Quote:

---

Originally posted by tkid:
If someone is unwilling to get vaccinated there is little that can currently be done about them.

---

Quote:

---

the destruction of smallpox in its two established locations provides only an illusory increment of safety because at least three additional potential sources of smallpox still exist. First, there are the cadavers of smallpox patients preserved in permafrost...Second, it is possible that the smallpox virus-containing specimens collected during the smallpox eradication campaign still exist, unclaimed and unidentified...Third, monkeypox virus causes a disease similar to smallpox...The major difference monkeypox virus and smallpox virus is that the monkeypox virus is transmitted poorly in humans...There is a distinct possibility that replacement of a single monkeypox virus gene with a corresponding smallpox virus gene could result in a virus with all the virulence characteristics for humans as the smallpox virus itself....In summary, the destruction of the smallpox virus isolates in the high-security laboratories in Atlanta and Moscow does not remove the threat of smallpox from the world.

---

Quote:

---

"I hate to be accused of pushing the alarmist button, but for practical purposes, smallpox is back," says virologist Peter Jahrling of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland.(5)

---

Quote:

---

Still, Weldon questions whether the CDC's conclusions are based on enough sound, objective research, particularly in the area of mercury. Up until 2000, mercury-based thimerosal was used in all childhood vaccines as a preservative. Many blamed it for an increase in emerging autism cases.

Pharmaceutical companies stopped using thimerosal six years ago upon the recommendation of the federal government, even though the government never gave official acknowledgement that mercury levels in vaccines could cause developmental problems in children.

Government officials said that infants had not been exposed to high enough levels of mercury through the thimerosal, but its removal was done as "a precaution."

---

Quote:

---

Indeed, recent studies have indicated that the shot might be less effective in children younger than 2 because of weaker immune reactions. Two shots appear to be necessary to achieve comparable results.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Indeed, recent studies have indicated that the shot might be less effective in children younger than 2 because of weaker immune reactions. Two shots appear to be necessary to achieve comparable results.

---

Did I just hear that correctly ? It doesn't work, so double the dose?!

---

Quote:

---

No where does it say it doesn't work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

No where does it say it doesn't work.

---

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912

I love how you demand I dig up the evidence, and then arbitrarily dismiss out of hand stuff I spent hours digging up, either look at it, or quit asking for it.

Also, this current hard push for flu shots right now, go have a gander at their reasoning behind it, look for yourself at what they are saying.

All doubletalk aside, THIS is the reasoning behind it.

"If pharma companies don't make enough profit, they won't stockpile the stuff, in case we have a pandemic or emergency."

Tell me, is Big Pharma's profit a substantive reason to give children without significant risk factors these shots ?
Especially children under 23 months, in whom it has virtually NO effect ?
And since it has virtually no effect, you should shoot em up twice ?

Pardon me if I think that whole chain of logic sucks.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Go back and READ what you just wrote, in light of your previous post!

---

Quote:

---

Not to mention you originally demanded full evidence to back every statement, and then when I make comments related to that evidence, you dismiss the comment out of hand because you "didn't get around to looking at" the very evidence you demanded I provide.

---

Quote:

---

Find your own damned links in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
CTS - I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

---

Quote:

---

It wiped out an estimated 95 - 99% of Indians.

---

Quote:

---

As we know from 'bird flu', viruses need to attach to cell receptors to infect the host. If the virus has the (genetically determined) proteins to attach to only one species its range of hosts will be limited. That is why smallpox virus (as determined by PCR) infects only humans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
From whence do those impartial facts come?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.

Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Proper nutrition and hygeine are also a factor in flu resistance, and should not be neglected in either case, also.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe.

---

Quote:

---

This is a good thing - to free humankind of dreaded diseases that kill and cripple.

---

Quote:

---

We need to INSIST on a government that represents US rather than the agenda of its owners.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Whatever Frem, what I replied to and why was very clear, the fact you continue to lie about what I said and the reasons behind it speaks volumes.

Continue to lie as much as you like, the only person you're fooling is yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
...it's still not up to the state, the government, the schools, Big Pharm, or least of all you, what is put into my, and my children's bodies, end of story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
CTS,

You would be a flat-earth Holocaust denier if it supported your ideology.

There is no pox virus that comes close to smallpox in its fatality rate or infectivity. There is no single cause or combination of causes of acute flaccid paralysis that even come close to polio. By claiming otherwise, you put yourself in the category of anti-vaccination crackpots. In fact, you claim all sorts of patently absurd notions just because they support your manias. Good luck in the real world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You apparently wll believe any CLAIM made if it suits your agenda as well.

I posted many many links showing that even in places of squalor, where existing polio is confirmed by PCR, polio vaccines DO indeed eliminate all but a handful of AFP cases - which are confimed by PCR as well.

This is not some strange statistical trick from the US in the 1950's. It's a documented fact over decades of genetic AFP polio surveillance around the globe. How did you miss that? Oh that's right - you don't read things you disagree with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.

---

Quote:

---

all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.

What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.

That's excatly what puts you in the nutcase category.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required.

In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

Bernard Greenberg, MD, biostatistics expert, chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s
Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on HR 10541. May 1962, pp. 94-112.
As quoted by Neil Z. Miller, http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf (pg 243)

---

Quote:

---

Paralytic cases were not distinguished from non-paralytic cases until a recommendation was made by the Dominion Council of Health in 1949- The LCDC figures provided from 1952 and onward represent this administrative change: recording only those cases adhering to the requirements for a diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis. In a report released in June of 1959, another adminis­trative change was recommended by the Dominion Council of Health, further altering the way in which apparent cases of poliomyelitis would be reported. All non-paralytic cases of poliomyelitis were to be henceforth recorded as "meningitis, viral or aseptic," a disease which itself only became reportable in 1952." These two administrative changes effectively reduced the apparent incidence of poliomyelitis. In particular, since the latter change is temporally correlative to the introduction of the polio vaccines, the vaccines appear to have been responsible for a reduction in poliomyelitis cases when it is entirely possible that the administrative changes are primarily responsible.

Catherine Diodati MA, Immunization History, Ethics, Law and Health, p116

---

Quote:

---

L.: If I understand you correctly, before, everyone was counted, those with polio in their feces as well as those sick with polio, and that totaled 4,000. When they started the polio vaccination, they only counted those people who had been paralyzed for at least six weeks, is this right?
B.: Yes.

L.: So, this is how statistics improved from 4,000 to 400?

B.: Yes, exactly...

L.: Okay, that’s what I understood. When you say they changed the way the calculations were done, who were "they"? Was this a medical or a political decision?

B.: It is always the same group that decides... the World Health Organization (WHO).

Gerhard Buchwald, MD, German physician, about diagnosing polio in Germany when polio vaccines were introduced
Testimony before the Quebec College of Physicians Medical Board
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/buchwald9.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.

---