Talk:Polio vaccine/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What each vaccine accomplished

It's important to explain what each vaccine accomplished. It's not an attack on Salk or his vaccine to say that the live vaccine is superior when wild poliovirus is still around. It's a fact that the live vaccine was necessary to completely eliminate the wild virus from the population; if only the killed vaccine were in use, people could be immunized against the effects of the virus, but the virus could still spread from person to person through the oral-fecal route and cause polio in those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.

The Salk vaccine was an expedient created from existing techniques designed to fight a major and immediate problem. The attenuation of the wild virus for use as a vaccine was a more novel and complicated approach. The live vaccine was a "magic bullet" that the killed vaccine wasn't. Yes, Sabin was a jerk to Salk, but that doesn't change history, and the relative merits of the vaccines don't detract from the fact that both men saved tens of thousands of lives through their work.--ArminTamzarian 00:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based on what you've said, it seems that that Salk vaccine would have eliminated polio (an illness) from the U.S. population, even if it wouldn't have eliminated the polio virus. Perhaps it wouldn't have eliminated polio completely, because you suggest that there are people for whom the vaccine doesn't work; but, by the same token, the Sabin vaccine didn't eliminate polio completely, because of the (admittedly rare) cases of vaccine-induced polio. I'll try a rewording that incorporates the explanation you've given above.
On another point, I assume the statistic you've given for vaccine-induced polio (one in 2.4 million) assumes proper preparation of the live-virus vaccine. Didn't at least one manufacturer perpetrate a major screw-up and ship some vaccine that was substantially more likely to cause polio? This is based on my recollection of something I read years ago, so I may have it garbled. If there was such an incident, it would be worth adding to the article, of course putting it in context as a one-time error by a manufacturer that was (according to my recollection) driven out of business as a result. JamesMLane 03:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The initial trial of the killed vaccine, on several hundred thousand individuals, found effectiveness of about 90%. Cases of infantile poliomyelitis fell from about 15,000 in 1955 to 500 in 1962. I think most children had been vaccinated by then, so the killed vaccine was probably approaching the limit of its effectiveness. A few hundred deaths a year from wild polio still would have justified the use of the live vaccine. The 1:2,400,000 figure what the CDC says now, so I'm sure it does. I don't remember reading about defective live-virus vaccine, but the same thing happened with a large batch of adulterated killed-virus vaccine early in the distribution that caused a number of deaths. It was from defects in the manufacturing process, which were soon corrected. ArminTamzarian 14:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Addendum -- another possible improvement to the article: The advantages of the Sabin vaccine certainly deserve mentioning, but the article now is somewhat imbalanced. We should probably add something between the first and second paragraphs about how polio was a dreaded disease, a terrible scourge, affecting many more people than AIDS does today, and Salk was hailed as a national hero. As it is, the article segues directly into the advantages of the Sabin vaccine. Salk's achievement is relegated to a subordinate clause buried deep in that paragraph. I admit that, for various reasons, I have a pro-Salk bias, but I think that elaborating on the pre-Sabin situation would improve the article. JamesMLane 03:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What, do you have something against NYU doctors? I could add a lot more about the history of the disease and the development of the vaccine, but I have two reservations. First, this would become more of a "History of the polio vaccine" article than a "polio vaccine" article linked to a "polio" article and a "Jonas Salk" article. Maybe that's a good idea, since this is an important topic, but it would be a big change. Second, of the reading I've done on the topic, most of it was from secondary works, but a lot was from materials printed in the 1930s and 1940s. I don't consider this original research, which to me is something like an empirical study, or an examination of previously unknown historical sources and making new conclusions. These sources, however, like informational pamphlets and March of Dimes materials, are probably only available in major research libaries, so some might question whether parts of what I could write are original research. ArminTamzarian 14:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nothing against NYU Medical Center -- I was there yesterday! No, it's that, years ago, I worked on a case with Dr. Darrell Salk, the son of Jonas Salk (both of us donating our services, I as a lawyer and he as our scientific consultant). As for the article, I didn't see it as a big change in the nature of the article when you added information about the effect of the Sabin vaccine -- the sentence I've reworded that explains that the live-virus vaccine eradicated wild polio. It's also not a big change to add the information that the killed-virus vaccine effected such a dramatic reduction in the incidence of polio. If we develop lots and lots of information about the history of the vaccine, it might be appropriate to spin it off into a daughter article, but this one is still very short and I wouldn't see a need to do that anytime soon. I agree with you that this wouldn't be original research, but I also agree with you that some might raise that issue. There seem to be some people who think "original research" means "I couldn't provide a hyperlink to a website that says this is true." That view is plainly wrong, IMO. JamesMLane 18:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a small joke. Sabin got his degree there in 1931, Salk in 1939. I think I'll add little pieces here and there and see if anyone complains. ArminTamzarian 20:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Defective vaccine

