Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Graphic showing percent decrease in VPD morbidity Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-25-2013 05:06 PM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

95% of polio cases are asymptomatic.

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

Cases in the clinical trials WERE laboratory confirmed.

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

02-25-2013 10:46 AM
Rrrrrachel I didn't wonder. But of course I don't have the answer. I have an opinion just like everyone else.
02-25-2013 10:22 AM
serenbat
Quote:
95% of polio cases are asymptomatic.

I don't think it's appropriate to Monday morning quarterback diagnosis from 60+ years ago. I do think doctors back then weren't total morons.
Cases in the clinical trials WERE laboratory confirmed.

 

 

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

so why did you wonder if you have all answers? dizzy.gif

02-25-2013 09:55 AM
Rrrrrachel 95% of polio cases are asymptomatic.

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

Cases in the clinical trials WERE laboratory confirmed.
02-25-2013 09:52 AM
serenbat
Quote:
I think it's almost certain that SOME cases of diagnosed polio were really something else. The question is how many.

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

 

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

02-25-2013 08:47 AM
beckybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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

 

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

02-25-2013 08:23 AM
Rrrrrachel I think it's almost certain that SOME cases of diagnosed polio were really something else. The question is how many. I will also buy that toxins of all kinds in our environment can leave us more susceptible to infection (that is a personal belief that I have no basis for), but the source of illness is still the infection from a virus. As such, it can be prevented with a vaccine.
02-25-2013 08:21 AM
Rrrrrachel Yes, I did read that article. It was from the 1950s. I believe many of the concerns it brings up have been addressed. We know a lot more about germs, viruses, and immunology now.
02-25-2013 08:13 AM
beckybird

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

 

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

 

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

02-25-2013 07:53 AM
Rrrrrachel That graph looks like the two AREN'T connected, to me. If the relationship was causal there wouldn't be any peaks in DDT that didn't correspond to peaks in polio, and there are several.

I also wonder the graph would look like if it included a broader time period (on both ends but especially further into the past. There were significant polio epidemics in the early 1900d that aren't shown) and for other countries.
02-25-2013 07:47 AM
beckybird

More....

 

SV40 vertical transmission in hamsters:

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

 

A nice graph about pesticides and polio:

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

 

02-24-2013 06:53 PM
Rrrrrachel Thanks. I appreciate it.
02-24-2013 05:38 PM
beckybird

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

 

The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis And Obstructions To Its Investigation

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

 

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

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

02-22-2013 10:52 AM
Rrrrrachel Aw man that stinks. Thanks for the effort. Maybe you could tell me your search parameters.

I was able to find a lot of studies comparing the risk of cancer in people vaccinated with contaminated vccines vs unvaccinated and they haven't found an increased risk. That doesn't mean there isn't one of course.
02-22-2013 10:27 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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

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

 

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

02-22-2013 06:40 AM
Rrrrrachel Prior to 1964 some polio vaccines were contaminated with sv40. I'm interested in some documentation of the assertion that people pass it to their offspring.
02-22-2013 05:03 AM
emmy526

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

02-22-2013 04:05 AM
IdentityCrisisMama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

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

 

 

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

02-21-2013 08:28 PM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

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

 

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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

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

 

 

Quote:
...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. 
02-21-2013 08:05 PM
IdentityCrisisMama

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

02-21-2013 06:32 PM
Taximom5

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

 

 

Quote:
...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. 
02-21-2013 03:07 PM
IdentityCrisisMama

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

02-21-2013 02:56 PM
Rrrrrachel Ftr I didn't flag anything
02-21-2013 02:43 PM
IdentityCrisisMama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Those quotes are surely over 100 words.  

 

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

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

 

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

 

Carry on...

 

love.gif

02-21-2013 01:06 PM
Rrrrrachel

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

02-21-2013 12:46 PM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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

 

I found this really interesting, from wiki:

 

 

 

 

 

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

no - its just called something else now winky.gif

02-21-2013 12:30 PM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

  Not bad for a made up disease.

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

02-21-2013 12:06 PM
Rrrrrachel

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

 

I found this really interesting, from wiki:

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

02-21-2013 12:03 PM
Rrrrrachel

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

 

I just want to say a couple of things:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

02-21-2013 11:40 AM
Rrrrrachel

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

 

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

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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