Benedetta,

Roosevelt's paralysis was diagnosed as polio in 1921 but it was more likely to have been Guillain-Barré:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14562158

I think any polio epidemics and clinically diagnosed and reported cases of polio before the late 1950s would have to be questionable. For example, in the Detroit Polio Epidemic in 1958 only 27% of the 1060 patients with clinically diagnosed polio had poliovirus, 73% had something that looked like polio but wasn't. (1960 JAMA Ref:327642)

Narad,

Yes. Anyone who believes in vaccines and the CDC should watch that video. The lies that these people tell and the neverending harm and heartbreak they cause!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5GquxhjDRY

Eindeker,

The article doesn't mention how the definitions of an epidemic and the diagnostic criteria for polio changed throughout that history (Greenberg 1960), and, more importantly, so did laboratory testing. Before the 1950s, monkeys were necessary for the isolation of viruses from poliomyelitis patients and for the detection of antibodies. Using monkeys was expensive. As new technology emerged, and it became standard practice to confirm all clinically diagnosed polio cases by relatively inexpensive testing to rule out polio look-alikes, cases of "polio" magically disappeared, just like they did in India.

http://www.searo.who.int/india/topics/poliomyelitis/surveillance/en/

In 1997 "Surveillance was the game-changer in the fight against polio....Investigations included testing stool samples of paralysed children in WHO accredited laboratories to identify polio cases.... It is a laboratory-backed system that extends to all parts of the country and has enrolled more than 40 000 health facilities from the public, private and non-formal sector to report paralytic cases. Stool specimens from these cases are collected and sent to one of the eight WHO accredited laboratories in the country to rule out polio."

Polio eradication in India has resulted in 100,000+ cases of NPAFP (Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis):

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor/greenmedinfo/images/Rise-of-Acute-Flaccid-Paralysis-AFP-and-Fall-of-Polio.jpg

Perhaps this is considered a success story to those who wish to eradicate viruses but most people would have expected to see a huge decline in paralysis, not a dramatic increase. After all the aim of the polio vaccine was to eliminate paralysis and suffering, wasn't it?

How would Colton's paralysis have been diagnosed 100 years ago?
Polio. He would have died, and his passing would have been counted as a polio death.

In 1955?
Polio. He would have been confined to an iron lung and no doubt pictured with other children in iron lungs and braces in March of Dimes advertising to scare the public.

Towards the end of the 1950s, with technological advancement and improved diagnostic techniques using tissue cultures, he would no longer have been classified as a victim of polio, but he would still be paralysed and dependent upon a mechanical ventilator as he is today. Here he is today, not a victim of polio, but a victim of vaccination - like so many of our children:

https://www.periscope.tv/teamvaxxed/1mrxmbMWbbgKy?

Eindeker
I think many commenters on previous parts of this series is way ahead of you.

The Beer arsenic has long since come up.

As was the discussion of how and when there were polio test -- 1908 - was that the date? I think so.
But we all were wondering if just because there was a test - if the test was common and used?

New stuff some times takes a while to catch on.

As far as the hygiene theory -- There really is not even enough understanding of the immune system to be sure that the immune system of certain ages of an individual can handle certain diseases than other ages.

They always say that adults cannot handle measles as well as children. I am not sure that is true, or been proven..

Eindeker,

The poliovirus couldn't be seen until 1953, so how could doctors have possibly known exactly what they were clinically diagnosing and reporting as polio before a definitive laboratory test for polio came into use in 1958?

Disappearing cases by secretly changing the diagnostic criteria several times after the introduction of the polio vaccine while fooling the public that fewer cases meant their miraculous vaccines worked seems to be common practice.

What would be the point of the great drive by Mr Gates, the WHO etc to vaccinate against polio in the third world if the big risk factor for polio is hygeinic living conditions? Might this not be misdirection of resources?

This is a rather disturbing attitude to see expressed. Should the point, rather than eradication, instead be keeping "the third world" as filthy as possible?

The epidemiological dynamics is described, e.g., here.

Eindecker,

"In either case you have to provide some mechanism whereby the arsenic toxicity is so exquisitely poised such that it facilitates polio infection but does not give symptoms of arsenic poisoning that would also be widely recognised in older people not infected with the polio virus. This is especially difficult to reconcile with what would have been "uncontrolled" arsenic dosing because of the widely differing levels of sugar consumption
>Finally you need to provide some evidence that the sugar was indeed tainted with arsenic at potentially toxic levels, without this evidence there is no gun, let alone a smoking gun!"

Subclinical poisoning could impact the gut, gut flora and potentiate pathogenic invasion. There could also have been in some mild or more severe clinical symptoms that were not reported, recorded or accurately diagnosed. Since the victims had no knowledge of the poisoning, any symptoms were likely attributed to some other cause.

