Yesterday, /u/thc1967 was misleading people about the polio vaccine, so I wrote a very detailed rebuttal. Since he didn't bother to reply, here's the comment I wrote in case anyone else is interested in learning more.
59 2013-11-07 by axolotl_peyotl
Some background:
90 to 95% of people exposed to polio actually don't show any symptoms.
To put things in perspective, only 1 out of 1,000 people actually get paralytic polio, the rest experience flu-like symptoms or nothing at all. Despite the fact that the medical establishment claims to have eradicated polio, far more effective factors contributed to polio's demise: sanitation, sewage control, refrigeration and central heat all contributed to stopping the disease.
Also, "polio" was reclassified into numerous other diseases around the same time it was supposedly "eradicated" due to the polio vaccine. In reality, polio cases just became reclassified as we learned more and more about subtle variations in diseases.
Check out this book: Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners.
I highly recommend it...it really takes apart the "herd immunity" myth and particularly exposes how weak the claim is that the polio vaccine eradicated the disease. They cite numerous statistics that show that cases of polio actually increased in the the areas where they were being used in the US in the 50's.
What happened was that increased awareness of sanitation combined with a "reclassification" of what was known as polio led to the "eradication" of the disease. Right around the same time that the vaccine was introduced in the 50's, polio was finally reclassified as numerous diseases since we were starting to understand more about the subtle variations between them.
"Polio" until that point had referred to a whole group of ailments...and shortly after the vaccine was introduced, cases that previously had been labeled as "polio" now were identified correctly. This led to a sharp drop in reported polio cases, when what was happening was that there were just as many "polio-like" cases that they just weren't calling polio anymore.
If you have a healthy child with a healthy immune system in a first world nation with good sanitation, the chances are extremely slim your child will be paralyzed by polio.
So yes I would trust the child's healthy immune system over a corrupt and broken pharmaceutical establishment that would knowingly dump blood products tainted with HIV and hepatitis C, infecting hundreds of thousands, so as to not lose money.
And then there's the greatest medical blunder in the 20th century, which is directly related to the polio vaccine.
The following is from the well respected book The Health Century by Edward Shorter:
Sarah Stewart and Bernice Eddy's discovery of the polyoma in 1957 marked the real takeoff of theories about virus and cancer. It could be destructive like polio, but produce tumors at the same time.
At the same time in the late 1950s that Eddy and Stewart were producing cancers in animals with the polyoma virus, Eddy had sneaked back to the polio vaccine. "I did things on the side which I wasn't assigned to do," Eddy said. One of them was starting to conduct safety experiments on the polio vaccine in June 1959, from which she had officially been removed four years earlier (She exposed the danger of the polio vaccine and was ignored, resulting in the infamous Cutter Incident, in which 40,000 children contracted polio from faulty vaccines).
In observing cells from the kidneys of rhesus monkeys under the microscope—the kind of cell preparation from which the polio vaccine was being made by private drug companies—Eddy had noted spontaneous degeneration, meaning that the cells would start to die without any apparent cause. She did more experiments with these cells, and on July 6, 1960, reported to her chief Joseph Smadel, that when she injected preparations from those monkey kidneys into hamsters, the hamsters got cancer. Tumors grew in newborn hamsters at the site of injection; probably a virus in the monkey cells was causing the cancer.
The story that follows is such a sad one, partly because Smadel himself was a distinguished scientist, not just a petty bureaucrat...he was not pleased, just after assuming his new post in viral research, when Eddy threw this time bomb onto his desk: the possibility of a cancer-causing virus in the polio vaccine. In August he sat down with Eddy, went over her data, and dismissed the findings as "lumps."
The Eddy problem landed again on Smadel's desk when, in October of 1960, she gave a talk at the New York meeting of the Cancer Society. At the meeting she described finding a cancer-causing virus in the monkey cells from which the polio vaccine was grown. Smadel hit the roof. "Smadel called me up," Eddy said, "and if there was anything in the English language—any awful name—that he could call me, he did. Oh, he was mad. I never saw anybody so mad.” Smadel wrote Eddy a letter later that day forbidding her to speak in public again without clearing a written text of her remarks specifically with him. That was just the beginning.
Eventually, Bernice Eddy lost her labs. In successive measures she was denied permission to attend scholarly conferences, her papers were held up, and finally she was removed from vaccine research altogether. Her treatment became a scandal within the scientific community and was discussed in Senate hearings.
Bernice Eddy came to a shocking conclusion: an entire generation had been given cancer-causing monkey viruses. Using this knowledge, she predicted a future epidemic of cancer (sound familiar?).
Maurice Hilleman and Benjamin Sweet came to similar conclusions. One of the viruses they discovered they called SV-40, SV for Simian Virus, and 40 because it was the 40th such virus discovered. According to Hilleman:
The discovery of this new virus...raises the important question of the existence of other such viruses...As shown in this report, all three types of Sabin's live poliovirus vaccine, now fed to millions of persons of all ages, were contaminated with SV-40.
Hilleman also has claimed that Merck's hep B vaccines caused an AIDS epidemic in the US. The US government even admits that the hep B vaccine can cause lupus.
It should be noted that Maurice Hilleman is not some fringe scientist: he is credited with saving more lives than any other scientist of the 20th century.
John Martin, former FDA virologist, had this to say: "SV-40 infection is now widespread within the human population almost certainly as a result of the polio vaccine."
SV-40 is repeatedly extracted from several types of tumors, including brain, bone and previously rare chest cancers.
