Slashdot Mirror


Why Don't Scientists Kill The 'Demon In The Freezer'?

HughPickens.com writes: Smallpox was one of the most devastating diseases humanity has ever faced, killing more than 300 million people in the 20th century alone. But thanks to the most successful global vaccination campaign in history, the disease was completely eradicated by 1980. By surrounding the last places on earth where smallpox was still occurring -- small villages in Asia and Africa -- and inoculating everyone in a wide circle around them, D. A. Henderson and the World Health Organization were able to starve the virus of hosts. Smallpox is highly contagious, but it is not spread by insects or animals. When it is gone from the human population, it is gone for good. But Errol Moris writes in the NYT that Henderson didn't really eliminate smallpox. In a handful of laboratories around the world, there are still stocks of smallpox, tucked away in one freezer or another. In 2014 the CDC announced that vials containing the deadly virus had been discovered in a cardboard box in a refrigerator located on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland. How can you say it's eliminated when it's still out there, somewhere? The demon in the freezer.

Some scientists say that these residual stocks of smallpox should not be destroyed because some ruthless super-criminal or rogue government might be working on a new smallpox, even more virulent than existing strains of the virus. We may need existing stocks to produce new vaccines to counteract the new viruses. Meanwhile, opponents of retention argue that there's neither need nor practical reason for keeping the virus around. In a letter to Science Magazine published in 1994, the Nobel laureate David Baltimore wrote, "I doubt that we so desperately need to study smallpox that it would be worth the risk inherent in the experimentation." It all comes down to the question of how best to protect ourselves against ourselves. Is the greater threat to humanity our propensity for error and stupidity, or for dastardly ingenuity?

287 comments

  1. Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It could be highly useful in future medical research, and the damage it could cause if it gets back into the wild would be minimal.

    1. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If someone accidentaly came into contact with it, it would be a lab worker in a lab environment. The case would be contained quickly and would not become an epidemic.

    2. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would the damage be minimal? Smallpox was stopped by vaccinating people against it. However, the virus would have a large supply of hosts now because of the generations of people who haven't received vaccinations. If dispersed effectively, it seems like smallpox could do a lot of damage. I'm also not certain what could be learned of great value from studying that particular virus instead of the vast number of others.

    3. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The likelihood of a large outbreak is small, because the most likely exposure would be to a lab tech in a 1st world country that has a sample. It's effectively contained and has been for nearly 40 years.

      As for it's usefullness, I have no idea other than making more vaccine in the event the known samples are not the only samples. But, it's precisely that we don't know what it could be useful for that we shouldn't destroy it.

    4. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, you haven't seen any movies at all, have you?

    5. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The major problem with anyone really suggesting an "effective dispersion", is that its horribly inefficient and could cause significan't collateral damage (as in your own family).

      I suppose you could worry about some suicidal group or cult, getting a hold of it but it not exactly like stealing a nuke and hitting a city. It would take probalby some serious effort to make the thing a truly doomsday worthy, like years, and what professionals are going to want to work on it?

      It works in movies, but I think there is a reason why you don't see biological weapons used on a massive scale, because it would either be just too suicidal (unless you want everyone to die, good luck finding recruits for that) or just take to long.

    6. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that in an accidental exposure that it could be contained. We were successful in containing ebola in isolated exposures, so I believe we would successfully contain smallpox, too. The summary indicates that smallpox might be needed to create vaccines in the event that smallpox or a similar virus was used as a biological weapon. That's where I think there would be a lot more difficulty in containing the spread of the virus. If a laboratory technician handling the virus was exposed, there would be reason to suspect a smallpox infection I'd symptoms developed. If a member of the general public was exposed, I'm not sure that it would be diagnosed correctly. That's not a knock on doctors so much as there's no reason to think of it because the prior probability of a patient having smallpox is basically zero.

    7. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      I'm more concerned about the undead apocalypse when someone forgets to pay the electricity bill at the Alcor cryo facility.

      But at least we might find out posthumously from Hal Finney, the age old question, "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?"

    8. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your point is well-taken that many biological weapons simply aren't effective. However, if the reason that we need smallpox around is to produce vaccines to counteract a biological weapon, that doesn't make a lot of sense. I can accept that there might be future research that could benefit from the presence of smallpox samples, but we don't yet know what that might be. But I find a hard time accepting the argument made in the summary.

    9. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and destroy it all. If we need it later, just synthesize it.

    10. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still occasionally occurs in the wild. The Russian Federation has a stockpile and is not known for accurate or complete reporting of weapons destruction, or adherence to weapons bans. The U.S.A. and the Russian Federation are escalating tensions. So it is completely reasonable to assume Russia might develop a delivery mechanism to spread smallpox as a weapon against their adversaries. A lab supply is needed for research and production of vaccines.

    11. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. In practice, viruses have a tendency to never go away. Just take a look at the people who have been "cured" of ebola. Months or years later, some of them start showing symptoms again, because the virus found a reservoir inside an eyeball or some other random part of the body where the immune system is not as effective.

      Also, the claim that smallpox can only infect humans is naïve. It can, in fact, infect other primates. So the fact that it is no longer found in humans does not mean that it can't come back on its own. It is unlikely, but not impossible. In fact, it is highly likely that the initial smallpox epidemics were caused by the virus making its way into humans from some other animal species. If it happened once, it could happen twice....

      So the assertions upon which the author built the argument against smallpox are somewhat dubious, IMO. With that said, that doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong. The important question is whether we can continue to manufacture smallpox vaccines indefinitely without the actual virus. If the answer is yes (and I believe that it is), then destroying the most likely way for the virus to end up spreading among the population does make sense.

      Any recurrence of the virus, whether natural or artificial, would either be different from the known smallpox strains in meaningful ways or it wouldn't. If it is different, then the current smallpox virus probably won't be of any real benefit in developing a vaccine for the new variant; they would need samples of the new virus instead. If it isn't different, then the existing vaccine will "just work", and we don't need the current smallpox virus.

      Either way, the only plausible future use for smallpox would be as a biological weapon, and IMO, we owe it to future generations to destroy it.

      And as I post this, I'm struggling to avoid laughing. Because of a bit of over-editing, that last sentence almost ended with "... and IMO, we owe it to future generations to do so." Yikes!

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's two sides to this coin.

      The positive side for keeping it is, that the most likely source of an outbreak is the very same samples, thus a vaccine will be possible if it comes from those sources.

      The negative side is such an outbreak wouldn't even happen should the stockpiles be destroyed.

      So when someone says "we could have created a vaccine for X smallpox outbreak had we not destroyed smallpox stockpiles 50 years ago" you call bullshit on them, because what a modern outbreak of smallpox would be, won't be smallpox of 50 years ago, but smallpox of 50 days ago, and not be cured with a 50-year old vaccine.

      Realistically, the best argument for keeping it, is the same reason nuclear weapons are kept, the deterrence factor. As long as it's taboo to create a bioweapon, it means countries who have it in a lab somewhere can go "it wasn't us" and point to which version/generation they have.

      But this is only thinking like 100 years into the future. What if say, we opted to just garbage everything in the freezer 20 years from now, dump it in a landfill, and then in 400 years a future generation digs it up and kills everyone? The same problem exists at Chernobyl, and the only way to keep it buried is much the same way we keep Tomb Raiders at bay. It just doesn't happen. As long as people keep dying from exploring things they shouldn't (see 1922 Tutankhamun's tomb) there will always the threat of unleashing something horrible.

    13. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by meerling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, there is no known medical use for it anymore, and I do believe they've completely sequenced it and could recreate it if that were ever necessary for some reason.
      As to minimal damage in the wild? That's B.S.. Have you been vaccinated against smallpox in the last decade? Probably not as routine vaccinations were stopped in 1972, and unfortunately the high level of resistance it gives only lasts 4-7 years. Nobody really knows what the resistance level, if any, is after 20 years, much less than 45+ years.

      We currently don't have stockpiles of the vaccine, and as such, if there was an outbreak, it would run rampant long before enough vaccine to matter had been made. There would be a lot of dead people. Ok, you say, let's just stock up on it ahead of time. Well, there's a couple of issues with that. First, it might expire, so you'd have to keep making it constantly. I don't know what it's actual shelf life is, but vaccines of any kind aren't exactly canned peas and some of them are positively short time get it while it's fresh only.
      Then there's your second big problem. Cost. You'd have an expensive production facility, and storage, and security, and you'd have to keep replacing the stock once you'd built it up enough, and probably some other things you'd have to pay for. Now mind you that this is all for a virus that is dead in the wild, and has very limited lab samples remaining. That's like making 14k gold Tasmanian Tiger repellents for everyone in Australia! It's a very expensive exercise for something that's about as likely as a meteor strike at this point.

      But it gets worse. One of the big issues with all vaccines is they work best before you get exposed. (Many only help if you've had them before you've been exposed.) I've seen some stuff saying that the smallpox vaccine takes close to a week before it's protecting you. So that means you're going to have to be vaccinating the population, and revaccinating them about every 7 years to keep the immunity levels high. DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA HOW EXPENSIVE AND FREAKING DIFFICULT THAT IS THESE DAYS, ESPECIALLY WITH ANTI-VAXXERS?
      Yeah, we can't get them to vaccinate for Polio and Whooping Cough, two other diseases that were on the fast track to oblivion before those morons made a whole new generation of potential victims and cut down the herd immunity system.

      The scientists that had the samples had a death date set. There was going to be a celebration afterwards. Then some fools pushed through an injunction to prevent the total and final extinction of smallpox.

      By the way, if you don't know, the longer something is around, and the more it's fooled with, the more likely there will be an accident. Smallpox is currently sitting in locked freezers and they don't even like to move the samples around. What do you think will happen when they have to start culturing large quantities of it to start making vaccines? Yep, it's probably going to get loose. (I don't know their current setup, my info on their storage was before they started making limited quantities of the vaccine for certain 'key personnel' in 200X (two thousand something).

      If you want to find out more, there are plenty of science articles, even some real video journalism and the like on it, but please avoid the flaky sites out there, especially the conspiracy nut dumps.

    14. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's precisely that we don't know what it could be useful for that we shouldn't destroy it.

      This, exactly.

    15. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Interestingly most anti-vaxxers live in a first world country, not a third world country.

      Remember we eradicated this disease? Why would I pump my child full of chemicals when someone told me it was eradicated and OMG teh mercurys!

    16. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem with this view is the assumption that the only sources are stockpiles held in 1st world labs. A few years ago the US Military decided, for reasons never publicized, to resume vaccinations of personnel deploying to certain regions of the world. If the only stores are in known 1st world labs under high level containment protocols why would they have started doing that?

