or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability. - Page 4

post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Ok, so the CDC is covering it up eyesroll.gif do you have any proof of that?  When you have asked me to prove something I have.  So I would like some unbiased sources. When I googled "diagnostic criteria for polio changed" the only sites that came up were insidevaccines.com, whale, vaxtruth.org, homeoprophylaxis.com and other anti vaccine sites. For me, that raises a red flag.  If my proof of something was a blog written by a staunchly pro vaccine doctor you probably would take that information with a grain of salt.  Which is fine, you can believe or not believe whatever you like as can I.  I find sources like the CDC, WHO, NIH to be reputable sources and you may disagree. This is a debate board after all.  But when there is no real evidence because the CDC "pretends like it never happened" that screams conspiracy theory to me. That is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it. 

 

As for the oral polio vaccine, that hasn't been used in the US in 13 years because of the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. The CDC decided the risks outweighed the benefits and discontinued it here. 

Are you asking me to prove that the diagnostic criteria of polio changed?  The testimony of Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who chaired the Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the American Public Health Association DURING the polio epidemic isn't good enough for you?


I've looked for anything refuting his testimony, and there's -- nothing.  Honestly, I can't find any indication that it didn't change.  If YOU can, by all means, please post it.

 

Post sources telling us that, during the early 1950's and before, people who were ill with flu-like symptoms, and then developed paralysis were EVER diagnosed with anything but polio.  Show us the graphs of cases of acute flaccid paralysis, cocksackie, meningitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and how those numbers AND DIAGNSOTIC CRITERIA compared with those of polio.

 

There is quite a lot of documentation on this page: http://www.homeoprophylaxis.com.au/FamiliesTravellers/Polio/tabid/1013/Default.aspx

For example:

"His [Dr. Bernard Greenberg's] testimony in regard to aseptic meningitis is further supported by the LA County Health Index of the same era where the total number of cases remains unchanged despite the shift in diagnosis:



Year _______Meningitis ___Polio
Jul 1955         a)50                 b)273
Jul 1961         a)161               b)65
Jul 1963         a)151               b)31
Sep 1966       a)256               b)5 
Oct 1966        a)312              b)3

"Most cases reported prior to July 1, 1958 as non-paralytic poliomyelitis are now reported as viral or aseptic meningitis." 


Los Angeles County Health Index: Morbidity and Mortality, Reportable Diseases, 1967

 

Teacozy, you need to learn to look beyond the blogs and "anti-vaccine" (or what I might call, "pro-safety") sites, and look at their sources, because, once again, you're shooting the messenger before you even read the message.  It doesn't matter if a blog is pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine.  What matters is whether they are telling the truth.

post #62 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Are you asking me to prove that the diagnostic criteria of polio changed?  The testimony of Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who chaired the Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the American Public Health Association DURING the polio epidemic isn't good enough for you?


I've looked for anything refuting his testimony, and there's -- nothing.  Honestly, I can't find any indication that it didn't change.  If YOU can, by all means, please post it.

 

Post sources telling us that, during the early 1950's and before, people who were ill with flu-like symptoms, and then developed paralysis were EVER diagnosed with anything but polio.  Show us the graphs of cases of acute flaccid paralysis, cocksackie, meningitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and how those numbers AND DIAGNSOTIC CRITERIA compared with those of polio.

 

There is quite a lot of documentation on this page: http://www.homeoprophylaxis.com.au/FamiliesTravellers/Polio/tabid/1013/Default.aspx

For example:

"His [Dr. Bernard Greenberg's] testimony in regard to aseptic meningitis is further supported by the LA County Health Index of the same era where the total number of cases remains unchanged despite the shift in diagnosis:



Year _______Meningitis ___Polio
Jul 1955         a)50                 b)273
Jul 1961         a)161               b)65
Jul 1963         a)151               b)31
Sep 1966       a)256               b)5 
Oct 1966        a)312              b)3

"Most cases reported prior to July 1, 1958 as non-paralytic poliomyelitis are now reported as viral or aseptic meningitis." 


Los Angeles County Health Index: Morbidity and Mortality, Reportable Diseases, 1967

 

Teacozy, you need to learn to look beyond the blogs and "anti-vaccine" (or what I might call, "pro-safety") sites, and look at their sources, because, once again, you're shooting the messenger before you even read the message.  It doesn't matter if a blog is pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine.  What matters is whether they are telling the truth.

