Vaccines

Discuss the following statement: immunisation continues to be one of the key interventions in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

Vaccinations have been used since 1796. Edward Jenner thought that people could be protected against smallpox by inoculation with a related virus. He inoculated James Phipps (8) with cowpox pustule liquid that he obtained from Sarah Nelmes a milkmaid (immunize. 2004). Since then vaccinations have been used worldwide to help protect people from various viruses and infectious diseases. However the first major incident surrounding vaccinations happened in 1955. A recipient of the polio vaccination was found to be suffering from polio. This was followed by five more cases the next day (immunize.2004) all the vaccines were then recalled. Since then the debate surrounding the safety of vaccinations and grown and many people are divided on whether vaccinations are safe and worth having. Below I am will look at the debate surrounding vaccinations.

Many people believe that vaccinations are helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. According to health organisations vaccinations can help reduce the risk of mortality in children. (livestrong.2013).vaccination have also been said to help prevent children getting serious disease that can kill but also lead to long term health problems. (netdoctor.2013) In the UK all children are offered various vaccinations at various times in their childhood free of charge on the NHS. This is part of the national childhood immunisation schedule. (netdoctor. 2012). For vaccinations to work effectively babies and children need to have their vaccinations at certain ages. (NHS.2013). Immunisation also helps prevent the outbreak and epidemic of deadly diseases. (netdoctor.2012). Evidence also show that even though cleaner more hygienic  conditions have help reduce the spread of infectious diseases this alone has not eradicated them fully. (immunizationinfo.2010). this shows that vaccinations are still important but also clean sanitation is also needed to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The fact that vaccinations are also a lot cheaper than the medication needed to treat the infectious diseases is also a big factor when looking at the pros of vaccinations. Treating infectious diseases cost the NHS around £6 billion per year. (bis.gov.2006).This is a bigger price than the cost of vaccinations per year (unable to find exact figure). This would support the use of vaccination as the NHS is already under a lot of pressure and has to make major cuts every year. This is an area where the NHS could save millions of pounds every year, which could be spent of other lifesaving treatments. Another pro of using vaccinations is that vaccines are regularly tested before administered. This help to reduce the risk of people suffering side effects and the vaccinations not working correctly. By doing this it means that more people will be effectively protected against infectious diseases.

Even though vaccinations appear to be very effective they do not work on everyone. For example, a full series of measles vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from measles, and polio vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from polio. This means that when there is a disease outbreak, the very small number of people for whom the vaccine did not work may still be able to catch the disease. (immunizationinfo.2010). this could still cause diseases to spread even if it is a small amount of people. This evidence could be used to promote the use of vaccinations as it shows that even though vaccinations are not fully effective all the time. They still lower the amount of people that could be affected by an outbreak of an infectious disease, which as a result could prevent the outbreak of a pandemic or epidemic. At the same time people against the use of vaccinations could use this evidence to say that if not all vaccinations are effective 100% of the time there is no point administering them in the first place. They is also evidence that suggest that certain vaccinations such as the MMR vaccination could have long term side effects that are not visible till the child is older. These side effects include Autism (BBC. 2006). This sparked new fears amongst parents which then resulted in the number of children having the MMR vaccination been reduced. This was then followed a few years later with a rise in the number of people suffering from measles, mumps and rubella mainly mumps. However the figures for the people who contracted mumps did not correspond which the children who did not receive the MMR vaccination. (BBC.2006). This suggest that vaccinations  do not always work however it is not clear if there is a link between MMR not working or the reduced number of people getting the MMR vaccination and the outbreak of mumps. So this begs the question are we right to subject are children to the discomfort of vaccinations and do they really benefit us as a population.

