Slashdot Mirror


Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox

Stella Daily writes: "Had Jonathan Tucker's Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox been released just a few months ago, it might have been of interest only to a few outside of the world of epidemiology, but now that anthrax scares have reawakened public interest in biowarfare, it's hardly surprising that Scourge has been flying off the shelves." Read on for the rest of her review of this sobering non-fiction technothriller. Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox author Jonathan B. Tucker pages 291 publisher Atlantic Monthly Press rating 9 reviewer Stella Daily ISBN 0-87113-830-1 summary The history and potential horrors of a vanquished killer

Tucker clearly wrote the book believing that the use of smallpox as a biological weapon was a worrisome, but not especially likely, threat, and on September 10th, most of us would not only have concurred, but would probably never have thought that such a thing could happen; after all, smallpox remains the only infectious disease to have been eradicated by humans. After reading Scourge, you will be grateful that the mysterious sender of anthrax-laced mail doesn't have the power of this infinitely worse pestilence in his or her hands.

The smallpox virus, or variola, is a biscuit-shaped bundle of DNA and protein casing, so tiny it can only be viewed with an electron microscope, yet devastating to the human body. The disease kills up to thirty percent of its victims and leaves the rest permanently scarred after battling fever, nausea, and boils so painful that thirsty patients often refused water, unable to swallow without excruciating hurt. Perhaps to be merciful, Tucker has included no photographs of suffering victims covered in the gruesome pustules of the disease, but should you have a morbid curiosity to see one, visit the Polio Eradication Photo Gallery.

Scourge is not a story about a virus, however; it is a story about people. Tucker tells of the history of smallpox and civilizations, how political machinations combined with idealism to bring about the global cooperation that removed smallpox from the earth, and the elaborate subterfuge used by the Soviet Union to hide its research on smallpox as a potential biological weapon. Fans of Laurie Garrett's (The Coming Plague, Betrayal of Trust) journalistic style will appreciate Tucker's treatment; the major figures in the history of smallpox are presented in terms of their personalities and personal struggles, rather than in simple obituary-style listings of what they did.

In describing the early history of the disease, Scourge is fascinating. You may have known that smallpox helped Hernando Cortes conquer the Aztecs in the sixteenth century, but perhaps you didn't know that smallpox may have been the Athenian epidemic Thucydides describes in his account of the Peloponnesian war. The superstitions that existed prior to the germ theory of disease - and, in some areas, long enough to hinder the last stages of the smallpox eradication campaign in the late 1970s - seem truly impossible now, but such was belief prior to the germ theory of disease.

The conquering of smallpox remains one of the great triumphs of mankind - the only infectious disease successfully eradicated by humans. The history of the eradication campaign is one of cooperation between nations and between scientists, but it is also a story of obstacles placed in the way by reluctant governments, the rapid spread of disease due to world travel, and the stubbornness of the superstitious. Here, you will meet such figures as D.A. Henderson, the reluctant leader of the World Health Organization campaign, and Viktor Zhdanov, the man who first proposed a global eradication campaign to the WHO in 1958, then, ironically, became the first chairman of the Soviet council that oversaw the secret biowarfare program beginning in the 1970s.

The clash between the traditional openness of the scientific community, where information is shared relatively freely, and the secretiveness of bureaucracies, where being in the know is a mark of power, is a recurring theme. Often, you'll find yourself rooting for the researchers, who frequently had to reason with government officials who knew nothing about science, but you may be surprised to find yourself agreeing with the government - specifically, the Department of Defense - a time or two.

The story of the Soviet Union's successful cover-up of its research into the use of smallpox as a biological weapon is unsettling, to say the least. Do you find the aftermath of a nuclear bomb impressive? Imagine that bomb followed by an ICBM bearing smallpox - a disease that kills nearly a third of its victims in a normal situation, but would be attacking survivors of a nuclear attack, whose immune systems would be severely compromised by radiation damage. Lest you think that earlier vaccinations might have helped, the smallpox vaccine is effective for only about ten years before revaccination is required, and the United States had stopped mandatory vaccinations long before the last known case of naturally occurring smallpox was diagnosed in 1978. Such a warhead was one of the foci of the Soviet program, even as facilities were carefully disguised so as to give the appearance of compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention treaty. Western governments did not learn of the full scope of the Soviet effort until 1989, and kept the information classified until former Soviet smallpox research scientist Ken Alibek (ne Kanatjan Alibekov) told the story to the American press in 1998.

