Graphic showing percent decrease in VPD morbidity - Page 3

[emmy526]

now is this the same polio vax that was contaminated with SV-40, and passing that contamination on to their offspring?

[Rrrrrachel]

Prior to 1964 some polio vaccines were contaminated with sv40. I'm interested in some documentation of the assertion that people pass it to their offspring.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Prior to 1964 some polio vaccines were contaminated with sv40. I'm interested in some documentation of the assertion that people pass it to their offspring.

AHHHHH I just spent 45 minutes putting together a response with multiple links to studies about this and poof with a click of the wrong button GONE! I'm so aggravated!!

In any case,  there were multiple studies that I was able to find so I'm sure if you were so inclined you could as well. If I have time at some point I will try again but right now I actually have to do some work. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Aw man that stinks. Thanks for the effort. Maybe you could tell me your search parameters.

I was able to find a lot of studies comparing the risk of cancer in people vaccinated with contaminated vccines vs unvaccinated and they haven't found an increased risk. That doesn't mean there isn't one of course.

[BeckyBird]

Rrrrachel, (and anyone else who is interested) here is some reading material for you:

The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis And Obstructions To Its Investigation

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/harpub/scobpois.htm

This article is also on ncbi, not just vaclib. I can't access it, but it is there.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14924801?report=abstract

[Rrrrrachel]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[BeckyBird]

More....

SV40 vertical transmission in hamsters:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19181358

A nice graph about pesticides and polio:

http://vactruth.com/2012/06/03/7-trivia-facts-about-polio/

[Rrrrrachel]

That graph looks like the two AREN'T connected, to me. If the relationship was causal there wouldn't be any peaks in DDT that didn't correspond to peaks in polio, and there are several.

I also wonder the graph would look like if it included a broader time period (on both ends but especially further into the past. There were significant polio epidemics in the early 1900d that aren't shown) and for other countries.
Edited by Rrrrrachel - 2/25/13 at 8:25am

[BeckyBird]

Some cases of poisoning might have been mistaken for polio, since the symptoms were similar (and since many were diagnosed without tests) .  Or, the poisoning could have caused weakened immune systems, resulting in more cases of polio. Other interesting points include the introduction of canned milk, formula, and excess sugar consumption.

This is why I recommended the video, because all of this--and more--was covered. I'm sorry you couldn't get past the first 15 minutes. I did not want to get into a debate that took up so much time, and I thought recommending the video was a quick way out. How wrong I was!

The reason I don't believe the vaccine eradicated polio is because there are too many unknowns. Have you read the article from post 45?

[Rrrrrachel]

Yes, I did read that article. It was from the 1950s. I believe many of the concerns it brings up have been addressed. We know a lot more about germs, viruses, and immunology now.

[Rrrrrachel]

I think it's almost certain that SOME cases of diagnosed polio were really something else. The question is how many. I will also buy that toxins of all kinds in our environment can leave us more susceptible to infection (that is a personal belief that I have no basis for), but the source of illness is still the infection from a virus. As such, it can be prevented with a vaccine.

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yes, I did read that article. It was from the 1950s. I believe many of the concerns it brings up have been addressed. We know a lot more about germs, viruses, and immunology now.

By the same logic, how can you trust they accurately identified cases of polio?  The criteria was loose and it did change after the vaccine was introduced. The cases were not usually lab-confirmed. I'm not convinced, but I'm an eternal skeptic.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I think it's almost certain that SOME cases of diagnosed polio were really something else. The question is how many.

we may never know, because the info was never recored!

I know one family (mother was a RN at the time) and only one of the three children got polio- all same exposure at the time, no documentation was taken (the mother always questioned this)- all three children are still alive and the one is now is considered post polio yet no one ever looked into why just this one got it, if the others did have it (in some form yet showed nothing) - this would (still is) a good family to look at- yet nothing was ever looked into, there are many out there like it as well.

[Rrrrrachel]

95% of polio cases are asymptomatic.

I don't think it's appropriate to Monday morning quarterback diagnosis from 60+ years ago. I do think doctors back then weren't total morons.

Cases in the clinical trials WERE laboratory confirmed.

[serenbat]

Quote:

95% of polio cases are asymptomatic.

I don't think it's appropriate to Monday morning quarterback diagnosis from 60+ years ago. I do think doctors back then weren't total morons.

Cases in the clinical trials WERE laboratory confirmed.

Quote:

Quote:

I think it's almost certain that SOME cases of diagnosed polio were really something else. The question is how many.

so why did you wonder if you have all answers? 

[Rrrrrachel]

I didn't wonder. But of course I don't have the answer. I have an opinion just like everyone else.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

95% of polio cases are asymptomatic.

I don't think it's appropriate to Monday morning quarterback diagnosis from 60+ years ago. I do think doctors back then weren't total morons.

Cases in the clinical trials WERE laboratory confirmed.

]I just learned today what "Monday morning quarterback" means (I'm in the US for a work trip). Funny you'd use it the same day!