Vaccine Pandemic: Part 6: Unsafe & Deceptive — the Polio Vaccine Scam

“Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.” (Psalm 34:13)

“Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”(Proverbs 20:10)

“You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)

“learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” (Isaiah 1:17)

“In 1807, Mr. Birch warned medical men to open their eyes and recognize the “evil results” of vaccination. In 1810, Dr. Maclean told us that it is incumbent on vaccinators to come forward to disprove the evidence against vaccination. Today adverse events are rarely reported.” — Jennifer Craig [1]

“In 1955, right after the [polio] vaccination program got under way, they radically redefined the diagnostic parameters of polio, followed soon thereafter by changes in labeling protocol, then by even more stringent technical requirements for a polio diagnosis. In short, they ultimately redefined not the disease, but the label, out of existence. That’s not disease eradication, that’s a con game.” — Shawn Siegel [2]

“In mass vaccination programs it is common practice to omit or ignore such information in presenting the case for vaccination to the public. There is a tendency to let the “experts” make the decisions, after which they summarize the evidence with such press release statements as ‘absolutely safe,’ and other statements designed not to educate, but to inspire absolute confidence.” — Clinton R. Miller, 1962, before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives (7 years after the polio vaccine program began) [3]


by Steve C. Halbrook

posts in this series:
part 1: The Inoculation Controversy of the 1700s
part 2: Opposition to Vaccines by Doctors and Others in History
part 3: The Inquisition Against Opponents of Bad Medical Practices
part 4: The Medical Profession’s Legacy of Tyranny, Torture, and Murder
part 5: God’s Sovereign Control Over Diseases
part 6: Unsafe & Deceptive — the Polio Vaccine Scam
part 7: Moral Objections to Vaccination and Inoculation in History
part 8: Death Certificates and Hiding the Vaccine Holocaust
part 9: in progress

Series Intro
Vaccines have become one of the most polarizing issues of the day. There is an aggressive push by lawmakers to force everyone to become vaccinated, as well as intense hostility by many vaccine supporters towards those who question the efficacy and safety of vaccines. 

Where’s all the opposition to vaccines coming from? Are opponents of them crazed fanatics, looking for a conspiracy, or are their concerns legitimate? Having given this topic much reflection and research, we are of the view that they indeed have a case against vaccines, and that vaccines—far from being safe and effective—are a dangerous plague and one of the greatest deceptions in our day.

This series is a case against vaccines from both an historical and biblical perspective. Our hope is that it will equip Christians to better understand how dangerous vaccines really are, and to approach the situation from a biblical worldview.

One of the most entrenched beliefs in our society is that polio vaccines eradicated polio, which had people living in a constant state of terror. The following quote from social commentator Thomas Sowell captures this belief:

It is hard to convey to today’s generation the fear that the paralyzing disease of polio inspired, until vaccines put an abrupt end to its long reign of terror in the 1950s.[4] 

The belief of the polio vaccine’s success is repeatedly reinforced by our institutions. For instance, as stated on our trusted CDC’s website:

Following the widespread use of poliovirus vaccine in the mid-1950s, the incidence of poliomyelitis declined rapidly in many industrialized countries. In the United States, the number of cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported annually declined from more than 20,000 cases in 1952 to fewer than 100 cases in the mid-1960s. The last documented indigenous transmission of wild poliovirus in the United States was in 1979.[5]

Now, many “know” that polio vaccines eradicated polio, but proving such is a different matter entirely. Vaccines, as vaccine researcher Shawn Siegel regularly points out, are a matter of trust — with our information being spoon-fed to us by those whom we know (or should know) not to blindly trust (e.g., bureaucracies, media, and academia).

The idea that vaccines eradicated polio is foundational to the pro-vaccine paradigm; it provides a basis for doctors (many of whom are sincere) to manipulate parents into vaccinating their children. 

But, what if all of this is a con game — to the detriment of your health and those in your family? Certainly you can not rule it out at the outset; it is not as if you have ever been given slam-dunk evidence that vaccines did indeed eradicate polio (and safely, at that). 

Like many things in life, we are raised to believe certain things as true that are really not. In a fallen world, falsehoods are easily entrenched in society. Since we are fallen and finite, lies and ignorance abound. Satan, the father of lies (John 8:44), has domination over the unconverted (Ephesians 2:2), who walk in the futility of their minds (Ephesians 4:17). And even the converted are not immune to embracing falsehood. 

In short, traditions of men based on falsehoods — which Jesus had to correct during His earthly ministry — continue to this day. Fallen human nature has not changed.

Indeed, not everything we are told is a historical fact is indeed one — as anyone who seriously researches history or understands human nature knows.

And it is not as if the effectiveness of vaccination is self-evident. The idea is that by exposing someone to a disease via vaccination, that something like natural immunity can be acquired. However, injecting diseased matter directly into the bloodstream is not analogous to how one naturally acquires disease. (Just as the fatal process of injecting air into the bloodstream is not analogous to inhaling air.) 

When one naturally acquires a disease, the disease does not directly enter the bloodstream, but goes through certain bodily processes first. But by going directly into the bloodstream, vaccination bypasses the innate immune system; vaccination is simply not analogous to natural immunity. (If oral vaccination is more analogous, there has been, nevertheless, serious problems with the oral polio vaccine, as we discuss.)

Not only this, but it is not self-evident that vaccines are safe — and in fact, experience tells us that they are most unsafe.

Thus, the notion that polio vaccines safely and effectively eradicated polio cannot be said to be self-evident; polio vaccine effectiveness is a matter of trust in what we are told. We will now show just how misguided that trust is, and in the process, show the vaccine paradigm — which employs the supposed success of the polio vaccine as a foundational argument — to be built on a house of cards. 


Sections include:
1) What is Polio, How Does it Spread, and How Prevalent was it Before the Vaccine?
2) Vaccines Contribute to the Spread of Polio
3) Is Vaccination the Only Explanation for the Decline of Polio?
4) Don’t Blindly Follow Statistics (even those in support of Vaccines)
5) “Polio” Conveniently Redefined Following the Release of the Vaccine
6) Pro-Polio Vaccine Bias From the Outset: Clouding Objectivity, Stifling Opposition
7) Challenges to Polio Vaccine Efficacy
8) Polio Vaccine Deadly, and Spreads Polio 
9) Statements by Major Polio Vaccine Scientists, SV40, and AIDS
10) Did your Doctor Show you the Polio Vaccine Package Insert Before Vaccinating you or your Child?

Note: footnotes are not included at the end of the entire article, but at the end of each section. 

Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Jennifer Craig, History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn (International Medical Council on Vaccination, November 17, 2011). Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/17/history-repeats-itself-lessons-the-vaccinationists-refuse-to-learn-by-jennifer-craig-phd.
[2] Shawn Siegel, The Nature of the Beast (International Medical Council on Vaccination,October 28, 2014). Retrieved February 13, 2017, from http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/10/28/the-nature-of-the-beast-by-shawn-siegel/. 
[3] Clinton R. Miller, “Statement of Clinton R. Miller, Assistant to the President, National Health Federation, Washington, D.C.” (Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541), 86. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.
[4] Thomas Sowell, Farewell (Townhall, Dec 27, 2016). Retrieved February 8, 2017, from http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/12/27/farewell-n2263649. [5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: The Pink Book Home, Poliomyelitis. Retrieved January 18, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html.

What is Polio, How Does it Spread, and How Prevalent was it Before the Vaccine?

Neil Z. Miller, medical research journalist, writes in the Vaccine Safety Manual: 

Polio is a contagious disease caused by an intestinal virus that may attack nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord. Symptoms include fever, headache, sore throat, and vomiting. Some victims develop neurological complications, including stiffness of the neck and back, weak muscles, pain in the joints, and paralysis of one or more limbs or respiratory muscles. In severe cases it may be fatal, due to respiratory paralysis.[1] 

On how polio spreads, Miller writes:

Polio can be spread through contact with contaminated feces  (for example, by changing an infected baby’s diapers) or through airborne droplets, in food, or in water. The virus enters the body by nose or mouth, then travels to the intestines where it incubates. Next, it enters the bloodstream where “anti-polio” antibodies are produced. In most cases, this stops the progression of the virus and the individual gains permanent immunity against the disease.

Many  people mistakenly  believe that  anyone who  contracts polio will become paralyzed or die. However, in most infections caused by polio there are few distinctive symptoms. In fact, 95 percent of everyone who is exposed to the natural  polio  virus won’t exhibit any symptoms, even under  epidemic conditions. About 5 percent of infected people will experience mild symptoms, such as a sore throat, stiff neck, headache, and fever—often diagnosed as a cold or flu. Muscular paralysis has been estimated to occur in about one of every 1,000 people who contract the disease. This has lead some scientific researchers to conclude that the small percentage of people who do develop paralytic polio may be anatomically susceptible to the disease. The vast remainder of the population may be naturally immune to the polio virus.[2] 

A strong case has been made that poliomyelitis is not in fact a contagious disease, but a result of poisoning. In a 1952 piece published in the Archive Of Pediatrics titled “The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis And Obstructions To Its Investigation” (Statement prepared for the Select Committee  to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, United States House of Representatives), Dr. Ralph R. Scobey makes a thorough case for this. Some excerpts:

The disease that we now know as poliomyelitis was not designated as such until about the middle of the 19th Century. Prior to that, it was designated by many different names at various times and in different localities. The simple designations, paralysis, palsy and apoplexy, were some of the earliest names applied to what is now called poliomyelitis.

Paralysis, resulting from poisoning, has probably been known since the time of Hippocrates (460-437 B.C.), Boerhaave, Germany, (1765) stated: “We frequently find persons rendered paralytic by exposing themselves imprudently to quicksilver, dispersed into vapors by the fire, as gilders, chemists, miners, etc., and perhaps there are other poisons, which may produce the same disease, even externally applied.” In 1824, Cooke, England, stated: “Among the exciting causes of the partial palsies we may reckon the poison of certain mineral substances, particularly of quick silver, arsenic, and lead. The fumes of these metals or the receptance of them in solution into the stomach, have often causes paralysis.” …

In the spring of 1930, there occurred in Ohio, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and other states an epidemic of paralysis. The patients gave a history of drinking commercial extract of ginger. It is estimated that at the height of the epidemic there were 500 cases in Cincinnati district alone. The cause of the paralysis was subsequently shown to be triorthocresyl phosphate in a spurious Jamaica ginger. Death resulted not infrequently from respiratory paralysis similar to the bulbar paralysis deaths in poliomyelitis. On pathological examination, the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord in these cases showed lesions similar to those of poliomyelitis.

These incidents show that epidemics of poisoning occur and furthermore, that epidemic diseases do not always indicate that they are caused by infectious agents. …

In 1936, during a campaign to eliminate yaws in Western Samoa by the injection of arsenicals, an epidemic of poliomyelitis appeared simultaneously. In one community all of the patients developed paralysis in the same lower limbs and buttocks in which they had received the injections and this pattern was repeated in 37 other villages, whereas there was no paralysis in uninoculated districts. The natives accused the injections as the cause of the epidemic of poliomyelitis. Most of the cases of paralysis occurred one to two weeks after the injection of the arsenic …

Dr. Robert W. Lovett of the Massachusetts State Board of health (1908), describing the epidemic of poliomyelitis in Massachusetts in 1907, and after reviewing the medical literature on experimental poliomyelitis, states: “The injection experiments prove that certain metallic poisons, bacteria and toxins have a selective action on the motor cells of the anterior cornua when present in the general circulation; that the paralysis of this type may be largely unilateral; that the posterior limbs are always more affected than the anterior; and that the lesions in the cord in such cases do not differ from those in anterior poliomyelitis.” It appears to be of great importance that various poisons, lead, arsenic, mercury, cyanide, etc., found capable of causing paralysis are employed in relation to articles of food that are used for human consumption. …

Toomey and August (1932) pointed out that some authors thought that poliomyelitis is a disease of gastrointestinal origin which might follow the ingestion of foodstuffs. In 193360, they noted that the epidemic peak of poliomyelitis corresponds with the harvest peak of perishable fruits and vegetables. They called attention to the fact that the disease occurs only in those countries which raise the same type of agricultural products. Dr. C.W. Burhans, one of the colleagues of the authors, thought that green apples might be a factor in the etiology of poliomyelitis. Toomey et al. (1943) points out that there is frequently a history of dietary indiscretions previous to an attack of poliomyelitis. They suspected that a virus could be found on or in unwashed fruit or in well water during epidemics of poliomyelitis. …

Since 1908 — for 44 years — poliomyelitis research has been predominantly directed along only one line of investigation, i.e., the infectious theory. This single line of study, precluding other possibilities, including the poison cause of the disease, has resulted from two factors, (1) The Public Health Law, and (2) the insistence, based entirely on animal experiments, that poliomyelitis is caused by a virus. …

1. The Public Health Law. The inclusion of poliomyelitis in the Public Health Law as a communicable, infectious disease dates back to the early part of the 20th Century. At that time many diseases, now known to be neither communicable nor infectious, were considered to be caused by an infectious agent simply because they occurred in epidemics. The general attitude of that period is expressed by Sachs (1911) in his statement: “In general, the epidemic occurrence of any disease is sufficient to prove its infectious or contagious character.” The vitamin deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, are outstanding examples of epidemic diseases that were formerly considered to be infectious and communicable according to the logic employed by Sachs.[3] 

(Read the full text here.)

If this doesn’t conclusively prove that poliomyelitis is a non-contagious disease caused by poisoning, it at least shows that cases of poisoning would have been misdiagnosed as polio (perhaps very frequently), — increasing the unwarranted panic about a polio “reign of terror.” Indeed, according to Suzanne Humphries, MD, and Roman Bystrianyk, a researcher of diseases and vaccines, DDT could induce identical symptoms to polio:

In the fear-baked summers of polio, many parents were totally unaware that exposure to DDT alone induced symptoms that were completely indistinguishable from poliomyelitis — even in the absence of a virus.[4]

Humphries and Bystrianyk note also that polio was never as rampant as is now believed. In Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, they write:

Since the early 1900s, we have been indoctrinated to believe that polio was a highly prevalent and contagious disease. …  [see graph on page 8 here]

Given what a low-incidence disease it was, how did polio come to be perceived as such an infamous monster? This is a question worthy of consideration, especially in light of the fact that the rate was far less than other common diseases, some of which declined in incidence to nearly zero with no vaccine at all. Those who still embody a fear of polio may argue that polio was a monster because it crippled people, especially children. But it was later revealed, after a vaccine was lauded for the eradication of polio, that much of the crippling was related to factors other than poliovirus, and those factors could not possibly have been affected by any vaccine.[5] 

The belief that polio in general and paralytic polio in particular were rare is not a new belief. In 1961 — only a few years after the introduction of polio vaccines — the following was written in the Chicago Tribune:

Evaluating the true effectiveness of the Salk vaccine and the new oral vaccines has been difficult for several reasons. Polio is a relatively rare disease in the United States. Because so few persons get it in Its paralyzing form, success of an immunizing agent is hard to determine.[6]

And in the year prior to that (1960), Professor Herbert Ratner, M. D., Director of Public Health, Oak Park, said this at the panel discussion “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (more on this important discussion later):

Because of the low incidence of polio, neither the private physician nor the local public health physician is in a position to judge the value of polio vaccine from personal experience alone.[7]

The rarity of polio sufferers becoming paralyzed — and the greater rarity of polio sufferers dying — is mentioned in the CDC’s own website:

Fewer than 1% of all polio infections in children result in flaccid paralysis. … The death-to-case ratio for paralytic polio is generally 2%–5% among children and up to 15%–30% for adults (depending on age). It increases to 25%–75% with bulbar involvement.[8]

A case in an article by four medical doctors and a professor of biostatistics has been made that Franklin D. Roosevelt himself, long believed to have suffered from poliomyeltis, probably instead suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome.[9]

The same authors note, 

In 1921 (the year of FDR’s paralysis) the overall incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis in the northeastern United States was estimated to be 3 per 100,000. The true incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis was likely to have been lower, since few, if any, other causes of flaccid paralysis would have been considered at that time.[10] 

Regarding the rarity of paralytic polio and how frequently those with polio display symptoms, a World Health Organization document, published in 1954 (the year prior to the polio vaccine campaign), notes:

It must be strongly emphasized that paralysis is an infrequent complication of poliomyelitis infection in man, and that most persons who become infected either show no symptoms or else develop a transient abortive or “minor” illness.[11]

This paints a different picture entirely than Thomas Sowell’s perception — and the perception of society at large — that polio wrought a “reign of terror.” 