If you truly claim to have an open mind on this subject, read this book:
The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect
The polio vaccine is almost definitely responsible, more than any other factor, for the current epidemic of soft tissue cancers.
The US continued producing the polio vaccine using monkey kidneys until 2000, so this will affect your children and your grandchildren. Albert Sabin, one of the first developers of the polio vaccine, had this to say:
I think to release certain information is not a public service. There's too much scaring the public unnecessarily. Oh. your children were injected with a cancer virus and all that. That's not very good!
Researchers have found SV-40 in 45% of seminal fluid samples and 23% of blood samples from healthy donors, meaning that it almost definitely is sexually transmittable, can go from mother to child, and therefore can pass on to new generations.
There's also extremely compelling evidence of a connection between the polio vaccine trials that occurred in Africa in the 50's and the AIDS epidemic that originated in the exact same time and place.
Hilary Koprowski used monkey and chimpanzee parts in his vaccines. One of the first places he began the forced vaccination was Leopoldville, the location of a major AIDS outbreak in the late 50's.
Sabin, the other main producer of the polio vaccine, analyzed Koprowski's "oral" vaccine and found that it was "unstable and contaminated by an unknown virus."
In response to Sabin's claims of contamination, Koprowski simply scoffed at him and said he was just trying to discredit his work (as he would do again and again to anyone making this accusation).
The Wikipedia page on the OPV AIDS hypothesis, in typical Wikipedia fashion, dismisses the hypothesis in the first paragraph, but then throughout the article lists several interest points and distinguished and established scientists who have taken this hypothesis very seriously.
Here's the logical fallacy that seems glaringly apparent to me: (from Koprowski's Wikipedia page)
"The OPV AIDS hypothesis has been widely rejected throughout the scientific community and is contradicted by modern research on the origin of the disease."
In other words, now that we now that AIDS actually originated in the early 1900's (and maybe even earlier), the "experts" use this to disprove the hypothesis that the Koprowski vaccine trials were the origin of AIDS.
But this misses the essential point of the issue: just because this event wasn't the origin of AIDS doesn't mean contamination didn't occur on a wide scale. The timing is too extraordinary.
Here's an excerpt from this book:
From 1957 to 1960, after years of tinkering with monkey kidneys and polio germs, Dr. Hilary Koprowski tested his own experimental polio vaccine on 325,000 equatorial Africans, including 75,000 citizens of Leopoldville, Belgian Congo. 98% of the vaccine recipients were infants and toddlers. The youngest children received 15 times the adult dosage. Though Koprowski claimed he had the backing of the World Health Organization, WHO denied sanctioning the large-scale trials.
In 1959, Dr. Albert Sabin reported in the British Medical Journal that Koprowski's polio vaccine used in the African trials contained an "unidentified" cell-killing virus. It was never identified. However, in 1986 the earliest known blood cample containing antibodies against HIV was traced back to 1959. The serum came from a patient visiting a clinic in Leopoldville.
Koprowski's vaccine was not approved for human use, so it was discontinued in 1960 following the African trials. Thus, it was only administered to inhabitants of the Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Burundi--the precise area where high levels of HIV infection were identified by researched 30 years later. Furthermore, the AIDS virus is known to infect mucous cells, prevalent in the mouth. The African vaccines were squirted into people's mouths.
I met a pediatrician and asked if there was one vaccine that he thought it would be OK to skip.
Without hesitation he said "polio".
72 comments
8 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
The only comments here are in the negative...yet no one wants to chime in to counter some of this information?
It seems like the tactics of people who are uncomfortable with the information but are unable (or unwilling) to try and refute it.
Fortunately, the flow of information can't be stopped.
There's even more to the SV-40 story, and it directly relates to the Kennedy assassination, incredibly enough.
Here's a lengthy comment I wrote several months ago on this aspect of the story.
For those who enjoyed reading this post, I highly recommend checking out this story, which includes Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Judyth Vary Baker, Dr. Alton Ochsner, and a secret project that first was set up to try and reverse the damage done by SV-40 being introduced into the majority of the population.
This project quickly morphed into something more sinister: research into developing a cancer-causing bioweapon, ostensibly to use against Castro, but more likely for the nefarious uses of TPTB.
6 MadleyBanning 2013-11-07
That's what happens when your mods ban all the smart people.
-4 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Well that explains your presence, at least.
-12 djsumdog 2013-11-07
Okay, so if you want a scientific look at the information, here's an excellent video with actual science, quantifiable numbers and facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_6QW9sNPEY
6 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Haha..."Vaccines and autism"...
You're joking right?
Did you actually read my post?
Did I mention autism anywhere?
You're going to have to try harder than that.
Come back when you actually read what I've written and can address the specific points I've made.
Don't confuse yourself and others by bringing autism into the discussion.
-2 djsumdog 2013-11-07
Well thanks for not watching the video.
The title mentions autism, but the video itself talks about a lot of the myths about vaccinations in general, including some of the things you've mentioned.
8 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
I took the time to put together this extremely detailed and sourced post, so I'm not really interested in watching a documentary that discusses a whole mess of different issues.
If the video indeed mentions anything I've discussed about the polio vaccine in this post, could you do me the courtesy of briefly summarizing those points?
I'. trying really hard to not let this devolve into a VACCINES GOOD OR BAD discussion, as you seem to be attempting.
Nothing is black and white and the polarization of positions on this subject into extremes is doing a huge disservice to actual rational discussion.
I'm specifically talking about the contamination and dangers of the polio vaccine, so bringing the efficacy and safety of every type of vaccine is irrelevant and distracts from the main points I'm making here.
