Vaccination: Will it kill us eventually?

While vaccinating the entire global population against viruses like smallpox and anthrax may seem like a good thing, there are also possible consequences. Humans are killed by two things; disease and other humans. Disease has become the method of natural selection for the human race. Smallpox is called the most feared and deadly disease because it killed so many people. The reason it caused so many deaths is because the victims had a weaker immune system than others and could not recover. This is nature’s way of using “survival of the fittest†in the human race. By allowing smallpox and/or anthrax to survive in the world, people with weaker immune systems can die; while this may seem like a horrible thing, it makes future generations naturally resistant to smallpox or anthrax over time.

Now that smallpox exists (officially) only in the freezers of the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and Vector in Russia and has not been thawed recently doesn’t mean that other countries that are potentially hostile to the U.S. do not have access to it. During the anthrax scare in the months following 9/11, the U.S. found that an Afghanistan lab had a bioreactor that could create anthrax. If the genes of smallpox were altered, or someone used pure, undetectable anthrax spores, many people today would not have the natural built up resistance to the viruses. In “eliminating†smallpox during the Eradication of the nineteen-seventies, we could have doomed ourselves by not having the immunity of smallpox. In the Australian scientists’ experiment with an altered mousepox virus, the immunized mice all died when injected with the virus. If someone were to create a superpox, or smallpox with the human IL-4 gene spliced into it, humanity would have no immunity to the supervirus. Not only that, but the United States would not have the necessary stockpiles of smallpox vaccine to even combat the superpox.

The Eradicators may have saved countless lives by vaccinating anyone with smallpox, but this may eventually kill us if a human or even nature develops a strain of smallpox that is resistant to antibiotics and the human immune system. If by letting many die causes more people to develop a stronger immune system, then I believe that we should have let nature run its course and use natural selection to better the human race. Natural selection in the past (by letting smallpox “liveâ€) could possibly save an even greater amount of lives in the event of superpox bioterrorism in the future.


I wrote this as an answer to a reaction assignment about the book The Demon in the Freezer.
Thoughts on this?

 

Very well layed out i have to agree with you in your statement.Developing a natural immune system is vital for survival instead of depending on medicalation and Vaccination.

 

i still think we're better off than the people in the past. in the past, they had very strong immune systems and they actually used their appendixes for something. however, even ONE scratch from say like a rose could prove fatal because there was no medicine or anything.

 

I agree with you 100%. Evolution in humans is being destroyed by modern health care and medical technologies.

I'd have to say a perfect example of the human immune system coming through for us int he end was the Bubonic plague. It killed off everyone who it infected(except for one man), and those that weren't infected stayed alive because they were naturally immune to it. The plague never was really CURED, it just died off because anyone that could be killed by it had already died.

 

Well, I like your answer to the question.

Though I've never really heard or thought about vaccinations killing us off. Vaccinations just never occured to me really. Though I think that yes it is possible because the disease will become immune to the vaccination because its been in the body previously. I'm not so sure on the people who haven't had it though.

I really don't know how I feel about this question. :/ I think its possible with that theory.

 

Modern health care doesn't do much, anyway.

Exactly. As good of a deed as eraticating smallpox was, or seemed to be, we might have sealed our futures to death. Especially today, with the speed we can travel at, I wouldn't be surprised if a superpox could spread to every continent within a week.

Well, remember, a vaccination is a weakened form of the virus. The reason we get shots and stuff is so that our body can recognize the virus and build up immunity to it.
However, the stockpiles of smallpox vaccine were reduced greatly because of storage cost, so if a superpox came about, there would be little to no vaccination available to the world.
Globally speaking, millions would be dead within a week of exposure, and because the eradication of smallpox in the 70s, the likelihood of someone naturally resisitant to smallpox would be extremely slim.

 

I understand what you're saying, however I still do not entirely agree. Yes this does open a door for bioweaponry, but it's not as if anyone could have foreseen relieving suffering giving rise to such a negative at the time of their actions. Besides, the human race could be wiped out by any number of things, but it's really not a bad thing. It's an event, it can happen and we're all going to die anyways so what's the big deal with preserving the species?