Although, officially, the last remaining stores of variola virus are kept in Moscow and at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Tucker raises the possibility that other governments - particularly Iraq - may have retained secret stores of smallpox virus, citing enough circumstantial evidence to keep his speculation from being easily discounted. He also brings up the possibility that a government might, to avoid the certain retaliation that would come from launching a smallpox attack, supply the virus to a group like al-Qaeda, then deny responsibility when the terrorists release the disease. Tucker finished documenting these speculations well before the September 11th attacks; now, one hopes they aren't prophetic.

In the case of smallpox, the truth is as morbidly fascinating as any fiction could possibly be, and Tucker tells the story of those who fought to end the scourge and those who would have preserved it as a weapon with equal aplomb, yet from the perspective of a world where smallpox was a piece of history and sophisticated biological attack a back-burner phenomenon. Now that fears of biological warfare are all too real, Scourge is exceptionally relevant - and hopefully not a prediction of what is to come.

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.

28 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. biowar link-o-rama by wiredog · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Specter of Biological Weapons
    Scientific American, Dec 1996
    http://www.sciam.com/1296issue/1296cole.html

    Living Terrors
    Living Terrors

    by Michael T. OsterholmPh.D., former Minnesota State Epidemiologist, and John Schwartz, a science reporter for The Washington Post.

    Lays out scenarios for anthrax and smallpox, some history of biowar, why public health system needs to be restored.

    The Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies:

    home

    Smallpox

    CDC reports on smallpox attack scenarios:
    The scenario

    Aftermath of a Hypothetical Smallpox Disaster

    Part Two

    CDC

    Home

    S,mallpox

    Picture

    Modeling Attacks

    Public Health Links:
    The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance

    by Laurie Garrett

    Covers emerging and re-emerging diseases such as HIV, Ebola, Tuberculosis, Smallpox.

    Betrayal of Trust : The Collapse of Global Public Health

    by Laurie Garrett, Steven M. Wolinsky

    How the public health system, in USA and abroad, was allowed to disintegrate.

    And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic

    by Randy Shilts

    A chronicle of the first 5 years of the aids epidemic.

    Richard Preston (Hot Zone author) on smallpox

  2. Demon in the Freezer by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · · Score: 5, Informative

    The New Yorker's The Demon in the Freezer is mirrored at Cryptome, and is an excellent online read about smallpox; it takes about half an hour. And it is truly disturbing.

    If you only read a few parts, read two things:
    - the part where Russian scientists warn western observers that "your vaccines won't protect you" against the Soviet's new breed of smallpox.
    - the part about insect poxviruses, which turn caterpillars into pure crytstallized virus.

    Blech. I hope we have the courage as a nation to go ahead and make the vaccine, in mass quantities, the same way it used to be made. The main objection raised in the article is that "by today's standards" cow puss is an unacceptable vaccine. Hopefully "today's standards" are that life without a vaccine is unacceptable. But that's just my opinion.

    --
    If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
    1. Re:Demon in the Freezer by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Demon in the Freezer
      Excellent read! Terrifying stuff.

      The article talks a lot about delivery mechanisms, from ICBMS that explode smallpox in the air, to microchip based aerators that spray live smallpox into the air and could fill an airport in a few hours.

      But based on our recent experiences with suicide terrorists, has anyone thought about the simplest method of hiding, importing, and distributing the virus?

      A suicide terrorist could EAT the virus, and go on vacation in the US, visiting as many places as possible, breathing on as many people as possible.
      F*** this is scary! All he would have to do is visit a McDonalds in every big city!
      He would have two weeks before he shows symptoms.

