Talk:Polio vaccine/GA1

GA 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.

• Sources of an outbreak in the US would include residual infections, and importation. Eg, from Afghanistan. Are US soldiers due to be sent there given the OPV? --Una Smith (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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