Again, I would really appreciate it if you could summarize the points the video makes that are relevant to what I've posted here. If not, I'll put the video in my queue and I'll try to get around to it over the next few weeks.
2 moongolf 2013-11-07
1st thank you for your great and detailed original post
people have to throw out distractions or turn it into a question of "vaccine safety" bc they aren't willing to argue a specific question like possible contamination
this is such untouchable propaganda that you can say to people: tap water is safe, but someone could put poison into water and make it deadly or make it cancer causing right? like in erin brokovich?
"yes"
okay so vaccines are "safe" but someone could put something into some vaccine that make them deadly or make them harmful in some way?
"no vaccines are safe. such a thing is impossible and not only impossible it's a fucking crazy thought that it could ever be possible even by accident nutjob"
like so many conspiracy theories it's something people are unwilling to look at for a second
8 Pyroteknik 2013-11-07
If you go read his post, it's about cancer and the polio vaccine, as well as a way to induce cancer via a virus which was planned to be used on Fidel Castro.
But never mind that, AUTISM EVERYONE!
-3 fact_check_bot 2013-11-07
Vaccines do not cause autism or autism spectrum disorders. Although fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield claimed a connection, repeated attempts to reproduce the results ended in failure, and the research was ultimately shown to have been manipulated
This response was automatically generated from Wikipedia's list of common misconceptions Questions? Click here
6 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
lol @ this bot.
-1 fact_check_bot 2013-11-07
6 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Well for one, this "bot" seems to think that by me mentioning "autism" and "vaccines" that I'm suggesting a connection between the two, when my entire post has nothing to do with that subject. It's irrelevant to this discussion and the only reason I mentioned it is because someone else brought it up.
4 wehateporn 2013-11-07
Shocking propaganda, they actually tried to give credit for the eradication of Small Pox to vaccines, when only 10% of the world was ever vaccinated, what utter BS. It was quarantine which eradicated Small Pox.
As for Regressive Autism it is caused from combining Tylenol (aka Paracetamol) with the MMR vaccine (University of California)
-2 fact_check_bot 2013-11-07
Vaccines do not cause autism or autism spectrum disorders. Although fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield claimed a connection, repeated attempts to reproduce the results ended in failure, and the research was ultimately shown to have been manipulated
This response was automatically generated from Wikipedia's list of common misconceptions Questions? Click here
0 wehateporn 2013-11-07
Oh yes they do, check out the unvaccinated Amish = No Autism, check out the unvaccinated in war-torn Somalia = No Autism
You are just a PharmaBot that repeats propaganda, if there were bots spreading the truth no doubt they would be banned.
1 liquilife 2013-11-07
Oh my. You are a winner. Haha.
1 wehateporn 2013-11-07
LOL, those pharmabots have to be punished from time to time ;-)
-2 djsumdog 2013-11-07
Propaganda is a strong word for PhdComics, someone who started doing comics as a hobby. The crew of PhdComics are all scientists who have talked to other scientists and researchers around the world.
If you want some harder evidence, here's some information published by Stanford:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/pox/history.html
2 wehateporn 2013-11-07
Not sure if you're being disingenuous or if you really mean that, PhdComics get paid to create stuff, in that instance they were paid to create propaganda.
The Small Pox vaccine wasn't working, it was spreading Small Pox itself, an incredibly dangerous vaccine. In they end it was only quarantine which could stop Small Pox. That was according to a chap directly involved in the eradication. He said at best ring-fence vaccination i.e. vaccination of the family of the infected, speeded up the eradication slightly.
Keep in mind that Australia and New Zealand didn't have Small Pox vaccination programs, yet Small Pox was eradicated in both countries.
7 -10- 2013-11-07
Wow. Just wow.
-4 OWNtheNWO 2013-11-07
That awkward moment when you realize Crazy Alex Jones' rantings about cancer viruses in the vaccines are the truth.
2 -10- 2013-11-07
If you say so.
0 GMOsInMyGelato 2013-11-07
I don't think it's just him saying so.
-1 -10- 2013-11-07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Second-person_plural_pronouns_in_English
0 [deleted] 2013-11-07
That's what COINTEPRO folks like Agent Jones do to spread their disinfo...remember, 90% truth to 10% lies.
It's worked for years.
2 OWNtheNWO 2013-11-07
That's what COINTLEPRO folks like Xanaxinator do is spread their disinfo... remember anyone who spends all their time calling Alex Jones a shill are most likely one themselves.
0 [deleted] 2013-11-07
Shit! You got me! Thanks for blowing my cover asshole! Now I'm useless as a secret COINTELPRO agent!
Really...you seem so smart-why do you shill for that fat crypto-Zionist asswipe??
I was listening to his show when he announced that Russia had just launched hundreds of nuclear ICBMs at us.
I saw him attempt to game the search engines when he was exposed during the whole Molly Maroney incident.
I watched him, twice, take over peaceful demonstrations with his fucking bullhorn and try to turn them violent.
I've seen his HUGE fucking mansion in Travis Co Texas...paid for by idiots just like you. And, of course, by Zionists George Friedman and Jeffrey Smulyan, the guys that cut his paychecks and hand him the scripts...
...and so on.
Sorry buddy...I can't cure your hardon for Agent Jones. Listen to him for 12 years, like I did, and see if the pieces add up. Protip: they don't. Follow the money...
How you can be so intelligent yet such a fucking FOOL is beyond me dude.
1 OWNtheNWO 2013-11-07
You went full stalker, never go full stalker.
1 [deleted] 2013-11-07
Stalker?? Hardly.
