From: PeterB on

Vaccine-man wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > 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.
>
> "No way" - are you sure about this?

I'm sure I wouldn't equate the mosquito to a flying hypodermic -- not
in terms of measuring the relative risk of exposure.

> > Second, the genetics
> > of hamsters are not equivalent to that of human beings.
>
> So what? T cells and B cells operate the same in humans, hamsters,
> chimps, mice, dogs, cats, etc., etc., etc...

There are differences between man and animals we haven't begun to
explore. Immune response is very complex, and cell defenses are just
part of what we know.

> > 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.
>
> Ok, how about this reference:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16617103&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
> (It's open access, so you can read the paper online.)

I'm shocked you would consider such a small clinical study to be
definitive. While I only read the abstract, I see no reference to the
time-frame used for evaluating the potential for adverse events. How
adverse events are measured is also not provided.

>
> This is why animal models are developed - to show effectiveness and
> safety. After that, you move to clinical trials.

That's fine, but the only way to arrive at an accurate risk-adjusted
benefit for vaccine is by use of case-controlled studies using larger
human populations.

> The first one for this
> vaccine seems to reflect what occurs in hamsters. I suppose we next
> have to challenge some folks with West Nile virus. Could be a problem
> getting by the IRB, but if they do it, and it works, would you be
> satisfied that this vaccine works?

The problem for me with vaccine is that it isn't likely to have a very
good risk-adjusted benefit, for several reasons. First,
immune-challenged persons are precisely the demographic less likely to
have a favorable response to vaccine. Perhaps this explains a variety
of historical outbreaks within vaccinated populations. Without proper
studies, we just don't know. Second, those who are not
immune-challenged are far less likely to be at risk from wild exposure,
therefore the risk-adjusted benefit is equally relevant for them.

PeterB

From: Rich on

"john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Jqydnag_Fvok08LZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "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.

Bullshit. The virus in the smallpox vaccine is vaccinia, which is
genetically neither variola (smallpox) nor cowpox. It is produced in pure
culture these days, and no cows, monkeys, or horses are involved in the
process, nor is "pus." Although the vaccinia virus can produce disease in
immunosupressed individuals, the disease is not smallpox. Noone has ever
gotten smallpox from a vaccinia immunization. Lupton's lies from a century
ago are irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that smallpox killed and
disfigured millions of people over several thousand years, but in only 180
years since the bold experiment by Dr. Jenner, this scourge has been
eliminated from the planet by the practice of vaccination.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


From: PeterB on

Vaccine-man wrote:
> 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.”

Exactly. Economic development *facilitated* the *disappearance* of the
disease. It's sad we have no data on what fraction of the decline in
smallpox can be attributed to vaccine, but we don't.

> 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.

It doesn't have to. Infectious disease has always been a cyclical
disease, rising and falling dramatically without vaccine, but spiking
*after* introduction of vaccine in some populations, as well.

> > > 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 have an aging print copy provided by a colleage who must have
attended. I'm sure you could find it on CDC's website with a little
effort. Go to their media archives.

> 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.

I would have thought this would be obvious. Response to infectious
disease is a function of many factors, including social habits,
climate, host immunity, population density, nutrition, and genetics.
Every feature of infrastructure is a potentially contributing, or
mitigating, factor.

> Considering that medical
> technologies have advanced substantially in the last 30 years this is
> likely true.

There is no data suggesting that the majority of the decline in
infectious disease mortality can be attributed to medical technology,
and if vaccine is supposed to be the only medical intervention capable
of deterring viral infection, then just the opposite is 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.

That's why macro triggers in disease, related to environment and
behaviour, are more important than unilateral interventions.

> 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.

It's been said that terrorists importing smallpox would not be
particularly effective, for obvious reasons.

> > > 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:

I did overlook that one, or it's not part of my copy. At any rate, as
mentioned earlier, he is addressing a highly susceptible demograhic
(which goes to your point about context.) My point is still valid:
Infectious disease is no more a constant in expression than vaccine is
-- they both have to navigate the real world.

> 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?

Again, viral disease has always been a cyclical. Getting wet while
doing a rain dance doesn't make you a weather man.

> In any outbreak of infectious disease, management strategies are
> employed with or without the availability of vaccines for the disease.

And that's good, if they are done correctly.

> 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.

