Talk:David Vetter

Untitled

THE ARTICLE SAYS DAVID VETTER WAS KNOWN AS THE BOY IN THE BUBBLE I WAS BORN IN 1968 I REMEMBER HIM BEING KNOWN AS DAVID THE BUBBLE BOY WHEN I WAS GROWING UP BECAUSE THATS WHAT THE MEDIA CALLED HIM

THE ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA ON DAVID VETTER IS BASED ON HALF TRUTHS THAT CAME FROM A BOOK THAT WAS NEVER PUBLISH BY MARY ADA MURPHY WHICH YOU CAN READ ONLINE THE BOOK WAS TURN DOWN BY SEVERAL PUBLISHERS IN THE BOOK MARY SAYS DAVID HAD AN IQ OF 126 BUT LATTER ON IN THE BOOK MARY IMPLIES THAT DAVID WAS STUPID BECAUSE HE THOUGHT SHE COULD DRIVE HER CAR ACROSS THE OCEAN TO CHINA FROM THE U.S ALSO THE PERSON THAT WROTE THE ARTICLE ON DAVID VETTER ADMITS THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO READ OTHER ARTICLES ABOUT DAVID legitimate MORE accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.85.8 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS ARTICLE WAS EDITED ABOUT WHY HOW HE BECAME FAMOUS FOR LIVING IN A sterile environment AND HE DID NOT HAVE A TV INSIDE HIS BUBBLE I DON'T BELIEVE THE PERSON THAT CHANGE THE ARTICLE READ TO MANY ARTICLE ON DAVID VETTER

LISTED BIRTH LOCATIONS INACCURATEITS SAY A BUBBLE WAS SET UP AT HES PARENTS HOUSE IN CONROE TEXAS HES PARENTS LIVED IN SHENANDOAH TEXAS MATTER OF FACT IF YOU LOOK UP SHENANDOAH TEXAS IN WIKIPEDIA IT MENTION DAVID VETTER WAS FROM THERE OTHER ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT HIM ONLINE MAKE THE SAME STATEMENT

BUT NOT CONROE TEXAS NO MENTION OF DAVID VETTER 

THE ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA ON DAVID VETTER IS BASED ON HALF TRUTHS THAT CAME FROM A BOOK THAT WAS NEVER PUBLISH BY MARY ADA MURPHY WHICH YOU CAN READ ONLINE THE BOOK WAS TURN DOWN BY SEVERAL PUBLISHERS IN THE BOOK MARY SAYS DAVID HAD AN IQ OF 126 BUT LATTER ON IN THE BOOK MARY IMPLIES THAT DAVID WAS STUPID BECAUSE HE THOUGHT SHE COULD DRIVE HER CAR ACROSS THE OCEAN TO CHINA FROM THE U.S ALSO THE PERSON THAT WROTE THE ARTICLE ON ON DAVID VETTER ADMITS THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO READ OTHER ARTICLES ABOUT DAVID legitimate MORE accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.85.8 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

His parents and medical team sought to provide him as normal a life as possible, including a formal education, and a television and playroom inside the sterile chamber. DAVID VETTER DID NOT HAVE A TELEVISION INSIDE HIS STERILE CHAMBER HIS MOTHER IN A INTERVIEW WITH PEOPLE MAGAZINE IN NOVEMBER 5, 1984 ISSUE VOL.22 NUMBER 19 THE BUBBLE BOY PART 2 THAT DAVID HAD TO GET SO ONE TO TURN ON THE TV SET FOR HIM AND CHANGE THE CHANNEL IF THEY DIDN'T CHANGE IT FAST ENOUGH HIS MOTHER SAID HE COULD REALLY YELL AND HIS MOTHER SAID THEY WOULD USE THE TV AS A WAY TO DISCIPLINE HIM. HIS MOTHER ALSO STATED HE DIDN'T HAVE A LIGHT IN HIS ISOLATOR SHE SAID HE WOULD MANIPULATE A 5 FOOT STICK TO TURN ON LIGHTS AND TO OPEN AND SHUT DOORS