The incident referred to above by ArminTamzarian, in which there was a defective batch of killed-virus vaccine, is mentioned in this newspaper article: http://seattlepi.com/health/170648_polio26.html and might be worth including in a "History" paragraph or section. JamesMLane 19:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Date of first vaccinations

This article states that the polio vaccine was announced to the world in 1955. The polio article states that the first public vaccinations were in 1954. Can anyone clear this up? --Ptomato 21:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there was an extensive public trial. At one point, the article had the date of the first vaccination. Someone changed that to the 1955 date on which it was announced that the trial had shown the vaccine to be successful. You're right that it would be good if someone would track that down and augment the article with a little more detail about the chronology. JamesMLane 00:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Page bias

The page is biased totally towards vaccination. It may have been OK if Jdwolf hadn't taken out the external links critical to the vaccine paradigm, eg Jim Wests pesticide research [1]. john 13:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This page already has a link to Vaccine controversy, and complaints about the vaccination paradigm belong on that page, not here. --Arcadian 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no link the the Vaccine Controversy on this page. This whole page seems to be very one sided, with almost no info about other ideas of exactly how much impact that the vaccines have at all.Nly8nchz (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of triplets difference in vaccine from wild virus

I retain a memory that this is very small - only two - but at the same time there are three strains in the live vaccine (used in the UK until recently). Is there a virologist or biochemist to hand?Midgley 19:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Role of Koprowski

An anon has made several edits here and elsewhere, inserting claims for the role of Dr. Hilary Koprowski but without providing any citations. The edits seem to me to overstate Koprowski's role.

One source states, "Hilary Koprowski developed the first polio vaccine tried on humans, but it failed...." [2] Another source contradicts even the claim that Koprowski was first to test a vaccine on humans, citing tests in 1935 by Park and Brodie and by Kolmer. [3] It's possible that Koprowski was the first to test an oral vaccine, but his 1950 test was on only 20 children, and in my initial research I've found nothing to indicate that the 1950 test showed the vaccine to be effective against polio.

It appears that one of Koprowski's problems was that weakening the live virus so that it wouldn't cause paralysis was a time-consuming procedure, compared to the Salk approach of using killed virus. According to one source, this factor meant that successful small-scale tests of live-virus vaccine couldn't lead very quickly to mass immunization: "All of these events took place four years before the Francis Field Trial of the Salk vaccine, but the oral polio vaccine would not be ready for use until five years after the injectable vaccine reached the market." [4] That article also alludes to some controversy as between Sabin and Koprowski as to the credit to be given for the oral live-virus vaccine.

It seems clear that Salk's vaccine was the first to be given a mass trial and was the first development to produce a major reduction in the incidence of polio. Also, although there were some mass immunizations using Koprowski's vaccine, the oral live-virus vaccine most widely used was one based on Sabin's work rather than Koprowski's:

  • "In 1958, the National Institutes of Health created a special committee on live polio vaccines, in charge of testing the strains authorized for the oral vaccine. The Koprowski and Cox strains were eliminated, as were those of Yale University, while the Sabin strains were selected for the three viral types. They rapidly became the only strains to be used worldwide." [5]
  • "Is Dr. Koprowski’s vaccine related to the polio vaccines now being used worldwide?
"No, the current oral polio vaccine was developed by Dr. Albert Sabin, uses Sabin strains and bears no relationship to the experimental vaccine." [6]

My preliminary conclusion is that our article on Polio vaccine should include some reference to Koprowski, but not as the very first sentence, where the anon put it, and not in the sweeping terms used by the anon, unless better evidence can be found. (The description at koprowski.net doesn't count!) The article on Poliomyelitis includes a summary of the information about the vaccine, and I'm undecided about whether there should be any reference to Koprowski there, as opposed to relying on the wikilink to Polio vaccine. I'm reverting the anon's edits to both articles.

The article on Hilary Koprowski might be the best place to get into the fullest detail about what Koprowski did how his work fit into the overall picture. JamesMLane t c 08:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The anon has now reverted in this article and in Poliomyelitis, saying, "Check the facts before changing this back again." As demonstrated above, I've spent considerable time checking the facts. The anon has still provided zero evidence. I'm reverting again. Anon, if you want to help us get correct information about Koprowski into the articles, you're going to have to recognize that Wikipedia editing is collaborative. Discuss the issues here, please. JamesMLane t c 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


You mention "I've found nothing to indicate that the 1950 test showed the vaccine to be effective against polio." The link you provided as source,([7] ), seems to have a confusing structure. If you notice, the first four paragraphs are about Koprowski, then the name Albert Sabin appears and then a paragraph about Koprowski. The name may appear there because a picture of Sabin administering his vaccine appears at that point in the page. Confusion from this rogue line of text may be why we seem to be disagreeing. This fifth paragraph states that Koprowski's vaccine worked so well that NFIP's committe barely believed the results. Thus Koprowski's vaccine was the first to successfully immunize against Polio.