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    17. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      *points to the scar on his right arm*

      Bingo. I got the bifurcated needle in 2005.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    18. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not interesting, that's logical. If you're in a third world country where actual diseases run rampart and you SEE first hand what diseases do to your neighbor's kids, you want yours vaccinated. Against everything, and then some. Mercury? Aluminum? Fuck that shit, plug that needle in, doc!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because some things that we have eliminated in our corner of the world still exists in others "in the wild". It doesn't take an evil genius type villain to get malaria in some areas of the planet, no matter how impossible it may be in all the developed countries that used to be malaria zones a century ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that is contrary to the official view that small pox was eradicated in the wild in the early 70's. In other words it's supposedly not in the wild in other parts of the world. It was eradicated Globally, not just in the 1st world. The concern is that of the two known stockpiles the Russians are not known for maintaining strict security and it is feared that samples have been stolen and are in the hands of rogue nations or terror organizations.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    21. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 1

      I avoided it in 2008 only because I suffer Eczema, otherwise I'd have the scar too.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    22. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That final reason you mentioned is why I get to sit back and watch all the antivaxxers die a painful slow death. The military knows it's a great weapon so they vaccinated me against it. I'm also anthrax resistant, YAY :D I'll never know the joys of contracting japanese encephalitis or any of the twenty-plus other things I was inoculated against. The army was one heaping helping of bullshit right after another, but at least in this area, they do things right.

    23. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Also, the claim that smallpox can only infect humans is naÃve. It can, in fact, infect other primates.

      Smallpox, like several other, serious, epidemic viruses, probably originated in animals (rodents, according to Wikipedia). There no reason to think that it cannot happen again.

    24. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A few years ago the US Military decided, for reasons never publicized, to resume vaccinations of personnel deploying to certain regions of the world. If the only stores are in known 1st world labs under high level containment protocols why would they have started doing that?

      Because they know it's been weaponized. We're certain the Russians have done it, and it's possible China, Pakistan, India, and Iraq have too.

    25. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Did they vaccinate specifically against smallpox or was it a "catch-all" vaccination against anything that might pop up?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The likelihood of a large outbreak is small, because the most likely exposure would be to a lab tech in a 1st world country that has a sample. It's effectively contained and has been for nearly 40 years.

      As for it's usefullness, I have no idea other than making more vaccine in the event the known samples are not the only samples. But, it's precisely that we don't know what it could be useful for that we shouldn't destroy it.

      Do you think a laboratory staffer would admit to coming into contact with the virus? You are delusional and should seek psychiatric counselling immediately. Look at the idiot medical doctors who travelled during the Ebola outbreak in Africa and refused to disclose their potential exposure until theie hand was forced when they came down with the symptoms and were diagnosed as having contracted the Ebola virus.

    27. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by twdorris · · Score: 1

      Any recurrence of the virus, whether natural or artificial, would either be different from the known smallpox strains in meaningful ways or it wouldn't. If it is different, then the current smallpox virus probably won't be of any real benefit in developing a vaccine for the new variant; they would need samples of the new virus instead. If it isn't different, then the existing vaccine will "just work", and we don't need the current smallpox virus.

      Right. Exactly right. I don't get why this isn't blatantly obvious to the author. I had a hard time even reading the article. I couldn't parse the poor logical constructs. "We might need this old smallpox sample for which we already have an effective vaccine just in case someone creates a new, incompatible strain we don't know about." Say what now!?

    28. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and most anti vaxxers are dumb as a box of rocks. The IQ of those types is very very low.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the muslim a scientist or the office cleaner?

      Either way i suspect the same thing as previously... It would be detected and contained...

    30. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      I have to tell you that your comment does not actually counter the post to which you replied. They made an argument for maintaining the current stocks of smallpox virus. You proceeded to say their was a problem with their view by making a weaker argument for maintaining the current stocks of the smallpox virus.

      Their argument was based on the assumptions being made by those who are promoting getting rid of all KNOWN stocks of the smallpox virus. You argued against those assumptions. Those who assume that the only places where the smallpox virus exists are the known stocks will ignore your argument as coming from a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" (I think they are wrong). On the other hand, at least some of them will be receptive to the OP's argument.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    31. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      . If it is different, then the current smallpox virus probably won't be of any real benefit in developing a vaccine for the new variant; they would need samples of the new virus instead.

      Comparing the structure and genome of an old smallpox sample to a new smallpox sample would help isolate what makes the new one different and resistant to the previous vaccine. That information would be helpful to anyone trying to develop a new vaccine.

    32. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Imrik · · Score: 1

      They didn't want to reveal their exposure because they wanted to get somewhere it could actually be treated. If they caught it in the US, they would've reported it immediately.

    33. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Monkeypox is related to smallpox and the vaccination (cowpox) protects you from each. It isn't hard to imagine someone weaponizing monkeypox or it naturally evolving into something more like smallpox in terms of human infectiousness.

    34. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      Smallpox vaccination occurs via scarification, it wouldn't have been added to an MMR cocktail.

    35. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But that is contrary to the official view that small pox was eradicated in the wild in the early 70's. In other words it's supposedly not in the wild in other parts of the world.

      Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Otherwise, your language is deceptive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    37. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but polio is on the rise in Islamic areas of Africa.

    38. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Just that the WHO declared Smallpox eradicated in the early 70's except for the two stocks maintained by the two superpowers.

      As to my language, it just echoed that of the person I was replying to. Pointing out the fact that their response about it being "in the wild" is contrary to what the global medical community has stated for decades.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    39. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1
    40. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Brazil, I was vaccinated in the late 80s Shauna smallpox. It was either the last or second to last year they did it. I was born and grew up in Rio de Janeiro, not some backward city in the middle of no where.

      I was actually vaccinated twice (2 scars, 1 in each arm). In 2003/2004 I did a thing where they needed more virus to create more vaccine for the military. The smallpox vaccine is no walk in the mark, in case someone is wondering. You get a scab, which is contagious and needs to be covered up. You also get a fever that lasts anywhere from 24 to 48 hours. And the scab doesn't go away for a few weeks.

      As for the question concerning the risk associated with keeping samples around, I think it is necessary. If nothing else, as a record for future generations.

    41. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish that were true. Never underestimate the stupidity of smart people. Especially when they know they're smart, so assume they know more than they really do.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    42. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Nothing crackpot. The reason the military resumed vaccinations was because of credible threat that the Russian stockpile was not secure and extremists might have obtained viable samples.

      My comment does counter their position, the concern is not exposure of a lab worker at the CDC or USAMARIID, but in the weaponization of samples stolen from the Russian stock. And weaponizing is not hard. Blankets with pox scabs served to spread it quite effectively when Europeans arrived in the western hemisphere. We have a bit more natural resistance to it than they did, but as it's been globally eradicated for over 40 years so our resistance is dropping.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    43. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      That and most anti vaxxers are dumb as a box of rocks. The IQ of those types is very very low.

      A smallpox epidemic would therefore be a handy way of scrubbing the ring around the gene pool.

    44. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very specific, as it's a rather different process than most vaccinations, it's not an injection. They scratch your skin deep enough to draw blood and apply the vaccine to the wound, this then gets to fester for about a week leaving a small scar. Every other one of the dozens of vaccinations I got over my career were injections.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    45. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What professionals would want to work on it"?

      I'm sure there are many people, who would be more than happy to weaponize smallpox if they got a paycheck for it. It might be someone, where they consider getting money to do something like this more than worth it, if it gets their family out of the slums and into decent housing. It might be a college grad who has a shitload of debt and has nothing to look forward to other than working 2-3 min wage jobs in order to pay the rent. It just may be someone who is tired of not making it, and decides to smack the button (like in the Twilight Zone episode, "Button, Button")... and they will hop on board.

      Don't forget, no matter how horrific the job, there is someone out there who will be more than happy to do it, given the the cash.

    46. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      mine didn't scar much. hands down the most annoying vaccination ever. it was close to a month before that thing healed properly and I didn't have to worry about touching it.

    47. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Next time on hoarders. Scientists who have been collecting frozen smallpox and other samples for 40 years.

    48. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and ?

    49. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by operagost · · Score: 1

      This is not completely true. In fact, there are large numbers of people in the third world resisting vaccination because people got polio from the oral vaccine.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    50. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Can you put some context on 'large numbers' for the purposes of this discussion?

    51. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by operagost · · Score: 0

      So you want all the people in the third world to die a painful, slow death? Because many of them avoid vaccination because so many got polio from our crappy oral vaccines.

      Sometimes there are understandable, if not completely logical, reasons. We all like to think we're smarter than the people we disagree with.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by LabRatty · · Score: 1

      Totally, the smallpox mutated dinosaurs are going to be unstoppable.

    53. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by wulfhere · · Score: 1

      (Score:-1, Dumbass)

      --
      -- Sent from a computer.
    54. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 2
      "Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."

      -- Proverbs

    55. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the 'idiot medical doctors' whose entire exposure to Ebola came from someone who wasn't diagnosed with it *themselves* until after those 'idiot medical doctors' had already left?

      Yeah... What a bunch of idiots, claiming they hadn't been exposed to something they didn't know they had been exposed to!

    56. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything, if it is even true.

    57. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      A smallpox epidemic would therefore be a handy way of scrubbing the ring around the gene pool.

      Except that practically no one under the age of 40 is vaccinated against smallpox. So no, releasing smallpox wouldn't just attack anti-vaxers. Now releasing mumps or measles might....

    58. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by clovis · · Score: 1

      Blankets with pox scabs served to spread it quite effectively when Europeans arrived in the western hemisphere

      Uh, no. The infected blankets is a story that has spiraled in recent years. It is true that someone suggested giving infected blankets to Indians, but the only two cases that I have found say that the it wasn't only suggested, and not actually done.

      Do you have some reference to a historical record that says otherwise? I'm not asking to be challenging, I have a genuine interest in this, thanks in advance.

    59. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also not certain what could be learned of great value from studying that particular virus instead of the vast number of others.

      Well if we knew that, we wouldn't need to study it any more, because we'd already know. It might sit in a freezer for a million years and never be useful, or somebody might study it and find the keys to curing disease and staying young forever, or anything in between.

      Also, I don't know that I fully believe the claim that it has been 100% eradicated from existence. And even if it really has been, it evolved once and could evolve again, or another virus extremely similar. Just because we've never identified an "insect or animal" acting as a host or carrier doesn't mean they don't exist.

    60. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      That and most anti vaxxers are dumb as a box of rocks. The IQ of those types is very very low.

      Jenny McCarthy. QED.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    61. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually there are quite a few allegedly smart anti-vaxxers. Who are just egoistical assholes I wouldn't offer a drop of water if they were drowning.

      They simply let everyone else take the "risk" of vaccination and rely on herd immunity.

      Assholes. The only two reasons they are still alive is they ain't worth neither the bullet nor the jail time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    62. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    63. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      1. Russia has a supply and it is well documented that they have weaponized it in the past.
      2. The US is not all that comfortable with the security of the Russian supply of smallpox.
      3. The US is not comfortable that Russia would really destroy the small pox that have so we would still want a supply to make vaccines with.
      4. Russia would not trust the US to not weaponize smallpox if we asked them to destroy their supply but we keep ours.