      I almost hate even SAYING this, spreading the idea. But I'm sure they can think of it on their own.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  3. Fear and Unity by under_score · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I read something like this review, I experience twinges of fear. Smallpox sounds like it is truly terrible. And yet, somehow, we, the people of this world, did manage to get rid of it. For the future of the world, we need to recognize that we are one people first, and citizens of a nation second. This doesn't mean we all need to believe the same things, etc. This is about unity in diversity. And unity isn't abstract: its about action. Getting rid of smallpox was an example of unity in diversity. The people of the world got rid of it. Now, can we get rid of AIDS? Can we get rid of Malaria? What about our physical environment? What about nuclear weapons? What about poverty? These are things that can only be solved with unity of action.

  4. Scary stuff by Tsar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From another site that mentions Tucker's work...
    How vulnerable are we? In June, a two-day simulation exercise called Dark Winter was held at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. It began with a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack by Iraq that left 24 infected in Oklahoma. After an imaginary two weeks, decisions by the assembled politicians coupled with the quick exhaustion of the stockpiled vaccine would have resulted in 16,000 people infected in 25 states and 1,000 dead, 10 other countries reporting cases and the grim prediction that within three weeks there would be 300,000 victims, a third of whom would die.
    Very scary stuff. I think I'll sign up for that Mars mission now.
  5. coincidental... by ravrazor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a episode of Nova about the very same topic last night on our local PBS affiliate. Quite disturbing, especially in regards to the experiments of the Soviet Union even after global treaties had been signed.
    The pictures of smallpox victims were even more disturbing.
    Check out the schedule, maybe it's on again, for those interested.

  6. George Carlin (Offtopic) by scott1853 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know this is slightly offtopic, but I downloaded a Carlin MP3 from an HBO show from 1999 that I never saw or heard before. The first ten minutes he talked about terrorists and how they're not going to be stupid enough to use a bomb, but they'll take knives and dozens of other weapons that the airlines would let you take on board. He then went into talking about how we'd all be afraid of anthrax in our drinking water.

    I know it's just comedy, but he's a smart guy and that was just a little creepy hearing about this stuff from a 2 year old recording.

    1. Re:George Carlin (Offtopic) by libre+lover · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's from the Carlin special You Are All Diseased. When I first saw you're post I went looking for my tape of it (I was going to transcribe it) but then I caught some sense and remembered Google. Here it is:
      I'm getting tired of security at the airport, There's too much of it. I'm tired of some fat chick with a double-digit IQ and a triple-digit income rootin' around inside my bag for no reason and never finding anything. Haven't found anything yet. Haven't found one bomb in one bag. And don't tell me, "Well, the terrorists know their bags are going to be searched, so now they're leaving their bombs at home." There are no bombs! The whole thing is fuckin' pointless'

      And it's completely without logic. There's no logic at all. They'll take away a gun but let you keep a knife. Well, what the fuck is that? In fact, there's a whole list of lethal objects they allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chain saw, six knitting needles and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they would say to you is, "That bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you."

      And if you didn't take a weapon on board, relax. After you've been flying for about an hour, they're gonna bring you a knife and fork! They actually give you a fucking knife. It's only a table knife, but you could kill a pilot with a table knife. It might take a couple of minutes.

      Especially if he's hefty. But you could get the job done. If you really wanted to kill the prick. Shit, there are a lot of things you could use to kill a guy. You could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times, couldn't you? Suppose you just have really big hands. Couldn't you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them, one with each hand. That is, if you were lucky enough to catch 'em in that little kitchen area. Just before they break out the fuckin' peanuts. But you could get the job done. If you really cared enough.

      So why is it they allow a man with big, powerful hands to get on board an airplane? I'll tell you why. They know he's not a security risk, because he's already answered the three big questions. Question number one: "Did you pack your bags yourself?"

      "No, Carrot Top packed my bags. He and Martha Stewart and Florence Henderson came over to the house last night, fixed me a lovely lobster Newburg, gave me a full body massage with sacred oils from India, performed a four-way around-the-world and then packed my bags. Next question." "Have your bags been in your possession the whole time?"

      "No. Usually the night before I travel-just as the moon is rising-I place my suitcases out on the street corner and leave them there, unattended, for several hours. Just for good luck. Next question."

      "Has any unknown person asked you to take anything on board?"

      "Well, what exactly is an 'unknown person'? Surely everyone is known to someone. In fact, just this morning, Kareem and Youssef Ali ben Gabba seemed to know each other quite well. They kept joking about which one of my suitcases was the heaviest."

