Talk:Smallpox vaccine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i am looking for info on a vaccination campaign in the phillipines in 1905. is there any info on how many people died and why the vaccine caused the deaths?

It is likely the war caused the deaths. It was quite a notable one. Genocide is a word that has been used. Midgley 02:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Effectiveness of smallpox vaccine 3 Before smallpox vaccine 4 Before 5 Vaccinia != Cowpox 6 Article about vaccine 7 Eradication of smallpox

[edit] Cleanup

I just chopped the following from this article:

The vaccine that eventually eradicated smallpox, developed by Edward Jenner in 1796, consists of the virus which causes the related, yet far milder, cowpox disease; this virus is appropriately named vaccinia, from the Latin 'vaca' which means cow.

This vaccine has functional virus in it which improves its effectiveness but, unfortunately, causes serious complications for people with impaired immune systems (for example chemotherapy and AIDS patients, and people with eczema) and is not yet considered safe for pregnant women. A small, yet significant, percentage of healthy individuals also suffer adverse side-effects which, in rare cases, include permanent neurological damage. Vaccines that only contain attenuated ("killed") vaccinia virus have been proposed but some researchers have questioned the possible effectiveness of such a vaccine. Others point out that mass vaccinations would probably not be needed to counter a bioterrorist attack if many millions of doses of the current (possibly improved) vaccine could be delivered to victims within several days of exposure (the vaccine is effective to that point). This, along with vaccinations of so-called first-responders, is the current plan of action being devised by the US Department of Homeland Defense and FEMA in the United States (the DHD was formed as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks).

The vaccine can cause complications for those around those who are vaccinated. People who get the vaccine will shed virus particles through vesicles on their skin and possibly through their respiratory tract. Infections in close and not-so-close contacts can ensue. The current plan to vaccinate first responders has the potential to cause infection in the most vulnerable section of the population, the hospitalized ill. Family contacts are also susceptible, although they are less vulnerable because their immune systems are presumably intact. Secondary infection can cause skin disease, pulmonary disease and rarely, neurologic disease.

As of June 21, 2003, a scientific advisory panel had issued a recommendation against further vaccination of first responders because a significant number of those vaccinated suffered heart problems, notably pericarditis and myocarditis.

The main problem with developing a new, supposedly safer vaccine, is that, barring a bioterrorist attack on immunized individuals, its effectiveness cannot be tested on humans, and other animals do not naturally contract smallpox. Monkeys at USAMIID research facilities have been infected, but tests on animals that are artificially infected with a human disease are notorious for giving false or misleading results. To demonstrate safety and effectiveness, human trials always have to confirm data obtained from animal testing.

I will be the first to say that there is indeed genuinely encyclopedic material in here, but frankly I don't have the time to weed it out. I just spent two hours weeding similar crap out the vaccine article.*Kat* 07:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've returned it. It's not appropriate to cut such a large amount of material simply because you object to it in some (unspecified) way, but don't want to deal with it yourself. I myself don't see anything unencyclopedic there, and certainly not anything requiring immediate deletion. - Nunh-huh 18:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm also very interested to know what specific issues *Kat* has so this article can be improved. --mav 14:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness of smallpox vaccine

Discussion moved from Talk:Mumps. Andrew73 18:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No allopath is going to like being called a vaccinator, especially when he is pretending to be unbiased---silly is your euphemism for that, a new one for me. I can't make out exactly what Midgley is trying to say but he doesn't appear to answer any of my points except to make out a vaccine is still effective even if the victims had been vaccinated. A vaccinator even tried this one with me once over smallpox vaccine when well over 90% of the victims had been vaccinated, and had obviously, in this case, caught smallpox from the vaccine. I suspect he would have tried this argument with the Rubini mumps strain when it was in use, but even vaccinators now say it was 100% useless at preventing mumps. If I didn't study vaccination history I might have more confidence in vaccinators beliefs, which is why Dr Midgley is rather disdainful of old books, I would suggest, for if people really looked at the history books documenting the smallpox vaccine they would certainly never believe in any vaccine now, or the beliefs of vaccination. I like the one written by the Chief sanitation officer of Leicester, for example, who proved conclusively that sanitation was more effective than vaccination, buy some margin, and over 20 years [1]. He would be one of the 'mad', no doubt, of Dr Midgley. What I always find amusing, and scary, is the fact vaccinators claim vaccination was effective from day one, 200 or so years ago, from when Jenner started it, that must be a 100 or so years before preservatives! john 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind being called a "vaccinator" or an "allopath" for that matter. And I don't dispute that sanitation is helpful. But it seems that some editors here prefer a world with smallpox than without smallpox! Andrew73 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well good, see if you can get Jdwolff to do the same. You seem to be suggesting that this editor prefers a world with smallpox because I am anti-vaccine. Well, I can see your argument, but I have found the smallpox vaccine didn't prevent or eliminate smallpox, in fact, it spread and prolonged smallpox, which was why they had huge epidemics after the compulsory vaccination years, and repealed the compulsory vaccination laws. And your chief smallpox expert admitted recently that it would have died out without vaccination, so how can you say vaccination did the deed? In truth it was the decline in poverty, and we still have it around, now called monkey pox, and such like. john 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion of smallpox is beyond the scope of this discussion page on mumps! I'm not sure whom you're referring to specifically as the "chief smallpox expert," but perhaps the reason why smallpox would have died out without vaccination is the whole point...because of vaccination, there is no longer a reservoir for smallpox. Andrew73 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal vaccination."----Dr. Mack [2] john 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You speak of epidemic smallpox and then use a quote which discusses endemic smallpox in a post-endemic society. And you quote a man who in the same speech about epidemic smallpox made the comment, "I would certainly want to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives." No one here disputes the role of sanitation and less crowded living conditions. InvictaHOG 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that pretty much demolishes John's argument. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC

