Talk:Polio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

OR

moving original research here. "Flat earth" stuff that deviates from known facts becomes Wikipedia material only when a lot of folk "believe" in it. - Nunh-huh 06:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Polio and Pesticides

"Flat earth" was the belief of a repressive church.

I've read "Policy and guidelines" and there is nothing that says anything about "popularity" being a prerequisite. The works I quote are based in orthodox journals.

Much evidence contradicts the poliovirus theory. Completely omitted from current orthodox medical science are the toxicological correlations. A great history of poliovirus criticism exists during the era of 1908 to 1956, which is unknown to the modern era.

The highly funded virology of polio clouds the toxicology of polio. Orthodoxy completely omits and avoids the obvious toxicology of polio. The symptoms of "polio" are similar to DDT poisoning, for instance. The dumping of DDT into the U.S. food supply matches the rise and fall of polio during 1940-72.

The foundations of polio virology are extremely weak. Poliovirus has not been properly characterized because the supposed virus was rarely if ever isolated, ie., filtration was not employed; impure tissue extracts were utilized in lab experiments.

A problem with "polio" (as virus caused) is that the diagnoses of polio epidemics did not, could not, and rarely attempted to, distinguish between the many various neurological diseases. Thus, even if one were to accept the virus theory, one cannot know if a declared "polio epidemic" was polio, encephalitis, meningitis, a variety of flu-like diseases, or a mixture of all of them.

www.geocities.com/harpub

• To save anyone else the trouble, the reason this theory is "unknown to the modern era" is because it is arrant nonsense, supported only by hyperbole and graphs showing all the signs of statistical manipulation. I think this section can be removed from talk and archived somewhere. ::Didactylos 03:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• These pesticide/polio graphs are not "manipulation". They are simple, linear displays of US government data: www.geocities.com/harpub/overview.htm

• I find Didactylos' attitude to be 'flat earth'. If we do not consider alternative explanations for how the world works then how can we correct mistakes and advance? Richard Lynton 2 April 2006.

• Round Earth, I think. There is a tendency to assume taht our fourbears were stupid or careless reflected in the quoted text above. On the contrary, when Polio was common it had the attention of the public, and was commonly seen by them and by their doctors, and netiehr found it very difficult to seaprate out Polio from other diseases. Yes, among the cases reported as Polio there may be a few that are due to other causes, but to suggest that one event that coincides with one burst of Polio is the cause of that burst - though presumably the others are due to other causes - is to both assume things about our ancestors that are untrue and to unecessarily multiply hypotheses.

• Science is about discovering the truth. Galileo was put under house arrest for explaining that the earth went around the sun. His beliefs went against Aristotle's teachings and upset many who thought Aristotle was infallible. Today we do not say that Aristotle was stupid. However we see those who locked up Galileo as fundamentalist. Richard Lynton 4 April 2006.

Sure, we consider alternative explanations. And if they are found to be without merit we reject them. thx1138 16:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• NIH accepts them. US NIH/NCBI recently included many pesticide/polio studies online, in PUBMED. Look under authors, Mobbs, Biskind, and/or Scobey at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ My independent work confirms those early scholarly studies (www.geocities.com/harpub/overview.htm).

• Or, to quote Carl Sagan,

  "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

  -- MarcoTolo 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WHO

The reason I phrased it as announced a campaign rather than is involved in eradication is that the United Nations is very political, and often their agencies don't do what they say they're planning to do. I earnestly hope this campaign succeeds, however. Polio is horrible -- worse than malaria. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The plan to eradicate polio is older than 2004, however 2004 was hoped to be the year of the final campaign to get rid of the disease. The campaign has met unforeseen resistance in Nigeria, but the last report I read from BBC says that it is still hope. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3546877.stm -- Gustavf 16:41, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

We may want to update the polio spread thing. This article from the Globe and Mail points out it's hit Sudan; It's also hit Botswana in the past few weeks.

Combined with AIDS in the latter region, it's going to get nasty.

All because people decided to make a vaccine political. It'd be as comical as the anti-flouride stuff in the 50s, if it weren't so deadly. -- Penta 04:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SV40

SV40 is not known to cause cancer, only known to be associated with certain types of cancer, so this page is factually incorrect.

See [1] and the Wikipedia entry on SV40.

POV

From the article:

Most families allowed their children to take the vaccine. Some Muslim families refused due to false rumors that the vaccine causes impotence or infertility or both.

This is point of view. Surely the Muslim families who refuse vaccinnes do not believe that their refusal is due to false rumors. Instead the article should cite a group of people who believe those families are acting on false rumors.

--ErikStewart 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

in order to not regard the rumours as baseless in fact, should there not be some credible evidence that impotence or infertility have occurred, or a credible mechanism for such to occur be adduced? Midgley 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

interesting

Robin_Miller flew Polio to the outback. I'm not sure where to put it.

Immunity requires three infections, one with each of the strains. The same presumably applies to immunity from sub-clinical infection with the wild virus, should one be so lucky, as to the live attenuated viruses. The killed vaccine doesn't have th esame problem of competitive inhibition, but is less effective. Swings and roundabouts. Midgley 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have good data, please, please add it. Sourcing is more important than WHERE you place the data since someone else can easily move it, but not everyone knows where to look for verification that the data is accurate in the first place. In lieu of sourcing; providing key technical words, key names, key dates, and such can provide the clues needed to allow others to google to verify. Thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 02:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Polio in Minnesota

There was a polio outbreak in an Amish community in Minnesota last year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301733.html

I was just wondering why this wasn't included in the tables listing polio cases by location. CecilPL 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

CDC a more apposite reference, or deeper, anyway. Midgley 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

TO-DO on POLIO

A nice article for a thesis, this needs brought down to the common man, and totally ignores history, unless it's way down in the bottom—which would violate WP:MOS guidelines on introductions. There is no sense of the fear people had of congregating to swim..., at ballparks, in any large venue.

