kland,

Louis Pasteur, from what I understand, did not develop the rabies vaccine from a desire for commercial gain. Nor do I understand Jonas Salk to have such an intent.

I have witnessed the effects of polio. The science behind that vaccine is rather clear. The disease is virtually non-existent in the modern world. The success of the vaccine was almost complete. The motives behind it?


To me, the modern manner of "selling" the patented vaccines by lobbying the lawmakers to enforce their use represents a clear shift in motives. Do you not think so as well? In addition, they seem much less successful, and with increasing degrees of side effects, autism included.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The one who created nuclear chain reactions did not have a desire nor an intent for an atomic bomb. I don't know about Salk, but I've heard some not so forthright things about Pasteur.


Do you think there may be a possibility of confounding correlations? Just because two things happen doesn't mean it is science.


Yeah, I'd like to know more about these "field tests".

I see the difference is as it is blatant, now.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn about Jonas Salk and Polio. It was an eye-opener, but not surprising. Kind of fits in with Pasteur. Don't know their personal motivation, but Eli Lily entered the picture even then.

Here are some highlights I found at http://www.whale.to/a/krasner1.html
Now, it may be a website that is not true. And I need you to help me think critically of it. However, some of the things listed should be decidedly found out if true or not.

Interesting that you said "The success of the vaccine was almost complete. "

Historically, public health officials have routinely increased disease
surveillance in areas of low vaccination acceptance as a retaliatory
response (a) against people who reject Modern Medicine's vaunted public
health tool, and (b) to justify predictions that outbreaks will occur
because of said rejection.

Sometimes the increased disease surveillance is accompanied by a
relaxation of the case defini tion of the disease, and lowered criteria
required for its diagnosis. Subclinical and borderline cases are suddenly
classified as "severe". Suspected cases are permitted to be clinically
diagnosed without laboratory confirmation.

Is it possible there could be some confounding factors here - some human-induced ones?
Polio was already declining in the U.S. and Europe during the 40's and
50's, as well as in England, where polio mortalities was at its height in
1950, but had declined 82 percent by 1956, before the Salk vaccinations
began there.

So, what gives here? If it was already declining before the vaccine, did the vaccine play a role?
Paralysis started to rise only after the Salk vaccine had begun in April
1955. It proved to be so hazardous that by November 1955, all European
countries, with the exception of Denmark, had cancelled or discontinued
their Salk vaccine programs. Canada postponed its Salk vaccine program
July 29th of that year. In the U.S., Newark, N.J. stopped inoculations in
June, 1955, while Idaho and Utah took similar action in July, followed
shortly by Massachusetts [Morris Beale's American Capsule News, Oct.
15th, 1955]. By January 1, 1957, 17 states had rejected their supplies of
Salk polio vaccine.

Now, it could be that within one year the vaccination program was so successful that several countries and states declared it a success and therefore unnecessary to continue.
But, continuing on....
During that year, the NY Times reported that very
nearly half the paralytic cases, and three-quarters of the non-paralytic
cases in children between the ages of 5 and 14 years occurred in
vaccinated children. After two years of Salk vaccinations, paralytic
polio increased nationally about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80%
from 1958 to 1959.

Guess for some reason maybe they DID consider it hazardous.

Was there a reduction in the reporting of polio?
There were only 589 cases of non-paralytic
polio from 1961 to 1982. Not a single case has been reported since.
Non-paralytic polio may have "disappeared". But thousands of children
still experience the same symptoms as non-paralytic polio every year.
Except now, it goes by another name.

North Carolina:
It wasn't until 1956 "that polio vaccinations assumed 'inspiring' proportions." The 61
percent drop in polio cases in 1954 was credited to the Salk vaccine when
it wasn't even in the state! By 1957 polio was on the increase.

Learned a new thing to be aware of from reading this. I should have known from MMs use of such things. That is, there is a high importance to certain words such as, reporting.

Non-paralytic polio diagnosis was
based on subjective clinical observation, not laboratory confirmation.
Doctors diagnosed 70,083 cases of non-paralytic polio between 1951 and
1960. They simply called it "polio" for the popular press. And during
this time, not one case of "aseptic meningitis" was reported. After 1960,
"aseptic meningitis" began to displace "non-paralytic polio".
Non-paralytic polio became so rare that the MMWR stopped reporting it in
1983.

According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR,
there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the
United States alone. That's where all those 30,000-50,000 cases of polio
disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination.

So yeah, change the names of the disease, separate and divide, and wallah, it's gone. Success! The reporting of the disease is non-existence. But, if one wants to put stock into confounding correlations, it appears that the same time they started vaccinating, Aseptic Meningitis skyrocketed.