That's true, but it isn't proof that vaccine can take more than very
minor credit for most reductions in viral-related deaths.

PeterB

From: john on

"Rich" <joshew(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:W5L7g.14414$MP2.1699(a)tornado.socal.rr.com...
>

>
> Bullshit. The virus in the smallpox vaccine is vaccinia, which is
> genetically neither variola (smallpox) nor cowpox. It is produced in pure
> culture these days, and no cows, monkeys, or horses are involved in the
> process, nor is "pus." Although the vaccinia virus can produce disease in
> immunosupressed individuals, the disease is not smallpox. Noone has ever
> gotten smallpox from a vaccinia immunization. Lupton's lies from a century
> ago are irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that smallpox killed and
> disfigured millions of people over several thousand years, but in only 180
> years since the bold experiment by Dr. Jenner, this scourge has been
> eliminated from the planet by the practice of vaccination.
> --

That may be true for late smallpox vaccines but as late as 1890 arm to arm
vaccination was the most popular method.
"The chief of the Public Health Department was clearly not aware that until
a comparatively recent period arm-to-arm vaccination was practically the
only method in vogue; and at the time Mr. Ritchie's declaration was made, to
the effect that none of the lymph in use had passed through the human body,
at least three-fourths of the lymph in use in the United Kingdom was the
variety known as arm-to-arm vaccination virus."--William Tebb 1893

"First came what was called "arm-to-arm vaccination." This consisted of
inoculation with pus from the sore of a vaccinated person. Then it was
arm-to-arm vaccination that became "one of the best established of medical
facts" and "highly salutary to the human race." But, alas, for this
improvement! Its continued practice brought the discovery that scrofula,
tuberculosis, and even worse diseases latent in the constitution of the
subject from whom the vaccine virus was taken, were being sown among the
people.22 The growing doubt and agitation in the public mind finally led in
England to the appointment of a Royal Commission -- to investigate the
subject. This Commission, of which Lord Herschell was chairman, was in
session for seven years -- from 1889 to 1896 -- and received the testimony
of experts from all parts of the civilized world. Its report is comprised in
fourteen folio volumes and constitutes the most exhaustive collection of
medical evidence ever taken.23 Though out of the sixteen members of the
Commission only three were anti-vaccinists yet the result of its
investigation was the passage by Parliament of the "Conscience Clause" of
the Vaccination Acts. This clause, passed in 1898, exempted from vaccination
the children of parents who declared a conscientious objection to the
practice. England, the birthplace of vaccination, after a century of
experience of its disastrous effects, thus freed her people from its
enforcement.24 The testimony taken before the Commission not only caused the
enactment of the Conscience Clause, it proved also the death blow of
arm-to-arm vaccination."---- John Pitcairn

You should read the true story of Jenner, White
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/white_b.html or Creighton
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/creighton_b.html should do the trick.

It is sufficient to reassert that Jenner did not introduce cowpox. On the
contrary, he rejected cowpox for horsegrease cowpox; and such was his
prescription because he knew from the evidence of his neighbourhood that
cowpox afforded no protection from smallpox. It is true that when Pearson
discredited horse-grease cowpox, and recommended cowpox, Jenner dropped his
prescription, and put himself forward as the discoverer of cowpox; but it is
also true that in subsequent years he resumed his original position, and
indeed dispensed with the cow altogether, and, like Sacco of Milan and De
Carro of Vienna, used and diffused horsegrease or horsepox neat, describing
the equine virus as the true and genuine life-preserving fluid." [1885]
The Story of a Great Delusion by William White

It was an open secret in the profession that the great discoverer was a
disappointing person at close quarters. He was vain, petulant, crafty, and
greedy ; he had more of grandiloquence and bounce than of solid attainments.
In London, at least, his presence was a bore, and his reputation an incubus,
which the profession, outside his own small following, would have gladly got
rid of. [1889] Jenner and Vaccination A Strange Chapter of Medical History
by Charles Creighton M.D.




From: Max C. on
John, your knowledge of the history of smallpox is impressive.
Personally, I think (as I said above in a previous post) that the
history of smallpox is, in itself, the best evidence that the vaccine
does not deserve all of the credit for the elimination of smallpox.
Smallpox vaccinations have been around for hundreds of years, but it
wasn't until ring vaccination programs were developed that the world
started to see the real end of smallpox. Ring vaccinations have proven
to be highly effective in containing a smallpox outbreak.

