Talk:Polio vaccine/Edits by IP 97.89.115.184

Anti-vaccination quackery

I have reverted the edits made by 97.89.115.184 (talk · contribs · count). The information is misleading and inaccurate and the references provided are NOT considered reliable by (at the very least) Wikipeda's standards.

Information cited to the only reliable source: The MMWR's Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases is clearly misrepresented. The article does not say that: "Improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, and the introduction of antibiotics have been the most important factors in disease control in the past century"

What is actually says is: "Public health action to control infectious diseases in the 20th century is based on the 19th century discovery of microorganisms as the cause of many serious diseases (e.g., cholera and TB). Disease control resulted from improvements in sanitation and hygiene, the discovery of antibiotics, and the implementation of universal childhood vaccination programs. The article goes on to state that "Strategic vaccination campaigns have virtually eliminated diseases that previously were common in the United States, including diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis (8)."

Those interested in the reality behind the claims of anti-vaccinationists will likely be interested in reading the Antivaccination Article annotated by Dr Horwitz.

--DO11.10 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I question whether that kind of detail belongs on his bio page in any case. IMO, some of the details are so complex that only a professional would understand them - but Wiki is supposed to be for the general reader. Those kinds of debates and test results, etc. belong in scientific journals, it seems. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Anti-vaccination quackery

It is interesting that you should refer to valid concerns about vaccinations and full disclosure as quackery. However, it is a typical reaction from physicians in challenges to medical dogma and mythology. I suspect this is more of a concern than reliable references; since the information from several of the deleted sections could also be found in the article by Alan Phillips you linked to and was not disputed by Dr. Horowitz:

Polio eliminated from statistics by redefinition of disease prior to vaccine

Between 1954 and 1957, there appeared to be a marked decline in the incidence of Polio. However, while this historical decline in statistics coincides with the Salk vaccine trials, it also coincides with the radical redefinition of polio. According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg's 1960 transcript of a meeting discussing the Salk vaccine: Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

According to researcher-author Dr. Viera Scheibner, 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by this redefinition of the disease before the vaccine was introduced. In fact, the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause polio induced paralysis in several countries where there were no epidemics from the wild virus. For example, thousands cases of viral and aseptic meningitis are reported annually in the U.S. which were diagnosed as polio before the Salk vaccine. Also, the numbers of cases required to declare an official epidemic, increased from 20 to 35. Furthermore, the requirement for the inclusion of paralysis in the statistics changed from symptoms lasting 24 hours to 60 days, in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms for 24 hours to symptoms for 60 days. Given such radical changes in the official definition and reading of statistics of Polio, it is not too surprising that incidence decreased radically (at least on paper).

Dr. Jonas Salk Senate hearings

The inventor of the IPV, Dr. Jonas Salk; testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Samuel Katz of Duke University noted the 8 to 10 annual cases of Vaccine Associated Polio Paralysis (VAPP)from the oral polio vaccine to a four year absence of polio in the west.

Is there some reason why this is not a valid addition to any discussion on polio vaccinations and history? Aside from the lengthy, almost unreadable text book medical terminology; the Polio vaccine article sounds almost like an advertisement. It contains no background information whatsoever on other factors contributing to decreases in mortality and disease. This is not misleading? The Salk and Sabin articles do not contain this information either.

Drugs, vaccines, health issues

Aside from the above mentioned reference on this; I cited two others:

Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universities concluded that medical measures (drugs and vaccines) accounted for between 1 and 3.5 % of the total decline in mortality rate since 1900. Scores of animals were killed in the quest to find cures for tuberculosis, scarlet fever, small pox and diphtheria. Dr. Edward Kass of Harvard Medical School, asserts that the primary credit for the virtual eradication of these diseases must go to improvements in public health, sanitation and general standard of living. According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the 4 leading causes of death from infectious diseases in the USA from 1911 to 1935 were diptheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough (pertussis) and measles. By 1945, the combined death rates from these diseases had declined by 95%; before the implementation of immunization programs. This decline was attributed to better public sanitation, nutrition and improved and less crowed housing conditions.

Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to dispute that money is being made off of vaccines, as Dr. Horowitz implies. In 2006, Merck's U.S. sales were approximately 22.6 billion with profits of 4.4 billion dollars. Many of his notations refer to a lack of research. This may also explain the reluctance to study and research vaccine dangers, in spite of mounting evidence and complaints. It is also not too surprising that Dr. Horowitz has no direct experience with vaccine damage. Most Doctors are extremely reluctant to admit mistakes, let alone admit to damaging a patient. I happen to have first hand experience with serious vaccine damage. Furthermore, I have in the space of one year; had dangerous pharmaceuticals prescribed to both of my teenagers with no disclosure whatsoever. One was for a mild sleep disorder, where the medication caused severe hallucinations and the other for an acne condition. Thank goodness I had done by own research and found that this medication could potentially cause liver damage and schizophrenia. I have personally had experiences where doctors have actually denied to my face that I was having any side effects at all, because they weren't contained in their text books.

A landmark article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on April 15, 1998, entitled, "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients." In this study, researchers evaluated serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in U.S. hospitals during 1994. The study revealed that in 1994, adverse drug reactions accounted for 2,216,000 serious events, and 106,000 deaths in this country. ,

Please, get off your high horse. It wasn't too many years ago where all children had their tonsils removed; doctors cautioned women against breast feeding and encouraged the parents of handicapped children to institutionalize them. Reforms on these important matters came largely through parent advocacy (with the exception perhaps of tonsillectomies).

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

---

The bottom line here is that the references you have provided are not sufficiently reliable to support the claims you are trying to make. To address you other concerns:

• The article by Dr. Horowitz was a suggestion on the talk page not an addition to the article (nor, would I include it in the article; it is not sufficiently reliable either.)
• The aim of this article is not to cover all the factors contributing to prevention of mortality and disease, just one: polio vaccine. And as virtually hundreds, if not thousands, of reliable sources attest, the vaccine eliminated polio in places where is has been eliminated. (Besides increased sanitation likely spurred the paralytic polio epidemics.)
• The Salk and Sabin articles are about Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, not their vaccines, and are most certainly not the place to discuss these matters.
• Merck doesn't make polio vaccine. GlaxoSmithKline makes IPV and Sanofi Pasteur make OPV. So what if they make money off vaccines, they are businesses.
• No vaccine is 100% effective. No vaccine is 100% safe. This article covers the real dangers of OPV and the possible (though unlikely) dangers of IPV.

Polio may have been eliminated in the US and Europe, but it is a very real problem in many places around the globe. Not just to endemic countries, but to their neighbors. Stopping polio vaccinations in Nigeria resulted in hundreds of cases of paralysis there and in adjacent countries, just as it has numerous other times (Chumakov K, Ehrenfeld E, Wimmer E, Agol VI (2007). "Vaccination against polio should not be stopped". Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5 (12): 952–8. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1769. PMID 17965726. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) If you are as concerned about the truth behind vaccines as you appear to be I urge you to stop reading the misguided and uniformed opinions found on websites like avoidimmunizations.php and scary-stats-iv-polio and do some real research of your own. --DO11.10 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

Dear sir,

You posted this link with the apparent aim of refuting some of the sections I posted. However, Dr. Horowitz has not refuted the historical redefinition of Polio nor the senate hearings on the oral vaccine. These are historical facts. He does not even bother to dispute that vaccines have in fact, caused epidemics; citing that we now have improved vaccines. He even dismisses data as irrelevant, which is merely ten years old. Compared with the health risks of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, I suggest that his concern over hurting his patients with alternative medicines, is not only severely misplaced but disingenuous. As far as Nigeria and adjacent countries, without providing any other background on sanitation, nutrition, etc.; it is impossible to make a realistic assessments. Why were these vaccinations stopped? What other kinds of aid (food, supplies, antibiotics) were also stopped? Polio is transmitted from person to person primarily through the fecal-oral route. Any area with overcrowding, poor sanitation and hygiene is a good candidate for polio and other filth diseases. The first U.S. polio epidemic started in the slums of New York city in 1916. Before that, Polio was considered a medical rarity in this country. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

