|
|
 |
The Controversial Smallpox
Vaccine
Meryl Nass, MD, OCt. 10, 2002
|
Eighteen Points You
Should Consider
- Smallpox is a serious disease and it would be great to prevent
it. A very old vaccine exists, derived from the pustules of calf
bellies inoculated with an old strain of-we think-a cowpox virus
lost in antiquity. Edward Jenner came up with the idea of
vaccination after realizing milk maids rarely got smallpox, and
perhaps they caught something similar from cows which made them
immune. The word vaccination comes from this Vaccinia virus.
- This is a live virus vaccine. Nearly all the side-effects are a
result of infection by this virus. Even though it only causes mild
infections in most people, in some the infection causes disfiguring
skin disorders, blindness, neurological impairments and death. No
one knows what percentage of recipients will suffer these
complications.
- The vaccine is two hundred years old: why don’t we have
something better? Because it worked, and by the time biology
developed methods for making new vaccines more efficiently, the
disease had been wiped out.
- Now that we can decode the genomes of microorganisms easily, it
is likely that viral molecules that stimulate immunity will be
identified and used to create new vaccines. This process does take
years, and there is no guarantee it will yield fruit.
- How serious is the threat? Well, no nation has been routinely
vaccinating its population for smallpox for the past two decades,
and only the US and Israel are considering a crash vaccination
program in the immediate future. All nations are at risk, and
approximately half the worlds’ population has never been vaccinated.
If smallpox is used on a mass scale, it will almost certainly spread
around the globe in short order. It will not spare Afghanistan,
Iraq, North Korea or any other nation, and the numbers of casualties
will probably be huge.
- This kind of threat, however, may mean no nation state is likely
to use this weapon, since there is no way of avoiding the chaos and
economic disaster that will accompany a smallpox epidemic.
- Who might use such a weapon? Only a madman, or someone who has
nothing left to lose. Saddam Hussein, faced with our threat
to destroy him, fits this category. He is not the person we should
be pushing into a corner while holding a gun to his head. He still
has a finger on the chem.-bio button, after all. There are other
ways of containing his danger to the West, while allowing him to
remain in power. Israel took out Iraq’s nearly completed nuclear
power plant twenty years ago; now that is the type of win-win
strategy we should now be employing. Instead, President Bush is
practically daring him to release his worst!
- In a biological warfare situation, things may be very different
than when you are facing natural diseases. The amount of the
organism you inhale may be higher than in an ordinary exposure. The
microorganism is most likely selected or created to maximize
virulence. More than one type of pathogen may be used to enhance
infectivity, or a chemical agent may accompany a microbial one.
Genes for antibiotic resistance and vaccine resistance may have been
added. This means that protective measures that are effective in
routine situations may fail when we are facing bioterroism.
- Furthermore, what does a perpetrator do when the nation is
immunized against anthrax or smallpox? He simply picks another
agent, like tularemia, plague, ebola, or an encephalitis virus. We
have no vaccines for these agents. Mass vaccination simply
guarantees that the agent for which you were vaccinated will not be
used, and something else will be selected. Nations that had
offensive biological programs, including the US and Soviet Union,
had dozens of agents to choose from.
- Three smallpox vaccines will soon be available. None are
currently licensed, though it is claimed that the Acambis vaccine
will be licensed within weeks. Two studies of Wyeth’s (long-expired)
Dryvax vaccine efficacy were published in the New England Journal of
Medicine April 25, 2002, by overlapping groups of researchers. In
one study the 1:10 dilution gave 70% efficacy, and the 1:100
dilution gave 15% efficacy (only 3 of 20 recipients developed a
cowpox lesion).
- In the other study (and both had the same first author) 98% of
vaccine recipients developed lesions after one dose using each of
the three dilutions. The authors state this was due to lower vaccine
titres in the first study. What they do not explain is why
the titres were so different, and whether titres of virus in the
other Dryvax vials that may be used on the public will be sufficient
for protection.
- NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci reported that up to 50 million Americans
may be at high risk of vaccine consequences. Yet the virus grows in
the skin on your arm after vaccination, and can easily aerosolize.
How effective will bandages be at preventing widespread release of
vaccine for 1-2 weeks following vaccination? If vaccine is released
in this way, how many of the 50 million will be inadvertently
vaccinated.
- To protect those at high risk, which includes people with AIDS,
health care workers may be asked to take a work furlough for two
weeks after vaccination. Will they also take a furlough from
shopping malls, churches and schools? Will furloughs be effective at
preventing viral spread to contacts of vaccinated individuals?
- One big problem for the federal government is figuring out who
will pay for these "vaccine vacations." Let’s see now: 10 million
health care workers at an average $1,000/week for two weeks-looks
like the furloughs could cost 20 billion dollars. If it requires an
unpaid leave from work, how many health care workers will volunteer
for vaccination?
- I wish I had "the answer," but of course I do not. A killed or
subunit vaccine, or even a more attenuated live vaccine would be a
much better option. Do we have the time to develop one? Not if
Saddam has smallpox and we preemptively strike soon.
- Anthrax and smallpox vaccines are only the start down the
vaccine slippery slope. What will our immune systems be like after
receiving another twenty or thirty biowarfare vaccines, as
envisioned in the Pentagon’s Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program?
- Vaccines will never provide the robust defense needed against
potential biological warfare threats. Instead, post-exposure
therapies that are generic, rather than specific for each
microorganism, are what is needed. Even then, there are no
guarantees. And when genetic engineering gets even more
sophisticated, all bets are off as to whether any technology can
save us.
- Taking prevention seriously is the best way to combat
bioterrorism. A meaningful, verifiable biowarfare treaty, with full
inspections and universal membership, is our best shot at putting
the biological genie back in the bottle. Though it’s not 100%
effective, it can prevent the creation of weapons on a mass scale.
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/nass/2002_oct10.html |
|