What's new

The polio vaccine

Projectjunkie

Whatever
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
306
Messages
2,826
Loc
Tucson Az
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2015/07/polio-wasnt-vanquished-it-was-redefined/
  • Home»Opinion»Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was RedefinedPolio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined
by Marco Cáceres
Published July 9, 2015 | Opinion
214
SHARES
Perhaps the most egregious example of clever sleight of hand (… not to mention the outright, blatant rewriting of history) on the part of public health officials in the United States occurred in 1954 when the U.S. government changed the diagnostic criteria for polio.[SUP]1[/SUP] It was the year that medical researcher and virologist Jonas Salk produced his inactivated injectable polio vaccine (IPV). The vaccine was licensed in 1955 and began to be used to inoculate millions of children against polio.

The Salk vaccine has been widely hailed as the vanquisher of polio, and it is commonly used as the shining example of how vaccines are the miracle drugs for combating infectious diseases… and now even against diseases that are not infectious. Pick any disease, illness or disorder you want. You got cancer, cholera, peanut allergies, stress, obesity… we’ll develop a vaccine for it.

What the apologists for the Salk vaccine regurgitate from a common script (… some might say scripture) is that before the vaccine was introduced and tested on one million children—the so-called “Polio Pioneers”—in 1954[SUP]2[/SUP] more than 50,000 people in the U.S. were contracting polio each year, and that by the end of the 1950s the numbers were down to less than 10,000.[SUP]3[/SUP] Ergo, the Salk vaccine saved the U.S. from polio. Open and shut case.

Hmm, not so fast.

What is conveniently omitted from this heroic story is that the reason the number of polio cases in the U.S. dropped so precipitously following the mass introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955 was not medical, but rather administrative. Yes it’s true, in 1952 there were 52,879 reported cases of polio in the U.S. And yes, in 1955 the number went down to 28,985, and by 1959 it had dropped to 8,425.[SUP]3[/SUP] But first of all, it’s important to note that the numbers were already declining significantly prior to the initial use of the Salk vaccine. In 1953, there were 35,592 cases of polio in the U.S.[SUP]3[/SUP] So there were other things going on in the U.S. at the time totally unrelated to the Salk vaccine.

More importantly, though, in 1954 the U.S. government simply redefined polio. Yes, the government can do that. It does this kind of stuff occasionally in order to help it meet its public policy objectives when it is unable to actually achieve them. How often have you heard of Congress playing smoke and mirrors, gimmicks with the national budget deficit, or on the issue of the unemployment rate? Exactly.

When it comes to government and public policy, the truth is seldom absolute. That’s just the nature of the beast.

According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:
In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.[SUP]1[/SUP]​

As I wrote in my piece “The Salk ‘Miracle’ Myth“…
Under the new definition of polio, thousands of cases which would have previously been counted as polio would no longer be counted as polio. The change in the definition laid the groundwork for creating the impression that the Salk vaccine was effective.[SUP]4[/SUP]​

So as radio broadcaster Paul Harvey used to say for decades at the close of each of his charming commentaries, “And now you know… the rest of the story.”
 
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2015/07/polio-wasnt-vanquished-it-was-redefined/
  • Home»Opinion»Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was RedefinedPolio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined
by Marco Cáceres
Published July 9, 2015 | Opinion
214
SHARES
Perhaps the most egregious example of clever sleight of hand (… not to mention the outright, blatant rewriting of history) on the part of public health officials in the United States occurred in 1954 when the U.S. government changed the diagnostic criteria for polio.[SUP]1[/SUP] It was the year that medical researcher and virologist Jonas Salk produced his inactivated injectable polio vaccine (IPV). The vaccine was licensed in 1955 and began to be used to inoculate millions of children against polio.

