Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: HAMER@VCUVAX.BITNET (ROBERT M. HAMER) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Salk Vaccine Message-ID: <0001.9008311810.AA27971@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 30 Aug 90 17:43:00 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 30 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu Enough, already: On 26 Aug 90 00:48:38 decomyn@penguin.uss.tek.com writes: >SYSBXR@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU (Bridget Rutty) writes: >>> I can think of at least one precedent from the medical profession >>>- - the Saulk (sp?) vaccine (the primary polio vaccine in the US). Thiss Three levels of quotes... It is spelled Salk, not Saulk. >This is not exactly true. Although the person getting the vaccine (or >their parents) hopefully understand the risks and benifits, the Salk >vaccine actually spreads to non-vaccinated people, transmitting the >benifits of the vaccine to them without their knowledge or consent. >That is why the Salk vaccine is used, rather than a killed virus >vaccine. The Salk vaccine was a _KILLED_ virus vaccine, created by Jonas Salk. Several years later, Albert Sabin created a weakened _LIVE_ virus vaccine, called, not surprisingly, the Sabin vaccine. Its purpose was not to spread to "non-vaccinated" people. It was designed neither to spread not to make people sick; just to do a better job of getting the immune system to create antibodies to polio than did the Salk vaccine. Being a killed virus, and barring an error in the creation of the killed virus vaccine, the Salk vaccine could neither spread nor make anyone sick. (With both vaccines, and indeed with almost any vaccine, it is possible that the manufacture of the vaccine might be defective, leaving live unweakened virus. _VERY UNLIKELY_. It is further possible, and more likely but still unlikely, that any particular person can have an allergic reaction to a vaccine, and get sick, sometimes very sick.)