Trick311
Dear Trick311:
I have read several of your postings to the OPV/AIDS article, to which I have also contributed. Unfortunately, recent editors have entered the process with either an agenda, or an incomplete knowledge of the situation.
I have stopped contributing to that article for it is not a productive use of my time. However, I thought you might be interested in the letter below, which was published in the January 2008 issue of Nature Medicine, which followed up upon a December 2007 report in the same venue. In a nutshell -- the authors report that a major problem with the current polio vaccination campaign is not rumors about whether the vaccine gives you HIV/infertility or whatever; rather, a more pressing and important issue is that the vaccine is giving a significant number of its recipients paralytic polio. This is what primarily fuels the fears about the current vaccination campaign, according to these credible reports.
Furthermore, the WHO failed to publicly report these findings for over a year, which is contrary to their own rules. Probably, this relates to a "reversion to virulence" of one of the three strains in the trivalent OPV -- but if one ignores the problems at hand and tries to scapegoat other matters for current difficulties, this is the sort of thing that can happen.
Bear in mind I am the person who wrote the earlier section about the current polio-vaccine issue -- but I tried to compose the piece in a neutral manner without undue weight. Now the weight is far too great to be appropriate; what's more, it's misleading and used to discredit rather than inform.
Anyway, below is the text of one of the recent reports, which perhaps you might use in some productive manner. Theophilus Reed (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Bhasin VK (2008) "Problems with the oral polio vaccine" Nature Medicine 14:9
To the editor:
The year 2005 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the development of the first poliovirus vaccine. At the end of the same year, it was reported that children in a secluded Amish village in the United States had contracted vaccine-derived polio1. Now, over 70 children in Nigeria have also reportedly contracted the disease2.
Although polio eradication remains an achievable goal, these vaccine-related cases are a strong wake-up call that needs to be taken seriously by the world community at large and the developed world in particular.
The Indian Medical Association Sub-Committee’s report on Polio Eradication Initiative is an eye-opener3. It notes that, in 2006, despite repeated doses of oral polio vaccine (OPV) during repeated mass pulse immunization campaigns for communities, there were an alarming 1,600 cases of vaccine-induced polio. Even more alarmingly, this figure may undersestimate the magnitude of the problem, as there were many vaccinated children with polio-like paralysis in whom the polio virus was not cultured from the stools.
These observations suggest that the OPV has outlived its utility; it is not providing herd immunity anymore -- children seem to be getting polio from the vaccine, and the vaccine itself is ineffective in preventing polio transmission from another source. Many developed countries use a nondisseminating injectable polio vaccine (IPV) for immunization and have succeeded in eliminating the disease. The IPV confers excellent mucosal immunity in vaccinated children and provides a high degree of herd immunity in the community.
The cost of producing the IPV is only marginally more than that of producing the OPV, but its selling price is exorbitantly high4, owing to high demand from developed countries and inadequate supplies. The cheaper alternative—OPV—seems to have come with a different price tag, burdening the environment with modified viruses that perpetuate the risk of circulating revertant species that probably account for the reported polio outbreaks. It is therefore time for a worldwide shift from OPV to IPV, or we will lose our grip on the disease.
Virendra K Bhasin Department of Zoology, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India. e-mail: virendrabhasin@hotmail.com 1. Diamond, B. Nat. Med. 11, 1260 (2005). 2. Willyard, C. Nat. Med. 13, 1394 (2007). 3. Puliyel, J.M. The Hindu 19 November 2006, <http://www.hindu.com/mag/2006/11/19/stories/2006111900100400.htm>. 4. John, T.J. Ind. J. Med. Res. 119, 1–17 (2004).
editorial intervention required for some overly critical views re: OPV/AIDS
editHi, the editors are not letting me post my link on the OPV/AIDS debate. I have written in defense of that link. I hope you can help since you seem to have a handle on the issues.
I thank the respected editors for their prompt response. I want to point out something: - if you see my movie - you will see that it is already BASED on all the published material and sources - from Nature, Science, etc. that you have added to your quite impressive (for people not involved in the debate directly) entry on polio-aids. Polio-aids, if true, has immense implications for human life and safety, speaking from the point of view of our species. Hence it is important, that the editors ascertain whether I have TRULY broken the rules. If my video, is only a visual representation, of what has been already discussed in print in your article, then what is the harm in including it. I chose the visual representation of communication because there have been so many cranky theory of aids origin, not to mention the billion dollar lawsuits that some might face, if polio aids is true, that I felt that a visual representation of already published scientific article was important, especially since Wiki itself suffers from a paucity of images. Yes, over the years, my research in Congo led to to believe that there was more truth to polio aids then the scientific mainstream journals (which presented only a politically correct version) represented - and which lay people thought to be the unvarnished truth. But this is not about my point of view. In your article, you have quoted several scientific sources discussing polio - aids, albeit, cautiously, some dismissive, some supportive. What if somebody put up a visual image of all of this debate. Wouldn't have count as an Wiki entry - being simply a DIFFERENT mode of communication, in order to make dense scientific ideas accessible in a more democratic fashion, free of jargon, using the power of the audio-video medium, which many feel - to be the language of the future? Just as Wiki is the encyclopaedia of the future. Thus, given the important of the topic, I humbly request the editors to SEE my movie. It will, if nothing else, inform your various debates on this page. It is only 1 hour or so, in 8 parts. I put it up for free on youtube, because of the importance of the topic.
http://www.youtube.com/fluxsid
is the link of my investigative movie, largely shot in NE Congo - called Private Congo Investigations If you can locate the paper published at the Royal Society conference by Daniel Low-Beer you will see that the paper is based upon my work, and I am thanked accordingly. I am a scientist trained at Oxford, and have been researching the origin of AIDS for several years. A rough cut of my film - made over several years - in North East Congo - is up on youtube. In it, among other things, light is shed on the contamination that Dr. Albert Sabin had found in Koprowski's Leopoldville vaccination campaign which started in Aug 1958, approx. one year before the world's first HIV positive blood sample found from the same city. Several interviews with Dr. Koprowski himself are also in the video which have never been seen before - including instances of him not remembering the dates of his own world's 1st mass vaccination campaign, and his post - dating the date to after the 1959 sample. Dr. Leonard Hayflick, a very famous scientist, who was head of Dr. Koprowski's Wistar Lab, is also seen making points relevant to the idea that chimp cells were used secretly for purposes of securing a patent. And finally, visuals of Assistants at Lindi back in the 50s, talk about what was done, and about chimp kidneys being sent to the USA. All of this is relevant to OPV/AIDS and the origin of AIDS. You have only to see my move. But somebody keeps removing my link - I am new to Wiki, but please try and let my link remain, as it sheds light on the entire discussion here and more
The article Baptodome has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non notable. Non encyclopedic, local term of reference.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Haruth (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)