We as individual could surf the internet forever weighing up all the pros and cons on the debate of whether vaccinations are key to the intervention in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. All in all I personally believe that vaccinations are crucial in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. I as a mother would rather put by children through a few minutes of pain while the vaccination is administered rather that watch them suffer from an infectious disease which would cause a larger amount of suffering or possibly death. At the same time by looking at the research I have gathered it is clear that vaccinations can greatly reduce the spread of infectious disease, however it is not that cure. “Unless an environmental reservoir exists, an eradicated pathogen cannot re-emerge, unless accidentally or malevolently reintroduced by humans, allowing vaccination or other preventive measures to be discontinued”. (Who. 2013). This would suggest that vaccinations are extremely important to reduce the risk of infectious diseases so should continue to be used but we should also accept that they are not the magic cure. We are likely to live in a world that is never totally free from infectious diseases

Discuss the following statement: immunisation continues to be one of the key interventions in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.
Vaccinations have been used since 1796. Edward Jenner thought that people could be protected against smallpox by inoculation with a related virus. He inoculated James Phipps (8) with cowpox pustule liquid that he obtained from Sarah Nelmes a milkmaid (immunize. 2004). Since then vaccinations have been used worldwide to help protect people from various viruses and infectious diseases. However the first major incident surrounding vaccinations happened in 1955. A recipient of the polio vaccination was found to be suffering from polio. This was followed by five more cases the next day (immunize.2004) all the vaccines were then recalled. Since then the debate surrounding the safety of vaccinations and grown and many people are divided on whether vaccinations are safe and worth having. Below I am will look at the debate surrounding vaccinations.
Many people believe that vaccinations are helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. According to health organisations vaccinations can help reduce the risk of mortality in children. (livestrong.2013).vaccination have also been said to help prevent children getting serious disease that can kill but also lead to long term health problems. (netdoctor.2013) In the UK all children are offered various vaccinations at various times in their childhood free of charge on the NHS. This is part of the national childhood immunisation schedule. (netdoctor. 2012). For vaccinations to work effectively babies and children need to have their vaccinations at certain ages. (NHS.2013). Immunisation also helps prevent the outbreak and epidemic of deadly diseases. (netdoctor.2012). Evidence also show that even though cleaner more hygienic  conditions have help reduce the spread of infectious diseases this alone has not eradicated them fully. (immunizationinfo.2010). this shows that vaccinations are still important but also clean sanitation is also needed to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The fact that vaccinations are also a lot cheaper than the medication needed to treat the infectious diseases is also a big factor when looking at the pros of vaccinations. Treating infectious diseases cost the NHS around £6 billion per year. (bis.gov.2006).This is a bigger price than the cost of vaccinations per year (unable to find exact figure). This would support the use of vaccination as the NHS is already under a lot of pressure and has to make major cuts every year. This is an area where the NHS could save millions of pounds every year, which could be spent of other lifesaving treatments. Another pro of using vaccinations is that vaccines are regularly tested before administered. This help to reduce the risk of people suffering side effects and the vaccinations not working correctly. By doing this it means that more people will be effectively protected against infectious diseases.
Even though vaccinations appear to be very effective they do not work on everyone. For example, a full series of measles vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from measles, and polio vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from polio. This means that when there is a disease outbreak, the very small number of people for whom the vaccine did not work may still be able to catch the disease. (immunizationinfo.2010). this could still cause diseases to spread even if it is a small amount of people. This evidence could be used to promote the use of vaccinations as it shows that even though vaccinations are not fully effective all the time. They still lower the amount of people that could be affected by an outbreak of an infectious disease, which as a result could prevent the outbreak of a pandemic or epidemic. At the same time people against the use of vaccinations could use this evidence to say that if not all vaccinations are effective 100% of the time there is no point administering them in the first place. They is also evidence that suggest that certain vaccinations such as the MMR vaccination could have long term side effects that are not visible till the child is older. These side effects include Autism (BBC. 2006). This sparked new fears amongst parents which then resulted in the number of children having the MMR vaccination been reduced. This was then followed a few years later with a rise in the number of people suffering from measles, mumps and rubella mainly mumps. However the figures for the people who contracted mumps did not correspond which the children who did not receive the MMR vaccination. (BBC.2006). This suggest that vaccinations  do not always work however it is not clear if there is a link between MMR not working or the reduced number of people getting the MMR vaccination and the outbreak of mumps. So this begs the question are we right to subject are children to the discomfort of vaccinations and do they really benefit us as a population.
We as individual could surf the internet forever weighing up all the pros and cons on the debate of whether vaccinations are key to the intervention in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. All in all I personally believe that vaccinations are crucial in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. I as a mother would rather put by children through a few minutes of pain while the vaccination is administered rather that watch them suffer from an infectious disease which would cause a larger amount of suffering or possibly death. At the same time by looking at the research I have gathered it is clear that vaccinations can greatly reduce the spread of infectious disease, however it is not that cure. “Unless an environmental reservoir exists, an eradicated pathogen cannot re-emerge, unless accidentally or malevolently reintroduced by humans, allowing vaccination or other preventive measures to be discontinued”. (Who. 2013). This would suggest that vaccinations are extremely important to reduce the risk of infectious diseases so should continue to be used but we should also accept that they are not the magic cure. We are likely to live in a world that is never totally free from infectious diseases.








