Polio: 1/1000 "infection" rate. Scientific discussion. - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 01:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Note the first three words... IN MOST INFECTIONS....

http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/HGR/HGRCG.htm

From pp. 205-210 in Human Genome Research and Society Proceedings of the Second International Bioethics Seminar in Fukui, 20-21 March, 1992. Editors: Norio Fujiki, M.D. & Darryl R.J. Macer, Ph.D.

D. Charleton Gajdusek,

Director, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, USA

Quote:
In most infections only a rare individual becomes ill or suffers rare complications, and that individual may be genetically predetermined, it usually is. For example, HTLV-1 infects 1-2 million Japanese, but only one in over a thousand gets adult advanced T cell leukemia after 40 years, and fortunately only about one in a thousand gets HAM, HTLV-1 associated myolopophy. Those unfortunate rare individuals are the problem, not the problem of the innocuous, or carriers, the other one thousand who die without ever knowing that they had it, and having no ill effect. The same can be said for poliomyelitis, where it takes 1,000 infected cases in order to induce ** a ** paralysis, the others don't know they were infected.
So this relates to the Minnesota psychosocial hysteria over the polio, but plainly it relates to many other infections.

Dr Vivian Wyatt also talks about genetic predetermination with regard to Polio, which can be shown in families, but its not the whole story, because Dr Sandler showed that "weakness" could be patched over when the diet was right. And it also has to be taken into account that polio was once endemic and never epidemic. That only started to happen at the end of the 1800's in large numbers.

Sure there had been isolated cases before that, but not on an epidemic scale. So why is it, that people get hysterical over polio or any other disease?

Shall we talk polio seriously on this thread?

Any takers? I could post my info here, or leave the topic.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#2 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 02:08 AM
 
DevaMajka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 10,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm interested. DS is not fully vaxed against polio, and I'm leaning VERY MUCH towards not getting any more (he has 2, which according to the cdc gives protection to 90% of people). I'm pretty sure dp is ok with that- but I'm also sure that the more info we have, the more he will be comfortable with it.

So, if you feel like sharing, there will be at least one person who will take advantage of it

..

Becky, partner to Teague, SAHM to Keagan (7yo), Jonah (2yo)
 

DevaMajka is offline  
#3 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 02:16 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would love to talk about it. Unfortunately, I can't really contribute a lot to the discussion, but I'd love to read any information you or anyone else could provide.
Plummeting is offline  
#4 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 02:23 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Very interested. Also interested in other things being called polio. And what verification was done of "polio" cases in the hysteria of the 50s in the US. And what post-polio is (is there any virus involvement? or is it more physical muscle related?)

I also wonder with these new "cases" if it's been out in the wild all these years in the US after all.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#5 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 02:42 AM
 
USAmma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 18,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Sure there had been isolated cases before that, but not on an epidemic scale. So why is it, that people get hysterical over polio or any other disease?

Shall we talk polio seriously on this thread?

Any takers? I could post my info here, or leave the topic.
Because Polio is a word that strikes fear into most people. They have heard stories from their relatives (at least I have). Many people still can remember, or have heard people talk about, scenes like this .

I wonder why so many people came down with it back then? Was it the polio vaccine that stopped the epidemic, or was it that the ones most vunerable to it were killed off and the ones who remained had developed a strong enough immunity that the virus didn't have much chance of developing further? Why is it still around in India and such places? I really would like to know more about this disease.

This got me thinking about the West Nile Virus, which has hit our area. Many people have gotten it but most don't know it. They just think they have the flu. Only the sickest ones go in for treatment at the hospital and only a very few of them actually die. Still, the city is spraying stuff in the the air in some of the neighborhoods, treating the ponds, and people slather themselves with repellant b/c they are so very afraid of dying from West Nile.

It's funny, I'm more afraid of Polio than West Nile even though my chances of getting WN are a lot higher. There is such an emotional rawness about Polio because it was a big part of the history of our grandparents. It goes beyond statistics and logic and reason.

7yo: "Mom,I know which man is on a quarter and which on is on a nickel. They both have ponytails, but one man has a collar and the other man is naked. The naked man was our first president."
 
USAmma is offline  
#6 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 02:43 AM
 
Isaac'smama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
I would love to talk about it. Unfortunately, I can't really contribute a lot to the discussion, but I'd love to read any information you or anyone else could provide.
Ditto!!

Happily married with two sweet boys (8/04 and 6/07) bikenew.gifsleepytime.gifand one sweet baby girl born en caul (2/10)! babygirl.gif
Isaac'smama is offline  
#7 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 03:22 AM
 
DesireeH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Why is it still around in India and such places?
Probably because they still give the OPV, like they do in parts of Africa. Not to mention, when poverty is bad (like in the old days, even here in the US), health is bad. If you cant afford good food, clean water, sanitary living conditions......you are at a huge disadvantage. Then add improper sewage systems, etc...........

Desiree

DesireeH is offline  
#8 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 04:59 AM
 
Francy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The cupboard under the stairs
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesireeH
If you cant afford good food, clean water, sanitary living conditions......you are at a huge disadvantage. Then add improper sewage systems, etc...........
but in the case of polio, the argument is often made that better hygiene is actually the problem. here is a typical quote (no citation, sorry, but you can find this "explanation" all over the place if you google):

"Ironically, the advanced state of public hygiene in most industrialized countries contributed to the century's epidemics. Infants or very young children became infected when open sewers were rampant, but their disease was so mild that many parents did not realize their children had polio. This "silent" infection provided lasting immunity. With the advent of indoor plumbing and other modern sanitary conditions, children were not exposed to the poliovirus in infancy and did not develop immunity. As a result, they were vulnerable to disease in late childhood and adulthood, when it posed a much more serious threat."

MT, what do you think about this? could this be an explanation for why polio seemed to appear on the scene rather late in our history? (note: i find the pesticide theories fascinating. how i wish they'd get more notice. but suppose for now that they are false. what about the "hygiene argument"? and if it is true...well, what if it is? what are the implications?

thanks!
Francy is offline  
#9 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 05:25 AM
 
Francy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The cupboard under the stairs
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
here's something else i need help with.

as soon as i read the current amish story, i tried to get info about the 1979 outbreak. all i can find, over and over, is the same old statement that 14 (sometimes it's 10, or 15) amish people were paralyzed by polio (which started from an imported wild virus).

i keep reading that only about 1% (or less, since the figure "1 out of 200" is thrown around a lot) of polio cases are paralytic. does that mean that 1400 amish people were infected in all?? i can't find any figures on the total number who got polio, and which forms they got. what's the real story? where can i find the info?? (and why can't i find it? i have a ph.d. in googling.)

similarly, i keep running into the 1992 netherlands outbreak that says an epidemic began, affecting 68 people, paralyzing 59, and killing 2. 68 total, and 59 were paralyzed??? 87%?? what??? what is up with this? i can't find anything further. please help! this is the kind of infor that fuels hysteria (admittedly, mine own is sometimes included. but usually i keep my head.)

thanks!!
Francy is offline  
#10 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 05:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Francy, the hygiene argument is part of it, but not the whole. It's a very complicated issue, and to do this thread is very daunting for me, because I'm trying to work out how to do it in a logical sequence in a way which wouldn't overwhelm people and leave them not being able to relate anything to anything else.

UsAmma, you are partly correct. The 1 per 1,000 represents people with a genetic/immunological disposition to get sick. If you look throughout pre-vaccine history, the total death rates in any country didn't vary by much in terms of infection. The only thing that varied was WHICH disease killed at which time.

Yes you could say that the polio vaccine might have stopped killing those people, but the 1 per 1,000 vulnerability still exists, so those people were still sitting duck to... what? Haemophilus? Neisseria Meningitidis? Serious measles? the Plague? Sweating Fever? The vulnerability is there. So you can say, these people are like sieves. Plug one hole, but there's still a whole lot more.

So because they've never seriously researched the basic question which is "What causes people to get seriously sick and die" they don't know. And rather than say to you "You have a 999 chance of living, as opposed to a one chance of dying." They don't, because they can't tell you if you will be THAT one or not.

And a picture is worth more than a thousand words. People whove seen a family member, or even photos of people in iron lungs never forget. They lived then. But they don't think about the fact that they were there; and they DID NOT end up in an iron lung themselves, and they don't think about why that was.

What's worse, they don't think about the fact that in the 50's when everyone was running around like headless chooks getting vaccinated that 99.9% of them didn't need to. But the authorities didn't want to "waste time" testing people to see if they were immune, because it would waste time, and also in their mind, not further the vaccine campaign.

Which is stupid really, because by 1958 only 36% of the USA had been vaccinated (Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 2, No 3, March-April1980, Pages 277 - 281 "Eradication of Poliomyelitis in the United States: A commentary on the Salk). Reviews" Dr John P. Fox.)

Remember that 99.9% of those didn't need to be. YET... and here's the interesting thing. In the vaccinated people, rates of both paralytic and non paralytic was higher in the vaccinated. Just as in the Francis trails, placebo innoculated volunteers experience significantly more disease than did age-comparable unvaccinated nonvolunteers (page 278, reference above).

There are many factors involved to understand. So you aren't going to get a simple answer, handed to you on a plate. It will be hard work, and lots of thinking involved.

So let me thing about how to tackle this. It's a huge subject.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#11 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 06:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The first thing most people need to deal with, which I will prove later on with the requisite information, is that the SALK vaccine was a total dud. It did ABSOLUTELY nothing to reduce polio.

You've been led to believe that it did, haven't you. Except it didn't. Your parents and grandparents probably never thought to question why it was, that the SALK vaccine was so swiftly replaced with the SABIN, and they probably never questioned why the 99,9% of people who never needed to get the SALK vaccine now had to be lined up for the SABIN vaccine.


The statistics from the United States Polio Surveillance Units stats are very revealing, (except you won't be able to see them, because they are now classified.... and if you don't believe me, try and get hold of copies of them)

What they show is that in 1955 there were 7,886 cases of paralytic polio, 15% of them, were vaccinated.

1956, 7210 paralytic cases, 16% vaccinated. Non paralytic polio 6027 cases, 32% vaccinated.

1957, 2172 casses p polio, 30% vaccinated, 2,603 np polio, 54% vaccinated.

1958, 3122 p polio cases, 33% vaccinated.

(Remember that ONLY 36% of USA's population had been vaccinated with the first 3 primary doses Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 2, No 2, March - April 1980, pages 277-281 Eradication of Poliomyelitis in the United States: A commentary on the Salk Reviews by Dr John P Fox, and this article also says that booster doses be given EVERY year. The article also pointed out that most of the available evidence for antibody persistence after either IPV or OPV is of questionable validity...)

1959, 5,594 p polio cases 50%+ cases vaccinated which equals 3726 cases, of which 928 had had three or more doses)

1960, 2,545 p polio cases, 210 deaths, 77% fully vaccinated (four doses)

(These last three years were given to me verbally over the phone, by Dr Herbert Ratner, who had copies...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those of you who find the above hard to stomach, try to find out the answers to these two questions:

1) Why did the National Academy of Sciences refuse to approve Jonas Salk's membership application and never hung his photo in the hall of fame?

2) Who was Dr Bennett?

The answers to those two questions will open up a few eyes perhaps.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#12 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 06:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Francy, if I try to answer everything, this thread will be so rambly that I'll never get any cohesive sense into it. If you really want the 1979 information I'll get to that sometime,but right now you need to understand the actual information on the disease, not figures that headless chooks fling around in the media. Remember that most journalist know diddly zilch about anything and they are employed to do "reportage" which means, parrot what anyone tells them to report.

If they did a bit of actual investigative journalism for a change, maybe you'd get to read sense.

So can you just cool it a bit please, and let me develop a logical sequence? You have no idea how hard a thread like this is to do. My floor is covered with papers all over the place now, and I'm trying to get it into a sequences so that I can write a "polio for dummies" which is near impossible to do.

Patience, okay?
applejuice likes this.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#13 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 08:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Francy, I've just sent this through the comments procedure at Washington Times:

Quote:
I wish to contact David Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer, regarding his article on the Amish for the following reasons.

Firstly, this is not an outbreak. An outbreak is defined by clinically definable cases. Virus isolates are virus isolates, and do not define an outbreak. This has been cirulating for years, so how can it suddenly "be" an outbreak.

Furthermore the figure of 1 in 200 turning into polio is incorrect. I would refer him to: http://www.mdtravelhealth.com/infectious/polio.html
In roughly one in a thousand cases, poliovirus attacks the spinal cord or brainstem, leading to paralysis in various parts of the body, most often the legs.

and better still: http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/HGR/HGRCG.htm

D. Charleton Gajdusek,

Director, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, USA

"In most infections only a rare individual becomes ill or suffers rare complications, and that individual may be genetically predetermined, it usually is. For example, HTLV-1 infects 1-2 million Japanese, but only one in over a thousand gets adult advanced T cell leukemia after 40 years, and fortunately only about one in a thousand gets HAM, HTLV-1 associated myolopophy. Those unfortunate rare individuals are the problem, not the problem of the innocuous, or carriers, the other one thousand who die without ever knowing that they had it, and having no ill effect. The same can be said for poliomyelitis, where it takes 1,000 infected cases in order to induce a paralysis, the others don't know they were infected."

That the figure is incorrect is patently obvious from the time that the virus has been circulating with no cases occuring.