Dear Dan

I look forward to your return & providing the justification behind this statement Next we’ll look at other outbreaks to test and refine our hypothesis, and ultimately examine why polio is the autism of childhood illnesses, and autism is the polio of childhood disorders – both triggered by an environmental factor that orthodox medicine is either slow to recognize or suppresses altogether

Can I suggest you need to answer these questions to justify the involvement of arsenic as a co-factor:

>Are you postulating arsenic is involved generally in the widespread outbreaks of polio in the early 20C? If so how does this fit with the well documented rise in age of infection from infants to children up to the point of vaccine introduction? Also the difference seen between "poor" hygiene and "good" hygiene, as shown by the Casablanca data?
>If you are proposing that the New York 1916 outbreak was in some way special where is the evidence that it is not simply explained by an increasing level of hygiene delaying contact with polio to a later age?
>In either case you have to provide some mechanism whereby the arsenic toxicity is so exquisitely poised such that it facilitates polio infection but does not give symptoms of arsenic poisoning that would also be widely recognised in older people not infected with the polio virus. This is especially difficult to reconcile with what would have been "uncontrolled" arsenic dosing because of the widely differing levels of sugar consumption
>Finally you need to provide some evidence that the sugar was indeed tainted with arsenic at potentially toxic levels, without this evidence there is no gun, let alone a smoking gun!

With regard to the other nonsense about correspondents criticising MSF for all the good and brave work done by one of the world's great charities, it is really beyond belief, and to then comment that therapeutic ready to use food is "not food" and people would be better off with a Big Mac, or whatever, is laughable. As another commentator said Google on RUF and weight gains seen in emaciated children.

When Eindeker posts here, I always read despite the fact that he is frequently obnoxiously arrogant. I learn so much when others post why his arguments don't hit the mark. Thanks to everyone who braves the scorn they are sure to insight when they argue against his points! Maligning posters for questioning the mission of Doctors Without Borders was a low blow. None of us buy that as a credible criticism. Individual doctors may be acting heroically, and some of what they are doing is helping humanity, but they are still part of an organization that is implementing a global health policy that most of us disagree with. I would never support Doctors Without Borders ( though I did before I knew the extent of their mission). That doesn't mean that I don't understand that many individual doctors are truly risking their own lives to provide what they think will help. We need to be able to criticize 501(c)(3)s, both the mission and administration, without being called to the mat for voicing our concerns.

Thank You Linda; for keeping me up dated. I bet Dr. Fassano is thinking --"Now, how did they do that after I busted my gut for twenty long years, and still gave all of my test subjects celiacs"

Benedetta,
LOL "mean girls" Yes! But they don't control US! :o)

I didn't know there was a cholera vaccine. So as not to be accused of spouting off thoughtlessly twice in one day, this time I looked it up. Found this nice article. There is one vaccine just approved in the US. Except the vaccine is made for people traveling to cholera endemic areas, but at the bottom of the article it states that the vaccine has not been proven to be effective in cholera endemic areas. LOL. I am not making that up:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/06/single-dose-oral-cholera-vaccine-first-get-us-approval

Nonnymouse

Like the doctor in Australia that witnessed Aborigines children dying right after vaccinations and found that they needed vitamin C infusions to keep them from dropping dead - immediately.

Eindecker,
The problem that I have with your assertions is that they are all based on theory - how the vaccine is supposed to work. But in reality, no one knows exactly what these drugs do in the body once administered.

Re DWB, please see what I wrote to Reading is Fundamental.
You still owe Gary an apology.

I used the term “laudable” to describe the work of MSF doctors in conflict zones, but “heroic” would be more descriptive in the most dangerous places, and this is work which anyone with a modicum of humanity would rightly commend (“laud”). These physicians have more guts than most of us. My criticism of MSF solely concerned the “Ready-to-use therapeutic food” packet. They may have little awareness that these are neither therapeutic nor food, since doctors receive little or no training in the nature of food and nourishment. Africa is a vast continent, rich in scarce minerals, particularly those coveted for modern technological applications. Since the harvesting of human capital was finally outlawed in the 19th century, western interests (primarily the U.S. and Europe, and now China in a big way) have focussed on extracting the minerals any way they can. These interests are corporate, and in all nations, governments exist to promote the corporate interests. Further, it is in their interest to promote and encourage conflict, Strongmen arise to rule, and they are easy to play, happily trading their nation’s mineral wealth for greenback dollars, flown in on pallets. Once upon a time, in every region of the world, people knew how to grow or acquire sufficient food for sustenance. This, however, is not in the interest of companies such as Monsanto. Conflict usually leads to the destruction of this ancient capacity for sustenance. Enter biotech companies, purveying seeds which require costly pesticide and fertilizer inputs, and non-profits purveying non-food items. Though the latter operate from the best of motives, they are part of the problem, too. Much of the horror of the destruction of age-old farming practice has been happening in India for decades, thus my reference to GAVI, which has created an epidemic of AFP there as a further insult. It is all neocolonialism, and the Washington biotech/pharma cronies (including our current, and at least the two previous presidents) have nurtured this destruction with the full weight and power of the richest and most powerful nation ever to exist.

Well . . . the point I was trying to make was hijacked. Let me try again, but more briefly.

(1) Children very malnourished, or outright starving -

(2) Being given shot - jab of MMR or (not likely) measles-alone vaccine.

(3) Consequence of giving measles and probably other diseases (albeit 'attenuated') to very malnourished children: makes them much more likely to have very bad case of (probably already circulating) polio.

If the same children were well nourished and had adequate clean water for drinking and washing, if they were exposed to poliovirus -- even on top of MMR jab -- probably no lasting bad result.

When someone is slowly starving, their gut bacteria die off -- they are starving too. Teresa Conrick can obviuosly say more about that.

GIVING VACCINATIONS TO MALNOURISHED PERSON(S) IS A VERY BAD IDEA, as a general rule.