It must also be noted that an accurate diagnosis of non-paralytic polio was difficult. As the same World Health Organization document reads: 

It is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis of non-paralytic poliomyelitis without resort to virological tests, which unfortunately are time-consuming, expensive, and available in only a few centers. …

It must be realized, however, that many other agents cause an aseptic meningitis that cannot be differentiated from non-paralytic poliomyelitis, except by elaborate laboratory tests.[12] 

Hence, statistical accuracy would be difficult. This may have also been the case with paralytic polio. The World Health Organization document does state that Guillain-Barre syndrome “may be confused with an extensive paralysis due to poliomyelitis.”[13]

Again, this document was in 1954 — a year prior to the first polio vaccine campaign. Moreover, prior to 1951, distinguishing paralytic polio from non-paralytic polio via national estimates was difficult; paralytic polio was thought to be much more prevalent than it actually was. As the May 1967 issue of Public Health Reports writes,

Separate reporting of paralytic cases began in 1951. Before 1951, the estimate of the incidence of paralytic cases was based on an arbitrary assumption that half the reported cases were paralytic.[14]

Such an arbitrary estimation of paralytic polio surely must have contributed to the needless polio fear of the time. 
Additionally, in 1954 (again, the year before the first polio vaccine campaign), the Journal of the American Medical Association points out the difficulty in accurately diagnosing polio:

Despite tremendous strides that are being made in regard to the pathogenesis and epidemiology of acute poliomyelitis, it continues to be one of the most difficult of all diseases to recognize accurately. An increasing amount of experience with this entity has made us approach the diagnosis of this disease with more humility and more respect for the pitfalls that often arise. Knowledge that is accumulating regarding the causative virus, its immunologic response in the human being, and the similarity of the clinical manifestations of this disease to that of other diseases constantly remind us of the many errors that we have undoubtedly made in the past. It is unfortunate that we do not have and will not have in the near future a practical, reliable, inexpensive laboratory test available to all physicians. For this reason we must rely almost entirely on our history and physical examination. The usual laboratory studies, often misleading, are important principally in eliminating the consideration of other diseases.[15]

Thus, not even paralytic polio could easily diagnosed correctly. As noted in the same article, differential diagnoses could be difficult:

When paralysis develops in a patient, the differential diagnosis appears to be simplified. This, unfortunately, is not true as the following cases illustrate. Here the importance of a complete history is self-evident, and the ever-present possibility of pseudoparalysis should be kept in mind.[16]

The article goes on to list those with paralysis who were referred to a particular hospital originally diagnosed with paralytic polio. Diagnoses would be changed to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, brain tumor, pyelonephritis, scurvy, and hysteria.[17] 

Indeed, testing methodologies could make all the difference in a correct polio diagnosis. Humphries and Bystrianyk make this interesting observation about the 1958 Michigan epidemic:

As a caseinpoint on how much paralytic disease thought to be polio was not at all associated with polioviruses, consider the well documented Michigan epidemic of 1958. This epidemic occurred four years into the Salk vaccine campaign. An in-depth analysis of the diagnosed cases revealed that more than half of them were not poliovirus associated at all (Figure 12.2 and Figure 12.3). There were several other causes of “polio” besides poliovirus.[18]

They go on to cite “Laboratory Data on the Detroit Poliomyelitis Epidemic 1958” from the Journal of the American Medical Association: — note how the testing methodology exposes how easily one could falsely believe that a polio epidemic exists, as well as how easily certain non-polio infections could be considered to be polio infections:

During an epidemic of poliomyelitis in Michigan in 1958, virological and serologic studies were carried out with specimens from 1,060 patients. Fecal specimens from 869 patients yielded no virus in 401 cases, poliovirus in 292, ECHO (enteric cytopathogenic human orphan) virus in 100, Coxsackie virus in 73, and unidentified virus in 3 cases. Serums from 191 patients from whom no fecal specimens were obtainable showed no antibody changes in 123 cases but did show changes diagnostic for poliovirus in 48, ECHO viruses in 14, and Coxsackie virus in 6. In a large number of paralytic as well as nonparalytic patients poliovirus was not the cause. Frequency studies showed that there were no obvious clinical differences among infections with Coxsackie, ECHO, and poliomyelitis viruses. Coxsackie and ECHO viruses were responsible for more cases of “nonparalytic poliomyelitis” and “aseptic meningitis” than was poliovirus itself.[19]

Finally, in the February 1957 issue of The Atlantic, Dr. David D. Rutstein points out the difficulty in proving the effectiveness of the polio vaccine from 1955-1956 due to wide fluctuations in reported polio cases prior to the vaccine:

The marked drop in reported polio cases from 1955 to 1956 might provide final proof of the value of the vaccine if the number of polio cases in each of the previous years had been relatively constant. As seen in the first diagram, this is not the case. There have been wide swings in the number of polio cases from year to year. Beginning in the 1930s, when reports of polio became fairly reliable, there were a number of years—particularly in the late thirties when there were many fewer cases than in 1956. Following this period, there was a rise in the early 1940s, particularly in 1944 when 19,029 cases were reported. In 1947, for no apparent reason, there was a sharp drop to about 10,000 cases. After that, there were a number of “high polio years” reaching a peak in 1952 with 57,879 cases, which was followed by a drop-off to about half that number in 1955. These fluctuations in the number of cases per year have no known explanation and occur not only in the United States but in many parts of the world. It is of interest that a sharp drop also occurred in England and Wales in these same two years, 1955 and 1956, even though in those countries only 200,000 children had received but one or two injections in a program which began in the late spring of 1956. It is, therefore, impossible to tell whether the decrease from 1955 to 1956 in the United States is a result of the polio vaccine program or whether it is just another sharp swing in the usual pattern of the disease.[20]

The piece goes on to show the difficulty in both knowing how widespread polio was prior to the vaccine, and the difficulty during that time in diagnosing nonparalytic polio; as well as correctly assessing those with paralytic polio:

The total number of cases of polio reported each year includes both paralytic and nonparalytic forms of the disease. When polio occurs without paralysis, it may be difficult to diagnose, particularly in the absence of an epidemic. Nonparalytic polio has to be differentiated from infections due to other viruses, a distinction which medical advances have made possible only during the past few years. When such other virus infections are recognized in epidemic form, as occurred in Iowa in 1956, these cases are properly not included in the total annual figure for polio. Improvement in diagnosis has tended to decrease the number of reported cases of nonparalytic polio in recent years. This in turn makes comparisons of total cases in recent years with previous years less reliable. … Reliable records on numbers of paralytic cases for the United States are available for only the last two or three years, and they are, therefore, not precisely helpful at this time in interpreting the sharp decrease of this year. [21]

And so we see from the outset that polio does not warrant the fears that the vaccine oligarchy would instill in us. Polio is rare in its more benign forms, and much more rare in its paralytic forms. Moreover, as we have seen, it is hard to prove efficacy of the polio vaccine via comparison with the pre-polio vaccination era. 

Therefore, justifications for the polio vaccine paradigm have already been practically shattered. But, there is much more to discredit it. If the danger and frequency of the polio disease is over-hyped, so is the efficacy and safety of the vaccine itself (to put it mildly) — as we later show.

Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Neil Z. Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 2010, 2015), 47.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ralph R. Scobey, “The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis And Obstructions To Its Investigation” (Statement prepared for the Select Committee  to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.) (From Archive Of Pediatrics, April, 1952). Retrieved March 1, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/a/scobey2.html.
[4] Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, “The ‘Disappearance’ of Polio,” Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, 2013), (online pdf version), 28. Available at https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/11/DissolvingIllusions-Polio.pdf.
[5] Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, 2013), 224, 225.
[6] Joan Beck, “The Truth About the Polio Vaccines,” Chicago Tribune, volume CXX, no. 10 (March 5, 1961): 8. Retrieved September 7, 2016, from http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1961/03/05/page/62/article/the-truth-about-the-polio-vaccines. 
[7] Herbert Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (Presented before the Section on Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the 120th annual meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago, IL: May 26, 1960) (panel discussion edited from a transcript), Illinois Medical Journal (August 1960): 86. Available online at http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/uploads/2/8/8/8/2888885/ratner_1960.pdf.
[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: The Pink Book Home, Poliomyelitis. Retrieved January 18, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html.
[9] Armond S Goldman, Elisabeth J Schmalstieg, Daniel H Freeman, Jr, Daniel A Goldman and Frank C Schmalstieg, Jr., “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography, 11 (2003): 232-240. 
[10] Ibid., 235.
[11] World Health Organization, “Expert Committee on Poliomyelitis: First Report,” World Health Organization Technical Report Series, no. 81. (Geneva, World Health Organization, April, 1954): 7. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/40241/1/WHO_TRS_81.pdf.
[12] Ibid., 8, 9. 
[13] Ibid. 10.
[14] Leo Morris, John J. Witte, Pierce Gardner, George Miller, and Donald A. Henderson, “Surveillance of Poliomyelitis in the United States, 1962-65,” Public Health Reports, vol. 82, no. 5 (May 1967): 417. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1919968&blobtype=pdf.
[15] Robert Britt, Amos Christie and Randolph Batson, “Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Poliomyelitis,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 154, no. 17 (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, April 24, 1954): 1401.
[16] Ibid., 1402.
[17] Ibid., 1402-1403.
[18] Humphries and Bystrianyk, “The ‘Disappearance’ of Polio,” Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (online pdf version), 15. 
[19] G. C. Brown, “Laboratory Data on the Detroit Poliomyelitis Epidemic 1958,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 172, February 20, 1960, 807–812. Cited in Ibid., 15, 16.
[20] David D. Rutstein, “How Good Is the Polio Vaccine?”, The Atlantic (February 1957). Retrieved January 20, 2016 from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1957/02/how-good-is-the-polio-vaccine/303946. 
[21] Ibid.

Vaccines Contribute to the Spread of Polio

That vaccines have contributed to the spread of polio is well documented, but seldom discussed. Here we included some of that documentation. 

For instance, in 1950, a one Dr. McCloskey published a piece in the Lancet titled, “The relation of prophylactic inoculations to the onset of poliomyelitis.”[1] It reads:

Early in the epidemic, attention was directed to a few patients who had been given an injection of pertussis vaccine, or of a mixture of diphtheria toxoid and pertussis vaccine, shortly before the onset of their symptoms.

The parents of these children were naturally inclined to blame the inoculations for the development of the disease, though their medical attendants either dismissed the probability of any causal relationship, or else considered the effect to be due to a radiculitis caused by the vaccine… Considerable evidence, however, will be presented to show that such an association has existed in this epidemic.”[2] 

The British Medical Journal (1 July 1950) includes an article discussing those who suffered poliomyelitis paralysis following a 1942 diphtheria vaccination campaign. Similarly, in a subsequent issue (July 29, 1950), the journal includes a piece on those who suffered from poliomyelitis paralysis in 1947 – 1949 who had received pertussis and diphtheria vaccinations.[3] 

In 1962, Clinton R. Miller of the National Health Federation, speaking before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives (87th congress) about polio vaccines, quotes the following from Dr. L. Meyler’s book “Side Effects of Drugs”: 

Pertussis vaccine (whooping cough). Up to now some 100 cases of encephalitis have been reported. In half of the cases, the phenomena set in within 6 hours after the injection, and never later than 72 hours. About half of the patients made a complete recovery, about one-third had serious permanent neurological lesions, and about one-sixth died. The increased susceptibility of poliomyelitis is stressed. The value of pertussis immunization is stressed, but so is the grave danger of further Inoculations when a previous one has produced any suggestion of a neurological reaction. … During an epidemic of poliomyelitis, no vaccinations should be given.[4] 

(While, unlike Meyler, we wouldn’t endorse pertussis vaccination in any case, Meyler’s comments about its dangers are helpful.)

In an article, Viera Scheibner, author of Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System, writes:

Let me quote some original seminal medical research.

Anderson et al. (1951) in his article “Poliomyelitis occurring after antigen injections” (Pediatrics; 7(6): 741-759) wrote “During the last year several investigators have reported the occurrence poliomyelitis within a few weeks after injection of some antigen. Martin in England noted 25 cases in which paralysis of as single limb occurred within 28 days of injection of antigen into that limb, and two cases following penicillin injections. In Australia, McCloskey, during a study of the 1949 outbreak, recorded 38 cases that developed within 30 days of an antigen injection, finding an association between the site of paralysis and that of the recently antecedent injection. His findings, contrary to Martin’s suggested a greater association with pertussis vaccine than with other antigens. Geffen, studying the 1949 poliomyelitis cases in London, observed 30 patients who had received an antigen within four weeks, noting also that the paralysis involved especially the extremity into which the injection had been given. In a subsequent survey of 33 administrative areas in England, Hill and Knowelden found 42 children who had been immunized within a month [of injections] … Banks and Beale observed 14 cases that followed within two months after immunization noting also a correlation between site of injection and location of paralysis, as well as increased severity of residual paralysis … In the discussion of this problem during the April 1950 meeting of the Royal Society of medicine, Burnett and others stressed the apparent relationship to multiple antigens containing a pertussis component”. [undoubtedly reflecting the increasing use of pertussis-containing vaccines].[5]

Moreover, according to Eleanor McBean, a one William F. Koch (M.D., Ph.D.), has stated,

The injection of any serum, vaccine, or even penicillin, has shown a very marked increase in the incidence of polio, at least 400%. Statistics on this are so conclusive, no one can deny it.[6]

So, ironically, while the polio vaccine’s alleged victory over polio (a myth that we debunk in this article) is used to manipulate parents into vaccinating their children , it appears that vaccinating children has contributed to polio. And so if we are really concerned about ending polio, ending vaccines is a good place to start.

But, there’s more; later in this piece, we show that not only has non-polio vaccination contributed to the spread of polio, but polio vaccination itself has.

Notes
_____________________________________________________
[1] Viera Scheibner, Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 1993), 143.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 143, 144.
[4] Cited in Clinton R. Miller, “Statement of Clinton R. Miller, Assistant to the President, National Health Federation, Washington, D.C.” (Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541), 85. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.
[5] Viera Scheibner, “Re: Polio eradication: a complex end game,” The Bmj (April 10, 2012). Retrieved September 9, 2016, from http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rr/578260. [6] Cited in Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle: Suppressed Facts About Vaccination (Pomeroy, WA: Health Research, 2005), 104.

Is Vaccination the Only Explanation for the Decline of Polio?

Polio supposedly decline due to the use of the polio vaccine. Later in this piece we more thoroughly refute this idea, but for the time being let’s consider some other factors.

We previously have shown that what we know about the extent of polio prior to the vaccination campaign is less than reliable. For what it’s worth, there are some who have made the case, based on perhaps the best information that they had, that polio and polio death rates were already on the decline prior to the vaccine. (Thus, to the extent that we rely on data prior to the polio vaccine, this information must be considered.) 

Not only this, but it has been argued that polio declined in Europe prior to the extensive use of vaccines. 

We don’t often hear that polio was in decline prior to the polio vaccine program; and yet, according to consultant neurosurgeon Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr.,

In the 1950s, there were 20,000 cases of polio annually causing more than 1,000 deaths; many more thousand victims were left in iron lungs. This was caused because of the predilection of the polio virus for the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord and consequent paralysis of the respiratory muscles. But, what is less known, and this is quite disconcerting to me, is that between 1923-1953, before the Salk (dead virus) vaccine was discovered in 1955, the polio death rate in the U.S. and England declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. This is not reported or discussed by the public health establishment but, it seems, only by independent researchers … neither is the fact that European countries, which didn’t systematically immunize their citizens, also experienced a precipitous decline in their polio morbidity and mortality statistics.[1] 

Faria credits “better hygiene and sanitation and better living conditions” for “bringing down the number of cases of polio.”[2] (Dr. Thurman Rice once said, “It is not strange that health improves when the population gives up using diluted sewage as the principle beverage” [1932]). Indeed, the CDC itself states this about improved sanitation’s effect on polio:

In the immediate prevaccine era, improved sanitation allowed less frequent exposure and increased the age of primary infection.[3]

Professor Herbert Ratner, M. D., Director of Public Health, Oak Park, referring in 1960 to a graph titled “The Natural Rise and Fall of Two Diseases Poliomyelitis (1942-1959) [and] Infectious Hepatitis (1949-1959),” writes, “Both diseases were in a natural decline when the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955.”[4] (See graph on page 2 here.) Should we, then, credit the Salk vaccine for the decline in infectious hepatitis?!

Pointing to International Mortality Statistics in 1981, medical research journalist Neil Z. Miller writes:

From 1923 to 1953, before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Statistics show a similar decline in other European countries as well.
[5]

Miller adds: 

[W]hen the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to systematically inoculate their citizens. Yet, polio epidemics also ended in these countries.[6]

Further information for consideration regarding the decline in polio in the U.S. and other countries is seen in a 1957 article in The Atlantic by Dr. David D. Rutstein. (The American polio vaccine campaign had already began in 1955.) He writes:

The marked drop in reported polio cases from 1955 to 1956 might provide final proof of the value of the vaccine if the number of polio cases in each of the previous years had been relatively constant. As seen in the first diagram, this is not the case. There have been wide swings in the number of polio cases from year to year. … These fluctuations in the number of cases per year have no known explanation and occur not only in the United States but in many parts of the world. It is of interest that a sharp drop also occurred in England and Wales in these same two years, 1955 and 1956, even though in those countries only 200,000 children had received but one or two injections in a program which began in the late spring of 1956. It is, therefore, impossible to tell whether the decrease from 1955 to 1956 in the United States is a result of the polio vaccine program or whether it is just another sharp swing in the usual pattern of the disease.[7]

And so, regarding the end of polio epidemics in Europe, Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, who served as chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee for the State of Illinois and associate professor of Preventative Medicine and Community Health in the School of Medicine of the University of Illinois, asks this important question:

It is commonly believed that the Salk vaccine was responsible for halting the polio epidemics that plagued American children in the 1940s and 1950s. If so, why did the epidemics also end in Europe, where polio vaccine was not so extensively used?[8] 

Could it be, then, that the pro-vaccine paradigm is simply stealing from the benefits of improved hygiene and sanitation? 