The other "fallacy" in the article is that the virus WILL be circulating also in vaccinated people outside of the Amish community. Why are they not being tested? They were in 1979, and it was found then, that the virus had circulated a long way outside the community without causing actual disease.

Mr Brown might also like to have commented on how it was that a severely immunodeficient child was still unable to get polio from a polio virus. Technically speaking, this child should now have clinical polio. Though I do admit that the numbers of immunodeficient children who get polio from infections is only 6 out of every 100 infections, so the chances that a severely immunodeficient child would get it is highly unlikely.

And the chances of a normal child getting it, are at worst 1 per thousand, but in many countries in the past the strike rate has never got above 1 per 2,000.

It would be appreciated if Mr Brown would do a more indepth, more accurate presentation of the issues.

Sincerely,

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#14 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 11:42 AM
 
Jen123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
MT...
I love you.
Jen123 is offline  
#15 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 11:59 AM
 
DesireeH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Doesnt DDT also cause polio LIKE symptoms? They didnt stop that until 1978.
applejuice likes this.

Desiree

DesireeH is offline  
#16 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 01:36 PM
 
tayndrewsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: WI
Posts: 11,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What is DDT?
tayndrewsmama is offline  
#17 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 01:57 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,505
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tayndrewsmama
What is DDT?
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane, the first modern pestacide developed during WWII. Banned in the 70s, I think.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#18 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 01:58 PM
 
tayndrewsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: WI
Posts: 11,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane, the first modern pestacide developed during WWII. Banned in the 70s, I think.
Nice. : Thanks for the answer.
tayndrewsmama is offline  
#19 of 72 Old 10-15-2005, 02:55 PM
 
Francy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The cupboard under the stairs
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
mt: deep breath. :LOL i know it is overwhelming. i go in these spurts where i pick a disease/vaccine, and start reading. but it gets so overwhelming. as you said in another thread, we could do this forever.

basically, i'm just confused about the 1979, and 1992 numbers. all i can find on google is that 10 (or 14, or 15) amish kids were paralyzed. that sounds like a lot, if paralytic polio is so rare. so what is the story there? were 1400 people affected, and the paralysed cases represent 1%? in the netherlands, the numbers given (supposedly a total, and then the number paralyzed within the total) represent around 87% of cases paralysed. which doesn't make sense.

"polio for dummies" would make a great book! even my old, german, doctor father (who i thought would oppose my decision not to immunize based on his own experiences) didn't even bat an eye (and actually nodded a bit in agreement)....but then he said, "what about polio?" to which i can only reply, "not sure. still reading. and reading..."

thanks so much for your help!
Francy is offline  
#20 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 02:09 AM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Lurking...

My grandma had polio waaaaaaaay back when. She had some minor hearing loss, or something. But who knows, we all seems to be a little deaf in our family. Anywho, I am finding this all intriguing. Don't really have anything to contribute, though...

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#21 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 05:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Useful medical citations:

Epidemiology of poliomyelitis:
Natahnson et al 1979, American Journal of Epidemiology, 110(6): 672-692
This is a great introduction to the enigmas surrounding the appearance and disappearance of paralytic polio. These questions are still being debated today. The basic point is this: polio virus has been around forever yet epidemics of paralysis have only been around since the late 19th century. This is not natural evolution. 95% of polio cases occur without symptoms and the rest have only a mild fever except for that tiny fraction of 1% where the virus penetrates the blood-brain barrier and causes paralysis. How does it do that?

Provocation poliomyelitis:
Wyatt 1981, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 55:543-557
This is a fantastic paper that discusses the many scientists from 1914-1950 who observed the phenomenon that injections can cause outbreaks of polio. I have many of the papers from the 1930s-1950s but the citations are too numerous too list. Most of these papers observed that paralysis correlated to the limb that was injected and then spread from there.

Now for the current stuff which attempts to explain the occurrence of vaccine-associated polio:
Strebel et al 1995, The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(8):500-506
This is a great paper that reviews much of the more current literature and adds some of its own observations. They point out that intramuscular injections within 30 days of immunization with oral polio vaccine increases the risk of vaccine-induced paralysis. At least 86% of paralysis cases were caused by injection and the higher number of injections correlated to higher frequency of paralysis cases.

Let me stress that these articles are all mainstream research done by people who think vaccination is the best medical find ever.

Mechanism of injection-induced paralysis:
Ren et al 1992, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 166:747-752
Ponnuraj et al 1998, Journal of General Virology, 79:2393-2403
Ponnuraj et al 2001, Journal of General Virology, 82:1329-1338

Also J.R.Paul's book "The History of Poliomyelitis." He talks about pseudo epidemics caused me media induced psychosocial hysteria. (Which frankly, is far worse now, than it ever was then!)

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#22 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 05:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Post to Mothering, 26th October 2003:

This post is long, and a bit scrappy. I don't have time to edit, organise my thoughts and put it in a way acceptable for a magazine article I'm too busy. I just want to get it out and on to "paper"...

Dear Turquise
Quote:
Quote:
[Originally posted by Stacie]
High sugar in the diet increases chance of polio!
[Asked by turquise]: I don't understand. (but then, I'm easily confused.)
Re Stacies comment, true.

I have Dr Benjamin P Sandler's book called "Diet prevents Polio". printed 1951 He was fired from his job as Medical Officer of Health inNorth Carolina. Why? because he subsequently did not support the Salk vaccination campaign. He had educated as many people as he could in NC through the media of the time, and the rates of polio in NC when he was in charge were way lower than anywhere else.

His book details how high refined carb and sugar food deranges the way the body processes sugar, and cases reactive hypoglycemia. In those days, they also didn't know that one dose of sugar, bombs in the cellular immune system for at least 3 hours. There is also mention in this book, about work from Dr Sabin, in which he details work in China, Japan and Philippines, that in spite of repeated outbreaks amongst american troops stationed there, there was never any polio in the native populations. Sabin also witnessed an outbreak in the summer of 1946 among American marines in 1946 in the Tientsin area of North China. Four died, one was severely paralysed and at least 25 other had non-paralytic polio. There was none amongst the chinese. Dr Grice, the British physician in Tientsin for 25 years, told Dr Sabin that he not infrequently saw paralytic polio in children in the foreign colony, but rarely in the chinese.

Sandler pointed out that the Americans and foreigners always took their dietary habits with them overseas, with ice cream, candies, soft drinks, cakes and the like being freely available since Ice cream manufacturing equipement arrived with, and was considered as important as, combat equipment. He pointed out that he saw the Americans eat Candy in preference to the monotonous K and C rations (And I notice the same thing happened in 2003 in Iraq as well). It was considered bad for morale is sweets and junk food wasn't freely available.

Sandler also quotes Sabin as saying
Quote:
Intimate human contact ... does not by itself explain the recurrent summer epidemics of paralysis... With the present high incidence of the disease among children of school age in the United States, it is remarkable that, unlike certain other infections of childhood, the epidemics of paralysis occur during the very months when children are away from school
Sandler hypothesised that the reason for this was that when children were away from school during the summer, they had more time for physical activity which may at times be excessive (since there was no such thing as TV, playstation and computers in those days) and so they also became predisposed to polio. And the American habit of imbibing in sweet cooling beverages and foods after exertion just made it worse by increasing the risk of concommitant low blood sugar, and as we know now, by regularly bombing in the cellular immune system.

He again quotes Sabin
Quote:
"All this brings one back to another old question in the epidemiology of poliomyelitis, namely: do more people acquire the poliomyelitis during the summer and early autumn months, or is there only a difference in the ratio between the number exhibiting the paralytic and inapparent nonparalyutic forms of the disease during the different times of the year? If there were only some way of answering this question by direct laboratory tests instead of by speculation, analogy or evalution of probabilities, one could end the controversy between those who maintain that certain unknown changes in the host, rather than increased dissemination of the virus, are responsible for epidemics and for the greater incidence of the disease... Why does paralytic poliomyelitis, with only rare exceptions, remain practically dormant during more than two thirds of each year, appearing in only an occasional person, and then seems to explode during the late summer and early autumn?"
Had he looked at the nutrition and physical exertion question, he would have been half way to the answer to the question. This half would also have to contain the drastic reduction in breastfeeding dur to the bottle and rubber teat brigade. and the fact that sanitation means that babies, who used to get natural immunity by crawling around in less than idea conditions, while getting virus neutralisation protection from breastmilk, had this natural acquisition of protection thwarted by better housing, and better sanitation, which meant that exposure to the virus was at a much older age than prior to the age of "Public sanitation and clean water" etc. Had bottle feeding been de-rigeur during the age when sanitation was a myth, then we would have seen much larger numbers of polio in babies than existed in earlier times, because they were protected by breastfeeding and the lack of junk food in earlier days...

Another quarter of the jigsaw, revolves around the fact that from the late 20's to early 60's, routine tonsillectomy, regardless of "need" was part and parcel of a child's life. It wasn't known until much much later, that to lose your tonsils increased your life-long risk of polio by 600%. And that is published in the medical literature.

The final quarter would be not only the overuse of antibiotics which sterilized the guts causing more easy access of the polio virus into the system, but also the fact that the needle had become the revered method of drug and vaccine administration, and if you remember this:
Quote:
Obviously introducing a foreign substance into your child while he or she is already ill is a bad idea because you certainly don’t want to compromise the immune system any further than it already has been. It’s as simple as this: don’t try to make your child sick when they are already sick. And that’s what vaccination is – you’re making your child sick so that he or she won’t get as sick some time down the road. Besides the obvious there’s the story of polio and the fact that only recently has the mechanism been discovered of how this virus can cross the blood-brain barrier. That’s the great thing about the barrier. Even if your body is being attacked by a virus, that beautiful barrier prevents your brain from turning into mush by keeping foreign substances out. So, here it is:

Epidemiology of poliomyelitis:
Natahnson et al 1979, American Journal of Epidemiology, 110(6): 672-692
This is a great introduction to the enigmas surrounding the appearance and disappearance of paralytic polio. These questions are still being debated today. The basic point is this: polio virus has been around forever yet epidemics of paralysis have only been around since the late 19th century. This is not natural evolution. 95% of polio cases occur without symptoms and the rest have only a mild fever except for that tiny fraction of 1% where the virus penetrates the blood-brain barrier and causes paralysis. How does it do that?

Provocation poliomyelitis:
Wyatt 1981, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 55:543-557
This is a fantastic paper that discusses the many scientists from 1914-1950 who observed the phenomenon that injections can cause outbreaks of polio. I have many of the papers from the 1930s-1950s but the citations are too numerous too list. Most of these papers observed that paralysis correlated to the limb that was injected and then spread from there.

Now for the current stuff which attempts to explain the occurrence of vaccine-associated polio:
Strebel et al 1995, The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(8):500-506
This is a great paper that reviews much of the more current literature and adds some of its own observations. They point out that intramuscular injections within 30 days of immunization with oral polio vaccine increases the risk of vaccine-induced paralysis. At least 86% of paralysis cases were caused by injection and the higher number of injections correlated to higher frequency of paralysis cases.

Let me stress that these articles are all mainstream research done by people who think vaccination is the best medical find ever.

Mechanism of injection-induced paralysis:
Ren et al 1992, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 166:747-752
Ponnuraj et al 1998, Journal of General Virology, 79:2393-2403
Ponnuraj et al 2001, Journal of General Virology, 82:1329-1338

These papers show exactly how injections induce paralysis. Poliovirus is localized in the peripheral nerves at the site of injection. This allows transport via neural pathways across the blood-brain barrier (polio can not normally do this). Here’s the take home message: any virus that can replicate in neurons (that’s probably most of them) will be able to gain entry to the brain by this mechanism. Polio causes paralysis, other viruses destroy the brain in their own way.

This is a big deal. Remember, it doesn’t even matter what’s in the syringe. The puncture wound is the trigger that localizes the virus. And this is a general mechanism. That means that the trauma to peripheral nerves caused by the penetration of the needle could allow a variety of foreign substances into the brain.

[Point of interest: Tonsillectomies are no longer routinely given to children because there was a high incidence of paralytic polio after the operations. At the time no one knew how or why polio attacked the brain of children who recently had these procedures. Of course we can take a guess : surgery = peripheral nerve damage.]

So although polio virus can cause paralysis there must be a trigger to allow it to gain entry to the brain. There were two ways to approach the problem of epidemic paralytic polio: introduce a vaccine that is essentially a weaker polio virus so that paralysis occurs much less often or simply don’t inject people who have any signs of illness. We all know which path was taken.
....then you will be able to put these many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together.


What Dr Sandler proposed was that people should eat complex whole food carbs, but increase their protein and vegetables. He noted that in summer so many people at sugar in the form of sweets, ice cream, cakes biscuits, and cut back good food for easy convenient nutritionally empty foods.

His book details all this in great detail, as well as all the medical research that he did that proved this was so.

American Journal of Digestive Diseases. 19 (1) : 1 - 4 1952 in an article which talked about rheumatoid arthritis in diabetes Mellitius. Hyperinsulinism, a factor in Rheumatoid arthritis) E. M. Abrahamson
Quote:
Since ACTH and cortisone are the physiological antagonists of insulin, it was assumed that rheumatoid arthritis is accompanied by hyperinsulinism. this was confimed in a few patients and treatment of the hyperinsulinism by a high fat, low quickly absorbably carbohydrate diet simultaneously relieved much of the discomfort of the arthritis.
the point is that sugar and refined carbs have a huge affect on the immune system, and few people realise that.