The source ([8])directly contradicts this by stating that Koprowski's vaccine failed. Seeing as this link doesn't even list its sources I am not sure how credible it is considering it contradicts the website www.polio.info .

If you read "Vaughan, Roger. Listen to the Music: The Life of Hilary Koprowski, Springer, New York, 2000." or "John Paul in A History of Poliomyelitis. NY and London: Yale University Press, 1971" you will see that Koprowski's vaccine was the first to successfully immunize against Polio.

If I did indeed claim that Koprowski's vaccine was the first tested on humans, I apologize. I meant to say that his was the first to successfully immunize humans. I also think we are disagreeing on the definition of a successful vaccination. While you seem to think they are only successful if tested in a mass trial, I believe just because it wasn't the first to be used in the mass trial doesn't mean it wasn't the first succesful vaccine. I think a similar misunderstanding occurs concerning production of the vaccine. As is clear in the definition of the word vaccine:

"A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration stimulates antibody production against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection," [9]

the success of a vaccine is not dictated by how many people recieve it.

I want to appologize for my behaviour before. I am new to the methods of Wikipedia and did not mean to act so aggressively. Further, I certainly did not intend to put false information in the article. I worked for many years in biochemistry and know quite a bit about the Polio vaccine. I find it very misleading and unjust when Salk and Sabin are given credit for developing the only vaccines (I realize this may not have occured here). Anyway, I will not change this article again, but I highly suggest you mention that the first successful vaccine was developed by Koprowski for the sake of accuracy.

In the online source [10], the paragraph you cite says only that the subjects weren't re-infected by a later administration of the same vaccine. That indicates that the vaccine protected against itself, but not that it offered any protection against wild polio. Furthermore, my impression from Oshinsky's book is that the disbelief was caused not by the alleged effectiveness of the vaccine, but by Koprowski's administration of it to children, in particular to institutionalized children. I agree that the success of a vaccine doesn't depend on the number of administrations, but the statistical reliability of any conclusion about its effectiveness will normally depend on the number of trials. As I understand it, Koprowski gave his vaccine to 20 children, none of whom subsequently developed polio. That hardly demonstrates that his 1950 vaccine was effective, though, because in such a small sample it's quite possible that none of them would've gotten polio even without the vaccine. JamesMLane t c 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There are clearly some errors remaining in the discussion of Koprowski's role in the development of OPV, particularly in regard to the origin of Sabin's strains. Although at one point (circa 1958?) Koprowski did give samples of his strains to Sabin for evaluation -- those were different from what Sabin had used in his own preparations. Furthermore, the cite from the Sanofi Pasteur history is mis-characterized; the credit being given to Koprowski relates to the concept of using an attenuated live-virus oral vaccine that infects the gut like the wild-type virus and should impart superior protective immunity, which is indeed a significant insight. However, it is not the strains of attenuated virus itself that is being attributed to Koprowski. There are primary sources from Sabin and Koprowski that relate this circumstance, as well as multiple authoritative secondary sources that draw together the history; as soon as I can find these, I will make the appropriate adjustments.
Also, there are some minor details that could do with adjustment; for example, John Ender's work in growing polio virus was largely in 1949, and the last wild-type polio outbreak in 1979 extended to Amish communities beyond the Midwest. Of that last point I am quite certain, as I had to get re-vaccinated myself at that time in the Harvard University infirmary under CDC mandate due to exposure to the Amish community in Southern Maryland (I grew up on a nearby farm). However, I will find the specific MMWR cite to support that claim; at the time, the young infectious-disease specialist was quite excited, for she said I was her first case whose circumstance related to a front-page MMWR health alert. Theophilus Reed (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Garbardy?

The article doesn't seem to contain an antecedent for the name Gabardy. It appears in the sentence "When the live-virus Sabin oral vaccine was developed to cure Gabardy's crying problem, it gained in popularity for several reasons." If someone knows what this refers to, could he or she please add this to the article.--Ferrierd 11:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me - single, nonsense edit from an anonymous user (IP address) with no other history of contributions. JeffreyGA 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition of material from polio article

The polio article was approaching a critical size, which promoted a move of approximately 12kb of material from that page to this one. I have incorporated the old and new material as best I could.--DO11.10 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The two vaccines have eradicated polio ...

