From: john on

"Rich" <joshew(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HRA7g.14391$MP2.9793(a)tornado.socal.rr.com...
>

>
> Please explain how vaccination could spread smallpox when it contains
> absolutely NO smallpox virus.
> --
>
explain this http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html


http://www.whale.to/a/lymph2.html

The first idea of Jenner, and others before Jenner, was to use matter from
the cow ill with the disease called cow-pox. This failed, and was dangerous.
Jenner's second idea was horse-grease: this failed, also was found
dangerous. Later on, others, finding it difficult to get cow-pox, have
inoculated cows with human small-pox. A great deal of vaccination has been
performed with matter raised in this way. It rested, however, with Dr.
Monckton-Copeman to discover a most ingenious method of producing the stuff
he wanted. He scraped matter from the corpse of a small-pox patient,* and
with that he inoculated a monkey, and succeeded in getting pustules on the
monkey. He then inoculated a calf with matter from the monkey, and succeeded
in getting pustules on the calf. He then inoculated children with matter
from the calf, and succeeded in getting pustules on the children, and a
great deal of this matter was sent out by the Local Government Board for
vaccinating children. (Shortly after this there began a small-pox epidemic
in London.) This method of producing vaccine material did not commend
itself, however, to the taste of the British public. Questions were asked
about it in Parliament. The Local Government Board, however, instead of
standing by its men of science-instead of claiming that they were an
authority before which the ignorant public must bow, with strange regard to
"ignorant clamour" said that no more of this corpse-monkey-pox should be put
into the blood of little English children, and since the Government was hard
up for matter for doing the cow-poxing business - of late years they have
sent to Germany-obtained from Cologne * some matter with which to inoculate
calves in the British Vaccine Establishment. Where the Germans got their
stuff from the learned authorities of the Local Government Board do not
know, and, apparently, do not care. Any stuff that will raise the
regulation pustule on the arm of a little baby will do. They think it is
equally effective with any other stuff, in this view of the case they are
undoubtedly right ; it is as effective for good as any other of the filthy
concoctions with which they have for generations poisoned the blood of our
children. It is all absolutely useless. [1921] Vaccination and the State By
Arnold Lupton MP.



From: PeterB on

Vaccine-man wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> > Dr. Tom Mack, of USC, a well-known scientist with first-hand experience
> > studying smallpox in Pakistan during the 1960s, said that endemic
> > smallpox vanished from the US not because of herd immunity through
> > vaccine, but as a result of ongoing economic development.
>
> He said no such thing. He said that economic development contributed to
> the end of smallpox. He did not use the word "vanished". Here's what he
> said:
>
> "Disappearance was facilitated, not impeded, by economic development."

"Disappear" and "vanish" in this context are the same thing. The point
is that he has viewed living conditions, not vaccine, as being pivotal
in public health.

> T. Mack. A Different View of Smallpox and Vaccination. NEJM. 348:460.
> 2003.
>
> > He also said
> > that mortality rates have been skewed by over-weighting of data series
> > with children, who are more vulnerable to the disease. He pegs the
> > actual case mortality rate at closer to 1-in-7, saying infection rates
> > would have declined on their own (just more slowly) without
> > intervention programs.
>
> Please provide the reference to where you saw this.

The Public Forum on Smallpox hosted by CDC, at which Mack spoke in
2002. He said:
"I'd just like to point out that not only is it a nasty syndrome, but
the case fatality is probably less than is usually advertised. And the
reason for that is that most series are heavily loaded with children.
If you look at the age-specific case-fatality rate, it's much lower
among adults. And so I would estimate that if we had an importation
today in the adult population, the case fatality would probably be
around 10 percent to 15 percent."

> Here's what I have
> from him:
>
> "Dr. Snyder is also correct; pre-exposure vaccination is highly
> effective, and post-exposure vaccination is at best of limited
> effectiveness. Unfortunately the case fatality rate for variola major
> among unvaccinated persons is likely to be closer to 50 percent than
> 22.5 percent."

Please provide the reference to where you saw this. It appears to be
an older attribution.

> Clearly, Dr. Mack was an advocate of smallpox immunization. This is
> from the reference you provided (which are a series of letters to the
> editor).

