NPR and polio vax - can you fill in some holes for me?

[Dot-to-Dot]

From my research, I understand that:

-Polio started to naturally decline (due to a natural pattern of the virus as well as improving sanitary conditions in the US) BEFORE Salk came out with the vaccine and that people were mistaken in the thoughtthat it was his vaccine that decreased the cases of polio.

-That the lingering epidemics that scared people in the 50's were actually likely DUE TO the oral vaccine that caused the outbreaks.

-That getting polio is rare (it just didn't seem rare in the 50's since the OPV was causing all of these outbreaks and scaring people) and that even among the people who do get it, only 1% would actually get paralytic polio.

-That right around the time that the vaccine came out, they changed the definition of what symptoms constituted a diagnosis of polio and that they had those symptoms fall under "Meningitis" so even though people were still getting polio the numbers of reported cases went down significantly but at the same time the number of Meningitis cases significantly went up. 

Now, am I wrong about this stuff?  I've tried to check sources as much as possible...but researching vax's isn't my full time job and I just don't have the time to put forth all the time and energy required to check out every single thing I read!

I am currently questioning this because I recently heard an NPR report on the radio (I tend to trust NPR more than other networks, although they seem to be more biased to me over the last couple years) which sort of blamed irresponsible non-polio-vaxing parents for causing all Americans to be at risk of reliving the horrible polio outbreaks of long ago.

I was looking into it further and found this timeline they provide: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992

It seems so reasonable and believable to me...but so does the contradicting information I've read.

So is this timeline a lie?  Can anyone fill in the holes for me?  Am I totally off about the stuff I listed above, the stuff I thought to be true?

[Dot-to-Dot]

P.S.  Mods:  I tried to add on to other threads, but they were all locked.  Also tried to start a new thread but the "Start a New Thread" button that is usually there, was not there.  *shrugs*.  I understand if this needs to be moved to Polio.

[Marnica]

http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Vaccine-Cancer-Causing-Contaminated-Americans/dp/0312278721

read this book. It is very well researched.

Also "Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts also has lots of well researched info on polio and the vaccine.

[Dot-to-Dot]

Thanks.  If I have time...in the next few years (ha!) I will look into those books. In the meantime, I'll jot down the titles.  I'm still hoping someone might be able to fill in the holes for me in a succinct post or something.  I wish I had more time to read books about it...I am passionate about finding more info...but I can only do it after the baby goes to bed - and being pregnant, I tend to go to bed right after her. *yaaaawn*

[heathergirl67]

The reason that I find that line of reasoning really hard to believe is because I don't think that the hygeine practices between 1955 and 1957 changed so dramatically that it rendered a virus nearly nonexistent. I mean, at this point in history we understand and practice hygeine better than at any point before, but we still spread viruses like crazy. Hand washing helps, but it hasn't eradicated the flu, for example. I have heard people saying that the reason the number of cases dropped is because the diagnostic criterion changed. That's a reasonable point. However, that would mean that there were many people then, and presumably now, who had polio and weren't diagnosed with it. And we're just not seeing that. As far as I know, no virus has ever been eradicated from an entire continent by improved sanitation alone.

[amnesiac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dot-to-Dot 

P.S.  Mods:  I tried to add on to other threads, but they were all locked.  Also tried to start a new thread but the "Start a New Thread" button that is usually there, was not there.  *shrugs*.  I understand if this needs to be moved to Polio.

It sounds like you are talking about the polio threads that are in the archives. All of the threads in the archives are locked and new threads cannot be directly posted to the archives. Members can make suggestions for threads to be added to the archives though.

[Dot-to-Dot]

I see, thank you.  (I'd never posted in Vax forums before).

[cvanlieder]

Were you by any chance listening to the Diane Rehm show?  It recently featured Seth Mnookin, among others?  Mnookin was just on NPR and his new book "The Panic Virus" addresses many of the questions you raise.  I'd highly recommend it.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by cvanlieder 

Were you by any chance listening to the Diane Rehm show?  It recently featured Seth Mnookin, among others?