The second book I have is called Low Blood sugar and you by Carlton Frederick Ph. D. & Herman Goodman, M. D. 1969, which confirms and broadens Sandler's work. but basically is along the same lines, but explains the issues in a different and perhaps clearer way.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#23 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 05:39 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1955, Journal of American Statistical Assn 50: 1005- 1013 stated of the Francis report
Quote:
59% of the trial was worthless because of lack of adequate controls. The remaining 41% may have been alright, but contains internal evidence of bias in favour of the vaccinated.
He also pointed out that
Quote:
the initial decision (later changed) to vaccinate all willing second graders and to use the nonvolunteer second graders and all first and third-grade children as uninoculated controls nearly invalidated the 1954 trials... Placebo-inoculated volunteers eexperienced significantly more disease than did age-comparable unvaccinated nonvolunteers"
The reviewer, Mr Brownlee, also pointed out that the National Foundation had proclaimed gamma globulin effective after similar trials, when it had been later proven useless.

Lancet April 23, 1955, p 851 reported on the Francis report
Quote:
Bulbospinal paralysis, 81 - 94% protection.
Spinal paralytic form 60 % protection.
Non-paralytic form, NIL protection
Which, frankly, doesn't make sense, but never mind.

BMJ, April 30, 1955 says about the Francis Report, that large sections of the trial were subject to doubtful procedures, open to criticism; for instance
Quote:
1) innoculated children on one large section were not the same age as the uninnoculated controls
2) childrren to be innoculated were those whose parents agreed to have it done. It is recognised amongst statisticians involved in similar assessments that the social position and care in volunteer families are usually superior to that in controls
What is more interesting still, is the fact that Dr Sabin, of the Sabin vaccine "fame" in an article in Skope Weekly, January 21, 1959, page 4, cited studies illustrating the unpredictable immune response of children given a full series of Salk Inoculations.

Five months after the third dose, 44% were eithout demonstrable antibody for Type 1 poliovirus, while 53% were without type 3. In terms of serum levels sufficient to yield antibody in nasopharyngeal excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1, and 84% for Type 3.

Quoted in the Tri State Medical Journal, February 1959, :The folly in the continued use of a killed polio virus vaccine" Fred. R. Klenner.

The other interesting bit is a letter from England in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 163, No 2, January 12, 1957 which stated that
Quote:
an analysis of the figures (Salk Polio Vaccine) shows that the incident of paralytic cases among the vaccinated children who had poliomyelitis was 40% as compared with 44% among the unvaccinated children."
which makes a monkey of the protection stats for paralytic polio in the Francis trials....

The statistics from the Polio Surveillance Units stats are very revealing, (except you won't be able to see them, because they are now classified.... and if you don't believe me, try and get hold of copies of them)

What they show is that in 1955 there were 7,886 cases of paralytic polio, 15% of them, were vaccinated.

1956, 7210 paralytic cases, 16% vaccinated. Non paralytic polio 6027 cases, 32% vaccinated.

1957, 2172 casses p polio, 30% vaccinated, 2,603 np polio, 54% vaccinated.

1958, 3122 p polio cases, 33% vaccinated.

(Note well, that at this point in the medical literature, it states that ONLY 36% of USA's population had been vaccinated with the first 3 primary doses Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 2, No 2, March - April 1980, pages 277-281 Eradication of Poliomyelitis in the United States: A commentary on the Salk Reviews by Dr John P Fox, and notice that it was also required that booster doses be given EVERY year. The article just mentioned also pointed out that most of the available evidence for antibody persistence after either IPV or OPV is of questionable validity...)

1959, 5,594 p polio cases 50%+ cases vaccinated which equals 3726 cases, of which 928 had had three or more doses)

1960, 2,545 p polio cases, 210 deaths, 77% fully vaccinated (four doses)

(These last three years were given to me verbally, by Dr Herbert Ratner, who had copies...)

(You also have to remember that in this time, the definition of polio was changed and refined.

In 1956, "Vaccine satellite cases" of which there were many, were "dropped". The PSU didn't accept these as vaccine related - they are listed under unvaccinated.

But in 1960, with the introduction of SABIN vaccine, satellite cases were once again reported and classified as vaccine induced

In 1957 the UPSR Supplement no 15, was the first recommendation, that no longer should "polio", caused by "other" agents, such as echoviruses, coxsackie viruses or any other cause other than polio virus, be listed under polio, and further in order to be defined as polio, the patient not only had to have virus, but also had to have residual paralysis 60 days later.

in 1958, the Centers for Disease control formally adoped as "best available paralytic poliomyelitis case count"BAPPCC
Quote:
Cases must be clinically and epidemiologically compatible with poliomyelitis, must have resulted in paralysis, and must had a residual neurolgoical deficit 60 days after onset of initial symptoms. .. the BAPPCC does not include cases of nonparalytic poliomyelitis, of those in which paralysis is more transient. The original purpose of developing these criteria was to omit cases possibly due to enteroviruses other than polioviruses" Lancet, December 8. 1984 pages 1315 - 1317, "Poliomeylitis" Robert J. Kim-Farley et al .
This paper also makes the point that "Several generations of transmission of poliovirus can occur after improtation since most infections are subclinical." and... "the poliovirus isolated from a patient with paralytic disease may not always be the virus causing the patient's disease". So its not a simple issue, as they would like you to think it is...)

The definition changes were so radical, that many doctors publicly stated in medical journals, effectively eliminated 90% of what had previous been accepted as paralytic polio.

In Wkly Epid Rec. 1970, 45, p 318, in 1970, there were 19 cases of paralytic polio. 8 of those had had 3 doses of vaccine, and there was no mention of one or two doses, which followed the trend of anything less than three doses being classified as "unvaccinated"

Evidence that the vaccine was not very good, was also published in 1973 Lancet 2: 899 - 900 (1973) Red D et al, Poliomyelitis - A gap in immunity?" which found that only 49% of nursery school children studied had antibody to all three types, and 54% of the children with a history of immunisation lacked any immunity whatsoever.

This was followed by another study in 1977,Lancet 2: 1078 "Protection against polio, Codd A and White E, found that among children 1 - 5 years of age, only 43% had antibody to all three types, and 25% lacked antibody to any. Among those 5 - 19 years, 40% had antibody to all three typles, and 17% had no antibodies to anythign. In all adult age groups, except those 30 - 39, at least 15% entirely lacked polio antibodies, and the proportion of people with antibodies to all three types ranged from just under or just over 50%.

So they don't tell you, that even with the vaunted SABIN vaccine, which was brought in oh so quietly, because the SALK vaccine palinly didn't work, the results weren't that much different....

If you are looking at the early studies which looked at the percentage of children who would get polio in epidemic conditions, there is a paper in the American Journal of Public Health, Volume 26, 147, 1936 by M. Brodie which showed that only 0.6% (yes nought point six percent) of all children in the age group 1 - 10, showing NO antibodies, would ever came down with polio even when the disease was present in epidemic proportions.

Another study by Dalldorf and Weigand, in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, 108:605 - 616, 1958, showed that in monkeys, poliomyelitis may result from simultaneous infections with an attenuated poliovirus and polio-like virus, such as a coxsackie virus. Neither virus alone induced paralysis, but together they did.

And further, there was a huge epidemic of enterovirus 71 in Bulgaria in with 700 seriously ill patients, 21% of whom developed poliomyelitis like paralysis, and 44 died. (Intervirology 4 : 369 - 370, 1974, Enteroviruses, 69, 70, 71 Melnick J.L. )

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#24 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 05:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Post to Mothering, 3rd February 2004:

India has been a special study area of mine, since I have known two people there for a very long time.

One is Professor Debabar Banerji from Jawaharlal Nehru University, and another is Dr Vivien Wyatt, who did a phenomenal amount of research in India.

If you can find it, get a copy of the Indian Journal of Pediatrics, Special Supplement, January-February 1998; Volume 65:Number 1, Poliomyelitis in India, Past, present and Future by H.V. Wyatt.

he full contents of this were alluded to in the BMJ Volume 316, 25 April, 1998, in a short item called "flawed immunisation policites in India led to polio paralysis.

Unfortunately, because of political constraints, the BMJ was unable to publish the whole/real cause.

Because I know Dr Wyatt, and have pretty much everything he has written, and the benefit of private communication with him, I can tell you this.

As early as 29 June, 1990, the Indian medical profession, and politicians knew that the huge increase of polio in India in the previous 60 years, for which he had evidence, was due to unsterile injections which he predicted would lead to an enormous polical row. When I asked him to clarify that, he wrote back and described one study in Pondicherry they had just finished:
Quote:
Our work shows that injections almost certainly cause three quarters of the 200,000 cases of polio each year in India - unnecessary injections as well as DPT causing provocation paralysis, given to children with diarrhoea, or fever - given unsertile , of unsuitable drugs, for gain.
Since then, I have gone through the WHO website, and retrieved key papers on the subject such as one called "the buts and bolts of Immunisation, and nother which was the 11-13 June 1997 SAGE report. There are a couple of others of interest as well, which expand upon and back up these two.

These reports confirm that the biggest problem for the undeveloped world, is not only unsterile injections, but the fact that most of these "injections" occur, because the EPI programme, supposedly disposable needles, either disappear, or are deliberately onsold by EPI worker.

These needles get into the hands of all sorts of people including witchdoctors who use them to inject muddy water (gag) as well as whatever else takes their fancy.

While the WHO doesn't deal with the polio aspect, since Wyatt has done that so efficiently, they do detail just how much Hepatitis B and AIDS has been spread by these needles... These reports have little comments in them like
Quote:
More than half of all non-immunization injections in developing countries are believed to be unsafe
In Easter Europe
Quote:
50% of health certres were giving unsafe injections and/or using vaccine of doubtful potency. In 13% of heal centres there were no disposable syringes and no sterilizing equipment. the study also revealed that children especially orphas were being subjected to an excessive number of injections in addition to immunization - an average of 115 injections in all, during their first year. One orphan had been given over 500 injections
And Dr Wyatt tells me that many Indian parents consider an injection the only "sure" cure.

the sage report has gems like this:
Quote:
3.3 Injection safety

Information suppled to WHO and UNICEF consistently highlights widespred unsteril injection practices... which can result in infectious complication such as the transmission of blood-born pathogens... the community at large is at risk when injection equipment is not safely disposed of, and because of its commercial value, is reused, sold, or recycles. Alarminly, this situation is widely tolderate by health management...previous attempt by EPI to raise health officials' awareness of the improtance of injection safety have been met with scepticism,or, at best, noncommittal acknowledgement that "something should be done"> The problem however, is so braod, and involved so many participants in the public and the private health sectors that no solution has so far been found."
Now, I would love to carry on, and give you all the rest, but copyrght constrains my ability to continue to show you the many things, that in the lilly-white propaganda about EPI saving all these children in the world, we are not told the real, nauseating results of what happens to the hundreds of millions of disposable needles provided by WHO to immunise the children in undeveloped countries.

But I will give another quote, as I find its complacency as bad as the people it obviously employs
Quote:
There is a need to determine what role EPI should play in raising awareness and improving the quality and safety of the injections indespensable for the deisease control initiative it promotes. Can this challenge be met by focussing on the safety of immunisation inections alone? Should EPI take a more proactive role in promoting safe injections throughout the health sector and lead a coordinated and concerted drive for safer injections?...GPV should pursue the development and implementation of technologies for safe injection including injection devices and disposal systems...
Six years later (2004), I still hear nothing... am still waiting,.... and wonder for how long people will continue to believe the public propaganda we are force fed about the "good" that is being done in these countries. To me, its give with one hand, and take more besides back with the other...

This same report also comments that half of all measles infections result in blindness. Not from lack of vaccine, but from Vitamin A deficiency. I do see minute movement on the part of WHO to deal with this. But it galls me that in the past it was all laid at the door of vaccine non-use.

I haven't bothered to go back and look at the newer reports. I suppose I should. The off-hand attitude so galls me, that when I hear from the people on the coal face, as to the reality of the situation, I find it hard to scour the WHO database to see if anyone else has had the guts to even mildly state a self-evident problem.

So Darshani, I would have one piece of advice for you. Which we took when my son went to Sri Lanka.

Wherever you go in the underdeveloped part of the world, carry a comprehensive health kit with you, including sterile needles, and key important drugs.

To do otherwise gives you much better odds of serious illness than russian roulette.

And my heart goes out to all those people with deformities of any origin. Not only are many of them (like the polio ones) totally unnecessary, and if documentaries are to be believed, sometimes inflicted on the children in order to put them in the begging industry.