MSF a/k/a Doctors Without Borders, would probably say that it was a desperate situation. They would certainly be right. But that doesn't mean that the vaccination(s) didn't have serious negative effects for some of the recipients.

A major protein in the processed "food" is bovine, highly allergenic, and there is a whopping dose of lactose. Africans (and Asians) did not start herding animals 10,000 years ago with the Europeans and they have not gone through the same adaptation to be able to digest lactose past infancy and early childhood as many Europeans have. So, this is an unfit food source for them not only because it's highly processed, but because it is largely derived from cow's milk. Another main ingredient is sugar, guaranteed to rot teeth and in high enough quantities, suppress white blood cell function, not to mention that the sugar is no doubt made from GM pesticide/glyphosate doused, sugar beets. .... You make so many unscientific baseless assumptions.

Irony noted.

Gary made an excellent point - that MSF is distributing processed food to starving children who need the real thing - processed food that is not considered fit nourishment in this country.

The comment was in fact astonishingly ignorant and betrays a willingness to spout off about things without putting any thought into them whatever. Five seconds of searching for "MSF" + "peanut paste" would have revealed the referent.

No, children with severe acute malnutrition would not be "better off with a Happy Meal."

Eindecker,

"Mr Ogden
Keep your disgusting drivel to yourself not as bad as GAVI, but doing harm nevertheless, adding insult to injury and instead educate yourself by looking up how many MSF (Doctors without Borders to unilingual Americans) volunteer medical & nursing staff have been killed and injured trying to help others."

What the hell is wrong with you, Eindecker? Why do you have to be so aggressive, so nasty, so adversarial? Gary made an excellent point - that MSF is distributing processed food to starving children who need the real thing - processed food that is not considered fit nourishment in this country. Far from "disgusting drivel", it is very good information and something that we should improve. A major protein in the processed "food" is bovine, highly allergenic, and there is a whopping dose of lactose. Africans (and Asians) did not start herding animals 10,000 years ago with the Europeans and they have not gone through the same adaptation to be able to digest lactose past infancy and early childhood as many Europeans have. So, this is an unfit food source for them not only because it's highly processed, but because it is largely derived from cow's milk. Another main ingredient is sugar, guaranteed to rot teeth and in high enough quantities, suppress white blood cell function, not to mention that the sugar is no doubt made from GM pesticide/glyphosate doused, sugar beets.

Then you say:

"So the change in mumps titre was hardly a state secret was it? Now just think about this: the mumps vaccine is a live virus meant to cause a sub-clinical infection with the attenuated strain, no thiomersal, no adjuvant. So they up the mumps vaccine strain X4, maybe to ensure a better "take", maybe to ensure the vaccine retains potency over the shelf life, who knows but where exactly is your issue: you won't get a "worse" infection because there are more viral particles, there is no increased toxicity, the vaccine is designed to give a sub-clinical infection, perhaps you could explain where your issue is please"

What are you talking about? First of all, public health authorities say that only 95% of children mount an immune response to the MMR. Have you ever asked yourself what happens to these 3 live viruses in the bodies of the 5%? Yes, the plan is for the attenuated viruses to cause a sub-clinical infection, but it doesn't always work out that way. There is no shortage of "measles-like" rashes accompanied by all the wild measles symptoms in some children after receiving the MMR. These are well documented and occasionally even appear in mainstream news. Who knows what havoc the mumps and rubella antigens cause, alone or in synergy, in the 5% (or the 95% for that matter).

You make so many unscientific baseless assumptions. You assume that more antigen is not any more toxic than less. You assume that dead antigen (if some viral particles do not survive until administration), is not a problem. You assume that the combination of antigens, in both the old and the new antigen amounts, will be well tolerated. What are you basing these assumptions on? Preapproval phase I testing of any drug is supposed to establish dosage safety. The increase in antigen was a change in dosage that should have been safety tested. But instead of testing, wild assumptions were made and the new vaccine was marketed. Further, MMR was never tested in combination before going to market in the first place. The 3 live viral vaccines that had been tested individually were combined into one vaccine without testing.

Mr Ogden
Keep your disgusting drivel to yourself not as bad as GAVI, but doing harm nevertheless, adding insult to injury and instead educate yourself by looking up how many MSF (Doctors without Borders to unilingual Americans) volunteer medical & nursing staff have been killed and injured trying to help others.

@Linda1
So the change in mumps titre was hardly a state secret was it? Now just think about this: the mumps vaccine is a live virus meant to cause a sub-clinical infection with the attenuated strain, no thiomersal, no adjuvant. So they up the mumps vaccine strain X4, maybe to ensure a better "take", maybe to ensure the vaccine retains potency over the shelf life, who knows but where exactly is your issue: you won't get a "worse" infection because there are more viral particles, there is no increased toxicity, the vaccine is designed to give a sub-clinical infection, perhaps you could explain where your issue is please

Linda1,

"In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units."

From the CDC: "Recurrent measles outbreaks among vaccinated school-aged children prompted both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1989 to recommend that all children receive two doses of measles-containing vaccine, preferably as MMR."
(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053391.htm).

So, changing from one to two doses of MMR meant the amount of mumps virus octupled (over the period of the two shots) compared to pre-1989. But, these step-function increases are still not in synch with the relatively monotonic autism increases I posted previously, showing good autism correlation between glyphosate increase over time and cell phone increase over time. Coupled with parental observations, I still believe the MMR functions as an enabler.