I presumed the reference was to this segment from Talk of the Nation.

[hildare]

i just wanted to pipe in and say that i've been so very disappointed in the way NPR represents vaxxing, parents who don't vax, etc.  they seem, in general, to not represent this sort of information in a neutral fashion.  and i'm a big npr listener.  but, i guess what i mean to say, is take anything about vaxxing from that particular source with a grain of salt. 

[Dot-to-Dot]

Originally Posted by Otto 

I presumed the reference was to this segment from Talk of the Nation.

Yes, it was Talk of the Nation.
 

[Dot-to-Dot]

Originally Posted by hildare 

i just wanted to pipe in and say that i've been so very disappointed in the way NPR represents vaxxing, parents who don't vax, etc.  they seem, in general, to not represent this sort of information in a neutral fashion.  and i'm a big npr listener.  but, i guess what i mean to say, is take anything about vaxxing from that particular source with a grain of salt. 

Yeah, I've been sort of feeling that way, too.  It's disappointing because I really like NPR otherwise...but they seem to be imbalanced in their reporting as far as this subject goes.

[mamakay]

It'll take you about an hour to get through, but you have to read this to even begin to understand polio. It's interesting, I promise.

http://s45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/Angladrion/Present%20Status%20Polio/?start=20#!cpZZ1QQtppZZ15

Keep a window open to google the names you see speaking, also. These were not quacks. These were the head honchos of vax policy back then saying this stuff. You have to start with slide #3, btw, as the first two are references.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by mamakay 

It'll take you about an hour to get through, but you have to read this to even begin to understand polio. It's interesting, I promise.

Is this the DDT stuff? It won't load for me.

[elisheva]

Originally Posted by Dot-to-Dot 

Originally Posted by hildare 

i just wanted to pipe in and say that i've been so very disappointed in the way NPR represents vaxxing, parents who don't vax, etc.  they seem, in general, to not represent this sort of information in a neutral fashion.  and i'm a big npr listener.  but, i guess what i mean to say, is take anything about vaxxing from that particular source with a grain of salt. 

Yeah, I've been sort of feeling that way, too.  It's disappointing because I really like NPR otherwise...but they seem to be imbalanced in their reporting as far as this subject goes.

It's NOT just on vaxxing that they have unbalanced reporting...I can think of a few international issues where they consistently fail to represent both sides equally. Just beware of what you are listening to, no matter the media source. They are ALL biased one way or another. It's up to us (on threads like this) to figure out where the hazy truth lies.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Otto 

Originally Posted by mamakay 

It'll take you about an hour to get through, but you have to read this to even begin to understand polio. It's interesting, I promise.

Is this the DDT stuff? It won't load for me.

No, it's a 1960 panel discussion about the effectiveness and safety of the Salk vaccine.  Sort of a peek into the views and concerns of the time, problems with the vaccine (including one manufacturer failing to actually kill the virus, resulting in a couple hundred cases of vaccine induced polio), concerns that safety testing was not adequate and the vaccine not effective enough (though modern analysis has shown it to be far more effective than a couple panelists seem to be claiming in the bits I've read), and basically a lot of the stuff that eventually lead to switching to the Sabin vaccine.  I've only skimmed it, but it is interesting to read.  There is an abstract which summarizes it briefly at http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19612702427.html        

[Otto]

Originally Posted by pers 

No, it's a 1960 panel discussion about the effectiveness and safety of the Salk vaccine.  Sort of a peek into the views and concerns of the time, problems with the vaccine (including one manufacturer failing to actually kill the virus, resulting in a couple hundred cases of vaccine induced polio), concerns that safety testing was not adequate and the vaccine not effective enough (though modern analysis has shown it to be far more effective than a couple panelists seem to be claiming in the bits I've read), and basically a lot of the stuff that eventually lead to switching to the Sabin vaccine.  I've only skimmed it, but it is interesting to read.  There is an abstract which summarizes it briefly at http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19612702427.html

Oh, the source of the Greenberg quote. Excellent.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Dot-to-Dot 

From my research, I understand that:

-Polio started to naturally decline (due to a natural pattern of the virus as well as improving sanitary conditions in the US) BEFORE Salk came out with the vaccine and that people were mistaken in the thoughtthat it was his vaccine that decreased the cases of polio.