As long as you have eyes (and a friend who lives in TX) it's impossible NOT to see. Biggest house for 20 miles.
5 rofl_waffle_zzz 2013-11-07
A friend had this to say:
Firstly, Blaylock is one of the most notorious quack physicians in the country. He was (and is?) a longtime spokesperson for AAPS, a fringe medical group notorious for politically motivated medical claims, most famously the claim that abortion causes cervical cancer. Mentioning him as if he's someone with authority in public health is like mentioning someone who believes in the luminiferous aether (like the internet-famous "Zephir") to someone intimate with the concept of special relativity.
The main cause for the attention on polio was because it crippled and killed children. In 1952, that is three years before the Salk vaccine, polio killed more children than any other infectious disease in the US. A sour twist was that it also affected upper and middle class people, so there was a strong kick for research funding (cf. the lag in attention paid to pellagra research decades earlier). Still, millions and millions of people voluntarily entered double-blind trials. The success of the Salk vaccine is generally considered to be why the NIH budget more than quintupled by the time the 86th Congress voted on a budget (see The Social Transformation of American Medicine, which I referenced a few days ago). The baby boomers were the first generation to go off to college where a career in medical research was an actual thing because of this. And hospitals were able to integrate more with clinical research because of that funding.
The Salk vaccine was one of the biggest reasons why (at least in the US) poliomyelitis became a non-issue. The only outbreaks have been in Amish communities, which is no surprised with a very inward-facing and anti-modern society.
Herd immunity is not a myth...not even close. It's extremely basic. You shrink a natural reservoir and transmission rates drop. Like evolution by natural selection, it's a pretty basic concept that for whatever reason is demonized by fanatical people like the post's OP. IIRC, Janeway's Immunobiology explains it pretty simply.
The Cutter incident is generally taken very seriously today from a legal and ethical standpoint, ditto SV40. Paul Offit, who's one of the country's best experts on vaccine scheduling, wrote a whole book on the lessons learned from Cutter. Though Offit is painted like a gigantic cartoon villain by a lot of the 'anti-vax' crowd so I think he's deemed untrustworthy by the conspiracists.
A lot of his claims about SV40 are lifted straight from, you guessed it, Natural News and a conspiracy-laden documentary (the producer of which also penned an article the OP has plugged). This page does a generous fisking of much of what he claims, even linking studies, discussing the interview he brings up, etc. But the response is just, "The timing is too good! I am the deliverer of enlightenment!"
As usual, let's all be very careful not to cherry pick our data!
3 [deleted] 2013-11-07
It's pretty hard for me to believe that all of this "accidental" contamination wasn't part of human experimentation programs. This goes for a lot of cases, some very bizzare and recent with pharmaceutical corporations. Oops, now you have HIV.
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=moneywatch&catid=42847237&feed_id=76&videofeed=43
3 Ploxl 2013-11-07
Holy shit man. You just blew my mind.
I heard something vague about aids being produced in a lab, but you just confirmed it.
Also the manipulation to force growth in cancer patients, its something i have heard about, you just hit it spot on.
Thanks a lot for (re)posting this! Wow.
Edit: typo
2 danxmason 2013-11-07
Brilliant analysis.
3 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Thank you! The lovely folks at conspiratard didn't take too kindly to this post, but that's always the best indicator that you've hit on something important.
Just like whenever /u/thc1967 and his ilk chime in on something, I know to specifically investigate the exact opposite of whatever point they're attempting to make.
It's really quite useful, actually.
0 Ploxl 2013-11-07
You found the weakness in their plans. More people should work Like this.
You are great dude, thanks for the info.
2 FaustianPact 2013-11-07
Exactly what disease where the symptoms of polio "reclassified" into.
At least you Didn't claim that the polio vaccine causes aids...
-1 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
From the book The Virus and the Vaccine:
1951-1960: 70,083 - 0
1961-1982: 589 - 102,999
1983-1992: 0 - 117,366
(now those are some extremely revealing statistics!)
That's just one example.
2 FaustianPact 2013-11-07
When someone comes in the signs of meningitis, one of the tests done is a lumbar puncture which tests for various viruses via PCR. Polio is one of them. So there goes that example. Correlation is not causation.
2 johnysmote 2013-11-07
Medical Doctor Susan Humphries speaks on Polio at the Association of Natural Health Conference. http://youtu.be/Twch-T-n8Ns
1 monkeyhear 2013-11-07
This is a superb post.
1 thc1967 2013-11-07
Wow, someone called me out. Entertaining.
Ultimately I think OP is right. I think it's best that people not vaccinate. Culling the herd and all. The only sad part of it is, it's children that will pay for their parents decisions.
Best of luck to you!
-4 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Whelp, looks like you didn't even read this...again.
This is just about the polio vaccine.
I've done my research. Can you say the same?
I look forward to calling you out in the future!
3 thc1967 2013-11-07
Yep, 'cause if you can get a lot of people not to vaccinate against a particular disease that seems dead now (well, except for in some parts of the world where it's still fucking people up), you're certain to not see a resurgence of that disease.
I just hope your kids' immune systems function a whole hell of a lot better than your brain does.
0 Revofev92 2013-11-07
So without going full conspiracy nut and saying it was a coverup, how do you explain this (Wiki):
"In 2000, the Royal Society held a meeting to discuss data on the origin of AIDS; the OPV AIDS hypothesis was a central topic of discussion. At this meeting, three independent labs released the results of tests on the remaining stocks of Koprowski's vaccine, which Edward Hooper had demanded in The River. The tests confirmed Koprowski's contention that his vaccine was made from monkey, rather than chimpanzee, kidney, and found no evidence of SIV or HIV contamination. Additional epidemiologic and phylogenetic data was presented at the conference which undermined other aspects of the OPV AIDS hypothesis"
5 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Watch this documentary.