Was that my argument? A quote. The thing I always marvel at is vaccinators insistence that smallpox vaccination was effective from day one, which was around 1798. And it isn't generally known among vaccinators but arm-to-arm vaccination was the main method up until the end of the 19 century. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be too keen to use some smallpox pus taken off some pauper in the time when leprosy and syphilis were quite common, not to mention smallpox. And perhaps Jdwolff would like to enlighten us on the methods used to screen out these sort of germs, and as to the methods used to keep the vaccine material from going septic? Also fairly recently some 1 million third world unfortunates died from dirty injections, every year, and that was using syringes, so can she also tell us what results we could expect from using ivory points and a sharp knife (lancet) to cut into an arm, using the same points for hundreds of people? It isn't generally known also, that up into the 1990's they used non-disposable needles in Africa, and I believe if you did that now you would be liable to being sued for negligence.john 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like semantics to me. No epidemic without endemic. What vaccinators say is usually more down to politics, especially at a vaccinators meeting (ACIP), and the acid test is would he vaccinate his own children--it was officially killing 21 children a year in first world countries. How many medical doctors vaccinate themselves with hepatitis B (only 50% in one study) and flu vaccines, would be an interesting statistic. You certainly wouldn't want to take it in its earlier years: "In 1926, 130 members of the Dallas (Tex.) Chamber of Commerce cancelled their trip to Mexico because vaccination was required as a precedent to entrance. Nearly a 100 medical men, at a conference in Dallas, went to Mexico, after they obtained permission to enter without being vaccinated." john 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a quotation/anecdote (if correct) about an isolated event nearly 80 years ago in a book authored by a chiropractor whose main interest was in natural foods is a strong enough argument to counter the efficacy of smallpox vaccination when smallpox was still present. Andrew73 19:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Vaccination was demolished by medical men mostly eg Hadwen [3], and ex public vaccinator Dr Collins [4]. My favourite smallpox vaccine statistic is the Phillipines in 1920 [5], in fact a good case could be made out that vaccination was designed to thin out the population. But vaccination was demolished by numerous other people mostly through the government stats, eg William Tebb [6], scientist Alfred Wallace [7], and noted medical man Creighton [8] who demolished it in an Enclopedia article. After some years of compulsory vaccination they suffered the worst smallpox epidemic ever, which was why they abolished the law, as the people saw through it, and most of the victims had been vaccinated--they got it from vaccination. Also the noble people of Leicester demolished vaccination conclusively by only using sanitation for some time, and showing by the statistics it was way and above better than vaccination, in fact they suffered 2,000 less deaths of children under 5 as their Chief sanitation engineer demonstrated through stats recorded in his book Leicester; Sanitation vs Vaccination [9]. It is obvious vaccination was actually killing 2,000 children in that city alone during the height of compulsory vaccination. If vaccinators admitted it was useless for a century or so they may have gotten away with it, but their insistence it was effective from day one and Jenner a hero is their undoing, and they will try to ignore the past for obvious reasons---they should have burnt all the books like they burnt Reich's. john 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute that the Leicester method of rigorous isolation, etc. was an effective way for controlling smallpox, but I think this could only apply to locations that had the resources to implement this strategy. (In fact, it served as one of the strategies for WHO's smallpox eradication program). And I don't think anyone disputes that during the nineteenth century, people started to realize the need for revaccination in order for the vaccine approach to be effective. The smallpox vaccine wasn't perfect in the 1800s (and still isn't perfect today either), so I don't dispute that the risk of iatrogenesis with the vaccine was more of an issue then with bacterial contamination, etc. However, what about the experience in Sheffield in 1887 where there were 274 deaths among the 6,000 unvaccinated out of a total population of 300,000, compared to only 200 deaths in the vaccinated population of 294,000? Quotations from a few anti-vaccinators from nearly a century ago doesn't disprove the fact that vaccination played a significant role in eliminating smallpox. Andrew73 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vaccinators can't ever accept the fallacy of smallpox vaccination. It is 'quotes' from BOOKS, that expose vaccination. If Leicester could do it so could every other city like London, but what it showed was the results compared to vaccination--and exposed vaccination to be not only ineffective but a major cause of death and disease (like smallpox). Biggs took apart the Sheffield claim in Ch 54 [10] Every statistical claim by vaccinators is always found to be false when looked into. What about the Phillipine experience in 1920? Also your comment 'nearly a century ago' was an attempt to pour cold water on the historical record and of the people actually there at the time, like Tebbs who looked into the evidence in great detail, also Biggs, Wallace, White, Hadwen etc. They took the time to write up the facts and take apart the vaccinators argument. Vaccination relies purely on the allopaths saying it works and expecting everyone to believe them, on trust basically. They would love to draw a line in the sand and say, as you attempt, 'ignore the past', 'trust us', and so on. "He who controls the past controls the future."--Orwell. john 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And Gloucester. Tried nt being vaccinated. Epidemic. Many dead. Midgley 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that smallpox vaccination was flawless, but at the same time, I disagree that it was a "fallacy." What Biggs may have neglected to mention was that in Leicester, smallpox contacts and people caring for smallpox patients were indeed vaccinated...perhaps this certainly played a role. In addition, if vaccination was so ineffective compared to sanitation, why did the rates of smallpox decrease whereas other presumably sanitation-related diseases such as typhus etc. did not decrease in concert? Incidentally, Biggs's "tearing apart" of the Sheffield numbers seems equally as ponderous and not necessarily reliable. Andrew73 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I answered this before but it has vanished. I'd take Biggs word as he lived there and was it's chief sanitation officer. I just looked at some figures and it typhus declined with smallpox, as you would expect, being a sanitation and overcrowding disease. Re Sheffield: "Sheffield, an insanitary town, had a bad smallpox epidemic in 1887-88. Of 7,066 cases classed as vaccinated or unvaccinated, 5,891 or 83.4 per cent were put in the vaccinated class. Of 647 cases at Warrington, in 1892-93, 601, or 89.2 per cent, had been vaccinated; of 2,945 cases at Birmingham in 1892-93, 2,616, or 88.8 per cent, had been vaccinated; and of 828 cases at Willenhall in 1894, 739, or 89.3 per cent, had been vaccinated." Lilly Loat [Book 1951] The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization john 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Biggs' evidence to the ROyal COmmission is a polemic. The Commission examined him for some time and clearly did not accept all he said. Looking at it, it contains errors which make me wonder how much of the apparently correct content is fabricated - it is very much a political document in a political argument. I'm surprised that soemone who is "studying vaccination" doesn't have the ROyal COmmission report on hand to offer as well as the single-sided view of Biggs. THe "study" is in fact a piling up of anything that seems to support an argument, with nothing being taken from the pile when it becomes clear it is wrong and no evaluation or context of it.

