Talk:SV40
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Azhyd: I don't think it's accurate to say the contaminated polio vaccines were produced by the former Soviet Union. I know they were tested heavily in the USSR but it was the original Salk and Sabin vaccines, made in the US, that were contaminated - no? Do you have a link or other reference for this?
Also, do you have a link for the "new analysis in 2004"? I'm not aware of it. Thanks --Hob 04:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My reference is a short article in New Scientist and so may not be completely accurate. There are explicitely talking about a Soviet vaccine. See http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996116 There is no other reference I can find in this article; it's mainly a report of some very recent conference... Azhyd 20:25, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Ah... OK, but I think you've been slightly misled by vague wording in the article. "The Soviet polio vaccine was contaminated after 1963" means that there was some quantity of contaminated vaccine produced in the USSR after 1963. That does not mean that all contaminated vaccines before 1963 were also Soviet; the vaccine was being made in more than one place, and as I said, the Salk and Sabin vaccines (made in the US, tested in the USSR among other places) were the ones that were originally associated with SV40. So, assuming this article is your only reference, I'm going to change the wording of the first statement back to what it was. --Hob 22:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- Indeed I assumed too much here. Please fix and thank you for the head up. Azhyd 22:52, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I hope the new version looks right... and of course, since that article is really new news (and thanks for calling my attention to it!), I hope one of us remembers to look for more external links in the next few months. --Hob 23:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] date question
Previous versions of the article had the virus being discovered in 1959. I think I added that, but I'm not sure where it came from, and now all the sources I can find say 1960 - so I've made it 1960. I'm also not sure why it said vaccines were contaminated up to 1962, rather than 1961, and again this may just be my sloppiness, but if someone knows of a conflicting source please let me know. (And, Lestatdelc, sorry about my snarky edit comment; I just made one more revision to that sentence for clarity and grammar, but I appreciate your fixing the date.) ←Hob June 30, 2005 19:15 (UTC)
[edit] in vein
i dont think this would be the right direction to work on it's simply wastage of time SUMIT PANDEY(BIKANER)
[edit] Pop press writeup pared
I've significantly pared down a large contribution made by 68.194.61.176 detailing various allegations made in the popular press. One source was a book written by a pair of "investigative journalists" which is variously described by Amazon.com customers as "[reading] like a thriller," and "a gripping story" about "clash between the science of heroic genius and the search for shared intelligence." Another was a book written by the creator of the "Natural Cures" infomercial. A third source cited on User_talk:68.194.61.176 was Don Imus' radio show.
Let's use our critical faculties here. Wikipedia is not a dissemination mechanism for pop culture conspiracy theories. While I'm not discounting the first book, The Virus and the Vaccine, out of hand, a contribution reading like a poorly written promo for it and including a lot of information irrelevant to the article is not the standard aspired to on Wikipedia. If you want to write about a child who got a brain tumor after receiving the polio vaccine, write an article about the child and link to SV40, not the reverse -- and please think about notability before you do so. Neurophyre 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