      And that's another thing they don't like at the airport. Jokes. You can't joke about a bomb. Well, why is it just jokes? What about a riddle? How about a limerick? How about a bomb anecdote? You know, no punch line, just a really cute story. Or suppose you intended the remark not as a joke but as an ironic musing? Are they prepared to make that distinction? I think not! And besides, who's to say what's funny?

      Airport security is a stupid idea. It's a waste of money and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe. That's all it's for. To provide a feeling, an illusion, of safety in order to placate the middle class. The authorities know they can't make airplanes safe; too many people have access. You'll notice that drug smugglers don't seem to have a lot of trouble getting their little packages on board, do they? No. And God bless them, too.

      And by the way, an airplane flight shouldn't be completely safe. You need a little danger in your fife. Take a fuckin' chance, will ya? What are you gonna do, play with your prick for another 30 years? Are you gonna read People and eat at Wendy's till the end of time? Take a fuckin' chance! Besides, even if they made all of the airplanes completely safe, the terrorists would simply start bombing other places that are crowded: pawnshops, crack houses, titty bars and gang bangs. You know, entertainment venues. The odds of your being killed by a terrorist are practically zero. So I say, relax and enjoy the show.

      You have to be realistic about terrorism. Ya gotta be a realist: Certain groups of people--Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana--are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time. That's the reality. Angry men in combat fatigues talking to God on a two-way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are eventually going to provide us with a great deal of entertainment.

      Especially after your stupid fuckin' economy collapses all around you, and the terrorists come out of the woodwork. And you'll have anthrax in the water supply and sarin gas in the air conditioners; there'll be chemical and biological suitcase bombs in every city, and I say, "Relax, enjoy it! Enjoy the show! Take a fuckin' chance. Put a little fun in your life." To me, terrorism is exciting. I think the very idea that someone might set off a bomb in Macy's and kill several hundred people is exciting and stimulating, and I see it as a form of entertainment!

      But I also know most Americans are soft, frightened, unimaginative people who have no idea there's such a thing as dangerous fun. And they certainly don't recognize good entertainment when they see it. I have always been willing to put myself at great personal risk for the sake of entertainment. And I've always been willing to put you at great personal risk for the same reason.

      As far as I'm concerned, all of this airport security--the cameras, the questions, the screening, the searches--is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you any time they want, as long as you're willing to put up with it. Which means, of course, any time they want. Because that's the way Americans are now. They're always willing to trade away a little of their freedom for the feeling, the illusion--of security.
      --
      Error: .sig undefined
  7. Really? by jabbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I guess we didn't bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan in the last 15 years. Nor did $300M of Saudi inheritance and an organization devoted to the destruction of the USA (and by proxy, our Western allies) spring up. Right?

    The huge difference between an entity like the Soviet Union and a network like Al Qaeda is that, while the USSR was highly prepared and enamored of the will to power, the people holding the reins were not particularly interested in dying as a means of killing others. So while the cynical machinations of the Soviet power elite produced the finest weaponization programs for biowarfare yet seen, they were only intended for use as mop-up agents after a nuclear attack.

    The Islamic fundies (not particularly worse than Christian fundies or ultranationalist Israelis, just more prominent) that have taken center stage lately are perfectly willing to die for their cause, as long as they can kill a few unarmed women and children while they're at it. What better for the slaughter of innocents than an epidemic? It worked for Genghis Khan (cf. catapulting plague-ridden corpses into sieged cities). These are not conventional enemies and they are not limiting themselves to conventional warfare. Moreover, a network of semi-autonomous individuals without a distinct nationality, i.e., nothing to lose, is a much more elusive target than a static nation-state like Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. So the consequences of being "caught" are also different.

    That, in conjunction with the underfunding and collapse of the public health systems around the world, is why I submit that a response to biowarfare is more crucial now than 15 years ago.

    And the rebuilding of a worldwide public health infrastructure would be a damn nice side effect of this new urgency, IMHO.

