If the well-established Polio vaccine increases non-Polio non-cancer deaths by 0.01%, (seems) it then should not be administered
What then of the proposed mandatory never-used-before Swine-Flu vaccine?
There has been much horrifying talk in the alternative media regarding the danger that vaccines that will be administered en masse to the public for the purpose of the prevention of 'Swine Flu', will due to accident, incompetence or worse, end up killing and wounding huge numbers of Americans. I mentioned this to my father, and his response was to tell me that a close relative of the famous Dr. Salk who invented the Polio vaccine, was a friend of my mother, and what a nice guy Dr. Salk was.
So I decided to take a closer look at the Polio vaccine, which my father apparently considers to be an iconic symbol of vaccination water-into-wine type stuff.
My opinion as of now is that the Polio vaccine is yet another example of hi-tech disease-fighting engaged in by humans, being unnaturally focused on one particular disease, the result being that the advantages derived from reduction of the incidence of the targetted disease, is at least in most localities, more than balanced out by the negative impact in terms of increased incidence of other diseases.
Keep in mind, when it comes to cost-benefit, it is reasonable to suppose that the cost-benefit of the rookie Swine-Flu vaccine, which is to be produced by an apparently mistake-prone corporation, and which will be targetted on a virus that quite possibly will have mutated into a form the vaccine has no effect upon by the time the vaccine is administered, will be inferior to the cost-benefit that has been produced by the well-respected Polio vaccines produced by Saints Salk and Sabin.
"The polio vaccines developed by Jonas Salk in 1952 and Albert Sabin in 1962 are credited with reducing the global number of polio cases per year from many hundreds of thousands to around a thousand.[7]...In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.[81]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis).
Thus there is evidence that the Polio vaccine, has (worldwide) reduced the chance of becoming disabled or dying due to Polio, from approx 0.5%, to approximately 0%.
"In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the Institutes SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed that there was no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40.[48] Another large study in Sweden examined cancer rates of 700,000 individuals who had received potentially contaminated polio vaccine as late as 1957; the study again revealed no increased cancer incidence between persons who received polio vaccines containing SV40 and those who did not.[49]"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine)
Thus there is also evidence that the polio vaccine does not increase the risk of getting cancer.
However cancer accounts for only approx 23% of all deaths in those over 18 in the US (http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/tableView.aspx).
Therefore, even if the Polio vaccine increased death rates from causes other than cancer by only 0.7%, this would outweigh the benefit produced by the Polio vaccine, even if you assume that a person disabled due to Polio is equal to a person being killed by some disease other than Polio.
Beyond this:
Polio is more common in the world outside the US than it is in the US. This tilts the equation in the direction of being even less tolerant of the collateral damage of the vaccine causing diseases other than Polio. If you change from looking upon the vaccine as causing a reduction in Polio-produced paralysis from 0.5% in the world to 0% in the world, to looking upon the vaccine as reducing Polio-produced paralysis from 0.25% in the US to 0% in the US, then just a 0.4% increase in fatalities from diseases other than Polio caused by the vaccine, would mean the vaccine did more harm than good even if you count Polio-produced paralysis as being as bad as death from some disease other than Polio.
Beyond this:
There exist, effective alternatives to vaccination when the goal is prevention and treatment of Polio. Even Wikipedia itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis) has pointed out that an effect of improvements in sanitation has been that children have not been naturally exposed to mild levels of Polio infection which has caused upwards pressure on the Polio incidence rate (indicating that natural low level of exposure to Polio could be used to produce immunity to Polio). Taking account of such, again tilts the equation, the result being the level of tolerable increase in non-Polio produced mortality caused by Polio vaccinations becomes even less if the good done by the Polio vaccinations is not to be outweighed by the bad. Such (taking into account Polio rates in the US being relatively low) could easily bring the equation to the point where no more than a 0.2% rise in mortality caused by diseases other than Polio, is tolerable if the equation is to vindicate the Polio vaccines as doing more good than harm (even assuming a death from a disease other than Polio is as bas as being paralyzed by Polio).
Beyond this, let's level the playing field and remember that in the US only 5% of Polio cases resulted in death. Let's assume that the ratio of non-fatal adverse consequences of diseases is basically the same for Polio and other diseases. Let's stop assuming that a non-Polio death is equal to Polio-produced partial paralysis, and assume a Polio produced death is equal to a non-Polio produced death. Under such assumptions, even if the mortality produced by factors other than Polio were to increase by 0.01% due to Polio vaccinations, the Polio vaccinations would statistically come out as having done more harm than good.
Off the bat having looked at the evidence for one evening, I would have to say that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that one can expect more than just a 0.01% increase in mortality due to causes other than Polio, as a result of Polio vaccinations (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS300&q=%22polio+vaccine%22+%22heart+disease%22).
Wikipedia seems to reflexively admire the Polio vaccine simply because 99% of the people who get three shots of it become immune to Polio.