      So the US keeps our supply and does not ask Russia to destroy their supply because it would never happen and would just cause a fight.
      Oh and the US and Russia could never agree on a third party to keep a single supply safe and secure.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    64. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is not completely true. In fact, there are large numbers of people in the third world resisting vaccination because people got polio from the oral vaccine.

      [citation needed]
      From the WHO : http://www.who.int/features/qa...
      "What is vaccine-derived polio?"
      "Since 2000, more than 10 billion doses of OPV [Oral Polio Vaccine] have been administered to nearly 3 billion children worldwide..... resulting in fewer than 760 VDPV [vaccine-derived poliovirus] cases "
      I make that 0.00003%. I'm not particularly scared, and anyone who is is ignorant

    65. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but polio is on the rise in Islamic areas of Africa.

      Hogwash. Polio is believed to be exterminated in Africa, and if there are no new cases in the next 2 years, Africa will be declared polio free. The only countries with active polio are Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    66. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      debunked as a probable hoax

    67. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Smallpox vaccine is NOT made from smallpox. It is made from cowpox. In fact, the word "vaccine" is Latin for "from cows".

      There may be good scientific reasons to keep the smallpox samples, but making vaccines is not one of them.

    68. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 0

      You might hope that this is true, but it's not. A lot of anti-vaccine subscribers are intelligent people in jobs where on a daily bases they see other intelligent people make absolutely stupid, elementary mistakes and then they see those screw-ups get a pat on the back for it. These are people second guessing what you take for granted, which quite shamefully is something that was lost somewhere with you older generations. Things like formaldehyde and mercury were convenient tools at the time and I'll admit that they work well enough; but at the end of the day we are using them preservatives, they aren't even an active ingredients. Neither component is exactly known to be hypoallergenic either, some people have negative reactions to them. Maybe now that the medical crisis for these preventative measures has subsided we can look at some other substitutions instead of continuing with your generations habit of stagnation and xenophobia.

    69. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Current smallpox vaccine is made from cowpox. An engineered form might need something that's a closer match to be effective.

    70. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The positive side for keeping it is, that the most likely source of an outbreak is the very same samples, thus a vaccine will be possible if it comes from those sources.

      The negative side is such an outbreak wouldn't even happen should the stockpiles be destroyed.

      Not exactly true in a "you bet your life" way. We simply do not know for sure that smallpox has been eradicated totally from the environment and will not appear again some day. There are a LOT of bodies around which suffered from smallpox and there are possible climates where these cadavers might be well enough preserved that they could infect the living. Because we don't really know where these may be, we cannot be sure we've destroyed them all.

      Then there is the possible application of the virus to medical treatments. A virus is a clever machine, designed to modify a cell's genetic activity in favor of it's own. As a device designed to deliver specific genetic material to a host's cells it has no equal. Who knows when the use of smallpox as a basis for a drug delivery system might have positive therapeutic application? It would be irresponsible to just destroy the laboratory stockpiles of this virus. We should keep the virus in the lab for study and research.

      Also, we keep the virus around, along with a stock pile of vaccine just in case. We require anybody who is at risk of exposure in the lab to be vaccinated and monitored. Plus, we simply must maintain a defensive posture on this, keeping a bit of vaccine ready to deal with any possible weapon (or terror) use of the virus and that means keeping the virus in the lab to be used for vaccine production.

      No, it's best to keep it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    71. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't offer a drop of water if they were drowning.

      That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone need more water, even if just a drop, if they were already drowning?

      Try this one for size:

      "I wouldn't piss on them if their teeth were on fire"

    72. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      It could be highly useful in future medical research, and the damage it could cause if it gets back into the wild would be minimal.

      You're forgetting the anti-vaccers. There's a growing number of parents who don't vaccine their kids over fears of autism. Even if smallpox doesn't exist in the wild we need to protect ourselves and our children against an eventual outbreak.

    73. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Of course, that could be done just fine by sequencing it now and saving the results for later. That doesn't mean you wouldn't need live smallpox to help develop a new vaccine instead of cowpox - that might be needed.

    74. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by omnichad · · Score: 1

      First, it might expire

      Current smallpox vaccine is stored freeze-dried and has a shelf life of 10+ years.

    75. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Duke Univ is using the Polio virus to treat cancer....

    76. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trained BSL-4 lab staff != random physician.

    77. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing political situations.

      Putin/Trump/some wacky European government decides to weaponize smallpox. Weapons get deployed on ships/planes etc. as part of the usual saber-rattling. Some weapons are lost through crashes or stolen. Terrorists use them, the rest has been covered in various scary movies.

      Can't happen if the last vials are destroyed. Also, no need to keep smallpox around 'in case the other guys weaponize it'. For if they do, we still have nukes. No real strategic need to be able to 'retaliate in kind' with lesser but still horrible weapons.

    78. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly most anti-vaxxers live in a first world country, not a third world country.

      True, but most anti-vaxxers don't work in scientific labs.

    79. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 1

      One Case where it was specifically the mode used,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Biological_warfare

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    80. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Immerman · · Score: 1

      For that we could just sequence the genome and scan the protein shell and store that data rather than the live virus. There is after all zero chance of accidental infection from data files. There is perhaps greater chance that someone would steal the data and intentionally resurrect the virus, but since the sequencing has already been done, that threat already exists independent from the threat posed by live virii

      In fact, given the fact that virii's reproductive cycle allows them to be easily resurrected from DNA alone, and DNA can today be synthesized relatively rapidly, it seems the only real advantage to keeping live smallpox around instead of just a scan is to eliminate the resurrection delays and get a head start on analyzing physical attributes or behaviors that aren't adequately reflected in the scans.

      And, of course, the relative ease of quietly distributing live samples to "investors" that want to might not want to risk the potential visibility associated with getting the DNA synthesized first.

      So the question really boils down to which is the greater threat: Losing the potentially useful head start when fighting a hypothetical new outbreak? Or the current risk of accidental release, and the relative ease with which malicious actors could acquire and weaponize existing samples?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    81. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Nobody (hopefully) is going to dump smallpox samples in the landfill. You incinerate them or otherwise ensure that the sample completely ceases to exist.

      Moreover, the smallpox genome has already been sequenced, and given their reproductive path virii are relatively easy to recreate from DNA alone. DNA which can be relatively easily synthesized from the digital sequence.

      Of course you could argue that so long as the digital sequence exists the virus hasn't truly been destroyed - but at least no one will ever be accidentally infected, and there's there's that annoying DNA synthesis step that should raise the visibility of anyone attempting to weaponize it. And if there's some reason that the live virus would actually be important for non-malicious reason we can always create fresh samples within a few weeks.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    82. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Hell. I get myself vaccinated against anything for which my doctor will let me, even if the disease is not common in the US. Sure, we don't get Japanese Encephalitis here. But what if I decide on a whim I want to go on vacation to Vietnam or Thailand, or to visit a friend in the Philippines, and I don't want to sit in a hotel room in the city the whole time? Better to just have everything taken care of in advance so I don't have to worry about either organizing my travel plans around a vaccination schedule (The hep A and B vaccines are really annoying in this way.) or take the chance of a debilitating illness.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    83. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      So... just get the injected vaccine instead.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    84. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      And never underestimate the amount of lies you are fed by the corporations and government entities involved.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    85. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Agent0013 · · Score: 0

      The last few mumps outbreaks have been completely among the vaccinated population. So it may even be safer to be vaccinated for mumps than to get something that makes you more likely to get it.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    86. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The current stock is 40 years old.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    87. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I agree in spirit, but you got a couple details wrong:
      - From what I've read, smallpox vaccination specifically can be effective, or at least helpful, up to three days after infection, while flulike symptoms (and risk of transmission) appear 7-17 days after, with sores appearing a few days after that. So, while it's not going to do you much good once you start feeling sick, so long as you're diagnosed quickly it can still be very helpful for anyone you may have infected.

      - Smallpox isn't especially contagious - think chicken pox. It's typically transmitted through prolonged exposure to someone sick. It can theoretically be spread by suspended saliva droplets from coughing or talking, but generally it's spread by direct or indirect (clothing, bedding) contact with the sores. In fact, unless really bad luck or weaponization resulted in something much more virulent, it would likely be initially misdiagnosed as chicken pox, and the resulting moderate quarantine would further slow the spread even before true severity was realized.

      - I'm fairly certain smallpox itself isn't actually used in generating the vaccine, I think its mild relative cowpox is instead (at least, that's how it started). Where it would be useful is in comparisons to a new vaccine-resistant strain, in order to determine what exactly had changed. And I would imagine including a high quality scan of the protein shell along with the DNA sequence would offer much of the same benefit.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    88. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military never stopped receiving the vaccine.

      It's probably just someone decided to "play it safe" (or possibly that letting the doses expire was a waste of money) and ordered it administered.

    89. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      It could be highly useful in future medical research, and the damage it could cause if it gets back into the wild would be minimal.

      Turn it around: what if a lab created a new virus with the virulence and mortality of smallpox? Would we take the same view that the research opportunity is invaluable, with minimal potential for damage, or would we insist that all of it be destroyed?

    90. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anti vaxxers and people who throw around gross generalizations. Can't stomach either of them.

    91. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dillee1 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call them smart. One prerequisite of being smart is being able to spot his own weakness and improve/alleviate it, or at least hide it so that he won't act like a fool in front of the world. "I see dumb people. They don't even know they are dumb." summarize the type of people you are referring to.

    92. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Their position was that we should keep the samples...your "counter" to that is that we should keep the samples for a DIFFERENT reason than theirs.

      As to whether or not your thinking is crackpot or not. I do not think it is crackpot, but those who are arguing for destroying all of the known samples of the smallpox virus would say that it is.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    93. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The idea is that I wouldn't even give them anything that is detrimental, let alone helpful.

      But I like yours, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    94. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I hadn't seen those follow ups :/

    95. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by easyTree · · Score: 2

      A whole generation of gamers has been training for the zombie apocalypse. Don't rain on their parade.

      Sent from my tent on top of the local shopping centre.

    96. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by omnichad · · Score: 1

      US Government has over 300 million smallpox vaccines in its current stockpile, all of which were purchased after 2001.

    97. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It could be pretty useful to test the effectiveness of newly-created vaccines; n'est pas?

    98. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by easyTree · · Score: 1

      The vaccine would benefit the troops no matter which 'side' released the smallpox.

    99. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by valdezjuan · · Score: 0

      Bullets are relatively cheap and can be extremely effective. Jail time on the other had, no so much.

    100. Re:Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      That's the first thing I thought of too, especially since (modified) polio is working wonders in getting people's own bodies to fight cancer.

    101. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Smallpox vaccine is NOT made from smallpox. It is made from cowpox. In fact, the word "vaccine" is Latin for "from cows".

      There may be good scientific reasons to keep the smallpox samples, but making vaccines is not one of them.