This one also fails to mention FDR, The March of Dimes, or the near panic fears in the world's populous which all should be touched by the intro and these shortcomings boggles the mind. In sum, it's a clinical article, and needs historical and cultural meat as far as I was able to skim it last evening.

My resultant TO-DO note (I was in deep waters elesewhere) in:

Polio — dumbify intro and mention FDR in introbody. Does not even begin to give the horror of the disease and fear. In sum far too clinical.

B'regardsFrankB 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. History of infectious diseases in general deserves some attention. Midgley 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cause of Roosevelt's paralysis

I'd like to change the sentence "United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt contracted polio in 1921 and was paralyzed from the waist down as a result." under "History" to the following (just the text is shown below, I will fix up the references):

"Franklin D. Roosevelt may have contracted polio in 1921. Yet his age (39 years) and many features of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune peripheral neuropathy). A peer-reviewed study published in 2003, using Bayesian analysis, found that six of eight posterior probabilities favored a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome over poliomyelitis. Regardless of the cause, the result was that Roosevelt was totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down. He could sit up and, with aid of leg braces, stand upright, but could not walk. Although the paralysis (whether from poliomyelitis or Guillain-Barré syndrome) had no cure at the time, for the rest of his life Roosevelt refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed. He tried a wide range of therapies, but none had any effect. Nevertheless, he became convinced of the benefits of hydrotherapy, and in 1926 he bought a resort at Warm Springs, Georgia, where he founded a hydrotherapy center for the treatment of polio patients which still operates as the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation (with an expanded mission). Furthermore, after he became President, he helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes), that supported the rehabilitation of victims of paralytic polio and the discovery of the polio vaccines."

I would also like to change the picture caption to: "Franklin D. Roosevelt helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes)", since the current caption is not justified by the evidence. Or, just "Franklin D. Roosevelt".

I would be willing to make a future separate article on FDR's paralytic illness, with more detail. At that point, I could shorten the section within the polio article, if that would help.

Since this is a major change, and since the new information casts doubt on the previously countlessly repeated and unquestioned assertion that Roosevelt's paralysis was caused by polio, I thought it would be good idea to start a discussion thread to give a chance for others to disagree.

The big change is factual information initially described in a peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Medical Biography [2], of which I was a co-author and which I can add as a reference in the article. I've also added information about FDR helping found the March of Dimes, and Warm Springs.

I would ask anyone who objects to the changes to please read the published article [3] first.

Dagoldman 22:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While he may not have actually had polio the fact that everyone thought he had polio was very important. Maybe you should just say something like while recent studies strongly suggest that he was misdiagnosed at the time it was common knowledge that he had polio and this encouraged him to search for treantments and helped rally support for the disease. --Gbleem 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I made changes in response to your suggestions. Dagoldman 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Guillain-Barré syndrome usually gets better - the residual deficit is often hard to detect, not paralysis. Midgley 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

viral entry

There is some reason to believe that the virus enters the body through the ear. Beadtot 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Like an earwig sneaking in to lay eggs? Link to your source please. Lisapollison 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Six remaining polio-endemic countries

The World Health Organization says that Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Niger, Afghanistan and Egypt, are the six remaining polio-endemic countries: Does anyone know where should I (or anyone) put this information?! I can't seem to find a place where it fits! __Maysara 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

salk vaccine deadly

[4]

I found this article. Is this a good source or conspiracy theory stuff? --Gbleem 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred R. Klenner

What to do with Fred R. Klenner? I took him out but he did create a treatment. We have nothing about treatment just prevention. Should Klenner get a see also or a note in treatment? --Gbleem 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrepeatable results don't have a place in an encyclopaedia. If the item was that Fred said Vitamin C would cure it, and everyone else tried it and said "oh yes, so it does, right that is another disease vanquished by science how very clever of Fred" then he'd belong in there. But no, not as it is. A high proportion of people who catch Polio get better. If you give them Vitamin C they'll still get better. Midgley 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unrepeatable results" - how do you know they are unrepeatable? They weren't repeated, I agree.

Nobody knows the "truth." The idea behind an encyclopedia is to present facts and history. Interestingly, Klenner presented his 60 out 60 recoveries (I read that to be 100%) from polio at an AMA convention in 1949. They ignored his results. He published his findings in 1949, and the results are still being excluded from discussion in 2006 per Midgley. Well, why not present the two or three sentences I wrote, and then add the treatment has never been repeated to test the validity of his findings? --Tbbarnard 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means assert they are repeatable, and when you can support that assertion, it can go in an encyclopaedia. WP is not a collection of all things that cannot be proved to be not true. Above, teh word "interestingly" appears. It isn't interesting. It wasn't interesting. It was boring and tedious then and it is boring and tedious now to see snake-oil retailed as medicine. Midgley 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked up to see what was shown under vitamin C in wiki, and there was a sentence or two not unlike the entry I tried to make here. --Tbbarnard 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone less biased that Midgley please review? He thinks that vitamin C is snake oil. It is a substance that humans cannot live without. --Tbbarnard 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think sometimes people ought to have to try to drive around their own personal POV biases in order to see just how big they are--it's like a tumbleweed I saw in Pasco, Washington once, blocking the whole street, and I had to drive around the block and come in from the other way. (Me, too, by the way, I'm no better or worse with biases than others, I just try to remember that I have them.) Klenner's polio research is simply the best known of his research and a stream of scientific studies funded and done in the 1940s on the impact of Vitamin C on viral diseases. For better or worse it and he are part of the American Medical Tradition, including what was important and going on in the 1940s, namely research into Polio.