    --
    Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
  8. Re:We can only hope... by wiredog · · Score: 4, Informative

    The government is working on stockpiling enough vaccine for the whole population, but they wouldn't vaccinate unless there were an outbreak. The vaccine can have nasty side-effects in some people, including brain damage, blindness, and death. Not many people, 1 in 250k,IIRC, but that would still be over 1,000 people injured by it if everyone were vaccinated. Those numbers, however, date from the days before AIDS, chemotherapy, and other things that suppress the immune system. It's a 'live virus' vaccine. Because of that it's one of the ones that's used when the danger of the vaccine is substantially less than the danger of the disease.

  9. Re:We can only hope... by Pedersen · · Score: 3, Informative
    The hope that you have is no hope for me, unfortunately. You see, I've never been given the smallpox vaccine, nor can I be. The allergic reaction would kill me. I have no idea how many other people there are like me in this country and the world, just that I'm one of them.

    Something almost amusing, though... Doctors will always ask if you're allergic to any medications, and I always respond "smallpox vaccine", and we both chuckle, because we know that I'm not likely to need it. Now, though... A story like this can cause genuine fear for me.

    --

    GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
  10. We can deal with it... by DaoudaW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAD, but it seems to me that the smallpox threat is a bit overblown. The victory over smallpox was in large part due to the characteristics of the disease itself: short incubation period, very visible presentation. These characteristics would also make it easier to fight in the case of a terrorist attack.

    FWIW, my Dad had mild case of smallpox as a child. He was not horribly disfigured nor did he describe it as particularly uncomfortable as diseases go.

    1. Re:We can deal with it... by TGK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But there's a real difference between a weaponized strain of a virus and the naturaly occuring brand. Weaponized viruses are frequently resistant to knowen vacination tecniques. They have altered incubation periods and transmitable stages allowing for rapid amplification through a population or use as a localized weapon (depending on the desires of those producing the virus). Most are also selectively produced for leathality. Weaponized smallpox has a kill rate in excess of 80%. That's scary as hell. Ebola is scary because in its natural state it has a kill rate that high.

      Just beware that a weaponized strain and the naturaling occuring type are two different things. And yes, smallpox has been weaponized.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  11. Biopreparat by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know why everyone is so focused on smallbox, even if it's an awful disease.

    Ken Alibek (formerly Kantajin Alibekov) who was the deputy director of the immense Soviet Biopreparat biowarfare research and manufacture organizion defected to the US in the early 90's, and has written a book on it as well as testifying to congress and having been thoroughly debriefed on the Soviet program.... They worked on a whole slew of biological weapons including things like marlburg virus (similar to ebola) that would make you wish you only had smallpox!

    The Soviets stockpiled weaponized smallpox, plague, marlburg, tularemia etc in quantities of tens of tons each! They aqpparently killed around 100,000 nazis with tularemia in the Battle of Stalingrad.

  12. Re:Smallpox by phamlen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It should be noted that a person with smallpox is not contagious until the person is showing symptoms. Therefore, a terrorist would have to have boils and rashes in order to be contagious - and therefore more likely to be identified as having smallpox. (In addition, dying in battle is different than dying a slow, agonizing death by smallpox - I think it would be harder to get martyrs to take smallpox.)

    In addition, the smallpox vaccine works extremely quickly - you can be vaccinated several days later (after having been exposed) and the vaccine will work. So, although the terrorist walking with smallpox is a threat, it's not the worst.

    Finally, smallpox is extremely hard to contain - so a terrorist spreading smallpox in NYC could easily end up infecting his own community (what with worldwide travel so available these days.)

    The "typhoid terrorist" scenario is certainly possible, but I think it is unlikely.

  13. You forgot the most substantial one out there: PBS by jabbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frontline special: Plague Wars

    This is the most balanced, incisive, and original presentation I've seen on the topic. It was written several years ago and was not rushing to meet some deadline or focused on the current agent du jour. It's fantastic.

    Anyone who likes Laurie Garrett's work (or Ken Alibek's) will find this site worth digging into, deeply.

    Have "fun".

    --
    Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
  14. Rats, Lice and History by jamie · · Score: 4, Informative

    I haven't read the Smallpox book reviewed here. But if you're interested in the history of disease, I heartily recommend Rats, Lice and History. Not a boring text, it meanders all over the place with a very dry wit and makes a truly horrible subject enjoyable to read about.