      The actual virus would be helpful in making vaccines, if we ever needed to do that again. If there ever was a smallpox outbreak in the future, it would probably be a variant that is similar to, but not the same as, the old virus. Having the "old" virus around could be a significant help in studying a new variant and devising a vaccine. We may have scientific techniques in the future that work very well for that kind of task, but which require an actual sample. We just don't know what the future will bring. Keeping this stuff locked away but available if needed is an insurance policy against a pile of unknown unknowns.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    102. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."

      -- Proverbs

      "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

      --Proverbs

    103. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by clovis · · Score: 1

      One Case where it was specifically the mode used,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      However, that's only one.
      I know about that one. It's a good reference because there is an actual document from that time of their actions and intentions.

      My objection is that it is too much of a stretch to take the siege of Fort Pitt (1763) and extrapolate from that to say that Europeans had a policy of intentionally spreading smallpox as some form of germ warfare. Consider that involves extrapolating to 250 years before Fort Pitt, the early 1500's, when the disease first began spreading. And no one accuses the one of the first explorer, Hernando de Soto, of intentionally spreading diseases, and his expedition was one of the greatest carriers, that I know of.

      If people were to say, "there's this one time some British gave items to the Indians that were known to be infected", that would be fine. But the idea that there was some genocidal plan put in place to exterminate the Indians from North America using germ warfare is a bunch of hooey and not supported by historical records.

      When I try to research this, all I ever see evidence for is the Fort Pitt incident.
      Well, there's Churchhill and the Mandan outbreak that has been shown to be a fabrication.

      The various European diseases had already been destroying the Native Americans since the early 1500's (250 years before Fort Pitt) by simple contact, and smallpox was but just one of many plagues. No one had to do anything to spread these diseases other than just show up and say hello.

      The eventual spread through North America of European diseases was unavoidable.
      Primitive cultures and thought patterns want things to always have a cause or purpose that you can point to, someone to blame, but plagues don't have purpose. We want to blame someone, but not everything that happens is due to human agency.

    104. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by operagost · · Score: 1

      Nice that they leave out the VAPP cases, an estimated 100-180 per year JUST IN INDIA. http://www.telegraphindia.com/...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    105. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. That's why we have kept our sample. We know that with a sample, we have a large technological advantage to studying the pox, and possibly defending against a modified strain of it. We also have a Mutually Assured Destruction type argument against developing too much weaponry around smallpox, as the US could easily fund as much research as it wanted in this area. Not having a sample means we would have to do all of our possible research after we gathered samples, instead of before in the event we gathered intelligence that someone was ready to deploy a strain which didn't get thwarted by the cowpox vaccination.

    106. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors have heavily investigated the reason for people surviving. It turns out that smallpox is less fatal to the young. In endemic smallpox areas, almost everyone got exposed to it when they were young. This exposure resulted in long-lasting immunity, so they didn't get it later. When a town did manage to go without smallpox for a while, there would then be many adults who had not been exposed to it. These adults would then be wiped out when smallpox returned.

      This is all pretty simple history in the topic of epidemiology.

    107. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They aren't even worth the bullets, let alone jail time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    108. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story is against white men and USAians... ergo, it is true, and politically incorrect to dispute it, much less challenge it on facts. Those ruin a good US bash.

    109. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about some sort of actual medical sources, not tabloid-level nationalist newspapers?

    110. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was likely an attack on those intelligent enough to see through the BS of religion and actually dare to say something against it.

      "Yes, ignore him, he may be wise about many things, but his knowledge makes him arrogant and he doesn't know the truth about which we speak".

    111. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Releasing Measles and Mumps, would more affect the poor anti-vaxxers kids rather than their stupid parents who probably already had the vaccinations when they were kids.

    112. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      Why would the damage be minimal? Smallpox was stopped by vaccinating people against it. However, the virus would have a large supply of hosts now because of the generations of people who haven't received vaccinations. If dispersed effectively, it seems like smallpox could do a lot of damage.

      Not as much damage as the humans it might wipe out. Just sayin'.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    113. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ken Alibek, former second in command of Russia's bioweapon program, has in fact confirmed they were working on an Ebola/Smallpox hybrid weapon.

    114. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by dwillden · · Score: 1

      I never said it was done as a policy, but the evidence is pretty strong that such gifts is how it was spread to the natives when Europeans first arrived in the Americas.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    115. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      This cannot be said enough. Corporations cannot be trusted in the first place, but when they have complete legal immunity from damages caused by their product the implications are terrifying. This is the case with vaccines in the US.

    116. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Funny, you call them egotistical assholes and then immediately after you talk about murdering them.
      You are a psychopath.

    117. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about aluminum, it is also a very potent neurotoxin. It is also in most, if not all vaccines.

    118. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They endanger the others around them. The world is better off without them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    119. Re: Truly Epically Dumb to Destroy It by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      The world would be better off without you, but I'm not calling for your murder, you fucking psychopath.

  2. Think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In an IT business if you delete the only remaining backup, what do you think will happen down the line? What if you needed that backup? Now you don't have it.

    It may be a dangerous virus, however, it may come in useful in some way or another in the future.

    1. Re:Think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have long thought that it would be a bad idea to eliminate the last samples, even thought exposure to it would be devastating to anyone getting infected from one of them. The bug is indeed very dangerous, but I harbor no illusions that by destroying the last two attested samples (one at the CDC in Atlanta, one in Russia) we could be truly sure we got them all. There is an unknown--and unknowable--number of other samples of the bug in the world. If we had no known samples available, we'd surely have even greater problems getting a cure if we had destroyed the attested samples.

      I realized a different reason to keep the samples: just as we have found with other dangerous organisms, there might turn out to be something beneficial that we could get out of variola major.

    2. Re:Think about it by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have long thought that it would be a bad idea to eliminate the last samples, even thought exposure to it would be devastating to anyone getting infected from one of them. The bug is indeed very dangerous, but I harbor no illusions that by destroying the last two attested samples (one at the CDC in Atlanta, one in Russia) we could be truly sure we got them all. There is an unknown--and unknowable--number of other samples of the bug in the world. If we had no known samples available, we'd surely have even greater problems getting a cure if we had destroyed the attested samples.

      The thing is, the existing vaccines aren't even derived from smallpox. They're derived from a related virus that isn't fatal. We don't need smallpox to exist just to produce vaccines unless somebody genetically engineers a modified smallpox virus that doesn't contain any of the same markers as cowpox, monkeypox, or vaccinia. And if somebody does that, the odds are very high that A. having a sample of smallpox won't help in creating the vaccine either, and B. the organization that someday creates that modified virus wouldn't have been able to get their hands on it if we had destroyed all the samples in a timely manner instead of keeping it around just in case we need to engage in biowarfare....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Think about it by mlts · · Score: 1

      This, in a nutshell. Who knows who has a copy of the samples, and destroying all of them can lead to blackmail. All it takes is a rogue lab that may or may not have gotten a sample, and then tells everyone to pay up, or they will start selling it to $EVIL_ORGANIZATION, and with no samples to make vaccines from, it would leave everyone SOL.

      Plus, there are other versions of smallpox out there. Cowpox comes to mind. Might as well work on some vaccines anyway, because one never knows if cowpox might mutate to smallpox's danger levels.

    4. Re:Think about it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Actually, with the genetic drift of breeding programs, I've considered backing up breeds of cats and dogs by sequencing their DNA. It costs ~$1,000 for a 2.8-billion-base-pair sequencing, which would cost ~$286,000 to synthesize and implant into a new cell (clone back out using only organic chemistry, no pre-existing DNA, all test tube work) and make a new cat. If you cut out the variable DNA and replaced it with synthesized DNA, you could start with a model cat and patch it to be a model Mau or Abyssinian or Persian for around $50,000. If you started with a model target cat and patched in the breed-variable DNA, it could run $500-$2,000.

      There's no reason we couldn't just store smallpox on floppy disk.

    5. Re:Think about it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "There's no reason we couldn't just store smallpox on floppy disk."

      Sure. Data is way harder to steal from secure facilities than physical samples.

    6. Re:Think about it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Monkeypox is the nasty one that has an animal reservoir.

      It doesn't go human to human easily, only a very few cases known. But it's likely one mutation away.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re: Think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you haven't used it for 40 years, time to delete it.

    8. Re:Think about it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing smallpox is hard.

      We analyzed the 186,102 base pairs (bp) that constitute the entire DNA genome of a highly virulent variola virus isolated from Bangladesh in 1975. The linear, double-stranded molecule has relatively small (725 bp) inverted terminal repeat (ITR) sequences containing three 69-bp direct repeat elements, a 54-bp partial repeat element, and a 105-base telomeric end-loop that can be maximally base-paired to contain 17 mismatches.

      Analyzing Smallpox is easy. There's a paper on PubMed that's just about the differences in the DNA gene sequences between smallpox and related viruses.

      This isn't exactly secret information.

    9. Re:Think about it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It is now, yes. In the future it's almost certain to be much easier. Releasing the complete genome seems to be a remarkable example of a lapse in judgement.

      The argument works out the same though: right now it's hard to manufacture smallpox from a genome, so keeping a bit of actual virus around in case of need is probably a good idea. In the future it will probably be pretty easy to manufacture so not keeping it in easy to steal electronic form is probably a good idea. Except it looks like the latter option is now closed.

      The entire story is based on a false premise anyway. "Scientists" don't control the fate of smallpox. The American, Russian, and probably a few other, militaries do. So the question should be "why don't the world's militaries destroy the last remaining smallpox samples?" To which the answer is pretty obvious.

    10. Re:Think about it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Technology is the study of improved of techniques to reduce human labor required to produce an output. That's why things get cheaper over time: 43% of the average family's income went to food in America in 1900; in 1950, 30%; and in 2003, 13%. Under 2% of American labor force is agricultural workers. The same has gone for clothes, houses (we buy bigger houses now), health care (it's gotten better, and we spend slightly more to buy more and better health care, since we don't need it for food and clothing), entertainment, communication ($4,000 cell phone in 1983; $350 smart phone in 2015), the works.

      Of course it'll be cheaper one day.

      Releasing the complete genome seems to be a remarkable example of a lapse in judgement.

      Here you go.

    11. Re:Think about it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Glad you agree with me. The stats on food and agriculture weren't really necessary.

      Yes, you liked to the smallpox genome before. That's why I said it was a remarkable lapse in judgement to release it.

    12. Re:Think about it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Information like that is remarkably hard to keep secret, as it's necessarily distributed (at least partially) in scientific research papers. Beyond that, the value of free access is easy reach to examine the genome and rapidly build counterproteins to block the virus, if required; while the value of closed access is someone would have to start with a more common model virus and tweak it to make a bioweapon, in that scenario. The tweaked bioweapon is likely more effective.

      In other words: secrecy doesn't help, but does harm. It gives an illusion of security, though, so people feel more comfortable when you pretend.

