpox epidemic, so why vax for it?"

Right on. Vaccinating is silly in the absence of epidemics.

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 05-12-2003 - 9:54am
Jan,

I really do have a lot of faith in our modern medicine. I think I will take my chances and not vax for smallpox, untill a safer version is out. The reason I like vaxing is that it stops the epidemics. Right now, there is no smallpox epidemic, so why vax for it? Seems to me Bush got a little freaked out about the possibility of germ warfare. Vaxing all those people seemed a little alarmist to me.

I do, however, think the continued use of the current vaxs are a good idea. I know it sounds contradictory. JMO. Although, they should always be looking for safer versions.

Lucky the Linkophobic

Avatar for catherina
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 05-12-2003 - 8:37am
LOL - Miki, I was about to post the very same thing =0)

In Germany, we say: zwei Frauen, ein Gedanke (two women, one thought)

Catherina

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 05-12-2003 - 7:40am
<> ---Eradicated?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 05-11-2003 - 9:23pm
<<. If modern meds can't help with the next smallpox epidemic, why not vax?>>


Actually I was being a bit facetious in my comments about modern medicine. I do think they are better able to treat the so called VPD's today, as opposed to 50 or 100 years ago. My comments were more about the 'selling' of the vaccines by scaring parents into believing the death and injury rates of the disease would be the same as they were early/mid last century

Really, it's vaccine advocats who are implying that modern medicine has not progressed, when it comes to infectious disease, for many decades

<< Seems the vax did more to prevent deaths than non vaxing would. Right?>>

I live in Australia. Smallpox disappeared here with minimal vaccination. I think the last case here was in about 1922




<< If 30% will die in an outbreak, isn't that less than death from vaccine?>>

Well, that depends on whether the 30% figure is actually true I did post some figures a while back that were taken from an old government publication on smallpox, either here or on another board, that suggested the death rate from smallpox was much lower, I think in the vicinity of 5% (I'd try and find it for you, but then I've read how much you loathe being provided with links ;-) Seems you are not yet aware that at least one person on this board believes that personal opinion, unsubstantiated by scientific studies, counts for nought on a debate board!!) And it also depends on whether you buy the supposed 'one in a million death from vaccine' story that has perpetuated over the years. Personally I buy neither

Catherina said:

<< thanks to modern medicine, that can eradicate measles, mumps and rubella, if only it is used appropriately (two shots at 12 months and before school entry), as elegantly demonstrated by Finland.>>

Hmm...wonder what they call these diseases in Finland these days ;-)



Jan

Avatar for lucky30605
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 05-11-2003 - 9:30am
Jan,

I think your arguement is a good case FOR vaxing. I am a little confused. If modern meds can't help with the next smallpox epidemic, why not vax? Seems the vax did more to prevent deaths than non vaxing would. Right? If 30% will die in an outbreak, isn't that less than death from vaccine? Aren't the current numbers one in 100,000 will die from the vax? I'm not sure.

Did I make any sense?

Lucky

Avatar for catherina
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 05-11-2003 - 4:44am
Jan,

measles is a viral disease and there is not causative treatment for them. You can treat teh pneumonia and ear infections better, but the measles encephalitis and SSPE are still as deadly as they were back then. No reason to gloat over the "failure of modern medicine" as we *do* have an efficient vaccine, thanks to modern medicine, that can eradicate measles, mumps and rubella, if only it is used appropriately (two shots at 12 months and before school entry), as elegantly demonstrated by Finland.

Catherina

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 05-10-2003 - 11:24pm
<< Also, I am betting that smallpox can be treated by our modern medicine a little better now than when the last breakout was>>

Considering that they are still using historical stats to 'inform' people of the likely scenario should smallpox re-emerge, it certainly doesn't sound like death/injury from this disease would be one iota different today than it was way back when. The death rate of smallpox cases was supposedly 30% a century ago and this is the same percentage they use when referring to it's likely impact today. According to the vaccine 'sell' in general, should vaccines be discontinued, the same death/injury ratio that applied 50 years ago would be applicable for the so called VPD's today. So it seems that if you contract measles in 2003 the odds of you dying from it are the same as they were decades ago Hmmm...something just doesn't add up. Or maybe 'modern medicine' really can't save anymore lives, when it comes to childhood diseases, than could the doctors of 50 years (or a century) ago.

Jan

Avatar for kidoctr
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 05-09-2003 - 8:30pm
According to the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/Smallpox.txt

"The last case of smallpox in the United States was reported in 1949....

By the end of 1975, smallpox persisted only in the Horn of Africa. Conditions were very

difficult in Ethiopia and Somalia, where there were few roads. Civil war, famine, and refugees made the task even more difficult. An intensive surveillance and containment and vaccination program was undertaken in the spring and summer of 1977. As a result, the world's last indigenous patient

with smallpox was a hospital cook in Merka, Somalia, on October 26, 1977. Searches for

additional cases continued in Africa for more than 2 years, during which time thousands of rash illnesses were investigated. None proved to be smallpox.

The last cases of smallpox on earth occurred in an outbreak of 2 cases (one of which was fatal) in Birmingham, England in 1978. This outbreak occurred because variola virus was carried by the ventilation system from a research laboratory to an office one floor above the laboratory. In 1980 the World Health Assembly certified the global eradication of smallpox and recommended that all countries cease vaccination. The World Health Organization also recommended that all laboratories either destroy their remaining stocks of variola virus or transfer them to one of two WHO reference laboratories - the Institute of Viral Preparations in Moscow, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. All laboratories were believed to have complied with this request."

Eve

 
 

Pages