What also should be troubling are the changes in the viral components of the MMR. What safety studies were done to justify these changes? What are the long-term health impacts from these changes?

Finally, in the 2009 AoA article you reference, viral interference is discussed in isolation. How is it affected by endogenous influences, especially those that impact the immune system heavily?

For Dr. Kostoff and Eindecker:

Re MMR's link to autism incidence over the years - from a 2009 article by Dan:

"In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units. Neither the measles nor the rubella (German measles) component of the MMR was changed at all -- each remained at 1,000 units throughout."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/olmsted-on-autism-autism-explosion-followed-big-change-in-mmr-shot.html

Jenny, Thanks for the link to the news story on methyl bromide!!! The dangers of methyl bromide and its effects on the brain came to my attention back in 1975. I found the article by Goulon et al. in the Science Citation Index, looking for citations to a paper on the midbrain by Derek Denny-Brown. Use of methyl bromide as a fire extinguisher was banned long ago. Its use should long ago have been banned for any purpose. Only cyanide may be more toxic. How slow can the advance of science be???

Below are citations in PubMed. Methyl bromide is one of many toxic substances that cause Wernicke's encephalopathy, symmetric bilateral injury in brainstem structures and sensory circuits. I have posted citations on AoA many times on this pattern of brainstem damage caused by mercury, lead, valproic acid, antibiotics, anti-cancer drugs, pesticide and herbicide chemicals, and polio infection, as well as arsenic, alcohol, and asphyxia at birth.

Dan, keep going. Autism in most cases is likely the result of two or more damaging events. And, autism from all causes likely affects brainstem pathways essential for full maturation of the cerebral cortex.

Brainstem Damage from Methyl Bromide:
[1] de Souza A, et al. The neurological effects of methyl bromide intoxication. J Neurol Sci. 2013 Dec 15;335(1-2):36-41.
[2] Suwanlaong K, Phanthumchinda K. Neurological manifestation of methyl bromide intoxication. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008 Mar;91(3):421-6.
[3] Geyer HL, et al. Methyl bromide intoxication causes reversible symmetric brainstem and cerebellar MRI lesions. Neurology. 2005 Apr 12;64(7):1279-81.
[4] Ichikawa H, et al. [A case of chronic methyl bromide intoxication showing symmetrical lesions in the basal ganglia and brain stem on magnetic resonance imaging]. Rinsho Shinkeigaku. 2001 Jul;41(7):423-7.
[5] Cavanagh JB. Methyl bromide intoxication and acute energy deprivation syndromes. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 1992 Dec;18(6):575-8.
[6] Squier MV, Thompson J, Rajgopalan B. Case report: neuropathology of methyl bromide intoxication. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 1992 Dec;18(6):579-84.
[7] Hauw JJ, et al. (1986) Postmortem studies on posthypoxic and post-methyl bromide intoxication: case reports. Advances in Neurology 43:201-214.
[8] Goulon M, et al. Intoxication par le bromure de methyl: Trois observations, dont une mortelle. Etude neuro-pathologique d'un cas de stupeur avec myoclonies, suivi pendent cinq ans. [Methyl bromide poisoning. 3 cases, 1 fatal. Neruopathological study of one case of coma with myoclonus followed for 5 years]. Rev Neurol (Paris). 1975 Jul;131(7):445-68.
[9] Franken L. Étude anatomique d'un cas d'intoxication par le bromure de méthyle. [Anatomical study of a case of methylbromide poisoning. Acta Neurol Psychiatr Belg. 1959 Mar;59(3):375-83.
[10] DeJong R (1944) Methyl bromide poisoning. Journal of the American Medical Association 125:702.

$87 million plus $10 million for one family's paralysis - methyl bromide

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/87m-settlement-to-family-sickened-by-toxic-pesticide-terminix-on-vacation/

It's a bit strange to say Zika causes microcephaly, if the exact path of how this happens is not known. Just because there is the presence of the Zika virus, sequenced or not, doesn't mean it causes microcephaly. Correlation does not mean causation. It's a start that makes it worth looking. If Zika has not until recently caused microcephaly, what is it that might have made the difference other than a mutation possibly caused by the insecticide used to combat the insects proliferation, especially if that insecticide causes a change in DNA. Here is a question: Do the immature mosquitoes hatched from mutated Aedes aegpti eggs still sting and thus cause illness? They cannot reproduce but has the question been asked whether they can cause microcephaly by stinging their victims?

Eindecker,

"...manufacturers of licensed pharmaceuticals have to submit detailed manufacturing protocols to the licensing authorities of those countries where they sell their products, eg the FDA or EMA. They also have to notify these authorities of any changes to the manufacturing procedures used including component materials. Since they are liable to detailed spot inspections at any time it is simply not worth their while in taking risks of not following declared protocols."

Thanks for that. It is my understanding that the public is not allowed to know the exact formulation of vaccines because of trade secrets. Do you think the FDA knows? Remember that when Merck's whistleblower virologists reported Merck to the FDA, the FDA called Merck to inform them that there would be a "surprise" inspection the following week.

Cia,

"Very little has been definitively determined at this time, but I don't think we should have a mental block in deciding ahead of time what causes we will not even entertain the idea of."