I have reviewed both of the references supplied by Marco Tolo and neither of them substantiate or even address the claim that "The two vaccines have eradicated polio from most of the countries in the world and reduced early cases from hundreds of thousands per year to less than 2000 cases worldwide in 2006." FWIW, I believe the claim to be valid but I would like to see suitable, encyclopedic references provided.--DieWeibeRose 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure I follow. The Aylward ref (PMID 16899145) notes:
"...well over 350,000 children were paralysed by poliovirus in 1988 — the year that the goal of global eradication was adopted"
supporting the "hundreds of thousands per year" benchmark, and
"As a result of the strategies, partnerships and activities outlined above, by the end of 2002 polio appeared to be on the brink of eradication, with only six countries still harbouring indigenous wild virus and just 1918 virologically confirmed cases of polio reported world-wide that year (www.polioeradication.org/casecount.asp)"
supporting the "where we are now" statement.
This reference points out the 2006 tally of polio cases (1997 cases worldwide) and is provided as a means to look-up the updated cases; since it is the same source used in the Aylward article, using the updated figure seemed appropriate.
Does this clarification help or am I missing your concern? -- MarcoTolo 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts. I think what is lacking in this article is the inclusion of clear references to causality between the use of the vaccines and the reduction of polio mortality and morbidity in populations rather than merely individuals. Such a causal mechanism is implied throughout the article and esp. in the "Efficacy Section" but none of the references support the assertion that "The two vaccines have eradicated polio from most of the countries in the world and reduced early cases from hundreds of thousands per year to less than 2000 cases worldwide in 2006." Although I presume that the actual Aylward article, as opposed to the abstract, would include such references. The current references may support a correlation in populations but correlation does not imply causation. I don't think it is too much to require that an article on the "polio vaccine" ought to actually cite epidemiological and other evidence for causality that also rules out competing alternative causal mechanisms for the reduction of polio in human populations. Surely, such references exist. --DieWeibeRose 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Okay, I cannot access the Aylward article mentioned in the article either, and I don't have any idea which "competing alternative causal mechanisms for the reduction of polio in human populations" you are referring to, but here is a paper that I think clearly states the assertion made in this article: Aylward R, Maher C (2006). "Interrupting poliovirus transmission -- new solutions to an old problem". Biologicals. 34 (2): 133–9. PMID 16682220.

I am not sure if you are able to access this article so I will include the salient points here:

...the success of polio control activities in Cuba, where by 1962 indigenous transmission had been interrupted using OPV during annual mass vaccination campaigns [2]. In the 1980s, the sustained implementation of OPV campaigns in Brazil, coupled with intensified surveillance, had a striking effect in rapidly reducing the high burden of paralytic polio to its lowest levels in history [2].

And the most compelling statement:

By January 2006, the systematic application of the polio eradication strategies originally developed in PAHO and then refined through experience in other WHO Regions had reduced the number of countries with ongoing transmission of indigenous wild polioviruses to just four (Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan), the lowest ever in history. (NOTE: according to the article) The PAHO strategy involved: strengthening routine immunization services to optimize population immunity, the use of annual National Immunization Days (NIDs), reporting and virologic investigation, large-scale house-to-house mop-up immunization campaigns.

Here is another citation: Kew O, Sutter R, de Gourville E, Dowdle W, Pallansch M. "Vaccine-derived polioviruses and the endgame strategy for global polio eradication". Annu Rev Microbiol. 59: 587–635. PMID 16153180.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The supporting statement here is:

The year 2005 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of the IPV of Salk and Youngner (149, 173), and the promise of a world free of poliomyelitis (polio). Within 15 years that promise had been realized in most developed countries, through widespread immunization with IPV and then with the live, attenuated OPV of Albert Sabin (170), introduced in the early 1960s.

These statements clearly support the assertion that the polio vaccines were directly responsible for the worldwide decline in polio cases.--DO11.10 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts but, no, these references don't fit the bill. They merely accept the standard vaccine model but do not provide any evidence of its scientific validity. They evince correlation but only assume causality. In any case, I don't have the time or interest ot continue to pursue this matter. DieWeibeRose 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The verifiability of the statement made here is at least as good as the sources from which it came, and if two (three now including the Fine/Carneiro citation added in the "efficacy" section) reliable, peer reviewed sources (along with at least two dozen more such sources, easily accessible via pubmed) assert that it was the the two vaccines that were responsible for eradicating polio, that is more than good enough for me.--DO11.10 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

VDPV (vaccine derived polio virus) or VAPP (vaccine acquired paralytic polio)