People will read papers with comments like this:

"Pro and con arguments about clinical effects of vitamin C had been published as early as the 1940s;^7-13 among the general public the association of vitamin C with the common cold was achieving the status of folk medicine,⁴ encouraged by popular writers."^15-16

And its footnotes, also quoted from L R Shapiro, S Samuels, L Breslow, and T Camacho, Patterns of vitamin C intake from food and supplements: survey of an adult population in Alameda County, California in American Journal of Public Health, 1983 July; 73(7): 773–778.[5]:

9. Klenner FR: Massive doses of vitamin C and the virus diseases. Southern Med and Surg 1951; 103:101-107.

10. Klenner FR: The use of vitamin C as an antibiotic. J Appl Nutr 1953; 6:274-278.

And turn to Wikipedia wondering, hmmm, was Polio one of the viruses Klenner looked at? A quick run to the Polio page, and there down in the bottom is a sentence explaining that, yes, it was, and the research was never replicated. I didn't check the particular content that Tbbarnard was trying to insert, and I realize that may be Midgley's primary complaint, the particular form of the content or the content itself rather than its substance. Let's try to find a way to included a comment about Klenner that is acceptable and belongs in the article. -- KP Botany 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a year ago. It was nice to see a footnote with a link to Fred Klenner's 1949 paper he presented at an AMA convention. He apparently treated 60 out of 60 patients with polio successfully. That's a 100% success (if it was polio he treated, etc. etc.) Yet the treatment section begins "No cure for polio exists..." Apparently, you people feel it is good enough to perpetuate the same old same old. Obviously, someone needs to confirm or deny the veracity of his experience. Until then, shouldn't there be a sentence alluding to his success, that he presented a paper to the AMA, and that for nearly 60 years no one has tested it?67.176.193.226 05:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect info?

I'm not sure who wrote the Polio entry for Wikipedia, but I'm curious about this statement:

"The first immunization of children against polio began at Arsenal Elementary School and the Watson Home for Children in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1954."

I was always under the impression that the very first vaccination was at Franklin Sherman Elementary School in McLean, Virginia.

Link

The Watson Home vaccinations were in 1953, before Franklin Sherman's in 1954. I think this is a difference in a Phase II clinical trial in 1953 and a large Phase III trial in 1954. Rmhermen 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information!!!! Please don't add information that is not directly related to the topic. I was very disappointed to see two rude comments on this page. Middle and high schoolers use Wikipedia for papers and such and this information is not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailleyfargo (talk • contribs)

• I think you'll find that it's the middle and high-schoolers that are actually adding the rude comments! - Alison^✍ 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Poliovirus split

• The article is getting long-ish (around 53k) and one easy split would be to make Poliovirus a standalone article. Moving Poliomyelitis#The virus and the taxobox to the new page would reduce the size to about 45k. Comments? -- MarcoTolo 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• So, having elicited a grand total of zero comments, I'm going to be bold and make the split. -- MarcoTolo 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• All done. I'd appreciate it if folks could double check the two articles (Poliomyelitis and Poliovirus) to see what I missed in the move. -- MarcoTolo 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked out, looks good (just a few missed redirects and a sentence or two that that needed to stay) thanks for getting that done. I have also added some stuff to the virus article to round it out a bit.--DO11.10 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - both articles are much clearer with your edits. Thanks for batting cleanup. -- MarcoTolo 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bulbar polio redirect

The Bulbar polio article is (at the time of this writing) insufficiently autonomous to be condidered a seperate article, and has been redirected back to the main page for the time being. See also Talk:Bulbar polio for further details.--DO11.10 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eradication Section Split

I think the section on eradication is long enough and relevant enough to merit its own page. Any protests?

Candent shlimazel 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that. The table needs to remain in both articles though. Also the name of the article cannot be as proposed. Something like Poliomyelitis eradication (note lowercase here, and a redirect from Polio eradication) would be more in line with the Manual of Style and Naming conventions. Let's hear what others have to say.--DO11.10 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I worry a little with splits like this: statistics-based articles seem to stagnant sometimes (or occasionally grow without bound). That said, its a very minor concern - no real objection from me. -- MarcoTolo 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Move completed - did I miss anything? -- MarcoTolo 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I did tweak a few things, hopefully for the better. Thanks for doing that Marco, and for cleaning up all of those references!--DO11.10 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable survivor list

I removed Johnnie Baima from the famous/notable survivor list. The article about Johnnie Baima was recently deleted as not notable. This list reflects the same definition of notability.--DO11.10 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that polio was so widespread before the introduction of the polio vaccine, it seems the survivor list may be somewhat questionable. In other words, might not there be many hundreds (thousands?) of famous people who are "polio survivors"? Maybe the list should be limited to those who suffered permanent paralysis, or were severely incapacitated for a significant period. Or maybe there might be separate lists, for the different categories of polio. Dagoldman 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is the spirit of the section. The respective articles of all of the entrants so far have indicated that they were in some way affected by polio. Since people generally don't even know that they have had the mild form of the illness, most people who know they did have polio probably had some degree of paralysis. IMO the criteria for inclusion should be:

1. Have a Wikipedia biography (this is absolutely required)
2. It must state in their Wikipedia bio that the person had polio (again if they know that they had it, it was likely a more serious form) or the polio status can be sourced from somewhere else.