Ironically, vaccine propagandists — against all sense of proportionality — dismiss the countless accounts of children who have been killed (e.g, “sudden infant death syndrome”) or injured (e.g., “autism”) by vaccines by saying, “correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation,” and yet — quite hastily and simplistically — ignore their own advice when disease supposedly declines following widespread use of vaccines. 

It is not just improved hygiene and sanitation that can result in the decline of disease; diseases can decline for other reasons — and may even disappear suddenly with no explanation.

As reported in the Report of the Medical Officer of Health by the City of Glasgow (1958), 

The causes of decline of an epidemic are difficult to define. Weather conditions are an obvious factor. It is also reasonable to think that the building up of herd immunity in the population plays a part. This increasing immunity has in past epidemics been due to natural infection. In 1958 natural and artificial immunisation worked in parallel. It is suggested, with some diffidence, that the critical level of herd immunity was reached more quickly as a result of vaccination.[9]

In referring to “artificial immunisation,” the report holds that the polio vaccine played a role in reducing polio, an idea that we shall challenge more later. However, it does acknowledge that diseases can decline for other reasons (e.g., weather conditions). It even notes that “herd immunity” can be achieved via natural infection, and acknowledges its role in reducing polio after the polio vaccine was introduced. 

The London Medical and Surgical Journal (1832) makes this observation about epidemics:

As yet the cholera has not caused a great mortality, and if we reflect upon the mysterious course of epidemic diseases in all ages and countries, it appears to us, notwithstanding the great predisposition or liability of the Irish to the cholera, it may, like thousands of other epidemics, suddenly disappear; or effect much less mortality than on slight consideration might be expected. In our last Number there was ample proof of this statement afforded in the article on the epidemic diseases of Ireland, by which it appeared, that the devastating pestilence of 1348, which was so fatal in every part of Europe, and especially in England, was comparatively limited in its effects on the inhabitants of Ireland. In the present instance, time alone must determine the correctness or incorrectness of our assertion.[10]

While discussing cholera, the following is said in the British Medical Journal (1865):

Probably, as measles, scarlet fever, small-pox, etc., mysteriously flash out, and still more mysteriously disappear, so would it have been here. To induce those mighty epidemics that desolate a world, there must be something more—some great pervading influence, that science only knows from its effects.[11]

In an 1877 report from the U.S. Department of the Interior, we read:

Thus, even a calamity, under certain circumstances, can be rendered advantageous to a certain point, as, for instance, it is a well established fact that after heavy storms malignant epidemics suddenly disappear.[12]

More recent statements are found in Ebola Virus Disease: From Origin to Outbreak by Dr. Adnan I. Qureshi:

The third pattern is the “tooth eruption” pattern where, like the tooth hidden within the gums and emerging indepedent of other teeth, the pathogen emerges and is exterminated without any relation to previous occurences. The Ebola virus is one of the pathogens following the “tooth eruption” pattern where the disease emerged in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1976, disappeared, and then reemerged in Uganda between September 2000 and February 2001, only to mysteriously disapear. It emerged again in December 2013 in Guinea.

What is far more perplexing is why epidemics die their deaths, a phenomenon noticed since the beginning of humanity. While it is convenient to believe that measures such as vaccination of at-risk individuals, quarantine of diseased persons, and acute and timely treatment are the cause of epidemic eradication, the facts do not support such a conclusion. In fact, the largest epidemics, such as the Peloponnesian War Pestilence, Antonine Plague, Plague of Justinian, Black Death of the fourteenth century, and Spanish flu, came to an end without widespread use of any of those strategies.[13]

Regarding polio itself: after the national polio vaccine program was implemented, Oak Part, IL, Health Commissioner Herbert Ratner,  M.D., in 1956 writes in the Journal of the American Medical Association that poliomyelitis was not only uncommon, but that many factors unrelated to vaccination have been keeping it at bay:

The Idaho data simply confirms the fact that poliomyelitis is a low-incidence disease and that there is a high degree of acquired immunity and many natural factors preventing the occurrence of the disease (as contrasted to an “infection”) in the Nation at large. … Everyone should recognize that 1955 was a low poliomyelitis year independently of the use of the Salk vaccine, which was only given to 9 million children.[14] 

Having said all those, let us now turn to one of the quickest way to make a disease “decline” — statistical manipulation.


Notes
_____________________________________________________
[1] Miguel A. Faria, Vaccines (Part II): Hygiene, Sanitation, Immunization, and Pestilential Diseases (Journal of American Surgeons and Physicians, ) (Originally published in the March/April 2000 issue of the Medical Sentinel. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2000). Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article36.html. 
[2] Ibid.
[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: The Pink Book Home, Poliomyelitis. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html.
[4] Herbert Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (Presented before the Section on Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the 120th annual meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago, IL: May 26, 1960) (panel discussion edited from a transcript), Illinois Medical Journal (August 1960): 85. Available online at http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/uploads/2/8/8/8/2888885/ratner_1960.pdf.
[5] Neil Z. Miller, “The Polio Vaccine, Part 2: The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term health-related consequences,” VaxTruth (March 20, 2012). Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2. Miller draws from  Alderson M., International Mortality Statistics, Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981:177–8.
[6] Ibid.
[7] David D. Rutstein, “How Good Is the Polio Vaccine?”, The Atlantic (February 1957). Retrieved January 20, 2016 from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1957/02/how-good-is-the-polio-vaccine/303946. 
[8] Robert S. Mendelsohn, How to Raise a Healthy Child … In Spite of Your Doctor (NY: Ballantine Books, 1987), 231.
[9] City of Glasgow, Report of the Medical Officer of Health (The Corporation of the City of Glasgow, 1958), 131. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from https://archive.org/stream/b28652459#page/130/mode/2up.
[10] Michael Ryan, ed., “Cholera in London, Dublin, and Paris” (May 5, 1832, vol. 1, no. 14), The London Medical and Surgical Journal; Exhibiting a View of the Improvements and Discoveries in the Various Brances of Medical Science, vol. I (London: Renshaw and Rush, 1832), 441.
[11] D.B. White, Northern Branch: President’s Address, Transactions of Branches (December 2, 1865), in William O. Markham, ed., The British Medical Journal, Being the Journal of the British Medical Association, vol. II for 1865, July to December (London: Thomas John Honeyman), 576.
[12] Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, F.V. Hayden, U.S. Geologist-in-Charge, First Annual Report of the United States Entomological Commission for the Year 1877 Relating to the Rocky Mountain Locust and the Best Methods of Preventing its Injuries and of Guarding Against its Invasions, in Pursuance of an Appropriation Made by Congress for this Purpose, with Maps and Illustrations (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1878), Appendix III: Texas Data for 1877, 72.
[13] Adnan I. Qureshi, Ebola Virus Disease: From Origin to Outbreak (San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 2016), 40.
[14] Herbert Ratner, “Poliomyelitis Vaccine,” Journal of the American Medical Association (Jan. 21, 1956). Cited in Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541, 89. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.

Don’t Blindly Follow Statistics (even those in support of Vaccines)

While many aren’t willing to admit it when it doesn’t suit their purpose, statistics can be  easily manipulated — and are regularly done so to further one agenda or another. Entire books have been written on this subject. As one author notes, 

There are several undeniable truths about statistics: First and foremost, they can be manipulated, massaged and misstated. …

Second, if bogus statistical information is repeated often enough, it eventually is considered to be true.[1] 

And so, 

It is a fact that facts are stubborn things, while statistics are generally more pliable … figures don’t lie, but liars figure. You can torture numbers and they will confess to anything. And statistics mean never having to say you are sorry.[2] 

Indeed, it is quite easy to “produce” statistics behind closed doors, and then pass them on to the public as “facts”; all that it requires is trust on the public’s part. But beyond this, statistics can be incorrect even when produced sincerely. As economist Thomas Sowell writes,

In the real world … even without ideological bias or manipulation, statistics can be grossly misleading.[3]

This doesn’t mean that we have to be cynical about all statistics; but we shouldn’t blindly embrace whatever statistics are put before us — especially when they defy biblical truths and common sense, or when there is evidence of manipulation. Indeed, man is fallen and finite, and so he too often sets out to deceive — and even when he doesn’t, he too often misses the full picture.

And so, we ought not to think that vaccine statistics are immune to manipulation (especially since they are a highly profitable business). In fact, Dr. Archie Kalokerinos — who witnessed firsthand illness and death inflicted by vaccines on the Aborigine people — said:

[T]he further I looked into it the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instance of these diseases you will realise that this is not so.[4] 

Some testify to such statistical manipulation when it came to smallpox vaccines (which, we are told, eradicated smallpox). According to Dr. Russell of the Glasgow Hospital, “Patients entered as unvaccinated showed excellent marks (vaccination scars) when detained for convalescence.”[5] This could obviously influence statistics. Moreover, Lilly Loat, in The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization, writes:  

In his Report for the year 1904 Dr. Chalmers, Glasgow M.O.H., stated that inquiries had been made of Registrars of Births in connection with smallpox cases entered as “unvaccinated” or “doubtful”; and 10 of the “unvaccinated” and 20 of the doubtful “were found to have been certified as having been successfully vaccinated in infancy.“[6]

Jno. Pickering, F.S.S., F.R.G.S., writes in the 1876 book The Statistics of the Medical Officers to the Leeds Small-Pox Hospital Exposed and Refuted,

I know very well that the statistics as to the cases and deaths of the vaccinated and unvaccinated are published for a purpose — a purpose that is unworthy and contemptible — it is simply to deceive the public mind, and to withdraw all consideration from the rationale of vaccination, … The Statistics of the Vaccinator are not to be trusted … The Vaccinator has a craze to support, and he will do it even at the sacrifice of truth.[7]

Pickering goes on to say:

My suspicions, as to the untrustworthiness of Medical Statistics, were first roused in March, 1872, but my enquiries were confined to the small-pox deaths. It never once occurred to me that, either from carelessness or audacity, the Medical Officers would include among the “unvaccinated,” living examples of the “successfully vaccinated.” During that month I investigated the particulars as to 16 deaths which had taken place in the Hospital between the 29th January and the 9th March, 1872. Of these 16 deaths the Medical Officers had returned 9 unvaccinated, 6 vaccinated, and 1 unknown. After a full and careful enquiry, which occupied Mr. Kenworthy and myself for several days, I attended before the Board of Guardians and handed in a return showing that the 16 deaths were composed of 12 vaccinated patients, 2 unvaccinated, and 2 unknown. The two unvaccinated were two out of the three cases “certified unfit,” being scrofulous from birth, and the two unknown were Irish vagrants, who had neither friend nor relative in the country who could give any account of them. Out of the 16 deaths there was, not one fair unvaccinated case. After all the trouble I took in this matter, neither the Board of Guardians nor the Medical Officers accepted my challenge to have a public enquiry.[8]

Dr. Charles Creighton (1847-1927) was a scholar, historian, and epidemiologist who initially supported vaccines. But after being asked to write an article on the topic for the Encyclopedia Britannica, he exhaustively studied the subject and found vaccination to be in error. On smallpox statistical manipulation, he writes in the said article:

The returns from special smallpox hospitals make out a very small death-rate (6 per cent.) among the vaccinated and a very large death-rate (40 to 60 per cent.) among the unvaccinated. The result is doubtful qua vaccination, for the reason that in pre-vaccination times the death-rate (18.8 per cent.) was almost the same as it is now in the vaccinated and unvaccinated together (18.5). At the Homerton Hospital from 1871 to 1878 there were admitted 793 cases in which “vaccination is stated to have been performed, but without any evidence of its performance”; the deaths in that important contingent were 216, or 27.2 per cent., but they are not permitted to swell the mortality among the “vaccinated.” Again, the explanatory remarks of the medical officer for Birkenhead in 1877 reveal to us the rather surprising fact that his column of “unvaccinated” contained, not only cases that were admittedly not vaccinated, but also those that were “without the faintest mark”; of the 72 cases in that column no fewer than 53 died. His column of “unknown” contained 80 per cent, of patients who protested that they had been vaccinated (28 deaths in 220 cases or 127 per cent.). Those who passed muster as veritably vaccinated were 233, of whom 12 died (51 per cent.). With reference to this question of the marks, it has to be said that cowpox scars may be temporary, that their “goodness “or “badness ” depends chiefly on the texture of the individual’s skin and the thickness or thinness of the original crust, and that the aspect of the scar, or even its total absence some years or even months after, may be altogether misleading as to the size and correctness in other respects of the vaccine vesicle, and of the degree of constitutional disturbance that attended it.  This was candidly recognized by Ceely, and will not be seriously disputed by anyone who knows something of cowpox and of how it has been mitigated, and of the various ways in which the tissues of individuals may react to an inoculated infection. In confluent cases the marks on the arm would be less easily seen.[9]

Was smallpox ever conveniently redefined to make it appear that the smallpox vaccine was effective? According to George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), yes. 

During the last epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council. I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the re-vaccinated cases (of smallpox) as pustular eczema, varioloid or what not — except smallpox.[10] 

M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in The Case Against Vaccination (1936), writes:

Between 1881 and 1924, in England and Wales, out of a total of 20,810 deaths only 5,508 were classified as unvaccinated, and these figures become more striking still when we realise that in deciding the diagnosis of the many “doubtful” cases it has been asserted by one Medical Officer after another that vaccination within ten years practically rules out the possibility of a case being smallpox, and the Ministry of Health itself has admitted that the vaccinal condition is a guiding factor in diagnosis….

Besides the admission of doctors themselves, one of the proofs of the dishonest “cooking” of official records is the attributing of an increasing number of deaths to chicken-pox; in the thirty years ending 1934, 3,112 people are stated to have died of chicken-pox, and only 579 of smallpox, in England and Wales. Yet all authorities are agreed that chicken-pox is a non-fatal disease; Sir William Osier (who himself contracted smallpox, although vaccinated several times) gave it as his opinion that such cases were probably “unrecognised smallpox,” and, he might have added, “in the vaccinated.” It was admitted before the Royal Commission that official doctors did not classify cases as vaccinated unless they could distinguish the marks, and that in severe cases the latter were frequently obscured by the eruption. Yet in spite of these and other sources of error which must be taken into account when examining any tables dividing cases into vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, in England and Wales at the present time the fatality among the vaccinated is over twice as great as among the unvaccinated, i.e., .51 per cent, compared with .21 per cent, for the years 1922-1933.[11]

Of more recent history, there are questions as to whether the CDC tried to suppress the findings of CDC Epidemiologist Dr. Thomas Verstraeten linking vaccines and autism, as well as findings linking Merck’s MMR vaccine to an explosion in autism among African American boys (under 3).[12] (The latter is discussed in the sobering documentary Vaxxed, which is waking up the world to the dangers of vaccines.) 

Perhaps more on statistics regarding non-polio vaccines later in the series (as the polio vaccine is the main focus of this piece). From what we have discussed, however, we should be thinking more critically when it comes to statistics — and know that not even vaccine statistics are immune from being erroneous or fraudulent. In fact, we now turn to statistical manipulation as applied to the polio vaccine itself.

Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Robert Rector, “Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything,” Pasadena Star-News/News (May 24, 2014). Retrieved April 7, 2016, from  http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140524/statistics-can-be-manipulated-to-prove-anything.
[2] Rick Kirschner, Insider’s Guide to the Art of Persuasion: Use your Influence to Change Your World (Ashland, OR: Rick Kirschner, 2007), 134.
[3] Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (Basic Books, New York, NY: 1995), 53.
[4] Archie Kalokerinos, “Interview,” International Vaccine Newsletter (June 1995). Retrieved September 16, 2016, from http://www.whale.to/v/kalokerinos.html.
[5] G. Miller, ed., To Doctor Alexander J. G. Marcet, London, 11 November 1801, Letters of Edward Jenner and Other Documents Concerning the Early History of Vaccination (London, England: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1983), xxxv. Cited in Neil Z. Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 2010, 2015), 32.
[6] Lilly Loat, The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization (1951). Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.whale.to/a/stat2.html.
[7] Cited in Ibid.
[8] Cited in Ibid.
[9] Charles Creighton, “Vaccination,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th Edition (1888). Cited in 1902encyclopedia.com. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/V/VAC/vaccination.html.
[10] G. Miller, ed., To Doctor Alexander J. G. Marcet, London, 11 November 1801, 64. Cited in Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners, 32. 
[11] M. Beddow Bayly, The Case Against Vaccination (1936). Retrieved May 2, 2016, from http://www.whale.to/vaccines/bayly.html. 
[12] Speed The Shift, “The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism,” VisionLaunch (February 8, 2016). Retrieved April 3, 2017, from http://visionlaunch.com/the-conclusive-evidence-linking-vaccines-and-autism/.