I find it hard to comprehend a country, or a political system, or a medical system that stands back, and allows such monstrosities to be accepted without challenge.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#25 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 05:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Post elsewhere, first of thre I think...12th March 2004:


Dear Xxxxx, the parallel is nowhere near close and here is why
Quote:
To me, mandatory vaccinations are like mandatory speed limits in this sense. Why should we not be able to choose whatever we deem a 'safe' speed?
There is a speed at which most sane, undrunk people on the streets driving a car, are "safe". A car has a speed at which anyone with skill and a brain can keep it in control. That speed is a known speed. So the point of a speed limit is to keep cars separate from one another, on two different sides of the road. BUT.... I can chose whether or not I go in a car, or whether I bike, or whether I go by plane. I do not have to use a car, and a lot of the time I do not. That analogy falls down, because whereas mandatory vaccine affect the immune systems of every person, a speed limit which restricts me (in this country) to 100 km p h on open road, does not of itself, have the potential to wreck my life. Just say that someone did a study which found that anyone driving under this speed had an increased chance of anaphylaxis, lupus, arthritis, seizures, whether or not they wanted to use the roads... would you then say that was okay?
Quote:
Who knows our driving abilities better than we ourselves?
True, except for this. Idiots who like to drink, and who have an inflated view of their ability are far bigger killers than sober normal drivers. But again, I have the choice as to whether I go on the road, and more importantly, when. Further more, another person's driving ability does not affect my body, or my immune system. Again, if you said that mandatory speed limits were there for the good of all, but that they inherently increase my chances for autism in my children, adhd, and other disorders, by virtue of their implementation, would that be okay?
Quote:
Surely other people unwisely driving beyond their capabilities is none of our business, right?
Actually, you are correct, since nothing you can do will stop people's unwise driving, regardless of legislation. The fact you still have a huge road toll in your country, despite speed and other road law attests to the fact that your law doesn't work anyway. But if that law, had inherent in its very implementation, the further ability to harm everyone who drove regardless of their ability or stupidity, that would make it even worse.
Quote:
And besides, everyone alive today survived the days before speed limits, so that 'proves' speed limits do nothing, doesn't it?
No it doesn't, because before the current speed limits, cars were not capable of doing the speeds they do now, and the numbers of cars on the road was a miniscule fraction of what we contend with today.
Quote:
The parallel is very close, but despite your denial of narrow focus, I don't expect you to see it.
You won't see it from me, and you won't see if from the medical profession either. Because even in the time of the Salk vaccine, a study was done which showed this:
Quote:
"During the Salk vaccine diffficulties of the 50's and 60's an epidemiologist at New York State health Department concluded that if each infant had to travel two miles to get a shot there would be more disabilities caused by vehicle accidents than what the Salk vaccine itself would have prevented, to say nothing of therapeutic misadventures (Letter to the New York Times, June 21, 1996, by Dr Herbert Ratner.)
Therefore your analogy is patently wrong. But then, neither would I expect you to see that either.

You hold to your own position, because you are functionally and intellectually unable to allow others to hold another point of view based on data you've never seen. And this has been your modus operandi on this board for years. One which many people have either complained about or brought to your attention. But one which I find useful, since I think most thinking people can see how ridiculous such a position is.
Quote:
Statistics can be a dangerous game. When I read that the number of polio cases had been reduced from as many as 20,000 a year down to 10 total cases, I also read that of those 10 cases, 7 had resulted from the vaccination itself. And on that basis, some people were arguing that the polio vaccine was worse than useless because the vaccine itself had been the cause of the majority of cases! They had complete records on all 7 cases, so how could their focus be narrow?
Who said that? I never said that. And the USA authorities themselves considered that the vaccine was inappropriate and replaced it with a new and different form of the "SALK" vaccine.
Quote:
And sometimes it's hard to tell whether you are opposed to vaccination as a medical procedure, or only opposed to vaccination being mandatory as a legal requirement.
Then let me atttempt to hammer my position into your head correctly, since you appear to have been incapable of getting the message in all the years I have been there. Which is surprising, since I have always been consistent in my views.

If people believe that vaccines work, and they want to use them, then they should use them. If they work, they will be protected. Whether or not their neighbour isn't vaccinated shouldn't be a concern. After all, when you went to Africa, you had vaccines on the basis that there were epidemics of those diseases there right then. You expected those vaccines to work for you then, so why should the context in day to day life be any different? Why do you try to tell me that "vaccinated you" is suddenly at risk from "unvaccinated me"?

If people do NOT wish to avail themselves of any vaccines, there should be no law that mandates that they do, and there should be no censure or penalty against them for not having them. And further, since vaccines are designed to prevent illness, people who are vaccinated, should not make such stupid statements as "but your child isn't vaccinated and is unclean and contaminated, so your child can't play with mine, or else your (live unvaccinated) child might kill my (clean vaccinated) child. I hear this all the time from parents of vaccinated children.

And you, Xxxxxx, should just go and have your vaccines and not complain about those who do not. Since after all, you are protected are you not?????

And while you are at it, should that be the case, then I would love to be in a position where all people can walk the talk too. I would love to resign, and say to parents who chose to vaccinate their kids and got vaccine damanged children as a result "You chose to vaccinate your child, you live with the consequences, .. I (who do not vaccinate my children) will no longer take on your cases. Do it yourself."

The reason I do cases, though we don't vaccinate our children, is primarily because I see the creeping dictatorship of governments like yours, and people like you, who would mandate that all parents put compounds into their children (which can, and do, often cause harm,) is a greater problem for the world. Most of the cases I do, the parents had no concept that there was a choice. That they could even have said no. For them, I feel sympathy and want to help. For people who make an informed choice and have a vaccine damaged child, its so much harder to feel any sympathy at all.

I am very concerned that your kind of creeping Orwellianism will reach a lot further than your shores.

Simply put. Vaccination should not be mandatory. It should be a matter of personal choice.

In this ideal world, there should also NOT be legislation that allows compensation from inherent vaccine damage, UNLESS it can be proven to be deliberate negligence on the part of the manufacturer of administer of the vaccine. You chose a vaccine, then you take that risk. Choice too, comes with that price in my mind.

Quote:
OK, back to vehicle mechanical failures for a moment. ALL vehicles are SURE to break down given enough time and mileage. Some are more durable than others, but no vehicle lasts forever. If every mechanical failure represents an injustice, then this sort of injustice is built in, indelibly. And given human variation and vaccine imperfections of all kinds, there are SURE to be cases of adverse reactions of a wide variety. Is every such case an injustice? If so, then life is simply unjust. Otherwise, how do you distinguish between the inevitable and the unjust?

I know that in the vehicle case, it's necessary to show that (1) there was a clear design or material error; (2) That the manufacturer had learned of this; and (3) That the manufacturer had made no attempt to correct it. I don't know if there is some similar mechanism with respect to vaccines, but I'd be surprised if there were not.
which proves my point, that it is your ignorance that doesn't allow you logical discussion of the issue.

Your analogy is incorrect for two reasons. Each model of a car is standardised with replaceable units. A mechanic knows where to look for specific problems. When you take your car to the mechanic, he will look at the problem, and he will find where that problem is, because he knows each part of the car, and what its symptoms might be. So, if your car has a carburettor problem, that will be fixed and replaced, and your car will be as good as new.

The carburettor might, in a bad scenario, have to be replaced four times, but there is always still the potential that your car will be able to be returned to its original condition.

However, in the case of the human body, immunologists know very little about the immune system. Look at your computer. You know which is the keyboard, which is the mouse, what the tower is, and what the screen is. You know that if you do some things, like typing as I am now, letters will appear. You can name all the bits of hardware. But do know know exactly what every tiny component is within each part, and how they interact with each other? No, and neither do I.

Immunologists are not even in the position of computer hardware experts who know the exact function and inter-relation between each part.

Immunologists can name the parts often, but they do not KNOW how all those parts interact in their totality. Furthermore, while they talk about Th1 and Th2, and how they inter-relate, there are exceptions to that rule that makes them think that (like with the hubble) there is another as yet undiscovered universe in the body, which they may name Th3.

In reality, when it comes to functional understanding, immunologists know as much about the human body, as Columbus did about American Indigenous races, when he "discovered" the land in which they lived. And according to all the immunologists I know, and I know a lot, that is a fair analogy.

Therefore, because their knowledge of your baby's componentry, and how it functions is totally unlike that of a car, where the funtional componentry is fully known, your analogy is unacceptable.

They cannot inject a vacine into a baby with the surety that they KNOW where it will go, WHAT it will do, and HOW the body will react. Or, how to fix it.

So, if you put a vaccine into a baby, and it causes "parts" to then malfunction, the problem is that UNLIKE A CAR, I cannot take my baby to a doctors and say "replace those parts your vaccine has made to go wrong, because I want my baby to function as it did when I first "bought" it.

Whereas you keep taking your car back to the mechanic and they replace the bits until it does work, or at worst case scenario, they give you a new car. When it comes to a baby's immune system, or yours for that matter, there are no spare parts available. You have one go at it, Xxxxx. And if that go "fails" for you, you have to hope that the body will "self-adjust". And if it doesn't, tough bikkies, boy, because they can't replace your child. Vaccines don't come with a warranty or a guarantee.

And if you were told that the vaccine "wouldn't" damage you, and if it did damge you, are you going to sit there, and accept that with good grace?

I doubt it.
Quote:
You have no documentation on the 1000 problems that didn't happen, so they aren't part of your "truth" at all. They ARE part of mine. I recognize that no vaccinated person who thereby avoids those diseases would have any reason to sue anyone, or to call on your expertise to show the cause of their good fortune.
Pardon? One of the cases I have right now, is of an appropriately vaccinated person, with proof of prior immunity, who caught that immunable disease. Trouble was, the assumption of the medical people was that because he was vaccinated, he couldn't have had that disease, so they refused to do the tests for that. As a consequence, he didn't get the correct treatment and now has permanent neurological damage. And he happens to be a fairly high flying American.

Quote:
How could the Man Who Saved the Children be denied a Nobel Prize? Or summarily be turned down for membership in the National Academy of Sciences? What was it about Salk that so annoyed his fellow scientists? Maybe Salk had sinned unforgivably by not saluting either Enders or, more seriously, his colleagues at the Pittsburgh lab. Perhaps he was too brillians for all of them. So what?!!! Salk managed to generate massive funding others could not get, and generally thumbed his nose at the traditional protocols and procedures of a research effort many people were involved in (and all of whom he publically ignored). And as a result he was similarly snubbed by his peers when it came to public honors. Still, his vaccine was used, and it worked wonderfully.
His vaccine didn't work at all Xxxxxx. And furthermore, it's plainly evident from the medical literature of the time that it didn't work. Even Salk had multitudes of excuses for that.

The fact that the SALK vaccine didn't work and was dangerous was why they swapped to the Sabin vaccine. Everything he did after that was taken as showboating — when he opened the Salk Institute, a superlab in La Jolla, Calif., for the world's scientists to retreat to and bask in, and even when not long before his death in 1995, he started a search for an AIDS vaccine, to a flourish of trumpets and welcome new funding.

But here for your edification, is the real story. A more complete version of the story. Not your sanitised version of the story. And I will name names, and if you don't believe me, ask anyone who was working in that field at the time. There are quite a few still alive.

It had nothing to do with the Salk Institute. That was set up, when his colleagues told him that they would never allow him to be part of their party.

Dr Jonas Salk, never developed his vaccine at all. He had the idea, but did none of the work there. There was a Dr Bennett who used to work with Dr Jo Smadel at Walter Reed. He left there, because Jonas Salk, who was a Professor at the University of Pittsburg, offered him the job of "joining him" in makind the first successful polio vaccine.

His idea for the vaccine was simple in the extreme. To just grow the virus, and inactivate it with formalin (which by the way, was the same idea that he had for the AIDS vaccine, so is it any wonder he was laughed out of town?)

Except he did none of the work. Dr Bennett did, but the theory had a fatal flaw. Formalin doesn't inactivate in a straight line, but Salk thought it did. And right from the start, the media, the politicians etc, acclaimed Salk as the Saviour of mankind. Which went to his head. And he took all the credit for work he had never done.

He refused to acknowedge that Dr Bennett had made the vaccine not him, which led to a prolonged very nasty feud, which was so nasty, that Dr Bennett committed suicide. at this point his colleagues silently "side-lined" Salk, since such behaviour was unacceptable.

But Salk had dug himself two holes in the process, not one.

By 1956, and right through until the Sabin vaccine was used, the doctors who tested every single batch of the vaccine for the FDA (then the DBS) found every single batch, not just the Cutter batch, was live. He consistently put memos on the table of his bosses saying that all the vaccine so far, consistently paralysed all monkey, with every batch. And that he was losing so many monkeys that he didn't think they could sustain such heavy importation and traffic in monkeys.

The reaction of the DBS, and other head honchos was to go back to Jonas Salk, and they decided that the simplest solution was to dilute down the vaccine, so that there was less likelihood of live virus causing problems. This caused a further problem, that the already low efficacy, became even lower still. But Salk thought that it was do-able.

But the key strategy was that this could never become public knowledge.

The illusion in the public's mind, that the Salk vaccine would solve the polio problem must at all costs, continue, for to admit these things was judged by those in high places to be too serious. It would cause mass panic, and hysteria, and they had the utmost confidence that they could solve the problem, and quickly, so they saw no need to admit anything.

Furthermore, that situation existed right up until the SABIN vaccine was introduced. Even though they diluted the vaccine, the testing consistently paralysed the monkeys.

When thing had been cushy for Salk, he was happy to take the glory.

When things became sticky, and the inactivation was shown to not work, first of all he blamed Cutter, and all the laboratories, saying that they could not have followed his instructions. It took yet another year, to go back over all the manufacturers records and show that they had indeed followed his instructions to the letter, and that the only possible reasons were that his instructions were incorrect.

