![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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
-- MarcoTolo 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)"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."
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
My resultant TO-DO note (I was in deep waters elesewhere) in:
B'regards Fra nkB 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
There is some reason to believe that the virus enters the body through the ear. Beadtot 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
I found this article. Is this a good source or conspiracy theory stuff? -- Gbleem 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
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)
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).
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.
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
I've move the following section here:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
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)
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.
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)
"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).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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
-- MarcoTolo 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)"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."
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
My resultant TO-DO note (I was in deep waters elesewhere) in:
B'regards Fra nkB 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
There is some reason to believe that the virus enters the body through the ear. Beadtot 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
I found this article. Is this a good source or conspiracy theory stuff? -- Gbleem 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
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)
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).
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.
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
I've move the following section here:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
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)
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.
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)
"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).