by Steve Halbrook
(excerpted from a much more thorough article on the polio vaccine scam here)
“Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.” (Psalm 34:13)
“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* .
“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, 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 1960 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.
there are no more iron lungs, the iron lung has simply been
replaced by portable respirators.
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.
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:
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also 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,
A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. (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.
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 taken over 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/.
* Shawn Siegel quote at the top of the page:
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/
Note: this site has since been taken over by pro-vaxxers.
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