-That the lingering epidemics that scared people in the 50's were actually likely DUE TO the oral vaccine that caused the outbreaks.

-That getting polio is rare (it just didn't seem rare in the 50's since the OPV was causing all of these outbreaks and scaring people) and that even among the people who do get it, only 1% would actually get paralytic polio.

-That right around the time that the vaccine came out, they changed the definition of what symptoms constituted a diagnosis of polio and that they had those symptoms fall under "Meningitis" so even though people were still getting polio the numbers of reported cases went down significantly but at the same time the number of Meningitis cases significantly went up. 

Now, am I wrong about this stuff?  I've tried to check sources as much as possible...but researching vax's isn't my full time job and I just don't have the time to put forth all the time and energy required to check out every single thing I read!

I am currently questioning this because I recently heard an NPR report on the radio (I tend to trust NPR more than other networks, although they seem to be more biased to me over the last couple years) which sort of blamed irresponsible non-polio-vaxing parents for causing all Americans to be at risk of reliving the horrible polio outbreaks of long ago.

I was looking into it further and found this timeline they provide: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992

It seems so reasonable and believable to me...but so does the contradicting information I've read.

So is this timeline a lie?  Can anyone fill in the holes for me?  Am I totally off about the stuff I listed above, the stuff I thought to be true?

The natural pattern of the disease was to rise and fall then rise again.   It reached the highest point ever in 1952 then started to fall again, as eventually happened with each of the preceeding epidemics, and cases had decreased greatly by the time mass vaccination started in 1955.  So the part about it decreasing due to the natural pattern of the disease is correct. 

 

But what would have kept them from rising again, if not the vaccine?  What great sanitation advances were made in the 1950s?  Indoor plumbing which emptied into sewers or septic systems and the chlorination and filtration of water had caused typhoid and chollera to become very rare nearly half a century before, after all.  And while the numbers were quite a bit lower than they had been in 1952, they were still quite a bit higher than they had dropped to between previous epidemics.  

 

Ironically, improved sanitary conditions may have played a large part in causing the polio epidemics.  You can read a bit about that here.  I'm not sure how that theory fits with polio in third world countries, but it would be interesting to see how polio correlates to movements to clean up water and improve sanitary conditions.   

 

As for the outbreaks being caused by oral polio, that is not possible since there was no mass vaccination before 1955 and that was the Salk vaccine.  The Sabine vaccine, the oral one, wasn't used until the '60s.  The dates are easily verifiable.  

 

You are correct that only about 1% of polio victims are paralyzed.  Only about 5%, iirc, have any symptoms at all, and those are usually fairly mild.  But from that, it stands to reason that most cases would not even be recognized to be reported, and the numbers we see are mostly for the cases involvin paralysis, would it not, since the others would not be caught? 

 

But yes, any particular individual had a pretty darn low chance of actually being paralyzed.  Still, by the end of the polio erra, hundreds of thousands of people were left paralyzed by it, and it affected a lot of lives.  There were more dangerous diseases killing far more people at the same time, but still polio was not something just to be brushed off or ignored as no big deal.  

[mamakay]

Pers, I'm having trouble making the quote function work, but are you sure it says only one manufacturer had issues with inactivation? IIRC, one of the most shocking things about the discussion was about how Salk's whole method of inactivation was determined inadequate by *all* of the manufacturers. So the manufacturers had to start coming up with DIY methods of inactivation, like cooking it for longer times and diluting the vaccine, to get it to pass internal control methods, and it wasn't just Cutter Labs that released live batches. Regarding modern testing demonstrating good effectiveness with IPV - there hasn't been any high quality modern testing. Look at a modern IPV package insert, and you see old school Salk tests listed for effectiveness. I don't doubt that the "enhanced potency" IPV is better than the original IPV, but the original IPV appeared to cause disease ENHANCEMENT from non-neutralising antibodies!