 

Yeah very true. I guess since the reduced amounts of vaccines, the world would probably suffer greatly from exposure. Though since there is some of the vaccination left (correct?) then some people would make it. But it would do a lot of damage.

 

If we gave no vaccinations for small pox, probably the whole Native American line could have died out because of no exposure to a disease carried from overseas. The Black Plague became a serious problem in China and spread by the Mongols to the west with their raids etc. People died in droves and I would not say that they had 'immunities' to the Black Plague if they weren't effected by it, but rather that they were instead smart enough to get away from those who were contagious and also to keep away from rats with those lovely fleas that carried the plague. Considering only one person recorded actually got better from it...by medical attention and examination of the disease, trying to treat others etc...that should say something that the normal immune system was not enough.

Also, polio and other things pass on, staph is immensely contagious and mutates etc. Even if we do get vaccinations to some things, certainly viruses mutate etc and are always making us face more threats. We always have something to fight including just dealing with colds and flus that can get rather serious. People who have had one flu...and it mutates...get the now mutated version as well. So I do see what is being said here that the changes aren't just 'automatic' because of shots and all, but at the same time, who's to say that we aren't promoting evolution by these immunities within time passing onto kids any way? And who's to say that people have to die for the immunity because mothers -do- pass on defenses to their babies, by genetics and also breast milk so these things have the chance of passing on. In the end, people would die by a mutated form of small pox regardless of vaccinations to small pox or by evolutionary natural selection because a mutated version is not the same thing anymore. It wouldn't be called 'small pox' anymore but would have to be recognized as a new strain and only a few might have a higher resistance to it than others whether by evolution or by people getting vaccines.

I'd also like to know if these scientists who gave the mice who were given the treatments against the regular mousepox strain...if they also took mice that they did -not- immunize and gave them this variant of the small pox virus...if they came out alive or dead. This would say that -none- of the mice had anymore chance than the other group from a mutated version and make the point clear that everyone in the end would have the same chances of survival against a mutant strain that is no longer the same as the original.

 

I completely agree with you there

 

I must say DP, when I finished through the first paragraph, I was like "wtf is she talking about?" but you had good examples and backed your thesis nicely. Now that I read this, it seems like a lose-lose game. Since small pox is essentially non-existant many thousands of people can live...but of course this means people will die later on if it ever were to be released and come back, and the worst of all is that if its used in bio-warfare, then it could really wreak havoc...

This is more idealistic than practical, but I think it would be good if humans were slowly exposed to small amounts of IL-4 (the thing that causes smallpox to become superpox)


god, I hope I was making some since and didnt sound like a complete dumbass...

but all in all, you raise a good point...even if it was a hw assignment, XP

 

It sounds almost perfect, the logic so to speak however the actuality of how to fix or even begin to address the "problem" leaves something to be desired (I don't mean this in a negative way, mere an observation).

It is true that by doling out vaccines and other medicines to combat these problems we are leaving ourselves wide open in the future for possible re-infection with even worse results. However, consider the reason why vaccines were created, it was meant to cure/immunize/treat something so that lives could be saved. By saying that vaccines and other medical procedures are wrong for the future is much like saying farming is wrong as well as any other technology. The actual core of the matter is, "Which is more valuable, the present or the future? What gives me the right to determine what humans can take advantage of or not? Why do this when we know the repercussions?"

For the first question consider the general human mentality on what is "right": "I can save this person with a cure or I can save the unborn children of someone else." Technically by thinking of genetic immunities you are being "wrong" for the sake of letting the person "now" die for the children of "tomorrow". The logic to ensure that neither of these happen is to eradicate the possible cause of death so that the most "right" can be done. By handing out treatments they are saving both the lives here and the lives later; yes there is a risk of the future being in trouble from something that wasn't fixed, but there is no such thing as a permanent, perfect solution.

As for the second question, technically no one has the right to deal with who lives and dies. Generally speaking, most people often offer these "objective" solutions up until it happens to them on a personal level. Because of this, we have a plethora of band-aid solutions because most of us believe in preserving life when otherwise it should not be extinguished.

