Smallpox?

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Bill Stewart wrote:

> This is especially bogus for smallpox, because (as Jenner discovered),
> cowpox is usable as a vaccine against smallpox, so keeping that
> should be good enough, though the smallpox-based vaccines are more convenient.

I would not count on the 18th century cowpox/smallpox coupling to be
valid today - viruses evolve, and that's not counting deliberate
manipulations intended to produce more virulent strains.

Bottom line is: so long as anybody has this stuff in stock it is
criminal not to make the vaccine available, and I applaud efforts to
obtain some level of immunity. There is of course a risk of adverse
reactions from vaccinations, but as I understand it nobody who has been
vaccinated without trouble in the past should expect any from future
boosters or revaccination - the only risk is in initial vaccination, so
we oldtimers who traveled before the WHO declaration of victory have
nothing to lose by revaccination. 

Each of us has the right to weigh for himself the risk of being
vaccinated versus the risk of being accidentally or deliberately
infected with the allegedly eradicated disease.

Best to all,
Marc de Piolenc

PS. The biotech lists are full of stuff that might lead to the
capability of producing effective vaccines without having stocks of the
virus - something about cell-membrane proteins. Unfortunately my
background is not adequate for understanding this material; perhaps
somebody else on the list has the right PhD?