May 24, 201115 yr http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13526379 Smallpox decision deferred again A decision on when to destroy the last known stocks of live smallpox virus has been put off for another three years. The World Health Organization (WHO) agreed to resume the discussion in 2014, following debate this week at its annual meeting. Countries were divided on the issue at the 64th World Health Assembly. Iran led opposition to a plan backed by the US and Russia to set a date for destruction in 2016. There has been a lot of discussion around the smallpox issue," Pierre Formenty of the WHO told a news briefing in Geneva. "Three years from now, we will resume the discussion." The issue was first discussed at the Assembly in 1986 and has been the source of debate ever since. Destroying the remaining stocks of variola, or small pox virus, is seen by some countries as the final chapter in eradicating the disease to prevent the risk of accidental release. Others, including the US and Russia, argue for more research in case smallpox returns, possibly as a biological weapon. Smallpox facts Caused by the variola virus The virus originated over 3,000 years ago in India or Egypt Symptoms include fever, muscle pain, headache, tiredness and the distinctive rash It killed 30% of those infected More than 300 million people were thought to have died from smallpox in the 20th century alone Up to 80% of survivors were marked with deep pitted scars, mostly on the face Discuss
May 24, 201115 yr If it can be rid of then get rid of it. Why must nations consider keeping it for the use of biological weapons?
May 24, 201115 yr My initial gut reaction would be what Mike said, but I need to think about this more before that can be my definitive response.
May 24, 201115 yr Author My initial gut reaction would be what Mike said, but I need to think about this more before that can be my definitive response. This is my answer 99% of the time :laugh3:
May 24, 201115 yr If it needs be used for any useful medical research, then keep small quantities of it. Note: That does not include biological weapons.
May 24, 201115 yr Author Anyone have any idea how effective the cure for this actually is? I mean it's been eradicated, but were we helped by nature?
May 24, 201115 yr Maybe I should be a little more specific rather than just say yes or no, because it depends on different situations. I mean I think it should overall be eradicated. However if it would be used for research to help prevent other viruses or future diseases then I'd be for keeping it. But if it's going to be used as a biological weapon then I'm not.
May 25, 201115 yr Anyone have any idea how effective the cure for this actually is? I mean it's been eradicated, but were we helped by nature? The only "cure" is the vaccine, no longer given cos it was "eradicated". If infected, the chances of dying = 30%, thanks to the dangerous complications, such as encephalitis. Of course nowadays, thanks to all the research, antivirals seem to be effective if a case pops up. Also I don't quite understand your question "helped by nature?" but the eradication was apparently result of the massive vaccination campaign around the globe since the 60's. About the poll question, I don't even know tbf, but I'd go for eradicate.
May 25, 201115 yr I say get rid of it. Just look what happened when some Foot & Mouth leaked out from a research lab.
May 25, 201115 yr I say get rid of it. Just look what happened when some Foot & Mouth leaked out from a research lab. I'm totally uneducated about this. What happened?
May 25, 201115 yr I don't think it's a very good idea to keep it, surely if a new virus emerged it would be significantly different to the Smallpox one?.
May 25, 201115 yr Author Also I don't quite understand your question "helped by nature?" Perhaps some form of disaster may have led to it's demise. There were rumours that the bubonic plague was halted by the Great Fire Of London, although I don't think it's true. My knowledge on disease isn't good enough to know whether it's possible for such an event to do that if the conditions were right. If that was what had stopped it in the past then we obviously wouldn't want our options to be either find an actual cure on our own terms or burn the town down.
May 25, 201115 yr Perhaps some form of disaster may have led to it's demise. There were rumours that the bubonic plague was halted by the Great Fire Of London, although I don't think it's true. My knowledge on disease isn't good enough to know whether it's possible for such an event to do that if the conditions were right. If that was what had stopped it in the past then we obviously wouldn't want our options to be either find an actual cure on our own terms or burn the town down. Well I wouldn't know either tbf, all I know is that high temperatures kill many microorganisms, it's even stated in the books that regular cold virus (rhinovirus) only affects upper respiratory tract because it can't stand more than 33-34 °C. It could also be because of many things, isolated cases and deaths, also, the human body is the only reservoir for the smallpox virus, so that also is a factor in terms of spreading, cos in other diseases vectors can help spread disease, such as yellow fever. I hope I made myself clear.
May 25, 201115 yr If it can be rid of then get rid of it. Why must nations consider keeping it for the use of biological weapons? But if it's going to be used as a biological weapon then I'm not. Completely missing the point. They meant if someone ELSE creates a biological weapon out of it. The US and Russia aren't proposing making a biological weapon. When they do things as evil as that, they generally don't tell the public about it.
May 25, 201115 yr Author Those are the last known stocks. I think they can't trust other nations and think there is a possibility that others may be keeping theirs a secret to use at a later date.
Create an account or sign in to comment