The last source I used talked about the efficiency and success of the polio vaccine. This source describes the problems caused by the vaccine by taking it orally.
The source i used was http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=14&sid=a955be99-1942-4f64-82f5-1d3f3cfe4453%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34303450.
“Oral polio vaccine (OPV) has been used safely and efficiently for more than 40 years in preventive medicine. Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) is a rare adverse event of OPV due to reversion of the vaccine strain virus to a neurovirulent strain. VAPP can occur in healthy recipients or their close contacts. However, persons with primary humoral immunodeficiencies are at a much higher risk. X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA) is a prototypic humoral deficiency caused by mutations in the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase ( BTK) gene. In addition to susceptibility to bacterial infections, patients with XLA are especially prone to enteroviruses. Here, we describe the occurrence of VAPP in a 15-month old Iranian boy. The child had received four doses of OPV, administered at birth, 2, 4, and 6 months of age. The patient’s infectious history was unremarkable. Laboratory evaluation revealed low levels of immunoglobulin G and CD19<sup>+</sup> B cells of less than 1% of the lymphocyte population. A novel insertion (c.685_686insTTAC) in the SH3 domain of the BTK gene was detected as the underlying cause. Immunodeficient recipients of OPV can excrete poliovirus vaccine strains for a long period and are at risk of developing flaccid paralysis.”
To sum up this quote, It states that the child with the mutations to his BTK gene effected him when receiving the oral polio vaccine. The mutations combined with the vaccine caused paralysis to the boy. This shows the bad consequences of the polio vaccine. The oral vaccine being cheaper makes it more cost efficient for people in poor countries, which is where the biggest polio problems are. These mutations of the BTK gene makes it so that the people can’t receive the oral vaccine without becoming most likely paralyzed. They must take the injection vaccine instead, but it happens to be more expensive. This creates a huge problem in the effectiveness of the polio vaccine to eradicate the disease. This source is a good source to show the problems in eradicating the polio disease and how the oral vaccine can cause many problems if the person has a humoral immunodeficiency such as the BTK gene mutation. This claim is a consequential claim showing the problems caused by the oral vaccine. It’s cause of paralysis to people with the mutations to their BTK gene put a huge road block in the eradication of polio. Until we can figure out a way around this road block the ultimate eradication of the disease is at a stand still.
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 
Brett, before I read your quote or your analysis of how it refutes an argument you thought was valid or supports an argument you hadn’t considered until you did this bit of research, I want to encourage you to establish reader expectations better in your introduction.
All we learn from your first sentence is the subject matter of the two readings. We don’t know whether the first reading concluded that a particular polio vaccine is particularly effective, or whether you were convinced otherwise. We don’t know whether the problems described in the second reading reduce the vaccine’s effectiveness, or one vaccine’s more than another’s.
Most likely, the first source established or proved the effectiveness of the vaccine. It may have persuaded you that eradication was possible. Also likely, the new source disputes that effectiveness or refutes the theory that eradication can be achieved without dire consequences. See the difference?
This seems a small point, probably, but if you fail to guide us toward your conclusion at every opportunity, we have no idea why you’re talking to us at all. Before we begin to read your quote, we aren’t clear where you stand.
[The link you provided directed me right back to your post. Can you find the source and link to it again?]
Before reading your analysis of this long quote, I see it describes the paralysis of a particular child who had a pre-existing immune deficiency, an unfortunate example of what the source calls a rare adverse event.
You conclude, it seems, that mutations to the BTK gene are holding eradication efforts hostage. You may be right. But this source doesn’t begin to prove it, Brett, although it does provide good evidence that certain recipients will be paralyzed and emit virus strains following vaccination. Your smaller claims that eradicating polio is problematic and that individuals will be adversely affected (not effected) are certainly supported. Your additional evidence of the relative costs of two vaccine types helps explain why the problematic type is still used.
Regarding the OPV vaccine, does its (not it’s) disadvantage amount to a “huge road block,” and does its adversity bring eradication efforts “to a standstill”? Neither of these is proved. It’s also not clear that the BTK deficiency is the only immunodeficiency that can permit paralysis or infection.
I do respect the work you did here, Brett. You’ve drawn plenty of reasonable conclusions. (How they differ from your earlier conclusions I can’t tell from what you say here.) I hope you consider this criticism constructive.
Grade Recorded.
LikeLike
I agree with what you’ve said about clearly stating the main subject of my writing. The assignment was to talk about how the two sources differed and I realized i picked two different kind of sources and wasn’t sure how I was going to explain them as one whole subject. help show me how i should have guided my reader to a better overall subject to talk about and explain the differences in the two. I knew it was a little bad and sloppy when tried to compare the two,but what you said helped me better understand how to fix that next time when come into that situation.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brett. I’m glad it was helpful. If your comment “help show me how i should have guided my reader to a better overall subject to talk about and explain the differences in the two” is a request for further clarification, I could offer this example:
In this way, before we even begin to hear your evidence, we know the broad strokes of the comparison. Does that help?
LikeLike