or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Graphic showing percent decrease in VPD morbidity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Graphic showing percent decrease in VPD morbidity - Page 2

post #21 of 57

DDT wasn't banned until 1972.

post #22 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

If you still can't wrap your head around this, then you should watch the video. The speaker is a "real" doctor, who decided to look at ALL of the facts about polio. She did not just trust what the establishment claims to be true.

Save the video, and watch it in segments if you must. Debunk it for us. Until then, you cannot expect us to believe polio was eradicated by the vaccine, when there are other valid, factual reasons for the decline.

 

Your emotional pleas are falling on deaf ears. Show us some facts please. A silly chart of "vaccine comes around, polio goes down" is not enough.

 

 

Clinical.  Trials.

post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

DDT wasn't banned until 1972.

Watch the video, then and come back here and debunk it.

post #24 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

Clinical.  Trials.

Again, watch the video, this is discussed.

post #25 of 57

From Randall Neustaetder's book:

 

 

 

Quote:
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert, was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians. Less cases were identified as polio after the vaccination for very specific reasons. 
 

Actual testimony: From Intensive Immunization Programs, Hearings before the Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on H.R. 10541, Wash DC: Us Government Printing Office, 1962; p. 96-97 

 

 

 

Quote:
...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. 

 

post #26 of 57

Those quotes are surely over 100 words.  

 

I really hate watching videos.  Isnt' there something I can read instead?

post #27 of 57

So what are the numbers of coxsackie virus and aseptic meningitis?  Do cases of these diseases add up to the kinds of numbers we saw for polio in the first half of the 1900's?  They certainly don't seem to follow the same kind of patterns in terms of sudden onset in large numbers of children in a community, but I haven't really gone looking for the coxsackie quarantines, either.

post #28 of 57

I got about four minutes in and the audio cut out (?) but she hadn't gotten to anything about polio yet.  Just on and on and on about vaccines and how she never liked them and now she makes her living writing about them.

 

Can someone give me a time for when she really starts talking about polio so I can skip to it?  I really don't have an hour to spend listening to the same old same old.

post #29 of 57

OK, I got through 15 minutes.  Whew.  Finally started talking about polio at about minute 5.  I really don't have any more time to waste on this today.  So far nothing to debunk, just a lot of claims along the lines of "everything you've ever known is wrong!!"  I could of course find loads of resources contradicting her, but that's the point, right?  Everyone has it wrong but her.

 

I just want to say a couple of things:

 

The fact that polio is asymptomatic in 95% of cases is irrelevant to whether we should vaccinate for it.  Ok, not irrelevant, but kind of misleading, maybe.  Asymptomatic cases are still spreading the illness, which is why it's important to prevent everyone from getting the disease.  During an epidemic thousands of people, mostly children, would die from polio and even more would be left crippled.  Even if some of those were misdiagnosed (which I admit they almost certainly were), polio was a serious disease.

 

I don't think polio justifies all vaccinations, I think that's a strawman.  I think todays vaccines stand on their own track record of safety and effectiveness (as exhibited by the graphic in the op) but of course I know some people will disagree with that.

 

She claimed the largest polio outbreak was in 1950 (maybe I misheard), but I don't think that's accurate.  I think the outbreak in 1916 was bigger, but certainly they were both awful.  In 1916 around 25% of people died.  that dropped later to around 5% when it began being detected earlier and better supportive care.  (ETA: I just looked this up, the 1952 epidemic infected more people (~58k cases and ~3k dead) but the 1916 epidemic killed more people (~6k dead))

 

There's some playing fast and loose with her graphs (over 50 of which can be found in her book), distorting vertical scales and the like.  That's to be expected, I guess.

 

Her main claim, so far, seems to be that polio was a hoax.  That everyone was tricked into being scared by the march of dimes and similar groups.  I don't really know what to say about that.  She takes the kernel of truth (that we used to consider a lot of things "polio" that really weren't, that seems plausible or even probably) and then takes it to this extreme.  Again, I could find lots of experts who disagreed with her, but as is the nature of these things they wouldn't sway anyone because they're either a) in on it or b) just not smart enough to figure it out like she was.