It's the circumstances and public health/industry/meda behavior that makes the Zika crisis suspicious. It was too orchestrated. In a real crisis, they trip over themselves for years before they're able to respond, if they respond at all.

Eindeker; I am not sure if Dan is ready to move on from 1916 - I don't know if there are still more surprises but if you are moving on already

http://search.aol.com/aol/image?q=WWII+and+delousing&s_it=img-ans&imgId=AEFEF6D1FA89269C7FBFA118472AE7DDA08A30C7&s_chn=prt_bon2-g&v_t=comsearch-hyplogusaolp00000092

Eindecker, thanks for laying out the objections to the arsenic hypothesis. i think they are all relevant and i will address them going forward ... dan

Dear Emma
Yes I am aware of the terrible starvation in Holland following the German retreat in 1945 and their breaching of the dykes, I understand the RAF tried to alleviate this with food drops. But back to the discussion I doubt very much if there were any pesticides available for use in the chaos of war, but Holland was still afflicted by polio outbreaks.

Dan
right now i'm not speculating beyond 1916. putting aside later developments, what is wrong with the arsenic-virus theory as it pertains to 1916 alone?

3 thoughts come immediately to mind:
> Toxicity. For your arsenic cofactor to be true the dose of arsenic would have to be sufficient to disrupt the immune system but not so high as to trigger classical signs of arsenic poisoning, otherwise these would have been recognised on a much wider scale within the population not just those infected by polio virus eg http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/812953-overview So sufficient to act as a cofactor but not enough to trigger classical signs or arsenic poisoning......seems highly unlikely as arsenate poisons by disrupting many metabolic pathways by substituting for phosphorus, essential in key cellular energy generation pathways. If the concentration was sufficient to act as a cofactor for polio virus why no other pathology signs?
> Lack of any differentiation between this outbreak and many others starting to occur around this time where there is no evidence of arsenic involvement, see the Vienna presentation indicating many countries were experiencing outbreaks of paralytic polio in this period.
I haven't come across any data giving the age distribution of cases in the 1916 outbreak: if it included children rather than babies this would be in line with the increasing hygiene hypothesis, and nullify the need for the speculative cofactor there was one comment in this presentation: In 1916, New York experienced the first large epidemic, with more than 9,000 cases and 2,343 deaths. The 1916 toll nationwide was 27,000 cases and 6,000 deaths. Children were particularly affected; the image shows child patients suffering from eye paralysis Please note the unusual aspect of children, not babies, being affected.
> Lack of any evidence, rather than speculation, to support the presence of arsenic in the sugar, hardly surprising after a century, but to build an alternative hypothesis with a total lack of physical or analytical evidence to support it is pushing credibility too far.
I would suggest that it is up to you Dan to demonstrate that the facts of the 1916 New York epidemic are not concordant with the increased hygiene theory to explain the shift from an endemic disease state with a relatively low rate of paralysis to a limited epidemic form with a higher rate of morbidity and mortality affecting older children

Ronald;
When I was going through college and a decade after I got out - all we heard about were the holesssss in the ozone-- on and on and on- at every turn - in every science paper -the authors would some how try to hook what ever research they were doing up to the holes in the ozone. Cause that meant it would get published.

If you care to delve into that one - you will find it was a hoax, and it is not about - not about just big pharma or big fossil fuel companies - I wish it was. It is about government - it is about setting up government agencies to protect us and instead the people working in these government agencies are just another layer of people that are looking to exploit us (the public) even further.

So, I've been through this bunch of taking before. Only if the public is made to believe it can they do it to us. They made us believe about holes in the ozone and we are paying in taxes on that one still.

Oh, we expect those in industry to do that to us; but we are not expecting it coming from the government. That is the hardest thing I have had to really understand these past 30 years about the vaccine injuries.

As far as the MMR - they do change the formula as the horrific tale about the Urabi mumps vaccine unfolded and was uncovered. My own kids did well with the MMR - they did not have that vaccine until they were over the age of three years old. After that they started adding boosters - and then more boosters to that vaccine. On top of that they have adding more boosters to the DPT vaccine for many years. That is the one that did my kids in.

In college what little they had in text books about vaccines - in print -it said a vaccine was considered a very poor vaccine and a dangerous vaccine if it requires boosters.

Many on here think that the DPT shot did lead to a reaction to the MMR - which might not be a bad theory.

Benedetta,

"I say lies, twisted truth, greed, and corruption of the government are connected to the global warming."

I agree that government lies in all areas, to protect its own jobs and protect future opportunities for lucrative corporate employment. In general, the higher level officials in government tend to overstate the threats in order to obtain more funding for potential solutions (which coincidentally will benefit their corporate overlords and potential employers), and tend to understate the damages resulting from these potential solutions.

We see this with vaccines and drugs, and with wireless radiation. But, in my view, we also see this with climate change. I have examined the technical literature on climate change in detail. My conclusion is the situation is far more dire than advertised. The government and IPCC studies tend to understate the consequences of even what we have done to the climate already, much less what we are going to do in the future. If the truth were widely known, there would be global chaos!

Unfortunately, the adverse effects from just the three toxic products I mention above (vaccines/drugs, wireless radiation, fossil fuels), are increasing, and in fact, are accelerating rapidly. Based on the ~800 pervasive causes of disease I identified in my eBook, I suspect there are many other toxic substances whose adverse effects are increasing rapidly as well.