He then privately, within closed circles, attempted to blame Dr Bennett. Which didn't impress his colleagues any more than the fact that he had taken credit in 1954 when it wasn't his, and harrassed Dr Bennett to the point where he committed suicide.

From 1958, debate raged about whether the Salk vaccine was worth continuing with. REal debate had started after a letter in JAMA, volume 163, No 2, January 12, 1957 reported that in England the analysis of the use of the US made Salk Vaccine in England showed that the incidence of paralytic polio in the vaccinated was 40% compared to 44% in the unvaccinated children.

Time Magazine, January 19, 1959 reporting on the "Scientific Symposium on Poliomyelitis VAccine held at University of Michigan School of Publich Health stated that much of the material used in about 200 million United States inoculation "has been no good".

Dr Albert Sabin (Scope Weekly, page 4 January 21 1959) cited studies illustrating the unpredictable immune response of children to a full series of four Salk vaccines. Five months after the third dose 44% were without demonstrable antibody for Type 1 polivirus, while 53% were without Type III. In terms of serum levels sufficient to yield antibody in nasopharyngeal excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1 and 84% for Type III.

Dr Salk's response to that (Medical News Page 2, January 28 1959) was to say that the failure of his vaccine to date was due to "individually defective immuno-mechanisms, a non-bloodstream route of virus spread, or waning immunity"

Then in 1958, something else happened which essentially sealed Dr Salk's fate in the minds of his colleagues. Dr Bernice Eddy had noticed that there was "something" in the SALK vaccine which did some pretty awful things to all her laboratory animals, and caused vacuolation in culture medium.

She couldn't pin it down, but was very worried about what that virus did with the immune systems of animals.

They knew at this time, that many monkey viruses had been found in the Salk vaccine, and they were also just starting to look at another called Mason Pfizer Monkey virus (which causes AIDS in macaque monkeys which it does not originate from). But this one was different. Though she did not know it at the time, the principle virus she was seeing the effects of was SV 40. Another doctor, Dr Robert Hull, was on the trail of other monkey viruses at that time.

Bernice Eddy was working with certain batch numbers of the vaccine, which caused greater problems than other batches. At the same time, some doctors were getting very worried about the Salk vaccine, particularly one doctor in Illinois. Who took it upon himself to keep some of those batches in his basement, under correct storage for long term storage. He was worried, because certain batches of the vaccine, were causing "clusters" of leukemia in his opinion. It turned out, that these batches of the vaccine, were the same batches as the ones Bernice Eddy was worried about.

This started to worry quite a few people, who started to want to know what this "thing" was that caused vacuolation, and seemed to bomb in parts of the immune system of most of the animals.... why were these animals getting tumours? why did they seem to be becoming immunosuppressed? Why was it that Bernice Eddy's hamsters had unusual symptoms (Pg 60 in her 1969 monograph on Polyoma Virus) which now, we would call some sort of AIDS...

A significant point in this part of the story came when a lot of his colleagues, including one new doctor at that time called Dr Robert Mendelsohn, were standing in his lab, when a package was delivered to him by urgent courier detailing that there was this problem. being somewhat up himself, Salk made great play of opening this package, and started to read it aloud... and then stopped. then followed a fast and furious discussion with these colleague, who, remember, didn't think much of him anyway. Salk got very angry, told everyone that Bernice Eddy was wrong, the "thing" couldn't be defined so it wasn't there, and he put the whole lot through the shredder.

It was at this point, that Salk was permanently, privately "disowned" by his colleagues.

But they too were in a bind, as to what to do with this useless vaccine, so most of the thrust, support and impetus was then put behind Sabin, which infuriated Salk, and THAT led to him setting up the Salk Institute.

SV 40 was not defined until 1960's, by which time, over 100 different monkey viruses had been indentified from the supernatant from the SALK vaccine. By 1968 149 monkey viruses in the polio vaccine had been identified.

Many people have wondered why it was that Europe and UK were very slow to use the SALK vaccine. The reason was that even within "the firm" tongues wag. European scientists were warned that there was something unknown that was not right with the vaccine. Furthermore, there tests had also showed that contrary to the media hype, that the SALK vaccine sent to Europe was in fact live. They decided to go their own way, and develop their own inactivated vaccines usuaing different base strains, and not using the straight line formalin theory. Even so, their vaccines were not ready for release until the end of the 50's, and it is ironic that the rates of polio in europe fell at identical rates to that of USA. But then, they also adoped all the sequential redefinitions of polio as well, so it is no wonder that the graphs are pretty much identical.

Actually, the Europe graphs are very useful. It is a wonderful question to ask the medical people why it was that polio dropped in the same numbers in Europe, without a vaccine, as it did in USA with a vaccine.

Sabin, on the other hand, actually did some serious work. He attenuated type 2 and 3 himself, and another doctor who also worked under Jo Smadel, called Dr Lee, developed the type one vaccine. Sabin put all three together, but at least, after what had happened in the Salk laboratory had the decenty to publish a paper given the credit for the type 1 to Dr Lee.

Unfortunately, Sabin could not identify the virus we now know as SV 40 either, and it remained in some batches of the oral vaccine until the mid 60's, and there is now suspicion that mutants of it, have been in more recent vaccine since then.

In 1990, the Illinois doctor handed over some vials of the offending SALK vaccine to a Dr Robert Bohanon, a molecular virologist who found that the vials contained not only SV40, but also the simian immunodeficiency virus, which was unknown until the end of the 80's.

That this state of affairs was well know, is evidence by an entry in the Federal Register, Volume 49, No 107, Friday, June 1 1964, Rules and Regulations (pertaining to polio vaccine manufacture and previous technical deficiencies) where is states on page 23007
Quote:
any possible doubts, whether or not well fouinded, abuot the safety of the vaccine cannot be aloowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives
We NOW know, the link between asbestosis cancer and SV40which was "discovered" in 1990 by Dr Michael Carbone, Assistant Professor of Pathology at Loyola University in Chicago, which has been confirmed and expanded upon by Dr Fernanda Martini of the Institutie of Histology and General Embryology in Italy.

This work showed that SV 40 is found in a variety of brain tumours including 85% of choriod plexus papillomas, in 73% of ependymomas, in 46% of astrocytomas, in 50% of glioblastomas, and in 14% of meningiomas.

Unfortunately, the nature of SV40 is that it is a stealth virus, and a piggy back virus. This was confirmed in the 60's when SV40 was found to have hybridised with adenovirus, to form a new virus which was undetectable to SV 40 tests. Similarly, it did the same thing to for the BK and two other viruses related to brain tumours.

Ane remember too, that it was this very feature of the SV40 virus, that made it the key virus which they used to start up bioengineering, and genetic modification laboratories. Indeed, SV40 was the "father" of GM technology today.

Back to history lessons.

Many different SV40 hybrid viruses had been identified from brain tumours in the med 70's and published in various cancer monographs at the time.

SV40 has appeared in 61% of all new cancer patients too your to have received the vaccines. So further studies were done, which found in the USA, that SV40 is routinely found in 23% of blood samples, and 45% of sperm samples, proving that it is transmitted both horizontally and vertically. We also know, courtesy of work published by Dr Howard Strickler, National Institute of Health in Maryland Bethesda, that people in Massachusetts and Illinois who received indetified lot numbers known to be SV 40 contaminated are now demonstrating ten times the rate of osteosarcoma bone tumours than those who received vaccine free of the SV 40 virus.

Furthermore, published work by Professor Mauro Tognon states that SV40 is one probbaly reason for the 30% increase in brain tumours in the USA over the past 25 years. And given that not all batches had SV40 in them, that is a huge increase in ACTUAL TERMS.

Furthermore, as Dr Keerti Shah can attest, at a presentation at national Clarion Hotel Arlingont virginia USA, in May 1988 at his talked called "A review of the circumstances and consequences of simian Virus 40 contamination of human vaccines" some French scientists stood up, and stated that using "new" technology, they had retested the 1950-60 polio vaccines and found that many of the vials had higher conventrations of SV40 than poliovirus, and certainly much much higher rates than the earlier technology had shown. The rates of polio had remained the same, but rate of detection of SV40, had increased dramatically owning to better "sensitivity" of the newer tests.

We now KNOW what it is that SV40 does in order to cause cancer.

It switches off a protein that protects cells from becoming malignant. It is not cancer-type specific, but cell function specific. Not everyone who is infected with SV40 will get cancer, for the same reason that not every smoker will get lung cancer. A variety of assaults are usually required on the immune system to combine to trigger malignancy.

But the key here is that children are far more vulnerable to any modifying factors, becuase they are growing so fast, their immune systems are slightly different to adults, and their hormonal balance, which has implications for the immune system is different.

Therefore in the light of new information, it is now thought that it was the function of the SV40 in switching off the protein that protects cells from becoming malignant, in children who had potential to develop leukemia, that caused the clusters of leukemia at the time, and indeed according to some doctors has been responsible for the explosion in childhood leukemia since that time.

No doubt Xxxxxx, you will also consider these statements as writings of a lunatic. Just remember them though and keep them at the back of your mind, because if you ever get any cancer, it might be useful to send samples to Michael Carbone to find out if the legacy of the polio vaccines you were given, was to leave behind something which performs an integral function of allowing cancer in your body.

If you wish to view some of the vast documentation that deocuments much of this suppressed information, who might find it by researching a case int he United States Claims Court of the Special Masters, Diane Lynn Armbrust Mosley, petitioner vs Secretary of the Department of health and Human services, No. 91-0201V, dated October 1, 1992.

This case has much of the suppressed documentation, and testimony from those then alive, who knew the facts.

If you chose to continue to remain ignorant, be my guest.

But do not continue to tell me that it is I who do not understand, or that it is I who am the stupid person in this debate. When you can, with knowledge, reference and intellect, debate these things on equal terms, only then do you have a right to form an opinion on what I do or do not know.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#26 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 06:12 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
2nd post elsewhere 14 March 2004:

Xxxxxx, the only person who is inconsistent/missing the point here, is you. Why do you make the analogy between polio vaccine and seat belts?

There is nothing about your road analogy that even fits vaccinations. And neither does the analogy of seatbelts, safety helmets or steel toed capped boots fit either. (Just in case you were to meander down those equally as stupid arguments.) Like this piece of idiocity
Quote:
Groan. And if each infant were dropped on its head, there would ALSO be more disabilities caused.
Yeah, like all parents routinely drop their babies on their heads every time they drive them two miles.
Quote:
Reducing the number of cases from 20,000 a year to 10 is a HUGE improvement.
That did NOT occur as a result of the SALK vaccine.
Quote:
Please make sense.
I make perfect sense. If you say my risk of getting polio in 1956 was 0.4% and my chances of injury in a car crash travelling to the clinic to have the vaccine is way more than that, then by chosing not to have the vaccine, I eliminate two risks. Not just the one about travelling in the car, but also the risk of contracting SV40, which would increase my risks of various cancers greatly at a future date.

Sure, I still have the "risk" of getting polio, but we know, that that risk never materialised for me.

I was alive at the time, did not have the vaccine in 1956, and did not get polio without the vaccine. Therefore the odds were in my favour, the proof being that polio "did not happen" .

But the odds didn't stay that way, because way after the fact, about 1964, my parents decided that it would be in my best interests to have an OPV. It was one of known SV40 contaminated batches which were withdrawn from USA distributors, and sent to this country at a "rock bottom" price. A bargain. Hah!

Fortunately, I only had one. But even so, that one vaccine dose may well have primed me for a nastier situation further down the line.
Quote:
No, I hold my position because the statistics back me up, in spades.
They don't. You said that the SALK vaccine eliminated polio. It did not. It caused more polio than it prevented. The statistics back me up, not you.
Quote:
I did some reading on this, and discovered that vaccination's effectiveness varies considerably with the individual. Some are much better protected than others, and some get no protection at all. Some actually catch the disease from the vaccine (depending on the vaccine).
So how then does this back up your contention that everyone should have vaccines forced upon them?
Quote:
A vaccinated child relies on two sources of protection -- any resistance imparted by the vaccine, and simple lack of exposure.
Oh really??? Then why, when you travel overseas in areas where disease is endemic, are you told that the vaccine they give you WILL prevent disease??? Your chances of exposure are all around you there, but they don't say to you that the vaccine will lessen your chances... they say, that the vaccine WILL protect you....
Quote:
Simple exposure to a disease is no guarantee of contracting that disease, although lack of exposure guarantees NOT contracting it. And studies indicate that unvaccinated people CAN have greater resistance than vaccinated people!
Oh, so how does this back up your contention that everyone should be vaccinated, if unvaccinated people can have greater resistence? Thank you for at last, indirectly supporting my position, without me even having to say it...
Quote:
Those with high natural resistance get perhaps no additional protection from vaccination, those with low natural resistance might get a boost, but still remain vulnerable).
Actually, this is where you are wrong. If you look at the early work on Meningitis by Thomas Lewis, you will see that whereas all the trial animals had inate immunity to all types of meningitis to start with, when they gave them a vaccine which induced specific immunity to one type, by high levels of specific antibodies, many of the animals lost their general non-specific immunity they previously had, and became susceptible to other types which they previously had had inate immunity to.