“Polio” Conveniently Redefined Following the Release of the Vaccine

It is widely assumed that the polio vaccine vanquished polio. Statistics, after all, support this. However, as we have already discussed, statistics can be easily manipulated. Could this have been the case about statistics favoring the polio vaccine? Did the polio vaccine make polio disappear— or did a stroke of the pen make the polio vaccine’s inability to vanquish polio disappear?

According to a piece in The Vaccine Reaction, 

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. 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 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. …

[I]n 1954 the U.S. government simply redefined polio.[1]

Back in 1961, an article in the Chicago Tribune discusses this redefinition of polio:

The definition of polio also has changed in the last six or seven years. Several diseases which were often diagnosed as polio are now classified as aseptic meningitis or Illnesses caused by one of the Coxsackie or Echo viruses. The number of polio cases in 1961 cannot accurately be compared with those in, say 1952, because the criteria for diagnosis have changed.[2]

The article draws attention to a panel discussion that took place before the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago in May 1960. Titled “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines,” the discussion includes a panel of experts who debunk myths about polio vaccines that society had already come to embrace.

(The experts for this discussion, which we draw on throughout this piece, include panel moderator, Herbert Ratner, M. D., Director of Public Health, Oak Park, and Associate Clinical Professor of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago; Dr. Herald R. Cox, “one of the world’s leading authorities” on live and killed vaccines; Dr. Herman Kleinman, an epidemioloist “intimately connected” with the Minnesota Department of Health’s “pioneering field studies on the Cox live poliovirus vaccine,”; Professor Meier, a biostatistician known for an analysis titled “Safety Testeing of Poliomyelitis Vaccine,”; and Professor Bernard G. Greenberg, “head of the department of statistics of the University of North Carolina, School of Public Health and former chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association,” who has “presented several papers on methodologic problems in the determination of the efficacy of the Salk vaccine.”)[3]

In the discussion, the statistician and professor Bernard G. Greenberg comments on the redefinition of “paralytic poliomyelitis”:

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 mislabled 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.[4] 

(Note that he says that not only was paralytic poliomyelitis redefined, but “diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined.” Indeed, paralytic polio was redefined outright, while non-paralytic polio would be redefined via a more stringent testing criteria.)

This statistical manipulation was not insignificant. As panel moderator Dr. Herbert Ratner notes, the changes were radical (in his words: “radical changes in diagnostic criteria since the introduction of the Salk vaccine.”).[5] 

Greenberg describes the radical differences in diagnosing paralytic polio before and after 1954:

The criterion of diagnosis at that time [prior to 1954] 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. The influence of the field trials is still evident in most health departments; unless there is a residual involvement at least 60 days after onset, a case of poliomyelitis is not considered paralytic.[6] 

Thus in their book discussing the history of vaccines, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk write:

The practice among doctors before 1954 was to diagnose all patients who experienced even short-term paralysis (24 hours) with “polio.” In 1955, the year the Salk vaccine was released, the diagnostic criteria became much more stringent. If there was no residual paralysis 60 days after onset, the disease was not considered to be paralytic polio. This change made a huge difference in the documented prevalence of paralytic polio because most people who experience paralysis recover prior to 60 days.[7]

The epidemiologist Dr. Kleinman, at the same panel discussion as Dr. Greenberg, called the 60 day criterion “absolutely silly”:

I would also like to agree with Dr. Greenberg that the insistence upon a sixty day duration of paralysis for paralytic polio is absolutely silly. There isn’t a doctor in this room who hasn’t seen a case of frank paralytic polio which has not recovered within sixty days, or at least recovered sufficiently so that you could not estimate with clinical certainty that there was some residual paralysis.[8] 

Moreover, in 1962, Clinton R. Miller of the National Health Federation, speaking before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives (87th congress) about polio vaccines, called the redefinition of paralytic polio “like comparing a sneeze and pneumonia.”[9]

Now, it would be hard to make the case that Greeberg, Kleinman, and others were conspiring to falsely make us believe in a new 60 day criterion for diagnosing paralytic polio. Regarding diagnoses of paralytic polio prior to 1955, Greenberg, as was mentioned, quotes the World Health Organization. 

And he didn’t make that quote up. The World Health Organization document, published in 1954, is here (see p. 23 to confirm Greenberg’s quote). Quoting directly from the document, we read: 

A patient is considered clinically to have poliomyelitis for purposes of notification if the symptoms and signs correspond with the following descriptions: …

Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis:Signs and symptoms of non-paralytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.[10]

The Ratner Report points to another source showing that there was no 60-day requirement for diagnosing paralytic polio prior to 1955 [11] from The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt; what we now know as the March of Dimes). In a 1954 pamphlet titled “Definitive and Differential Diagnosis of Poliomyelitis,” the National Foundation makes this similar statement about paralytic poliomyelitis to that of the World Health Organization: 

Paralytic Poliomyelitis

Definition: The signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with evident weakness of one or more groups of muscles.[12]

Nothing in the pamphlet — including the section on classification — refers to a requirement of 60 days for a diagnosis of paralytic polio.

Regarding the diagnosis of paralytic polio post-1955, we find that that very year, a national poliomyelitis surveillance program was created. As noted in a 1967 Public Health Reports piece by those in the National Communicable Disease Center of the Public Health Service,

A NATIONAL Poliomyelitis Surveillance Program was created by the Suregon [Surgeon] General of the Public Health Service in April 1955. Since that time, this program has served not only as a clearinghouse for the collection, analysis, and distribution of epidemiologic information on poliomyelitis in the United States, but also as a means of continuous surveillance of the disease and evaluation of the safety and efficacy of poliomyelitis vaccines. Since May 1, 1955, Poliomyelitis Surveillance Reports have been published regularly and distributed to those charged with responsibility for control of the disease.[13] 

And so, the same piece affirms the 60-day requirement (as well as diagnoses without followup) for diagnosing paralytic polio:

Cases of paralytic poliomyelitis with residual paralysis have been considered the best continuing index of paralytic disease, and they form the basis of the subsequent presentation in this paper. These cases include (a) those with residual paralysis at 60 days and (b) preliminary diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis with no 60-day followup.[14]

The 60-day requirement is further confirmed on the CDC’s website. 

Confirmed [paralytic poliomyelitis]: Acute onset of a flaccid paralysis of one or more limbs with decreased or absent tendon reflexes in the affected limbs, without other apparent cause, and without sensory or cognitive loss; AND in which the patient

• has a neurologic deficit 60 days after onset of initial symptoms, or
• has died, or
• has unknown follow-up status.[15]

Now, to the “elimination” of polio via vaccination. Regarding a graph by the Ratner Report comparing the incidence of poliomyelitis between 1951-1959, vaccine researcher Shawn Siegel writes: “30,000 cases a year we were subsequently told were eliminated by the vaccine.”[16] Statistical manipulation can yield impressive results.

But, it gets worse. Further cultivating the perception that the polio vaccine was effective, the definition of a polio epidemic was changed:

As addressed in the Ratner report, they also changed the definition of a polio epidemic, greatly reducing the likelihood that any subsequent outbreaks would be so labeled – as though the severity, or noteworthiness, of paralytic polio had halved, overnight.[17]

Ratner states this in the report: “Presently [1960], a community is considered to have an epidemic when it has 35 cases of polio per year per 100,000 population.”[18] In a footnote, the report reads:

Prior to the introduction of the Salk vaccine the National Foundation defined an epidemic as 20 or more cases of polio per year per 100,000 population. On this basis there were many epidemics throughout the United States yearly. The present higher rate has resulted in not a real, but a semantic elimination of epidemics.[19]

Moreover, it was very convenient for the polio vaccine that a concerted effort was made to distinguish polio from clinically similar diseases. According to Humphries and Bystrianyk,

After the vaccine, there was a concerted effort to distinguish cases with poliovirus from cases without it. This was not a concern prior to 1958 when many diseases common today hid behind the name poliomyelitis.Transverse myelitis, viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic fatigue syndrome, spinal meningitis, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), enteroviral encephalopathy, traumatic neuritis, Reye’s syndrome, etc., all could have been diagnosed as polio prior to 1958.[20]

And so as Miller sums up:

The new definition [of polio] required the patient to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days, and residual paralysis had to be confirmed twice during the course of the disease. Also, after the vaccine was introduced cases of  aseptic meningitis (an infectious disease often difficult to distinguish from polio) and coxsackie virus infections were more often reported as separate diseases from polio. But such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced. The vaccine’s reported effectiveness was therefore skewed.[21]

(We previously quoted Humphries and Bystrianyk saying that Guillain-Barré syndrome may have been diagnosed as polio pre-1958. It is interesting that the definition for this paralytic disorder has been in flux, theoretically allowing for such a possibility.)[22] 

Since a more stringent definition of paralytic polio occurred following the use of the polio vaccine, we shouldn’t be surprised to find this condition lurking under other names. Interestingly, there is an October 2016 NBC News article titled  “Mysterious Polio-like Illness Paralyzing U.S. Children.” It reads:

At the hospital, the Roberts family was left with more questions than answers. Doctors considered a list of diagnoses from Guillain-Barré Syndrome to various other auto-immune diseases. Finally, after an MRI scan and hours of waiting, Carter was diagnosed with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) — a mysterious muscle weakness, similar to polio — that appears to be on the rise this year.

On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, as of August 2016, there have been 50 cases of confirmed AFM across 24 states. That’s nearly double over 2015, when 21 cases for the whole year were reported.

AFM has been linked to a strain of enterovirus that’s now circulating again. Some doctors are warning this could be the same mysterious, polio-like illness detected in 2014 that paralyzed 120 children.[23]

In 2011, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, in a piece titled, “Smoke, Mirrors, and the “Disappearance” Of Polio,” said this about a chart from the World Health Organization:

Before you believe that polio has been eradicated, have a look at this graph of AFP and Polio. If you are wondering why there is no data prior to 1996, go to the WHO website for AFP and you will see that there is no data prior to 1996, and note that AFP conitnues to rise in 2011. Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) is just another name for what would have been called polio in 1955, and is used to describe a sudden onset of paralysis. It is the most common sign of acute polio, and used for surveillance during polio outbreaks. AFP is also associated with a number of other pathogenic agents including enteroviruses, echoviruses, and adenoviruses, among others. But in 1955, there was no attempt to detect anything other than polio in cases of AFP. Once the vaccine was mass marketed, the game changed.[24]

(See the chart on page 2 here.)

In any case, with the redefinition of paralytic polio post-vaccination reducing the number of paralytic polio cases, some other condition(s) would be bound to “assume responsibility.” In 1960, Dr. Bernard Greenberg considered it to be non-paralytic polio:

[S]imply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. At the same time, the number of nonparalytic cases was bound to increase because any case of poliomyelitis-like disease which could not be classified as paralytic poliomyelitis according to the new criteria was classified as nonparalytic poliomyelitis.[25] 

However, as we now go on to show, the number of non-paralytic polio cases would also be reduced via redefinition.

First, what about an official government statement about the redefinitions of polio? Shawn Siegel writes these interesting comments as to whether Washington required most non-paralytic poliomyelitis cases to be reported as viral or aseptic meningitis from July 1, 1958 onwards:

[T]here is the additional statistical issue of the re-diagnosis of cases of non-paralytic cases of polio as aseptic meningitis – and, I assume, other diseases that display similarly to non-paralytic polio. While I have not been able to locate a CDC or WHO regulation regarding this type of change, in her book, Fear of the Invisible, Janine Roberts quotes the Los Angeles County health authority as having explained: “Most cases reported prior to July 1, 1958 of non-paralytic poliomyelitis are now reported as viral or aseptic meningitis in accordance with instructions from Washington.” I have researched several of the huge number of resources Ms. Roberts provides, and found them accurate, and, the assertion is certainly supported by the following Los Angeles County health authority’s own incidence figures for a), aseptic meningitis, vs b), polio: Jul 1955 a) 50; b) 273Jul 1961 a) 161; b) 65Jul 1963 a) 151; b) 31Sep 1966 a) 256; b) 5 [26]

Of course, some people at the top would have had to have made the changes to the polio definition. Moreover, and very interestingly, the following from the Florida State Board of Health: 1958: Annual Report refers to “a new technique for obtaining” data on “reported or suspected poliomyelitis” “instituted by the U S. Public Health Service.” Conveniently, “many cases reported were later found, by the surveillance method used, to be aseptic meningitis”:

Poliomyelitis again became the communicable disease receiving the major attention of the staff of the Epidemiology office in 1958, after being displaced by influenza in 1957. This resulted for two reasons; first, the incidence of poliomyelitis in 1958 was much higher than in 1957. Second, during 1958 an intensive investigation of each case of reported or suspected poliomyelitis was made for complete clinical, laboratory and epidemiological information. A new technique for obtaining such data was instituted, using the field investigation facilities of the Division of Venereal Disease Control.

This new technique of poliomyelitis surveillance was instituted by the U S. Public Health Service, and is designed to get complete information on each case reported including paralytic status, immunization status, viral isolations, other laboratory confirmation, convalescent status and definitive diagnosis. There is a disparity in the number of surveillance cases in 1958 and the number of poliomyelitis cases reported in the morbidity statistics, since many cases reported were later found, by the surveillance method used, to be aseptic meningitis; or some other disease was later revealed to be poliomyelitis.[27]

This same government report notes that for 1958, “there would have been a large epidemic of poliomyelitis in Florida reported” had it not been for the new ability to differentiate it “from the other viral agents of the aseptic meningitis syndrome.”[28] This is a glaring admission from our public authorities about the enormous potential that the new means of detecting (practically, “redefining”) polio had on significantly reducing polio cases and eliminating polio epidemics (which, of course, would give the appearance of vaccine efficacy):

For the first time, by means of the Virus Laboratory at the State Board of Health in Jacksonville and the one at Variety Children’s Hospital in Miami, it became possible to differentiate non-paralytic poliomyelitis from the other viral agents of the aseptic meningitis syndrome. It is interesting to note that had all these cases been counted as poliomyelitis, as they most certainly would have three years ago, there would have been a large epidemic of poliomyelitis in Florida reported for 1958.[29]

In the next year’s publication of the Florida State Board of Health, the government report is very explicit that Dade County and perhaps other areas in Florida redefined non-paralytic poliomyelitis. In the report, State Health Officer Wilson T. Sowder writes:

In 1958, Dade County, and perhaps other areas in the state as well, began to report as aspetic meningitis what formerly had been diagnosed as non-paralytic poliomyelitis.[30]

Earlier, a 1956 report (“Poliomyelitis and Polio-Like Diseases Differentiated Through Virus Laboratory Studies: Report of the Washington State Polio Surveillance Study — 1956”) exemplifies the movement to redefine non-paralytic polio, which would be adopted to one degree or another by government agencies. It begins with the following:

Virus laboratory studies yield much information on paralytic and nonparalytic poliomyelitis. The latter term is erroneous and should be replaced by the diagnosis of aseptic meningitis.[31] 

The report then states:

Recovery and identification of the Coxsackie viruses from stool specimens in 1947, and later the ECHO (entero-cytopatho-genic-human-oprhan) viruses, gave increased support to the suspicion that many cases of illness diagnosed heretofore as non-paralytic poliomyelitis were actually diseases produced by viruses other than poliovirus. Since the introduction of the use of vaccine against poliomyelitis is still so recent, it remains necessary to accumulate accurate observations as to its efficacy, duration of protection, proper dosage and the like.[32]

Later, the report says:

Poliomyelitis must be differentiated from a wide variety of illnesses which are accompanied by symptoms common to both. In some instances the differentiation can be made by observation of the progress of the illness; however, in many instances a differentiation can be made only with the aid of the virus laboratory.[33]

In the report’s study, the following “polio-like” diseases would be differentiated from polio: viral enteritis, influenza, mumps meningoencephalitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, chickenpox meningitis, abscessed tooth, serratus anterior palsy, TB meningitis, trauma left hip, rheumatic fever, neuritis, intestinal parasites, abscess left hip, viral hepatitis, pleurodynia, sickle-cell anemia, and fever, undetermined origin.[34]  

In conclusion, the report reiterates the newfound ability to “differentiate” polio from other polio-like disease, and notes the push by the World Health Organization Expert Committee on Poliomyelitis to replace the term with “aseptic meningitis”; the report then gives an example of a government agency adopting this approach (the Washington State Board of Health):

Results of the study indicate that polio-like disease caused by viruses other than poliovirus occur during the same seasonal period and have been classified clinically as non-paralytic or suspect poliomyelitis. Through the use of the virus laboratory it is now possible to differentiate some of these diseases from poliomyelitis. …

The findings of this study support the contention of the World Health Organization Expert Committee on Poliomyelitis that the disease category of non-paralytic poliomyelitis, so frequently used in the past, is a syndrome caused by infection with a variety of viruses and other agents, and that the use of the designation non-paralytic poliomyelitis should be dropped in favor of the more definitive term aseptic meningitis qualified by the designation of etiology as demonstrated, suspected or unknown. 