Bibliography.
Who (2003) Infectious disease. Switzerland: Who. [Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunize (2011) Historic Dates and Events Related to Vaccines and Immunization. Atlanta: Immunization Action Coalition. [Online]. Available from: http://www.immunize.org/timeline/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Live strong (2013) The Pros & Cons of Vaccinating Children. [s.l.]. Li

Discuss the following statement: immunisation continues to be one of the key interventions in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.
Vaccinations have been used since 1796. Edward Jenner thought that people could be protected against smallpox by inoculation with a related virus. He inoculated James Phipps (8) with cowpox pustule liquid that he obtained from Sarah Nelmes a milkmaid (immunize. 2004). Since then vaccinations have been used worldwide to help protect people from various viruses and infectious diseases. However the first major incident surrounding vaccinations happened in 1955. A recipient of the polio vaccination was found to be suffering from polio. This was followed by five more cases the next day (immunize.2004) all the vaccines were then recalled. Since then the debate surrounding the safety of vaccinations and grown and many people are divided on whether vaccinations are safe and worth having. Below I am will look at the debate surrounding vaccinations.
Many people believe that vaccinations are helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. According to health organisations vaccinations can help reduce the risk of mortality in children. (livestrong.2013).vaccination have also been said to help prevent children getting serious disease that can kill but also lead to long term health problems. (netdoctor.2013) In the UK all children are offered various vaccinations at various times in their childhood free of charge on the NHS. This is part of the national childhood immunisation schedule. (netdoctor. 2012). For vaccinations to work effectively babies and children need to have their vaccinations at certain ages. (NHS.2013). Immunisation also helps prevent the outbreak and epidemic of deadly diseases. (netdoctor.2012). Evidence also show that even though cleaner more hygienic  conditions have help reduce the spread of infectious diseases this alone has not eradicated them fully. (immunizationinfo.2010). this shows that vaccinations are still important but also clean sanitation is also needed to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The fact that vaccinations are also a lot cheaper than the medication needed to treat the infectious diseases is also a big factor when looking at the pros of vaccinations. Treating infectious diseases cost the NHS around £6 billion per year. (bis.gov.2006).This is a bigger price than the cost of vaccinations per year (unable to find exact figure). This would support the use of vaccination as the NHS is already under a lot of pressure and has to make major cuts every year. This is an area where the NHS could save millions of pounds every year, which could be spent of other lifesaving treatments. Another pro of using vaccinations is that vaccines are regularly tested before administered. This help to reduce the risk of people suffering side effects and the vaccinations not working correctly. By doing this it means that more people will be effectively protected against infectious diseases.
Even though vaccinations appear to be very effective they do not work on everyone. For example, a full series of measles vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from measles, and polio vaccine will protect 99 of 100 children from polio. This means that when there is a disease outbreak, the very small number of people for whom the vaccine did not work may still be able to catch the disease. (immunizationinfo.2010). this could still cause diseases to spread even if it is a small amount of people. This evidence could be used to promote the use of vaccinations as it shows that even though vaccinations are not fully effective all the time. They still lower the amount of people that could be affected by an outbreak of an infectious disease, which as a result could prevent the outbreak of a pandemic or epidemic. At the same time people against the use of vaccinations could use this evidence to say that if not all vaccinations are effective 100% of the time there is no point administering them in the first place. They is also evidence that suggest that certain vaccinations such as the MMR vaccination could have long term side effects that are not visible till the child is older. These side effects include Autism (BBC. 2006). This sparked new fears amongst parents which then resulted in the number of children having the MMR vaccination been reduced. This was then followed a few years later with a rise in the number of people suffering from measles, mumps and rubella mainly mumps. However the figures for the people who contracted mumps did not correspond which the children who did not receive the MMR vaccination. (BBC.2006). This suggest that vaccinations  do not always work however it is not clear if there is a link between MMR not working or the reduced number of people getting the MMR vaccination and the outbreak of mumps. So this begs the question are we right to subject are children to the discomfort of vaccinations and do they really benefit us as a population.
We as individual could surf the internet forever weighing up all the pros and cons on the debate of whether vaccinations are key to the intervention in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. All in all I personally believe that vaccinations are crucial in the fight against the spread of infectious diseases. I as a mother would rather put by children through a few minutes of pain while the vaccination is administered rather that watch them suffer from an infectious disease which would cause a larger amount of suffering or possibly death. At the same time by looking at the research I have gathered it is clear that vaccinations can greatly reduce the spread of infectious disease, however it is not that cure. “Unless an environmental reservoir exists, an eradicated pathogen cannot re-emerge, unless accidentally or malevolently reintroduced by humans, allowing vaccination or other preventive measures to be discontinued”. (Who. 2013). This would suggest that vaccinations are extremely important to reduce the risk of infectious diseases so should continue to be used but we should also accept that they are not the magic cure. We are likely to live in a world that is never totally free from infectious diseases.








