Talk:Smallpox vaccine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gurshawnstuteja.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Info on vaccination campaign

i am looking for info on a vaccination campaign in the phillipines in 1905. is there any info on how many people died and why the vaccine caused the deaths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.85.174 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2003 (UTC)

It is likely the war caused the deaths. It was quite a notable one. Genocide is a word that has been used. Midgley 02:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just chopped the following from this article:

The vaccine that eventually eradicated smallpox, developed by Edward Jenner in 1796, consists of the virus which causes the related, yet far milder, cowpox disease; this virus is appropriately named vaccinia, from the Latin 'vaca' which means cow.

This vaccine has functional virus in it which improves its effectiveness but, unfortunately, causes serious complications for people with impaired immune systems (for example chemotherapy and AIDS patients, and people with eczema) and is not yet considered safe for pregnant women. A small, yet significant, percentage of healthy individuals also suffer adverse side-effects which, in rare cases, include permanent neurological damage. Vaccines that only contain attenuated ("killed") vaccinia virus have been proposed but some researchers have questioned the possible effectiveness of such a vaccine. Others point out that mass vaccinations would probably not be needed to counter a bioterrorist attack if many millions of doses of the current (possibly improved) vaccine could be delivered to victims within several days of exposure (the vaccine is effective to that point). This, along with vaccinations of so-called first-responders, is the current plan of action being devised by the US Department of Homeland Defense and FEMA in the United States (the DHD was formed as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks).

The vaccine can cause complications for those around those who are vaccinated. People who get the vaccine will shed virus particles through vesicles on their skin and possibly through their respiratory tract. Infections in close and not-so-close contacts can ensue. The current plan to vaccinate first responders has the potential to cause infection in the most vulnerable section of the population, the hospitalized ill. Family contacts are also susceptible, although they are less vulnerable because their immune systems are presumably intact. Secondary infection can cause skin disease, pulmonary disease and rarely, neurologic disease.

As of June 21, 2003, a scientific advisory panel had issued a recommendation against further vaccination of first responders because a significant number of those vaccinated suffered heart problems, notably pericarditis and myocarditis.

The main problem with developing a new, supposedly safer vaccine, is that, barring a bioterrorist attack on immunized individuals, its effectiveness cannot be tested on humans, and other animals do not naturally contract smallpox. Monkeys at USAMIID research facilities have been infected, but tests on animals that are artificially infected with a human disease are notorious for giving false or misleading results. To demonstrate safety and effectiveness, human trials always have to confirm data obtained from animal testing.

I will be the first to say that there is indeed genuinely encyclopedic material in here, but frankly I don't have the time to weed it out. I just spent two hours weeding similar crap out the vaccine article.*Kat* 07:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've returned it. It's not appropriate to cut such a large amount of material simply because you object to it in some (unspecified) way, but don't want to deal with it yourself. I myself don't see anything unencyclopedic there, and certainly not anything requiring immediate deletion. - Nunh-huh 18:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm also very interested to know what specific issues *Kat* has so this article can be improved. --mav 14:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Effectiveness of smallpox vaccine