Prior to 1954,
the diagnosis of spinal paralytic poliomyelitis followed the World Health
Organization definition: "Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic polio, with
the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle
groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." But
beginning in 1955 following the introduction of the Salk vaccine, the
criteria changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the
(fraudulent) 1954 Salk field trials: "Unless there is residual
involvement (paralysis) at least 60 days after onset, a case of
poliomyelitis is not considered paralytic."
As a result of these
changes in both diagnosis and diagnostic methods, the rates of polio
plummeted from the early 1950's to a low in 1957." (a decrease of 23,500
cases from 1955 to 57.)

The old, classical, definition:
a disease with residual paralysis which resolves within 60 days has been
changed to a disease with residual paralysis which persists for more than
60 days. Knowing the reality of polio disease, this nifty but dishonest
administrative move excluded more than 90% of polio cases from the
definition of polio.

90% gone! Just another good way to make a disease go, poof! Change the whole definition of determining what it's symptoms are.

But, let's change what an epidemic is, and then further declare success:
Finally, the PHS also redefined a "polio epidemic": Before the
introduction of the Salk vaccine, only 20 cases per 100,000 population
was an "epidemic". Afterwards, it required 35 per 100,000 per year.


Are vaccines effective? Not in a good way:
However, after 2 years of widespread uptake of the Salk vaccine,
paralysis increased about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958
to 1959.

Another feature of the
tragedy was that the numbers developing polio were far greater than would
have been expected had no inoculations been given...in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms
in which the vaccine had been injected.

The Chicago Daily News, May 28, 1959, printed the following UPI dispatch
from Duluth, MN-"One of the developers of the new oral (polio) vaccine
said Wednesday the recent use of Salk vaccine in Israel had 'little if
any effect.'

Polio cases rose about 300 to 400% in these 5 places that made the Salk
vaccine compulsory by law.

By 1960, the Salk vaccine had proven to be so hazardous and ineffective,
that the Journal of the American Medical Association (February 25, 1961)
carried an article admitting that, "It is now generally recognized that
much of the Salk vaccine used in the U.S. has been worthless."

In 1952, when a government subsidized study of polio
vaccine began, the rate soared to an all-time high of well over 55,000
cases. After the study, the number of cases dropped again and continued
to decline as they had in the previous epidemics. "This time, however,
the vaccine took the credit instead of nature."

Returning to the congressional hearings referred to earlier (HR 10541),
we read that in 1958 Israel had a major "type I" polio epidemic after
mass vaccinations. There was no difference in protection between the
vaccinated and the unvaccinated. In 1961, Massachusetts had a "type III"
polio outbreak and "there were more paralytic cases in the triple
vaccinates than in the unvaccinated."

This from http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bayly.html :
In fact, in the state of Idaho. according to a statement by Dr. Curl Eklund, one of the Government’s chief virus authorities, polio struck only vaccinated children in areas where there had been no cases since the preceding autumn: in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms in which the vaccine had been injected. (News Chronicle. May 6, 1955).


Here's some other things confounding in a different way:
While there are
currently "only" a couple of hundred thousand tonsillectomies performed
annually, the operation had peaked to 2 million during the 1930s and
40s-the same years that paralytic polio began to develop in significant
numbers.

And this is most interesting regarding the main premise of this thread:
The rise of polio (known as the
"summertime disease") and its symptomatic twins can be traced to the
widespread introduction of refrigeration and the increased consumption of
ice cream and other concentrated protein foods.

A campaign to restrict ice cream and sugar consumption-instituted in 1948
by Dr. Benjamin P. Sandler, a medical doctor and nutrition expert at the
Oteen Veteran's Hospital, N.C-had lead to drastic declines in the
incidence of polio. In just one year the number of polio cases dropped
90%.

This non-viral mechanism seems to confirm the epidemiology of this
disease-one which generally affected affluent societies during the summer
months.


Follow the money?
"One of the things the AMA was not told was that the USPHS had an
advisory group made up almost entirely of scientists who were receiving
money from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which body
was exerting pressure to go ahead with the program, even after Salk
vaccine was found to be dangerous."

Instead, the USPHS
scientist said he was not permitted to disclose what had happened because
it would jeopardize the investment of the pharmaceutical firms in the
vaccine program."


What about doctor's kids?
Word of this leaked out when Robert S. Allen, Washington
correspondent, reported in the New York Post, June 8, 1955, that "Doctors
and others on the staff of the National Institute of Health are not
inoculating their own children with the Salk Vaccine." "Nevertheless,"
says Mr. Bealle, "on orders from higher-ups in the U.S. Public Health
Service, they kept quiet and let hundreds of unfortunate children be
killed and thousands maimed for life."


From http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bayly.html
An article in Time (May 30. 1955 commented: ‘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. and had rushed into vaccinations this year with patently insufficient preparation."

They encountered another paradox. "namely, the occurrence of several instances of non-inoculated persons, having no circulating antitoxin. harbouring virulent organisms, and yet remaining perfectly well, of nurses with little or no circulating antitoxin regularly employed in diphtheria wards and remaining free front diphtheria; of persons. previously inoculated or not, with little or no circulating antitoxin living in intimate contact with diphtheria in their homes and yet remaining perfectly well. It was confidently expected that cases of diphtheria would arise, either among the nurses or among the near relations of patients and thus provide the material for this part of the inquiry, hut this expectation did not materialise."