What comes to mind:
"This hyar injeckshun gives 99 percent of th' varmints who take th' shot, immunity aginst th' ho'rible noo liberal-houn'dog-flu virus. Th' venerable Wikipedia an' me yer Senato' Blather agree, eff'n yo' folks take th' vaccinashun shot, it will become completely impostible fo' 99 percent of yo' t'become infecked wif th' liberal-houn'dog-flu virus! So seein' thet 99 percent of yo' kin become like gods, then obviously th' varmints like Hobbs who is postulatin' thet fo'cin' th' populashun t'take th' shot is a mistake, is idiots, an' crazy, o' both"
In contradiction of Senator Blather, imagine that the incidence of some disease is one in ten thousand. Now if vaccination enthusiasts begin to enthuse that the situation would be improved through use of a vaccine that provides 99% of those who take it with immunity, while it accidentally gives 0.02% of those who take it the disease it is designed to prevent, guess what? Vaccinating the population would double the incidence of the disease. And this is not taking into account corruptions such as standards being changed so that more cases of the disease are counted before the vaccine is administered as opposed to afterwards.
A nurse named Sheri Naaken makes several points against the Polio vaccine:
The Polio death rates were declining before the vaccines were introduced; several experiments have shown that the vaccine increases the incidence of Polio; Polio has been over-reported prior to vaccine programs and then under-reported after vaccine programs; Dr. Sabin himself, who developed the Polio vaccine, declared that the vaccine was ineffective; children of women who received the Polio vaccine 1959-65 experienced a thirteen fold increase in brain tumors; respiratory syncytial (RS) virus; AIDS originated in the use of the Polio vaccine in Africa; may doctors believe the Polio vaccine has increased the incidence of Leukemia; Polio is caused by vitamin B1 and mineral deficiencies, pasteurised milk, and a lack of fruit juice; only 1% of those who contract Polio virus develop serious symtoms, indicating something more than a virus is involved in the manifestation of the serious symptoms; improvements in santitation and hygiene have produced declines in Polio that have been attributed to vaccines; vitamin C, chiropractic methods, 'Nurse Kenny' treatment, have cured Polio at much higher rates than conventional medical techniques; William C Douglass MD reported in 1996 that the Salk/Sabine vaccine's suppression of the Polio virus resulted in the Polio virus being replaced in human bodies by viruses similar to the Polio virus which cause adult muscle weakness (http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/polio2.htm http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/polio3.htm). Dr Richard L Bruno (http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=3658&t=CFIDS_FM) also makes the last point re Dr. Douglass' work identifying viruses similar to Polio that have stepped into the vacuum created by Polio's demise.
@2009 David Virgil Hobbs
There has been much horrifying talk in the alternative media regarding the danger that vaccines that will be administered en masse to the public for the purpose of the prevention of 'Swine Flu', will due to accident, incompetence or worse, end up killing and wounding huge numbers of Americans. I mentioned this to my father, and his response was to tell me that a close relative of the famous Dr. Salk who invented the Polio vaccine, was a friend of my mother, and what a nice guy Dr. Salk was.
So I decided to take a closer look at the Polio vaccine, which my father apparently considers to be an iconic symbol of vaccination water-into-wine type stuff.
My opinion as of now is that the Polio vaccine is yet another example of hi-tech disease-fighting engaged in by humans, being unnaturally focused on one particular disease, the result being that the advantages derived from reduction of the incidence of the targetted disease, is at least in most localities, more than balanced out by the negative impact in terms of increased incidence of other diseases.
Keep in mind, when it comes to cost-benefit, it is reasonable to suppose that the cost-benefit of the rookie Swine-Flu vaccine, which is to be produced by an apparently mistake-prone corporation, and which will be targetted on a virus that quite possibly will have mutated into a form the vaccine has no effect upon by the time the vaccine is administered, will be inferior to the cost-benefit that has been produced by the well-respected Polio vaccines produced by Saints Salk and Sabin.
"The polio vaccines developed by Jonas Salk in 1952 and Albert Sabin in 1962 are credited with reducing the global number of polio cases per year from many hundreds of thousands to around a thousand.[7]...In the United States, the 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.[81]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis).
Thus there is evidence that the Polio vaccine, has (worldwide) reduced the chance of becoming disabled or dying due to Polio, from approx 0.5%, to approximately 0%.
"In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the Institutes SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed that there was no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40.[48] Another large study in Sweden examined cancer rates of 700,000 individuals who had received potentially contaminated polio vaccine as late as 1957; the study again revealed no increased cancer incidence between persons who received polio vaccines containing SV40 and those who did not.[49]"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine)
Thus there is also evidence that the polio vaccine does not increase the risk of getting cancer.
However cancer accounts for only approx 23% of all deaths in those over 18 in the US (http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/tableView.aspx).
Therefore, even if the Polio vaccine increased death rates from causes other than cancer by only 0.7%, this would outweigh the benefit produced by the Polio vaccine, even if you assume that a person disabled due to Polio is equal to a person being killed by some disease other than Polio.