Hi, Isn't there somebody out there, preferably a senior with a PhD (read not some dabbler kid or even a guy who thinks he knows but hasn't the degree to prove it)who could elaborate on vaccine derived polio? Thanks59.96.150.70 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, there is a little bit on this subject in the main article. I missed it earlier. Nevertheless, I still think that someone ought to elaborate it in a manner that the average reader is becomes aware of the risks associated with the polio vaccine in particular. Mishriam-musiris 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note regarding new section on polio eradication

I added a new section regarding the current effort at polio eradication -- a noble goal -- and I relate the effort in a manner that hopefully describes it in a neutral manner that points towards its positive goals (including references to on-line maps that show the campaign's substantial progress) but also with descriptions/citations that inform the reader in regard to some recent problems with the campaign. In regard to the latter, reputable sources published in no less a venue than Nature Medicine have pointed toward recently observed difficulties with use of OPV vs. IPV, particularly in regard to vaccine-related pathology that seems to be erupting both in Africa and in India due to problems seen with repeated use of OPV in areas of putative epidemics. While I am sure that fellow editors will wish to hone some of the vocabulary used to describe the circumstance -- I am hoping that the senior editors will value the addition and review the citations, in an effort to understand the issues involved. Our efforts with Wikipedia are to inform, not make policy decisions and hide unfortunate data -- and having a larger population know of some of the less auspicious circumstances involved can only help improve the situation in the long run. I hope others agree. Theophilus Reed (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On this Day - Saturday, February 23rd

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20080223.html

On Feb. 23, 1954, the first mass inoculation of children against polio with the Salk vaccine began in Pittsburgh.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Stamp Image

For a discussion of why the stamp image (Image:Stamp-ctc-polio-vaccine.jpg) was removed please see User_talk:Stan_Shebs#Removal_of_image_from_Polio_vaccine. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-occurance of Polio in Amish community in 2005

I think it should be addressed in the Wikipedia article that there was an outbreak of polio in an Amish community in 2005 due to their refusal to vaccinate their kids.

We need to update that towards the statement that it was "eradicated in 1994."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301733.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.193.230 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

GA nominated

I've nominated this article for GA to see how far it gets. I'm not certain it'll pass but it's a really well sourced, informative article. There's still some work to do, however, but we'll see where we get eh? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polio vaccine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is a preliminary review, and it is incomplete, but it is enough that I will put the article's good article nomination On Hold. --Una Smith (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Una, I'm sure your ideas will be quite helpful in shaping up this article. I'll be working on these, but please keep the suggestions coming.--DO11.10 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. The immediate objective is to meet the GA criteria, so I have pointed out only where, as far as I see, the article currently falls short of those criteria. FA comes later. Deal with the points I have already listed below, and this will be a GA. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The "great race"

  • Explain the quote. Give a source. Explain epidemiological context (briefly, just to set the context for this section).
  •  Renamed as 'development'
  • Discussion of the Sabin and Koprowski vaccines is commingled, to the extent that they are confused. Unless I am much mistaken, Hooper's theory concerns the Sabin vaccine.
Hooper's theories are about Koprowski's CHAT vaccine. I agree there is confusion here, I think moving the "accusations" under "contamination" and expanding a bit should resolve the confusion quite a lot. --DO11.10 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 Moved to contamination section, clearer I think?
  • The Sabin vaccine sometimes reverts to virulence, so the explanation that Koprowski's vaccine was a failure because it sometimes reverted to virulence is inadequate.
  •  explained why Sabin vaccine were chosen
  • Mention of eradication in the Americas should be qualified by the explanation, as in the cited source, that there remains a risk of epidemic outbreak in the Americas due to importation, and that the risk increases with decreasing rates of inoculation.
  •  Done
  • people vaccinated with Salk's vaccine can still carry the disease: needs a citation. For how long? Is this transient, or chronic? The answer is important. Are antiviral drugs useful in treating such sub-clinical infections?
 That shouldn't be there. There isn't a carrier state (except in very rare, specific immunocompromised individuals, which I need to look into more to include with certainty).--DO11.10 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • wikify Franklin Roosevelt
  •  Done

Iatrogenic (vaccine-induced) polio

  • The term "virulence" can have several meanings. Here, two meanings (infectivity and severity) are confused. The normal OPV is highly virulent in that it replicates well and can infect people who were not inoculated (this is an important reason why it was so effective). The mutated OPV causes neurological involvement and can lead to paralysis.
  • Reversion is not possible in IPV vaccinations used in the U.S., and thus vaccine-induced polio is not a concern. This is too simplistic, and the general topic of risk is far too important to omit. Inoculation in the US now is by IPV, which leaves the inoculated person more vulnerable to infection than OPV does and also does not secondarily inoculate contacts of the inoculated person. Should an outbreak occur in the US, involving either wild polio or reverted OPV, the consequences could be severe.