These criteria seem to be similar other lists of "notable survivors".--DO11.10 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I confirmed all of the survivors and removed the ones where no mention was made in the wiki bio, or could be verified given the resources on the bio page. I also removed the Bayesian analysis bit, as that is far more extensively covered in the illness article.--DO11.10 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you've edited is fine. I'm just thinking that someone with mild symptoms, but no paralysis, might say they had polio. It would take a lot of research to figure out. Thanks for looking through the bios. By the way, the wikipedia article on Claudius says that, up to WWII, it was thought he had polio. Dagoldman 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So I found this list of notable survivors, then I went through the list and verified that the individuals fit the above criteria before I added them. The bios for most of the individuals stated that the person had either long recovery periods, or were to some extent paralyzed or disfigured due to the disease. There was one bio (I can't remember which one) that specifically said the polio was non-paralytic, I did not add that person. I don't know what to do with Claudius (and also Siptah an Egyptian Pharaoh), if you want to add them (or if you find other people that fit the above criteria) please feel free to do so.--DO11.10 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt's diagnosis

Whether or not Roosevelt actually had polio is not important to the philanthropy and legacy of polio. What is important is that everyone thought he had polio, that is why he was went to such great lengths and was instrumental in raising money for polio. A 2003 study that says that it was not polio has nothing to do with the philanthropy encouraged by Roosevelt and others at the time. The conclusions of the study are merely an interesting footnote, that is why I footnoted the bit about Guillain-Barré syndrome, people can read about the study and find more information there.--DO11.10 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees FDR is strongly associated with the philanthropy and legacy of polio, which is why there has always been some discussion of FDR in the polio article. So if FDR didn't have polio, I think there would be interest in that, so we need to mention it somewhere in the article. To help resolve this, since FDR is the person most widely known as a polio survivor, what if we put the FDR illness information under "famous polio survivors" as a paragraph, and then list the other survivors as bullet points? I agree FDR's illness does not warrant a lot of text in the article, but the basic facts need to be retained, and it would help to add a link to the separate article on FDR's illness. "Notes and References" now has 57 references, and only one note (the one where you have repeatedly put the FDR information). It's really a reference section, and I would argue to change back to "References". Looking at your edits, I'm wondering if perhaps more is going on than just moving around text, that perhaps you don't agree with the conclusion that FDR probably has GBS. Twice, you've edited the statement that FDR "probably had GBS" to 1) "may have had GBS" and 2) "potentially had GBS", which I would argue are both much too weak considering the current evidence. If you don't agree with the findings of the referenced peer-reviewed article, we can discuss that (maybe you already have somewhere). Otherwise, could we 1) retain the wording that FDR probably did not have polio, 2) add a link to the separate wikipedia article on FDR's illness, 3) put the FDR illness text back in the regular text, under "famous polio survivors" and 4) try to shorten the FDR text some. I appreciate your overall edits to the polio article. Dagoldman 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First, my changes to this portion of the article had nothing to do with whether I, personally, agree with your study. And really, the study and its conclusions seem reasonable to me. My point is that changing Roosevelt's diagnosis in 2003 alters none of the consequences of his polio diagnosis at the time. How about this as a compromise, put the following under "Famous survivors":

Politicians including United States Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell and U.S. president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although Roosevelt's diagnosis of polio was unquestioned at the time, and thereafter in countless references to paralytic poliomyelitis, his age (39 years) and many features of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune peripheral neuropathy.) (See:Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness for more information.)

It seems that the above conveys the point without going into too much detail. Second, I am a scientist, and true to my nature the word "probably" just sounds all wrong (for reasons that even I can't fully explain). The changes I propose eliminate the problem though. Thoughts?--DO11.10 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding the information on FDR's illness, similar to what you proposed, to the "famous survivors" section, and removing from philanthropy section. I put as separate paragraph under "famous survivor", since FDR has been by far the most famous in the public mind. Dagoldman 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On another note I am curious, what happened to FDR's body, did "they" ever take any tissue samples or do an autopsy? Would there be a way to get samples to determine biologically whether or not he had Polio? Would one be able to tell if it was polio even of the samples were available now?--DO11.10 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, no autopsy was done after FDR's death (thus fueling innumerable conspiracy theories). If an autopsy had been done, tissue samples would likely have been formalin-fixed before H&E staining; few viral types retain infectivity post-fixation. If spinal cord tissue section had been taken (and then properly stored), yes, you should be able to see evidence of anterior horn cell dysfunction. The histological picture should be at least reasonalby clear at that point, but to "prove" PV, you'd have to use an immunohistochemical label (might be difficult on old samples) and/or try for direct virus visualization via electron microscopy (or some third thing which I've missed). -- MarcoTolo 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I can also verify that apparently no autopsy. An associate of mine previously searched the archives of the states of Georgia and New York and found no record of an autopsy. Also, the books that have been written on FDR's final illness and death do not mention any autopsy findings. Also, no autopsy is indicated on FDR's death certificate. As to whether one could tell if it was polio if samples were available, I don't know. Dagoldman 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The changes you have made are fine with me, thanks. Also thanks to both of you for the information.--DO11.10 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Polio statistics are frequently quoted by vaccination opponents as contradictory.