There's actual video footage that completely disproves Koprowski's claim that he wasn't using chimpanzees.
Also, check out this article. It's long, but it goes into great detail about this whole story...Hooper, the Royal Society meeting, and the implications.
As for Hooper, it's my understanding that they tested just one of the many batches of Koprowski's vaccine, and although it was the one that Hooper's research suggested was the most likely to be contaminated, it by no means definitively determined that none of Koprowski's vaccines were contaminated.
Also, the Royal Society meeting failed to adequately address the theory that has even more evidence that Hepatitis B vaccine contamination was the principle cause of the first AIDS epidemics in the US and elsewhere.
FTA:
The polio vaccine might have caused an initial epidemic in the 50's, but the Royal Society dismissed the vaccine as causing the further epidemics in the 70's because they were focusing on the wrong vaccine.
By the 70's, the polio vaccine was contaminated with SV-40 and other viruses, but likely not the AIDS virus.
That the HB virus spread AIDS to hundreds of thousands is now accepted scientific fact.
0 [deleted] 2013-11-07
Absolutely amazing reading as always axolotl; I would have to concur with that guy the other day about the quality and relevancy of your posts.
I will check out the books for certain! This is an amazing story and I wish that I had more than an upvote to give for sharing it. Thank you.
0 wehateporn 2013-11-07
All completely true, vaccines are to spread autoimmune diseases, allergies and Cancers. Quick guide
Pharma want you on drugs for life, that's the game plan, that's how they make money, the above list is just the tip of the iceberg.
The unvaccinated children are the smartest and healthiest, see for yourself; don't vaccinate.
0 solstice680 2013-11-07
Excellent post - thank you. This is more of what this subreddit needs.
-1 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
I had a feeling that /r/conspiratard was behind the downvotes in this thread.
This post is currently in the top 10 in that sub.
Curious that the acutal topic isn't mentioned in the title, nor are there any comments from that crowd there or here.
I would love to see any of them even attempt to engage on this subject.
8 Propagandude 2013-11-07
The bulk of your post isn't actually about vaccines being bad (how exactly is the concept of herd immunity ripped apart?). Rather, it is saying that contaminations in the 50s and 60s happened.
Using monkey kidneys to grow the vaccine isn't an issue. Using infected monkey kidneys is where the problem is. So your comment about using monkey kidneys till 2000 sorryaboutyourkids, is silly. Especially since there hasn't been a contaminated batch since the mid 60s.
Contaminations suck. Greedy people who lie about contaminations suck. But its not the vaccine itself that caused problems. It was the bits that were never intended to be in the vaccine (AKA contaminants) that caused the problems.
So what is it that you are wanting to discuss? I'd like to know what it is that "takes apart" herd immunity.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Since this post was about the polio vaccine, I didn't have time to go into the issues with the concept of herd immunity. As it is, I barely was able to fit all of this info into one post.
I don't have time atm, but in the future I'll submit another self post on the subject of herd immunity, and we can continue that discussion there.
This is where you are misinformed.
You need to do yourself the service of reading The Virus and the Vaccine, which I mention in this post.
Tests for the presence of SV-40 continued to be woefully inadequate for decades. Part of the reason for this is because the government has yet to admit, at least officially, that SV-40 is responsible for these cancers, so vaccine manufacturers made avoiding SV-40 contamination an extremely low priority.
There's even an SV-40 Cancer Foundation.
From the Wikipedia article:
The book I mentioned goes into more detail, but it was determined in a court of law that the origin of the SV-40 in his brain tissue was from the polio vaccine.
This completely refutes your statement that there hasn't been a contaminated batch since the 60's.
The problem isn't just that greedy people lied about contamination, the problem is that they still lie to us about it.
For example, in a pathetic attempt to push this information further down the memory hole, the CDC recently took down the section on their website discussing the polio contamination debacle:
CDC Removes Webpage About Polio Vaccine Contamination: Further Admission Of Guilt?
The concept of vaccines is sound enough, it's the application of this concept that has been so grossly fucked up.
I look forward to continuing our conversation about herd immunity and mass contamination of vaccines in the near future.
0 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Resubmitting my reply because apparently people can't see it:
Since this post was about the polio vaccine, I didn't have time to go into the issues with the concept of herd immunity. As it is, I barely was able to fit all of this info into one post.
I don't have time atm, but in the future I'll submit another self post on the subject of herd immunity, and we can continue that discussion there.
This is where you are misinformed.
You need to do yourself the service of reading The Virus and the Vaccine, which I mention in this post.
Tests for the presence of SV-40 continued to be woefully inadequate for decades. Part of the reason for this is because the government has yet to admit, at least officially, that SV-40 is responsible for these cancers, so vaccine manufacturers made avoiding SV-40 contamination an extremely low priority.
There's even an SV-40 Cancer Foundation.
From the Wikipedia article:
The book I mentioned goes into more detail, but it was determined in a court of law that the origin of the SV-40 in his brain tissue was from the polio vaccine.
This completely refutes your statement that there hasn't been a contaminated batch since the 60's.
The problem isn't just that greedy people lied about contamination, the problem is that they still lie to us about it.
For example, in a pathetic attempt to push this information further down the memory hole, the CDC recently took down the section on their website discussing the polio contamination debacle:
CDC Removes Webpage About Polio Vaccine Contamination: Further Admission Of Guilt?