The Salk vaccine has been widely hailed as the vanquisher of polio, and it is commonly used as the shining example of how vaccines are the miracle drugs for combating infectious diseases… and now even against diseases that are not infectious. Pick any disease, illness or disorder you want. You got cancer, cholera, peanut allergies, stress, obesity… we’ll develop a vaccine for it.

What the apologists for the Salk vaccine regurgitate from a common script (… some might say scripture) is that before the vaccine was introduced and tested on one million children—the so-called “Polio Pioneers”—in 1954[SUP]2[/SUP] more than 50,000 people in the U.S. were contracting polio each year, and that by the end of the 1950s the numbers were down to less than 10,000.[SUP]3[/SUP] Ergo, the Salk vaccine saved the U.S. from polio. Open and shut case.

Hmm, not so fast.

What is conveniently omitted from this heroic story is that the reason the number of polio cases in the U.S. dropped so precipitously following the mass introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955 was not medical, but rather administrative. Yes it’s true, in 1952 there were 52,879 reported cases of polio in the U.S. And yes, in 1955 the number went down to 28,985, and by 1959 it had dropped to 8,425.[SUP]3[/SUP] But first of all, it’s important to note that the numbers were already declining significantly prior to the initial use of the Salk vaccine. In 1953, there were 35,592 cases of polio in the U.S.[SUP]3[/SUP] So there were other things going on in the U.S. at the time totally unrelated to the Salk vaccine.

More importantly, though, in 1954 the U.S. government simply redefined polio. Yes, the government can do that. It does this kind of stuff occasionally in order to help it meet its public policy objectives when it is unable to actually achieve them. How often have you heard of Congress playing smoke and mirrors, gimmicks with the national budget deficit, or on the issue of the unemployment rate? Exactly.

When it comes to government and public policy, the truth is seldom absolute. That’s just the nature of the beast.

According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:
In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.[SUP]1[/SUP]​

As I wrote in my piece “The Salk ‘Miracle’ Myth“…
Under the new definition of polio, thousands of cases which would have previously been counted as polio would no longer be counted as polio. The change in the definition laid the groundwork for creating the impression that the Salk vaccine was effective.[SUP]4[/SUP]​

So as radio broadcaster Paul Harvey used to say for decades at the close of each of his charming commentaries, “And now you know… the rest of the story.”
Copy/paste opinion piece with nearly zero facts.

Next?

LOL
 
You need to listen to Peter Boyels on KNUS Denver, when he talks about being a kid during that time, being kept indoors, with the windows closed all summer because his mom was trying to protect her boys. Then how the church bell rang through out his Pennsylvania town when the word came that Salk had a vaccine. His mother had a picture of Salk next to her picture of Jesus on her mantel till she passed away.
 
Not quoting the troll, they moved the goal posts and claimed a victory for vaccines, in reality they quietly made an administrative change. Fact. Get fucked.
 
Not quoting the troll, they moved the goal posts and claimed a victory for vaccines, in reality they quietly made an administrative change. Fact. Get fucked.

Oh look, an anti vaccine screed from an anti vaccine fake news website.

You people need to try a little harder.

LOL
 
Last edited:
Ok. Arguement a side.

So if polio went away simply because a clerical redefinition then why did the paralysis subsiquently stop aswell?

Theres flat out no mass quantities of people randomly being crippled yearly from the polio that "wasnt cured" nor the new definition of polio.
 
Ok. Arguement a side.

So if polio went away simply because a clerical redefinition then why did the paralysis subsiquently stop aswell?

Theres flat out no mass quantities of people randomly being crippled yearly from the polio that "wasnt cured" nor the new definition of polio.
It’s bullshit.
 
Ok. Arguement a side.

So if polio went away simply because a clerical redefinition then why did the paralysis subsiquently stop aswell?

Theres flat out no mass quantities of people randomly being crippled yearly from the polio that "wasnt cured" nor the new definition of polio.

Right? We totally need to clerically redefine cancer.
 
So, where did polio go then and where are all the people crippled from it?

Jesus, how can some people be this fucking stupid.
 