There is some suggestion that this is why whenever they introduce a vaccine against a specific form of meningitis, while that vaccine may reduce the numbers of cases against THAT type, that new types move in, and the TOTAL numbers of cases against all types of meningitis remains the same or as is happening now, start to increase IN TOTAL.... Therefore, what is happening is what Lewis predicted would happen.
Quote:
And the higher the resistance level of everyone around you, the lower your probability of exposure.
But if you are assuming that the ONLY people who can expose you to the diseases you are vaccinated against, are the unvaccinated then you are wrong. Because if you take whooping cough and diphtheria as two examples, vaccinated people have turned out to be the people most likely to become long term carriers. There has been considerable discussion of this "problem" in medical literature, but none in the lay media. And the fact remains that in this country in the case of measles, its often vaccinated children that pass it on to unvaccinated children. And there's nothing wrong with our cold chain...
Quote:
If exposure were a matter of personal choice, I'd agree with your statement entirely.
But "exposure" is a matter of personal choice. Though you have now stepped back from the argument that vaccines ALWAYS protect, you have said that by having a vaccine, you increase your protection. So by having a vaccine, you are reducing (according to your logic) your chances of catching disease. Sure, you might be exposed if you knowingly walk into an area with disease or contact someone who doesn't yet know they are sick, but carry virus..... but with some diseases you have more chance of being exposed by the vaccinated in the community than the unvaccinated. Take whooping cough for example. The very people now spreading it in the community are the vaccinated children, adolescents and adults. That never happened in the past. And the same is happening with measles in a sense. the very use of the vaccine has changed the epidemiology of the disease, making it MORE likely that very young babies and adults will get it, ... the two groups who are at most danger from it...
Quote:
Pretending that these decisions have no social side effects is simple, but doesn't change the reality.
No one is pretending these decisions have no social side effects.

Least of all me.

My whole point is that parents should be allowed to chose NOT to have a vaccine, which could have life long side effects for their child.

Both sides of the coin have risks. It is a parent's dilemma and choice as to which risk they chose to take, and they should have the right which side they come down on. because in the end, that is only a decision that a parent could make, because they alone are in possession of the full facts relating to their case.

By your hypothesis, if people are forcibly vaccinated against polio, then 100% of babies will be exposed to the absolute possible RISK of potentially life threatening side-effects. That is far greater odds than your 0.4% risk in 1956 of catching POLIO.

The question is, which risk is the greater for that child? And why should any parent be MADE to take that risk for YOUR sake, Flint?

Herd immunity, when it comes to individual decisions, doesn't come into it.
Quote:
Quote:
You know that if you do some things, like typing as I am now, letters will appear. You can name all the bits of hardware. But do know know exactly what every tiny component is within each part, and how they interact with each other? No, and neither do I.
In this case, you have chosen poorly. This is MY profession. I know every tiny component, and I know ALL of the software and hardware (and firmware) involved in getting that key (I've written the code for the microcontroller in the keyboard) to the screen (and I've written the raster drivers to light up the pixels).
Okay, from YOUR point of view, you know everything about computers. But does everybody on this board? No.

Computer art is in a different state from immunology.
Quote:
I am rather surprised to see that on the one hand, you talk at huge length about your near-infallible expertise (while Xxxx and I and everyone who disagrees is repeatedly called ignorant), while on the other hand you admit that even the foremost experts in the field are effectively beginners. How is it that YOUR knowledge is so accurate and comprehensive, while THEIR knowledge is so primitive?
You are confusing two things. Which is normal when people like you, are arguing with people like me.

Their knowledge about the immune system is very primitive. They are the ones that allege that they know so much, and that vaccines can't possibly affect the immune system in ways that parents say they do.

My "expertise" has nothing to do with the "ignorance" of the immunologists, apart from exposing the fact that they are ignorant, so have no basis upon which to assure parents that it cannot and does not happen.

The reason why Xxxxx and you are "ignorant", (which means,you don't know what you don't know) ...as is everyone else who says that the SALK vaccine eliminated Polio, and that vaccines should be mandated, and that they can't possible cause autism.

I know what it is that the immunologists didn't know about this vaccine, because I know what they said and wrote. And the same applies with other vaccines as well.

I also know that they cannot possibly say that vaccines cannot cause such things as "autism" or "autoimmunity", because they don't know enough about how the immune system actually works even under normal circumstances, to say that. And furthermore they don't even know how vaccines work either.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...al-2305100.php

Quote:
Vaccines work simply by producing antibodies, right? Well, probably not. And this misconception coupled with basic ignorance of how they do work is stalling the urgent quest for an AIDS vaccine, claim leading HIV researchers. They say no one has bothered to find out how highly successful vaccines like polio, measles and hepatitis B actually protect people from disease.

"I'm amazed by the amount of basic science we don't know," Philippe Kourilsky, director of the Paris-based Pasteur Institute, told the meeting: "We've had many successful vaccines over the past decades but we've missed a chance to see how these vaccines work. Each time a vaccine works the scientific community wanders off and leaves it to the public health workers to use it-and fails to invest in the research. If we had done that we would have been in a much better position to tackle the AIDS vaccine problem."
Even in their ignorance, they can't resist some self-adulation, which again is presumption.

You on the other hand appear to have assumed that immunologists know what they are doing regarding vaccines. Fact is, they don't. I know that. You don't. I know the history of the SALK and SABIN vaccines fully. You don't.

Secondly, you did not read what I have said.

My speciality in cases is to take the records and look at what experts 'THOUGHT' was the problem, and then to look at all the other possibilities that exist.

I will give you an example. In a recent case, a previously totally unvaccinated girl, was given her first vaccine at the age of five. She'd never had a day's sickness up to that point.

It was an MMR. She was a bit lethargic, to begin with, but no big deal. But her appetite never came back. No big deal, but a minor breath-holder.... Then on day 19, she started having seizures. Went to hospital, and the parents were told it must be a febrile seizure, and to go home and give Tylenol.

Then she had some more. And they were told the same thing.

Then she stopped talking. and the parents were treated as if they were neurotic...even sent for a psych examination, with whisperings of Munchausens....

Then she started flapping, and "spinning"... And she went from a very bright little girl, who had been dancing well, already printing and reading at five (had been doing so for over a year) had started music at her own request, and just loved life, to a sad, withdrawn mute child, who in the next year, had over 400 seizures. And is now autistic.

USA 'famous' experts in infectious diseases were brought in, and totally discounted the MMR vaccine as a possible "cause". They said instead, that the problem was "most likely" a result of an echovirus or a reovirus, or an enterovirus...and coxsackie and so it went on. The State had five experts, some very high flyers, who all said the same thing, except they couldn't actually "say" which one did it.

I was sent all the findings and all the files. I started with the state's experts, and couldn't understand why it was they said echovirus. After all, the symptoms were NOTHING like echovirus, in any book, or any medical article.. The blood work wasn't even close.

I also went through two other viruses which they also speculated on, which made me suspicious, because if you as an expert are sure it is an echovirus, why would you then say "But it might have been a cocksackie A virus, or a reovirus...."

However, in the file was a very interesting result. Hugely rising titres for mumps, way beyond what you would expect from a vaccine induced immunity. Her titres for Rubella and measles would be what you would expect after a vaccine.

So, I took all her clinical symptoms from the hospital files, and compared them to all the medical literature on mumps encephalopathy, both naturally, and from mumps vaccines. I found over 100 cases of mumps vaccine encephalopathy whose clinical symptoms were very similar. In fact in one review of over 40 cases, the "average" day for the commencement of vaccine induced seizures was exactly what this child had.

So, I put the whole lot together including all the medical literature and presented a brief to the lawyers that in fact this child had vaccine induced mumps encephalitis.

All pretty basic really.

After considerable arguing in court, the state experts, when confronted with ALL the evidence were forced to back down from their fictitious assumptions and contentions, the purpose of which wasn't to get at the truth, but to protect the vaccine manufacturers.

The case was won. Why did the experts get it so wrong? I could say that the "reality" was that I knew more than the State's reknowned expert epidemiologists did. That may be so. But to me, this case was so blatantly obvious to anyone with basic understanding that my preferred opinion is that all five of the States renowned expert epidemiologists deliberately and with intent ignored evidence that was conclusive and medically well supported as a vaccine induced side-effect. Why did they ignore that test?

Was it because this child has autism, and we can't possibly admit anything with regard to autism??? Only they could say why they ignored the evidence. But if they fell back on the statement that all five of them accidentally missed the blindingly obvious, all I can say is that THEN they really... were... stupid.

All of them. And they are supposed to be the famous ones upon whom your governemtn relies on, for accurate information about vaccine issues?

I don't believe they missed it.

I believe that they CHOSE to point elsewhere it in the hope that the parents were stupid and wouldn't figure out what the real problem was, or have anyone around to help them out.

So this is what my work is all about. My work isn't about unravelling the immune system. If the experts don't even understand that, what makes you think I can?.

But certain conditions have certain tests that can be done. By knowing WHAT they know, and all the differentials to that, then if they CHOSE to ignore either existing tests, or REFUSE to do tests that we KNOW are markers for certain conditions, I can prove a lot. If tests are not done, then I have to ask the questions as to why they are NOT done.

We were lucky with this case, in that the right test was done. The experts just chose to ignore the result.

But often in cases, the right test is not done. (And I believe that that is often deliberate) And my opinion as to why that is so, is that if they don't do a test, and there is no result, then its the parent's word against theirs. and with that kind of stacking, a parent will never win a case. Ever.

My advice to any parents who have children who have a vaccine reaction is that they should always have an extra vial taken at every blood test that "experts" request, and have this vial put into storage, so that if there is a dispute about why a test wasn't done, it can be done at a later date, which may well prove the case.

Better still, if parents get to me immediately, I can advise them of the tests that should be done, and if they are not ordered, they can dance all over the doctors with crampons on, and insist that they be done. This has actually prevented quite a few cases going to court, as parental pressure has resulted in the right tests being "positive" and the state being in no position to do anything other than admit that it was the vaccine. I like these results, as that saves me a whole lot of work....
Quote:
Or are you instead making that argument that *even though* nobody really knows much of anything in this field, any attempt that falls short of perfect is fair game for "justice" meaning finding that whoever made the attempt is liable and must pay, lest the "truth" be concealed.
This sentence makes no sense at all in the context of what I do.

I do think that immunologists should admit what they don't know,... instead of deluding parents into believing that they have all the answers. Or worse still, ignoring information which means that the "truth" is indeed, concealed, as above.
Quote:
I was talking about JUSTICE, not mechanics. I was asking if you considered EVERY case of an adverse reaction to a vaccine as a miscarriage of justice?
Here is my position. Any parent who choses to vaccinate, should be given a list of possible vaccine reactions. This rarely, if ever happens voluntarily. If you demand it, you might get it, but most parents are told that nothing will happen apart from maybe scratchiness and a mild fever.

If after a vaccine, a child has a reaction to a vaccine, appropriate tests should be done to define the cause of the reaction in so far as is known. Which isn't much (what is known), but sometimes its enough. If those tests show that a child has been damaged by a vaccine, then it should be immediately admitted. There should be no cover ups.

If a parent has [n]not[/b] been told exactly what the possible vaccine reactions are, and if in the process of medical treatment aq condition possibly caused by a vaccine, tests are done and the results are ignored or concealed, or blatantly obvious tests are not done for whatever reason, then it does rapidly become an issue of miscarriage of justice.

"Justice" dictates that parents of children with vaccine reaction, should have their medical expenses reimbursed, and all related lateral expenses (Like, time off work to take child to appointments, travel expenses, modifications to houses, cars, extra tuition, phsyio, whatever.....) .

Why?

Because in YOUR situation, it is pretty much mandated.

If parents are going to run the risk of "sacrificing" their child to supposedly (according to your logic) reduce the chanced of vaccinated people being exposed to diseases and catching it anyway, then the other side of that argument is that alongside the "mandate" of the state is the "obligation" of the state to look after the "collateral damage".

When they start to try to find weasel ways of NOT doing that, then it is a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Do you understand yet?
Quote:
I haven't ever denied that vaccination has risks. I've tried to make it clear that the benefits (which are huge) outweigh the risks (which are real).
According to your logic. According to my logic, the risks outweight the benefits for me, my children, and my family.
Quote:
Vaccines are not free, they are a bargain.
They are not a bargain, if you or your child is the one damaged for life....
Quote:
Your focus is entirely on the cost, and that's very narrow.
I've never mentioned cost. Ever.

That is never my focus. My focus is always in proving causation where possible in terms of cases, and individual personal risk assessment in terms of actual vaccines. The primary questions to be answered are

1) What do vaccines contain, and what are the possible risks of each component of the vaccine to me/my child/my spouse?

2) What is the proof that vaccines do and have done what the medical people say they do/have done?

3) What are the diseases to the vaccines, what are the treatments to these diseases offered by a) Allopathic doctors
b) Other treatment modalities.

If you want to talk about "cost", that brings in whole other arguments still...
Quote:
To keep their malpractice premiums sane, doctors adopted the strategy of ordering every possible test, likely or not, as a CYA measure. Insurance companies cracked down on this, refusing to cover all tests not clearly justified in their opinion. Testing for what someone is "supposed" to be immune to qualifies as unjustifiable to an insurance company. The real world is like this.
Wrong. Would that the real world was like this. The case of the girl with MMR vaccine is arare one. More often than not, they do not order every possible test. If they did, my job would be a cynch. Testing for what this man had, was totally logical. He had diphtheria for goodness sake. A mousey breath, a membrane, difficulty breathing. The evidence was right there before their eyes. BUT... because he also had what looked like thrush, they decided that a grey membrane preventing swallowing, and impeding breathing wasn't relevant...

