Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: elw@netxcom.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: Antivirus viruses
Message-ID: <0011.9008301719.AA26303@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 90 23:35:48 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 57
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

User hartley@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil writes:
>    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.

Bzzzzt!  Bad analogy.  The Salk vaccine is under fire for multiple reasons:

	1) It has definitely been the CAUSE of cases of polio.
	   Not a large percentage of the population, to be sure.

	2) The concept of the vaccine spreading by 'contagious' means
	   has been called into serious doubt.

	3) There are much safer DEAD vaccines now, which have been in
	   use in Europe for many years now that have absolutely NO
	   cases of CAUSING a case of polio, that are cheaper to make,
	   and easier to administer.

The Salk vaccine is a much closer parallel with the best reasons for
NOT having anti-virus viruses:

	1) An Anti-virus virus COULD cause damage by infecting a boot
	   block or other file and damaging it in the process by ignorance
	   of special conditions.

	2) Although it might spread, I believe it would not spread as fast
	   or as effectively as a 'harmful' virus.

	3) There are much safer ways to protect yourself from viri, other
	   than by exposing yourself to a theoretically 'harmless' live virus.

I see later in your message that you do mention that the Salk vaccine
does cause the occasional case of polio.  However, I find your minimal
emphasis on that danger when there are *known*safer* methods rather
alarming.

Back when Salk was the only vaccine around, it made sense to use it.
It was better than having polio epidemics, and the chances of getting
polio from the vaccine were much less than those of contracting it
'naturally'.

If all we HAD were anti-virus-viri, then I would agree to their
existance.  But we have MUCH safer methods to protect ourselves from
viri, so as far as I am concerned, there is NO reason to sanction
AVV's as 'acceptable behaviour'.

In parallel, if all we had were the Salk vaccine, I would use it.  But
we have much safer vaccines available now, so I see NO reason to use
the Salk vaccine.

Those who refuse to protect themselves deserve what they get.  Some
will decry this as a 'cold', 'brutal' answer.  Well it is, and so is
nature.  If you don't get vaccinated for the various diseases for
which we have safe vaccines, then you've only yourself to blame.

						Edwin.