There should be a section devoted to explaining the supposed contradictions in polio deaths vs polio vaccinations that are put forward by those that are opposed to vaccinations in general.

For example, they say that polio deaths in this country or that country go up (or down) after mass vaccination campaigns (or without them). They claim that the polio vaccine had little or nothing to do with the naturally occuring rates of the disease.

But they quote fatalities instead of occurrances of infection, which is key because the emergence of treatment with the iron lung meant that more could survive.

The shift of this disease from being constantly present in our environment to being rare (caused by modern hygene, sanitary water and food supply, etc) shifted the epidemiology of polio and set the stage for epidemics and led to exposure at an older age where the results were more devistating if not deadly. Epidemic occurances of any contageous disease do not lend themselves to being characterized as "on the increase" or "on the decline" until or unless all members of a population are either infected or innoculated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.119.159 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, this is indeed an interesting prospect, and I can see some merit in including it. That said, after giving the idea some thought, I feel I am opposed to an addition as above for a few reasons:

1. The section would introduce factually inaccurate information, solely for the purpose of refuting it, this seems counter-productive in my opinion, and is not generally done in an encyclopedia.
2. By including the information, even to refute it, we would lend some aspect of credibility to the (false) claims of the "vaccination opponents", (essentially if their arguments must be included then there must be some validity to the arguments).
3. There are no reliable sources (that I could find) for which the claims made by "vaccination opponents" can be drawn, this leaves the argument inherently one sided and may lead to accusations of violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view standards.

Hopefully others will include their viewpoints and the situation will become clearer.--DO11.10 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also oppose. In addition to what D011 says, the proposal sounds like "original research". Dagoldman 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

• POLIO free nations - I feel the map has to be corrected as countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been declared poilo free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.39.18 (talk • contribs) 22 April 2007

You will notice that the map's caption says "polio-free regions (in blue)" it does not say "polio-free countries". The "regions" indicated on the map are designated by the WHO.

the Americas - Polio free 1994

Western Pacific - Polio free 2000

Europe - Polio free 2002

Africa

South-East Asia

Eastern Mediterranean (includes Saudi Arabia and Egypt)

Although several countries in each of the three "Non-polio free" regions are actually polio-free the WHO region in which they are grouped has not be declared as such. Thus the map and the caption are current and correct. Although, the map will clearly have to be updated for the impending "polio-free" declaration of the Eastern Mediterranean.--DO11.10 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can we add Australia to the map. The image used by the WHO in the above link has it drawn in. -- Spikeles 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

History/Legacy sections moved

Per suggestions made at the peer review, the bulk of the "History" and "Legacy" sections have been split-off to the new History of poliomyelitis article. For details, see Talk:History of poliomyelitis#Poliomyelitis section split?. -- MarcoTolo 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(the comments below were refactored from Talk:History of poliomyelitis. --DO11.10 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the split and agree that it has potential. Please remember I'm only making suggestions here. Feel free to abandon the idea if it doesn't work.

1. I'd like to see this move more towards the top-level-heading suggestions in WP:MEDMOS. However, I wonder if for infectious diseases, the heading "Infection" might be a better one than "Cause". The subject of "Infection" can discuss the virus, its transmission and the incubation. I'd move the current "Poliovirus" section to become just the initial paragraphs (with the Main article remaining). Pathogenesis is such a technical word.

2. I also suggest replacing "Clinical presentation" with "Signs and symptoms". The former sounds to me too much like a doctors handbook. This section currently combines the effect (presentation, signs, symptoms, whatever) with the mechanism/pathophysiology. If these were separated, the reader would have a clear section covering the likely symptoms (and data such as percentages) without having to wade through technical explanations.

3. Perhaps "Post-polio syndrome" can be moved to the end of Prognosis, and a Main article created for it.

4. The treatment section still contains too much history. There's certainly room for expansion of this topic when moved to thie history article. For example, Sister Elizabeth Kenny's "treatment" appears to have been widely used (this currently appears only in the Legacy section). This section might become just a paragraph.

5. Similarly, much of the Vaccine and Eradication sections belong in the history. The Eradication section can be moved entirely, leaving just a paragraph at the end of the history summary section. A new "Prevention" section can discuss the currently-used vaccines (with perhaps a brief mention of the Antibody serum, which appears currently in your Treatment section).

6. Your "Further reading" section can be made a top-level heading (though perhaps a few entries move to History) — unless these are actually your references, in which case you should split into two sections: "Notes" and "References".

Colin°^Talk 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with moving a lot more information out of the article is:

1) That people may not look for or realize that the history pages exists. I think that the history page need to be linked to early on in the article.

2) That the article may not appear complete enough to garner much support at FAC.

I agree that much of the treatment information can go, but the vaccine and eradication needs to stay, IMO. The eradication of polio is not "history", also there is already a daughter article for this topic. Okay, I think that I will just make a few changes and then we can see where we are at.--DO11.10 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points:

a) We could address the "visibility" of the History page with an article header - something like "This article is about the disease. For the virus which causes poliomyelitis, see Poliovirus. For the historical and societal impact of polio, see History of poliomyelitis."

b) I agree that the "Eradication" section needs to stay: polio is not, after all, eradicated yet, thus this is still current info. I'm a little more ambivalent about the length of the "Vaccine" section given that a separate article already exists -- that said, I'm not sure the section could be trimmed much more without loosing coherence.

c) Generally speaking, the WP:MEDMOS style guide is a Good Thing; section header changes seem pretty innocuous to me.