      186,000 base pairs... full organic chemistry synthesis in test tubes starting with no live tissue or model DNA? $26. Creating the virus: insert the raw DNA into a human cell culture; it'll hijack the cell and start manufacturing enveloped viruses, which are infectious. The caveat is you need stock chemicals and equipment that cost way more than $26 to set up; once you have the lab, the actual running costs amortize out.

  3. The summary answers the question by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

    In 2014 the CDC announced that vials containing the deadly virus had been discovered in a cardboard box in a refrigerator located on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland. How can you say it's eliminated when it's still out there, somewhere?

    Even if you eliminate all the stocks you know about there's still the stocks you don't know about, if it ever gets out it probably came from a forgotten sample.

    I don't think it's a huge deal either way but if we want to understand how a truly nasty virus works then you can't really do it without a really nasty virus to study.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:The summary answers the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine if somebody was to accidentally release that stored virus, we would all be... ohh wait... we already have a vaccine and know how to control and eliminate the virus from a global populace...

      Don't get me wrong, the movies tell us that some evil or incompetent scientist is out there right now investing years into genetically modifying smallpox so it's airborne, can persist in the environment for long periods of time, is easily mass produced, and can endure the high temperatures when it's vaporized above and... yeah, no. If you were the terrorist type you would create just as much panic if you were to take a commercial skywriting plane and spray E.Coli over a capitol city. This news is the same as the fear mongering advertising/propaganda we hear about dirty bombs in mainstream media every couple of weeks.

    2. Re:The summary answers the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the virus u wanna study or infect people with is readily available in your nearest cemetery.
      Smallpox, Polio, Ebola, HIV, Plague, and a whole host of other nasties...
      All you gotta do is go dig it up and play with it.
      DUHR!

    3. Re:The summary answers the question by jopsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, besides... How will destroying all known samples prevent the case of "cardboard box in a refrigerator" that we don't know about...
      If that storage method was a surprise, the clearly efforts to burn all stored samples wouldn't have included that one..


      Obviously, though we really should increase control, regulation and security around these things.

    4. Re:The summary answers the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I wouldn't recommend playing with corpses your chance of picking up smallpox from the long deceased is virtually zero. Should you choose to go around digging up the corpses of your long dead neighbors anywhere above freezing temperatures you'll be fine. If you start digging up corpses in the tundra somewhere you *may* have a slightly higher chance of contracting the disease, but so far the evidence is that after a few years the virus degrades. There have been scares in the past over scabs and the like but so far we get at best degraded samples of pox.

    5. Re:The summary answers the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak about yourself. I myself enjoy digging on corpses. And occaisionally copulating with them if they're only lika a day old (nobody shows up to mourn in the first week anyways). But mostly, just scavenging for gold. You wouldn't believe how much Au lies six feet under... paid for a house already. I wouldn't recommend it for the unaffiliated, just know being the actual graveyard keeper helps with the oppurtunity there, obviously ;)

    6. Re:The summary answers the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copulating with a corpse less than a week old that had smallpox may not be safe.

    7. Re:The summary answers the question by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1

      Yup, it's what you don't know that will get you. Plus they still find active virus samples in old graveyards and things like that. It is also a stupid virus. It was unpleasant in its day but it had one form, stuck to one species, and was not particularly infectious. It was the first eradicated disease because it was simple. If you are an evil mad scientist, you won't reach for the smallpox tube. AIDS is a pretty class act. The common cold is awesome. I don't think smallpox matters much either way. A labelled tube in a lab is the safest form. I wouldn't destroy it just as I wouldn't destroy an old book if it might be the only copy. The gene mapping might not tell us everything: there might be a gene folding that we aren't replicating properly. But we could probably go to an old London graveyard or crypt and find some more if we really wanted.

    8. Re:The summary answers the question by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Funnier still is that while a cardboard box in a fridge sounds scary, most viruses are not stable enough to just sit in a fridge for very long at all before they break down. I'm not sure off the top of my head about smallpox, but I'd be shocked if what was in that box was infectious.

    9. Re:The summary answers the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure someone somewhere has mapped its genome. If that is true, then it doesn't matter if every sample in the world is destroyed. It could be rebuilt from the genome data. It might be difficult today, but the technology keeps improving.

    10. Re:The summary answers the question by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The cardboard box was once a known sample that nobody bothered to destroy.

    11. Re:The summary answers the question by gtall · · Score: 1

      You are thinking like a scientist. If you think like a terrorist, then smallpox sounds like it would be much more scary to a population than an outbreak of the common cold, even if the latter were to kill more people. Dirty bombs are similar. Actual dead: nil, actual payoff: large.

    12. Re:The summary answers the question by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually it wouldn't be difficult at all. DNA synthesis costs less than $0.25/base pair, and smallpox only has about 180,000bp, so around $40k for the DNA with which to infect some cells to get new virii.

      The only difficult part is for shady individuals to get the DNA synthesized without alerting anyone to their intentions.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:The summary answers the question by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There are currently about 30 million doses of vaccine, worldwide. It's estimated that it would take 36 months to get new production running.

      When someone says 'all costs are opportunity costs' this is what they are talking about. There are a few functions that only government can do. Too bad governments have been too busy wiping grown children's noses for them to get their own jobs done.

      Yes foreigners, your governments are even bigger slackers on this count. Guess who has the vaccines?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:The summary answers the question by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Fun fact: Necrophiles classify themselves into two groups: Gooey Louies and Moldy Oldies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:The summary answers the question by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Fair point...

  4. Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Freezer by Eloking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why Don't Scientists Kill The 'Demon In The Freezer'?

    Because this isn't Resident Evil or some stupid Hollywood movie?

    --
    Elok
  5. The Demon in the Freezer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...was the most scary book I have ever read. We STILL don't know where the Russians scabs are.

    1. Re:The Demon in the Freezer by IonOtter · · Score: 2

      They don't just have scabs.

      According to the source, they had railroad tanker cars.

      Not of V. minor and V. major, but the "heated up" versions of the two.

      That...is an awful lot of virus to dispose of. And it's not something you can just let your average grunt hook up to a drain hose, either. You have to use highly-trained and supremely-qualified personnel, who are going to know exactly what they're dealing with.

      Highly-trained and supremely-qualified personnel who haven't seen a paycheck in months, aren't likely to see one any time soon, and know how much money other governments would be willing to pay for a cardboard box with a few vials.

      --
      [End Of Line]
  6. Couldn't we just reconstruct it if needed? by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why don't we just keep a record of the genetic sequence of the virus? Doesn't the technology exist to rebuild the virus if we know its DNA sequence? Even if it doesn't exist now, it could reasonably be expected to exist in the relatively near future, right?

    Then we could destroy all the actual samples, but no information would be lost. If it became necessary for research at a later date, whatever couldn't be simulated could be made from scratch.

    1. Re:Couldn't we just reconstruct it if needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually this will probably be what happens but it's not easy and it's not cheap. It's just easier to store it for now.

      The fact we have lost samples in the past should serve as a lesson. Thankfully in this case it's a well known and characterized virus with a known vaccine so despite the media scare campaign there wasn't much risk to the public. Rather than going for fire and brimstone we should focus our efforts onto finding out how the samples were lost, finding any other potential remaining samples, quarantining them and then working to ensure that it never happens again then apply that knowledge to other dangerous viral strains quarantined.

    2. Re:Couldn't we just reconstruct it if needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with the destroy-now, reconstruct-later approach is that were it desirable to make more of the virus at a later day, we would be in the ethically horrible position of making something anew that was not even existing the day before. That would be an active form of monstrosity on the part of the ones doing the reconstituting.

    3. Re:Couldn't we just reconstruct it if needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with the destroy-now, reconstruct-later approach is that were it desirable to make more of the virus at a later day, we would be in the ethically horrible position of making something anew that was not even existing the day before. That would be an active form of monstrosity on the part of the ones doing the reconstituting.

      Are you asserting there would be no ethical and moral qualms using an existing virus strain but rebuiding that strain from a DNA sequence digitally stored is wrought with this dilemma?

  7. And when you're done with the smallpox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take care of those chicken scraps in the trashcan. Talk about stinky.

  8. People who don't know epidemiology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, deleting the "stocks" of the virus has a negligible effect on whether or not you can develop new stocks to "whatever" virus based on smallpox emerges in some future terrorist pandemic or whatever scenario.

    The POINT of the article is : why not delete MOST of the virus stocks worldwide?

    There isn't THAT MUCH RESEARCH going on into this particular bug, safeguarding humanity, any of it.

    These stocks are like radioactive sources stored at hospitals, it "has" a medical value greater than zero, but keeping it in situ forever makes a dangerous non-zero risk that someone will grab it and use it. Preventable.

    So, we prevent that, if possible - RIGHT?

  9. Don't need it for just-in-case by clovis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some scientists say that these residual stocks of smallpox should not be destroyed because some ruthless super-criminal or rogue government might be working on a new smallpox, even more virulent than existing strains of the virus. We may need existing stocks to produce new vaccines to counteract the new viruses

    This is the one I have to wonder about.
    The vaccine for smallpox is not smallpox, It is vaccinia which is closely related to cowpox.
    If someone releases smallpox and you need to vaccinate, then you still don't need to have any smallpox.

    If someone makes a new type of smallpox and releases it, then you want the new smallpox to develop a defense against and test and now you have it from the infected people.
    And it seems unlikely that the old smallpox (deadly) would be used to make a vaccine against any new smallpox, but I admit the possibility.

    Smallpox is a member of the poxviridae family. If you need a virus like smallpox to fool around with in your lab, there are 28 genera and 69 species of pox.

    On the other hand, smallpox is not the only disease we have eradicated.
    Rinderpest is the other. Rinderpest is closely related to measles and measles probably evolved from rinderpest.
    Stocks of Rinderpest remain, but rinderpest vaccine is made from a rinderpest virus variant, so it makes sense that we would keep some of that for just in case.

    1. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need to keep it around to use in the impending alien invasion.

    2. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If someone releases smallpox and you need to vaccinate, then you still don't need to have any smallpox

      Until it develops into a strain that is different enough from cowpox that the current vaccine does not work.

      Come on people, influenza mutates every single year to that point and it makes all of the major media outlets - surely you can connect the dots.

    3. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah these germaphobes need to relax, we keep them around for a reason (to win against it again) and it's not very often that batches get lost but when they do, the public has always been well informed. Not to mention, the areas in which they were found to be lost have always been fairly well quarantined until secured.

      In fact, I can't find a single article to reference of a contained virus that was accidentally released into the public that resulted in a pandemic?

    4. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Rinderpest also doesn't infect humans, and most humans have little to no exposure to cattle, so it's not an equal comparison of the risks involved.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the neckiest of neckbeard responses I think I've read all week. Some would even say that was kingly. Your moniker is appropriate.

    6. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by twdorris · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need to keep it around to use in the impending alien invasion.

      It's amusing that this is probably the strongest argument to date for keeping this crap around.

