The history of polio in the US 1950's - Page 2

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

this link

http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

has completely different stats than the scanned pages

There was a large jump in cases of polio from 1958 to 1959 but then it went back down again in 1960. From these stats, it appears that the scanned file is wrong, possibly because it is so old. It is probably outdated.

I'm just going to assume you didn't actually read much of the scanned article.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Mahtob

I am reading the paper and what it looks like to me is that they are discussing the Salk vaccine alone, and the inactivated vaccine. They are not discussing the OPV, which was later adopted for use. So doesn't this mean that they held the conference and adopted the more effective vaccine as a result? Or am I missing something?

Dr. Cox: "First let me say that I am convinced that the living virus vaccine is going to be the answer..."

I am glad we all have had the OPV, though, reading this.

Right.
OPV did work, and it worked very well.

Salk's IPV, not so much.

[mykdsmomy]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Right.
OPV did work, and it worked very well.

Salk's IPV, not so much.

But the OPV caused more paralytic polio than the IPV, correct? So even though the OPV worked, it also spread more polio....so it was a catch 22...no?

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I'm just going to assume you didn't actually read much of the scanned article.

I read it. Seems to me there is a lot of bias in that article. Just my opinion.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

I read it. Seems to me there is a lot of bias in that article. Just my opinion.

Wouldn't you be biased too if you saw all that go down?

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Wouldn't you be biased too if you saw all that go down?

I meant that I do not necessarily believe him.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

I meant that I do not necessarily believe him.

You didn't read the whole link, did you?

[mamakay]

Ok. Which panelist do you not believe about what, specifically?

Do you think Kleinman got paid off by the Sabin camp to switch teams and talk smack about Salk or something?

[delphiniumpansy]

yes, I read the whole thing. Gave me a headache to read that many poorly scanned pages. I have googled and googled and the only thing I can find to relate to this talk his my aforelinked stats that are different than this talk's. I cannot find any evidence to support anything they were discussing. If I feel like it, I may try to find his references and read them.

Where are other links that reference this talk?
Where is other information about all of this?

[mamakay]

I cannot find any evidence to support anything they were discussing.

Like what, specifically?

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Like what, specifically?

I was trying to find if anyone referenced this talk and what they discussed in general. I looked up Ratner and found a few references on ********* and a book on amazon that is old. I was also trying to find references to their stats about how many got polio and why they are different than the polio organizations. I also looked up Salk's vaccine and did find a lot of controversy about it.

[mamakay]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...826940,00.html

Last week in seeming contradiction, the A.M.A. Journal printed a judgment that "much of the Salk vaccine used in the U.S. has been worthless" — a charge that could snarl plans to get millions of Americans inoculated before polio begins its 1961 northward march with advancing summer. The Scripps-Howard newspapers headlined the statement, and Congressman Kenneth Roberts of Alabama urged an investigation.

To provide an expert answer, the Journal selected Dr. Herbert Ratner, health commissioner of Oak Park, Ill., who has been attacking the Salk vaccine ever since it was released in 1955. Ratner wrote that it is "generally recognized" that Salk vaccine is ineffective, because it is "an unstandardized product of an unstandardized process."

Here's the wiki on Cox:

Dr Cox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._Cox

In 1942, he became head of the Virus and Rickettsial Research Department at Lederle Laboratories in New York. At that time, public health attention focused on finding a vaccine for polio. Cox was one of many researchers competing to find a breakthrough, which is generally credited to Jonas Salk (1952). Although Cox's egg technique was in widespread use by 1943, it had not been successful for polio. In 1947, John Franklin Enders and others demonstrated that monkey tissue provided a suitable medium to grow the virus in the lab. Salk employed the Enders method, incubating the virus using rhesus monkey kidneys and testicles. Cox eschewed the technique because of the danger monkey virus represented. In October, 1952, Cox reported that he had grown the Lansing strain of polio virus in fertile hens' eggs and in 1961, he announced an oral polio vaccine [1]. Meanwhile human trials of Albert Sabin's successful oral vaccine had began in 1957 and it would be licensed for general use in 1962.
Even within Lederle, there was competition to find a vaccine. Cox and his co-worker, Dr. Hilary Koprowski, had each developed different polio vaccines, which they vigorously defended and debated against one another.

All those guys are googleable...

ETA:
Here's a textbook that references the meeting...
http://books.google.com/books?id=jYb...h6g022DkkuC7VE

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mamakay

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...826940,00.html

from that time article

Despite this, overall effectiveness of Salk vaccine in preventing paralytic polio has ranged statistically from 75% to 90%.

The head of the National Foundation, Basil O'Connor, blasted the Journal's publication of Dr. Ratner's judgment as "a great disservice to the public." The A.M.A. sputtered that it had printed only "the correspondent's opinion and not the opinion of the A.M.A."

See, this is where I get confused. I cannot find anything to agree with your article.

The wiki article says cox was competing with salk. Maybe that is why he does not like salk - he is a disgruntled competitor.

[mamakay]

Despite this, overall effectiveness of Salk vaccine in preventing paralytic polio has ranged statistically from 75% to 90%.

"Statistically" is the key word.
One this page:
http://s45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...ent=img620.jpg
...Dr. Kleinman goes into part of how the stats were incorrect. (It was partly an accident).

I cannot find anything to agree with your article.

There were Senate hearings into the whole fiasco years later, and some of Salk's assistants testified in support of this version of events. I'll try to find more info about that so you can order the transcripts from your library. I might be able to put up photobucket scans of some of the testimonies, too.

You can troubleshoot the most likely scenario scientifically and logically in a variety of other ways, as well.

Also, Dr. Meier goes into the politics of why the story being told in the newspapers wasn't what the scientists were seeing here (mid-righthand colum):
http://s45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...ent=img623.jpg

The wiki article says cox was competing with salk. Maybe that is why he does not like salk - he is a disgruntled competitor.

He ended up being completely correct, though, obviously. Salk's IPV was yanked and replaced by a live vaccine ASAP, and everyone who got Salk's vax had to be re-vaxed with OPV.
Also, here he talks about how the viral load in Salk's vax wasn't nearly high enough to work anywhere close to correctly:
http://s45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...ent=img627.jpg

...and the IPV we use now is called eIPV. It's a different manufacturing process with 1000 times the viral load per dose Salk's product had.

[EdnaMarie]

Mykdsmommy- It can spread polio, but the incidence of polio from the vaccine is literally one in a million. And it reduced polio incidence, hence polio disappearing from most countries around the world.

Where are other links that reference this talk?
Where is other information about all of this?

It's from A&E but it's a great article. Talks about the failure of the Salk vaccine and the way forward. A good overview to put this article in its proper context.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Mahtob

Mykdsmommy- It can spread polio, but the incidence of polio from the vaccine is literally one in a million. And it reduced polio incidence, hence polio disappearing from most countries around the world.



It's from A&E but it's a great article. Talks about the failure of the Salk vaccine and the way forward. A good overview to put this article in its proper context.

So, from the article referenced above, I understand that there were pros and cons to vaxes. Can I then assume that article linked in post #1 dwells too much on cons?

[EdnaMarie]

I dunno, they eliminated it from use because it was too ineffective, based on research done by the pharmaceuticals and the government. I think that it is just an example of accountability at work. It didn't do what it was supposed to so they brought in a more effective method.

I wouldn't want that vaccine, myself.