Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!sharkey!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: Antivirus viruses
Message-ID: <0009.9008241902.AA22297@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 24 Aug 90 18:53:30 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 29
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

hartley@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil writes:
>    I think there are situations in which the release of such viruses
>would be both ethical and desirable.
>
>    I can think of at least one precedent from the medical profession
>- - the Saulk (sp?) vaccine (the primary polio vaccine in the US).  This
>vaccine is a live, contagious, virus. Any Physician who administers it
>is releasing a virus into the population. This is considered an
>advantage. Contagion is not considered a problem because:

This is actually an illustration of why "anti"-viruses are a bad idea.
First of all, the administration of the polio vaccine is done on an
individual basis.  No-one is vaccinated unless a doctor confirms that
it will be safe and effective for that individual.  Some people
*don't* receive the vaccine, because there are possible risks.  (For
example, anyone with a weakened immune system wouldn't receive it.)
Even more significantly, the vaccine is not given (or precautions are
taken) if anyone in the same household as the patient has a weakened
immune system.  That is, the live vaccine is not given if there is
even a slight chance that it would be passed on to someone else.

"Anti"-vaccines don't fit this pattern, because they are spread
without any concern for their suitability on particular systems.
Also, by their nature they inevitably spread to other systems which
may not be able to tolerate them.  Like the polio vaccine, if
administered indiscriminately they would end up causing serious
"infections".

   Robert