Discussion moved from Talk:Mumps. Andrew73 18:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No allopath is going to like being called a vaccinator, especially when he is pretending to be unbiased---silly is your euphemism for that, a new one for me. I can't make out exactly what Midgley is trying to say but he doesn't appear to answer any of my points except to make out a vaccine is still effective even if the victims had been vaccinated. A vaccinator even tried this one with me once over smallpox vaccine when well over 90% of the victims had been vaccinated, and had obviously, in this case, caught smallpox from the vaccine. I suspect he would have tried this argument with the Rubini mumps strain when it was in use, but even vaccinators now say it was 100% useless at preventing mumps. If I didn't study vaccination history I might have more confidence in vaccinators beliefs, which is why Dr Midgley is rather disdainful of old books, I would suggest, for if people really looked at the history books documenting the smallpox vaccine they would certainly never believe in any vaccine now, or the beliefs of vaccination. I like the one written by the Chief sanitation officer of Leicester, for example, who proved conclusively that sanitation was more effective than vaccination, buy some margin, and over 20 years (http://www.whale .to/a/biggs1.html). He would be one of the 'mad', no doubt, of Dr Midgley. What I always find amusing, and scary, is the fact vaccinators claim vaccination was effective from day one, 200 or so years ago, from when Jenner started it, that must be a 100 or so years before preservatives! john 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind being called a "vaccinator" or an "allopath" for that matter. And I don't dispute that sanitation is helpful. But it seems that some editors here prefer a world with smallpox than without smallpox! Andrew73 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well good, see if you can get Jdwolff to do the same. You seem to be suggesting that this editor prefers a world with smallpox because I am anti-vaccine. Well, I can see your argument, but I have found the smallpox vaccine didn't prevent or eliminate smallpox, in fact, it spread and prolonged smallpox, which was why they had huge epidemics after the compulsory vaccination years, and repealed the compulsory vaccination laws. And your chief smallpox expert admitted recently that it would have died out without vaccination, so how can you say vaccination did the deed? In truth it was the decline in poverty, and we still have it around, now called monkey pox, and such like. john 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion of smallpox is beyond the scope of this discussion page on mumps! I'm not sure whom you're referring to specifically as the "chief smallpox expert," but perhaps the reason why smallpox would have died out without vaccination is the whole point...because of vaccination, there is no longer a reservoir for smallpox. Andrew73 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal vaccination."----Dr. Mack (http://www.whale .to/a/mack.html) john 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You speak of epidemic smallpox and then use a quote which discusses endemic smallpox in a post-endemic society. And you quote a man who in the same speech about epidemic smallpox made the comment, "I would certainly want to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives." No one here disputes the role of sanitation and less crowded living conditions. InvictaHOG 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that pretty much demolishes John's argument. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC

Was that my argument? A quote. The thing I always marvel at is vaccinators insistence that smallpox vaccination was effective from day one, which was around 1798. And it isn't generally known among vaccinators but arm-to-arm vaccination was the main method up until the end of the 19 century. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be too keen to use some smallpox pus taken off some pauper in the time when leprosy and syphilis were quite common, not to mention smallpox. And perhaps Jdwolff would like to enlighten us on the methods used to screen out these sort of germs, and as to the methods used to keep the vaccine material from going septic? Also fairly recently some 1 million third world unfortunates died from dirty injections, every year, and that was using syringes, so can she also tell us what results we could expect from using ivory points and a sharp knife (lancet) to cut into an arm, using the same points for hundreds of people? It isn't generally known also, that up into the 1990's they used non-disposable needles in Africa, and I believe if you did that now you would be liable to being sued for negligence.john 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like semantics to me. No epidemic without endemic. What vaccinators say is usually more down to politics, especially at a vaccinators meeting (ACIP), and the acid test is would he vaccinate his own children--it was officially killing 21 children a year in first world countries. How many medical doctors vaccinate themselves with hepatitis B (only 50% in one study) and flu vaccines, would be an interesting statistic. You certainly wouldn't want to take it in its earlier years: "In 1926, 130 members of the Dallas (Tex.) Chamber of Commerce cancelled their trip to Mexico because vaccination was required as a precedent to entrance. Nearly a 100 medical men, at a conference in Dallas, went to Mexico, after they obtained permission to enter without being vaccinated." john 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a quotation/anecdote (if correct) about an isolated event nearly 80 years ago in a book authored by a chiropractor whose main interest was in natural foods is a strong enough argument to counter the efficacy of smallpox vaccination when smallpox was still present. Andrew73 19:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Vaccination was demolished by medical men mostly eg Hadwen (http://www.whale .to/vaccines/hadwen1.html), and ex public vaccinator Dr Collins (http://www.whale .to/vaccines/smallpox21.html). My favourite smallpox vaccine statistic is the Phillipines in 1920 (http://www.whale .to/vaccines/smallpox7.html), in fact a good case could be made out that vaccination was designed to thin out the population. But vaccination was demolished by numerous other people mostly through the government stats, eg William Tebb (http://www.whale .to/vaccine/tebb.html), scientist Alfred Wallace (http://www.whale .to/vaccine/wallace/book.html), and noted medical man Creighton (http://www.whale .to/v/creighton.html) who demolished it in an Enclopedia article. After some years of compulsory vaccination they suffered the worst smallpox epidemic ever, which was why they abolished the law, as the people saw through it, and most of the victims had been vaccinated--they got it from vaccination. Also the noble people of Leicester demolished vaccination conclusively by only using sanitation for some time, and showing by the statistics it was way and above better than vaccination, in fact they suffered 2,000 less deaths of children under 5 as their Chief sanitation engineer demonstrated through stats recorded in his book Leicester; Sanitation vs Vaccination (http://www.whale .to/a/biggs1.html). It is obvious vaccination was actually killing 2,000 children in that city alone during the height of compulsory vaccination. If vaccinators admitted it was useless for a century or so they may have gotten away with it, but their insistence it was effective from day one and Jenner a hero is their undoing, and they will try to ignore the past for obvious reasons---they should have burnt all the books like they burnt Reich's. john 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute that the Leicester method of rigorous isolation, etc. was an effective way for controlling smallpox, but I think this could only apply to locations that had the resources to implement this strategy. (In fact, it served as one of the strategies for WHO's smallpox eradication program). And I don't think anyone disputes that during the nineteenth century, people started to realize the need for revaccination in order for the vaccine approach to be effective. The smallpox vaccine wasn't perfect in the 1800s (and still isn't perfect today either), so I don't dispute that the risk of iatrogenesis with the vaccine was more of an issue then with bacterial contamination, etc. However, what about the experience in Sheffield in 1887 where there were 274 deaths among the 6,000 unvaccinated out of a total population of 300,000, compared to only 200 deaths in the vaccinated population of 294,000? Quotations from a few anti-vaccinators from nearly a century ago doesn't disprove the fact that vaccination played a significant role in eliminating smallpox. Andrew73 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vaccinators can't ever accept the fallacy of smallpox vaccination. It is 'quotes' from BOOKS, that expose vaccination. If Leicester could do it so could every other city like London, but what it showed was the results compared to vaccination--and exposed vaccination to be not only ineffective but a major cause of death and disease (like smallpox). Biggs took apart the Sheffield claim in Ch 54 (http://www.whale .to/a/biggs.html) Every statistical claim by vaccinators is always found to be false when looked into. What about the Phillipine experience in 1920? Also your comment 'nearly a century ago' was an attempt to pour cold water on the historical record and of the people actually there at the time, like Tebbs who looked into the evidence in great detail, also Biggs, Wallace, White, Hadwen etc. They took the time to write up the facts and take apart the vaccinators argument. Vaccination relies purely on the allopaths saying it works and expecting everyone to believe them, on trust basically. They would love to draw a line in the sand and say, as you attempt, 'ignore the past', 'trust us', and so on. "He who controls the past controls the future."--Orwell. john 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And Gloucester. Tried nt being vaccinated. Epidemic. Many dead. Midgley 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that smallpox vaccination was flawless, but at the same time, I disagree that it was a "fallacy." What Biggs may have neglected to mention was that in Leicester, smallpox contacts and people caring for smallpox patients were indeed vaccinated...perhaps this certainly played a role. In addition, if vaccination was so ineffective compared to sanitation, why did the rates of smallpox decrease whereas other presumably sanitation-related diseases such as typhus etc. did not decrease in concert? Incidentally, Biggs's "tearing apart" of the Sheffield numbers seems equally as ponderous and not necessarily reliable. Andrew73 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I answered this before but it has vanished. I'd take Biggs word as he lived there and was it's chief sanitation officer. I just looked at some figures and it typhus declined with smallpox, as you would expect, being a sanitation and overcrowding disease. Re Sheffield: "Sheffield, an insanitary town, had a bad smallpox epidemic in 1887-88. Of 7,066 cases classed as vaccinated or unvaccinated, 5,891 or 83.4 per cent were put in the vaccinated class. Of 647 cases at Warrington, in 1892-93, 601, or 89.2 per cent, had been vaccinated; of 2,945 cases at Birmingham in 1892-93, 2,616, or 88.8 per cent, had been vaccinated; and of 828 cases at Willenhall in 1894, 739, or 89.3 per cent, had been vaccinated." Lilly Loat [Book 1951] The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization john 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Biggs' evidence to the ROyal COmmission is a polemic. The Commission examined him for some time and clearly did not accept all he said. Looking at it, it contains errors which make me wonder how much of the apparently correct content is fabricated - it is very much a political document in a political argument. I'm surprised that soemone who is "studying vaccination" doesn't have the ROyal COmmission report on hand to offer as well as the single-sided view of Biggs. THe "study" is in fact a piling up of anything that seems to support an argument, with nothing being taken from the pile when it becomes clear it is wrong and no evaluation or context of it.