    7. Re: Don't need it for just-in-case by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Different viruses have different mutation rates. The major cause of that difference between influenza and smallpox is that one uses DNA and one uses RNA. RNA viruses are very sloppy copiers while DNA viruses like smallpox are much more consistent. If you look at the history of smallpox vaccination it mutates so slowly that over centuries the same vaccination methods, like accidental exposure to cow pox, are still effective.

      That doesn't mean that there's no utility in keeping samples, but there's so little use in keeping them for vaccine development. If the strain mutated to the point that the old vaccine was useless you'd want samples of the new strain to develop the new vaccine. The old strain might be useful as a comparison, but probably for its genetic sequence that we have digitally stored anyway.

    8. Re: Don't need it for just-in-case by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points

    9. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      Except they would very probably not have compatible cell structures, which is inherently necessary for all viruses.

    10. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's an angle of research here, that hasn't been fully vetted. Namely, the integration of computational analysis, molecular manipulation. Essentially, the current gulf in Biocomputing. I.e., where we blur the lines between 'machine' and biology interaction.

      We just aren't there yet. It's hard to say when that time will come, but it would be scientifically naïve, to destroy parts of our biosphere out of fear, compared to the potential we could learn in the coming years. That's a risk worth taking by keeping samples in cold storage. I'm honestly having a hard time seeing someone who calls themselves a scientist, in the strictest of terms, not taking the potentials of the future into consideration.

    11. Re:Don't need it for just-in-case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you not seen Star Trek? If Humans can have viable offspring with Klingons and Vulcans, then it seems quite likely that their cell structure will be similar enough for our viruses to be a threat to them.

  10. Error and stupidity, or dastardly ingenuity only? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Because I'm placing my bets on dastardly error and stupid ingenuity.

  11. We may still need it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To kill populations that the US or Europe do not like.

  12. OLD NEWS! - NOT A STORY! by chromaexcursion · · Score: 0

    mod down the dolt who thought this is news!

  13. Re:Error and stupidity, or dastardly ingenuity onl by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    I sorry, but you got it wrong. It's dastardly stupidity

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  14. seems dumb by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

    The biggest risk is from someone accidently releasing it from unknown/unmanaged sources or from an intentional release for malicious purposes, in either case destroying what you know about doesn't help. You never know what the future may bring, perhaps smallpox will be the source of a vaccine for an as yet unknown variant. If we can't possibly keep it safely stored then we are fucked anyway as there are a shitload more deadly diseases that we haven't fully eradicated yet that we also need to store to do research on.

    1. Re:seems dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "in either case destroying what you know about doesn't help"

      Where do you think the unknowns come from? Tomorrow's unknowns are today's knowns.

    2. Re:seems dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the sort of short sited thinking I would hope scientists don't adopt otherwise we are already fucked.

    3. Re:seems dumb by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the unknowns come from? Tomorrow's unknowns are today's knowns.

      You got Alzheimers?

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    4. Re:seems dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world doesn't invest enough to fully know everything about an item before it is destroyed. We currently choose not to heavily investigate smallpox; but, if there were a pressing global health issue which was related to a smallpox variant, having a sample to compare it against would be helpful. Knowledge is lost over time, and it is very hard to rebuild it without the convenience of direct observation. For example, we know Greek Fire existed, and we can make some pretty good guesses as to its composition, but we can't be sure if we can replicate it. Most of the items that approximate it fail in one historical observation or another, and it's not fully clear which historical observations are correct, and which ones have inaccuracies. For all we know, we might have it already (on the shelf of a hardware store) but it's not clear we do. Tomorrow's unknowns sometimes include today's knowns, especially if the knowledge was never widely distributed (or not interesting enough to become part of the enduring history).

  15. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by krkhan · · Score: 1

    Or the NYT bestseller "I Am Pilgrim". In which the antagonist jihadist steals one of these vials to unleash smallpox on humanity again.

    (But he cuts out some guys eyes first to get through the lab's retina scanner and we all know that can't happen IRL.)

  16. sequence it by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    sequence it's genome, then destroy all samples of it. If some criminal mastermind breaks out a new strain of it, you culture the strain from the unfortunte souls who have been infected and fight it off with by comparing it to the sequence of the original strain.

    If we ever get to the point that we can reconstruct any virus from the digitized sequences, then we've got way bigger problems on our hands than smallpox.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:sequence it by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that this has already been done: smallpox has been sequenced, and if all samples were destroyed and then for some reason we really needed to have smallpox again, we could reconstruct it. It eight years since scientists created a synthetic bacterial genome of 580,000 base pairs. Smallpox is (according to Wikipedia) 186,000 base pairs.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:sequence it by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of how long it would take to get a research program back up and running. If someone released 'new smallpox' and I needed to get setup to culture it, then I would culture up 'old smallpox' which is well known, perfect my technique, and then try with the new one and tweak as needed. Without the reference of the old one, or with needing to hope I reconstructed it correctly, by the time I've gotten the culture techniques ready for 'new smallpox' it has been a few years.

    3. Re:sequence it by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      If 'new smallpox' is dangerous, there isn't any need to culture it - you can just take samples from the myriad of victims.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:sequence it by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      You can start a research program with clinical samples, but it would be hard to get enough material if you couldn't culture the virus. To develop a vaccine you'll need virus stocks to develop the animal model, as controls for assays, and to check for drift in the infected population, among other things. Given stability issues you aren't going to be able to just drain all the bodily fluids from the deceased and you can only get so much at a time from a living person.

    5. Re:sequence it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if all samples were destroyed and then for some reason we really needed to have smallpox again, we could reconstruct it.

      If that's actually true, then the raw sequencing data is far more dangerous than the virus itself. So you may as well keep some samples locked up in a safe place, because if someone does reconstruct it and you need a live sample to work with, you don't have to "play catchup".

  17. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are aspies so fucking literal?

  18. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

    [blockquote](But he cuts out some guys eyes first to get through the lab's retina scanner and we all know that can't happen IRL.)[/blockquote]
    Well theres the Capt America version where a bunch of heavily armored dudes just smash into the CDC through the front door.

    Just make sure Scarlet witch stays at home incase she accidently explodes some dudes building.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  19. There are some things we simply should not destroy by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of them...

    Now that being said... stockpiles of the live virus should not be kept very many places and there needs to be a "destroy plan" in the event these locations become compromised. (such as war, civil unrest, the end of the world, etc.)

    Perhaps in the US, UK, France, Russia, and China... Each nation can have stored samples of the virus in known locations under guard.

    For the same reason we'll never really get rid of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or anything else, there is a greater than non-zero value to having them. But we don't need "lots" of them.

  20. Polio is being used to cure brain cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as detailed on "60 Minutes" last week. Who knows what beneficial use might come of smallpox. Many deadly poisons have also been found to have valuable therapeutic uses.

    1. Re:Polio is being used to cure brain cancer by Hashead · · Score: 1

      HIV and Malaria have also been used to create cancer treatments.

  21. Remeber overpopulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World human population is 7.5 billions and counting. You tell me why we should destroy the means to someday save the planet from ourselves?

  22. Genocide... when's it OK? by jimduchek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not a virus is 'life' -- this question would apply to a bacterial disease as well -- how is this any different than the attempts in the last century to eradicate the North American wolf? They were dangerous (and quite inconvenient) to humans. Thankfully (to some...) we failed, and many people are happy they are returning. The reasons we wanted them gone haven't changed (although hardly as much an issue with the hugely reduced numbers).

    If it's not OK to eradicate a species that looks like the family dog, what about if they were squirrel-sized? Insects? Where's the line, exactly, where we say 'OK, on this side, it's good and right to completely remove this species from existence, but on the other side of the line, it's a 'protected species' to be preserved, and we just control it? One could argue that wolves served a purpose in the ecosystem by controlling deer and other game population -- but honestly, we will never allow the grey wolf population to grow to a number to have any real effect on that anymore.

    Not really taking a side on whether or not to eliminate the stocks we have of smallpox, but I feel like there certainly is an ethical question in whether or not it's OK to do so.

    (As a side note, I think 'genocide' only applies to killing humans, but you get the idea, I'm sure)

    --
    If I'm not back again this time tomorrow...
    1. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Where's the line, exactly

      Normally local versus introduced species. For example the Australian Brushtail Possum is about as cute as a Koala but the greenest of the green New Zealanders don't bat an eyelid at people selling possum fur to tourists. An introduced pest in large numbers is an introduced pest no matter how cute it is.

      That said a lot of people object to culling feral horses and it caused a bit of a scandal near where I live when a Park Ranger didn't get rid of the bodies before some tourists came through.

    2. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it all backwards. The attempt to eradicate every bacterial and viral threat via chemicals is the cause of some super bacteria and viruses to arise. Hot spots are places like hospitals where the over usage of cleaning products is causing these otherwise mild threats to evolve into super germs. See Japan and their growing super Gonorrhea threat: https://www.rt.com/news/superbug-gonorrhea-aids-sex-900/

    3. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A virus is about as 'alive' as the average piece of computer software, and when it comes down to the choice of the death of hundreds of people, or the virus, the choice should be easy enough. That some people apparently have so much trouble with their moral compass that they believe there is in fact some kind of ethical trade off here scares me.

      Not that size matters: I'm also happily in favor of fully eradicating other diseases and parasites, including multicellular ones. Anything that only causes untold grief and misery, and has no benefit other than its own miserable existence, I have no compunction removing from the planet.

    4. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they seem to not understand that we're the dominant species because of our ingenuity which we evolved naturally to combat these very threats. I don't understand how some people can separate humans from nature when we are in-fact the end product of billions of years of evolution.

    5. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you want a serious ethical discussion stop talking about artificial constructs like "lines" to be "drawn". There is no "line". There are no "lines". There's a black area and a white area and there's a boundary which is wide, blurry and grey. There is no infinitesimal change to a species which suddenly moves it from black to white - that's what a "line" implies. The blurry grey boundary may move and change shape depending on your personal mores, and from certain viewpoints it may look a bit like a line, but it's not a line, so you cannot ask "where is the line?" because this pre-supposes the existence of something which pretty clearly doesn't exist.

      Once you accept the "no line" principle you have to start questioning whether simple binary questions like "is this OK?" are even properly defined. The answer is certainly subjective and depends on where your boundaries are, but it's not even well-defined then, as there are an infinity of possible ways to reduce a real-valued function to a binary-valued function. When you're actually taking a decision you can do this by focusing on the matter at hand that caused the question to be raised, and other factors which you deem important, but without this context you're shooting in the dark. Asking in isolation from an ivory tower if something is OK is kind of ignoring the fact that you don't know if it's OK until you know why the subject is being raised.

      I'd say wiping out a virus which has no known function on Earth other than to infect and kill humans, in order to protect humans against being wiped out by it at some future point, is fairly ethically sound. But wiping out a harmless virus just for shits and giggles is ethically dubious. In both cases we're talking about wiping out a virus, but we might reach different conclusions. Context is everything. Even the most ardent pro-lifers often accept that abortion is OK in the case of rape, to give another example.