Given the present trends, in a few decades the consequences from any of the above toxic substances are sufficient to destroy our civilization. In combination, that is almost guaranteed!

John Stone chastises me for being pessimistic. From the literatures I've read, and the conclusions I've drawn, how could I not be pessimistic? Where is the strategy and the groundswell for reversing the explosion in vaccine use? Where is the strategy and the groundswell for reversing the explosion in wireless radiation use? Where is the strategy and the groundswell for reversing the projected increases in fossil fuel use? We have zero carbon budget left (http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/05/the-real-budgetary-emergency-burnable.html); who is signing on to that?

Sorry for the negativity, but the 'Hope and Change' Obama-style approach no longer works for me.

Dr. Kostoff,
Re cell phones causing cancer in some but not others. Not enough time has passed to know. I'm afraid that while in 2032 - 1 in 2 will be autistic, that the other crisis will be wireless induced brain and other cancers. As you well know, it is not looking good for the human race.

Re pre 1990's MMR leading to less autism. EMF/wireless/glyphosate are all known to impair immunity and cellular function, so they are likely cofactors. But the most compelling explanation in my mind is that the difference between the MMR now and the MMR then is all the other vaccines which have been added, given prenatally, at birth and frequently in large doses and ridiculous combinations throughout the child's first year of life. By the time a child gets the MMR, the child's immature immune system has taken such a beating, including necessitating antibiotic therapy that adds insult to injury, that the child cannot fend off 3 even attenuated live viruses.

Eindeker,

Re: your most compelling argument, WW2:

Sugar may have been rationed during the war, but here in Holland lack of food made
people eat sugarbeets (and tulip bulbs), especially during the "hungerwinter" of 1944/5.

Linda1,

"There is another possibility - that Merck changed the MMR formulation one or more times in all those years."

There are many other possibilities. There were two doses given starting around the end of the 80s. Maybe the second dose was the deal-breaker.

But, I am still troubled by the discrepancy between the approximately flat dosage rate of MMR since the early 90s, and the rapid increase in autism. There would have to be some other factor(s) involved whose increase parallels that of the autism increase. According to some comments I posted a few weeks ago, substances like glyphosate and cell phones exhibited such increases, and their proponents proposed credible mechanisms linking the toxic stimulus to autism. I didn't look further; there may have been such increases in other toxic substances as well. The only explanation that integrates all the data, including parental observations that developmental regression started shortly after the vaccinations, is that the COMBINATION of the MMR vaccine and the glyphosate and/or the cell phones and/or ????? results in the autism and who-knows-what other maladies later on.

That occurs in many other fields. My EMF health impacts paper focuses mainly on such combinations, one of whose components is some form of EMF. There were many cases where the EMF component by itself caused no problem and the other agent caused no problem, but the combination caused a serious problem.

Not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets lung cancer, but some do, more than expected randomly. Not everyone who uses cell phones heavily gets brain cancer, but some do, more than expected randomly. For those who become afflicted, there must be other factors beyond the primary operating as well.

David M. Burd,

"There's an abundance of 150 years of measuring sea levels from basic tidal datums - around the world as navies and sailors were traveling therefore and really needed to know - . Guess what? The actual change of sea levels has been a straight line graph (around the world) that shows about 5 inches of sea rise the last 150 years, AND, it's not accelerating".

Another unsubstantiated claim! A recent paper published in February shows that sea level rise due to climate change has increased substantially, and is ACCELERATING (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055)!

"I agree with John Stone, and disagree with your belief that 97% of climate scientists agree."

You can agree with John Stone and Donald Trump on climate change all you want. My approach is to read the technical literature, and draw conclusions based on the soundness of the arguments. People like James Hansen, Kevin Anderson, and many others have risked their careers by opposing the dictates of the fossil energy companies to tell the truth about climate change. Even the ultra-conservative IPCC has shown the level of devastation possible if we continue on the present path of fossil energy use. At this point in time, 99+% of the peer-reviewed papers published on climate change agree that it's real and mainly anthropogenic-based. But, since they don't agree with your biases, I am sure you can disregard them with the wave of a hand!

I find it interesting that people on this site who rant and rave about the evils of Big Pharma are only too eager to follow the dictates of Big Fossil lock, stock, and barrel!

VE they could identify it through test by 1908 but I too do have to wonder how wide spread were these test - and how ay if any received this simple test? Or did some doctor come in and listen to the symptoms and just put it on a toe tag.

Ronald;
What John is meaning is there are strange things a foot when it comes to the environment and the Government. What is up is down and down is up. Every since EPA top environmentalist came up with the idea to make every moving, working industry pay for any product that is not t of the wild dark and gloomy forest, rose the pine trees with cones upon them, by the shining big sea waters and probably even that ause they like money. Right now connected to global warming is the tax - of cap and trade. As long as there is talk of cap and trade and money involved - I say lies, twisted truth, greed, and corruption of the government are connected to the global warming.

It has been done to us before . as in what ever happened to the holes in the ozone is going to kill us all dead?

But right now we are talking only about 1916 and a little old lady that ran an ice cream shop - collapsing finally in that shop. Goes to the hospital - gets some what better only to return to the ice-cream shop and finally does die.