Bibliography.
Who (2003) Infectious disease. Switzerland: Who. [Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunize (2011) Historic Dates and Events Related to Vaccines and Immunization. Atlanta: Immunization Action Coalition. [Online]. Available from: http://www.immunize.org/timeline/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Live strong (2013) The Pros & Cons of Vaccinating Children. [s.l.]. Livestrong. [online]. Available from http://www.livestrong.com/article/244854-the-pros-cons-of-vaccinating-children/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Netdoctor (2012) childhood vaccinations. London: Hearst Magazines UK. [online]. Available from: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/childhoodvaccinations.htm [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Who (2013). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Switzerland: Who. [online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunizationinfo (2010). Vaccine effectiveness. [s.l.]: National Network for Immunization Information. [online]. Available from: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Bis.gov (2006). Infectious Diseases: preparing for the future Threats.UK: Department of trade and industry. [online]. Available from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/infectious-diseases/t1.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2013]
BBC (2006). Does the MMR Jab Cause Autism? [s.l.]: BBC. [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml [Accessed 3 March 2013]Show less

vestrong. [online]. Available from http://www.livestrong.com/article/244854-the-pros-cons-of-vaccinating-children/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Netdoctor (2012) childhood vaccinations. London: Hearst Magazines UK. [online]. Available from: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/childhoodvaccinations.htm [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Who (2013). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Switzerland: Who. [online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/en/ [Accessed 1 March 2013].
Immunizationinfo (2010). Vaccine effectiveness. [s.l.]: National Network for Immunization Information. [online]. Available from: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize [Accessed 2 March 2013].
Bis.gov (2006). Infectious Diseases: preparing for the future Threats.UK: Department of trade and industry. [online]. Available from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/infectious-diseases/t1.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2013]
BBC (2006). Does the MMR Jab Cause Autism? [s.l.]: BBC. [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml [Accessed 3 March 2013]Show less