Beyond this:
Polio is more common in the world outside the US than it is in the US. This tilts the equation in the direction of being even less tolerant of the collateral damage of the vaccine causing diseases other than Polio. If you change from looking upon the vaccine as causing a reduction in Polio-produced paralysis from 0.5% in the world to 0% in the world, to looking upon the vaccine as reducing Polio-produced paralysis from 0.25% in the US to 0% in the US, then just a 0.4% increase in fatalities from diseases other than Polio caused by the vaccine, would mean the vaccine did more harm than good even if you count Polio-produced paralysis as being as bad as death from some disease other than Polio.
Beyond this:
There exist, effective alternatives to vaccination when the goal is prevention and treatment of Polio. Even Wikipedia itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis) has pointed out that an effect of improvements in sanitation has been that children have not been naturally exposed to mild levels of Polio infection which has caused upwards pressure on the Polio incidence rate (indicating that natural low level of exposure to Polio could be used to produce immunity to Polio). Taking account of such, again tilts the equation, the result being the level of tolerable increase in non-Polio produced mortality caused by Polio vaccinations becomes even less if the good done by the Polio vaccinations is not to be outweighed by the bad. Such (taking into account Polio rates in the US being relatively low) could easily bring the equation to the point where no more than a 0.2% rise in mortality caused by diseases other than Polio, is tolerable if the equation is to vindicate the Polio vaccines as doing more good than harm (even assuming a death from a disease other than Polio is as bas as being paralyzed by Polio).
Beyond this, let's level the playing field and remember that in the US only 5% of Polio cases resulted in death. Let's assume that the ratio of non-fatal adverse consequences of diseases is basically the same for Polio and other diseases. Let's stop assuming that a non-Polio death is equal to Polio-produced partial paralysis, and assume a Polio produced death is equal to a non-Polio produced death. Under such assumptions, even if the mortality produced by factors other than Polio were to increase by 0.01% due to Polio vaccinations, the Polio vaccinations would statistically come out as having done more harm than good.
Off the bat having looked at the evidence for one evening, I would have to say that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that one can expect more than just a 0.01% increase in mortality due to causes other than Polio, as a result of Polio vaccinations (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS300&q=%22polio+vaccine%22+%22heart+disease%22).
Wikipedia seems to reflexively admire the Polio vaccine simply because 99% of the people who get three shots of it become immune to Polio.
What comes to mind:
"This hyar injeckshun gives 99 percent of th' varmints who take th' shot, immunity aginst th' ho'rible noo liberal-houn'dog-flu virus. Th' venerable Wikipedia an' me yer Senato' Blather agree, eff'n yo' folks take th' vaccinashun shot, it will become completely impostible fo' 99 percent of yo' t'become infecked wif th' liberal-houn'dog-flu virus! So seein' thet 99 percent of yo' kin become like gods, then obviously th' varmints like Hobbs who is postulatin' thet fo'cin' th' populashun t'take th' shot is a mistake, is idiots, an' crazy, o' both"
In contradiction of Senator Blather, imagine that the incidence of some disease is one in ten thousand. Now if vaccination enthusiasts begin to enthuse that the situation would be improved through use of a vaccine that provides 99% of those who take it with immunity, while it accidentally gives 0.02% of those who take it the disease it is designed to prevent, guess what? Vaccinating the population would double the incidence of the disease. And this is not taking into account corruptions such as standards being changed so that more cases of the disease are counted before the vaccine is administered as opposed to afterwards.
A nurse named Sheri Naaken makes several points against the Polio vaccine:
The Polio death rates were declining before the vaccines were introduced; several experiments have shown that the vaccine increases the incidence of Polio; Polio has been over-reported prior to vaccine programs and then under-reported after vaccine programs; Dr. Sabin himself, who developed the Polio vaccine, declared that the vaccine was ineffective; children of women who received the Polio vaccine 1959-65 experienced a thirteen fold increase in brain tumors; respiratory syncytial (RS) virus; AIDS originated in the use of the Polio vaccine in Africa; may doctors believe the Polio vaccine has increased the incidence of Leukemia; Polio is caused by vitamin B1 and mineral deficiencies, pasteurised milk, and a lack of fruit juice; only 1% of those who contract Polio virus develop serious symtoms, indicating something more than a virus is involved in the manifestation of the serious symptoms; improvements in santitation and hygiene have produced declines in Polio that have been attributed to vaccines; vitamin C, chiropractic methods, 'Nurse Kenny' treatment, have cured Polio at much higher rates than conventional medical techniques; William C Douglass MD reported in 1996 that the Salk/Sabine vaccine's suppression of the Polio virus resulted in the Polio virus being replaced in human bodies by viruses similar to the Polio virus which cause adult muscle weakness (http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/polio2.htm http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/polio3.htm). Dr Richard L Bruno (http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=3658&t=CFIDS_FM) also makes the last point re Dr. Douglass' work identifying viruses similar to Polio that have stepped into the vacuum created by Polio's demise.
@2009 David Virgil Hobbs
Labels: alternative medicine, conventional medicine, polio, swine-flu, vaccines
posted by David Virgil at 6:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home