 

This is what I found on acute flaccid paralysis

 

"Historically, the predominant cause of AFP has been infection with poliovirus, a picornavirus transmitted by the fecal–oral route, and poliovirus infection has led to endemic and epidemic disease that results in AFP. The introduction of an effective poliovirus vaccine in 1955 has led to a dramatic decline in poliovirus infections worldwide; to date, poliovirus-associated AFP has been eliminated from most of the world"

 

So it was historically caused by Polio. Not really sure what your point here is. Polio caused many bad things to happen, including some cases of Acute Flaccid Paralysis and the Polio vaccine virtually eradicated AFP. So whether the paralysis was caused directly by polio or by a virus that is caused by polio that they most likely would not have had if polio didn't exist doesn't mean much.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844551/

 

The next leading cause of AFP is Guillain-Barre Syndrome "Since the elimination of poliovirus from much of the world, an inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy, more commonly referred to as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), has become the most important clinical form of AFP." Got that from the same link as above. 

 

But GBS is very rare only effecting 1 out of every 100,000 people.  So that does not explain the hundreds of thousands of cases of Polio reported so even if a few cases of AFP caused by GBS and not polio were misdiagnosed as Polio it wouldn't be enough to make a statistical difference given how rare GBS is.

 

"The exact cause of Guillain-Barre syndrome is unknown, but it is often preceded by an infectious illness such as a respiratory infection or the stomach flu. Luckily, Guillain-Barre syndrome is uncommon, affecting only 1 or 2 people per 100,000."  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/guillain-barre-syndrome/DS00413

 

Coxsackie virus "Coxsackieviruses are part of the enterovirus family of viruses (which also includes polioviruses and hepatitis A virus) that live in the human digestive tract. They can spread from person to person, usually on unwashed hands and surfaces contaminated by feces, where they can live for several days. About half of all kids infected with coxsackievirus have no symptoms. Others suddenly develop high fever, headache, and muscle aches, and some also develop a sore throat, abdominal discomfort, or nausea. A child with a coxsackievirus infection may simply feel hot but have no other symptoms. In most kids, the fever lasts about 3 days, then disappears."

 

I looked on several medical websites and didn't see paralysis, needing to be in an iron lung, crippled for life listed as even a severe rare reaction to coxsackie virus. If that was the cause of a significant portion of the crippled children in the 1940s and 50s we would see those same effects happening today since it is still fairly prevalent and there is no cure and no vaccine preventing it and it is highly contagious. 

 

Again, the figure I gave you from the CDC was not how many people were diagnosed with polio per year or showed some minor symptoms of polio, it was how many people were *crippled* by Polio. There is no other logical explanation for why 35,000 people (mostly children) became crippled or why so many had to live in an iron lung other than Polio and I am not sure why you are trying to dispute it or say that it was caused by other things since none of the diseases you have listed would explain the number of crippled children in the 40s and 50s.

 

Anyway, I am taking a break from this thread. Have a nice evening guys!  

post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

  There is no other logical explanation for why 35,000 people (mostly children) became crippled or why so many had to live in an iron lung other than Polio and I am not sure why you are trying to dispute it or say that it was caused by other things since none of the diseases you have listed would explain the number of crippled children in the 40s and 50s.

 

 

Pesticides and DDT.

 

By Suzanne Humphries, MD.

post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

 

 

I looked on several medical websites and didn't see paralysis, needing to be in an iron lung, crippled for life listed as even a severe rare reaction to coxsackie virus. If that was the cause of a significant portion of the crippled children in the 1940s and 50s we would see those same effects happening today since it is still fairly prevalent and there is no cure and no vaccine preventing it and it is highly contagious. 

 

 

Looks like you didn't look in the right places.

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/215241-overview

"Group A coxsackieviruses were noted to cause a flaccid paralysis, which was caused by generalized myositis, while group B coxsackieviruses were noted to cause a spastic paralysis due to focal muscle injury and degeneration of neuronal tissue...Both group A and group B coxsackieviruses can cause nonspecific febrile illnesses, rashes, upper respiratory tract disease, and aseptic meningitis.

 
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1991 May;33(5):427-38.

Limb paralysis as a manifestation of Coxsackie B virus infection.

Source

Department of Paediatrics, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)04066-6/abstract

 

Coxsackie virus A24 infection presenting as acute flaccid paralysis

Dr SS Chaves MD a Corresponding AuthorEmail AddressJ Black MBBS aM Kennett BSc bS Lobo MD c

Summary

Enteroviruses can cause outbreaks of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), mimicking wild poliovirus infections. Coxsackie virus A24 has never been implicated and yet it is a virus with high outbreak potential. We describe the association of coxsackie virus A24 with AFP in East Timor.
post #65 of 82

 

 

And, teacozy, you clearly didn't read what I'd posted upthread.  The LA County Health Index reported roughly the SAME NUMBER OF PARALYSIS CASES between 1955 and 1966--but the ratio of meningitis diagnoses to polio diagnoses switched.