Bibliography

BBC (2011) Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourge. [s.l] BBC [online]. Avalible from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml [Accessed on 15 May 2013]

Hammond, E. and Ching, L. (2011) smallpox virus stocks at the 64th WHA: Implementing the conclusions of the major review. Switzerland: Third World Network.

independent (2013) £80m wasted on smallpox terror threat. [s.l] The Independent [online]. Avalible from: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/80m-wasted-on-smallpox-terror-threat-8... [Accessed on 20 March 2013]

Nature (2011) WHO to decide Fate of smallpox stocks. [s.l] Nature [online].  Avalible from: www.nature.com/news/2011/110212/full/news.2011.288.html [Accessed on 20 march 2013]

After the eradication of smallpox

After the eradication of Smallpox!

Even though a deadline of 1993 was set two sanctioned repositories still remain. The WHO however has repeatedly pushed back the date due to pressure from developed countries; these include United States, who want to continue research on the virus.  However it is developing countries that would probably bear the brunt of any accidental release have long backed the destruction plan. They believe that Smallpox research is a dangerous luxury, as accidental release could be catastrophic. This has previously occurred when a photographer at Birmingham university accidently got the virus on her skin and died.  (BBC.2011)

Many scientists also argue that destroying the stocks would do little to protect the world from Smallpox, because it is now possible to recreate the virus from its genome. (naturenews.2011). If this is the case then there really is no need to keep the virus. Even though there are only a small amount of Labs that have the skills and resources to do so there are still labs that have the skills to do this more labs in fact than the number of known countries to have stocks of the Smallpox Virus.

For these reasons I strongly believe that Smallpox is not needed for the use of medical research and therefore should be destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110513/full/news.2011.288.html

Show lessBBC - History - British History in depth: Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourgebbc.co.uk

Should smallpox virus be destroyed

Carmel Lewis

Shared publicly  -  Yesterday 12:45 PM Should the remaining stocks of the Smallpox virus be destroyed?

As part of my course we have been asked to answer the following question. Using an article that has been given to me by my tutor and also using research that i have obtained myself I will try to answer the following question.

One of the longest and most contentious international policy debates has swirled around the question of whether to destroy the last known stocks of the smallpox (variola) virus, which are preserved at two World Health Organisation (WHO)-authorised repositories in Russia and the United States. Although smallpox was eradicated from the nature more than three decades ago concerns surfaced in the early 1990s that a few countries might have retained undeclared samples of the virus for biological warfare purposes. Because a smallpox outbreak would be a global public health emergency of major proportions, in 1990 the WHO approved a research program at the two authorised repositories to develop improved medical defences against the disease.

I was given an article titled “Smallpox Virus stocks at the 64th WHA: Implementing the conclusions of the major Review, which was written by Edward Hammond with contributions from Lim Li Ching. Edward Hammond is an American policy researcher he relies heavily on government records obtained through the US freedom of information Act and other open government laws to conduct his research. As he uses these sources to carry out his work it cannot be trusted. Even though governments claim the records are open and freely available they are still able to control the information that is available to the public. As this research looks at the smallpox been used as bioweapon the information available from governments will be heavily censured as is most information regarding terror threat.

Hammond and Ching (2011) believe that since the eradication of Smallpox was over three decades ago, there is no real reason to retain stock of the virus, as it is no longer required for research as vaccines and anti-viral drugs for the treatment of Smallpox have already been established.

Since this research cannot be 100% trusted I have decided to use my own reason to answer the above question and discuss whether the Smallpox virus should be retained or not, and also the threat of the Smallpox Virus being used as a bioweapon in the future.Read more

Should the remaining stocks of the Smallpox virus be destroyed?

As part of my course we have been asked to answer the following question. Using an article that has been given to me by my tutor and also using research that i have obtained myself I will try to answer the following question.