The concept of vaccines is sound enough, it's the application of this concept that has been so grossly fucked up.
I look forward to continuing our conversation about herd immunity and mass contamination of vaccines in the near future.
2 Propagandude 2013-11-07
Thats because we don't know that SV-40 does cause cancer. In fact, we are fairly certain that it doesn't. Finding the virus in tumors doesn't mean that it caused the tumors. Noticing that several houses that burned down also had couches in them does not mean that couches caused the fires. There are a lot of other biological entities found in many tumors as well. Even the experts from that SV-40 Cancer Foundation site say that they think SV-40 should be classified as a 2A carcinogen. A 2A classification just says that the substance "probably" causes cancer.
It sucks that kid died from brain cancer. Its a terrible thing when that happens to anybody, but especially so when its a kid. However, that does not mean that his tumor was caused by SV-40. Why would his parents even assume that the vaccine (or in this case the contaminants in the vaccine) made him sick? Probably because they heard that SV-40 causes cancer. Their site doesn't share any legal info so I was unable to determine how the case turned out, but I inferred from the wikipedia page that they lacked sufficient evidence to convince others that SV-40 caused the cancer.
Surely you can understand why I wouldn't value a book written by the parents of a dead child about what they think killed the child as a reliable source of peer reviewed science?
Eh. It is possible that other contaminations happened or that the contamination continued. But I don't really know how you would determine the source of a virus in an infected individual. I suppose pulling a sample from the batch the kid was given and testing it might be able to do such a thing. If there is substancial evidence for the kid being infected from the vaccine that exists outside that book, then I would concede and admit an error on my part in regards to contaminations after the 60s.
Information on the SV-40 contamination is readily available, usually taught in highschool (where I first learned about it), and is brought up often in vaccine/anit-vax conversation. The CDC wants more people to be vaccinated to increase the quality of public health. It is entirely possible (and likely, in my opinion) that this information was pulled down because they thought it caused needless (and irrational) fear, which may lead to fewer vaccinations. Similar to that website (was it Wired?) that pulled down their comments section because it wasn't condusive to intellectual growth and was constantly bombarded with pseudo-science and hear-say.
The information is readily available, they just don't want to be associated with content that might lead irrational people to fearfully ignore the important information that makes up the core of their organization.
I don't understand why you need to make another post to discuss herd immunity. The concept is quite simple, so an argument that tries to prove it wrong should also be reletively simple. Herd immunity works by reducing the number of vectors through which a contagion can acquire hosts, thereby increasing the protection of those with compromised immune systems or those that were unsuccessful in building an immune response despite recieving a vaccine. If I can describe the concept in one sentance, surely you can give a rebuttal in a few paragraphs. I don't think that the argument requires another thread since you specifically mentioned the argument in this one.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Wrong.
At least 100 peer-reviewed studies have shown that SV-40 causes cancer in animal models.
The reason, which should be obvious, that no studies have been undertaken on human models is that who would sign up to be potentially dosed with cancer?
The virus is showing up everywhere in people's cancerous tumors, but the surrounding tissues which aren't cancerous are SV-40 free.
They knew they caused a future epidemic of soft tissue cancers, and the last thing they're going to do is admit it publicly, more than 50 years after the fact.
As for as the 2A carcinogen goes, I'd like to make it clear that SV-40 by itself might not cause cancer in healthy humans, at the very least it will remain dormant for decades.
However, substantial evidence suggests that in combination with asbestos exposure, SV-40's cancer causing potential skyrockets. Chemotherapy, poor diet and poor health are also other contributing factors.
The problem is that far too little research has been done on SV-40 and its combined effect with other toxins in causing cancer.
As for The Virus and the Vaccine, the book was definitely not written by the parents of the child, which you should have noticed by looking at the author's names. In fact, the part about the Horwins is added as an afterthought to the rest of the research in the book, which discusses the history of polio, the polio vaccine, contamination, and the subsequent coverup.
The book also provides sources to the 100+ peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate a direct link between SV-40 and cancer in animal models.
I would not have suggested a book inspired by the emotions of parents who just lost their child.
Read the reviews on amazon, this book is extremely well regarded and I have yet to see anyone try and debunk the information presented.
Here's a link to the book.
I recommend the whole thing, obviously, but check out the section at the end called "Alexander's Tumor".
In other words, a FEDERAL JUDGE ruled that SV-40 DOES CAUSE CANCER in humans, I can't state that enough, but here's the kicker...the vaccine manufacturer is NOT responsible because their tests are insufficient!
That's terrifying.
As for the CDC "needlessly causing fear"...their job is to inform not hide the information from the public. This decision to remove the section on SV-40 in the long run will cause more people to question vaccines, can't you see that?
We need more transparency and not less, and the CDC's decision is extremely damning in the eyes of many.
As for you learning about SV-40 in highschool, where the hell did you go to highschool! I've spoken to doctors that have never even heard of it, and I haven't met a single one of my peers that has ever been taught about SV-40 contamination in school.
You are an anomaly when it comes to that, I can assure you! You should be grateful for your education.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
Dr. Adi Gazdar, a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center cancer researcher, told reporters:
The medical establishment is waking up to the reality of SV-40's cancer causing potential, you have some catching up to do!
Of course you don't understand because you don't know what I have to say yet! You confuse me, sometimes you say rational things and then you make statements like that.
Of course you don't know what I have to say about herd immunity...because I haven't said it yet!