Vaccination schedule

It is possible apparition of neurotropic revertants after IPV vaccination of a child after 4 doses with OPV?

Efficacy

  • 2nd para The development of immunity to polio efficiently blocks person-to-person transmission of wild poliovirus. This is contradicted by mention earlier in the article that IPV permits subclinical infection in the GI tract and carrier status.
  •  see above
  • polioviruses have no non-primate reservoir in nature needs a citation or, better, a link to Polio virus.
  •  linked, cited
  • This entire section probably should be dismantled, and its content distributed where it belongs. Separate from The "great race", I suggest two separate sections on the pros and cons of IPV and pros and cons of OPV as currently formulated. Some content from this section would fit in those sections, and most of the rest would fit in Vaccination schedule.
  •  better/worse?

Contamination concerns

Discuss here the Hooper theory of the origin of AIDS in humans. Remove all mention of it from The "great race".

  •  Done

Efforts towards polio eradication

I suggest eliminating this section altogether; it is a tangent from this article. In this article, end the history section with a paragraph about how polio is the number 2 candidate virus for global eradication, after smallpox, and that the selective use of IPV and/or OPV play an important role in this eradication campaign.

See also

Try to work all the linked items into the article text, and delete all linked items that are in the text.

  •  Done

VAAP

Add a section about VAAP.

  • VAPP=Iatrogenic polio ???
Yes, but never mind. The explanation of VAPP is okay now. --Una Smith (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review summary

1. Well written?: Fail
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: On the line
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Chikungunya

if the virus is inject into body for defecting polio . now can we detect the chikunkuniya by this process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.209.25 (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question.... Are you asking if a Chikungunya vaccine is available? If so, I think there was a vaccine trial around 2000-2001 that had promising results, but I don't think it was ever released commercially. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And here's the section of the Chikungunya entry which talks about the vaccine prospects... (not sure why its under "Treatment"). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Chem box problems

I am not sure how to update the chembox so it can be verified. This is not a chemical, so it has no CAS ID, further, the page refers to two different vaccines, and so I can't make the vaccine type one or the other. Any thoughts on how to deal with that? Mike Dacre (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


What was the first polio vaccine?

I'm confused. Don't the following contradict each other?

Two polio vaccines are used throughout the world to combat poliomyelitis (or polio). The first was developed by Jonas Salk and first tested in 1952. It was announced to the world by alk on April 12, 1955. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
The first polio vaccine was developed in 1950 by Hilary Koprowski. The second one was developed by Salk also at the University of Pittsburgh, and announced to the world on April 12, 1955. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Vaccine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelliot (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand, the first inactivated polio vaccine was actually created in 1896. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.114.105.102 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
What I understand is that Koprowski developed the first vaccination that protected against some strains of polio but not all. It was not until the late fifties that Koprowski, Salk and Sabin each came out with vaccines effective against all strains of polio. 69.250.149.96 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Adjuvant

There is no mention of an Adjuvant added to the attenuated poliovirus preparation. 79.76.193.4 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

bOPV

The article should cover the bOPV.

After virus type 2 was eliminted in 1999, the bivalent polio vaccine (bOPV) was introduced in 2009, beginning with Afghanistan. bOPV was shown to be as effective as the monovalent vaccines and more effective than the trivalent vacine. Citations: Lancet WHO Reuters The Globe and Mail -62.31.84.234 (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

passages

This article uses the word "passages" referring to a processing step in virus production. This is a term of art that should be defined clearly. I believe a correct definition is "a solution containing the virus and other material is injected into a live animal's brain where it is allowed to grow for some days before the animal is killed and fluid is extracted from the brain". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jintian (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Eradication claimed

One of the external links claims that the virus has been eradicated. Comments?

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving history section

I am moving the history section to the beginning of the article where it is more appropriate.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

FA review

If anyone wants to help get this article to FA status (with me) please leave a friendly note here and I will be in touch. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You could also try leaving a note at WT:MED if you haven't already to see if anyone wants to collaborate. delldot ∇. 23:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polio vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

French had the first polio vaccine

This should be included in Wikipedia.