[edit] Before smallpox vaccine

"Historical records show that a vaccination method was already known"

This doesn't quite work, does it. 11:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before

That section doesn't look right.

Neither does the one full of Whale links - even though they are to a clone site. There was an RFC abut that IIRC, and there is as we all know an article suitable for putting anti-vaccination stuff into, it should not be scattered over WP. This chap has been telling the same lies about doctors, since at least 1997 on newsgroups and anywhere else that is open, there is only one clear mention of a diagnosis and it is not substantiated. Midgley 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccinia != Cowpox

Strictly. SO best not to say it does. Midgley 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article about vaccine

This article could use a big overhaul. For an article about the smallpox vaccine, it skips a lot of important information. It starts with Before Vaccination, then proceeds to Early Vaccination and then skips straight to Eradication of Smallpox. It would benefit from the contribution of information about:

• Edward Jenner and the development of the vaccine
• The components/structure of the vaccine
• The application of the vaccine during the 18th/19th centuries
• Worldwide efforts to eradicate smallpox in the 20th century

dpotter 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eradication of smallpox

Three known repositories of the virus were left, one in Birmingham, England which was later destroyed after an accidental escape from containment caused many deaths

I fail to see any justification for this statement.

http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism17/smallpoxvaccine.htm describes an outbreak in 1966 originating in Birmingham plus three other unrelated outbreaks that infected a total of 62 (+9 retrospectively) resulting in zero deaths.

There was a single death Janet Parker from the escape at Birmingham in 1978. M100 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)