One of the longest and most contentious international policy debates has swirled around the question of whether to destroy the last known stocks of the smallpox (variola) virus, which are preserved at two World Health Organisation (WHO)-authorised repositories in Russia and the United States. Although smallpox was eradicated from the nature more than three decades ago concerns surfaced in the early 1990s that a few countries might have retained undeclared samples of the virus for biological warfare purposes. Because a smallpox outbreak would be a global public health emergency of major proportions, in 1990 the WHO approved a research program at the two authorised repositories to develop improved medical defences against the disease.

I was given an article titled “Smallpox Virus stocks at the 64th WHA: Implementing the conclusions of the major Review, which was written by Edward Hammond with contributions from Lim Li Ching. Edward Hammond is an American policy researcher he relies heavily on government records obtained through the US freedom of information Act and other open government laws to conduct his research. As he uses these sources to carry out his work it cannot be trusted. Even though governments claim the records are open and freely available they are still able to control the information that is available to the public. As this research looks at the smallpox been used as bioweapon the information available from governments will be heavily censured as is most information regarding terror threat.

Hammond and Ching (2011) believe that since the eradication of Smallpox was over three decades ago, there is no real reason to retain stock of the virus, as it is no longer required for research as vaccines and anti-viral drugs for the treatment of Smallpox have already been established.

Since this research cannot be 100% trusted I have decided to use my own reason to answer the above question and discuss whether the Smallpox virus should be retained or not, and also the threat of the Smallpox Virus being used as a bioweapon in the future.

The Smallpox debate

I believe that the Smallpox Virus should be destroyed!

I found an article titled WHO to decide fate of Smallpox Stock, and was written by Declan Butler (2011). On the Nature News website which is the world’s most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2011). He wrote about the upcoming debate regarding the destruction of the Small Pox Virus.

Health ministers from the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’S) 193 members of state were due to meet to debate whether or not the last two known remaining stocks of the virus that causes smallpox.

Some scientists believe that the smallpox variola stocks should be maintained. They believe stocks are helping the development of new countermeasures such as drugs, vaccines and diagnostics in case smallpox should reappear. However my other article that I was given states that “The situation with antiviral drugs therefore resembles that with vaccines. With little justification for virus retention for the purpose of drug development (because two advanced drug candidates already exist) (Hammond.2011). This shows that there is no need to keep the virus for this purpose and leads me to believe that they are trying to use this as another reason in their argument to keep the vaccine.

After the eradication of Smallpox the WHO decided existing lad stocks should be destroyed to eliminate the risk of accidental release, a deadline of 1993 was set.  By 1984 this was more or less achieved as 74 laboratories had either destroyed or transferred to the two WHO sanctioned repositories.  But is the last two sanctioned repositories that the debate is about.

Even though a deadline of 1993 was set two sanctioned repositories still remain. The WHO however has repeatedly pushed back the date due to pressure from developed countries; these include United States, who want to continue research on the virus.  However it is developing countries that would probably bear the brunt of any accidental release have long backed the destruction plan. They believe that Smallpox research is a dangerous luxury, as accidental release could be catastrophic. This has previously occurred when a photographer at Birmingham university accidently got the virus on her skin and died.  (BBC.2011)

Many scientists also argue that destroying the stocks would do little to protect the world from Smallpox, because it is now possible to recreate the virus from its genome. (naturenews.2011). If this is the case then there really is no need to keep the virus. Even though there are only a small amount of Labs that have the skills and resources to do so there are still labs that have the skills to do this more labs in fact than the number of known countries to have stocks of the Smallpox Virus.

