|
VACCINATION
FOR FOOT AND MOUTH |
|
A Personal View by Dr James Irvine, SIR, - Some weeks ago (Sept. 29), The Scottish Farmer published in juxtaposition
on the same page the comments of Professor Fred Brown and those of Professor
David King. As you pointed out, Prof Brown is the world's leading authority on
foot-and-mouth disease, with vast experience of how the disease behaves
throughout the world and how it has been controlled in differing
circumstances. He has made major contributions to the development of "new"
foot-and-mouth vaccines and diagnostic tests to distinguish between
vaccinated and infected animals. He has collaborated with eminent virologists in the study of the structure
of the foot-and-mouth virus and its sub-strains with spectacular success.
That is indeed why he is acknowledged as the world's leading expert on the
disease. What he is quoted as saying in The SF article makes clear
sense. It is what he said as principal guest speaker at the Royal Society of
Edinburgh Conference on foot-and-mouth disease, at the University of Glasgow,
on September 7 this year. By contrast, Professor King, while having the status of the Government
Chief Scientific Adviser, has no training in biology let alone virology,
being an eminent physical chemist. It would be hard to think of an academic scientific discipline more remote
from the study of a highly infectious virus affecting the nation's farm
livestock. Yet he could be expected to have sufficient critical acumen to
assess basic scientific facts and not to be manipulated by political
pressures or misinformation such as to distort these basic facts. Bearing in mind that the UK foot-and-mouth epidemic is the worst the world
has ever seen, Prof King's arguments against vaccination and justifying that
culling had been the only way to bring the recent foot-and-mouth outbreaks
under control and would remain so in the future are as follows: - Since vaccinated animals can still carry the disease and harbour it
for some considerable time, vaccination would be ineffective. You do not have to vaccinate every potential host for the virus, but a
sufficient percentage to ensure that the virus does not have an adequate
number of hosts left in which to replicate. That is why the Chief Medical
Officer is so keen that the uptake of the triple vaccine for children does
not fall below a certain percentage of the population. It does not matter as far as epidemiological control is concerned whether
children incubating the virus may remain infectious. If sufficient numbers of
the total children at risk are vaccinated, the virus will die out of the
population because in a relatively short time there will be nowhere for it to
go. Likewise with foot-and-mouth disease in sheep and cattle. - He states "that nation-wide mass vaccination does not necessarily
stop the disease spreading from generation to generation." He argues
that since mothers can pass antibodies to their offspring through their early
milk, this gives temporary protection, but at the same time, interferes with
the young animal's immune response. - He argued that mass vaccination was unacceptable because, in the
absence of a recognised test to distinguish between antibodies caused by
infection and antibodies caused by vaccination, it would have been impossible
to tell the true extent of viral presence in the country's livestock. He also did not acknowledge that offers from abroad and indeed from within
the UK to help were refused by the Government authorities. The Government
agencies, although they were informed some years before the UK epidemic (and
must have themselves been aware) that the UK was a sitting duck for foot-and-mouth disease, apparently did
nothing and refused all help to get such diagnostic tests (or indeed the
"new" vaccines) validated for use in this country or indeed the EC. The scientific basis for such diagnostic tests is sound. To do nothing in
the face of such knowledge for so long in the presence of an obvious risk of
catastrophe is inexcusable. How can the Government establishment at
Pirbright, England, justify its status as a world centre for the study of
foot-and-mouth disease? The "new" science (which in reality is
several years old) would have predictably led to providing us with a
diagnostic kit that could be applied on farm to check for evidence of
infection or vaccination, with clear distinction between the two. In other but related fields of scientific endeavour, there is plenty of
evidence that this could indeed be achieved. Bureaucracy got in the way so
that such important scientific advances could not be used until such time
that trials in the EC had been done. The golden opportunity of doing the
trials during the epidemic was missed with all help refused. Such trials should have been done before the outbreak as part of a
contingency strategy, which clearly was non-existent in spite of the obvious
risk. Bureaucratic rules emanating from what appears to be an incompetent EC
Veterinary Committee prevailed, while it waited to be asked. Apparently, it does not intend considering what to do about the UK
epidemic and its spread to elsewhere in the EC until later this year.