Dr. Kostoff,

"If the vaccine alone had been the main contributing factor, we would have seen the massive jump forty years ago. "

There is another possibility - that Merck changed the MMR formulation one or more times in all those years. There is no way to know because they don't have to divulge the exact ingredients and amounts. For that matter, different factories could have produced the vaccine differently, but still within what regulators would have considered acceptable - if they were allowed to know? Also, the vaccine could have had viral or other contamination or undetected problems with ingredients in later years that were not in earlier production batches. Maybe it was the more recent vaccine production technology.

David M. Burd,

"There's an abundance of 150 years of measuring sea levels from basic tidal datums - around the world as navies and sailors were traveling therefore and really needed to know - . Guess what? The actual change of sea levels has been a straight line graph (around the world) that shows about 5 inches of sea rise the last 150 years, AND, it's not accelerating".

Another unsubstantiated claim! A recent paper published in February shows that sea level rise due to climate change has increased substantially, and is ACCELERATING (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055)!

"I agree with John Stone, and disagree with your belief that 97% of climate scientists agree."

You can agree with John Stone and Donald Trump on climate change all you want. My approach is to read the technical literature, and draw conclusions based on the soundness of the arguments. People like James Hansen, Kevin Anderson, Michael Mann, and many others have risked their careers by opposing the dictates of the fossil energy companies to tell the truth about climate change. Even the ultra-conservative IPCC has shown the level of devastation possible if we continue on the present path of fossil energy use. At this point in time, 99+% of the peer-reviewed papers published on climate change agree that it's real and mainly anthropogenic-based. But, since they don't agree with your biases, I am sure you can disregard them with the wave of a hand!

I find it interesting that people on this site who rant and rave about the evils of Big Pharma are only too eager to follow the dictates of Big Fossil lock, stock, and barrel!

VE -- i agree that is another valid option. i will add it to the article -- thanks dan

David M. Burd,

"What was EVEN MORE common among the fatalities was the very strong dosing of both the nucleoside analogue Ribavirin and corticosteroids"

You made the same unsubstantiated claim a few months ago, and I responded. I will repeat my response to close the loop:

I searched Medline for Ribavirin and SARS. There were 151 documents retrieved. I looked at the more recent, which would have the added benefit of the perspective of time. Two of the more informative are shown below. They validate my conclusion: drugs did not work. As to whether "drug treatments actually killed most all the "SARS" victims", as you suggest, I see no basis for that conclusion from the studies below or the other studies I examined briefly.

SARS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF TREATMENT EFFECTS.
Stockman/BellamyGarner

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SARS outbreak of 2002-2003 presented clinicians with a new, life-threatening disease for which they had no experience in treating and no research on the effectiveness of treatment options. The World Health Organization (WHO) expert panel on SARS treatment requested a systematic review and comprehensive summary of treatments used for SARS-infected patients in order to guide future treatment and identify priorities for research.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: In response to the WHO request we conducted a systematic review of the published literature on ribavirin, corticosteroids, lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r), type I interferon (IFN), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and SARS convalescent plasma from both in vitro studies and in SARS patients. We also searched for clinical trial evidence of treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sources of data were the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to February 2005. Data from publications were extracted and evidence within studies was classified using predefined criteria. In total, 54 SARS treatment studies, 15 in vitro studies, and three acute respiratory distress syndrome studies met our inclusion criteria. Within in vitro studies, ribavirin, lopinavir, and type I IFN showed inhibition of SARS-CoV in tissue culture. In SARS-infected patient reports on ribavirin, 26 studies were classified as inconclusive, and four showed possible harm. Seven studies of convalescent plasma or IVIG, three of IFN type I, and two of LPV/r were inconclusive. In 29 studies of steroid use, 25 were inconclusive and four were classified as causing possible harm.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite an extensive literature reporting on SARS treatments, it was not possible to determine whether treatments benefited patients during the SARS outbreak. Some may have been harmful. Clinical trials should be designed to validate a standard protocol for dosage and timing, and to accrue data in real time during future outbreaks to monitor specific adverse effects and help inform treatment.

EFFECTIVENESS OF RIBAVIRIN AND CORTICOSTEROIDS FOR SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME.
Lau/Cowling/Muller/Ho/Tsang/Lo/Louie/Leung

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ribavirin and corticosteroids were used widely as front-line treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome; however, previous evaluations were inconclusive. We assessed the effectiveness of ribavirin and corticosteroids as the initial treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome using propensity score analysis.

METHODS: We analyzed data on 1755 patients in Hong Kong and 191 patients in Toronto with severe acute respiratory syndrome using a generalized propensity score approach.

RESULTS: The adjusted excess case fatality ratios of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome receiving the combined therapy of ribavirin and corticosteroids within 2 days of admission, compared with those receiving neither treatment within 2 days of admission, were 3.8% (95% confidence interval, -1.5 to 9.2) in Hong Kong and 2.1% (95% confidence interval, -44.3 to 48.5) in Toronto.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results add strength to the hypothesis that the combination of ribavirin and corticosteroids has no therapeutic benefit when given early during severe acute respiratory syndrome infection. Further studies may investigate the effects of these treatments later in disease course.

