or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Early Vaccines Linked to Paralytic Polio? Your Thoughts....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Early Vaccines Linked to Paralytic Polio? Your Thoughts....

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

 

 

"The incidence of polio in children recently vaccinated against diphtheria was statistically greater than in unvaccinated children, symptoms showing in the vaccinated limb within 28 days of the initial injection. This scandal broke in Britain during 1949, an epidemic year for polio, other reports soon following from Australia. Papers dealing with this topic are plentiful. One, British, gives details of 17 cases of polio which followed 28 days or less after various injections. (129) Another, Australian, gives details of 340 cases of polio, 211 of which had been previously vaccinated against whooping cough and/or diphtheria. Of these, 35 had been vaccinated within the preceeding 3 months and a further 30 within the previous year. (130) Dr. Geffen reported similar findings from the London Borough of St. Pancras, where 30 children under the age of 5 developed polio within four weeks of being immunized against diphtheria or whooping cough or both, 'the paralysis affecting, in particular, the limb of injection. In 7 other recently vaccinated cases, paralysis occured but not in the limb that had received the injection'. (131) Two medical statisticians at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined these reports and concluded that:

"'In the 1949 epidemic of poliomyelitis in this country cases of paralysis were occuring which were associated with inoculation procedures carried out within the month preceding the recorded date of onset of the illness'. (132)

 

 

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/vaccine/polio.html

post #2 of 12

I have seen something like this before... but I don't remember where, maybe it was the same as your link. I have also seen things about polio epidemic and pesticides and someone posted an interesting article about paralytic polio and sugar consumption recently.

 

For me, these types of topics (and I don't know if we will ever know the historical truth??), kinda highlight how little we really know about disease, human health, the environmental/nutritional/lifestyle/chemical factors modernity has brought about, etc. and how they all can interact. 

post #3 of 12
I also wonder if things like Guillaine-Barre and even some forms of epilepsy (both of which can be triggered by vaccines) might actually BE polio or closely related to polio--just conveniently re-named, under the long-held assumption that anyone vaccinated for polio couldn't possibly get polio.
post #4 of 12

T


Edited by member234098 - 5/25/12 at 11:05pm
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 

In 2009 I read 2 books by Hilary Butler, "Just a Little Prick" and "From One Prick To Another." SO MUCH INFORMATION!! I remember a part about tonsillectomies related to polio, but I am going to have to reread both books, and take notes this time! Whenever I get around to it, I will post on this thread.

 

There is just not enough time lately. Life has gotten so busy, and I have no time to look up anything. It's frustrating, because there are so many valid reasons to question vaccines--too many reasons to count. This is just one more reason. The polio vaccine is what I would consider the cornerstone of the vaccination campaign. "Thanks to the vaccine, we've eradicated polio. If you don't vaccinate, polio will return." What if this were untrue? What if polio were a common illness, made worse by other vaccines, tonsillectomies, and--heh--the early polio vaccine?  What would happen to public confidence in vaccines if we discover that vaccines did not eradicate polio, but possibly made it worse?

 

 

post #6 of 12

This is totally my own opinion, and admittedly I'm not as researched as I should be either... (so little time is right!)

 

...but I find it incredibly arrogant that "we" think we can (successfully) or should, mess with some endemic diseases, as in trying to remove them completely. (I am all for studying and trying to find treatment options/lowering risk, etc.). First off, even if it were possible to completely remove a disease (with little consequence = if vax caused no other issues and was safe), what will fill its place? There are just sooo many things *science* does not know. People look at what "science" did 50, 100 years ago and are shocked and appalled, I don't think it will be different 50 years from now about our "science." 

 

This really bothers me when talking about the real aim of childhood vaccination... are we really going to vax for *everything* some day? Sounds like some ultra pro-vaxers are all for that idea. 

 

Sometimes I think about what would really happen if society as we knew it ended/changed in some way (ok tin hat? but who doesn't ever think about that, especially after some apocalypse movie?). We have current and future generations of mothers with absolutely no natural measles immunity... if the measles vax were ever to become unavailable for whatever reason... there would be a LOT of unprotected newborns (assuming herd immunity works for this vaccine), and probably a lot of deaths. In a few more years, that will also be true of chicken pox immunity. I think some childhood diseases were beneficial to catch as children, as it would protect them throughout life and protect their babies (through placenta and bm), when the baby needed protection the MOST. So on some diseases, we are already in a man-made pickle. (and another reason the vax program "has" to be maintained, = they can't ever admit a mistake, or at least, not without a new better vaccine version to cover that mistake).

 

Actually, I kinda view it as many of the natural birthers around here view intervention heavy hospital births... off the bat, epidural sounds great - take away pain, ok! (remove disease from population - ok!), but I think there is totally the possibility that this one action will lead to others - pitocin, fetal distress, forceps/vac, c/sec, etc. (autoimmune disease? learning disorders? reactions? serotype replacement? new/different diseases filling spot, no lifelong immunity? etc.)

post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

There are just sooo many things *science* does not know. People look at what "science" did 50, 100 years ago and are shocked and appalled, I don't think it will be different 50 years from now about our "science." 



I could not agree more.  I always think about thalidomide, DES, LSD, lead in paint and toys, asbestos for fire prevention...we're always learning and evolving.

post #8 of 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

I could not agree more.  I always think about thalidomide, DES, LSD, lead in paint and toys, asbestos for fire prevention...we're always learning and evolving.

My grandma took DES after having many, many miscarriages. (maybe that had something to do with copious alcohol/cigarette consumption, but hey, we used to think that was ok too!!!). My mother had some problems because of it, although I appear to not... although I know they are finding issues in 3rd generations...
 

 

post #9 of 12

O


Edited by member234098 - 5/25/12 at 11:04pm
post #10 of 12

The wiki article says this:

 

Quote:
In the 1940s, DES was used off-label to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with a history of miscarriage. On July 1, 1947, the FDA approved the use of DES for this indication.

Makes me think of off-label cytotec use... uhoh3.gif wonder when they will approve that for inductions!

 

anyway... sorry for thread highjack!

 

 

post #11 of 12

I just came across this article with many references:

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-1-2/

 

"In 1995, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that children who received a single injection within one month after receiving a polio vaccine were 8 times more likely to contract polio than children who received no injections. The risk jumped 27-fold when children received up to nine injections within one month after receiving the polio vaccine. And with ten or more injections, the likelihood of developing polio was 182 times greater than expected [17].  Why injections increase the risk of polio is unclear [18]. Nevertheless, these studies and others [19-24] indicate that “injections must be avoided in countries with endemic poliomyelitis [18].” Health authorities believe that all “unnecessary” injections should be avoided as well [18:1006;24]."

post #12 of 12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Early Vaccines Linked to Paralytic Polio? Your Thoughts....