Not quoting the troll, they moved the goal posts and claimed a victory for vaccines, in reality they quietly made an administrative change. Fact. Get fucked.

Credibility The Vaccine Reaction has repeatedly promoted false claims about vaccines. In June 2020, an article headlined “Will Newborns Be Separated from Parents for COVID-19 Testing?,” made false claims about vaccines in development for COVID-19. The article, which was first published on the website Mercola.com, summarized comments by Barbara Loe Fisher, founder and executive editor of TheVaccineReaction.org and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, about the development of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines as a possible vaccine for COVID-19. “As noted by Fisher, the mRNA vaccines being developed against COVID-19 will alter your RNA and DNA, which is of tremendous concern,” the article stated. “As mentioned, the idea behind them is to turn your body into an antigen-manufacturing plant, and if your immune system is hypersensitive, it could overreact, causing severe problems. Considering how many people have autoimmune diseases and allergies, these vaccines could have devastating effects for many.” It is true that RNA vaccines do work differently than typical vaccines. According to a 2015 article from Harvard Medical School, instead of the traditional approach of using small or inactivated doses of an antigen to produce an immune system response, a mRNA vaccine includes a specific mRNA sequence so the body would produce the antigen itself and develop antibodies to fight future infections. While no mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed for human use, there is no evidence backing Fisher’s claims that such a vaccine could “alter your RNA and DNA.” A March 2019 review of existing scientific evidence on mRNA vaccines, published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology, found that the mRNA “cannot potentially integrate into the host genome and will be degraded naturally” after the body produces the antigen.


https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/vaccinereaction.pdf


The "troll" is correct, it's just an anti vaccine screed from an anti vaccine fake news website.


Projectjunkie, I bet you swallow everything on Info Wars too.
 
Ok. Arguement a side.

So if polio went away simply because a clerical redefinition then why did the paralysis subsiquently stop aswell?

Theres flat out no mass quantities of people randomly being crippled yearly from the polio that "wasnt cured" nor the new definition of polio.

I'm sure the vaccine had some effectiveness.

But the data is skewed, as polio was already declining sharply.

Then tweaking the reporting criteria so that say, 3 of 4 cases aren't reported as polio.

Then there's the hype. US population was 166,000,000 in 1955 with 50k cases of "24 hour paralysis" polio. That's 1 in 3,300 by the old metric. Maybe 1 in 10k has long term paralysis, and sharply declining yearly.

Give Saulk some credit, but question the lack of transparency.
 
But wait, there's more:laughing:


http://harvoa.org/polio/overview.htm

The graphs didn't copy paste well, but they are clear in the link. It shows a pretty fucking convincing correlation between various pesticides and polio cases

photo32619.gif


photo32620.gif


photo32621.gif
 
I'm sure the vaccine had some effectiveness.

But the data is skewed, as polio was already declining sharply.

Then tweaking the reporting criteria so that say, 3 of 4 cases aren't reported as polio.

Then there's the hype. US population was 166,000,000 in 1955 with 50k cases of "24 hour paralysis" polio. That's 1 in 3,300 by the old metric. Maybe 1 in 10k has long term paralysis, and sharply declining yearly.

Give Saulk some credit, but question the lack of transparency.

Ok. So as a whole permenant paralysis was already a very small % of "polio".

I did read the above posts about the significant reduction of cases overall aswell. So regular temp polio was in a hard decline with the # of permanents folowing suit in their minority %
 
Ok. So as a whole permenant paralysis was already a very small % of "polio".