  15. Jenner time! Do the cowpox! by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 3, Funny

    Time to start milking cows again. At least cyberporn gave us lots of practice.

  16. Not BS by wiredog · · Score: 3, Informative

    We keep the stocks for research into the disease. I think there's an effort underway to sequence the genetic code. Hopefully the research will lead to a safer vaccine than the one we have now. It's based on cow pus.

  17. Suggested Reading about Chemical and Biowarfare by anzha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would strongly suggest looking up the book of _A Higher Form of Killing_ (iirc, by Harris and Paxman). It's a sobering book. I found it in our high school library in Los Alamos. I'd be curious to see if it is still there...

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  18. I won't be in today, Mr. Smithers. by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have Smallpox.
    ...
    Well, it wasn't wiped out in MY house!
    &#151Homer Simpson

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  19. Re:Dont StockPile Vaccine by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The HIV epidemic in Africa is putting whole territories in danger of having an average age under 20 as often more than 60% of adults are HIV positive. The US and UK based drug companies and governments aren't doing anything about this - they have the drugs to slow the spread of HIV right now - they choose not to use them.

    How is this the West's fault - like everything else in the world seems to be? The real problem in Africa isn't anything to do with drugs, it's a lack of both condoms and the inclination to use them. You see, apart from the tiny minority of cases in which a victim receives contaminated blood through transfusion, or is deliberatly and maliciously infected, AIDS is completely avoidable. Just don't have unprotected sex with strangers, and don't share needles if you insist on injecting drugs. Simple, isn't it? Until the Africans learn that, tho', there isn't enough medicine in the universe to make a difference.

    A bio-terror attack is something completely different, it is a cold-blooded attack on innocent people. It doesn't even compare at all. And let's not forget, us potential victims of bio attacks are paying for our own defences through our taxes. There's no-one there to help us, so we rely on ourselves. There's a lesson there.

  20. ah, but its worse... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 3, Interesting
    smallpox isn't that bad, as has been posted before, its only contagious when symptoms are showing, etc etc.

    what really scares the bejeezus outta me is modified smallpox.

    to summarize the article, some guys in australia discovered by genetically modifying mousepox (pretty weak, like chicken pox) that they could turn it into a far, far deadlier virus which was pretty much immune to vaccines (!).

    now, this kind of genetic modification isn't easy. but a vaccine-resistant strain of smallpox which kills somewhere up to 90% or so of people infected would really suck.

    then again, maybe such a modification wouldn't work on smallpox like it does for mousepox. i hope.

    --

    ---
    Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    1. Re:ah, but its worse... by meldroc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Soviet Union created some ghastly genengineered diseases. Off the top of my head, they genengineered the smallpox virus by adding genes from the Marburg virus (similar to Ebola). The result was a virus nicknamed Blackpox or Ebolapox that is airbone & contagious like smallpox, but caused a nasty bleeding-out-your-pores hemorrhagic fever with a near 100% fatality rate like Ebola. They also added the gene for myelin (the coating around nerve cells) to a plague bacteria. Treatment is simple enough, give antibiotics, and the bacteria goes away. But when the immune system sees the myelin proteins in the bacteria, it attacks anything with myelin, such as nerve cells. The result is a multiple sclerosis type of illness that results in a lingering death.

      --

      Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
  21. Small Pox Vaccine Allergies? by carping · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How does one come to realize that one is allergic to the small pox vaccine?

    -E

  22. An interesting philosophical question... by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In order to be able to prevent an attack from weapon X, we must have a supply of weapon X, to develop a defence. In so doing, we also provide a known and ready source of weapon X, for someone to use.


    This was the case with the Anthrax, which I believe has been identified as an artificial strain, traced to a US Govt. laboratory.


    We also create a motive. Fear. There are many who fear the US, who believe that it is an ego-centric culture, which will crush any other culture it encounters, given time. (Honestly, I've not seen much evidence to the contrary.) The assumption that American culture is "superior" to all others does piss off a lot of people, all over the world.


    (The current President's view that International Law and International Treaties are only valid if convenient, and disposable otherwise, has sparked off two International incidents and is likely to fuel further crises, as the EU takes on Microsoft, the Kyoto Accords are implemented in other countries, and Germany takes the US to court.)