 

 

the LA County Health Index of the same era where the total number of cases remains unchanged despite the shift in diagnosis:



Year _______Meningitis ___Polio
Jul 1955         a)50                 b)273
Jul 1961         a)161               b)65
Jul 1963         a)151               b)31
Sep 1966       a)256               b)5 
Oct 1966        a)312              b)3

"Most cases reported prior to July 1, 1958 as non-paralytic poliomyelitis are now reported as viral or aseptic meningitis." 


Los Angeles County Health Index: Morbidity and Mortality, Reportable Diseases, 1967
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Vaccination is an environmental factor.

Like a drop of water in the ocean is still water.
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


Like a drop of water in the ocean is still water.

yea, no problem there! biggrinbounce.gif

post #68 of 82
Thread Starter 

I'm not going to spend much more time on this because I honestly find this Polio denial conspiracy offensive. 

 

Flaccid Paralysis is rare. Very rare. Almost unheard of since the Polio vaccine (strange coincidence I suppose!) and when there is a case of it it is investigated. From the link I posted earlier, GBS is the leading cause of Flaccid Paralysis these days and GBS only occurs in 1 out of every 100,000 people. So it makes sense than none of the medical websites I looked at mentioned Flaccid Paralysis as a symptom of coxsackie, it is extraordinarily rare.  So that does not explain the hundreds of thousands of crippled children from Polio. 

 

Meningitis was also historically caused by Polio. Again, another strange coincidence that the rates went down after the Polio and MMR vaccine "Historically, the polio and mumps viruses were a leading cause of viral meningitis in children but viral meningitis caused by these viruses is now rare due to the success of the vaccines." http://www.meningitisuk.org/meningitis/disease/types/viral-meningitis/viral-meningitis-how-can-it-be-prevented

 

Just look at things from a logical perspective. If you think that Polio was hidden under diseases like GBS and coxsackie and Flaccid Paralysis then we should still see the same polio effects. None of those things are eradicated and coxsackie doesn't have a vaccine or cure and is contagious so there is nothing stopping it from causing paralysis since there is nothing different done about it today than in the 50s. 

 

Where are all the crippled children? Where are all the quarantines? Where are the outbreaks of thousands of children all becoming crippled or paralyzed all in one city at once? Where are the iron lungs? And no, ventilators are not the same thing as an iron lung. You cannot talk with a ventilator. There is actually a modern iron lung called Biphasic cuirass ventilation (BCV) or the Chest Shell and it is still used today. Hardly anyone knows that it even exists let alone seen one because we no longer have polio here!  If ventilators just replaced iron lungs then why are there still people in the US living in iron lungs after contracting polio as a child? A woman who had been in an iron lung for 60 years died several years ago when a storm knocked out the power in her house and the generators failed.  You can see youtube videos and news articles of people still using iron lungs here in the US and what their life is like. I believe the most recent statistic I saw was that there are 30 people in the US alive today that use an iron lung due to polio. 

 

Also, how do you explain post polio syndrome?  "Post-polio syndrome (PPS) refers to a cluster of potentially disabling signs and symptoms that appear decades — an average of 30 to 40 years — after the initial polio illness.

Polio was once one of the most feared diseases in America, responsible for paralysis and death. Shortly after polio reached its peak in the early 1950s, the inactivated polio vaccine was introduced and greatly reduced polio's spread.

Today, few people in developed countries get paralytic polio, thanks to the polio vaccine.

According to some studies, however, up to half the people who had polio at a young age may experience certain effects of the disease many years later — post-polio syndrome."  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/post-polio-syndrome/DS00494

Another conspiracy? 


Edited by teacozy - 7/11/13 at 10:57am
post #69 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

 

Pesticides and DDT.

 

By Suzanne Humphries, MD.

 

Disclaimer, I did not watch the video. 

