|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.