 

I don't know if I'll be able to get around to watching the rest of this or not.  Like I said, I really hate watching videos.  the focused attention it requires is just too much for me.  I'd be interested in some resources I could read instead, if anyone would like to provide some.  I find this whole topic sickly fascinating, like watching a train wreck.


Edited by Rrrrrachel - 2/21/13 at 12:14pm
post #30 of 57

One more thing to add, polio is not gone.  Fortunately it has been eradicated from this country (for now), but it still infects people in other parts of the world.  In 1988 there were around 350,000 cases of polio world wide.  I guess the conspiracy is ongoing.

 

I found this really interesting, from wiki:

 

 

 

Quote:
The World Health Organization estimates that there are 10 to 20 million polio survivors worldwide.[97] In 1977 there were 254,000 persons living in the United States who had been paralyzed by polio.[98] According to doctors and local polio support groups, some 40,000 polio survivors with varying degrees of paralysis live in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, 24,000 in France, 16,000 in Australia, 12,000 in Canada and 12,000 in the United Kingdom.[97]Many notable individuals have survived polio and often credit the prolonged immobility and residual paralysis associated with polio as a driving force in their lives and careers.[99]

 

 

And then the list of notable survivors of polio is really interesting, too.  Not bad for a made up disease.

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

  Not bad for a made up disease.

Dr Humphries never said that polio was a "made up disease".

post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

One more thing to add, polio is not gone.  Fortunately it has been eradicated from this country (for now), but it still infects people in other parts of the world.  In 1988 there were around 350,000 cases of polio world wide.  I guess the conspiracy is ongoing.

 

I found this really interesting, from wiki:

 

 

 

 

 

And then the list of notable survivors of polio is really interesting, too.  Not bad for a made up disease.

no - its just called something else now winky.gif

post #33 of 57

So where are the victims?  Where are the outbreaks?  Where are the quarantines?

post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Those quotes are surely over 100 words.  

 

I really hate watching videos.  Isnt' there something I can read instead?

I want to clarify MDC's copyright policy here for a minute because Marnica's post also received a member flag from a different user. The first quote is not over 100 words and the second appears to be public domain. If anyone wishes to check the word count on a quote before flagging, you can cut and past into word, which will give you the count. 

 

Rrrrachel, I know you didn't flag this post but your comment was a good place for me to jump in with a little user clarification. 

 

Carry on...

 

love.gif

post #35 of 57
Ftr I didn't flag anything
post #36 of 57

I know -- I actually edited my post above a little bit ago to be clear about that. You're all good. thumb.gif  I just wanted to clarify on the thread for everyone who wondered why Marnica's post was OK. 

post #37 of 57

Back on topic, Marnica's quote points out some facts that are so disturbing, I'd like to make sure that they don't get lost:

 

 

Quote:
...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. 
post #38 of 57

Taxi, I'm not sure where the quote you used is from (because there isn't a link) but if it isn't public domain it should be limited to 100 words. 

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

Taxi, I'm not sure where the quote you used is from (because there isn't a link) but if it isn't public domain it should be limited to 100 words. 

 

The quote Taxi posted is the same one Marnica posted with different phrases highlighted. You have already stated that it was okay for Marnica to post it, so I assume the same goes for Taxi?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Actual testimony: From Intensive Immunization Programs, Hearings before the Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on H.R. 10541, Wash DC: Us Government Printing Office, 1962; p. 96-97 

 

 

 

Quote:
...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Back on topic, Marnica's quote points out some facts that are so disturbing, I'd like to make sure that they don't get lost:

 

 

Quote:
...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. 
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

The quote Taxi posted is the same one Marnica posted with different phrases highlighted. You have already stated that it was okay for Marnica to post it, so I assume the same goes for Taxi?

 

 

Yes, if it is public domain like a government record it can be longer than 100 words. If it is taken from someone's book it needs to be limited to 100 words or less. I wasn't sure if Taxi's quote was from Marnica's first source (the book) or the second  source (public record). 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Graphic showing percent decrease in VPD morbidity