The real world, it should be that doctors should take note of what is blatantly in front of their eyes. Not some ridiculous mindset that says that because someone is vaccinated they couldn't possible have diphtheria.

If you think that that is life, then heaven help you if you get a serious immunable disease one day.
Quote:
I provided the link. The link says "By 1954, Salk and Francis were ready to launch the largest medical experiment yet carried out in the U.S., vaccinating more than 1 million kids ages six to nine, some with the vaccine, some with a placebo. The children weren't told which they were getting.

The vaccine worked. [my emphasis]"
Wrong. The vaccine did not work. But you were told it did, and that site says it did. That doesn't mean that what is on the site is true.
Quote:
In fact, I was one of those children who received the actual vaccine rather than the placebo. I remember being very pleased when eventualities showed the vaccine worked, because I didn't have to go get another injection.
Really? Then your parents must have bunked out of the trial, because you were supposed to have three injections, not one http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/...cts/ch12_salk/

and even though this site alludes to the stupidness of this trial, I notice that the myth has to go on, and be perpetuated into history, because.... if you study the USPSU stats to hard, then you will see what really happened.

Back to your story..

And given that you say you only had a 0.4% chance of getting Polio( Actually if you use "their" figures, you are wrong. Your chances were actually 0.0005) http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/...cts/ch12_salk/ ) But lets use your 99,6% figure..., how do you know that the vaccine protected you from something you say you already had a 99.6% chance of avoiding? Pure "chance" gives you a 99.6% chance of not getting it, and you are trying to tell me that the Salk vaccine gave you 100% protections? What sort of logic is that? How do you know you didn't already have that 0.4% chance of getting it, already covered by natural immunity from prior exposure before being part of that trial?

And obviously, you have not read the full account of the Francis trials, Xxxxx.

Do some other Google searches as well. And maybe look in some other more recent medical journals, because if you do, you will find that not only were the Francis trials fraudulently conceived,.. the results were also fraudulently presented. Which was another reason why his colleagues got pissy at Salk....

It is impossible for a totally non-immune person to produce antibodies to all three types of polio virus, from one IPV injection even today. The body only processes ONE TYPE at one time. After the second injection, the body selects one of the two types that it hasn't processed before, and deals with that, and after the third injection, it deals with the third type. But there is a caveat to that. The body only does that IF there is no interrupting enteroviruses in the body at the time. If there are, the body just ignores the vaccine altogether. Which is why, even today, a minimum of four shots is required. And which is why, even after five shots, some people show no immunity to one or sometimes more than one type of vaccine virus.

If you believe that you were not immune prior to the Francis trials, that you were 100% susceptible to all three types of polio (by the way, did you know that theoretically you can have polio three times since there is no cross protection by type?) and that one shot made you miraculously suddenly 100% protected, not only is your logic totally skewed, so is your reading and understanding of the existing medical research.

You seem to think that the Francis trials are accepted by all and sundry...even the newer santised view of the BMJ http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../317/7167/1233 should raise some questions in any thinking person's head...
Quote:
I see you have a long story to present, but no attribution of any kind.
the true story, often has no attribution. But I'm sure that if you repeated my story to the power that be, high up, they will know its true. Because that is the story that his colleagues know, and tell, and THAT is why he was never elected as a member to the national academy of sciences.

Of course, you will not see that written in medical history now, or even in the near future. And possible, not in the next 150 years. But you never know. Just as the treatment of the medical profession of Semmelweis wasn't written about until long after his death, and the death of his criticisers, he WAS correct. And I am confident that the version of events I have have elaborated is correct.

As an aside... I am sure that in the future, the history books of the USA will not read that Saddam Hussein had no WMD from 1994. They will instead reveal that Iraq had technology to fly an unmanned drone to the USA to drop poisons etc... a feat that not even USA could itself accomplish. I am sure that the Colin Powell presentation to the UN before war was again initiated, will be the US official history. Doesn't make it right though. And it won't be a history book that I put any store on....
Quote:
I'll trust Time Magazine, since their material must pass higher standards than yours.
Ah yes, they have the seal of approval of the vaccine manufacturers, the medical associations and all those in whose interests it is to make sure that the average person must never know what the real story was.

You would never make an investigative journalist, Xxxxx. But you would make an exemplary "reporter".

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#27 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 06:53 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Post to elsewhere, 3(18 March 2004) a bit of meander this one... sorry.

sigh.

Let us start with some very basic facts it would appear that you have not understood. Did you read, way back in this thread, the information I provided to the paediatricians? Obviously not. So lets go back a bit. Let us start with your 20,000 cases.

Firstly, those 20,000 cases, refer to total cases reported in whatever year you feel necessary to flip in front of my face. they were not all paralytic cases in iron lungs.

In those days, there was no laboratory analysis. A case was defined on sight by a general practioner, and immediately, the family was put into quaranteen for a long period of time, and food was delivered at cost to the state, and generous welfare payments made. Even if paralysis was transient, and only lasted 3 days with no residual damage, the case was classified as paralytic polio, and full quarantine appled.

Apart from the really serious vases of paralytic polio who required lungs, most paralytic polio cases, where possible, were treated at home. The really lucky ones, got to have the heretical sister Kenny treatment, so abhorred by the medical people of the time. they were the ones that got to walk properly again, unlike to "normally" treated people who saw the likes of emergency doctors....

So if we look at the Polio Surveillance Statistics, which you haven't looked at yet, we see that there were 7,886 cases of paralytic polio in 1955, 15% of whome had had the full 3 shots. the USPSU listed all polio cases who had had LESS than three shots as unvaccinated.

As it turned out, by the end of that year, only 7% of the country had had three shots.

In 1956, the UPS dropped satalite cases, and listed them under unvaccinated, and the first change of definition took place. There were 7, 210 paralytic cases of whom 16% were fully vaccinated, and 6, 027 non-paralytic cases, of whome 32% were fully vaccinated.

In 1957, there were 2,172 paralytic cases, 30% of whom were fully vaccinated, and 2, 603 non-paralytic cases, of whom 54% were fully vaccinated.

In 1958, there were 3,122 paralytic cases, 33% of which had been fully vaccinated.

At this point, the medical literature states that 36% of USA's population had had the full schedule. It was also a requirement that booster doses be given EVERY YEAR.

1959, there were 3,727 paraltic cases, 928 of whom had had MORE than 3 doses of the shot.

In 1960, there were 2,545 paralytic cases, Of the 210 deaths, 77% were fully vaccinated.

In all this, we don't know the proportion of those who like you had just had one or two shots.

furthermore, by 1959, the definition had been so radically changed it was unrecognisable. Originally, all you needed was a doc's certificate that you were sick, and that paralysis had lasted 3 days. That got you quarantine, and free food and services for a month. And what with hysteria and all, doctors were only too keen to certificate and quarantine.

Once the vaccine came in, then you had to have THREE criteria for proof, which included:

1) a verified sample of a polio virus.

Why was this? because by then they had worked out that there were lots of other viruses like coxsackie viruses, echo viruses, a whole raft of viruses, and CHEMICALS which caused identical clinical symptoms to polio viruses. Just as many people now, with West Nile Virus, have identical symptoms of paralysis as the early polio people had...

But in those early 1955 days, they didn't know that, so all acute flaccid paralysis, caused by all viruses was lumped together under "polio".

2) You had to have had paralysis for 60 days or MORE. 58 days, tough bikkies. That wasn't paralytic polio any more.

3) You ALSO had to have residual neurological damage, after the 60 days.

Now, I am sure, even with your brain Flint, you can see how this would majorly skew statistics...I have one medical article signed by several doctors of the time concerned that the new definition effectively eliminated nearly 90% of paralytic polio under the old diagnostic criteria.

Now, working backwards. You put a link to the CDC, and said "I expect you have little faith in the CDC."

You would be right. They are the same people, who lied, and covered up the real issues with Polio, who are now doing this:

http://www.universityofhealth.net/PR...NOMHearing.htm (link still active 15 October 2005)

Why would anyone in their right mind, trust people like this?
furthermore, the reason they were able to get away with the Polio lies, is that there was no body count. Any cases of polio in the vaccinated child could always be swept under the carpet by blaming the still circulating wild virus, or some other "excuse", like a coxachie virus, or enterovirus 71, to name only two.

As to your multiple list of journal articles. They were all in my filing cabinet within weeks of publication. Therefore, I have no need to recheck them. Like I said, I know their story, and the other side of the story.

All you know is your mouse hunting.

Now to your glib little quote, about this "problem" with the vaccine. There are masses of documents not on the web, but which I mentioned that you would find, if you would research that one 1992 legal case. Go back and find the reference. You are uniquely placed to know whether that evidence is bonafide or not, so why won't you do it? That case has paper work stacked to the ceiling, government documents that were suppressed, but later retrieved from European sources, who had kept copies at the time.

No, you won't find them on the web. But see, this is where I'm between a rock and a hard place. I can't give you your validating links, which to you are the only things that signify credibility in your mind, because these things reside on paper alone. But you DO have the ability to get it, because you live in that state.

Your next CNN sound bite.....
Quote:
Each summer, masses of children suffer from polio. In many cases, the disease leave the children..."
How many is masses? Or is that MASSES OF MEDIA HYPE? Sure there were some.

But were they iatrogenic polio, caused by tonsillectomies, vaccine administration, injections of other things... all the other iatrogenic issues we know can and did cause polio, because it was written up in the medical literature?

How many of these "Masses" of cases would never have turned into clinical polio, had the medical people kept their multitudes of invasive procedures to themselves? Do you know that there were 2.2 million children born every year in the states, and that each year at the same time that polio was at its height, just over 2 million children were routinely relieved of their tonsils? And did you know that these 2 million children, were then PERMANENTLY for at least 12 years, more than 600 times MORE susceptible to paralytic bulbar polio than children who had their tonsils?

So, why did so many children get bulbar polio, when prior to the medical men's fascination with jab, cut and slash, courtesy of new things called syringes, and anaesthetics which made this routine medical madness possible, polio had ONLY EVER been an endemic disease, which rarely, if ever, caused paralysis of even short duration, let alone long duration.

Oh, I hear you shriek. Where is your "link" for this. Go and do some serious reading, not just self-selected mouse hunting of tit-bits dangled out there by people whose interest it is to keep the myth alive.

Your next link. first sentence
Quote:
Jonas Salk is among the most venerated medical scientists of the century.
Only in the public and myth-makers eyes. In the eyes of those who had to clean up the mess after him, he was far from that. Were he the most venerated medical scientist of the century, and had his vaccine worked, he would grace the NAS walls. There are still way too many people alive, who know the real story, for that to ever happen.
Quote:
Now, I notice the number of links you provide is still zero. Interesting.
Like I said , you only consider that a "link" is valid. Better still, how about this. Go and find the oldest head honcho in the AMA or NAS and put to him this history. Ask them who REALLY developed the Salk vaccine, and watch their heads snap up. And also, with the AMA, kindly ask them why the only copy of USA polio surveillance Units stats is now classifed, in their archives, and not accessible to the ordinary citizen or doctor any more?

Go look up the catagory for aseptic meningitis. It was pretty much non existent until suddenly, it became "not cool" to diagnose non-paralytic polio, especially in vaccinated people. So they threw them into another "waste" basket, to avoid detection. Easy. Will you find a link for that? No. But if you do some real research, in the actual statistics, you will find many many strange entries, which only make sense when you know that the scientists were desperate to hide the fact that the SALK vaccine didn't work.

Now, back to the 20,000 down to 10. Again, an incorrect illustration not just because its garbage, but because you failed to state what the 20,000 cases were.... Did that original figure 20,000 included all cases, even non-paralytic???. Did it include all the other enteroviruses we now know ALSO caused polio?

Futhermore I have medical articles admitting that many of these non-polio viruses were KNOWINGLY grouped with polio, because they caused the same syndrome! I guess you don't know that the non-paralytic polio data is no longer collected. And it wasn't in 1970 either. And it was avoided like the plague after 1959. Anything, but not non-paralytic polio...

It's even more interesting that some of the biggest outbreaks of non-polio virus paralysis followed in the decades after the OPV vaccine was used internationally. No-one in those days knew the meaning of the words "viral displacement" Yet, that's exactly what happened when they used the adenovirus vaccine, and its exactly what happened after the Hib was introduced. Both "worked" very well, but created a vacuum into which stepped other harder to treat pathogens.

In the case of the adenovirus vaccines, they dropped it from the civilian population SPECIFICALLY to re-establish the normal circulating adenoviruses. Why? Because the newer ones were more virulent. In the case of Hib, when pneumococcus filled the void, no, they didn't drop the Hib. Now that the vaccine companies had immunity from law-suits, they brought in Prevnar, which is now "causing" displacement, with a huge increase in Staph, so next, they'll bring in a Staph vaccine, and so it will go on.

But, even though they no longer collect non-paralytic polio, or routinely sample sewage now, I bet you anything if anything happens that will make a good media story, non-paralytic polio will come back in vogue... when it suits.