How can David Vetter be born in Shenandoah, TX "was a boy from Shenandoah, Texas, United States" and be also "David Vetter Born September 21, 1971 Kokomo, Indiana, United States "??? WHEN IN ACTUALITY he was born in September 21, 1971, at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, TX . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeVert (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have written a few articles and here's something I noticed. When you write stubs they tend to stay that way very long, until they get noticed by somebody else and grown. But then when you contribute with a long article, althought many reviewers makes a lot of small contributions the total text stays basically the same. In neither occasion the text actually evolves to a full grown colaborative write-up. In some cases, articles too big will tend to stay with structural errors. That happened to my first article, Oscar Niemeyer, that has a lot of language faults (mainly because english is not my mother tongue) that are still there because nobody got the trouble to fix it all. (One wikipedian rule is always left something to be done)

This article is an experiment. I wrote a relatevely big article about what I consider an interesting theme but left out gaps on purpose to be filled by other contributors. I am curious to see what it will look like when it grows.

--Alexandre Van de Sande 02:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I gave up with all of the above. please read the not helpful part. --Alexandre Van de Sande 00:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's too bad that you left the article incomplete. I would complete it except that I don't know anything about David Vetter and searched his name in order to find out more about him. There are a few problems with the grammer, which I will try to fix. Maryevelyn 10/28/04

I wouldn't trust anyone to fix the "grammer" if he/she is unable to spell the word "grammar." 71.92.98.115 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

what about the bone marrow transplant? highly confusing paragraph

The 2nd paragraph of the birth section currently reads "The doctors had decided that a bone marrow transplant may give David's immune system a jump start, however they had expected that David's sister, Katherine, would be a match.Now, what was set up as a temporary solution had now become his home..."

IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT KATHERINE BONE MARROW WAS NOT A PERFECT MATCH AFTER DAVID WAS BORN. 12 YEARS LATER BREAK THOUGH IN BONE MARROW RESEARCH HAPPEN WHERE DOCTORS COULD TAKE NON MATCHING BONE MARROW THAT WASN'T A PERFECT MATCH AND TREAT IT SO IT WOULD WORK IN SOMEBODY ELSE IT WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE THE DOCTORS TOLD THE PARENTS THAT IT WAS 99 PERCENT SAFE IF IT DIDN'T WORK THEY WOULD BE BACK TO SQUARE ONE

Was she or wasn't she a match? SHE WAS NOT A PERFECT MATCH BUT SHE WAS A GOOD MATCH.

Would or wouldn't a bone marrow transplant give David's immune system a jump start? 70.231.188.124 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Her marrow was NOT a match. In fact when the transplant was done (out of desperation) a virus contaminant gave him the cancer that killed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

cleanup tag; highly suspect copyvio for obvious reasons User:Antaeus Feldspar

What are those obvious reasons? --Alexandre Van de Sande 03:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That was posted by User:Avsa and not by Antaeus Feldspar. Mike H 03:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

This also should be taken off did you know. An article should only be written if things are KNOWN about the subject, and not a fill-in-the-blank skeleton like Mad Libs. Mike H 03:11, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

No it was not. I am avsa, and Antaeus wrote that --Alexandre Van de Sande 11:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not only did you write the note, but you seemed to actually RESPOND to it. [1] Mike H 18:39, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

This would be where you added Antaeus Feldspar's username. [2] This is a Wiki, you know. It's all there to be seen. Mike H 18:40, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

This is old discussion but I would like to add this link just so nobody will think I got nuts..--Alexandre Van de Sande 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Some links: http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/1997-04-10/feature.html http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/dnames-nf/David+the+Bubble+Boy http://rarediseases.about.com/cs/scid/a/042702.htm 130.195.86.37 03:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not helpful

I find this whole article idea patronizing and at the end of the day, it doesn't help anyone to have an article like this.

This article is an experiment. I wrote a relatevely big article about what I consider an interesting theme but left out gaps on purpose to be filled by other contributors. I am curious to see what it will look like when it grows.