In line with this thinking, the Washington State Board of Health has recently made the aseptic meningitis syndrome a reportable disease.[35] 

Indeed, Dr. Herman Kleinman, in a 1958 presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Minnesota State Medical Association, states, “Clinically, aseptic meningitis due to Coxsackie B5 virus and nonparalytic poliomyelitis cannot be told apart.”[36]

Moreover, Shawn Siegel points out a 1979 piece on the CDC website that links aseptic meningitis with non-paralytic polio:

Vis-a-vis the re-labeling of non-paralytic polio as meningitis, you’ll find the correlation plainly stated – “The Pennsylvania Department of Health’s most recent report is of a case of non-paralytic polio (aseptic meningitis) in a 36-year-old,…” in the following CDC MMWR supplement: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/lmrk061.htm [37]

Not only this, but apparently Canada was in on redefining polio after it began its own polio vaccine campaign (in 1955). This is said in a publication by Ottawa’s Dominion Bureau of Statistics in June 1959:

It may be noted that the Dominion Council of Health at its 74th meeting in October 1958 recommended that for the purposes of national reporting and statistics the term non-paralytic poliomyelitis be replaced by “meningitis, viral or aseptic” with the specific viruses shown where known.[38]

Was polio redefined to likewise make the polio vaccine appear effective in India? It may very well be the case. In an article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, two paediatricians, Dr Neetu Vashisht and Dr Jacob Puliyl of the Department of Paediatrics of St Stephens Hospital in Delhi, write that there has been an increase in “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” “Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly,” “directly proportional to doses of oral polio received”:

[W]hile India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.[39]

Thus, we find in Indian’s vaccination program that “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” is a euphemism for a deadlier form of polio caused by the vaccine itself.

We previously noted that, according to Humphries and Bystrianyk, Guillain-Barré syndrome may have previously been diagnosed as polio prior to 1958. Did China adopt this tactic? While I would like to see more information on this possibility, Greg Beattie writes the following:

Health officials had convinced the Chinese to rename the bulk of their polio to Guillaine-Barre Syndrome. This went along without a hitch for some time, until a research team suggested giving it a separate name – Chinese Paralytic Syndrome. This prompted an even closer look at the data. A later study (in Hebei province) found that both the new disorder and the Guillaine-Barre Syndrome was really polio. They came to their conclusion by looking at the trends in polio from 1955-90 and noted that, after mass vaccination started in 1971, reports of polio went down but Guillaine-Barre syndrome increased about 10-fold. Once again, polio was still there but wearing a different name tag.[40] 

Moreover, we find in an article for “Neurology” (1989):

Concomitant with a nationwide oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) campaign in Finland in 1985, an unexpected rise in the number of patients hospitalized with the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) occurred. An analysis based on hospital records covering a population of 1.17 million and 6 years revealed a significantly increased incidence of GBS coinciding with the OPV campaign.[41] 

It wouldn’t surprise me if all countries that vaccinate for polio have adopted this redefinition tactic. If the authorities in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere had to redefine polio in order to make the polio vaccine “work,” then it follows that other nations would have to do the same. 

We must also point out that, while polio vaccine lore may tell us that, thanks to the vaccine, there are no more iron lungs, the iron lung has simply been replaced by ventilators. Humphries and Bystrianyk write, 

We no longer have iron lungs that look like miniature space rockets, the continuous images of which could instill morbid fear in any parent. Instead, we have small boxes with tubes going directly into the airway, called ventilators. So, when a child is admitted to the hospital with compromised respiratory muscles or brainstem afflictions, instead of being put into an iron lung, she is connected to a ventilator. Although this is still frightening, it does not elicit the trepidation of the iron lung. …

Does the public have any idea that there are hundreds of cases of something that is now called transverse myelitis that would have historically been called polio and is now leaving children permanently dependent on a modern version of the iron lung?[42]

Humphries and Bystrianyk continue, quoting from the Transverse Myelitis Fact Sheet, National Institutes of Health:

Approximately 33,000 people are afflicted by transverse myelitis in the United States, with 1,400 new cases per year. The symptoms of this disease are described by the National Institutes of Health.

” . . . loss of spinal cord function over several hours to several weeks. What usually begins as a sudden onset of lower back pain, muscle weakness, or abnormal sensations in the toes and feet can rapidly progress to more severe symptoms, including paralysis, urinary retention, and loss of bowel control. Although some patients recover from transverse myelitis with minor or no residual problems, others suffer permanent impairments that affect their ability to perform ordinary tasks of daily living.”

This is but one disease that would have been called polio in the years leading up to 1954.  What causes transverse myelitis?

“Researchers are uncertain of the exact causes of transverse myelitis. The inflammation that causes such extensive damage to nerve fibers of the spinal cord may result from viral infections or abnormal immune reactions. Transverse myelitis also may occur as a complication of syphilis, measles, Lyme disease, and vaccinations. Cases in which a cause cannot be identified are called idiopathic.”[43]

Douglas Kerr, M.D., Ph.D., in describing his work directing the Johns Hopkins Transverse Myelitis (TM) Center, refers to an increasingly paralyzing disorder requiring some to be dependent on a ventilator: 

As a faculty neurologist and neuroscientist at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland, I have spent the last decade evaluating and treating patients with autoimmune disorders of the nervous system. I founded and continue to direct the Johns Hopkins Transverse Myelitis (TM) Center, the only center in the world dedicated to developing new therapies for this paralyzing autoimmune disorder. Increasingly, I see that more and more patients are being felled by this devastating disorder. Infants as young as five months old can get TM and some are left permanently paralyzed and dependent upon a ventilator to breathe. But this is supposed to be a rare disorder, reportedly affecting only one in a million people. Prior to the 1950s, there were a grand total of four cases reported in the medical literature. Currently, my colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and I hear about or treat hundreds of new cases every year. In the multiple sclerosis clinic, where I also see patients, the number of cases likewise continues to climb.[44]

For whatever reason (and there could be many), vaccination serves the purposes of the powers that be. Deception is a natural occurrence in an unnatural, fallen world. And, sadly, so is a willingness to be deceived. Accordingly, we turn to our next section.

Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Marco Cáceres, Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined (The Vaccine Reaction, July 9, 2015). Retrieved January 6, 2015, from http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/07/polio-wasnt-vanquished-it-was-redefined
[2] Joan Beck, The Truth About the Polio Vaccines (Chicago Tribune, March 5, 1961), volume CXX, no. 10, p. 8. Retrieved January 6, 2015, from http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1961/03/05/page/62/article/the-truth-about-the-polio-vaccines. The piece also discussed the difficulty in measuring the Salk vaccine’s success due to the different versions of the vaccine:

“Even the Salk vaccine itself is not a constant, standard product. Since the first field trials of 1954, the vaccine has been changed several times. The first alterations were aimed at increasing the vaccine’s safety by changing the method of killing the polio virus and by adding an extra filtration step. Newer changes are intended to increase the vaccine’s effectiveness. The success of the Salk vaccine necessarily varies, depending upon which Salk vaccine is being considered.” (Ibid.) 

[3] Herbert Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (Presented before the Section on Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the 120th annual meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago, IL: May 26, 1960) (panel discussion edited from a transcript), Illinois Medical Journal (August 1960): 84. Available online at http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/uploads/2/8/8/8/2888885/ratner_1960.pdf.
[4] Ibid., 88.
[5] Ibid., 85.
[6] Ibid., 88.
[7] Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, 2013), 232.
[8] Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines”, 90 (footnote)
[9] Clinton R. Miller, “Statement of Clinton R. Miller, Assistant to the President, National Health Federation, Washington, D.C.” (Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541), 83. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.
[10] World Health Organization, “Expert Committee on Poliomyelitis: First Report,” World Health Organization Technical Report Series, no. 81. (Geneva, World Health Organization, April, 1954), 23. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/40241/1/WHO_TRS_81.pdf
[11] Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines”, 1-2 (endnotes section).
[12] The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, “Definitive and Differential Diagnosis of Poliomyelitis” (New York, NY: The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, 1954), 5.
[13] Leo Morris, John J. Witte, Pierce Gardner, George Miller, and Donald A. Henderson, “Surveillance of Poliomyelitis in the United States, 1962-65,” Public Health Reports, Vol. 82, No. 5 (May 1967), 417. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1919968&blobtype=pdf
[14] Ibid., 419. We also find in a publication by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service (1962), 

“There were 829 paralytic cases of poliomyelitis submitted on individual case forms to the Poliomyelitis Surveillance Unit of the Communicable Disease Center during 1961. These cases have been corrected for verification of diagnosis sixty days or longer after onset of illness. When such a follow-up report was not submitted, the preliminary diagnosis has been retained.”

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service, “Paralytic Poliomyelitis – 1961,” Morbidity and Mortality, vol. 11, no. 15 (April 20, 1962, Atlanta, GA), 115. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00010654/00258/3x.
[15] Gregory S Wallace and M. Steven Oberste, Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: Chapter 12: Poliomyelitis. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Retrieved January 11, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt12-polio.html
[16] Shawn Siegel, The CDC Made These Two Radical Changes and 30,000 Diagnoses of Polio Instantly Disappeared (Vactruth, July 5, 2015). Retrieved http://vactruth.com/2015/07/05/cdc-made-polio-disappear/
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ratner, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines”, 86.
[19] Ibid., footnote.
[20] Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, 2013), 234.
[21] Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners, 53. 
[22] “In 1960 Osler and Sidell proposed rather strict diagnostic criteria to prevent the label Guillain-Barre syndrome being too widely applied. … Each subsequent reviewer proposed slightly different criteria. When an epidemic of cases of GBS occurred in the USA in 1976 following the swine influenza vaccination programme [!!!], the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke charged a committee to produce an ad hoc definition to permit epidemiological studies.”
Richard A.C. Hughes, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (Springer-Verlag London, 1990), no page number listed (retrieved from an online version of the book). Retrieved February 1, 2017, from https://books.google.com/books?id=h1V-BgAAQBAJ&pg=PT37&dq=Guillain-Barr%C3%A9+definition+change+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFnr7rrszRAhWIOSYKHY2kDx4Q6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=Guillain-Barr%C3%A9%20definition%20change%20history&f=false.
[23] Lauren Dunn and Parminder Deo, “Mysterious Polio-like Illness Paralyzing U.S. Children,” NBC News (Oct. 3, 2016). Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/mysterious-polio-illness-paralyzing-u-s-children-n658766. 
[24] Suzanne Humphries, “Smoke, Mirrors, and the ‘Disappearance’ Of Polio,” International Medical Council on Vaccination (November 17, 2011). Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/11/17/smoke-mirrors-and-the-disappearance-of-polio/.
Note: this site has since been hijacked by pro-vaxxers. Access the information on page 2 here: http://drsuzanne.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Smoke-Mirrors-and-the-%E2%80%9CDisappearance%E2%80%9D-Of-Polio-_-International-Medical-Council.pdf
[25] Ratner, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines”, 88.
[26] Shawn Siegel, A Stroke of the Pen : Polio (February 8, 2012). Retrieved September 27, 2016, from https://www.facebook.com/notes/shawn-siegel/a-stroke-of-the-pen-polio/365804180113722.
[27] Wilson T. Sowder, “Bureau of Preventable Diseases: Epidemiology,” in Florida State Board of Health: 1958: Annual Report (Jacksonville, FL: May 1, 1959), 94. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from https://archive.org/stream/annualreportstat1958flor#page/n69/mode/1up/search/This+new+technique+of+poliomyelitis.
[28] Wilson T. Sowder, “Bureau of Preventable Diseases: Aseptic Meningitis,” in Ibid., 97.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Wilson T. Sowder, “Special Communicable Disease Activities: Poliomyelitis,” in Florida State Board of Health: 1959: Annual Report (Jacksonville, FL: May 1, 1960), 83, 84. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000243/00029/93j.
[31] W. R. Giedt, D. N. Wysham, and Jack Allard, “Poliomyelitis and Polio-Like Diseases Differentiated Through Virus Laboratory Studies: Report of the Washington State Polio Surveillance Study — 1956,” Northwest Medicine, ed. Herbert L. Hartley, vol. 57, no. 1 (Portland, OR: January 1958): 725. Retrieved January 30, 2017, from https://archive.org/details/northwestmedicin5719nort.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid., 730.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid., 730, 731. In 1958, Dr. Herman Kleinman states:

“The poliomyelitis surveillance unit of the Minnesota Department of Health was established in 1955 for the express purpose of watching with considerable epidemiologic and laboratory detail, the course of poliomyelitis as it might be influenced by the Salk vaccine which came into first use in Minnesota during 1955. This basic purpose was followed in 1956 and in 1957. But the inevitable march of events forced this unit into excursions into the field of aseptic meningitis due to viruses other than the poliovirus. In fact, it was surveillance routine that enabled the early appreciation of the existence of these problems. Had it not been so, the studies on Coxsackie B5 and ECHO 9 aseptic meningitis would have been retrospective, a distinct disadvantage. 

“The dynamism in the enterovirus field will require physicians, laboratory workers, and public health workers to reorient themselves and be prepared to work toward a further reduction in the size of the “cause undetermined” category of virus diseases particularly in that class known as aseptic meningitis. More emphasis will have to be placed on the need for establishing an etiologic diagnosis in individual cases. …

“Finally, from the administrative standpoint, it has been suggested that in the future poliomyelitis be reported as such only when the disease is paralytic and that all nonparalytic conditions be reported under some general term such as aseptic meningitis. At a later date, then, the aseptic meningitis report could be qualified by designating the etiology, if it can be determined. This scheme certainly seems reasonable under present circumstances and would have the merit of bringing to the attention of health departments and epidemiologists cases which might remain unknown because the present regulations do not require a report. This procedure, too, fits in with the present diagnostic temper of physicians.”

Herman Kleinman, “Current Virus Disease Problems in Minnesota” (Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Minnesota State Medical Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 23, 1958), Minnesota Medicine, ed. Arthur H. Wells, vol. 42 (Saint Paul, MN: The Minnesota State Medical Association, January-December 1959): 81, 82. Retrieved January 30, 2017, from https://archive.org/details/minnesotamedicin4211minn

[36] Herman Kleinman, “Current Virus Disease Problems in Minnesota” (Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Minnesota State Medical Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 23, 1958), Minnesota Medicine, ed. Arthur H. Wells, vol. 42 (Saint Paul, MN: The Minnesota State Medical Association, January-December 1959): 80. Retrieved January 30, 2017, from https://archive.org/details/minnesotamedicin4211minn.
[37] Shawn Siegel, “Polio,” Great Mothers Questioning Vaccines. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from http://greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/polio.html.
[38] Dominion Bureau of Statistics, “Poliomyelitis Trends, 1958” (Ottawa, Canada: Authority of the Hon. Gordon Churchill, Minister of Trade and Commerce, June 1959), 1, Catalog Number 82-204. Because I was not able to locate the original source online, I verified its authenticity by seeing the primary source via the Library of Congress.
[39] Neetu Vashisht and Dr Jacob Puliyl, “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on,” Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 9, no 2 (2012). Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/articles/polio-programme-let-us-declare-victory-and-move-on/?galley=html. 
[40] Greg Beattie, Vaccination, 68. Cited at www.whale.to. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gbs.htm. 
[41] Kinnunen E., Färkkilä M., Hovi T., Juntunen J., and Weckström P., “Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome during a nationwide oral poliovirus vaccine campaign” Neurology. 1989 Aug;39(8):1034-6. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2788248. 
[42] Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, “The ‘Disappearance’ of Polio,” Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, 2013), (online pdf version), 23-25. Available at https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/11/DissolvingIllusions-Polio.pdf. 
[43] Ibid., 25, 26. Fact sheet quoted from Transverse Myelitis Fact Sheet, National Institutes of Health, www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/transversemyelitis/detail_transversemyelitis.htm. [44] Douglas Kerr, “Foreword to The Autoimmune Epidemic,” Donna Jackson Nakazawa (2007). Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://donnajacksonnakazawa.com/the-autoimmune-epidemic-excerpt/.

