Destroy smallpox?

May 16, 2011 updated 09: 02 GMT by James Gallagher health, BBC News journalist  viral disease has been eradicated more than 30 years flying smallpox has been marked as one of the largest science success stories.

Once the disease killed 30% of infected persons, but after a comprehensive vaccination campaign was declared eradicated in 1980.

However, the smallpox virus, which causes the infection is not disappeared. There are two laboratories, one in the United States and the other in Russia. The question is to ask once more: should they kill their stocks?

Continue reading the main history caused by the analysis of smallpox virus originated more than 3 000 years in India or EgyptSymptoms include fever, muscle aches, headaches, fatigue and the distinctive rashIt killed 30% of these infectedMore that believed that the 300 million people have died of smallpox in the 20th century, aloneUp 80% of the survivors were marked with deep pitted scars, mainly on the faceThe world Organization (who) will take a decision at the 64th World Assembly of health this week.

It is not the first time the question was raised, it was first discussed at the Assembly in 1986 and has been the source of debate since then.

Stocks are still needed?

Destroy the remaining stocks is seen in some areas as the last chapter of the eradication of the disease, otherwise there is always the risk of accidental release.

Others, including the United States and the Russia argue for a search more where smallpox returns, perhaps as a biological weapon.

They fear the vials of the virus could exist outside their laboratories. About 50 strains of smallpox virus genomes have also been fully sequenced, and research has already shown that a virus can be built from scratch with a plan of action.

Professor Geoffrey Smith, of Imperial College London, followed the latest research on smallpox. He says that studies focused on three areas - tests to diagnose the infection quickly and accurately, antiviral to deal drugs and safer vaccines to prevent it.

He has conducted a review of the State of scientific research for the who, which was published at the end of 2010 and concluded there was "of the remarkable progress" in tests for smallpox.

Nearly one in three people who took smallpox is dead

But the same cannot be said with certainty for vaccines and drugs for smallpox. While the new candidates were developed, they may not be clinically proven that there is no human smallpox patients to test them on. Without tests to prove that a drug works, endpoint for research becomes more difficult to define.

Professor Smith said: "it is fair to say Committee had views on the question of whether research had been there or almost there but not quite."

Keep or destroy

US Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that it would be premature to destroy the other stores in the virus now.

It resumed in a column for the New York Times, commitment to eventually destroy the stocks, but not yet of.

She wrote: "we still have work to do before safe and highly effective vaccine and antiviral treatments are fully developed and approved for use."

"Destroy the virus now is merely a symbolic act which would slow down our progress and could even stop completely, leaving vulnerable world."

But the man that led to the eradication of smallpox from the 1966 scheme who until the last case in 1977 disagrees.

Dr. DA Henderson told the BBC: "I think it's a very good idea to destroy." At this stage, the reasons to keep are very obscure. Group after group looked this essentially said that it was not necessary to retain.

Continue reading the main history

In 1796, Edward Jenner extracted a pustule vaccine on a pus milkmaiden and it inserted into a cut in the arm of an eight year old boy, James Phipps.

He was rural folklore which says dairy who have suffered vaccine ever went on develop smallpox.

Jenner a is is proven after having been inoculated Phipps vaccine has been immunized against smallpox.

In 1959, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution for the eradication of smallpox.

The last natural case of smallpox was in Somalia in October 1977.

In September 1978 Janet Parker, medical photographer at the University of Birmingham died after being accidentally infected with smallpox.

"We have all productive research we can do." It has been discussed fully and by people around the world entirely. Now is the time to destroy the virus as a more deterrent to anyone who ever producing it or use it. ?

Professor John Oxford, a virologist at Queen Mary University of London, believes that the threat of bioterrorism is "a load of old tosh" but always argued for the retention of the virus.

He said that the decision was "tricky" but added: "I don't think that there is an argument persuasive to destroy the stocks, just a reflexive sense to do so, which is moved."

"It is to eradicate a species as a whole and one never knows what the future might hold."

The argument holds no weight with Professor Gareth Williams, whose book - Angel of death - traces the history of smallpox.

"There is no point in keeping really." It has been sequenced completely so it can be re-created in a test tube and if it comes back you have as many viruses that you might want.

"It is just a vague sense of political malaise keep stocks, it has nothing to do with the scientific argument.".

The vote

No one knows what will happen when the Ministers of health of the who 193 Member States to discuss the issue.

Professor David Heymann, a former Assistant Director General for health security and environment of the World Health Organization, said that there always was a split between industrialized and developing countries.

He said that developing countries have experienced, it is more important to deal with the "known risks" that unknown risks, such as smallpox, while industrialized countries have different priorities.

The World Health Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, if the United States and the Russia cannot be forced to destroy the stocks, even if the majority of the nations wanted it to happen.

The Assembly could reach a consensus, such as the postponement of the decision, rather than forcing a vote because, as Professor Heymann, "nobody wants to see the World Health Organization to lose power" if its decisions are ignored.