There is much more information about questioning herd immunity than can be summarized in just a few paragraphs, and it absolutely is worthy of another post...and besides, this post is old now and if I'm going to spend time putting it together, I want it to be for the benefit of everyone and not just you, surely you can understand that?
I hope you give this subject its actual due diligence, as it seems like you've only spent enough time to scratch the surface.
I look forward to continuing our discussions as both you and I become more informed.
0 Propagandude 2013-11-07
Perhaps I should have amended my statement by saying that we don't know it is carcinogenic in humans, though I assumed that was understood because we weren't talking about animals. We can say its possible because its there sometimes. But we can't say that causes cancer. I'm not saying that it can't cause cancer, there simply hasn't been enough research. But prevailing results show that it is unlikely.
So the evidence suggests that asbestos boosts the carcinogenic potential of SV-40? Let me get this straight. Asbestos, a type 1 carcinogen (this means that it is carcinogenic to humans), increases the chance that SV-40 (which some say should be classified as a type 2A carcinogen, but isn't) will cause cancer? You don't think that maybe the asbestos was more likely the cause? Your line of thought here doesn't make sense. Of course those things contribute to cancer. One is a type 1 carcinogen, one is a radical treatment that is very rough on the body, and the others are just poor lifestyle choices that might lead to cancer. You're saying that things which can lead to cancer without SV-40, prove that SV-40 is carcenogenic.
I noticed that after I posted, but it makes little difference. It is a book written by journalists that includes anecdotal evidence because without that emotional tether, nobody would buy the book. What purpose does the story of this family serve in the scientific pursuit of the effects of SV-40 on humans? None. But it does serve as a heart-string-tugging banner for people to rally around as well as a source of confirmation bias. Having skimmed through it, it looks like 80%+ is just fluff. There is no relvant value in how a scientist grew up. The book is definately laden with emotion and verbage.
Judges aren't infallible, nor are they virologists. They also make really stupid rulings sometimes. In what scenario does a judge have the knowledge to determine the carcinogenity of a substance, and in what world would such a baseless determination become scientific fact?
This isn't to say that most of what your are touting isn't possible. Perhaps the kid did get infected with SV-40 from a vaccine and develop a brain tumor as a result. Prevailing science just says that is unlikely. The sheer number of kids today who get the polio vaccine and are fine is readily tangible evidence of this. The vast number of people infected at the peak of this contamination in the 50 - 60s compared to the number of those people who developed cancer also supports the idea that SV-40 has little if any role in causing cancer.
For what reason does the CDC need to inform the public of a contamination that for all intents and purposes ended many years ago, and is not considered to be an eminent health concern. And if they believe that hosting that information might cause people to opt out of some or all vaccinations out of fear, then they may consider pulling the info down as a matter of public health. I'm not saying its right because I value information, but people can be stupid and sometimes you need to protect others from their stupidity. Its not like the information has been censored either, they just divorced themselves from it.
I don't know that you are qualified to say that learning about SV-40 in highschool makes me an anomoly. Depending on where you live you may never have seen the inside of a Braums. That doesn't make them anomalies. It only means that others have experienced things you haven't.
If you look at http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts you will see that brain and lung cancer are basically on the decline (bone cancer shows a +.4% trend). So the number of cancer cases (at least the ones we are talking about) is slowly falling. Even if you like to view the graph as pretty much steady, if you consider population growth that means that the portion of the population that is diagnosed is slowly falling. SV-40 isn't doing a very good job.
What I don't understand is why you issue a challenge to talk about something and then say you need an entire other post to address one of my questions. I can explain the concept of herd immunity in a single sentance. The concept is so simple that there are only a few avenues that can even be debated. Herd immunity works by reducing the number of vectors through which a contagion can acquire hosts, thereby increasing the protection of those with vulnerable immune systems or those that were unsuccessful in building an immune response despite recieving a vaccine. Really, if you don't agree with this then you either don't agree that it reduces the number of vectors for infection, or you don't agree that doing so protects the vulnerable. There isn't much more to the concept than that. Do you honestly expect me to keep tabs on you so that I can catch whatever gloriously informative tome you seem to need to explain how herd immunity doesn't work?
3 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
I would do you the courtesy of sending you a link to my post, I'm not that naive.
Have you even read the Wikipedia article on SV40 yet?
There are two excellent links provided for your benefit.
Here's an extremely credible scientific study:
Crocidolite asbestos and SV40 are cocarcinogens in human mesothelial cells and in causing mesothelioma in hamsters.
I'm impressed with your eloquence but disappointed with your ability to search the internet.
Um, doesn't that fit perfectly into the contamination during the 50's and 60's scenario? That generation is dying off (SV-40 is doing a "good" job) and naturally there should be fewer cancer cases.
After this comment I'm beginning to question you and your logic.
I provided a link to the entire text of The Virus and the Vaccine.
If you truly consider yourself to have an open mind, read it.
I'm not the expert on the subject. I'm a random person on reddit. I'm still learning and I'm still very ignorant of a shit ton of things.
But I'm approaching it all with an open mind. Can you say the same?
0 Propagandude 2013-11-07
I have already read the wikipedia article. It only says, as does the study you linked, that SV-40 might be carcinogenic. Asbestos is a type 1 carcinogen. It causes cancer. Pairing it with SV-40 might also cause cancer. It might even make SV-40 more likely to cause cancer. But thus doesn't tell us much other than pairing something we think might cause cancer with something we know causes cancer seems to cause cancer.
Thats great.