Pro-Polio Vaccine Bias From the Outset: Clouding Objectivity, Stifling Opposition

According to a 1961 piece in the Chicago Tribune, the general public was not usually privy to objections to the Salk polio vaccine from skeptical physicians:

Ever since the public was first informed about the Salk vaccine in the Francis report of April 12, 1955, the National Foundation has praised its effectiveness and urged parents to have themselves and their children vaccinated. Altho[ugh] some physicians remained skeptical about the original theories behind the vaccine, about the techniques used in its evaluation, and about its success in combating polio, these objections seldom reached the general public. With the resurgence of paralytic polio in 1958 and 1959, the criticisms increased.[1] 

Due to not getting the full story about the Salk vaccine, the general public would naturally see the vaccine as “marvelous.” Biostatistician Professor Meier provides his perspective:

The thing that impresses me most about this question of polio vaccine is a problem that has been discussed only by indirection. How is it that today you hear from members of this panel that the Salk vaccine situation is confused; yet what everybody knows from reading the newspapers, and has known since the vaccine was introduced, is that the situation as far as the Salk vaccine is concerned was and is marvelous? The reason for this discrepancy lies, I think, in a new attitude of many public health and publicity men. It is hard to convince the public that something is good. Consequently, the best way to push forward a new program is to decide on what you think the best decision is and not question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issues.[2] 

Meier, a biostatistician known for an analysis titled “Safety Testing of Poliomyelitis Vaccine,” took issue with the hasty, unwarranted release of the vaccine, even though it was not proven safe — which led to “a spring outbreak of vaccine-induced cases.” According to Meier, this was due to the stifling of vaccine criticism, and the failure to double check whether Dr. Salk did in fact correctly assess his vaccine:

In this particular issue, what troubled me was moving ahead when the error was there before us in the paper that undertook to demonstrate safety.

The reason for this unhappy situation lies first in the attitude I referred to earlier: that dissent and discussion in public are unwelcome. Secondly, I think it lies in the diffusion of responsibility that has resulted from the committee system of promoting new measures. In this case a large committee was involved, but no single member took it upon himself to check the problem all the way through. Although Dr. Salk felt he had, no one else double checked him. Even more serious evidence than that which Salk provided in public emerged later: the presence of live virus in vaccine manufactured in strict accordance with the protocols. To be sure, these lots of vaccine were not distributed for the field trials in 1954. Notwithstanding, this experience demonstrated unequivocally that the method itself was not safe. Furthermore, most of you know that the triple safety checking of the vaccine used in the field trials by the manufacturer, Dr. Salk’s laboratory, and the Public Health Service was dropped in the licensing procedure. Most of the lots distributed in 1955 were tested only by the manufacturer. It was no surprise, then, that we had a spring outbreak of vaccine-induced cases. The only surprise was that there wasn’t more.[3] 

The bias doesn’t appear to be restricted to safety testing and stifling dissent, if what Greenberg says in the Ratner Report is correct. According to him, the publicity for the Salk polio vaccine resulted in both physicians and the general public having difficulty believing that the vaccine was ineffective: 

There is still another reason for the decrease in the reported paralytic poliomyelitis cases in 1955-1957. As a result of the publicity given the Salk vaccine, the public questioned the possibility of a vaccinated child developing paralytic poliomyelitis. Whenever such an event occurred, every effort was made to ascertain whether or not the disease was truly paralytic poliomyelitis. In fact, I am certain that many health officers and physicians here will ask routinely if a child has been vaccinated when signs of poliomyelitis are present during the summer months. We have been conditioned today to screen out false positive cases in a way that was not even imagined prior to 1954.[4] 

In its Bibliography and Notes section, the Ratner Report quotes from a report submitted to the National Foundation from a one J.L. Melnick titled “Epidemic Poliomyelitis Among Vaccinated Children in Israel” (Oct. 9, 1958):

There is no doubt that a severe type I poliovirus epidemic occurred among vaccinated children in Israel in 1958 … Although Israel practiced wide-scale vaccination against poliomyelitis in 1957 and 1958 — with apparent success in 1957 — a severe epidemic in 1958 overrode the immunity attained … From the available evidence, it appears that if vaccinated children from the United States or elsewhere were subjected to the same virus exposure that the children of Israel had in 1958, severe epidemic poliomyelitis would break out among them.[5] 

However, despite this failure of the polio vaccine in Israel, according to the Ratner Report, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had kept this report “confidential,” displaying bias in favor of the polio vaccine:

The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis has prided itself on keeping the public and physicians informed about the Salk vaccine. During 1955 and 1956, for instance, the Foundation distributed to all physicians in the U.S. four booklets entitled New Information for Physicians on the Salk Poliomyelitis Vaccine. The purpose, as is expressed in these booklets, is as follows (Introduction, No. 2, Jan. 1956): “Since every physician must decide for himself how extensively he wishes to participate in … endeavors to provide protection against paralytic poliomyelitis, a background of scientific information on the Salk vaccine is essential.” That they have kept Dr. Melnick’s report “restricted” and “confidential” confirms the belief of critical observers that their true purpose is to present a favorable picture of the Salk vaccine through a one-sided, biased selection of materials. An additional example of such selection is documented in an editorial in Northwest Medicine, 56:680, June 1957.[6] 

Dr. Herbert Ratner, Public Health Director (Oak Park, Ill) complained in 1957 of a booklet distributed to doctors by the pro-polio-vaccine National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that omitted a section that could cast doubt on the data included:

The truth of the conclusions of medical science rests on the solidity of the assumptions leading to the conclusions. It came as a surprise, therefore, to receive in the mail today an informational booklet for physicians that deletes from a purportedly and otherwise completely reproduced article a short paragraph that discusses the assumptions that are introduced by the authors to guard against the unwary acceptance of the conclusions. The reader is not informed of the deletion. 

The booklet is the latest publication of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. It is number 4 of a series entitled Information for Physicians on the Salk Poliomyelitis Vaccine (February, 1957). The editor is Dr. Thomas M. Rivers, medical director of the National Foundation. The article is “A Preliminary Report on Surveillance of Poliomyelitis in the United States in 1956,” prepared by members of the Poliomyelitis Surveillance Unit of the United States Public Health Service. This report originally appeared in mimeographed form for release on Jan. 26, 1957, and was distributed by the Poliomyelitis Surveillance Unit to public health officials and others. The section that is deleted is as follows:

“Assumptions underlying these analyses introduce several sources of potential bias. Case reports were received through morbidity reporting systems of widely varying accuracy. Overall population figures and vaccine usage figures (particularly for commercial supples of vaccine) were necessarily estimates. Variations in geographic and age-specific vaccination and attack rates could not be completely accounted for. Risk of exposure was assumed to be equal in the two populations and constant throughout the study period. Although attempts have been made to minimize the effect of these sources of errors, interpretations of the results must necessarily be guarded.”[7] 

Thomas M. Rivers of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis said that the deletion of this vital information was to “meet space requirements” and that the full text would be published: 

In order to meet space requirements of the publication Information for Physicians on the Salk Poliomyelitis Vaccine, number 4, February, 1957, two paragraphs and two charts included in the original mimeographed manuscript version of the article, “A Preliminary Report on the Surveillance of Poliomyelitis in the United States in 1956,” by Alexander Langmuir and associates at the Communicable Disease Center of the U.S. Public Health Service, were omitted with the knowledge and consent of the authors. The full text of the report is scheduled for publication in Public Health Reports.[8] 

In an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1956, Dr. Ratner writes that inconsistent reporting led to the medical profession and the general public believing that the polio vaccine was safe and effective:

During the week of November 14, 1955, at meetings of the American Public Health Association in Kansas City, the U.S. Public Health Service released two reports on poliomyelitis. One report on November 15 presented by Dr. Langmuir’s group from the Poliomyelitis Surveillance Committee stressed the great effectiveness of one inoculation of the Salk vaccine used in 1955, namely, a 50- to 80-percent reduction in paralytic poliomyelitis. The other report on November 17, presented by Dr. Scheele, stressed the safety of the current Salk vaccine. The widespread national publicity that followed these reports naturally led the public and medical profession at large to believe that we now had a safe and highly effective vaccine. However, what was not made sufficiently clear in the reports and the press stories that covered the country was that the first report, stressing excellent effectiveness, referred to an earlier model of a Salk vaccine and that the second report, stressing current safety, referred to a later model.[9] 

Dr. Ratner goes on to sum up the consequences for bias in favor of polio vaccines:

[W]e should recognize that only one side of the ledger is being presented by the promoters of this vaccine. The price that has been paid and the risks that have been taken for the dubious results that have been obtained are not mentioned. The price that we have paid, and are continuing to pay, goes far beyond those known vaccinated children who have come down with poliomyelitis.[10] 

One thing that people must understand about doctors is that they do not arrive at their conclusions on vaccines based on getting all the facts in medical school. Rather, they blindly defer to what other “authorities” tell them (intelligence does not equate to wisdom). Not long after the polio vaccine’s release, Professor Meier states:

It seems to me that the state and local health officers are at levels different from USPHS and in much the same position as my children’s pediatrician. He said, “We are very disappointed in the Salk vaccine; we are very unhappy with it; but what can we do? The people who have the evidence, who have the knowledge, who should be able to judge, say use it. I am in no position to second guess them and to make a different decision. I have to recommend it and I have to use it.”[11]

In 1962, Clinton R. Miller of the National Health Federation spoke before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives (87th congress). He raised concerns about both the polio vaccine propaganda machine, and its dangerous fruits — including suppression of relevant opposition, ignoring dangers of the vaccine, intolerance of those who disagree, and tyranny:

In mass vaccination programs it is common practice to omit or ignore such information in presenting the case for vaccination to the public. There is a tendency to let the “experts” make the decisions, after which they summarize the evidence with such press release statements as ‘absolutely safe,’ and other statements designed not to educate, but to inspire absolute confidence. 

We point out that the tendency of a mass vaccination program is to herd people. People are not cattle or sheep. They should not be herded. A mass vaccination program carries a built-in temptation to oversimplify the problem; to exaggerate the benefits; to minimize or completely ignore the hazards; to discourage or silence scholarly, thoughtful and cautious opposition; to create an urgency where none exists; to whip up an enthusiasm among citizens that can carry with it the seeds of impatience, if not intolerance; to extend the concept of the police power of the state in quarantine far beyond its proper limitation; to assume simplicity when there is actually great complexity; to continue support of a vaccine long after it has been discredited;… and to ridicule honest and informed dissent.[12] 

Nothing has changed in our day; facts that would cast serious doubts on the polio vaccine remain suppressed; and those who independently consider and research the matter are mocked and vilified — and might further be considered enemies of the state. Somehow, thoughtfulness is ignorance, and ignorance is thoughtfulness. 

To stifle opposition, doctors hide behind their credentials (“I’m the doctor and you are too stupid to assess the facts”); critical thinking is dismissed with such mindless remarks as “conspiracy mongering.” The polio vaccine — and vaccines in general — have been elevated to an idol that cannot be questioned.


Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Joan Beck, The Truth About the Polio Vaccines (Chicago Tribune, March 5, 1961), volume CXX, no. 10, p. 8.
[2] Herbert Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (Presented before the Section on Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the 120th annual meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago, IL: May 26, 1960) (panel discussion edited from a transcript), Illinois Medical Journal (August 1960): 92. Available online at http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/uploads/2/8/8/8/2888885/ratner_1960.pdf.
[3] Ibid., 93.
[4] Ibid., 89.
[5] Ibid., Bibliography and Notes, 2.
[6] Ibid.
[7] J.A.M.A, “Booklet No. 4 on Salk Vaccine” (April 13, 1957) (The Jama Network). Retrieved February 22, from  http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/320675.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Herbert Ratner, “Poliomyelitis Vaccine,” Journal of the American Medical Association (Jan. 21, 1956). Cited in Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541, 87. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.
[10] Ibid., 89.
[11] Ibid., 161.  [12] Clinton R. Miller, “Statement of Clinton R. Miller, Assistant to the President, National Health Federation, Washington, D.C.” (Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541), 86. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.

Challenges to Polio Vaccine Efficacy

Not even redefining polio, however, was enough (at least to those who were looking) to hide the fact that there were serious challenges to the polio vaccine’s efficacy after its release. 

Early in the panel discussion that we have been discussing before the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago in May 1960, the moderator, Dr. Herbert Ratner, points out the “sobering” evidence of the failure of polio vaccines to live up to their expectations; a large number of those infected with polio had been vaccinated multiple times:

The reason for this panel on the present status of polio vaccines is best expressed by a quote from Dr. Alexander Langmuir. He is in charge of polio surveillance for the USPHS, and has been an ardent proponent of the Salk vaccine even prior to the Francis report of 1955. In a symposium on polio in New Jersey last month he stated that a current resurgence of the disease, particularly the paralytic form, provides “cause for immediate concern” and that the upward polio trend in the United States during the past two years “has been a sobering experience for the overenthusiastic health officers and epidemiologists alike.”

In the fall of 1955 Dr. Langmuir had predicted that by 1957 there would be less than 100 cases of paralytic polio in the United States. As you know, four years and 300 million doses of Salk vaccine later, we had in 1959 approximately 6,000 cases of paralytic polio, 1,000 of which were in persons who had received three, four, and more shots of the Salk vaccine. So you see, expectancy of the Salk vaccine has not lived up to actuality, and Dr. Langmuir was right when he said the figures of 1959 were sobering.[1] 

One of the panelists was Professor Bernard G. Greenberg, whom, as we noted, “presented several papers on methodologic problems in the determination of the efficacy of the Salk vaccine.”[2] In the panel discussion, Greenberg points to the rise in paralytic poliomyelitus despite the use of the polio vaccine — as well as fallacies in the media campaign to persuade the public to receive polio vaccinations:

There has been a rise during the past two years in the incidence rates of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States. …

As a result of this trend in paralytic poliomyelitis, various officials in the Public Health Service, official health agencies, and one large voluntary health organization have been utilizing the press, radio, television, and other media to sound an alarm bell in an heroic effort to persuade more Americans to take advantage of the vaccination procedures available to them. …

[T]he misinformation and unjustified conclusions about the cause of this rise in incidence give concern to those interested in a sound program based on logic and fact rather than personal opinion and prejudice.

One of the most obvious pieces of misinformation being delivered to the American public is that the 50 per cent rise in paralytic poliomyelitis in 1958 and the real accelerated increase in 1959 have been caused by persons failing to be vaccinated. This represents a certain amount of “double talk” and an unwillingness to face facts and to evaluate the true effectiveness of the Salk vaccine. It is double talk from the standpoint of logical reasoning: If the Salk vaccine is to take credit for the decline from 1955-1957, how can those individuals who were vaccinated several years ago contribute to the increase in 1958 and 1959? Are not those persons still vaccinated? 

The number of persons over two years of age in 1960 who have not been vaccinated cannot be more, and must be considerably less, than the number who had no vaccination in 1957. Yet, a recent Associated Press release to warn about the impending threat referred to the idea that the “main reason is that millions of children and adults have never been vaccinated.” If they were never vaccinated, undoubtedly many more than were reported were unvaccinated during 1955, 1956, and 1957 when the same officials were claiming that reduction in rates was due to the vaccine. …

A scientific examination of the data, and the manner in which the data were manipulated, will reveal that the true effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly overrated.[3] 

Also present during the panel discussion was Dr. Herman Kleinman, an epidemiologist from the Minnesota Department of Health. Kleinman was “intimately connected with that department’s pioneering field studies on the Cox live poliovirus vaccine.”[4] Kleinman was skeptical about the polio vaccine for reasons of statistics, the increase in paralytic polio, and laboratory findings:

If polio antibodies mean anything in respect to protection, then I am forced to conclude that much of the Salk vaccine we have been using is useless. For two years now we have done antibody titrations on children who have received three or more doses of Salk vaccine. These titrations show that over 50 per cent do not have antibodies to Types I and III and that 20 per cent lack antibodies to Type II poliovirus. This is a very disturbing fact. When a phenomenon like this occurs two years in a row, one has reason to believe that the material we are injecting is not an antigenic preparation.[5] 

Moreover, as we previously noted, J.L. Melnick writes in his piece titled “Epidemic Poliomyelitis Among Vaccinated Children in Israel”: 

Although Israel practiced wide-scale vaccination against poliomyelitis in 1957 and 1958 — with apparent success in 1957 — a severe epidemic in 1958 overrode the immunity attained.[6]

We must further add that the problems with the polio vaccine’s efficacy are easily concealed with the redefinition of polio. 

But — it gets worse. As we see in the next two sections, while the polio vaccine has questionable efficacy to prevent polio, it has been unquestionably efficacious in spreading polio.


Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Herbert Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (Presented before the Section on Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the 120th annual meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago, IL: May 26, 1960) (panel discussion edited from a transcript), 84, 85. Available online at http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/uploads/2/8/8/8/2888885/ratner_1960.pdf.
[2] Ibid., 84.
[3] Ibid., 86, 87.
[4] Ibid., 84.
[5] Ibid., 90.
[6] Ibid., Bibliography and Notes, 2.

Polio Vaccine Deadly, and Spreads Polio 

So was the polio vaccine campaign “safe and effective” — or, was it dangerous and a spreader of the polio virus”? While we are told the former — and expected to accept it, no questions asked — evidence points to the contrary. According to Neil Z. Miller:

When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in the U.S. as a whole. For example, Vermont reported 15 cases of polio during the one-year report period ending August 30, 1954 (before mass inoculations), compared to 55 cases of polio during the one-year period ending August 30, 1955 (after mass inoculations) — a 266% increase. Rhode Island reported 22 cases during the before inoculations period as compared to 122 cases during the after inoculations period — 454% increase. In New Hampshire the figures increased from 38 to 129; in Connecticut they rose from 144 to 276; and in Massachusetts they  swelled  from 273  to 2027 — a whopping 642% increase (Figure 9).

Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institutes of Health during the 1950s were well aware that the Salk vaccine was causing polio. Some frankly stated that it was “worthless as a preventive and dangerous to take.” They refused to vaccinate their own children. Health departments banned the inoculations. 

The Idaho State Health Director angrily declared: “I hold the Salk vaccine and its manufacturers responsible” for a polio outbreak that killed several Idahoans and hospitalized dozens more. … But the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and drug companies with large investments in the vaccine coerced the U.S. Public Health Service into falsely proclaiming the vaccine was safe  and  effective.[1]

In the Ratner panel discussion, Dr. Herald R. Cox, a leading global authority on live and killed vaccines, said this about a virulent strain of polio vaccine:

This virulent strain, however, was responsible for the vaccine-induced outbreaks in the spring of 1955. In Idaho, where the people were polio virgins, the vaccine caused numerous cases of polio. In New Mexico, Arizona, and elsewhere, where natural immunity was present, there were few or no cases.[2]

According Dr. Herman Kleinman, the Salk vaccine increased paralytic polio:

Let me tell you why, aside from the statistical standpoint, I’m getting nervous about the Salk vaccine. My first reason is the definite increase in paralytic polio. In Minnesota was have found that 20 per cent of our 1959 paralytic experience has occurred in triple and quadruple vaccinates.[3] 

Inactivated polio vaccine would be replaced by the oral polio vaccine, which in turn would be replaced by the inactivated vaccine (apparently, neither is safe). According to an article for JAMA: 

[A]s a consequence of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) use that began in 1961, an average of 9 cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) were confirmed each year from 1961 through 1989. To reduce the VAPP burden, national vaccination policy changed in 1997 from reliance on OPV to options for a sequential schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) followed by OPV. In 2000, an exclusive IPV schedule was adopted.[4]

On the replacement of the oral polio vaccine due to vaccine-caused paralysis, the CDC states:

In 1996, ACIP recommended an increase in use of IPV through a sequential schedule of IPV followed by OPV. This recommendation was intended to reduce the occurrence of vaccine-associated paralytic polio. The sequential schedule was expected to eliminate VAPP among vaccine recipients by producing humoral immunity to polio vaccine viruses with inactivated polio vaccine prior to exposure to live vaccine virus. Since OPV was still used for the third and fourth doses of the polio vaccination schedule, a risk of VAPP would continue to exist among contacts of vaccinees, who were exposed to live vaccine virus in the stool of vaccine recipients.

The sequential IPV–OPV polio vaccination schedule was widely accepted by both providers and parents. Fewer cases of VAPP were reported in 1998 and 1999, suggesting an impact of the increased use of IPV. However, only the complete discontinuation of use of OPV would lead to complete elimination of VAPP. To further the goal of complete elimination of paralytic polio in the United States, ACIP recommended in July 1999 that inactivated polio vaccine be used exclusively in the United States beginning in 2000. OPV is no longer routinely available in the United States.[5]

But is the current inactivated polio vaccine safe? Not according to the package inserts (which we cover later). Moreover, we again quote an NBC piece that may shed light on this matter:

At the hospital, the Roberts family was left with more questions than answers. Doctors considered a list of diagnoses from Guillain-Barré Syndrome to various other auto-immune diseases. Finally, after an MRI scan and hours of waiting, Carter was diagnosed with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) — a mysterious muscle weakness, similar to polio — that appears to be on the rise this year.

On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, as of August 2016, there have been 50 cases of confirmed AFM across 24 states. That’s nearly double over 2015, when 21 cases for the whole year were reported.

AFM has been linked to a strain of enterovirus that’s now circulating again. Some doctors are warning this could be the same mysterious, polio-like illness detected in 2014 that paralyzed 120 children.[6]

Back to the activated, oral polio vaccine: while our nation saw fit to ban this vaccine, it is still used around the word. And, of course, it is wrecking havoc (I suppose some believe it is acceptable to harm the inhabitants of third world countries). In 2009, the Associated Press reported that according to health officials, the oral polio vaccine was spreading polio:

Polio is spreading in Nigeria and health officials say in some cases it’s caused by the vaccine used to fight the paralyzing disease.

In July, the World Health Organization issued a warning that this particular virus might extend beyond Africa. So far, 124 Nigerian children have been paralyzed this year — about twice those afflicted in 2008.[7] 

In her article “Little Known Facts About Poliomyelitis Vaccinations,” vaccine researcher Viera Scheibner discusses the link between oral polio vaccines and polio outbreaks in Taiwan, Oman, Gambia, and Namibia. Here we will quote her specifically on Taiwan and Oman (more can be read about this and other countries in the article itself):

TaiwanKim-Farley et al. (1984) described an epidemic of poliomyelitis cases (1,031) which occurred between 29 May and 31 October 1982, after seven years of freedom from major outbreaks. Already by 1 September, the outbreak had become one of the largest reported in Taiwan’s history. Importantly, before this outbreak, approximately 80 per cent of infants had received at least two doses of trivalent oral polio vaccine before their first birthday.[8]

OmanVirtually the same thing as described in Taiwan happened in Oman. Sutter et al. (1991) and Sutter et al. (1992) described an outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis type I (118 cases) between January 1988 and March 1989. They wrote: “Incidence of poliomyelitis was highest in children younger than 2 years (87/100 000) despite an immunisation programme that recently had raised coverage with 3 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among 12-months-old children from 67% to 87%.” Despite?[9]

We previously noted that, according to Humphries and Bystrianyk, Guillain-Barré syndrome may have been diagnosed as polio prior to 1958. In an article in Neurology India, the authors discuss a correlation between Guillain-Barré and a national oral polio vaccination campaign in Turkey during May-June 2000. Again, it appears that the polio vaccine may very well have contributed to polio:

Five children with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), following a national oral polio vaccination campaign to eradicate disease, are reported. Clinical examination, CSF and electromyographic findings conformed to the classical description of GBS. Four of them received therapeutic dose of intravenous IgG. Two children succumbed to the disease. It was observed that the number of cases of GBS in children increased during the period of the oral polio vaccination (OPV) campaign in Turkey, suggesting a causal relationship.[10]

There is, of course, the problem of the oral polio vaccine spreading “Guillain-Barré syndrome” in Finland, as we previously discussed. 

Having said all this, the dangers from the polio vaccine are still much worse than what has been described thus far. We can easily see this via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This database was created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA in response to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which requires vaccine manufactures and health professionals to inform the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of adverse reactions following vaccination.[11] However, anyone, including patients and family members, can submit reports to it.[12]

VAERS is an excellent way to confirm the number of reported injuries and deaths from vaccination from around the world. The database can be researched on the official government page here, or via the Med-Alerts system hosted by the National Vaccine Information Center here, (a more user-friendly version with increased search capabilities). 

When a search is conducted for all the deaths that have been reported to have occurred (both in the U.S. and abroad) for all the kinds of polio vaccines mentioned in the database (some of which are combination vaccines for other illnesses as well), the total number is 2429 fatalities (search conducted April 5, 2017).[13] (And this does not even count all the non-fatal (often serious) polio vaccine injuries.)  

This death count is sobering enough, but surely it must be the tip of the iceberg. As the government VAERS site itself states, 

“Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.[14]

Moreover, probably few victims of vaccination who even discern that they are vaccine injured are aware of the database; doctors are not generally helpful in seeing an obvious vaccine injury for what it is. (They routinely dismiss the timing of injuries/deaths related to vaccines as “coincidences.”) One can also see the potential difficulty in getting those overseas to report to VAERS, since VAERS is a U.S. database.

Indeed, the National Vaccine Information Center wrote the following in 2015:

During the meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory, CDC officials reported that about 70 percent of VAERS reports are handwritten and submitted by mail or fax, while 30 percent are online submissions. The system receives about 30,0005 reports annually and it is estimated that only between one to 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are reported to VAERS.

Underreporting of vaccine reactions in the U.S. is a widely acknowledged weakness of VAERS.  It is also known that little has been done by federal health officials to increase vaccine provider reporting to VAERS since the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, which requires the reporting of vaccine adverse events.[15]

And so, whether killed or live-virus polio vaccine, there are serious problems. The vaccine-pushers can’t decide on what to use. Here in the U.S., it has gone from killed, to live, back to killed-virus vaccine. Meanwhile, live-virus vaccine is being used overseas. 

Our medical priests, then, while expecting us to blindly defer to their recommendations to be vaccinated for polio, cannot even agree among themselves. Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn’s point is penetrating:

[T]here is an ongoing debate among the immunologists regarding the relative risks of killed virus vs. live virus vaccine. Supporters of the killed virus vaccine maintain that it is the presence of live virus organisms in the other product that is responsible for the polio cases that occasionally appear. Supporters of the live virus type argue that the killed virus vaccine offers inadequate protection and actually increases the susceptibility of those vaccinated to the disease.

This affords me a rare opportunity to be comfortably neutral. I believe that both factions are right and that use of either of the vaccines will increase, not diminish, the possibility that your child will contract the disease.[16]

In discussing the Salk polio vaccine, Dr. Herbert Ratner sums up the logical absurdity of the polio vaccination paradigm, which is willing to actually cause injury in order to speculatively prevent it:

The slight contribution that an unsafe Salk vaccine may have made to the reduction of paralytic poliomyelitis in 1955 is counterbalanced by the known contribution it made to the increase in paralytic poliomyeltis in 1955.[17] 

The rabbit hole gets deeper — see our next section on what major polio vaccine scientists and the medical profession itself has been saying about polio vaccines.


Notes
_____________________________________________________

[1] Neil Z. Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 2010, 2015), 49, 50. 
[2] Herbert Ratner, moderator, “The Present Status of Polio Vaccines” (Presented before the Section on Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the 120th annual meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society in Chicago, IL: May 26, 1960) (panel discussion edited from a transcript), 92. Available online at http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/uploads/2/8/8/8/2888885/ratner_1960.pdf.
[3] Ibid., 90.
[4] Lorraine Niño Alexander, RN, MPH; Jane F. Seward, MBBS, MPH; Tammy A. Santibanez, PhD; Mark A. Pallansch, PhD; Olen M. Kew, PhD; D. Rebecca Prevots, PhD; Peter M. Strebel, MD; Joanne Cono, MD, ScM; Melinda Wharton, MD; Walter A. Orenstein, MD; Roland W. Sutter, MD, “Vaccine Policy Changes and Epidemiology of Poliomyelitis in the United States,” JAMA (2004). Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/199583.
[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: The Pink Book Home, Poliomyelitis. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html.
[6] Lauren Dunn and Parminder Deo, “Mysterious Polio-like Illness Paralyzing U.S. Children,” NBC News (Oct. 3, 2016). Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/mysterious-polio-illness-paralyzing-u-s-children-n658766.
[7] Associated Press, “Polio vaccine blamed for outbreaks in Nigeria,” NBC NEWS.com (August 14, 2009). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32418446/ns/health-infectious_diseases#.V5dj8PkrLAU
[8] Viera Scheibner, “Little Known Facts About Poliomyelitis Vaccinations,” Nexus Magazine, Aug-Sept 2009, Vol 16, No.5 & Oct-Nov 2009 Vol 16, No 6. Cited in whale.to. Retrieved August 3, 2016, from http://whale.to/vaccine/scheibner.html.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Anlar O, Tombul T, Arslan S, Akdeniz H, Caksen H, Gundem A, Akbayram S, “Report of five children with Guillain-Barré syndrome following a nationwide oral polio vaccine campaign in Turkey,” Neurology India, Vol. 51, no. 4 (October-December, 2003), 544-545. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from http://www.bioline.org.br/request?ni03174.
[11] VAERS, “About the VAERS Program.” Retrieved April 5, 2017, from https://vaers.hhs.gov/about/index. 
[12] VAERS, “VAERS Data.” Retrieved April 5, 2017, from https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index. 
[13] MedAlerts, VAERS search results (National Vaccine Information Center) (search conducted April 5, 2017). Retrieved April 5, 2017, from http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php.
[14] VAERS, “VAERS Data.” Retrieved April 5, 2017, from https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index. 
[15] National Vaccine Information Center, “Proposed Changes Restrict Vaccine Reaction Reporting” (January 5, 2015). Retrieved April 6, 2017, from http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/January-2015/CDC-Changes-Restrict-Vaccine-Reaction-Reports.aspx#_edn8.
[16] Robert S. Mendelsohn, How to Raise a Healthy Child … In Spite of Your Doctor (NY: Ballantine Books, 1987), 252.
[17] Herbert Ratner, “Poliomyelitis Vaccine,” Journal of the American Medical Association (Jan. 21, 1956). Cited in Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541, 89. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.


Statements by Major Polio Vaccine Scientists, SV40, and AIDS

Let’s see what prominent polio vaccine scientists themselves say. Jonas Salk, inventor of the first polio vaccine, once said of his own vaccine: “When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine, you don’t sleep well for two or three weeks.”[1] (It’s amazing that any vaccine inventor can sleep at all.) 

Not only did Salk express reservations about the safety of his own vaccine, but that of the polio vaccine invented by Albert Sabin that would replace his own. Salk, whose vaccine employed a “killed-virus,” testified before the Senate in 1976 that the new live-virus vaccine spread polio, and to use it was less safe than being unvaccinated. As the Washington Post reports:

Dr. Jonas Salk, discoverer of the killed-virus vaccine, testified that the live-virus vaccine, invented by Dr. Albert Sabin, was “the principal if not the sole cause” of the 140 polio cases reported in the United States since 1961.[2]

In his testimony, Salk states:

At the present time the risk of acquiring polio from the live-virus vaccine is greater than from naturally occurring viruses.[3] 

At the Senate hearing, criticism of the live-virus polio vaccine wasn’t by Salk alone, but by three other medical scientists, including a microbiologist.[4] As the Washington Post states:

Four medical scientists told a Senate hearing yesterday that oral polio vaccine has caused nearly all of the few reported cases of poliomyelitis since 1961 and is riskier than no vaccine at all.[5]

A year later, Salk writes in Science:

The live (Sabin) poliovirus vaccine has been the predominant cause of domestically arising cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States since 1972. To avoid the occurrence of such cases, it would be necessary to discontinue the routine use of live poliovirus vaccine.[6]  

While Salk and others criticized the Sabin vaccine, the Salk vaccine itself was previously a subject of criticism to the point that it would be replaced by Sabin’s vaccine. The efficacy of the Salk vaccine was questioned, and the American Medical Association pressured the Federal Government to replace it with the Sabin vaccine.[7] 

Not only this, but the Salk vaccine was considered dangerous. Thus:

[R]esearchers at the National Cancer Institute, in evaluating the carcinogenicity of SV40, had quickly concluded in 1963 that there were more dangers from Salk’s injectable vaccine than from Sabin’s oral vaccine.[8]

Morever, Sabin himself — who referred to Salk as a “kitchen chemist who never had an original idea in his life” — testified that Salk’s vaccine was dangerous and opposed its use.[9] The Chicago Tribune reports the following about a statement issued by Sabin in 1963 about the Salk vaccine:

Serious polio epidemics can continue to occur in communities where Salk vaccine has been used extensively, Sabin’s statement said. He gave five reasons:

1. Large numbers of persons fail to get Salk injections.
2. Persons who received their immunization from the killed polio vaccine [Salk] can carry and transmit the polio virus.
3. Many have an insufficient number of doses of the vaccine for adequate immunity.
4. Many persons have failed to develop immunity after three and four injections.
5. Some lose the immunity months or years after the vaccination.[10]

As it turned out, both the Sabin and the Salk vaccines had issues. This has not only been pointed out by Sabin, Salk, and others (as we’ve already noted), but by the “vaccine giant” Maurice Hilleman. Hilleman, who “developed over three dozen vaccines, more than any other scientist in history,”[11] and has been called “the most successful vaccinologist in history.”[12]

In an interview, Hilleman states that the Sabin polio vaccine included SV40, a cancer-causing chemical:

So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. … I thought that [****] SV40, I mean that [****] vaculating agent that we have, I’m just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it’s got to be in the Sabin’s vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

… So I go down and I talked about the detection of non detectable viruses and told Albert [Sabin], I said listen Albert you know you and I are good friends but I’m going to go down there and you’re going to get upset. I’m going to talk about the virus that it’s in your vaccine. You’re going to get rid of the virus, don’t worry about it, you’re going to get rid of it… but umm, so of course Albert was very upset… [13]

Regarding the Salk vaccine, he was asked in the same interview, “So you discovered, it wasn’t being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?”[14] To which he replies, “Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.”[15]

Dr. Ben Sweet, Hilleman’s fellow researcher for Merck, called the discovery of the cancer-causing chemical in the Sabin vaccine “a frightening discovery because, back then, it was not possible to detect the virus with the testing procedures we had.”[16] He elaborates:

When we started growing the vaccines, we just couldn’t get rid of the SV-40 contaminated virus. We tried  to  neutralize  it, but couldn’t … Now, with the theoretical links to HIV and cancer, it just blows my mind.[17]

This discovery, however, was bad for vaccine business. And so after discovering the connection between SV40 and cancer, Drs. Harvey Pass and Michele Carbone, “Two of the world’s most respected scientists in the SV40 realm … commented on how science was censored”[18]:

I [Michele Carbone] wanted to have a press statement . . . and to be able to talk to the media if contacted by them. I also believe that the public and the media have the right to ask us any question they wish once our work has been accepted by a peer-review journal and that scientists should not decide what the media should or should not know . . . [Dr. Levine] told me that if I, or Harvey, talked to the press, against his wishes, we would be “punished.” . . . Pass was shocked at the uproar, particularly the threat. “I didn’t think you got punished for science.”[19]

It wasn’t just the Sabin vaccine that may have contained SV40; as we’ve already quoted from Hilleman, the Salk vaccine produced tumors in hamsters. Moreover, an article in the Chicago Sun Times (April 16, 1962) states:

Conjecture No. 1: SV-40 may cause cancer in human beings. This, of course, is the most frightening idea. Millions of persons have received Salk injections (killing the polio virus does not mean killing SV-40).