For these reasons I strongly believe that Smallpox is not needed for the use of medical research and therefore should be destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110513/full/news.2011.288.html

Show lessBBC - History - British History in depth: Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourgebbc.co.uk

The Smallpox debate

I believe that the Smallpox Virus should be destroyed!
I found an article titled WHO to decide fate of Smallpox Stock, and was written by Declan Butler (2011). On the Nature News website which is the world’s most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2011). He wrote about the upcoming debate regarding the destruction of the Small Pox Virus.
Health ministers from the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’S) 193 members of state were due to meet to debate whether or not the last two known remaining stocks of the virus that causes smallpox.
Some scientists believe that the smallpox variola stocks should be maintained. They believe stocks are helping the development of new countermeasures such as drugs, vaccines and diagnostics in case smallpox should reappear. However my other article that I was given states that “The situation with antiviral drugs therefore resembles that with vaccines. With little justification for virus retention for the purpose of drug development (because two advanced drug candidates already exist) (Hammond.2011). This shows that there is no need to keep the virus for this purpose and leads me to believe that they are trying to use this as another reason in their argument to keep the vaccine.
After the eradication of Smallpox the WHO decided existing lad stocks should be destroyed to eliminate the risk of accidental release, a deadline of 1993 was set.  By 1984 this was more or less achieved as 74

I believe that the Smallpox Virus should be destroyed!

I found an article titled WHO to decide fate of Smallpox Stock, and was written by Declan Butler (2011). On the Nature News website which is the world’s most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2011). He wrote about the upcoming debate regarding the destruction of the Small Pox Virus.

Health ministers from the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’S) 193 members of state were due to meet to debate whether or not the last two known remaining stocks of the virus that causes smallpox.

Some scientists believe that the smallpox variola stocks should be maintained. They believe stocks are helping the development of new countermeasures such as drugs, vaccines and diagnostics in case smallpox should reappear. However my other article that I was given states that “The situation with antiviral drugs therefore resembles that with vaccines. With little justification for virus retention for the purpose of drug development (because two advanced drug candidates already exist) (Hammond.2011). This shows that there is no need to keep the virus for this purpose and leads me to believe that they are trying to use this as another reason in their argument to keep the vaccine.

After the eradication of Smallpox the WHO decided existing lad stocks should be destroyed to eliminate the risk of accidental release, a deadline of 1993 was set.  By 1984 this was more or less achieved as 74 laboratories had either destroyed or transferred to the two WHO sanctioned repositories.  But is the last two sanctioned repositories that the debate is about.

Even though a deadline of 1993 was set two sanctioned repositories still remain. The WHO however has repeatedly pushed back the date due to pressure from developed countries; these include United States, who want to continue research on the virus.  However it is developing countries that would probably bear the brunt of any accidental release have long backed the destruction plan. They believe that Smallpox research is a dangerous luxury, as accidental release could be catastrophic. This has previously occurred when a photographer at Birmingham university accidently got the virus on her skin and died.  (BBC.2011)

Many scientists also argue that destroying the stocks would do little to protect the world from Smallpox, because it is now possible to recreate the virus from its genome. (naturenews.2011). If this is the case then there really is no need to keep the virus. Even though there are only a small amount of Labs that have the skills and resources to do so there are still labs that have the skills to do this more labs in fact than the number of known countries to have stocks of the Smallpox Virus.

For these reasons I strongly believe that Smallpox is not needed for the use of medical research and therefore should be destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110513/full/news.2011.288.html

Show lessBBC - History - British History in depth: Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourgebbc.co.use could be catastrophic. This has previously occurred when a photographer at Birmingham university accidently got the virus on her skin and died.  (BBC.2011)
Many scientists also argue that destroying the stocks would do little to protect the world from Smallpox, because it is now possible to recreate the virus from its genome. (naturenews.2011). If this is the case then there really is no need to keep the virus. Even though there are only a small amount of Labs that have the skills and resources to do so there are still labs that have the skills to do this more labs in fact than the number of known countries to have stocks of the Smallpox Virus.
For these reasons I strongly believe that Smallpox is not needed for the use of medical research and therefore should be destroyed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110513/full/news.2011.288.htmlShow less

BBC - History - British History in depth: Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourge

bbc.co.uk