His research was concomitant with use of vaccine, so it isn't suprising
that he hoped it would be completely effective. But it never was, and
he wisely focused on other contributing, and mitigating, factors.

> >
> > (1) Letai, A. G., Snyder, K. M., Fett, J. D., Worthington, M. G., Ross,
> > J. J., Neff, J. M., Lane, J. M., Fulginiti, V. A., Milton, D. K.,
> > Bozzette, S. A., Boer, R., Mack, T., Sepkowitz, K. A. (2003). Smallpox
> > and Smallpox Vaccination. NEJM 348: 1920-1925

From: PeterB on

Vaccine-man wrote:
> You have two groups of hamsters. One group is immunized with a
> genetically-engineered yellow fever vaccine virus (17D) that has West
> Nile virus antigen, while the other is unimmunized. After a few weeks,
> all the hamsters are infected with 10^4 TCID50 of WNV NY385-99. Half of
> the unvaccinated hamsters die from WN encephalitis, while none of the
> vaccinated hamsters show any sign of disease and, of course, none die.
> How do you interpret this?

For one, laboratory controlled exposure to virus in animals using
intraperitoneal injections in no way simulates conditions of human
exposure to viral challenges in the real world. Second, the genetics
of hamsters are not equivalent to that of human beings. Third, while
demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccine in hamsters under such
conditions, it in no way tells us how effective or safe the vaccine may
be in humans, and therefore the risk-adjusted outcome remains unknown.


PeterB

From: Vaccine-man on
PeterB wrote:
> Vaccine-man wrote:
> > PeterB wrote:
> > > Dr. Tom Mack, of USC, a well-known scientist with first-hand experience
> > > studying smallpox in Pakistan during the 1960s, said that endemic
> > > smallpox vanished from the US not because of herd immunity through
> > > vaccine, but as a result of ongoing economic development.
>
> > He said no such thing. He said that economic development contributed to
> > the end of smallpox. He did not use the word "vanished". Here's what he
> > said:
>
> > "Disappearance was facilitated, not impeded, by economic development."
>
> "Disappear" and "vanish" in this context are the same thing. The point
> is that he has viewed living conditions, not vaccine, as being pivotal
> in public health.

No, it doesn’t. The word you should focus on is “facilitated.”
There’s no doubt that in the U.S. the public health infrastructure
(principally state and county health departments) contributed to the
containment of smallpox, but this cannot account for the global
eradication of the virus.

> > T. Mack. A Different View of Smallpox and Vaccination. NEJM. 348:460.
> > 2003.
> > > He also said
> > > that mortality rates have been skewed by over-weighting of data series
> > > with children, who are more vulnerable to the disease. He pegs the
> > > actual case mortality rate at closer to 1-in-7, saying infection rates
> > > would have declined on their own (just more slowly) without
> > > intervention programs.
>
> > Please provide the reference to where you saw this.
>
> The Public Forum on Smallpox hosted by CDC, at which Mack spoke in
> 2002. He said:
> "I'd just like to point out that not only is it a nasty syndrome, but
> the case fatality is probably less than is usually advertised. And the
> reason for that is that most series are heavily loaded with children.
> If you look at the age-specific case-fatality rate, it's much lower
> among adults. And so I would estimate that if we had an importation
> today in the adult population, the case fatality would probably be
> around 10 percent to 15 percent."

Please provide the *reference* to where you saw this. I need a hard
copy of the text from the original source, be it electronic or print.
Saying “The Public Forum on Smallpox hosted by CDC” does not
provide the reference to where it can be evaluated, particularly in
context.

I also see that you *now* state that he’s referring to "today" - that
changes things substantially. He’s probably right – an outbreak of
smallpox in the US today would likely have a lower death rate that what
the disease has historically produced. Considering that medical
technologies have advanced substantially in the last 30 years this is
likely true. Even if he’s right, 10% fatality for a virus that is so
efficient at person to person transmission is an unacceptable death
rate. Moreover, the pathogenesis of smallpox has recently been
characterized (Jahrling et al., PNAS 2004 101:15196-15200; Rubins et
al., PNAS 2004 101:15190-15195), thus management strategies would be
even better, should an outbreak occur.

