|
THE CONTROVERSIAL SMALLPOX VACCINE
Eighteen
Points You Should Consider
By Meryl Nass, MD
OCTOBER 10, 2002
- 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.
|