-- MarcoTolo 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think the recent edits by the group to the temp versions have worked well. A quick run-down on my take of Colin's suggestions seems useful at this point (I've numbered Colin's suggestions for clarity):

1. I think this has mostly been addressed at this point. (The "Pathogenesis" header was probably my fault - I have a tendency of throwing it around as a catch-all...)

2. "Types" works for me.

3. PPS section moved and linked to the main PPS article.

4. Nicely trimmed by User:DO11.10.

5. The vaccine section has been tightened-up; I do agree, however, that the "Eradication" section needs to stay.

6. Not done (yet) - I'll work on this.

History: My local medical library has a copy of the Sass book - I'll grab it this weekend and see what I can add to the History article.

So, these are still "works in progress", but I'd feel comfortable going live. Thoughts? Anyone feel bold? <grin> -- MarcoTolo 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About the vaccine section: I agree, sorry I meant to trim some more off but got pulled away, and I won't have time tonight, feel free to trim away or whatever, and then for sure Go live!!--DO11.10 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've been bold...

1. I agree there is a case for Eradication staying in the main article (though, let's all hope it moves to History in the coming years!)
2. I see that the "Clinical presentation" has been split into "Types" and "Mechanism". The discussion of the signs and symptoms is combined with the different forms the disease may take. In other words, the Classification is symptom-led rather than, say, by one of the three virus types. I suggest "Types" is renamed "Classification" in accordance with MEDMOS — it sounds a bit more formal too. I think it would be difficult to have a separate "Signs and symptoms" section without repetition.
3. You've chosen "Transmission" rather than "Infection" or "Cause". I'm still not sure what the best name for this section is.
4. I intended PPS to be a 2nd level heading, at the end of Prognosis.
5. The Vaccine, Eradication and History sections are still IMO little on the large side for summary-sections.

I wouldn't worry too much at the moment that "the article may not appear complete enough to garner much support at FAC". From the few sources I've looked up, there is certainly room to expand the topics of both articles. Then the summary-sections can be refined so we don't bore people who read the daughter articles.

I haven't forgotten about the list of polio survivors — I'm working on it off-WP so that only a fully referenced and reasonably sized list gets posted. If I get a chance, I'll read some of your sources and post some comments on any areas I think are missing or weak. I suggest, that unless you are directly responding to the above comments, we move discussion of the Poliomyelitis article back to its own talk page. Colin°^Talk 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(here endeth refactoring)-- DO11.10 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Colin, your suggestions have been so very helpful. I, for one, think that the article is looking better and better. I bet you didn't know what you were getting yourself into though!

New changes:

2. Changed to classification, as per your suggestion. The classification needs to be symptom led, as all three serotypes produce the same disease (am I not understanding your point, do you agree with my changes?).

3. I am not really particularly fond of either "infection" or "cause", they just don't sound right to me, and I am not sure why. I had a look at a number of other ID articles (Tuberculosis was the most applicable FA article, I felt) and several of them used "transmission" (HIV, measles) although the section could also be called "pathogenesis".

4. done

5. I shortened the vaccine section, but I feel that the summaries of Eradication and History are of an appropriate length. Also, (not that this is a major point) but on my monitor the images fit nicely with this amount of text.

I am anxiously awaiting the polio survivors article (no pressure though :) let me know if you need any help with it.--DO11.10 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm over half way now. I've had less time than hoped and locating reliable sources always takes time. I'm happy to keep plodding at this. Unless you are desperate for page ASAP, you're probably best to focus on the articles. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FDR image in header

Since the status of FDR's disease is questioned (polio vs. GBS vs. whatever), using him in an image at the top of the Poliomyelitis article seems a little misplaced. I've restored the previous image: while not as good a picture, it's more forthright. -- MarcoTolo 19:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I swapped them because I wanted to use the other image below in the recovery section. Are there any others images that might be able to be used in this section instead (maybe Image:Polio physical therapy.jpg) or if you can find/ point me to any others?--DO11.10 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd - I could have sworn an anon editor made the change.... If I'd known it was you, I'd have said "Hey! Why did you do that?" <grin>. You're right, the image makes more sense in the recovery section. I'll swap it back and take a look at other image options for the opener. -- MarcoTolo 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry it was me (sheepishly looks at feet). I suppose this one would work in the prognosis section, and we could keep the "polio lo-res" one at the top?--DO11.10 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No sweat - I've swapped the images per your suggestion. I'd forgotten about the physical therapy photo; maybe I'll try it on for size in the History article. -- MarcoTolo 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Chinese Cure" section

I've move the following section here:

"In China, where over 2 million paralytic polio survivors live , the surgical care of the post-poliomyelitis sequelae has offered means of reducing or eliminating the paralytic and bones deformity/atrophy associated with polio. To regenerate nerves and muscle activity in dead muscles, for example a dead quadriceps, part of the hamstring may be surgically removed and grafted into the paralytic quadriceps. Bones deformity or atrophy are generally corrected by osteotomy. A pioneer in the field, Dr. Qin Sihe (See: http://www.qinsihe.net) has pioneered many techniques to address the various post polio sequelae observed."