    In short, our very protectionistic, defensive attitude is our own worst enemy. Smallpox, Ebola, Genetically Modified insects or plants that replace native life with stuff deadly to humans... All this and more is possible, today.


    And what reason, exactly, are we giving other nations, other societies, to NOT use such weapons? It seems to me that we're not only giving others plenty of reasons, we're also determined to give them the means, too. Most other countries abandoned such warfare as too random, too unpredictable, and too slow, to be of any military value, and gave up such work.


    In the US, we're keeping stockpiles of deadly organisms, and are conducting GM research which would be considered unethical anywhere else in the world. We don't protect the environment (which makes it hard to detect intrusions when they can still be dealt with), and we ensure that health coverage of any quality goes to the well-off. (Who probably need it a lot less, than those who aren't!)


    In short, then, we're practically giving away weapons that can be used against us, giving others reasons to use those weapons, and we're then making it impossible for us to genuinely do anything that might protect us, by pricing it out of existance.


    IMHO, there is only one solution to this, and a lot of pro-Corporate people are not going to like, or understand, it. We have to take care of what we have - people, fauna, flora, habitats, EVERYTHING - as well as, or better than, ourselves.


    THEN, we can detect the threats long before they even become threatening. We would be more likely to have the means to deal with it, because we would catch the problem sooner. The same way that cancer is a whole lot easier to treat, when it's starting, than when it has completely run rampant.


    Further, if we learn to be more aware of our surroundings, we're much less likely to incite the kind of fanatical hatred that we have seen. Directly, or indirectly. Our fear incites the fear of others. Our awareness might, then, incite awareness in others, which might even reduce global suspicion and hostility.


    Sounds utopian? Probably. Nobody said I was a realist. I am merely a software engineer, who knows that Output = fn(Input), that if you want to change the output, you must change the input, and that if you keep getting outputs you don't like, then don't keep changing the input the same way.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:An interesting philosophical question... by dublin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MHO, there is only one solution to this, and a lot of pro-Corporate people are not going to like, or understand, it. We have to take care of what we have - people, fauna, flora, habitats, EVERYTHING - as well as, or better than, ourselves.

      One can only assume by your rant that you believe we should enforce a uniform standard of living for ll people everywhere. The Soviet Union tried that, and it's a great means of ensuring that everyone (but the truly elite - we really hardly have such a thing in this country relative to the Poilitburo or royalty of old) winds up equally ppor and miserable.

      We have nations for a reason, and we haven't outgrown them, nor are we likely to in this millenium.

      The people of those countries CAN and SHOULD change their own national governments to ensure that they act responsibly and in the best interest of the people of that nation. The US BY FAR the most generous benefactor nation in the entire history of the world. The superiority of our economic system generates a bountiful surplus that has allowed us to do so. While the US should encourage the formation of republics wherever it can, it is NOT our job or duty to try to sort out the internal politics of every corrupt regime on the planet.

      In fact, the experiences of this century have clearly shown the futility of attempting to "install" free governments in countries where the people are not sufficiently motivated to fight in their own self-interest.

      Obviously, you've fallen for the flawed logic of your leftist college professors. Following your course of action would result in the destruction of any means by which the US might be able to provide aid. We should encourage freedom, but the people of foreign nations must have some skin in the game. Welfare works even less well for nations than it does for individuals, sapping their desire and any initiative to get up and work for thier own benefit.

      Our goal (the only truly compassionate one) should be to help these countries generate their own wealth, rather than being dependent on ours. (The US has a long and successful history of doing this, even for our enemies...)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  23. Ask the Conneticut Indians by HamNRye · · Score: 3, Informative

    Smallpox was a terrible epidemic here in the states when it wqs used as a biological agent against the aboriginal populations in this country.

    The Conneticut Indians saw Smallpox decimate 90% of their population. The effect of Smallpox on New England was more drastic than a Nuclear Weapon.

    In a nuclear attack, you would lose 70-75% of the populated area, Smallpox killed at least 80% of the Native American population living in New England.

    The vistory over smallpox came about because we used it against our old enemies and now our new ones are using it against us.

    Jason Maggard
    Proud to be Miami
    Nothing4sale.org