# Talk:Polio vaccine

.

A recent newspaper article Time to finish the job of eradicating polio (Paul Martin, The Globe and Mail, 27 April 2017) by a former Canadian prime minister says that the method of large-scale vaccine production for Salk's testing was developed by biochemist Leone Farrell in Toronto. His claim is supported by this page on Leone Norwood Farrell from Post-Polio Health International. I think it would be appropriate to mention Farrell's role in the history section for the period 1950-55. Dirac66 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now added a sentence about Farrell to this article. I also note that since the above comment, a Wikipedia article about Leone N. Farrell has been created, mostly by editor Cnidocyst. Dirac66 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Jewish scientists found that oral polio remedy (Sabin's drops) can also prevent serious illness caused by the "new coronavirus" infection:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/could-old-vaccines-for-other-germs-protect-against-covid-19/
92.249.156.118 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean "Israeli." Not all people in Israel are Jewish. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry but did either of you actually READ the article? There is no mention in the article WHATSOEVER of the scientists being Israeli, Jewish, or any iteration thereof. My assumption would be this assumption was made based on the fact it was reported by 'Times of Israel'.Robbmonster (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The claim is totally false. There are absolutely no studies telling OPV protects against covid-19. In my opinion this whole discussion could be deleted?
--91.159.188.74 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This article says Salk’s vaccine was licensed in 1955. The article History of polio says it was licensed in 1957. Each article has a source. Which is correct? I understand that trials were conducted earlier, but the date of being licensed is my question.

paragraph from History of polio
Two vaccines are used throughout the world to combat polio. The first was developed by Jonas Salk, first tested in 1952 using the HeLa cell, and announced to the world by Salk on April 12, 1955.[55] The Salk vaccine, or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), consists of an injected dose of killed poliovirus. In 1954, the vaccine was tested for its ability to prevent polio; the field trials involving the Salk vaccine would grow to be the largest medical experiment in history. Immediately following licensing, vaccination campaigns were launched, by 1957, following mass immunizations promoted by the March of Dimes the annual number of polio cases in the United States was reduced, from a peak of nearly 58,000 cases, to 5,600 cases.[13]
Thanks   - - Prairieplant (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the History of polio article is saying that in 1957, after the vaccination campaign had been in effect, the number of cases declined. Assuming the vaccine was licensed in 1955, it would take a number of months for a sufficient number of people to be vaccinated to accomplish that result. So, it isn't that they disagree, but that each has information the other lacks. Indyguy (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In this edit I have introduced the terms 'replicating' and 'non-replicating'.
This is to avoid some weaknesses of the formerly used terms. The term 'inactivated' is vague, and if the virus were utterly inactivated it wouldn't do anything, not even working as an antigen. Though it can participate in replication, a virus particle in itself is not a really living thing, and can therefore hardly be 'live' or 'killed'. To save the reader from thinking all that through, the essence is in the distinction between 'replicating' and 'non-replicating'.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that term would be incorrect, besides being OR. For instance, the Salk vaccine per the sources, although a "killed" virus, was able to trick the immune system, causing it to produce antibodies. In any case, it's not the purpose of a vaccine to "replicate" itself.— Note "A Special Report on Polio", Library of Congress --Light show (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see your comment.
Agreed, it's not the purpose of a vaccine to "replicate" itself. That is a weakness of the word 'replicate' in this context. My use of the word was not intended to suggest that replication of the virus that is the active component in the vaccine is its purpose, though a non-technical reader might perhaps guess so. I am not clear about your link to a YouTube.
As for the suggestion that use of the word 'replicate' is WP:OR, I wouldn't dogmatize. I think 'replicate' belongs to ordinary language, and is to some degree natural or appropriate, though, as you comment, not perfect. I didn't invent it, but have seen it in current commentary, and think it better than 'kill', 'inactive', and suchlike.
Recognizing some validity in your comment, I have undone my edit. Nevertheless, I think that it would be good to find ways of avoiding the words 'live' and 'killed' when articles refer to virus particles, because those words are misleading, and of avoiding the word 'inactive', which is vague.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like in this article the significance of Mikhail Chumakov is to much on the background. Especially in the history and the collaboration with Salk. 2A02:A447:A5BF:1:C52D:3246:AFB5:A2CF (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Perversely, vaccine-derived poliovirus VDPV ("variant poliovirus") currently seems to be a bigger threat than wild poliovirus (WPV). cVDPV cases worldwide far exceed WPV cases at the moment, and detections of cVDPV are becoming more widespread. 
WPV type 2 has been declared extinct in 1999, and its component has been removed from the OPV formulation since 2016. However, type 2 cVDPV has been identified in Gaza and Egypt - so the vaccine-derived virus has been circulating for between 5 and 6 years. The new vaccine - nOPV2 - is being deployed to target cVDPV2, not WPV2.
The article needs to be updated to reflect the new emphasis on controlling cVDPV.
Bob (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Bob (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The article currently says:

"This virus was also notable for primarily impacting affluent children"
The citation given is https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1472109/
That link does not say "primarily impacting affluent children". The closest thing I can see there is "not related to poverty".
But the link is to a review of a book that I don't have access to. 
So I'm not sure that our quote isn't justified by the citation, but I do wonder if it might not be.
Ben Aveling 22:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@BenAveling A book review is not a reliable source! The book itself might be.Bob (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
This looks like a better source, and it too says "no correlation". https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629618308488#:~:text=The%20lack%20of%20correlation%20between%20paralysis%20and,from%20the%201952%20epidemic%20in%20Lindahl%20(1960). I don't have ready access to the book. Ben Aveling 15:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@BenAveling Actually the whole paragraph is suspect - what does "unofficial moratorium " mean, and where is there evidence for it? It's a pity the sources are not available online, I can't find any online sources to support this paragraph at all.
. Bob (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
We could 'citation needed' it, but I think better to remove (or comment) it and let it back in if/when people provide citation. And I would totally settle for an offline citation, so long as someone trustworthy provides it. Ben Aveling 08:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@BenAveling Agreed, remove the entire paragraph. The article doesn't need it. Bob (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The next paragraph isn't much better. I don't know what the first sentence is saying:

In the early 1930s, two American groups took up the challenge: Maurice Brodie led a team from the public health laboratory of the city of New York and John A. Kolmer collaborated with the Research Institute of Cutaneous Medicine in Philadelphia.
Who is collaborating with who? Kolmer is collaborating with Temple U?
And what is happening here:

reflected in the methodology and outcomes of each
What methodology? What outcomes? Doesn't say. 
Further down, it seems that the early science was a bit cowboy, but there's nothing to attribute motives for that. 
I've trimmed it all down a bit.
Ben Aveling 14:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)