My primary concern is the apparent lack of English reference sources - I'm not comfortable basing a reliable source criterion on automatic Google translations of source material. Second, the section seems borderline promotional. Third, the factual content is vague (I'm not claiming its completely wrong, just not clear). Finally, a least one source not connected with Qin is needed. -- MarcoTolo 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Removal of "Chinese Cure" section

I strongly feel it is quite unhelpful, especially for inquisitive polio survivors with paralytic conditions to remove this section.

I am a polio survivor with a paralytic right leg. I had zero quadriceps and a 1.5 inch leg discrepancy with my left leg. For the last 16 years I roamed the world's western physicians in Europe and the US (went to NIH for consultations) who might have knowledge on the issue. All told me my best hope was physical therapy and healthy leaving.

Persistent search and a little bit of luck led me to China where I met this doctor. Of all the physicians that I have met over the years no one ever came close to his level of understanding of the disease and ways to alleviate its sequelae. A significant part of my professional life involves sizing up people.I had my first surgery to recreate my quadriceps on Nov 23, 2006 (Thanksgiving day) from my hamstring. Now I have responsive and fast growing quadriceps. I had an osteotomy on March 21 to equalize my tibias using an improved ilizarov technique. I was hosted at a private hospital in Beijing called GuangJi Hospital(广 济 医 院) where this doctor may make consultation. I must mention that I contacted one of the best known doctors(wrote numerous books) in the US in Feb 2006 for PPS (post polio syndrome) and asked him about the possibility of grafting new muscle on my quadriceps and he replied: "Heavens no!"(actual quote). This was the typical response of many physicians when I mentionned the possibility of surgical solutions over the years. Usually I was consulted with the kind of curious distbilief of a scientist discovering a dinosaur fossil. Most had not seen such an actual case in their practice. Yet I followed the progress of medicine over the years, broaden my horizons and never despaired.

Depending on my progress from now on I will have one or a few more surgeries to recreate insufficient or non responsive ligaments/tendons/muscles and equalize femurs.

As I considered this surgery in China, I wondered why in the US, Europe and the western world in general, there was so little awareness about these surgical possibilities. It occured to me the answer was pretty simple: necessity and economics. In the western world, there are are very few remaining cases of deformed/paralytic polio survivors since the disease has been eradicated there. In other underdeveloped countries with research capabilities such as China or India, the scope of afflicted people coupled with internal research capabilities make it not so surprising that cutting edge "affordable" treatment can be found. (In the case ofIndia, I suspect the absence of language barrier would mean its specific knowledge would already be fused with western knowledge)

I did a lot of research on this surgeon before allowing him to operate on me(unfortunately, almost everything is in chinese). He appears to have done over 15,000 such surgeries on polio patients.Everywhere I mentioned him on polio in China, the reviews were glowing. I have lived with patients he has treated over time and seen the changes he has brought to their lives. In particular, I remember this little 6 year chinese girl(xiao ping) who could not go to school because both of her two legs had been deformed/paralysed by polio. She was so beautiful faced, so full of spirit, When I first saw her and her legs, I cried for her. By the time she left the hospital I cried for me, I cried for the youth I could have had-and that I would never have-, had I met such a physician at that age.

Most people with paralytic polio live in developing countries or contracted it there ( I am american but caught it as a child in Africa. Now in my 30s). I feel it extremely important that on a growing reference publication such as wikipedia It is important that awareness be raised.

Here as in other areas, language barrier can delay awareness of specific innovations in isolated part of the world, e.g. ilizarov techniques.

I am no chinese, have no Chinese ancestry, no connection whatsoever to Mr. Qin, except that he operated on me. I came to China for the first time in China in September 2006 to investigate my treatment options and study Chinese and discover China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bics (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 July 2007.

I support the inclusion of information on the Chinese surgical method. However, I do not support the inclusion of Original Research, which encompasses personal experiences such as the above account. However, a reference to a source documenting the technique, and a personal account, essentially require that the material be included in the article. I would recommend the promotional tone be removed (such of it as does exist, not that there is incredibly much), and any additional references should be located. It is easy for those of us in the West to think of "Chinese Cures" as rather stupid. This is unfortunate, because many Chinese herbal and Ayurvedic (Indian, not Chinese) remedies really do work. In the case of Chinese herbs, Da Qing Ye is, in truth (WP:OR here) very effective against Herpes virus. So is Polyphylla extract that has been prepared correctly, and IME/IMHO polyphylla may be a natural route to demolish latent infection. It will serve us well to not wear any blinders made in the West. ManVhv 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We only have one source document (in Chinese) authored by the surgeon himself—the rest, as you say, is OR. That wouldn't be satisfactory for even a Western technique, never mind one we can't even read about. The technique, for it to appear in an encyclopaedia, would need to be widely regarded. It would have been tested/reviewed not only by other Chinese surgeons, but if it really is a wonder-cure, then I would expect Western polio-charities to be discussing it. I appreciate the language barrier (and other cultural issues) can delay the transfer of knowledge, but that isn't WP's problem. WP is in no rush, nor is it responsible for helping those who have had polio find treatment. I suggest the editor campaigns for the relevant charities to investigate the technique.