Thirdly, we do it because we can. Why die today when you can die twenty or more years from now? The majority wish to avoid death so that is why they do it.

Lastly, consider how we have combated what nature has thrown our way, if we can keep on doing it, we most likely will and forever. And if we do happen to die from it, well then I guess nature wins, and really who can argue with a force of nature?

 

I actually think a worse problem than vaccines etc would be the fact that doctors give out antibiotics to people so regularly for colds and flus when for one they won't even work at all and for the other, if it's not a critical flu, let the people get over it. Quite a few people are becoming immune to antibiotics so it shows our immune systems are still doing their jobs in some ways. So when a 'serious' condition comes along, those antibiotics that people take like candy for every scratchy throat, runny nose etc are just not going to be there.

The vaccinations we have save lives in the present as Zandyne said. Antibiotics used even when doctors think they won't work is more of an issue but yet it's become integrated into society that if you are sick you must be made well as soon as possible so that you can go to work. Work places expect that colds and flus will only take people out of work a day without an excuse, and if you are sick for 2 or more days, you -MUST- go to a doctor and so medicine is kicked out that can be rather useless. If you don't go to the doctor, you can get fired. Colds and flus can last a few days to two weeks fought normally but once you are over them, the chances of getting that same affliction again is much less. So, I'd consider that worse because when help could be there it won't since people have higher tolerance to the actual treatments.

 

Actually, I don't think that vaccene is an antiboitic. I think that we were told in Biology that a vaccene is actully dormant or dead virus or bacteria cells which, when injected into the bloodstream do not attack the body but cause the body to produce antibodies to fight it, hence making you're own stockpile of "cure" to fight the real illness you catch it.

 

But doesn't an antiboitic do the same thing? Except that usually when you're given a vaccine, you don't have the disease. Antiboitics are usually given after you already have the disease.

 

That is what I was pointing out. Vaccines are normally dormant/near dead viruses etc that the body is given to build antibodies against. However, if a virus mutates enough, whether vaccinated or not, people are going to have a great chance of being infected. It's not going to matter either way.

Antibiotics however are adding to the body's defenses but people are immunizing to them so it's in the end not helping if we get immune to 'treatments' themselves when we just have simple colds or flus that could heal naturally. I'd consider this worse in medical practice to do because if someone is afflicted strongly with something bad and has had a life of going to the doctor for antibiotics, they will prove totally ineffective at a crucial moment that could decide life or death.

 

Well, sort of but prevention is better than cure in my opinion.

@Repliku: I see where you're coming from but surely you could make vaccene from the mutated from of the virus.

On a different note, remember all the media stuff about bird flu two-three years ago, where's it all gone, it's never on the news.

 

Yeah, clawtooth, they could make a new vaccine for the new mutated virus. But while the virus is new and mutated our defenses won't be there whether we had vaccines or not against the former virus. So I was just pointing out if small pox did mutate and someone used it as a bio-weapon I think we're all boned until someone makes a vaccine for it whether people were inoculated against small pox to begin with or not because the virus is no longer just small pox. So natural immunity to small pox would no longer hold true for vaccinated people or those who weren't. So...we either make a vaccine to save people's lives and build antibodies against the new virus -or- we do what is being suggested by some here and let natural selection wipe people out who don't have any defense and -hope- that a few people will survive with the defense naturally. Vaccines help more people through the process to survive and as said, defenses that mothers have can and does get transferred through genetics and milk. So I'm not really seeing the issue here why vaccines themselves are bad because you are in fact getting antibodies built up against a specific thing. In a way I think we're agreeing on the same thing though somewhere I may have been confusing.

The avian flu is still out there and being watched but most cases happen in non-Euro and American spots so we aren't hearing about it as much as we should. I guess the news got bored of reporting something that hasn't spread as fast as it was feared in the beginning. I do go to some spots on the web to read up and see what it is doing but the news has gone a lot quieter on it because it's just not 'interesting' anymore probably. Gotta love the news.