It also lines up with widespread use of other carcinogens in a time when we weren't as aware of them as we are now. Is that generation dying off from cancer or other reasons? The death rate for these cancers also stays pretty steady or even shows a decline. SV-40 was everywhere back then. The contamination was widespread. Don't you find it odd that there was no tangible increase in cancer numbers other than the slow rise and subsequent fall that was already happening?
If what you are saying is simply that because that generation is dying off and we are also seeing a drop in cancer numbers, it proves that the contamination during their lives caused the cancer in the first place, you would be stretching. Maybe we will see a reduction in AIDs that correlates with my generation's gradual death. It also happens to line up the the sudden widespread exposure of my generation to myspace. Does that mean that AIDs and myspace are related? Not necessarily.
No you're not. You just don't agree with what I am saying.
I read a fair bit and found it full of uninteresting and unnecessary fluff. I then discarded it. Perhaps that means I don't truly consider myself open minded?
Perhaps not. If how you are approaching the subject involves an open mind, I don't think I qualify for such a designation. I think maybe this sub has thrown around the term "open mind", and lost (or perhaps never understood) its meaning. While it is supposed to be a concept of an adaptive mind capable of change or evolution based on the gathering and consideration of knowledge, here it simply seems to mean that you will believe anything as long as it fits your predetermined opinion. Bonus points if your opinion also happens to be a minority.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
For some reason I only just noticed your user name throughout this entire interaction.
Tells me all I need to know ;)
0 Propagandude 2013-11-07
And what is that?
1 startledCoyote 2013-11-07
He thinks you are spreading propaganda, therefore he has won.
Obviously you're not, and really you "won" the argument, but this is r/conspiracy after all.
2 Propagandude 2013-11-07
That was my assumption. I was just curious if he would actually call me a shill or something.
In case he is still reading this, this is my user name because I love the propaganda of the decades surrounding the first and second world war. I am a graphic designer and the styles involved are some of my favorite. Also, the conspiricists in this sub label many things as propaganda that don't actually qualify as propaganda.
0 tyberus 2013-11-07
I would just like to point out that due to parents not vaccinating, there has been a recent whooping cough epidemic in California. 10 babies are dead because of it. So spreading the word that vaccines are dangerous is itself very dangerous.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/25/226147147/vaccine-refusals-fueled-californias-whooping-cough-epidemic
That's 10 families who would still have their babies if people vaccinated, as recommended.
3 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
That article is propaganda. There has been no proven link between the lack of vaccinations and the "epidemic" (hardly an epidemic).
Also, my post here has nothing whatsoever to do with questioning the safety and efficacy of the whooping cough vaccine.
This post isn't even questioning all vaccines!
This is entirely to do with the polio vaccine.
Did you miss that part?
4 OWNtheNWO 2013-11-07
But they don't use their sub a downvote brigade, don't be conspiracy theory.
4 djsumdog 2013-11-07
No, I think the down votes in here are because people here aren't as uninformed and easily manipulated as you think they are.
-1 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Actually no, it's quite clear that this was posted over at /r/conspiratard, and they regularly brigade submissions here.
-1 moongolf 2013-11-07
your comment is the manipulation here
your sentence means people who don't want to be "uninformed and easily manipulated" need to reject op's post, your comment is just manipulation based on insults and people's subconscious desire to protect their self image
meanwhile op's comment contains information, sources one can choose to continue reading, and specific contentions they can choose to search out both refuting and confirming further information on.
2 startledCoyote 2013-11-07
pls reply to Propagandude, he has attempted to engage on the subject.
3 axolotl_peyotl 2013-11-07
Strange, I replied about an hour ago, and although it's showing up for me right now in my history, it's not showing up on this page.
It's actually really weird I can't see it, don't think that's happened to me before.
Edit: OK so I reposted my reply and it's showing up, you should be able to see it now.
-3 [deleted] 2013-11-07
great research. all of us who have enlightened ourselves about the history of HIV know that you will gain no karma by this post (yet you did... mad props). Seth Kalichmann's HIV denialist monitoring system he wrote up at UConn is pervasive.
It's one of the greatest slights of hand in all of medical argument. The origin misdirection to not address the evidence of widespread vaccine contamination. You make mentions about OPV and Hilleman, which is fantastic.
The Merck Hepatitis B Vaccine trials in the late 1970s targeted at gay men were in New York and San Francsico. Guess where the US AIDS epidemic begins the year after. Guess who it begins in. Everything from the manufacturing process of the vaccine (pooled sera from the blood of gay men with carrier hepatitis B infections), to the development process (using monkeys from litton bionetics), to the research summaries from the Special Cancer Virus Program... which include injecting these same monkeys with a whole slew of "cancer viruses" (Henry Kissenger approved the import of - which can be seen in wikileaks cables).... to the intimate connection with vaccine researchers, HIV scientists, CDC heads.... and the Fort Meade Bioweapons research center...
EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ABOUT VACCINES and the AIDS EPIDEMIC suggests a fuck up / genocide on a colossal scale... So big in fact, that telling the truth about it does more harm than good.
There are millions of people who's livelihoods now depend on this fabricated science. From "HIV Test" manufacturing, to the millions of NIH research grants that never conclude anything and go in and around circles, to the thousands of nurses and doctors who work in HIV clinics, to the thousands of patients who believe their ailment is nicely defined by three letters... HIV is, quite simply, too big to fail at this point. It doesn't help that the "talking heads/publications" of the gay community continue to perpetuate this dogma religiously... The United States spends roughly 33-40 billion dollars in HIV related funding per year - roughly 2 million dollars PER domestic AIDS death.
1 danxmason 2013-11-07
The broken window fallacy.