The Pasteur Institute stated that an anti-poliomyelitis vaccine, developed by Professor Pierre Lepine would soon be produced in large quantities. (Times, London, April 4, 1955). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Lepine's vaccine was a great success http://webext.pasteur.fr/archives/e_lep0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good, please find sources, and Lepine should have a bio. His bio on frwiki is a bit scanty [11]. I'd be interested in seeing a source concerning the comparative use of the Salk vs. the Lepine vaccines. The frwiki article mentions him in conjunction with Sabin in 1957 and gives precedence to Salk in 1955 [12], so I'm not convinced on the "first" assertion. Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

it's all here http://webext.pasteur.fr/archives/e_lep0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not enough to prove your assertion of "first" or even "nearly simultaneously." It's close, though, and worth exploring. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have produced two excellent sources. Plenty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You've produced a couple of sources that establish that Lepine produced a vaccine in the 1950s that was used in France. They don't support your assertion of precedence and they don't provide much detail. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The two sources provide all the dates and details. Note also that Lepine was April 4, Salk was April 12.

Yes we need better secondary sources before we add this to the lead. Agree with User:Acroterion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

These are already excellent and detailed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They're a beginning. They're not at all detailed. You're making progress, you've found something interesting, but the encyclopedia is based on a firmer foundation than that, and I'm certain there's material out there that can be used. I suspect there are substantial discussions in book-length sources on these issues. We're asking you to help the encyclopedia by finding detailed sources on a par with those that document Salk and Sabin. Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Book Source, several million doses came into use. https://books.google.com/books?id=iKidtL80imMC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=pierre+lepine+polio&source=bl&ots=yLfOrmqZQ-&sig=Jb8FAVuKoWoFVmspQroxxVJPiSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX6ayShszQAhUJbSYKHVGjA_oQ6AEIUDAL#v=onepage&q=pierre%20lepine%20polio&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please Revert to Ritchi333, because three excellent detailed sources must not be censored by Doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please Revert to Ritchi333

Please Revert to Ritchi333, because three excellent detailed sources must not be censored by Doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Everyone can now study the three excellent sources, and if no justifiable objections, the sources should be reverted back into the article.

Here is a fourth source to add, the London Royal College of Physicians recognized Lepine's vaccine. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june282011/anti-poliomyelitis-rb.php

Some people don't like the truth, but Salk was not the first with a polio vaccine, it was the French, and the French vaccine was safe, unlike the Salk vaccine which stupidly injected people with the disease.

Can you quote the text you feel supports your position from this source.[13]
The source recognizes the London Times article where the source says the following:

FRANCE The Pasteur Institute stated that an anti-poliomyelitis vaccine, developed by Professor Pierre Lepine would soon be produced in large quantities. (Times, London, April 4, 1955).

Looking at it the Times says "Professor Pierre Lepine would soon be produced in large quantities."
Salk "April 12th. 1955, for it was on this day that the eagerly awaited report on the 1954 tests of the vaccine was issued"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This ref says the Salk vaccine came into use in 1955[14] While Lepine developed a vaccine the same year I am not seeing when use began of that vaccine.
This book says "By 1956, Lepine was ready with a tested polio vaccine"[15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't tell you the exact date Lepine had it in mass production, but what difference does that make. The essential point is that the London Times announced Lepine's discovery of April 4 which is 8 days ahead of Salk's discovery of April 12, and that is all that matters here.
No the London Times says "soon" not currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
London Times announced Lepine's first discovery on April 4, ahead of Salk on April 12. So the Times says Lepine had a vaccine FIRST. The exact date when Lepine began mass production is irrelevant. The French had it FIRST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
What matter most is when something first becomes avaliable for medical use by the general public.
There is an account of how Salk Vaccine was made in 1954 per "AN interesting account of how the Salk vaccine is made appeared in Time (March 29, l954)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Vaccines are developed, mass produced and tested; they are not "discovered." In any case, there is a big difference between developing what may be a successful vaccine and being declared such: The field trial set up to test the Salk vaccine was, according to O'Neill, "the most elaborate program of its kind in history, involving 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 64,000 school personnel, and 220,000 volunteers." Over 1,800,000 school children took part in the trial...news of the vaccine's success was made public on April 12, 1955. Simply based on those facts alone, Salk's vaccine was developed when it became ready for testing, years earlier. --Light show (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That is untrue. Vaccines are discovered, and later tests determine the efficacy.

I have re-protected the article, this time for two weeks. I cannot give any comment on the content, as I believe medical articles should only be touched by those with proper knowledge and experience, and therefore the protection is not designed to favour any side of the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a disagreement over the discussion of the history of medicine rather than the medicine itself. Appreciate the protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Lepine's vaccine was discovered first, according to published press releases. Furthermore, Lepine's vaccine not only worked, it was safe, while Salk's vaccine discovery was unsafe and caused polio in many children who were injected with it. What matters is the first safe vaccine. So Lepine was FIRST and should not be censored by Wikipedia.