      You'd probably enjoy watching Genesis of the Daleks, by the way ;)

    6. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      How did "antibiotics" get extended to "cleaning products" in your mind?

    7. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by james_gnz · · Score: 1

      Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not a virus is 'life' -- this question would apply to a bacterial disease as well -- how is this any different than the attempts in the last century to eradicate the North American wolf?

      I think 'life' is an ambiguous term, and confuses moral issues. Bacteria are biologically alive, but so are individual human cells (e.g. skin cells), and individual human cells do not have a right to life. A person could be brain dead, but their body might be kept on life support for the purpose of organ donation. When we're considering moral issues, it's the mind that matters, IMHO.

      I think sentience of a species (the capacity for feelings) raises the question of a right to not be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatment, but not a right to life. I think self-awareness of a species is needed to raise the question of a right to life.

      However I think protecting a species is often not so much done out of concern for rights of members of that species as it is in order to keep the species from extinction because we want it to continue to exist.

    8. Re: Genocide... when's it OK? by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Sadly he might just be thinking of antibiotic laced soaps. Not sure those have caused any resistance themselves, but they're shown to be no more effective that regular soap and we still made obscene amounts of the stuff. He's wrong but not quite crazy as you imply.

    9. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that only causes untold grief and misery, and has no benefit other than its own miserable existence, I have no compunction removing from the planet.

      So you're obviously not a Trump supporter....

    10. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well those are cuter than the American opossums but that is an awfully low bar. That said I am not a fan of invasive species and will in general shoot them when I see them out in the wild. As opossums aren't native to Minnesota, not protected, and have no closed season you can kill as many of them as you want and I regularly pop a few with with my air rifle. Here in Minnesota a few years ago there was some group pushing for the legalization of shooting feral cats and in a rather strange case the MN DNR stayed silent on the issue instead of weighing in. I think the reason was that it would have offended a lot of people to find out it is perfectly legal to shoot a feral cat, or a dog that has gone wild for you dog lovers, as the way the law is written any critter that is not protected or has a closed season can be freely hunted. Specifically see PDF page 26 (in the booklet is is page 24) of the most recent MN hunting regulations in the "WHAT ARE UNPROTECTED ANIMALS?" section.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    11. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Anything that only causes untold grief and misery, and has no benefit other than its own miserable existence, I have no compunction removing from the planet.

      That description seem to fit humans pretty well! You could relate it to the way we treat each other, or the way we have treated other animals and the planet in general.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    12. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anything that only causes untold grief and misery, and has no benefit other than its own miserable exist..."

      You're right... let's get rid of the people too.

    13. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      My God it's full of Ads!
      Being able to shoot wild dogs or even a family pet that has decided to go to a farm and eat sheep is a pretty essential right for farmers.

      While the brushtail possum is cute I suspect it's far more of a nasty handful than the opossum. I've had a tame baby one walk on my shoulders and it was like getting poked with a lot of needles. My mother still has scars on her arms from when her brother said "I'll distract the possum while you grab it" back in the 1940s.

    14. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A virus can be recreated from it's genome using existing technology, so it will never be truly extinct until you also delete every last copy of the code. I don't think anyone's proposing that and it's probably impossible since "information wants to be free".

      On the other hand, we don't yet have the technology to recreate a complex multicellular organism from software and it might not even be possible without the original article (a host wolf to deliver the biological choreography of gestation, other wolves to pass on learned pack behaviour). Or to use a software analogy, the genome for any organism more complex than a bacterium contains code for it's own compiler which is impractical to reverse engineer.

    15. Re:Genocide... when's it OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wolf took millions of years to evolve. Once it's gone we will never see anything quite the same again, although another predator might appear in tens or hundreds of millions of years with a few similar characteristics, due to convergent evolution. New 'species' of viruses and bacteria appear and go extinct all the time, even without human intervention. For all we know the smallpox virus (or something very similar) could have re-appeared several times throughout history.

  23. Non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who ever wrote this article is wigging out on a non-issue.

    Smallpox was not only the first virus we developed a vaccine for (via cowpox) but surly the most easily treatable.

    I seriously doubt there will ever be another pandemic of smallpox and even if there were, it's easily treatable.

  24. A Modest Compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, fully gene sequence the virus. Then destroy its earthly biological component. That way everyone who wants it gone...it's gone. Everyone who wants to bring it back...shit, we got that stored on a bunch of ZIP drives. Post-Apocalypse will definitely be able to reproduce a virus from DNA and also still use ZIP drives.

  25. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Because this isn't Resident Evil or some stupid Hollywood movie?

    Pretty much. Random people who happen to catch a rare disease that the doctor would never have seen before nor have any real reason to believe the pasient has instead of something more common could spread a while before anyone realizes the severity. The people who work on these kinds of diseases in a lab would quickly raise all the warning flags and the incident be shut down real quick. The only truly dangerous situation would be if someone stole it, mass produced it and intentionally caused a mass infection in say the departure hall of an airport to overwhelm containment efforts. That would require a whole other level of sophistication than IEDs and guns though.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  26. How do we know, by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    there is not some colony of wild pigs, horses, or monkeys which are incubating the virus.

    Keep it around, you don't know if there is a time when you need it.

    1. Re:How do we know, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. We'd better exterminate all pigs, horses and monkeys too, just in case.

  27. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's one of the symptoms of asperger's. You may as well as why people with the 'flu have to sneeze so much.

  28. Archive its DNA by tonywestonuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Then zap it. They can already create viruses from scratch anyhow - https://www.newscientist.com/a... So, just dump its DNA sequence to a tar file, and then snuff it out. That simple. And no moral dilemas about genocide because well, we can always tar xvf smallpox.tar, if we need to.

    1. Re:Archive its DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of Dog, compress it! tar cvfz / tar xvfz, how hard can it be ?

    2. Re:Archive its DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This! wtf, GP?

    3. Re:Archive its DNA by twdorris · · Score: 3, Funny

      For the love of Dog, compress it! tar cvfz / tar xvfz, how hard can it be ?

      I've found the bzip2 algorithm far more effective in compressing DNA-based tarballs. And I find the verbose option to be particularly annoying while creating or restoring jigawatt-sized tarballs.

      So allow me to suggest tar cjf / tar xjf as an alternative.

    4. Re:Archive its DNA by Gilgaron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It'll take you years to get from a gene sequence back to a functional virus with which to build a research program to look into the 'new variant' or whatever concern made growing smallpox again worthwhile. And there'd still be some doubt about if you got it right since some virus particles grab important proteins from the host cell that aren't encoded in their own genome.

    5. Re:Archive its DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question regarding DNA data, does deduplication give good results?

    6. Re:Archive its DNA by halivar · · Score: 2

      And THIS thread is why The Verge and Ars Technica can never replace /. for me.

    7. Re:Archive its DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now Skynet has the smallpox DNA sequence. I trust a refrigerator more than a computer.

    8. Re:Archive its DNA by nine-times · · Score: 1

      But won't it then turn into a scary computer virus?

  29. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

    The only truly dangerous situation would be if someone stole it, mass produced it and intentionally caused a mass infection

    Fortunately, a government lab worker with inside access stealing a deadly bioweapon and using it in a terrorist attack is the kind of thing that only happens in the movies. Right?

  30. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    But one would think that folks with Aspergers would learn that they should perhaps think twice...or more before making a literal response.

  31. I think the real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would we be able to eradicate smallpox again if it were out in the wild today?
    These days you have lots of people against vaccination for various stupid people.
    We're already seeing a return of diseases we thought were limited to the third world.

  32. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The problem is that you never know when it's meant literal and when it's a figure of speech. The best a "normal" person could relate to it is thinking of it as if you're dealing with a foreign language where you don't know the idioms, and where you'll have to strain your vocal chords when a Russian talks about you having to howl with the wolves.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    ...or what to wear when he's going to introduce you to Kuzka's mother.

    (Hint: Stop thinking and RUN!)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. And delete all the digital copies of it too? by sidetrack · · Score: 1

    This discussion is pretty ridiculous.

    Whilst I can see the attraction of "wiping it from the face of the earth" - you can't do that by just destroying the biological copies any more.

    Wiping out smallpox would involve destroying all digital copies of it too. Since the Smallpox genome is sequenced, what you do with the known biological copies doesn't really matter too much - a biological virus is nothing more than it's DNA sequence

    Anyone with the resources to reconstruct the biological form from the digital form (which will be anyone at all within a few years) could do-so if they wanted to. I'd guess it's pretty easy to obtain a digital copy of the DNA sequence of Smallpox, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

    I received a smallpox vaccine about 35 years ago when I lived in Singapore - I wonder if it's still effective...

    1. Re:And delete all the digital copies of it too? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      No worries, that's what a DMCA notice is for.

    2. Re: And delete all the digital copies of it too? by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      I think we computer people over simplify the task of taking a digital genome and remaking the original cell, but it should be simpler with a virus than just about anything else. I suspect we're safe from random weirdos recreating smallpox in a home lab for quite a while but I agree that the time is coming. As for your vaccination, high immune response lasts 3-5 years with decreasing immunity after that so your probably about as screwed as the rest of us.

  35. ... because more vacciness will be needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I know, vaccines cannot be inherited. A person that is immune to smallpox does not have an immune kid. I very much doubt they have vaccinated every single person of the world (deep in the jungle in Africa or Asia? I think not). One missed person is enough to screw us over again.

    1. Re: ... because more vacciness will be needed? by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      One missed person is not enough for two big reasons. One, we have a concept of quarantine and how diseases spread, but more critically in this case the vaccine is a different virus. We can produce that virus, vaccinia, in whatever quantity we want without any access to smallpox. People use it for lab research now without a ton of precautions. Even unattenuated vaccinia only calls for biosafety level 2, I.e. the same level as e coli or various hep strains.

  36. No such thing as 'vaccination' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/smallpox-eradication-one-of-historys-biggest-lies-how-vaccination-did-not-eradicate-smallpox/

    https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

    "By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself. When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummetted."

    The fraud of vaccination:
    http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

    1. Re:No such thing as 'vaccination' by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Wordpress is where I go to learn about science....and alien conspiracies.

    2. Re: No such thing as 'vaccination' by jdunn14 · · Score: 2

      I'm feeding a troll here, but you know that the earliest "vaccine" for smallpox was.... smallpox. The fatality rate for that method, called variolation, was on the order of 1-2% and there are records of intentional smallpox infection to induce immunity going back to at least 1500. The first real vaccine was infection by cowpox and was introduced in 1796. I imagine your dates are a bit cherry picked, but the Jenner vaccine wouldn't have reached places like India and China immediately so I suspect they still used variolation at least for a while. A 2% death rate if enough people were "vaccinated" that way would drive up the death toll for that crappy vaccine but is still better than something like 35% death rates for natural infections.