I did read the above posts about the significant reduction of cases overall aswell. So regular temp polio was in a hard decline with the # of permanents folowing suit in their minority %

Right, in decline, corresponding with declining use of ddt, arsenic, and BHC
BHC vs Polio (1940-1970)
BHC (benzene hexachloride), a persistent, organochlorine pesticide, is several times more lethal than DDT, in terms of LD50, i.e., the lethal dosage required to kill 50 percent of a test population.
“Unlike the situation with DDT, in which there have been few recorded fatalities, there have been a number of fatalities following poisoning by the cyclodiene and hexachlorocyclohexane-type insecticides. The chlorinated cyclodiene insecticides are among the most toxic and environmentally persistent pesticides known.” (Hayes & Laws)
As shown in the graph below, BHC was produced in 1945-1954 at quantities similar to DDT. In spite of BHC’s lethal quality, it has received much less publicity than DDT. While DDT was banned for such things as an association with the thinning of eagles’ eggs, BHC was phased out of production because it was found, after 15 years, to impart a bad taste to food. It is still used in developing nations. It is tempting to ask whether the highly public DDT was “fronting” for the more dangerous BHC. BHC’s correlation with polio incidence is astonishing.
 
Looking forward to the "Pythagoras moved the goal posts, the earth is flat" threads.
 
Looking forward to the "Pythagoras moved the goal posts, the earth is flat" threads.

I mean, he had his detractors, and was vindicated posthumously, kind of like Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss, who was fired from his hospital, forced from his profession, institutionalized, where he was beaten by guards and died from his injuries.

He was crazy as fuck. He wanted staff to wash their hands after autopsies and before births. Fucking retard.
 
Last edited:

Are you really this ignorant on data? What relevance at all does the seeming correlation of two completely unrelated data sets have to the seeming correlation of two directly related data sets?
 
So, where did polio go then and where are all the people crippled from it?

Jesus, how can some people be this fucking stupid.

They're still around, but getting up in age. My neighbor was crippled from polio around his teenage years if I recall. He's in his early 70's. Only person I've ever known.
 
Are you really this ignorant on data? What relevance at all does the seeming correlation of two completely unrelated data sets have to the seeming correlation of two directly related data sets?

Hs being a smartass, spurious correlation, maybe he can find a chart correlating roundup to cancer, I'm hearing rumors on the tinfoil dark web that they are linked
 
Hs being a smartass, spurious correlation, maybe he can find a chart correlating roundup to cancer, I'm hearing rumors on the tinfoil dark web that they are linked

Fuck The dark web Fuck Is there anything about irate4x4 on there ??? Fuck :eek:
 
Right? We totally need to clerically redefine cancer.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if they re-defined Corona to only those that get extremely ill or die of it. What would those numbers look like compared to the mass hysteria bloated numbers they are reporting now?
 
I'm 63 ... I remember lining up with big crowds of kids and getting the Sabin vaccine...purple stuff on a sugarcube.

I do know a handful of slightly older than me folks who had polio and have lingering disabilities.

I seem to recall that the Sabin vaccine ended up being more effective with fewer side effects than the Salk ... just what's stuck in my head ... I have no documentation for that.
 
I'm 63 ... I remember lining up with big crowds of kids and getting the Sabin vaccine...purple stuff on a sugarcube.

I do know a handful of slightly older than me folks who had polio and have lingering disabilities.

I seem to recall that the Sabin vaccine ended up being more effective with fewer side effects than the Salk ... just what's stuck in my head ... I have no documentation for that.

My ex ?aunt inlaw? Got polio as a kid and has been serevely crippled most of her life. Shes the only person i could say i know of outside of fdr that got it for lif .
 
Correlation does not equal causation. Just like pesticides and polio

So, settled science? Sun revolves around the flat earth, blood letting, witch trials, questioning the man made global warming hockey stick graph is verboten? That's cool, I'm sure there's something entertaining on tv and some processed food to eat.
 
Correlation does not equal causation. Just like pesticides and polio

Yeah, it's not automatic. That's obvious with completely unrelated data sets. Polio occurrence before and after vaccine introduction isn't exactly unrelated. Showing seeming correlation between two data sets no one would try to argue correlation between is useless. Coincidence is real.
 
Top Back Refresh