It looks to me that there is are great monetary incentives to subscribe to the "germ theory", and little to be gained from living healthy lives. This is a pattern that keeps repeating itself. No reason to say it hasn't happened with polio nor isn't happening today. People are exploited as much as they don't think for themselves.

But do we need to go through minutely uncovering the lies that have been deceptively propagated upon us or should we listen to advice given to us 100 years ago

kland,

I am well acquainted with polio. I've seen what it can do. I've never heard of "aseptic meningitis" doing anything similar. Are you telling me you think they are the same disease masquerading under different names?

If this is what you are telling me, please go back and research what polio is and does. I am well acquainted with two Adventist sufferers of polio. Polio is a permanent (i.e. lifetime) debilitating disease. One of those Adventists is a doctor and the other is a physical therapist. One is wheelchair bound much of the time (he can walk) on the theory that the nerves weaken with use, and thereafter so does the muscle tissue. The other walks around without complaint, but frequently stumbles and falls an account of the polio having shortened one leg and permanently paralyzed the quadriceps muscles in it. He manages to swing the leg forward from the hip in order to walk, and must step on tiptoe on that leg.

Both of these were fortunate that the polio did not paralyze their breathing muscles. I've heard of people living their lives in a lung machine.

If you can tell me that "aseptic meningitis" is the same disease as polio, after you've done some more research, then I will be happy to pass your findings along to the doctor I mentioned, and see what he thinks.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

Ellen White did not define all "medicines" as "drugs." When she referenced drugs "curing" disease, she was not speaking to the topic of vaccines, which are not administered to "cure" a disease, but rather to "prevent."

Rabies vaccines, invented by Pasteur, prevent the disease. They do not cure it. If you were bitten by a rabid animal, would you get the vaccine?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have know 3 post polio suffers. 2 were LPN's that I worked with. They are of the baby boomer gen. and their polio came from the live vaccine that was given to them as children. At the time that I worked with them they were both 30 something. They appeard to be symptom free.



The third person was a resident of a retirement community where I was a clinic nurse. She had some problems with one of her legs. I don't quite recall, one may have been a little shorter. She did suffer from post-polio syndrome. I knew her for over 10 years and she lived to be over 100.




Here is a blog where someone gives some interesting information; Are Vaccines "Dangerous" and "Ineffectibe"?

Here is an interesting article Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Another name for Polio

It is my impression that you did not read the link nor much of what I posted. Is that true?

You realize being acquainted with polio, seeing the effects, or even having it yourself does in no way give any credence to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the vaccine. As crater gave an example, you could emotionally promote either direction. I'm not sure why you are attempting to enter emotion into it. Which gives indication you did not read the second link which commented on Roosevelt.

I believe you were asking me to inform myself. If you did not read the links, is there a reason?

Why do you say this?
If drugs never cure, how do you suppose they prevent?
Especially when she says we should study natural ways in prevention of disease, how by violating the laws of health will result in disease.




Need I quote more?

Maybe you could define drug and list the components of polio vaccine and tell what is wholesome or not wholesome.

Maybe you prefer pictures instead:
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

kland,

Yes I read most of the material on the link you had posted earlier, and, finding it to be rather sensational in nature, went online for some additional research. It appears you prefer the exaggerative article you originally posted. I found medical definitions online, however, which indicate that "aseptic meningitis" is simply an inflammation which can be caused by a number of things; viruses and bacteria included. People generally experience full recovery within one or two weeks. Polio, on the other hand, is not caused by bacteria, and not by just any virus either. It is a specific virus, with specific symptoms...and the effects can last a lifetime.

Let us suppose for a moment, however, that you are right and I am wrong. The polio vaccine has still managed to wipe out the paralytic form of polio, has it not? The paralytic form was extremely disabling to people, including causing death from the paralysis. And let's say you are correct to call vaccines drugs. Do you suppose that Mrs. White would have advocated death in place of the life-saving "drug" which would extend one's life (with ample quality I might add) for decades?

If you contract either rabies or tetanus, there is only one prognosis: death. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, you still have time, if you go immediately to the doctor, to receive the vaccine. Without it, the prognosis is grim. Can you honestly tell me that if you are bitten by a rabid raccoon while out camping next summer you would refuse the vaccine?

Please note, kland, that you and I are largely on the same side. I refuse the flu shots. I believe most of the modern vaccines are to be avoided like the plague, including those for cholera, typhoid, diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis, cervical cancer, HIV, chicken pox, swine flu, etc.

The only ones I would recommend to people are the polio (which does not need to be a shot, but can be taken on a sugar cube), tetanus, and rabies if and only if you are bit by a rabid animal. And I recommend that these be the expensive, mercury-free, single-dose vial vaccines.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kland & Crater: Thanks for the good info & helpful links.
_____