Before smallpox vaccine

"Historical records show that a vaccination method was already known"

This doesn't quite work, does it. 11:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Before

That section doesn't look right.

Neither does the one full of Whale links - even though they are to a clone site. There was an RFC abut that IIRC, and there is as we all know an article suitable for putting anti-vaccination stuff into, it should not be scattered over WP. This chap has been telling the same lies about doctors, since at least 1997 on newsgroups and anywhere else that is open, there is only one clear mention of a diagnosis and it is not substantiated. Midgley 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vaccinia != Cowpox

Strictly. SO best not to say it does. Midgley 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to Cotton Mather. He discovered in 1706 that African slaves were frequently inoculated for Smallpox. This predates documented research in the West. I found the first reference in "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life"; by Walter Isaacson. Who mentioned that Mather began his research in 1702. Wikipedia did not have a cross reference in the Smallpox article but did mention it in expanded detail in the Mather article. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and my formatting there and here may be non-standard. Llewhthor 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)llewhtor

Article about vaccine

This article could use a big overhaul. For an article about the smallpox vaccine, it skips a lot of important information. It starts with Before Vaccination, then proceeds to Early Vaccination and then skips straight to Eradication of Smallpox. It would benefit from the contribution of information about:

• Edward Jenner and the development of the vaccine
• The components/structure of the vaccine
• The application of the vaccine during the 18th/19th centuries
• Worldwide efforts to eradicate smallpox in the 20th century

dpotter 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above, check out this BBC article:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220725-the-mystery-virus-that-protects-against-monkeypox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Eradication of smallpox

Three known repositories of the virus were left, one in Birmingham, England which was later destroyed after an accidental escape from containment caused many deaths

I fail to see any justification for this statement.

http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism17/smallpoxvaccine.htm describes an outbreak in 1966 originating in Birmingham plus three other unrelated outbreaks that infected a total of 62 (+9 retrospectively) resulting in zero deaths.

There was a single death Janet Parker from the escape at Birmingham in 1978. M100 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How long...

Is the vaccination good for? -Crimson30 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, could an expert add the answer to the article? The word on the street is that the vaccinations that everyone received in their childhoods wouldn't protect most people if there were an outbreak today. Tempshill (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The word in the New Scientist is more optimistic. Vaccinations are expected to last for a whole lifetime. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4064-smallpox-immunity-may-last-a-lifetime.html 80.177.64.36 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the low mortality rate "before"?