Sigh. Again: You have have not provided any reliable sources for any of information you wish to include, and per Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources." If you wish to pursue the matter you are welcome to solicit the opinions of other Wikipedians on the reliability of your sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be a good place to start.--DO11.10 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[Addendum] I don't dispute the last two sentences regarding 1916 and medical rarity (and those sources seem to be reasonably reliable). However you clearly don't understand the prevailing (and very well supported with real scientific evidence) theory regarding why the epidemics happened (here). You are falsely correlating the presence of polio virus in a population with epidemics of paralytic polio in that same population. Whereas the relationship between the two was far more complex. --DO11.10 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Placebo effect

However, I am glad you brought up GlaxoSmithKline. In 2003, GSK had sales of $35.2 billion and profit before tax of $11 billion. GSK has over 100,000 employees; 40,000 of which are in sales (the largest sales force in the industry.) It was therefore a bit shocking, but not surprising, when Dr. Allen Roses a GSK, CEO announced that: The vast majority of drugs, more than 90%; only work in 30 to 50% of the people. Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.

Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine.

Thirty five to sixty percent is considered placebo effect. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

This has nothing to do with polio vaccine. The efficacy of the polio vaccines is reported in this article, and are directly supported by reliable sources.--DO11.10 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Profits driven research, medicine and government policy

It is naive to assume that finances don't play a role in medicine, research and eventually government policy. In 1996, researcher Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University; studied nearly 800 scientific papers in prominent biology and medical journals. In one third of all cases, the author had financial interests in the company sponsoring the research. This was not disclosed to readers in most cases. In 1996, a Stanford University study by Mildred Cho, a senior research scholar at the Center for Biomedical Ethics; found that 98% of university studies funded by drug companies reported new therapies to be more effective than standard ones. By comparison, only 79% of non-industry financed studies found new drugs to be more effective. The tobacco industry was able to delay to tobacco and cancer link for years, by studying animals forced to inhale smoke and exposed to tobacco derivatives (who never developed cancer). In a vain attempt to prove that pregnant women can smoke if they take vitamin C, researcher Eliot Spindel, injects pregnant monkeys with nicotine and gives one group high doses of vitamin C. He then removes their fetuses by C-section and performs invasive lung function tests on babies, after which they are killed to conduct necropsies. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

Again this has nothing to do with polio vaccine.--DO11.10 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You assert that historical information which affected the decrease in Polio, as well as important statistical changes which pertain to a true evaluation of the vaccine are most certainly not the place to discuss these matters, in three articles on the history of Polio and the Polio vaccine.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

You have not provided reliable sources for your information. Until such sources are found, there is no point in discussing the matter further. --DO11.10 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

A prominent doctor and CEO of the manufacturer of this vaccine has stated publicly that it's product efficacy is comparable to placebo (aside from harmful, occasionally fatal side effects); yet it is unreasonable to question their vaccines? Suddenly, GlaxoSmithKline has nothing to do with the polio vaccine. Dr. Horowitz dismisses 10 year old data as irrelevant, but it is unreasonable to question 50 year old data concerning Polio vaccines? Epidemics of all kinds were common in western countries until modern plumbing, refrigeration, decent hygiene, etc. They continue to be a problem in areas with over crowded slums, open sewage and starvation. Surely, the possibility that corporations and (gasp) even doctors, might be more interested in promoting drugs, vaccines and medical heroics rather than simple, practical explanations is not too much of a stretch?

Honestly, many people are concerned about vaccines. Repetitiously stating that all science is on the side of vaccines and calling people or sources anti-vaccine is not an argument. Obviously, such persons or sources cannot be considered reliable due to their anti-vaccine nature. As opposed to what? Research and fake articles in medical journals sponsored by pharmaceutical companies? You are correct about one thing though, there is no point in discussing this matter any further.