Pro vaccine site re smallpox http://www.micro.unsw.edu.au/annie/spox.htm

[Guest guest]

http://www.micro.unsw.edu.au/annie/spox.htm

Scheibner believes that the worthlessness and side effects of the smallpox vaccine are the major smallpox issue that has been discussed in medical literature. She frequently states that a high incidence of vaccination encephalitis was associated with the smallpox vaccine. Furthermore, she does not believe that vaccination was responsible for the eradication of smallpox.Medical literature is inundated with articles boastful of the success of smallpox eradication - a simple literature search will reveal this. Articles about the complications associated with the smallpox vaccine do exist, but not to the extent Scheibner endeavours to depict. The presence of complications due to smallpox vaccination was not an issue that WHO ignored either. In nations without endemic smallpox - the doses of vaccinia virus used were reduced; smallpox vaccination was postponed in children until the age of 2-3 years; vaccinia immune globulin was used for the prevention and treatment of complications; and vaccinia strains were cultured to be bacteria free, thus reducing the virulence of the strain, but maintaining it potency (4).

The types of complications associated with the smallpox vaccination were abnormal skin eruptions (e.g. eczema vaccinatum, progressive and generalised vaccinia); central nervous system disruptions (e.g. postvaccinal tonsillitis and encephalitis); and other rare complications (e.g. fetal vaccinia due to infection in utero) (4). Smallpox was so deadly that for an entire century after the introduction of vaccination complications were not compiled, since all efforts were focused on the elimination of the disease (4). It was also difficult to collate information about the incidence of complications due to a lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria within and between countries, and inconsistency in the thoroughness of reporting (4). Statistics from various sources on the complications of smallpox vary, indicative of the struggles associated with collating that information (4).Scheibner falsely claims that postvaccinal encephalitis was a common complication of smallpox vaccination. It was the most serious complication for people with no other contraindications, but it was also one of the rarest (4). Also, since smallpox vaccination was so widely practiced it was highly likely that encephalitis was coincidentally present in some members of any community and that it was only recognised after vaccination, thus incorrectly labeling it as a complication of the smallpox vaccine(4). Scheibner is obviously striving to promote that the smallpox vaccine was ineffective on the basis that there were complications associated with it. She does not provide any information as to the development of the vaccine or as to how it worked to protect against smallpox, possibly because it would destroy the unresearched assumptions she attempts to perpetuate. The scientific disciplines of microbiology and immunology were widely practiced from the 19th century and so by the mid 20th century they were not new concepts. Prior to 1967, the production of smallpox vaccine was continually improving as the science of virology progressed (4). The onset of the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme saw stringent controls being applied to the already high quality of the vaccine (4). Smallpox vaccination involved the infection via the skin of a relatively large dose of vaccinia virus, which consequently spread to all organs of the immune system (4). The virus replicated rapidly, causing generalisation of the infection and thus allowing for a quick immune response (compared to naturally contracted smallpox) (4). Cell-mediated and humoral immunity developed, each associated with enduring memory cells (4). Smallpox vaccination during the incubation period often altered or even halted the clinical course of smallpox, making it very effective compared to no treatment at all (which anti-vaccinators believe is more effective) (4). Scheibner may attribute the eradication of smallpox to improved hygiene and eating habits, but if this was the case why did developed nations endure smallpox along with third-world nations? The state of living conditions was a contributing factor to the spread of smallpox, but direct human to human transmission was the ultimate factor. Smallpox vaccination impeded the natural transmission of smallpox (i.e. spreading from person to person), since it makes vaccinees immune to the disease.

[DETAILS ON EDWARD JENNER'S ROLE IN SMALLPOX ERADICATION]

Scheibner attempts to prove that an animal reservoir for smallpox exists by claiming that monkeypox and chickenpox viruses are actually smallpox, but that their names have been changed to mislead society into believing that smallpox has actually been eradicated.Chickenpox and monkeypox are definitely different to smallpox - they are diseases in the own right. Chickenpox is due to varicella zoster virus (5). Monkeypox is due to monkeypox virus and is mainly present in monkeys, although human monkeypox has occurred in some third-world nations (especially countries in western and central Africa) due to a rare zoonosis of the virus (4). Smallpox is due to variola virus (1,2,4-6). Monkeypox and smallpox both belong to the poxvirus family of viruses and chickenpox belongs to the herpesviridae family (4,5). Thus, they are all genetically unrelated and clearly each disease is distinct. Scheibner reports of an increasing number of occurrences of monkeypox in Zaire, Liberia and Sierra Leone - 20 cases between 1968 and 1980 (7). This number can almost be considered negligible in relation to the size of the entire population in these regions and the fact that the statistic spans over such an extensive period of time. Yet to Scheibner it is very important and it is made to appear even worse by the use of "20%" as a description of the death of four patients. Furthermore, she claims that monkeypox virus is indistinguishable from the variola virus in the laboratory! This is implausible, since each virus has a distinct DNA that cannot possibly be confused with anything but itself.Scheibner also speculates that scarring which was deemed to be due to chickenpox in 94 patients who had suffered from smallpox in the past three years was falsely labeled since most of the patients were vaccinated against smallpox. The argument that she is trying to put forward does not make sense. Furthermore, she does not provide a citation for the information presented or any details as to who performed the study, in order for her readers to try to elucidate the hidden meaning of her statements. Smallpox and chickenpox have unlike clinical courses and so confusion between the diseases should not have been widespread in the era when smallpox thrived (4). WHO produced posters in different languages that illustrated these differences and distributed them to various nations in order to minimise any confusion that may arise. In relation to facial scarring, the smallpox rash was present significantly on the face, whereas the chickenpox rash was present on the face to a slightly lesser degree than that of smallpox (4). WHO performed many searches of many nations of the world towards the end of their smallpox campaign investigating for smallpox and any other diseases which presented with fever and rash (e.g. chickenpox and measles) (4). Such thorough investigations revealed that many suspected smallpox cases were incorrectly diagnosed (4). Scheibner describes such a search as having occurred in Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Ivory Coast and Nigeria in 1975 (7). She states that no cases of smallpox or monkeypox were identified despite that "only" 40-70% of the population was vaccinated against smallpox (7). Since a significant proportion of the population was vaccinated and since these diseases spread from human to human, the chance of unvaccinated people becoming infected is reduced due to the fact that vaccination inhibits the natural spread of the disease. This is the simple concept of herd immunity, which Scheibner chooses to ignore in order to maintain the anti-vaccination lobby's stance. It is quite obvious that proponents of the anti-vaccination lobby use the style of propaganda to falsely portray facts. This enables such groups or individuals to misconstrue information in order to influence others to believe in the nonsense that they attempt to perpetuate. This is not ethical.The truth about smallpox was provided here. No amount of deception can alter the fact that the scourge of smallpox has been eradicated from our world.