This article has stayed very stagnant. If you know about the subject, why force others to write about something they wouldn't really want to write about? Mike H 09:18, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto on that. What do we need now, Wikipedia is not a toy? Wikipedia is not Mad Libs? Far better to write a complete article and let it stagnate than write an incomplete article and let that stagnate. - Furrykef 02:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this experiment was no good at all. I learned that wikipedia articles are not written bit by bit but more on someone writes, a lot of people correct, then someone writes again. You cannot force when this writing will happen, just wait. In the end, all taht happened is taht I forced people to write the boring stuff, like his full name and exact date of birth.

Sorry fellow wikipedians, i will not do this again. When you think is time, remove the cleanup tag...

--Alexandre Van de Sande 00:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

inheritance...

I changed the sentence about every child that the couple bore would have the condition. This is genetically inaccurate. (Safely) assumming the condition is recessive a child would have a 25% chance of inheriting the gene from both parents. Also referred to is his apparently healthy sister who donated bone marrow to him - trying to effect a cure. CustardJack 07:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is actually an X-linked recessive condition, so the odds for the disease would have been 50% for a boy and 0% for a girl born from such parents. A girl, however, would have a 50% chance of being a healthy carrier of the defective gene.

agreed with above. Not everything is as simple as 8th grade biology :)207.127.128.2 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

movies

Wasn't there another movie that was about this boy. I think John Travolta starred in it. It was years ago, like in the 80's. 70.151.90.227 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No scientific criticism?

I doubt the notion of anyone "without an immune system" to even get born. The immune system has a vast number of regulatory functions inside the body, even when no external germs are around. In addition, retroviruses can be inherited from the body. Furthermore, any form of protein consumed causes immunological reactions that are important to the digestion of the peptides. In short: if for some reason a genetical defect would terminate the function of even just one central part of the immune system (say, your body produced no macrophages), a fetus would die and self-abort within the first two months of carriage.

Unable to investigate this specific case, I can only postulate a hypothesis: The guy may have never had a problem in the first place except for being born to insane parents and crazy doctors.

What surprises me is that there is no clue in the article that anyone could ever doubt the "boy without immune system" hypothesis. 84.75.118.150 12:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While he may have been born to parents who apparently never heard of adoption and doctors who were overly optimistic about a cure for this disease (and possibly wanting a guinea pig to work on), saying that it was all a mistake is kind of extreme and certainly not based on reliable sources. It's more likely he had an extremely defective immune system (evidenced by the rapid spread of cancer over a period of just a few months once he got out of the bubble) which might be classified in layman's terms as "no immune system." I'm reading an article about him right now and I'll see if it clarifies that issue at all.--Gloriamarie 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tumor viruses

I deleted this line "Due to David's situation, it was learned that viruses can cause cancer." That assertion is incorrect. Cancer causing viruses were first reported to exist in chickens in 1910 by Peyton Rous (http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/full/201/3/320), later called the Rous Sarcoma Virus. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1966. Later, in 1989, Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus were awarded the Nobel Prize for their work published in 1976 that tumor causing viruses use critical genes hijacked from an ancestral host. There were other Nobels awarded for tumor-virus related work as well as an established record of viruses as tumor causing agents long before David Vetter's death. Mightydarwin 07:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Another cultural reference

On the episode “Little Girl in the Big Ten” from the 13th season of the Simpsoms Bart is set into a Burbble. I think that must be mentioned too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.69.125 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"whom he called his best friend when he was alive"

It's obvious he said that when he was alive. Isn't this a little redundant? Thanks 89.1.162.134 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is murphy?

I removed the sentence "Murphy would help David through any crisis he may have." from the end of the 1st paragraph in the section "Poking holes in the bubble" because there is no explanation of Murphy. Who was he? How did he help? MARY ADA MURPHY WAS A WOMAN THAT WORKED AT TEXAS CHILDREN HOSPITAL HER OFFICE WAS ACROSS THE HALL FROM DAVID HOSPITAL ROOM SHE WAS STUDYING TO GET A DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT DAVID CALLED HER HIS BEST FRIEND ALSO THEIRS A SHAWN MURPHY NOT RELATED TO MARY THAT WAS ALSO CALLED HIS BEST FRIEND HE WAS ABOUT 4 YEARS OLDER THAN DAVID HE WAS THE friend THAT arranged for a special showing of Return of the Jedi at a local movie theater that David attended in his transport chamber.[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedikaiti (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)