Well, then that would be Salk, since his killed-virus vaccine was first and was safe. Salk used a killed vaccine, while Sabin's was a live vaccine. The Cutter incident involved accidental introduction of live virus into Salk vaccine, and there was (largely unfounded) skepticism about the Sabin vaccine. Salk's vaccine was widely recognized as safe from the beginning. You're really harming your credibility with this kind of assertion.
To reiterate: Lepine deserves mention, but he wasn't first, and his vaccine was not nearly as widely used as Salk's or Sabins. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I further note that the Polio Hall of Fame omits Lepine - he is not represented among the four Europeans there. That may unfair, but it is indicative of his standing in the polio research community. If he really was as you claim, I would expect him to have been included. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Salk's vaccine was not safe. The Cutter incident link says all five companies trying Salk's 1955 vaccine had difficulty completely inactivating the virus.

It is time now to give proper mention of Lepine in Wikipedia's polio vaccine article, and restore Ritchie333 of November 29. The following link from the Pasteur Institute equally credits Lepine and Salk: http://webext.pasteur.fr/archives/e_lep0.html

Please stop making hyperbolic claims. You first insisted Salk was not first, then you introduced the "safe" argument when that failed. Reliable sources call Salk's vaccine safe, and it was regarded as safer (but not necessarily more efficacious) than the Sabin vaccine. You are interpreting the production issues as evidence that the Salk vaccine was unsafe: I do not see such a specific interpretation in published scholarship, rather the opposite. You are attempting a synthesis in so doing. Nobody here has disputed that Lepine was involved in early polio research or that he developed one of the early vaccines. Wikipedia gives credence to views in accordance with their coverage in major publications and scholarship. That consensus credits Salk and Sabin with primacy in the vaccine field. You have provided sources that give reason to mention Lepine, but they do not outweigh published scholarship on this subject. If he's obscure (and it's clear that he is), then he can't get the same level of credit here. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The bio in the link states: mass vaccination campaign in France against poliomyelitis, using Lépine's vaccine (French mandatory childhood vaccine program, 1964) lead to nearly complete eradication of the infant paralysis in France. Can you give some cites about all that; what campaign, when did it begin and end, when and how were tests done? If it eradicated polio in France, that should be newsworthy, since almost all stories about polio eradication make the news. --Light show (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That quote is from the Pasteur Institute, there is no better source. The source must be included in Wikipedia's article. http://webext.pasteur.fr/archives/e_lep0.html

Just so, such material would be productive and informative instead of arguing against sourcing that Lepine did something nobody else has credited him with doing. Eradication of polio in France using the Lepine vaccine should be sourcable and worthy of mention, rather than trying to force credit for some definition of "first" against sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is the Source, the Pasteur Institute http://webext.pasteur.fr/archives/e_lep0.html

Lepine was FIRST according to mainstream press, the London Times article of April 4, 1955, which is 8 days before Salk's famous date of April 12. The London Times source must be included in Wikipedia.

We need modern high quality sources that make that claim. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
OK so how do you propose to write Lepine into Wikipedia's article? Let's do it now. I like the November 29 version of Ritchie333. Let's revert it to Ritchie333.
We can say in the body "Pierre Lépine at the Pasteur Institute in Paris nearly simultaneously announced an effective polio vaccine." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
OK that's good, but it belongs in the Intro, the same way that the November 29 version of Ritchie333 has it.
I disagree. You can try a WP:RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
We need actual and neutral sources for something related to a major medical advance. The Pasteur Institute, which provided a few sketchy facts, was his primary employer during his career. The Times is only a date with nothing more. So all we really have for this is the Pasteur statement: mass vaccination campaign in France against poliomyelitis, using Lépine's vaccine (French mandatory childhood vaccine program, 1964) lead to nearly complete eradication of the infant paralysis in France. If that's all there is I'd say further sourcing is required in an encyclopedia. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
How much clearer could the Pasteur Institute have stated it !!! It belongs in Wikipedia, right in the Introduction.

OK Now, who is going to add Lépine to the Wikipedia article ? Let's do it now.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polio vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thousands caught polio from Salk's vaccine

Salk's vaccine caused thousands of children to contract polio from the injections, This belongs in the Wikipedia article. Where shall we put it ? Early production imperfections with Salk vaccine had tragic results.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.190.53 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is less where to put it and more that the sources being cited don't meet WP:RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Cutter incident, which is already mentioned in the article, or something else? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I added a subsection on the defective vaccines in 1955[16], but I don't see where anything says those who got polio from the vaccine numbered in the thousands. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
OK THANKS, I added the word Salk vaccine, to be specific. 47.201.190.53 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/08/opinion/l-how-an-error-in-salk-polio-vaccine-caused-a-boston-epidemic-752595.html
  2. ^ https://thevaccinereaction.org/2016/01/the-salk-polio-vaccine-tragedy/
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Polio_vaccine/Archive_1"