Jonas Salk and the Polio Vaccine
In these terrible times, when the world is convulsed in crisis, it may be nice to remember a true hero, a New Yorker btw, who developed a vaccine which eradicated the scourge of polio from the United States.
A PBS special on Polio described Polio as America's second greatest fear - second only to the Atomic Bomb. For seven years Salk and his team devoted themselves to developing a vaccine for Polio. What makes it relevant to Coronavirus is obvious.
Here is the important part. Neither Salk nor the American public were about to wait for bureaucrats approval:
After successful tests on laboratory animals, on July 2, 1952, assisted by the staff at the D.T. Watson Home for Crippled Children, Salk injected 43 children with his killed-virus vaccine. A few weeks later, Salk injected children at the Polk State School for the retarded and feeble-minded. In 1954 he tested the vaccine on about one million children, known as the polio pioneers. The vaccine was announced as safe on April 12, 1955.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk#Polio_research
As we hear from those who want to wait for more testing of drugs that have been in use for 65 years, maybe the old adage "desperate times call for desperate measures" should be the order of the day. To quote our most distinguished member " I find it disgusting that even in a time of hardship, partisanship still goes on." I agree. Let us try and come together to defeat this horror that is killing our people and our citizens.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
27 visitors
For those old enough to remember.....
I certainly remember the scourge of polio, and remember the fear of contracting it. The vision of a person in the "iron lung' was terrifying. Concerning what you stated:
Not just the United States, Vic, but Canada and most other countries as well. What everyone should also be aware of is that Salk was a genuine humanitarian, and REFUSED TO PATENT his vaccine as he refused to profit from it, helping to make it an affordable benefit even for the most poverished.
Thanks for pointing it out...I did know all that. Iv'e become quite a fan.
I certainly do remember. One summer when I was little, I started having pain in my legs. It wasn't until I was much older that I learned how petrified my parents were, thinking that I had polio. Thankfully, I didn't. A boy who lived on my street wasn't as lucky. He had a rather mild case of polio, but he always had a limp.
Yes, that's how an entire generation feared it.I remember getting the vaccine in liquid form - in grade School
Born in 1947. I remember.
Unfortunately, your seed has an obvious slant. Salk and Sabin were both financed by the US government. The early tests he ran was with full knowledge of the Eisenhower Administration and the Congress. Both of which were urging great haste on vaccine development.
There is no partisanship except from the WH.
Because the country wanted something done, just as now
Misleading. Yes, hydrochloroquine has been in use for a long time. Many drugs have. That tells us little about whether they're effective against this specific virus. Perhaps hydrochloroquine is helpful against coronavirus (I do not deny that it may be), and perhaps they're not. Perhaps it causes more complications and a slower recovery. So far, all are small studies, so before we start dosing up everyone infected with hydrochloroquine, more study is warranted. Especially as diverting it to coronavirus patients will, until production ramps up, decrease the supply available to patients with malaria and autoimmune diseases, which can also be fatal.
Chloroquine has known risks, including retinal damage and prolonged QT interval, which can cause cardiac arrhythmias. It is in immunosuppressant. Perhaps it's safe for most patients, but should be avoided in patients with diagnosed retinopathies, heart disease, or immunodeficiencies.
Nobody is against an effective treatment for coronavirus. We object to rashly making things worse, both for coronavirus patients, and for those who will be forced to forego treatment for other conditions treated with hydrochloroquine.
Tell that to a man infected with the virus and gasping for air!
You're ok with making him worse?
Possibly causing a heart attack?
You're ok with one person dying from the effects of lupus, so that another person gets a questionably efficacious treatment for coronavirus?
That ain't right, Vic.
You seem to think that I'm against hydrochloroquine, even if it works. That's why your words are misleading. I'm not. I'm for treatments that work, and are safe.
Frankly, Trump's endorsement means precisely diddly squat. He is neither a doctor nor a scientist. He has shown a poor grasp of the basics of biology. He has a political motivation to claim credit for endorsing a "cure". I'll wait for the scientists to say whether it works. Not somebody incapable of understanding that a flu vaccine won't work against a disease that isn't the flu.
Someone at death's door? Making him worse? Give him the choice!
Possibly causing a heart attack?
The drug we are talking about is not for people with heart conditions
You're ok with one person dying from the effects of lupus, so that another person gets a questionably efficacious treatment for coronavirus?
Of course not. I want enough medication for everyone. They should be mass produced
That ain't right, Vic.
Neither was the atom bomb, but again we are at war
You seem to think that I'm against hydrochloroquine, even if it works. That's why your words are misleading. I'm not.
I never questioned your motivation.
Frankly, Trump's endorsement means precisely diddly squat.
Then why even mention it?
No, it's not. It is cardiotoxic to a degree. It can cause arrythmias, which can lead to cardiac arrest. It, like other drugs, has side effects that may be dangerous. Perhaps hydrochloroquine might be a good choice for some patient populations, but not others, such as those who already have diagnosed arrythmias or have had a heart attack. These are things we need to know before we give people who may well recover without it a drug that stops or damages their heart.