Now the latest work shows that SV-40 can grow in the tissue of human beings and can make cells grow faster. But many viruses can do this without causing cancer. However, the report on the chromosomes makes the cancer possibility somewhat stronger.[20] 

Despite denials about the connection between SV40 and cancer, such a connection has been affirmed in prominent journals around the world.[21] Sadly,

Experts estimate that between 1954 and 1963, 30 million to 100 million Americans and perhaps another 100 million or more people throughout the world were exposed to SV-40 through ill conceived polio eradication campaigns.[22]

SV40 may also be transmitted sexually and from mother to unborn child:

[A] study published in the U.S. medical journal Cancer Research found SV-40 present in 23 percent of blood samples and 45 percent of semen taken from healthy subjects. Apparently, the virus is being spread sexually and from mother to child in the womb. According to biology and genetics professor Mauro Tognon, one of the study’s authors, this would explain why brain, bone, and lung cancers are on the rise — a 30 percent increase in U.S. brain tumors alone during a recent 25-year period — and why SV-40 was detected in brain tumors of children born after 1965 who probably did not receive polio vaccines containing the virus.[23] 

It gets worse, though. Not only can we thank polio vaccines for spreading cancer, but for possibly AIDS as well. In the same interview where he connects polio vaccines with cancer, the “vaccine giant” Maurice Hilleman blames the polio vaccine for importing AIDS into the country:

Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these [***] monkeys, we’re finished and if I can’t do something I’m going to quit, I’m not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said “look, I got a problem and I don’t know what the [***] to do.” Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.[24]

AIDS researcher Edward Hooper traces the origins of HIV to polio vaccine campaigns in Africa:

One of the major vaccination campaigns with the experimental OPV (a version of CHAT vaccine, developed by Hilary Koprowski), was staged in the Belgian Congo capital of Leopoldville in 1958-60, and involved all the city’s children aged up to five years. However, there is evidence that at least some African adults were also vaccinated in the capital, just as some 170,000 African adults were vaccinated elsewhere in the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi. Nearly forty years passed before it was confirmed by genetic sequencing that the first two cases of HIV-1 infection found in the world had occurred in the Belgian Congo – in fact both isolates came from Leopoldville, in 1959 and 1960. [To give some perspective, these two isolates are sixteen and seventeen years earlier than the next earliest isolate of HIV-1(M), which also came from the DRC, and roughly two decades earlier than any HIV-1 isolate from outside the DRC.] The correlation between the feedings of experimental CHAT vaccine in Africa and the first outbreaks of HIV infection and AIDS in the world (which occurred in the same towns and villages a few years later) is “highly significant” in statistical terms. The OPV theory ascribes the minor outbreaks of AIDS caused by other variants of HIV-1 (Group O, Group N and the more controversial “Group P”) to other polio vaccines (both oral and injected) that were prepared in the cells of chimpanzees and administered in French Equatorial Africa (including Congo Brazzaville and Gabon) in the same late fifties period. It ascribes the outbreaks of AIDS from HIV-2 (of which it maintains that only two were epidemic outbreaks) to other polio vaccines (both oral and injected) that were prepared in the cells of sooty mangabeys (or other monkeys that had been caged with sooty mangabeys) and administered in French West Africa in 1956-60.[25] 

Much more can be said of the possible AIDs/polio vaccine connection; here we will cite one more authority: Dr. Howard B. Urnovitz, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Michigan (where he studied vaccines), a chief science officer of a biotechnology corporation who has served as the Scientific Director of the Chronic Illness Research Foundation, and has specialized in investigating vaccines and how they are made. He was also “Responsible Head for R/D for FDA licensed HIV Urine EIA and FDA licensed HIV Urine Western Blot Confirmation Test.”[26]

Urnovitz states that HIV-1 may have vaccine origins:

The activation, induction, and recombination of endogenous retroelements is a well-recognized phenomenon. The mosaic analysis also disclosed a occurrence of SIVagm homology with the HIV-1vau env nucleotide sequence. Possibly, such sequences were of poliovirus vaccine origin and may have been involved in recombinational events during the evolution of the HIV-1vau genome. On the other hand, the complex viral isolation techniques involved in the isolation of HIV-1vau adds to the uncertainty of its biological and molecular origins.[27]

We are, nevertheless, expected to jettison safety concerns and “trust our doctors” — the same doctors who tell us how wonderful the polio vaccine was, and yet who know little if anything about the vaccine’s history and safety; and the same doctors who may not even be giving us informed consent regarding even the polio vaccine package inserts, a subject to which we now turn.


Notes

_____________________________________________________

[1] Cited in Corinne J. Naden and Rose Blue, Jonas Salk: Polio Pioneer (Brookfield, CT: The Millibrook Press, 2001), 28.
[2] Morton Mintz, “Oral Vaccine Said Causing Polio Cases,” The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 1974), A13.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jonas Salk, Science, March 4, 1977, 845. Cited in Jon Rappoport, “How many of these vaccine facts do you know? ” Jon Rappoport’s Blog (September 6, 2012). Retrieved February 8, 2016, from https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/how-many-of-these-vaccine-facts-do-you-know.
[7] Jesse Sleeman, Cry for Health, Volume 1, Health: The Casualty of Modern Times (Dragon Lair Publishing, 2011), 86.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Kurt Link, The Vaccine Controversy: The History, Use, and Safety of Vaccinations (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005), 92.
[10] Chicago Tribune, “Sabin Assails Salk Vaccine, Praises Own” (March 7, 1963), no. 66, section 2, p. 16. Retrieved February 17, 2017, from http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/03/07/page/64/article/sabin-assails-salk-vaccine-praises-own.
[11] “Vaccine Pioneer Doctor Admits Polio Vaccine Caused Cancer,” Health Impact News (May 16, 2013). Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/vaccine-pioneer-doctor-admits-polio-vaccine-caused-cancer/#sthash.e9SIetvT.dpuf
[12] Thomas H. Maugh II, “Maurice R. Hilleman, 85; Scientist Developed Many Vaccines That Saved Millions of Lives,” Los Angeles Times (April 13, 2005). Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/13/local/me-hilleman13
[13] Cited in “Vaccine Pioneer Doctor Admits Polio Vaccine Caused Cancer,” Health Impact News.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Moriarty TJ, “The polio vaccine and simian virus 40,” Online News Index, www.chronicillnet.org/online/bensweet.html. Cited in Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual, 54.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, 2013), 280.
[19] D. Bookchin and J. Schumacher, The Virus and the Vaccine, St. Martin‟s, Griffin, New York, 2004, 163. Cited in Ibid.
[20] Cited in Clinton R. Miller, “Statement of Clinton R. Miller, Assistant to the President, National Health Federation, Washington, D.C.” (Intensive Immunization Programs, May 15th and 16th, 1962. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives, 87th congress, second session on H.R. 10541), 84. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.whale.to/v/greenberg1.pdf.
[21] Neil Z. Miller, Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 2010, 2015), 56.
[22] Ibid., 54.
[23] Ibid., 56.
[24] Cited in “Vaccine Pioneer Doctor Admits Polio Vaccine Caused Cancer,” Health Impact News.
[25] Ed Hooper, The Origins of the AIDS Pandemic: A Quick Guide to The Principal Theories and the Alleged Refutations (AIDS Origins, April 25, 2012). Available at http://www.aidsorigins.com/origins-aids-pandemic. 
[26] Linkedin, “Howard Urnovitz” (2016). Retrieved August 15, 2016, from https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-urnovitz-5913bb7.
[27] Howard B. Urnovitz, Jerrilyn C. Sturge, Toby D. Gottfried, and William H. Murphy, “Urine Antibody Tests: New Insights into the Dynamics of HIV-1 Infection Clinical Chemistry,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 45 no. 9 1602-1613 (September 1999). Retrieved August 15, 2016, from http://www.clinchem.org/content/45/9/1602.long.

Did your Doctor Show you the Polio Vaccine Package Insert Before Vaccinating you or your Child?

Vaccine package inserts are information about vaccines produced by the vaccine manufacturers. These include sections on possible vaccine side effects. Even if the inserts downplay the dangers posed by vaccines, these inserts are helpful in showing at least some actual or potential dangers posed by vaccines. 

Here is some text of package inserts of polio vaccines used in America today.

I. IPOL®, Poliovirus Vaccine Inactivated

Some of the possible problems with this vaccine include:

Long-term studies in animals to evaluate carcinogenic [cancer-causing, SH] potential or impairment of fertility have not been conducted.[1]

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with IPOL vaccine. It is also not known whether IPOL vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. IPOL vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.[2]

It is not known whether IPOL vaccine is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when IPOL vaccine is administered to a nursing woman.[3]

Neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, 2-phenoxyethanol, and formaldehyde are used in the production of this vaccine. Although purification procedures eliminate measurable amounts of these substances, traces may be present (see DESCRIPTION section), and allergic reactions may occur in persons sensitive to these substances (see CONTRAINDICATIONS section).

Systemic adverse reactions reported in infants receiving IPV concomitantly at separate sites or combined with DTP have been similar to those associated with administration of DTP alone. (11) Local reactions are usually mild and transient in nature.

Although no causal relationship between IPOL vaccine and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) has been established, (28) GBS has been temporally related to administration of another inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Deaths have been reported in temporal association with the administration of IPV (see ADVERSE REACTIONS section).[4] 

In earlier studies with the vaccine grown in primary monkey kidney cells, transient local reactions at the site of injection were observed. Erythema, induration and pain occurred in 3.2%, 1% and 13%, respectively, of vaccinees within 48 hours post-vaccination. Temperatures of ≥39°C (≥102°F) were reported in 38% of vaccinees. Other symptoms included irritability, sleepiness, fussiness, and crying. Because IPV was given in a different site but concurrently with Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (DTP), these systemic reactions could not be attributed to a specific vaccine. However, these systemic reactions were comparable in frequency and severity to that reported for DTP given alone without IPV. Although no causal relationship has been established, deaths have occurred in temporal association after vaccination of infants with IPV.[5]

• Blood and lymphatic system disorders: lymphadenopathy
• General disorders and administration site conditions: agitation, injection site reaction including injection site rash and mass
• Immune system disorders: type I hypersensitivity including allergic reaction, anaphylactic reaction, and anaphylactic shock
• Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: arthralgia, myalgia
• Nervous system disorders: convulsion, febrile convulsion, headache, paresthesia, and somnolence
• Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: rash, urticaria[6]

II. KINRIX (Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis

Adsorbed and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine) (Combination vaccine)
Within the 31-day period following study vaccination in 3 studies (Studies 046, 047, and 048), in which all subjects received concomitant MMR vaccine (US-licensed MMR vaccine [Merck & Co., Inc.] in Studies 047 and 048; non—US-licensed MMR vaccine in Study 046), 3 subjects (0.1% [3/3,537]) who received KINRIX reported serious adverse events (dehydration and hypernatremia; cerebrovascular accident; dehydration and gastroenteritis) and 4 subjects (0.3% [4/1,434]) who received INFANRIX and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur SA) reported serious adverse events (cellulitis, constipation, foreign body trauma, fever without identified etiology).[7]

Additional adverse events reported following postmarketing use of INFANRIX, for which a causal relationship to vaccination is plausible, are: Allergic reactions, including anaphylactoid reactions, anaphylaxis, angioedema, and urticaria; apnea; collapse or shock-like state (hypotonichyporesponsive episode); convulsions (with or without fever); lymphadenopathy; and thrombocytopenia.[8]

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with KINRIX. It is also not known whether KINRIX can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.[9]

KINRIX has not been evaluated for carcinogenic [cancer-causing, SH] or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.[10]

4.1 Hypersensitivity

Severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) after a previous dose of any diphtheria toxoid-, tetanus toxoid-, pertussis- or poliovirus-containing vaccine, or to any component of KINRIX, including neomycin and polymyxin B, is a contraindication to administration of KINRIX [see Description (11)]. Because of the uncertainty as to which component of the vaccine might be responsible, no further vaccination with any of these components should be given. Alternatively, such individuals may be referred to an allergist for evaluation if immunization with any of these components is considered.

4.2 Encephalopathy

Encephalopathy (e.g., coma, decreased level of consciousness, prolonged seizures) within 7 days of administration of a previous dose of a pertussis-containing vaccine that is not attributable to another identifiable cause is a contraindication to administration of any pertussis-containing vaccine, including KINRIX.

4.3 Progressive Neurologic Disorder

Progressive neurologic disorder, including infantile spasms, uncontrolled epilepsy, or progressive encephalopathy is a contraindication to administration of any pertussis-containing vaccine, including KINRIX. Pertussis vaccine should not be administered to individuals with such conditions until a treatment regimen has been established and the condition has stabilized.

5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

5.1 Guillain-Barré Syndrome

If Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs within 6 weeks of receipt of a prior vaccine containing tetanus toxoid, the decision to give any tetanus toxoid-containing vaccine, including KINRIX, should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and possible risks. When a decision is made to withhold tetanus toxoid, other available vaccines should be given, as indicated.

5.2 Latex

The tip caps of the prefilled syringes contain natural rubber latex which may cause allergic reactions.

5.3 Syncope

Syncope (fainting) can occur in association with administration of injectable vaccines, including KINRIX. Syncope can be accompanied by transient neurological signs such as visual disturbance, paresthesia, and tonic-clonic limb movements. Procedures should be in place to avoid falling injury and to restore cerebral perfusion following syncope.[11]

One can read the package inserts for other polio vaccines, as well as other vaccines in general, here.

And so, I wonder how often doctors bother to show these to their patients before vaccinating them or their children? I wonder how many doctors have even bothered to actually read the inserts themselves? They assure us that vaccines are “safe” — but the inserts tell us something else entirely. 

Another example of how the polio vaccine paradigm (and the vaccine paradigm in general) is built on lies — lies that may be even a life or death matter.

Notes
____________________________________________________

[1] Sanofi Pasteur Inc, “Poliovirus Vaccine Inactivated IPOL®” (Product information as of August 2015), 2. Retrieved January 8, 2017, from https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=5984&image_type=product_pdf. 
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 3.
[6] Ibid.
[7] GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, “KINRIX (Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Adsorbed and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine)” (Revised October 2016), 7. Retrieved January 8, 2017, from https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/content/dam/GlaxoSmithKline/US/en/Prescribing_Information/Kinrix/pdf/KINRIX.PDF.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 8.
[10] Ibid., 10.
[11] Ibid., 3.


Conclusion:

We have been deceived about polio vaccines. They did not wipe out polio, as we are so often told. Rather, the pen wiped out polio; that is, with the stroke of the pen, polio and polio epidemics were redefined — most conveniently giving the appearance that polio vaccines vanquished polio. 

Moreover, polio vaccines (like all vaccines in general) have been the source of much pain and misery. While people take on good faith that they are “safe and effective,” the polio vaccine instead poisons the bloodstream of its recipients, resulting in such horrors as paralytic polio itself, as well as cancer and other fatal ailments. 

And so while the polio vaccine is heralded (even worshiped) as a great savior from illness, it has in fact been a great contributor to death and suffering. By its own history of fraud and misery, it is not a foundational argument in favor of vaccines, but a foundational argument against vaccines. It discredits the vaccine-promoters as ignorant at best, to liars at worse — and shows the difficulty in trusting anything they say in favor of vaccines. As Scripture puts it regarding dishonesty:

One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. (Luke 16:10)

As this article has shown, we must be careful not to naively accept whatever we are told about vaccines from the deceived, the brainwashed, and con artists. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Or, as Scripture says,

The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it. (Proverbs 22:3)

In being used to promote vaccines in general, the polio vaccine scam has contributed to perhaps the greatest holocaust of children after abortion. When it comes to vaccines, doing our own research is a life or death matter; it is taking seriously the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. 


Image credit:
___________________

Wellcome Polio vaccine dropped on to sugar lump for child patient, Wellcome Images (CC BY 4.0) (license). Retrieved February 10, 2017, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wellcome_polio_vaccine_Wellcome_L0033971.jpg

If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.

Tagged Polio