A quick glance at PubMed shows numerous papers documenting surgical techniques for treating post-poliomyelitis sequelae. The problem with this one technique isn't just the difficulty of ensuring WP:V but almost certainly one of undue weight. Colin°^Talk 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I too am quite uncomfortable including the passage for the reasons outlined above by Colin and MarcoTolo. If, as Colin states, surgical techniques for treating post-poliomyelitis sequelae are well documented, and can be reliably sourced (PubMed), then something about the techniques in general should probably be included here as well. But, I am afraid awareness of Mr. Qin's techniques will have be raised via other avenues before it can be included here. --DO11.10 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Qin's publications ought to be referenced, they do not fall under WP:OR and they are PMID 16784635, PMID 15598389, and PMID 15363237, to reference three that were easily found. There is often the question of placing "undue weight" on non-Western medical procedures. That is because American and European doctors spend years being told that only they are qualified to comment on issues of medicine. Clearly, this is untrue bigotry. Thank goodness Wikipedia is not run by doctors. ManVhv 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the passage and the concerns raised above are in no way a condemnation of "non-Western medical procedures". I don't care if the treatment is Eastern or Western (or Polar). What I am concerned with is verifiability and weighted appropriateness. Vitriolic comments and calling doctors "bigots" is unhelpful and totally uncalled for.

Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that Dr. Qin's surgical practices are somehow "alternative" or "eastern". Reading the abstracts of the articles and a quick look at the related articles shows that they are not. Dr. Qin's methods appear to use surgical practices common to orthopedics since the dawn of the practice. The Ilizarov technique was apparently developed many decades ago, for example. And these surgical techniques are certainly not unknown to "western" physicians, [6], [7]. The "limited intervention Ilizarov technique" has been used since at least 1990[8]. I am not a doctor (I am sure you'll be pleased to know) and I could be wrong, but I just don't see anything "pioneering" here and I see no reason to specifically mention him in a general discussion regarding surgical techniques. Besides none of the three citations you give, nor the other three papers of Dr. Qin's, mentions polio specifically in the abstract, the only part of the article I am able to read. When writing articles I cite the sources I have used, and I (or any editor) would be unlikely to use these citations for this reason. I can understand User:Bics gratitude towards the man who took up his cause, but lots of other doctors use and have studied this technique, why discount their hard work?--DO11.10 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I got the impression that the disagreement is West vs. East from the topic heading "Chinese Cure". Why put it in derogatory quotes if you aren't trying to be West against East? I know the Ilizarov technique is Russian, if not Western, and is not Chinese per se -- however the problematic reception seems to hinge on the "Oriental" origin of the cure. And that offends me. (ManVhv from a public airport terminal where he is not willing to type his password.)

With all due respect toDO11.10, I think the removal of the section on "chinese cure" is unwarranted. I feel you could have left the info on the scope of the problem in china (2 million people) at the very least. You could have modified it a bit and left the references.I am not claiming Dr. Qin invented the concept of Ilizarov or Mucle grafting. What I realized upon reading his book is that he perfected (mechanized if I could say ) a lot of these techniques, especially the muscle grafting part for the purpose of helping alleviate the sequelae of paralytic polio survivor. These improvements I suppose were driven by the need to handle the scope of the problem in China. And that should be acknowledged.

If you go to the reference research centers in the US on post polio sequelae (MAYO CLINIC, POST POLIO CENTER IN ENGLEWOOD NJ), surgery is not mentioned as a form of treatment. No one recommends it in the west. I STRONGLY THINK THE SURGICAL ROUTE WITH MUSCLE GRAFTING IN PARTICULAR SHOULD BE PUT WITH MORE EMPHASIS, AT LEAST AS A SOLUTION HIGHLY USED IN COUNTRIES SUCH AS CHINA AND ADD DR. QIN AS A REFERENCE. (unsigned comment by IP address 59.66.236.22, please sign comments using four tilde characters "~~~~")

Several points in response to concerns raised above:

1) I was the one who put "Chinese Cure" in quotes - not in a "derogatory" usage, but simply to provide an easy-to-find-on-the-talk-page header indicating which portion of text was being moved to the talk page: If I had moved information on, say, specialized treatment at Boston University, I would have written "BU Cure" in quotes. (My use of the word "cure" was based on the change in the same edit of "No cure for polio exists" to "No direct cure for polio exists"). I'm sorry if the use of quotations was offensive - that was not my intent.

2) When I made the original edit removing the section, I was in a hurry and opted to move the text to the talk page. I briefly glanced at the single Pubmed entry I found searching with "Qin S" [auth] poliomyelitis (PMID 17304997 - Vertebral pedicle screw-rods system for correcting paralytic scoliosis) and found it to be a reasonable orthopaedics paper, but not supporting most of the claims regarding nerve regeneration. (Note: I did not find the articles listed by "Qin SH" - though, frankly, I'm not sure it would have affected my concerns).

3) After further review, I'm still not sure how the article benefits by greatly expanding the "surgical methods of treatment" potion. The "Treatment" section notes that many types of treatment have been used historically and that "Treatment of polio also often requires long-term rehabilitation....and, in some cases, orthopedic surgery." The papers by Qin et al seem promising, but evolutionary, not revolutionary (disclaimer: I am not an surgeon). If the "muscle grafting" technique is used more frequently outside the US, it might warrant a "Outside the US, surgical techniques such as muscle grafting are used in PPS patients...." sentence.

More broadly speaking, the discussion above doesn't strike me as an anti-western medicine issue, but a difficulty-in-finding-appropriate-English-references-for-non-English-authors issue. While this manifests itself most frequently with those techniques generally referred to as Oriental, its not an isolated problem: for example, the historical sections of many infectious disease articles are often hard to source because the originals are only available in French or German. -- MarcoTolo 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)