Jump to content

Talk:Albert Sabin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarification Needed

[edit]

The article says that Sabin's vaccine "did not prevent the initial, intestinal, infection from occurring" but later says that it "prevented the actual contraction of the disease". Clarification of this is needed to explain further. CrashCart9 06:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it says the former about Salk's vaccine. Perhaps that should be made more clear, as it's easily missed. CrashCart9 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live and dead viruses

[edit]

The "Life" section may be misleading. It states that Salk used a killed–virus vaccine and Sabin used a live–virus vaccine. Viruses are not alive. They therefore cannot be killed. As usual, in our illiterate culture, words are used ambiguously. "Live" and "dead" (or "killed") cannot be used as adjectives to modify the noun "virus."Lestrade (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I suppose that depends on how you choose to define "alive." In any case that is certainly the way the two vaccines were distinguished at the time of the first campaigns to provide the Sabin vaccine to the US public in the form of a sugar cube or teaspoon of liquid given to school children. Pzavon (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a virus a living organism or a non–living, inorganic mechanism? I would think that this would be of primary importance in that much effort would be wasted if a virus is not alive and attempts are made to kill it.Lestrade (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

No, it is mostly a semantic issue. A virus can multiply through its hijacking of processes within the cells it infects. To prevent a virus from causing disease you must destroy the virus before it infects the cells or prevent it from reproducing within the cells. Whether or not you call that "killing" the virus is less relevant than that you accomplish one of those goals. Pzavon (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that no one can say if viruses are living organisms or inorganic mechanisms. From the responses above, I get the impression that it is one of those issues that are not to be discussed. Silence. Omertà. Let it go. Change the subject. Taboo. It's all semantics. This is an encyclopedia but we don't pursue such topics.Lestrade (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
I can't imagine how you reached "Taboo" from my comments. I was merely pointing out that there are places where what some think are fine lines are seen by others as gray areas and the difference may not be able to be conclusively determined to everyone's satisfaction given the present state of knowledge, and in this case, of definitions. Pzavon (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why humans can use the spin of an electron to transmit information and can detect a cosmic neutrino, but cannot tell if a virus is alive. Is it that it doesn't matter for practical purposes? But humans have always been curious and wanted to stick their noses into nature. Is it merely playing with definitions to want to know if viruses are alive? Can the AIDS virus be killed?Lestrade (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

It is because, when you get down to that level, the definition of "alive" is not as clear as when you look at, for example, a lion or a rose. The same is true with regard to the distinction between plant and animal when you look at certain single-celled organisms. Pzavon (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than continue this discussion here, where participants should be talking about Albert Sabin, I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia article on Life. Pzavon (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia claims "Years of debate have centered around the question of whether viruses are living or nonliving and, although resolution is now considered to be simply a problem of semantics, several fundamental differences distinguish viruses from other organisms." It then lists some ways that viruses are different from living organisms. This sounds like the authority for considering the puzzle as "simply a problem of semantics." Pretty simple solution to an intractable problem. Something like a Deus ex machina. Like C. E. M. Joad, we can repeatedly say," It all depends on what you mean by ['living']."Lestrade (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lestrade, I believe while the argument of whether a virus is alive or not continues; the current usage of "live" viral vaccine is giving way to using "attenuated" to refer to a vaccine with an intact virus with decreased virulence. Salk's vaccine has long been referred to as inactivated or IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine). So the current usage being taught to scientists would be: "Sabin's attenuated poliovirus vaccine" and "Salk's inactivated poliovirus vaccine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.237.86 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way out. Instead of "live" we can say "attenuated," "intact," or "virulent." Whether a virus is alive or dead will forever be a mystery, but it will be "swept under the rug." It's a time–honored method. Feynman received a Nobel Prize for sweeping the infinity problem under the rug.Lestrade (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]


== Clarification Needed on Salk Vaccine ==The section on the issues between the Sabin Vaccine and the Salk Vaccine is way too short. This needs to be expanded. PBS aired a very comprehensive documentary in 2009, this information should be included. Pudding30 (talk)

"Indeed it was not clear to many that the vaccine was an American one, financed by US dollars," - I would say that something produced in USSR was Soviet and not American. I don't think that ALL of the research (and much less the clinical trials) was done in US while I am certain that none of the Soviet vaccine production was financed on the US money . As the result, this generally informative piece, stinks of Russophobia and of the usual for Russophobes outright denial that anything of value could have been produced by the Russians .. A pity.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex244 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet that you,Alex, don't have a source for anything you wrote above. Right Alex? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.2.76 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Sabin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Sabin&oldid=1258758828"