> > Here's what I have
> > from him:
> > "Dr. Snyder is also correct; pre-exposure vaccination is highly
> > effective, and post-exposure vaccination is at best of limited
> > effectiveness. Unfortunately the case fatality rate for variola major
> > among unvaccinated persons is likely to be closer to 50 percent than
> > 22.5 percent."
>
> Please provide the reference to where you saw this. It appears to be
> an older attribution.

Umm, I got this from the reference *you* provided. Do you actually
*read* your references? Here it is again, verbatim from your post:

Letai, A. G., Snyder, K. M., Fett, J. D., Worthington, M. G., Ross,

J. J., Neff, J. M., Lane, J. M., Fulginiti, V. A., Milton, D. K.,

Bozzette, S. A., Boer, R., Mack, T., Sepkowitz, K. A. (2003).
Smallpox 
and Smallpox Vaccination. NEJM 348: 1920-1925

> > Clearly, Dr. Mack was an advocate of smallpox immunization. This is
> > from the reference you provided (which are a series of letters to the
> > editor).
>
> His research was concomitant with use of vaccine, so it isn't suprising
> that he hoped it would be completely effective. But it never was, and
> he wisely focused on other contributing, and mitigating, factors.

Sure it’s effective. How, in the 13 years of the global vaccination
program, did the death rate go from millions per year to zero if it
wasn’t due to the vaccine? Are you suggesting that the world’s
economy and development in this 13 year period accounted for this?

In any outbreak of infectious disease, management strategies are
employed with or without the availability of vaccines for the disease.
For example, with bacterial menigitis, prophylactic antibiotics are
given to those who've had contact with active cases. This is simply
routine epidemiological management that has been employed for decades
in this country. It's no surprise that Dr. Mack would say this - any
competent public health expert would.

From: PeterB on

Vaccine-man wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > We already know the impact of
> > vaccine on mortality has been quite small(1),
>
> Hmm. I just glanced over that paper from the Lancet and I'd like you to
> clarify what you mean. The word "vaccine" is not used in the paper, and
> immunization is referred to twice, once in context of your statement.
> Here's the sentence:
>
> "Whereas some vertical programmes have been successful in meeting their
> own goals (eg, child immunisation, and the Onchocerciasis Control
> Programme in West Africa) the sum total of so many vertical initiatives
> makes little rational sense to the level of implementation."

I'm not sure what there is to explain. In terms of mortality figures,
the majority of reduction in death rates from infectious disease had
occured before most vaccines were in widespread use. A glance at any
infectious disease graph can be marked with years of vaccine
introduction to demonstrate this.

> > that response to
> > infectious disease falls on a continuum of mild to severe morbidity,
> > whereas severe morbidity is linked causally with mortality, and that
> > declines were substantial before most vaccines were introduced.
>
> Are you kidding? Smallpox was killing millions of people a year for
> centuries until a concerted vaccination program was initiated in the
> 1960s.

That's doesn't mean vaccine was a major factor in eliminating smallpox.
Many things were happening concurrent with these experiments in public
health. See the graphs at:
http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=7&event=graphcats_print_list_item

> The incidence dropped to zero in 13 years. This is essentially a
> straight line down on a graph representing these deaths.

That doesn't prove a link between vaccine and improvements in public
health. Many things are concomitant with experimental medicine, such
as chemotherapy in cancer patients. Chemo drugs continue, after thirty
years, to be classified as "experimental" by FDA, but are these drugs
effective? Where is the data proving their effects in the majority of
cancer? In the absence of controlled, randomized, and long-term
studies, we just don't know how effective or safe these drugs, or
vaccine, may be. And VAERs data (much less corruption in the
regulatory arena) suggest we have very big problems to address when it
comes to vaccination programs.

>
> > At
> > most, vaccines may have impacted 3.5% of the decline in infectious
> > diseases, while other factors played a far greater role.
>
> Reference, please?

It may have been Rosen's book on public health, I'll have to check
later. But if you look at the graphs from the medical history books,
you will be forced to see that vaccine can't take credit for events
that occured before their use. Most of those declines were history
before the drug makers invented their "cure."

> In addition to smallpox, polio is nearly eradicated
> (despite recent setbacks) and deaths from measles have declined by half
> in the last 6 or 7 years because of vaccination programs.

You haven't proven that vaccine was the reason. But it makes a nice
little story.

PeterB