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/preparedness/bioterrorism/professionals/agents/smallpox/history/
"In 1975, as a result of civil war and a flux of refugees, a ring
leaked and smallpox blew out in Bangladesh (estimated population: 71
million). It is estimated that 200,000 were infected and 40,000 died of
the disease during the outbreak. The team mounted other ring
vaccinations in an attempt to contain the outbreak. By the fall of
1975, they had controlled the last recorded outbreak of naturally-
occurring variola major on Earth in an island off of Bangladesh."

There is no clear cut evidence that the final elimination of smallpox
was due to vaccination, as it *could* have also been the ring-type
identification and quarantine of infected groups. It is possible that
the simple act of the quarantine may have been enough to prevent the
spread of smallpox.

Contrary to what many in this group would have readers believe, the
most common method of transmission of smallpox can be easily
circumvented by simply washing your hands frequently.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5207a1.htm
"Infection is transmitted by large-droplet nuclei and occasionally by
direct contact or contact with fomites (e.g., clothes or bedding)."

Max.

john wrote:
> That may be true for late smallpox vaccines but as late as 1890 arm to arm
> vaccination was the most popular method.
> "The chief of the Public Health Department was clearly not aware that until
> a comparatively recent period arm-to-arm vaccination was practically the
> only method in vogue; and at the time Mr. Ritchie's declaration was made, to
> the effect that none of the lymph in use had passed through the human body,
> at least three-fourths of the lymph in use in the United Kingdom was the
> variety known as arm-to-arm vaccination virus."--William Tebb 1893
>
> "First came what was called "arm-to-arm vaccination." This consisted of
> inoculation with pus from the sore of a vaccinated person. Then it was
> arm-to-arm vaccination that became "one of the best established of medical
> facts" and "highly salutary to the human race." But, alas, for this
> improvement! Its continued practice brought the discovery that scrofula,
> tuberculosis, and even worse diseases latent in the constitution of the
> subject from whom the vaccine virus was taken, were being sown among the
> people.22 The growing doubt and agitation in the public mind finally led in
> England to the appointment of a Royal Commission -- to investigate the
> subject. This Commission, of which Lord Herschell was chairman, was in
> session for seven years -- from 1889 to 1896 -- and received the testimony
> of experts from all parts of the civilized world. Its report is comprised in
> fourteen folio volumes and constitutes the most exhaustive collection of
> medical evidence ever taken.23 Though out of the sixteen members of the
> Commission only three were anti-vaccinists yet the result of its
> investigation was the passage by Parliament of the "Conscience Clause" of
> the Vaccination Acts. This clause, passed in 1898, exempted from vaccination
> the children of parents who declared a conscientious objection to the
> practice. England, the birthplace of vaccination, after a century of
> experience of its disastrous effects, thus freed her people from its
> enforcement.24 The testimony taken before the Commission not only caused the
> enactment of the Conscience Clause, it proved also the death blow of
> arm-to-arm vaccination."---- John Pitcairn
>
> You should read the true story of Jenner, White
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/white_b.html or Creighton
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/creighton_b.html should do the trick.
>
> It is sufficient to reassert that Jenner did not introduce cowpox. On the
> contrary, he rejected cowpox for horsegrease cowpox; and such was his
> prescription because he knew from the evidence of his neighbourhood that
> cowpox afforded no protection from smallpox. It is true that when Pearson
> discredited horse-grease cowpox, and recommended cowpox, Jenner dropped his
> prescription, and put himself forward as the discoverer of cowpox; but it is
> also true that in subsequent years he resumed his original position, and
> indeed dispensed with the cow altogether, and, like Sacco of Milan and De
> Carro of Vienna, used and diffused horsegrease or horsepox neat, describing
> the equine virus as the true and genuine life-preserving fluid." [1885]
> The Story of a Great Delusion by William White
>
> It was an open secret in the profession that the great discoverer was a
> disappointing person at close quarters. He was vain, petulant, crafty, and
> greedy ; he had more of grandiloquence and bounce than of solid attainments.
> In London, at least, his presence was a bore, and his reputation an incubus,
> which the profession, outside his own small following, would have gladly got
> rid of. [1889] Jenner and Vaccination A Strange Chapter of Medical History
> by Charles Creighton M.D.