I probably should have included that in a separate reply to your comment above, where you mentioned Trump's endorsement of azithromycin. The same holds true. If it works, great. But whether it does or not is independent of his endorsement. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and has shown as much repeatedly.
Thanks for elaborating on what I just said. And for those at death's door, who don't have heart problems it is a great option!
I probably should have included that in a separate reply to your comment above, where you mentioned Trump's endorsement of azithromycin.
In that case I was making a point about the resistance
He doesn't know what he's talking about, and has shown as much repeatedly.
He knows exactly what middle America thinks and wants. You doubt that? Watch come November.
We don't know that at this point.
Middle America's wants don't dictate what constitutes good treatment. Now you're just reverting to tired talking points and propaganda.
A dying patient, gasping for air????
Middle America's wants don't dictate what constitutes good treatment.
And who does? The self anointed elite?
The patient gasping for air and the fact that a drug has been in use for decades are hardly evidence for that drug being safe and effective. By your standards, we should just give them all aspirin. Hey, it's been around for decades, and is even known to treat fever, so it's good as a hail Mary, right? Aspirin for everybody!
Or maybe we should set the bar a bit higher.
Medical science. You would have us evaluate treatment by wishful thinking.
We know better, don't we? There are many doctors using it to counter the virus. It is not illegal for them to do it. There is a term to describe it. It escapes me now, but like I say many doctors are already using it for people sickened by the virus.
You would have us evaluate treatment by wishful thinking.
You forgot my purpose with this article. All those people during the early fifties submitted their own children for Salk's vaccine, which did not have the full range of testing. It was the risk of Polio vs a very promising vaccine. Sometimes it comes down to that type of choice.
No, we don't. We have some studies saying it may help. I never said it was illegal for them to prescribe it. I'm calling for caution. I recognize the need for an effective treatment. This may or may not be it. When you rush science because you want something to work and ignore risks, you end up with situations like thalidomide babies and DES.
For a dying patient, I think they would choose the risk. I know I would. At the very least, it's the humane thing to do.
Perhaps, and given enough supporting data, I might, too. But I can't ignore that there are risks, that the benefits may not outweigh those risks, and that other patients might have need of those drugs.
I guess we don't really know how we would feel until we were in that position. It must be a terrible feeling to not be able to breathe.
I'm sure it is. I hate to think of people dying in the sort of panic that must bring on.
That's the thing about the virus it can fill the lungs with fluid. An antibody is worth it's weight in gold right now.
SP has an article about an antibody showing some promise. It's an antibody against the last SARS virus. It's not a perfect "fit" biochemically, but it's something to go on.
I saw it. They are also going full speed on one, to be done in September
Not that it is a direct comparison but when I was young, I had pleurisy once. That was scary at that age. It just plain hurt to breathe.
Iv'e heard. I had a cousin who had pleurisy, but he got it in the Pacific during WWII
I had it once too. I don't know what was worse the pleurisy or the meds they gave me to fix it.
That’s why it’s fortune that Trump and congress passed right to try so a patient and their doctor can do things to save the patients life without busybodies getting in their way.
The anti biotic in question used in tandem is heavily prescribed for bronchitis and pneumonia as I’ve taken it multiple times for both.
"The lib media’s cheerleading against hydroxychloroquine is grotesque & they have no idea the rage brewing because of their efforts to undermine a possible treatment. If Trump said “hydroxychloroquine sucks” they’d be selling it as a miracle cure. It’s pathetic. They’re pathetic." Dan Bongino
I just thought I'd post that
There's that partisanship again. Disappointing.
Ya, from the left!
"I know you are, but what am I"?
I'd expected better, Vic.
My name isn't Mitt Romney. We don't take it any more.
That’s for darn sure!
It’s exactly right.
And then there's this:
As many as 4,000 seriously ill coronavirus patients in New York are being treated with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, state health officials say.
President Trump has touted hydroxychloroquine as a potential life-saver, although there is no widespread scientific evidence to date showing it helps battle COVID-19.
But Gov. Andrew Cuomo last month said health care providers in the state would be using the drug in combination with the antibiotic Zithromax, or azithromycin, for some last-ditch cases, based on potentially promising research.
“Time is of the essence,’’ Albany University Public Health Dean David Holtgrave, who is on the state’s research team, said in a statement.
A state Health Department official said the DOH has shipped doses of hydroxychloroquine to 56 hospitals across New York, distributing enough “to treat 4,000 patients to date.”
Patients have received doses as part of four- or 10-day regimens, officials said.
The University of Albany’s School of Public Health is observing the drug’s impact on the patients, and its preliminary study could come back in weeks instead of the usual months, officials said.
There are also clinical trials being conducted to see whether the drug can help block transmission.
NYU Langone Medical School is conducting a random trial with a $9.5 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
“Currently, there is no proven way to prevent COVID-19 after being exposed,” said Anna Bershteyn, an assistant professor with the Department of Population Health at NYU Langone and the study’s co-principal investigator.
“If hydroxychloroquine provides protection, then it could be an essential tool for fighting this pandemic. If it doesn’t, then people should avoid unnecessary risks from taking the drug.”
The drug has long been used to treat malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.