Could a knowledgeable person add the answer to the following question to the article: Why was the mortality rate so low of people who were inoculated before the vaccine? (i.e. getting a pustule bound to a cut, or getting scabs blown up the nose.) Such inoculation presumably would infect the subject just as surely as the ordinary method of infection would, and with more virus; I'd like to understand why this didn't act as simply another way to get infected with the same high mortality rate you'd expect from an ordinary smallpox infection. Tempshill (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is a long time in coming, but better late than never. There are two strains of Smallpox, Variola Major and Variola Minor. The former has a mortality rate of 30%, while the latter is only 2%. Thus people would be purposefully infected with Variola Minor, which would produce an immunity against both strains. Determining which donors to retrieve pustules from was simple - the milder the symptoms, the better for use in inoculation. The Inoculation article has the information you seek. I'll see about bringing some of that to this article. --Dan East (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Smalpox "Inoculation" c.1770

I am reading in a German Novel (Die Inoculation der Liebe Leipzig: Weidmann, 1771) of a treatment against smallpox offered by a certain man named Dimsdal, wo advertised his services in the news papers at that time. Is there any detail about that treatment? It precedes the given chronology. --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) PS German 18th century journals on the topic [1]

Did Washington order massive inoculation?

This source (footnote 12) Grizzard FE, Washington G, Chase PD, Twohig D (1985). George Washington to Major General Horatio Gates, 5–6 February 1777. In: The papers of George Washington. 8. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1787-5, has GW writing about the possible inoculation of the Continential Army. Does it also tell us that he actually carried out the program? --S. Rich (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

ALSO -- look at Azor Betts which references material that says Washington issued orders not to inoculate the troops!--S. Rich (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundant articles on variolation/inoculation

This article may contain content identical or similar to another topic. Please see Talk:History of smallpox
Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with image

My apologies for my ignorance of Wikipedia etiquette, but, the picture of the Smallpox vaccination bottle from India is actually labelled "Ruh Kewra", which is essentially an extract of the screw-pine flower used for adding a floral scent and flavour to desserts. What can be done to rectify this error? I'm a native Urdu speaker, and just noticed this while perusing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.97.82 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting us know about the error. I will endeavor to get it deleted from the Wikimedia Commons (the site that hosts many of Wikipedia's images, including this one) and am emailing the CDC (the source for this image) as we speak. Graham87 07:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As can be gleaned from the deletion discussion on Commons, the image has been renamed, removed from all the smallpox articles, and deleted from the CDC website. Graham87 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Smallpox vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060907060826/http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~blakeb/mm/BHM/Spotlight%20on%20Black%20Inventors,%20Scientists,%20and%20Engineers.htm to http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~blakeb/mm/BHM/Spotlight%20on%20Black%20Inventors,%20Scientists,%20and%20Engineers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fewster's "paper" of 1765 ?

At present this article states — as does almost every other source that mentions John Fewster — that: Another early account was Dr John Fewster's 1765 paper on "Cowpox and its ability to prevent smallpox" read to the London Medical Society. This statement is false.

Problem: The Medical Society of London was founded in 1773. Therefore Fewster could not have read his paper to the Society 8 years before it came into existence.

Sources:

• History of the Medical Society of London
• Wikipedia's article: "Medical Society of London"

According to this source — L. Thurston and G. Williams (2015) "An examination of John Fewster’s role in the discovery of smallpox vaccination," Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 45 : 173-179 ; see p. 174. — the "medical society" to which Fewster belonged, was the "Convivio-Medical Society": "Fewster was also an active member of the Convivio-Medical Society, a group of doctors who met once a month to discuss medical cases over a meal and drink."

This source states that Fewster's paper wasn't published: Ian & Jenifer Glynn, The Life and Death of Smallpox (New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 100.

Fewster's "paper" on smallpox wasn't published because he never wrote such a paper.

Note that according to Thurston and Williams, p. 177 (above), the earliest insinuation that Fewster had written a paper titled "Cow pox and its ability to prevent smallpox" appeared in 1886.