Everyone must now be aware that the EC is very good at making endless
directives, but is useless at business management in terms of making
realistic decisions within a practical time frame. The ongoing 20-day standstill in relation to the movement of livestock
would have been unnecessary, etc, with immense economic and welfare savings.
For example, livestock could be checked for the appropriate antibodies before
they moved off the farm. A vaccination programme could readily be monitored
for compliance etc. Yet Prof King is quoted as saying that the same recipe of culling will
apply should a further foot-and-mouth disease outbreak occur. In arguing against vaccination, Prof King apparently made no reference the
fact that we are as vulnerable as ever to a fresh attack of foot-and-mouth
disease because illegal meat imports are still not controlled. An article on
this subject was appropriately printed on the same page of The Scottish
Farmer (but I did wonder at the picture of Prince Charles, his entourage,
reporters and spectators being within easy touching distance of presumably
unvaccinated sheep in a pen outside on a muddy, wet day in Cumbria). Perhaps Prof King's philosophy on the risk of a new outbreak is either
"being unthinkable" or "let's keep our fingers crossed."
Neither will do, as foot-and-mouth is still an ever-present global disease. With the current massive bureaucracy, we will certainly know much more
about the movements of livestock within the UK, but that will do nothing to
prevent a fresh attack entering the country, the consequences of which would
still be very serious. The idea of mass vaccinating 10 million animals is apparently
mind-boggling to Prof King. I wonder if he knows how many sheep and cattle
are routinely vaccinated for other disease every year as part of established
and effective disease prevention regimes? How does he equate his concern to the fact that the independent company,
Acambis, with a division in Cambridge, England, has recently been given an
initial contract from the USA for 40 million smallpox vaccine doses (and that
includes making a new vaccine for starters). The international company United Biomedical, has already made the
"new" vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease and clinical trials are
under way in a number of countries, but neither Prof King or Pirbright want
to know. Is this science or petty politics that we are dealing with? Does Prof King not realise that vaccination for foot-and-mouth disease in
Europe was commonplace until 1992, so that the UK at that time was at least
partially protected from the spread of foot-and-mouth disease from abroad. Is
he not aware that the Argentine has undertaken a massive vaccination
programme? You cannot fight a viral epidemic while playing silly political games or
acquiescing to bureaucratic constipation. To add insult to injury, Prof King
is reported in The SF article to have been concerned that if the UK
had vaccinated, we would not be able to export to New Zealand and Australia
who are foot-and-mouth disease free. Since when did we export large quantities
of beef or lamb to these countries (or in recent years to any country?). It was the same argument that led to the EC abandoning its foot-and-mouth
disease vaccination programme and becoming foot-and-mouth disease free. What
a mistake that was. Prof King is also quoted in The SF article as casting serious
doubts on the supposed worth of ring or buffer zone vaccination. On the basis
that experience had shown that incubating cases could arise up to six miles
from the source, he seemed to think this too large an area to handle by local
vaccination. Surely the tactic of ring vaccination is to start well out from
possible incubating cases (possibly 25 miles) and work towards the source. He is quoted as saying that the only instance where he had favoured local
vaccination was in April when much of Cumbria's 200,000 head cattle
population was still in over-wintering sheds. "They would have been vulnerable to infection when let out into
fields. It was felt at the time to be worth all the consequences of declaring
Cumbria a vaccinated area however, despite lengthy discussion, farmers
remained unconvinced. In the event, a large number of cattle became infected
before they were let out," he admitted. The trouble with this is that the basic scientific information that was
made available through MAFF to farmers, including the NFU and NFUS, was
seriously flawed. No wonder the farmers were sceptical in the light of such
misinformation, some of which he continues to perpetrate as described
already. One thing I do agree with the government's chief adviser is that there is
no room for complacency. Unfortunately, he and his advisory body appear to
have it in mega-tonnes. If ever there was a need for a full public enquiry
this is it. However, before such an august body can report, there should be an urgent
shake-up of the present scientific structure. For a biological problem let's
have biologists and some input from the medical field with their vast
experience of handling viral epidemics throughout the world, rather than esoteric
physical chemists, epidemiological statistical wizards and Government vets
who are brought up to apply endless regulations but not to think. Perhaps the massive tragedy of September 11 with the threat of biological
terrorism (which has been abundantly forewarned) will be the stimulus for
that. |