  37. Can we rebuild it? by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    I don't know enough about the smallpox virus, but is it something where we can just map the genome and destroy the real-world copies, then recreate it if we ever need to?

    If so, storing it on a USB stick instead of in a test tube might reduce the risk of accidentally killing a few million people.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  38. pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus H Fucking Christ! We're trying to keep an authentic original here. If you compress it, it's not original anymore. Maybe some bits get mutated during the compression or decompression stage and that flips some genes and what gets resequenced starts the Reaver invasion. You don't know!

    1. Re:pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it becomes a problem if we choose to store the plain tar file in DNA in the future
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage

  39. Verbose! by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    For the love of Dog, compress it! tar cvfz / tar xvfz, how hard can it be ?

    And maybe drop the verbose flag...

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  40. Tigers vs. Smallpox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tigers will kill people most of the time. So will smallpox. But, we want to save tigers, but not smallpox.

    Why do tigers have any greater right to live than smallpox? Both are naturally occurring organisms that Mother Earth created. We have no right to forcibly eradicate any of her species.

    1. Re: Tigers vs. Smallpox by jdunn14 · · Score: 1

      Cute fur

    2. Re:Tigers vs. Smallpox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tigers are not contagious.

      Tigers are part of the food chain.

      Tigers have been almost completely eradicated.

    3. Re: Tigers vs. Smallpox by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Smallpox reproduces a lot faster and has killed a lot more people.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  41. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We do. In fact, many of us will overthink everything we say to the point that responses aren't timely. We either end up coming across as being very quiet, or a bit slow, depending on wether we bother saying what we wanted or not.

  42. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No we are fine with our literal responses. We wonder why you can't say what you mean. We aren't going to change for you.

  43. Danger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vaccines of today are not the same vaccines as yesterday. 100 years ago when the medical industry was still credible and actually made a sincere effort to heal people, vaccines were a wonderful creation and saved many people's lives. The smallpox vaccine was an excellent example of this.

    Today the medical industry is driven by profit - not morality or the noble act of healing others. The vaccines of today are some of the most dangerous concoctions ever imposed upon the public.

    Many people have given the responsibility for their own personal health to the medical system and big pharma. Being a profit driven industry, it is much more profitable to sell people treatments for the rest of their lives instead of a one time cure.

    And by scaring the world with Zika, Sars, influenza, and a plethora of other nasty 'outbreaks', they are poised to increase their bottom line significantly by continually selling the world dangerous vaccines and "booster shots" that often cause more serious medical problems than they were originally designed to prevent.

    The vaccine industry has about as much honestly and integrity as Dick Cheney or George Bush. That is, they cannot be trusted to do what they say they are going to do.

  44. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    But one would think that folks with Aspergers would learn that they should perhaps think twice...or more before making a literal response.

    We don't even expect women to remember that they get emotional every month and you want aspies to remember that they aren't masters of conversation?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  45. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be okay with watching Mila Jovovich shoot big guns at it.

  46. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    and only 'Hollywood' thinking leads to the idea that there could be some global agreement to destroy it all. Anybody who thinks that nation-states with official-secrets regimes would actually destroy all of their samples is a special kind of stupid.

    The article is as meaningful as asking why scientists don't simply block gravity - all available evidence points to the idea being impossible.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  47. Only two samples by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that make it an endangered species?

  48. Wow this is an easy one by aron1231 · · Score: 1

    Where have we sustained the largest amount of life lost? To accidents or to "dastardly deeds" (evil)?

  49. Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's on the "endangered species" list.

  50. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That isn't being literal it is showing contempt for the characterization.

  51. why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so the a merkins have a supply to weaponize it of course.

  52. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    You seem to forget that it was a global agreement to eradicate it in first place. Not, Hollywood thinking, but real life. A soviet member of the WHO has suggested this, WHO accepted the suggestion and despite the cold war western countries and ussr worked together to make it happen. In fact, the soviets have donated a large part of the required vaccine. This kind of cooperation was unheard of before.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  53. they are on the case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mulder and Scully are already on it guys. We can put the pitch forks down now.

  54. Do we have the right to play God? by plopez · · Score: 1

    And decide which species live or die? I know we have done it before, e.g. wiping out the tasmanian tiger, but is morally and ethically defensible?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Do we have the right to play God? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "And decide which species live or die? I know we have done it before, e.g. wiping out the tasmanian tiger, but is morally and ethically defensible?"
      Yes.
      Humans have one of two states.
      1. A higher value than other forms of life which means that we are responsible to manage them. If so then deciding that smallpox is to dangerous is within our prerogative.
      2. Equal value to other forms of life. If so then we have the same "rights" as all life which is to do everything in our right to survive and owe nothing to any other form of life. Would you punish a wolf for eating and endangered animal? Other forms of life have gone extinct and more than once it would have been because of a predator.

      I do not think it is a good idea to destroy the two stocks since they are contained and should not pose a risk to the general public. They might have some scientific value in the future so keep them just in case.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Do we have the right to play God? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> I do not think it is a good idea to destroy the two stocks since they are contained and should not pose a risk to the general public.

      Kinda like the same way nuclear stuff is "secure"?
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    3. Re:Do we have the right to play God? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Except that radioisotopes are located at just about every clinic, hospital, and a good number of industrial locations around the world vs two high security labs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Do we have the right to play God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a student in a ethics of science class question if we had any right to try and resurrect the Thylacine. My stance was, "We broke it, so it is our responsibility to fix it." I was dumbfounded by the student.

  55. "gone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When it is gone from the human population, it is gone for good."

    Garbage, we've seen this time and time again. You think you've got rid of a disease and it is really sitting quietly in an asymptomatic human carrier, in some random animal species, in a corpse somewhere. Destroying all of the samples of smallpox would be foolish, perhaps limiting it down to a handful of secured facilities might be warranted but destroying it shows a serious lack of foresight.

  56. Synthesize smallpox? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Is medical science at the point where smallpox can be synthesized from gene sequence data and organic molecules? If so, why not kill the batches and keep the data if you ever really need some? And if synthesis isn't possible, why not?

    1. Re:Synthesize smallpox? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No. We have no way of synthesizing life, or anything like it, from scratch. It is possible to create a synthetic virus from a genome sequence but you need some host cell to actually manufacture it for you.

  57. Virus discovered in a cardboard box in fridge by gachunt · · Score: 1

    I'm much more worried about what's growing in the back of the fridge at my workplace's lunchroom.

    "Janice! Take home your Christmas tupperware containers. It's been 5 months now."

  58. Why not get rid of evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We might need it again in case nature or man releases Smallpox 2.0. We will need to study the changes or mutations to help create a cure/vaccine much faster. It's not like we can guarantee all the samples worldwide could be destroyed, so it's just a pipe dream to suggest it. Smallpox is also not the idea candidate for for weapon use, imo. It would probably be trivial for modern science to come up with a mutated or engineered smallpox variant. The fact it produces all the visual symptoms really makes it easier to track, quarantine and eliminate.

    I would think a more ideal virus to weaponize would be something that has a long incubation time, few symptoms and is either lethal or just does severe long time damage perhaps to DNA. Something like air borne HIV would be really bad because we wouldn't even realize it was a pandemic until it was at our doors. Smallpox sucks, but the obvious sores and the nature of the virus would make it easier to control.

    On the other hand Ebola with 10 times the incubation time could be extremely devastating.

  59. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    But one would think that folks with Aspergers would learn that they should perhaps think twice...or more before making a literal response.

    We don't even expect women to remember that they get emotional every month and you want aspies to remember that they aren't masters of conversation?

    Probably because people with Aspergers react a lot better when you remind them.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  60. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And his diabolical plan killed how many, 5? He could have killed/injured more people with a gasoline laced vehicle driven into the first story of an apartment complex. No doubt there are monsters out there, but most people have been watching too many movies. Few plots involve complicated schemes or advanced skills/equipment because quite frankly they can kill more people and are a lot less likely to be stopped with what is found at Walmart.

  61. Re:Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are aspies so fucking literal?

    1. You don't have to be an Aspie to see the hyperbole in calling it a "Demon in the Freezer."
    2. You're the one taking an obvious joke poking fun at said hyperbole too literally, so maybe you should see about getting tested.

  62. Center for Disease CONTROL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not Center for Disease Elimination. Once you destroy it, there is nothing left to control. And control of pestilence is a great power.

  63. Not hundreds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am 49 years old and was one of the very late recipients of smallpox vaccine (my family specifically asked for it as we sometimes went to Mexico.) So, I am betting the vast mjority of humanity has NEVER been vaccinated against it (and as the summary stated, those who were have probably lost their immunity.)
    If this thing ever gets loose in our modern (air plane/subway filled) world, the death toll could easily be millions and possibly even billions!

    1. Re:Not hundreds! by johannesg · · Score: 1

      The 'hundreds' was merely to establish a sense of scale where I believe eradication is acceptable. In fact it's on the high side; I'm quite willing to get rid of some virus to save even a handful of people.

  64. "completely erradicated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that explains the unknown quantity of samples held by the u.s., russia, and who knows who else; and the vaccinations that continue to this day in many parts of the world.

  65. Frozen Tundra Smallpox Victims by EnOne · · Score: 1

    There are also people who died of smallpox who were buried in places where they would be below the permafrost line or at a high enough altitude it is always below freezing. Removing the samples from the NIH and the CDC would not remove all of the permanently frozen people in the Yukon, Siberia or high mountain ranges.

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
  66. Re:There are some things we simply should not dest by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    The destroy plan for biological specimens can be fancy but in your examples, cutting the power to the cold storage units and just letting it rot for a week is as good as anything else.

  67. May have some use in the future by kamaaina · · Score: 1

    Wasn't Polio eradicated, but then there was a use for it to fight cancer.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60...

  68. this is so easy -- pass a law! by swschrad · · Score: 1

    done.

    at least, that's what all your elected officials think.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  69. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    Sure, when hell freezes over!

  70. Re:There are some things we simply should not dest by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Fancy is fun in the movies, but rarely works in real life...

    How about a box of thermite stored on top of the samples with a remote trigger outside the door protected by thick glass. You set it off by shooting the glass.

    Guards with guns who are in trouble can simply turn around and shoot the glass, good bye smallpox (and everything else in the room).

  71. Re: Why Don't Scientists Kill The Demon In The Fre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never sneeze when I have the flu.

    Maybe it's my asperger's.

  72. smallpox strains on file by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    At least 8 strains have had their genomes sequenced, and presumably those genomes are still on file, somewhere.

    Unless there's something special about the rest of virus, physical samples are redundant. So destroying the (known) samples wouldn't buy much, and might eliminate something important.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smallpox+genome+sequenced&t=ffsb&ia=web

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  73. Put it on ice, permanently! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a special locker for it in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, and destroy all extant samples. Boom, the whole " I dropped this old vial I found in the back of the university fridge last week, and am now breaking out in mysterious sores" problem goes away.