Fewster's own account appears here: George Pearson, ed., An inquiry concerning the history of the cowpox, principally with a view to supersede and extinguish the smallpox (London, England: J. Johnson, 1798), pp. 102-104.

According to Fewster himself (above), he merely "communicated this fact [that prior infection with cowpox provides immunity to smallpox] to a society, of which I was then a member, … " (p. 102).

Furthermore, note that according to Fewster's own account, he made his discovery in 1768 or later, not in 1765.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Chinese

A school textbook, History Alive! talks about chinese developing the vaccination much earlier. This site seems to sort of support the claim: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/chinese-smallpox-inoculation. And this one definitely says the Chinese practiced smallpox innoculation by AD 1000: http://www.medicaldaily.com/history-vaccines-variolation-378738 Can any-one check this out?Kdammers (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Milkmaid story is not backed up by the evidence

In the New England Journal of Medicine (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1715349) dated Feb 1 2018, Dr Arthur Boylston (of the Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences–Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford) published an article called "The Myth of the Milkmaid" that refutes the milkmaid story. The article also outlines the role of John Fewster.

I don't have access to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), but this webpage (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/01/582370199/whats-the-real-story-about-the-milkmaid-and-the-smallpox-vaccine) outlines the article. It seems clear to me that the milkmaid story and the John Fewster connection as described in this Wikipedia article should be reworked.

Boylston has also published a book: https://www.amazon.com/Defying-Providence-Smallpox-forgotten-Revolution/dp/1478232455#customerReviews

I'd like to suggest that someone with access to the NEJM go through the article written by Boylston and make suitable edits to Wikipedia. Or if someone can somehow get me a copy, I'll offer to do the editing. Guyburns (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guyburns: You can ask for someone to get you a copy of it at the resource exchange page. Graham87 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

1769 publication on Cowpox

There is a short section on cowpox in a larger text on black death of the latin writter Livius.

"Im Vorbeygehen muß ich doch sagen, daß hier zu Lande die Leute, die Kuhpocke gehabt haben, sich ganz schmeicheln, vor allen Ansteckungen von unseren gewöhnlichen Blattern gesichert zu seyn, wie ich selbst wenn ich mich genau nach dieser Sache erkundiget, mehrmals von gar reputierlichen Personen ihres Mittels gehört habe."   Allgemeine Unterhaltungen 39. Stück; 24 May 1769; 302-312 [2]

In a passing by I have to say, that the people in this country, which had cowpox, flatter themselves, to be save from all infections of our ordinary pox, when inquired this the same was also told to me by people of reputation in their field.

The language is old and the it written in [fraktur] but in short:"In this county people who had cowpox are immune to pox and this is a fact also known to the medical community." For me this is one of the oldest written statements on the fact that you are immune to pox when you had cow pox. --Stone (talk)

Imvanex (EU) = Imvamune (Canada) = Jynneos. Does not result in a vaccine "take"?

Wikipedia now says:

MVA-BN (also known as: Imvanex in the European Union; Imvamune in Canada; and Jynneos) is a vaccine manufactured by Bavarian Nordic by growing MVA in cell culture. Unlike replicating vaccines, MVA-BN is administered by injection via the subcutaneous route and does not result in a vaccine "take."

Please clarify, what do the sections I underlined mean? Could the Wikipedia text be written more clearly?

Is this is a live vaccine, although this does not replicate?

ee1518 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Mortality stats?

“…it was estimated that a total of 9.8 people in the Netherlands and 46.2 people in Germany would die…”

The Netherlands having a population of 17.53M people and Germany with 83.13M people…a predicted mortality of 9.8 and 42.2 (respectively) people doesn't sound so bad. Although I am quite concerned about that 0.8 Dutchman & 0.2 German. Jason M. Smith 15:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javasmith (talk • contribs)