 

DDT causing Polio is a complete myth.  First of all, DDT wasn't used until the 1940s and there were many outbreaks of Polio before then. For example : "On Saturday, June 17, 1916 an official announcement of the existence of an epidemic polio infection was made in Brooklyn, New York. That year, there were over 27,000 cases and more than 6,000 deaths due to polio in the United States, with over 2,000 deaths in New York City alone.[12]"  

 

DDT also continued to be used into the late 60s even after Polio rates started to plummet after the vaccine was introduced in 1955. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ddt-brief-history-status.htm

 

Do you know what else was introduced in the 1940s at the peak of the Polio epidemic? The slinky! and tupperware! and velcro!  And do you know what exploded in use in the 50s? Televisions. I guess those things could have caused Polio too!  I think you see where I am going with this... correlation does not imply causation.  https://the1940census.com/top-5-inventions-1940s/

 

And you do know that there was a huge Polio clinical trial for the vaccine right? Double blind that involved over a million children. 

 

"The trial’s study population targeted some 1.8 million children in the first three grades of elementary school at 215 test sites. In the double-blind experiment, 650,000 children received vaccine, 750,000 received a placebo (a solution made to look like vaccine, but containing no virus), and 430,000 served as controls and had neither. All were “Polio Pioneers.”

http://amhistory.si.edu/polio/virusvaccine/clinical.htm

post #70 of 82

Hi everyone! Just jumping in here to share our Babywearing Photo Contest. Be sure to check it out!  thumb.gif

post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

 

And you do know that there was a huge Polio clinical trial for the vaccine right? Double blind that involved over a million children. 

 

"The trial’s study population targeted some 1.8 million children in the first three grades of elementary school at 215 test sites. In the double-blind experiment, 650,000 children received vaccine, 750,000 received a placebo (a solution made to look like vaccine, but containing no virus), and 430,000 served as controls and had neither. All were “Polio Pioneers.”

http://amhistory.si.edu/polio/virusvaccine/clinical.htm

 

I've often wondered why that trial is never brought up.... it's the magic placebo trial every anti-vax person wants for vaccines - and it happened a long time ago. Could  the anti-vax groups not use that to prove vaccines are dangerous if they really are? 

post #72 of 82

Can you find the study itself anywhere, not just the description provided by the National Museum of American History?

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I've often wondered why that trial is never brought up.... it's the magic placebo trial every anti-vax person wants for vaccines - and it happened a long time ago. Could  the anti-vax groups not use that to prove vaccines are dangerous if they really are? 

 

Prosciencemum, I think you've completely misunderstood the perspective of those who question and criticize vaccines.

 

First of all, please stop calling us "anti-vax persons."  It is both unnecessary and inaccurate to call us "anti-vax persons."  Many of us are all for vaccines--as long as they can be made safer,  as long as unnecessary vaccines are not mandated, as long as parents are given FULL AND COMPLETE safety/efficacy information before being asked to sign "informed consent" forms, and as long as individuals have the final say as to what is injected into their own and their children's bodies, with no coercion.

 

Second of all, why are you assuming that every vaccine critic thinks that proving that the original polio vaccine dangerous proves that all vaccines are dangerous?  We already know that there is much debate about the Salk vaccine:  http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio/salk-fiasco.htm  The inactivated polio vaccine used today is not exactly the same vaccine that was used during the trials described above, anyway; the current vaccine is an enhanced-potency version licensed in the US in 1987.  But most of us were given Sabin's OPV.

 

What is needed is a vaccinated/unvaccinated study comparing those who have received ZERO vaccines with those who have received the full vaccination schedule, at all the recommended times.

 

It is completely unscientific to assume that, just because one, or even a few vaccines, are safe for most people, then unlimited vaccines can be given to all, with no attempt to prescreen for at-risk groups.

 

post #73 of 82
Thread Starter 

Here's a breakdown of the trial... lets see if this works... 

 

Experiment Study Group Population Polio Cases False Reports
Paralytic Non-Paralytic
Randomized

Control 

Vaccinated 200,745 33 24 25
Placebo 201,229 115 27 20
Not Inoculated 338,778 121 36 25
Incomplete Vaccinations 8,484 1 1 0
Observed

Control

Vaccinated 221,998 38 18 20
Controls 725,173 330 61 48
Grade 2 Not Inoculated 123,605 43 11 12
Incomplete Vaccinations 9,904 4 0 0

 

Table Notes

  1. The False Reports column refers to cases that were initially reported as polio, but were later determined not to be polio.
  2. The Not Inoculated row refers to the children in the designated grades who did not participate in the experiment, and includes 8,577 children who received one or two (but not three) injections of placebo.
  3. The Incomplete Vaccinations row in both experiments refers to children who received one or two (but not three) injections of the vaccine.
  4. The Controls row refers to the total first and third grade populations used as controls in the observed control experiment.
post #74 of 82
Teacozy, could you please provide a link to your source?