In 1979 there is an interesting medical article after an Amish american polio scare, where they serologically tested thousands of people in that area. The article said they found evidence of wide-spread recent immunity to two of the three "wild" types. Many of the people involved were adamant they had never been vaccinated. Two interesting conclusions were made. The first was they the "experts" believed that maybe they had been, but had just "forgotten", and the second was the comment that since polio was a "silent" infection, it was possible that it had rampaged through the area for years, un-noticed.

And in fact, if you go back to early medical literature, you will find in most earlier text books, polio was considered "the least infectious of all illnesses"... by all the "experts" of the day.
Quote:
Nor am I crediting my lack of polio to the injection I got as part of the 1954 double-blind test.
Oh? What then did you mean by this?
Quote:
Yes, I read. In fact, I was one of those children who received the actual vaccine rather than the placebo. I remember being very pleased when eventualities showed the vaccine worked, because I didn't have to go get another injection.
Are you saying that maybe you had natural immunity after all? You cannot have your cake and eat it. The literature was very clear. One shot didn't work, and after 1956, boosters were supposed to be given yearly. Furthermore, as I said, the USPSU stats showed that the percentage of vaccinated person with paralytic polio was either around, or greater than the percentage of the population vaccinated, right up to 1959.

No doubt, you won't believe that, because I can't give you a mouse to click on a link to verify it all for you?

Silent polio transmission can be ignored, because under normal circumstances there is rarely ever paralytic clinical illness ...just as there was not, prior to 1880 ~ before doctors got in on the act....

Talking about "excuses"...

I have this interesting little government booklet from my country on diphtheria. I really should frame it. It says in my own words... that they don't really know what stopped diphtheria world wide.... That through history it had always gone in 100 year cycles, and that just maybe the vaccine didn't have anything to do with it. In another, they also discuss things like waxing and waning virulence. Now, I alrerady knew all this, as in studying the appendices to parliamentary journals, there was much made of the acclaim in europe of the diphtheria vaccine, yet the medical officer of health reporting to parliament, would dryly comment that the "commonwealth" had seen an equally spectacular decline in most infectious diseases including scarlet fever, measles, diphtheria, typhoid fever, while blithely sitting on their hands....

There are many gems that can be found, to show that the information found by mouse hunting is a miniscule proportion of what there is, and skillfully selected by experts to promote only the straight outside edge of the jigsaw, not the inside pieces, which would show you the whole picture, in context of the whole story.

If you've studied smallpox IN A MEDICAL LIBRARY (as opposed to with a mouse), you will know all about the difference between variola major, and variola minor, also knows as Alastrim.

And you will know that Alastrim first became the predominant strain in "unvaccinated" areas, not vaccinated areas. There is speculation of course, that had vaccination Jenner style, never been started, it would have attenuated much much sooner. Of couse, we won't know for sure, but we do know that in the places that resisted smallpox vaccination, they had a much higher proportion of Alastrim than the vaccinated areas.

Surely you have read the extensive posting with referenced data on smallpox that I have put up here? Or are they only figments of my imagination as well?

Similarly now, there is much discussion of increased "virulence" of chickenpox and resultant deaths. Never mind that it mainly happens in children treated with either non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, or anti-pyretics.

Tonight on the news is speculation that in Samoa, where a huge outbreak of rubella occured in vaccinated children, that either rubella is becoming more "neurotoxic" and "encephalogenic", or the cold-chain didn't work. The cold chain was found to be just fine, with a lot of people in areas with no infection showing expected titres from the offending batches. But, never mind. In order to keep the illusion of the vaccine being flawless, and the problem being man's error, they just swept through the country revaccinating everyone up to the age of 19, and all women to the age of 45.

Great science. And its already being touted as yet another gallant success of a vaccine to save lives. You can guarantee we will never know the whole story on this one, for the medical profession is the prosecution, defence, jury, judge and writes the verdicts for posterity.

You say
Quote:
In other words, the Polio Surveillance Unit did NOT conclude that the Salk vaccine was ineffective, they concluded exactly the opposite.
Wrong. You did not quote from USPSU reports. You quoted from a document on the CDC site which refers only to the investigation of 260 cases in 1955 including 94 cutter cases... and that this one wee study rescued the programme.

There is NOT ONE WORD about all the USPSU reports that followed that, the statistics of which are so embarrassing, that not one medical library carries them. They are only available from 1964 onwards.

Like I said. When you view ALL the USPSU reports, and there are a whole lot of them, not just one, you will see a completely different picture.
Quote:
Do you have any MORE sources, that might support rather than undermine your claims?
I'm sorry, but your claim above, about the USPSU vindicated the Salk vaccine from its start to finish, leads me to believe that discussion with you is an impossibility.

Like I said, there is heaps of evidence, none of it at the end of a mouse, but the most important of it all is held in the legal files of a case in your country, which proved conclusively, that the SALK vaccine was NEVER killed, NEVER safe, and DIDN"T work, the reference of which is above....

The Sabin vaccine did work, but unfortunately for us, has carried other and future different dangers, not only to us, but to our children.

And that may be a "swap" that we live to regret bitterly, since Polio was essentially a disease caused by a combination of better sanitation, bottlefeeding, unsound nutrition (too much sugar - see Dr Sandlers monographs) with the rest being iatrogenic.... injections of anything, blanket use of antibiotics destroying gut flora, allowing better access for the virus, rampant tonsillectomy rendering nearly 80% of the total population at that time, 600 times more susceptible to bulbar polio, not just post op, but for the rest of their lives... and most importantly of all the huge increase in use of toxic chemicals.

And... in Germany, thalidomide was associated with polio as well. It would be, being the toxic chemical that it was.

BUT....

Nothing, no evidence will ever be good enough for you, for you will simply continue to go round in circles to try to prove your preconceived ideas.

I suspect that even had you been asked to go on the 1992 case above, you would, out of lack of principle, asked to be transferred onto the state's legal benches.

I will not return to this thread for the simple reason, as many have said before, that attempting to get you to think, and research meaningfully, for yourself, is about as useful as trying to push a euclid up a hill with a ute.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#28 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 06:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A vignette in time. The launch of the salk vaccine.

On April 12, 1955 (10th Anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt’s death) The Foundation for Infantile Paralysis organised a meeting at Ann Arbor Michigan, at which Dr Jonas Salk and Dr Thomas Francis, told the world that the SALK vaccine was “safe, potent and efficient.” They made such sweeping claims for the vaccine that nearly every American newspaper declared that Dr Salk had abolished poliomyelitis.

The most extravagantly adulatory article was written by Alistair Cook, in the Manchester Guardian April 16, 1955 in which he told of a “day of rejoicing” following “the biggest news storyof many a peace-time years” which “Engulfed every foreign and domestic concern … nothing short of the overthrow of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union could bring such rejoicing to the hearths and homes in America as the historic announcement that the war against paralytic polio was almost certainly at an end.” He said: “The announcement of the perfected Salk vaccine was made with the most careful and dramatic timing… the ceremony was staged before the country’s leading public health doctors and poliomyelitis experts.. was relayed by closed circuit television to scattered medical audiences in the United States and Canada comprising 54,000 doctors…” and one and on and on.

Only 13 days after the vaccine had been acclaimed by the whole of the American Press and radio as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the century, came the first news of disaster. By June 23rd there had been 168 confirmed cases of poliomyelitis in the vaccination, 6 deaths and 149 cases amongst the contacts.

No-one would have remember that JAMA, 1935, 105; 2; 152 had an article from a Dr J. P Leake, then medical direction of the Untied States Public Health Services in which he reported 12 cases of poliomyelitis in children who had been vaccinated with a chemically treated anti-poliomyelitis vaccine (Kolmer vaccine and Brodie vaccine the later being inactivated the same way as SALK’s vaccine), who commented “Many physicians will feel that these cases make undesirable the further use of poliomyelitis virus for human vaccination at present” Those criticism do apply to the SALK vaccine, but Institutional memory sometimes appears alzheimic in nature.

The media of the time said it was only in six batches, but all you have to do is to get a copy of the petitioner’s brief, October 1, 1992 Diane Lynn Armbrust Mosley v Secretary of the Dept HHS No. 91-0201V to see the proof that every single vaccine contained live virus, and that the myths surrounding that, perpetuated in recent books are not true.

Back to the story.

In the previous year, before any report as to the safety or supposed efficacy of any vaccine had been made, six vaccine manufacturers had orders from the Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to manufacture enough vaccine to inoculate 9 million children and pregnant women. Two hours after the announcement at Ann Arbour the US Government department responsible, licences the vaccine and released it for distribution to all the states that bad agreed to use it.

The public was ready and waiting to hear this, because the for previous two years, the risks of polio in the USA had been hyper inflated to the point that some papers were publicising that One in every 100 American’s reaching the age of 20 had developed some degree of paralysis. You can understand how anyone would react to that kind of emotional blackmail.

The British however, were more sober saying in the Lancet, April 23, 1955, page 864:

Even before details of the elaborate and, I believe, careful experimental work had been presented to any competent scientific society, television, radio, banner press headlines, and four complete pages of the New York Times have informed the public of its wonders… Already anxious parents are demanding the vaccine for their children and worried administrators are requesting Presidential action to ensure its fair distribution. It is difficult for laymen here to see the risks of poliomyelitis in their correct perspective … The risks of a child being killed or maimed by car accidents is incomparably greater.”

Even Time Magazine in May 30, 1955, when fingering those “responsible” for the Cutter incident said “In retrospect, a good deal of the blame for the vaccine snafu also went to the National Foundation, which with years of publicity, had built up the danger of polio out of all proportion to its actual incidence.”

In England on B.B.C. (London Calling, June 16, 1955) Dr F. Kingsley Sanders said “There is still some doubt whether universal vaccination 1 for that is what it would have to be – is the best way of preventing polio in the long run….to protect each individual who actually needs protection we must vaccinate a very large number who would never have become paralysed. In the American trial the figures show that it would be necessary to vaccinate nearly 4,000 individuals to protect each potential paralytic. And in a European country such as Britain where the overall paralytic rate is lower than in the USA, even larger numbers of vaccinations would be necessary to protect each vulnerable individual. Not only would the cost of such a programme be very great, but among the 4,000 vaccinated we might expect sixteen reactions to inoculation.”

Before that in the British Medical Journal, March 13, 1954, pg 636, a Dr McHammon gave even more startling figures. He said that even in an epidemic area it would be necessary to inoculate 11,000 children to prevent one fatal or paralytic case, and in a non-epidemic area perhaps 50,000. Dr C. H. Andrewes MD, FRS and Dr W. L. M Perry stated in Picture post May 7, 1955 that “Polio is a rate disease. In most years, your chance, in Britain, of catching paralytic polio is less than one in twenty-five thousand.”

I’d have to say though, that Brits in those days, didn’t eat a lot of sugar, drink coke, and the medical profession there wasn’t nearly as enamoured about using needles for antibiotics. “Common sense” still existed to a degree in Great Britain amongst the medical profession, except in the matter of tonsillectomies.

The actual risk figures from the Registrar General for the years 1943 – 1953 showed that the monthly attack rate in Britain was 6 per million. In Public Health March 1955 Dr Dennis H Geffen OBE., MD., DPH, said “We are apt to forget that poliomyelitis is the least serious of all infections diseases, with the exception of that one complication or extension of the disease which destroys motor cells in the brain and spinal cord and causes paralysis. Apart from this it appears to be a mild infection lasting a few days, the symptoms of which are probably less serious than a cold in the head and from which recover is complete and immunity lasting. Ig we could be sure that an individual contracting poliomyelitis would not become paralysed then there might be much to be said for spreading the disease in order that a community might develop natural immunity.”

Which is, of course, what happened pre 1890 anyway, and continued to happen in areas where polio was assumed not to be, until the mid 1900s.

Another insightful comment. Dr C G Learoyd, MRCS, LRCP in Medical World February 1954:

“In the USA they have tried and are trying huge experiments with gamma-globulin and various vaccines. There are definite drawbacks to mass injections and there have been some nasty accidents; also there is something rather unconvincing about immunising a one in a thousand chance. For God’s sake – and I say that reverently, - lets try the simple things thoroughly first.”

The simple things never got a look in except in Dr Benjamin Sandler’s state for one year in North Carolina, where he cut polio rates hugely. But the huge decrease in the use of sugar, ice-cream, cakes, biscuits and coca-cola and the plummeting profits in that state, meant that he lost his job. After all, (in my imagination) probably argued the manufacturers of junk food, we WANT children to have the vaccine so they can have their cake and eat it too! (and we keep rolling in our profits) Heaven forbid had Sandler’s methods spread country wide! Where would the Olympics be without coca-cola.

The point of this discussion of the media and hype surrounding the Francis trials and the release of the vaccine, is that it was surrounded with exactly the same hype and misinformation as is now being run out in Minnesota.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#29 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 06:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm done in for a while. And you will be by the time you've read all that diarrhoea.

What was it someone called me the other day? Montezuma .... ?

I've bookmarked the thread and will come back when there is enough petrol in the tank.


“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#30 of 72 Old 10-16-2005, 01:50 PM
 
LianneM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 3,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you, MT. I've been reading all morning and need a break, but will be back.

WAHMama to Allen (2-10-05) and Alexa (6-27-08)
LianneM is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off