I know about arsenic. I was going to be a pharmacist. At the pharmacy where I got my practical experience in Germany it was even used as a kind of tonic. Every year we got a prescription that I filled which contained a very insignificant amount of arsenic. Homeopathic medicines are still available. I am also aware that it is a serious toxin. Apparently it kills and it does it a lot better than mercury for instance. There is no mistaking the effects of arsenic for those of polio. Arsenic is well known as to what it causes. In history doses of arsenic were given to old horses when they were readied for sale. These treated horses pranced around at the horse market, and when the unwitting buyer bought one, he would already on the way home find out the hard way how lame that horse really was.

Heavy metals have a sordid history, and there are notwo ways about that. But arsenic intoxication and polio are not the same thing.

It seems to me that doctors are casual about the transience of arsenic poisoning. My husband had a relatively mild case of polio where only one muscle and right shoulder atrophied. But he has had post-polio syndrome since the 1930s.

Doctors are a lot more casual now than they were in the olden days. I can attest to that by experiencing what they did to my son Erik now dead.

Jessica- right on- If Zika caused microcephaly, the virus would be found in all samples. And why does no one bother to suggest to us what the pathway of zika causing microcephaly might be. Are we so stupid as to just imagine that viruses can cause anything? Pesticides and lavacides, on the other hand are designed to inhibit life. Not hard to imagine the physiological pathway there. Why are there no cases of microcephaly in other south American countries that also have mosquitoes. ? I also doubt very much that Zika is invading the U.S. More likely it was always there and the CDC knew all about it. Of course they are now busy " discovering" Zika in many parts of the world.
I live in New Delhi and every year, during the monsoon, July to Sept, there are some unusual fevers, and of course during the monsoon we have lots of mosquitoes. We dont bother to give these fevers catchy names. We just call them "viral fever" I suppose that Zika has been one of them.
Interesting also, to note that the people who want us to be terrified of the latest "Pandemic" never bother to tell anyone how to keep their immune system in good shape. In fact, they dont mind at all giving us vaccines with mercury that severely damages the immune system.

ciaparker,

You say: "How can we be sure when there is at least some evidence that the (Zika) virus can cause a devastating birth defect?"

Evidence? What evidence? There are so many "epidemics" that are just conjured up - by such as CDC and their Pharma Partners!!

To paraphrase a lawyer's idiom that's pertinent to our corrupt Medical World: "Hell, the legal/medical system can indict a ham sandwich!"

The Zika Panic is just that: Conjured up by the likes of Anthony Fauci at NIAID and his buddies at CDC and Pharma.

Birgit,

Arsenic toxification by itself can cause "peripheral neuropathy" which is a person's limbs are more/less paralyzed -- and usually recoverable.

Just as "transient flaccidity" in those diagnosed with "polio" almost always goes away, which is why it's called transient. In my view there is no discernible clinical difference - and as such, in times of panic, most medicos "go with the flow" and dump way too many diagnoses in the basket that is causing headlines.

I think there are a number of things that can cause microcephaly, and there have been many cases of it in the US for a long time. But I also think that it looks like the Zika virus can cause it as well. I understand that it seems not to have done so in Africa (though it's not certain), and that it may well be that the virus has mutated and that the new strain can cause it where the old one may not have been able to. I believe that the use of a lot of new insecticides in Brazil may well have potentiated the virus so that it can now in some cases cause microcephaly. Starting to give the Tdap vaccine to pregnant women last year may have played a role as well. I think, though, that it is a real occurrence, and not just a scam invented by vaccine developers.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077091-whole-zika-genome-recovered-from-brain-of-baby-with-microcephaly/

This article talks about a study in which the zika genome was found in the brain of a dead fetus whose mother had been exposed to Zika. It says that destruction of brain cells by the virus was seen, with no other possible factors or viruses being observed.

The US sent an insecticide to Puerto Rico without having been asked for it, but demonstrators there did not want it sprayed, and the governor of PR agreed, and is instead going to spray with a safer agent to disrupt the breeding cycle of the carrier Aedes Aegypti mosquito. He said that he hopes that no babies will be born with microcephaly as a consequence of his decision. I think it's admirable that he has listened to his people, sent back the insecticide PR had not asked for and did not want, and that he's concerned about microcephaly but is choosing an alternative method of mosquito eradication instead which may be safer.

There is no reason to believe that it is only arsenic. The polio vaccine clearly had an effect. Arsenic by itself has never caused polio. It's been around through history. The vaccine was very effective. It really made a big difference. But it also is a fact that huge numbers did not get polio even though they got the virus laced with arsenic.

I believe the theory above is better than any other so far. And it fits with how I look at heavy metals.

Here's option 4:
It wasn't polio virus and arsenic. It was Coxsackie virus and arsenic. Or some other virus/bacteria/munchkin and arsenic.
What evidence is there to prove that polio virus was there in NYC 1916, causing all these paralysis and death cases?
Detroit 1958 epidemic had taught us that when tested, there are several viruses to "blame" for the illness that is called "polio".
So, I'm really curious: what evidence science can offer to establish it was polio virus in 1916?

John Stone,

"BTW I am slightly fed up (to use a polite term)."

Fed up with what, John?

BTW I am slightly fed up (to use a polite term). I know London is not the entire northern hemisphere but we keep on being told we are having record hot summers whereas I remember much hotter summers in the past: I haven't done any sweltering at night for at least a decade. In London this year we have a pleasant mild summer.