I'd like to know the diagnostic criteria used, and how many non-polio paralytic disease was seen in each group. I think that's important.

Also, if "not inoculated" refers to children who did not participate in the experiment, how did 8,577 children in that group receive one or two shots of placebo?

That's enough right there to land this study in the trash.
post #75 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Teacozy, could you please provide a link to your source?

I'd like to know the diagnostic criteria used, and how many non-polio paralytic disease was seen in each group. I think that's important.

Also, if "not inoculated" refers to children who did not participate in the experiment, how did 8,577 children in that group receive one or two shots of placebo?

That's enough right there to land this study in the trash.

 

Sorry didn't realize I didn't have the link. Here it is, there are many many sites that have information on the trials I just thought the visual graph was helpful. http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/data/Polio.html

 

"Also, if "not inoculated" refers to children who did not participate in the experiment, how did 8,577 children in that group receive one or two shots of placebo?


That's enough right there to land this study in the trash." 

 

You didn't read it carefully. There is an incomplete vaccination row that shows how many children only received two out of three placebo vaccines.  The "not innoculated" line shows the people that did not participate in the experiment and the number includes the children who only received 1 or 2 shots. Meaning they just added the two numbers together for the purpose of the graph. Not that 8,577 children accidentally got vaccinated.  They just added the two groups together. You can just subtract 8,577 from not inoculated if it makes you feel better.  So no, it does not "land the study in the trash" eyesroll.gif

 

Edit: sorry meant to say 1 or two vaccines, not placebos. Didn't get much sleep last night... 


Edited by teacozy - 7/12/13 at 9:31am
post #76 of 82
Thread Starter 

"I'd like to know the diagnostic criteria used, and how many non-polio paralytic disease was seen in each group. I think that's important." 

 

You don't see the section that says "non paralytic polio" on the graph? 

post #77 of 82
Thread Starter 

Here's another link showing a graph for the double blind study only (the second one done and the one that is on the top part of the other graph).  

 

http://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case4.html

 

I can't get the graph to post correctly but it clearly labels the 8,484 children as "dropped out in the middle"  not "accidentally got vaccinated" 

post #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"I'd like to know the diagnostic criteria used, and how many non-polio paralytic disease was seen in each group. I think that's important." 


You don't see the section that says "non paralytic polio" on the graph? 

You don't know the difference between "non-polio paralytic" and " non-paralytic polio?"
post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Sorry didn't realize I didn't have the link. Here it is, there are many many sites that have information on the trials I just thought the visual graph was helpful. http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/data/Polio.html


"Also, if "not inoculated" refers to children who did not participate in the experiment, how did 8,577 children in that group receive one or two shots of placebo?


That's enough right there to land this study in the trash." 


You didn't read it carefully. There is an incomplete vaccination row that shows how many children only received two out of three placebo vaccines.  The "not innoculated" line shows the people that did not participate in the experiment and the number includes the children who only received 1 or 2 shots. Meaning they just added the two numbers together for the purpose of the graph. Not that 8,577 children accidentally got vaccinated.  They just added the two groups together. You can just subtract 8,577 from not inoculated if it makes you feel better.  So no, it does not "land the study in the trash" eyesroll.gif


Edit: sorry meant to say 1 or two vaccines, not placebos. Didn't get much sleep last night... 

Nope. There is a separate line for those who got only one or two shots. You can't say that 8577 of the group who didn't participate in the experiment also got placebos, because that means they DID participate in the experiment.

"The Not Inoculated row refers to the children in the designated grades who did not participate in the experiment, and includes 8,577 children who received one or two (but not three) injections of placebo." Lumping those who received the placebo with a group that didn't participate at all hides all effects of the placebo, including positive outcome and adverse effects.
Edited by Taximom5 - 7/13/13 at 5:32am
post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Here's another link showing a graph for the double blind study only (the second one done and the one that is on the top part of the other graph).  

http://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case4.html

I can't get the graph to post correctly but it clearly labels the 8,484 children as "dropped out in the middle"  not "accidentally got vaccinated" 

8,484 children dropped out? How many of them got the placebo? 1 shot? 2 shots? Where is the list of the adverse effects in that group? And why is their rate of paralytic polio lower than that of the treatment group?

1/8484 = .00011784 ***** Paralytic polio in the drop out group
33/200745 = .00016438 ***** Paralytic polio in the treatment group


We know that Pfizer hid the adverse effects of Lipitor this way; those who had to drop out of the study because of adverse effects were listed as "non-compliant," and their side effects were never reported by Pfizer,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New study links certain IVF treatments to autism, mental disability.