Where Outbreaks Occur
Much has been made of the stand taken by the National Foundation (March of Dimes) and the Public Health Service which intimates that polio outbreaks occur in the slums or in areas in which the people are not interested in protecting their children. Each time there is an epidemic, each time the polio rate goes up, that is the excuse---polio has been concentrated among those who did not receive their inoculations. In California's Health ( May 15, 1960, the publication of the State Department of Public Health, we are told that , except for a higher incidence in the preschool group (the group incidently , which is very highly immunized, since most babies are reciving the injection as part of their pediatric schedule) , there are no concentrated cases in any particular segment of the population. California is a state with wide variations in its population and geography. It goes from the plush beach houses of Malibu to the squalor of skid row in Los Angeles, from the Mexican quarter of Los Angeles to Chinatown in San Francisco, from the heat of Bakersfield in the desert to the snows of Squaw Valley in the Sierra Navada mountains. Los Angeles is one of the largest and most thickly populated cities in the world, while some of California's desert towns are made up of only a dozen families. If the theory of sectionalism were valid in the cases of polio incidence, it would certainly show up in California. Incidentally, 16 per cent of the cases of paralytic polio in California in 1959 occurred in persons who had 3 or more Salk injections.
The Public Health Service cites Negroes living in the slum areas, Indians on reservations, certain religious groups who keep to themselves and residents of housing developments for military personal as being higher than the national average in polio incidence. In each case, there are many obvious extraneous factors which would have bearing on the occurrence of any disease, whether the victims had been vaccinated or not. None of these situations is average or ordinary. Chances are very good that their incidence rate of any disease would be higher than average.
The experience in Massachusetts in 1959 provides an added illustration. In that state's epidemic, the 157 cases ( 137 paralytic) were scattered throughout the state and through all economic levels, and a remarkably high percentage of the victims had recived 3 or more Salk shots.
Linda & Jim (Curley) O'Kelly July 1960
Safety Testing Inadequate
"It should be stressed that safety testing was inadequate when Dr. Salk developed his vaccine and when the vaccine was commercially prepared for the field trials of 1954, and for licensing and use in 1955. The claim of long duration of effectiveness then,...really applies to a vaccine that did not exclude the presence of a live virus. It does not apply to current vaccine in which potency has been sacrificed for safety. ( Italics ours)... At present, epidemiological methods employed by the United States Public Health Service to assure safety of the vaccine are inadequate."
A question was asked of the panel as to whether any state health department at present advised against the use of the Salk vaccine. Dr. Ratner said he knew of none, but presumed it to be unlikely that such a department could oppose the mass propaganda and its effect on public opinion, by doing so.
The discussion concluded with a long and rather technical talk by Dr. Cox concerning the theory and development, as well as the safety and effectiveness of the live-virus vaccines. There seemed to be little disagrement among the panelists that, if a vaccine is to be effective against polio, it will have to be a live-virus vaccine.
Jim's comment. The drug man Dr. Cox did his job. The Fox was in the hen house.
All vaccines given today are based on the lie that the Salk vaccine of the 1954 field trial wiped out polio.
The articles and books I have put on this site prove that it was all lies.
New Forms of Diagnosis
Another reason for the reported decrease of paralytic polio, when the Salk vaccine came out in 1955 and through 1957, was the new forms of diagnosis. Publicity had us convinced that paralytic polio in a vaccinated child was practically impossible. When such a rare event did occur, every known test was made to be sure of the diagnosis. When an unvaccinated child showed signs of paralytic polio, there was less skepticism. It is as though a 60-year-old woman were to announce that she is pregnant. The testing to make certain would be much more extensive than if a 22-year-old woman were to make the same announcement. Physicians have been conditioned to consider the first circumstance extremely unlikely, and they would use every opportuniiity to prove their preconceived notion to be correct. The second case would get a casual examination, really just to confirm what was already accepted as true. One cannot term such examination as unbiased and objective. The attitude was, and is, exactly the same in examining suspected victim of polio, depending upon whether or not they have had the shots. These, among other more technical things, were the highlights of Dr. Greenberg's opening speech.
The lies about polio and the Salk vaccine.
1 Viruses were not the cause of polio.
2. No antibodies were a part of the polio cure.
3. Infantile paralysis and so-called polio of the 1950s were not the same disease.
4.The definition of the word virus was changed by Thomas Rivers,M.D. in the 1920s.
5.The diagnosis was changed to report less cases of polio.
6. The Cutter incident was a frame up in order to save the Salk vaccine.
7. No one has seen a "live" virus, because they don't exist except in the mind of the believers.
8. The real condition called Polio was not a common disease. It was very rare.
9. As proved by Sister Kenny, polio was just muscle spasms.
10. Dr. Cox, Basil O'Connor, Thomas Rivers, Thomas Francis Jr, Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin,and government doctors all knew of and about Sister Kenny. There was no conspiacy to deceive the ordinary doctors or the people. Yea, When Pigs Fly.
Criteria of Diagnosis Were Changed in 1954
In 1954, the criteria were changed---unless there is residual paralysis 60 days after onset, polio is not now considered paralytic. This is actually a new disease, namely paralytic poliomyelitis, with a longer lasting paralysis. So the minute this new rule of diagnosis for paralytic was introduced, with the simultaneous introduction of the Salk vaccine, the number of cases of paralytic polio was bound to decrease. All the cases in which paralysis lasted more than 24 hours and less than 60 days would no longer be listed as paralytic polio. Many of the cases that doctors had always considered to be paralytic polio simply were not reportable as that any longer. Fewer cases reported meant less incidence shown on the Public Health records. When one considers the possibilities in such sure-fire insurance against failure of the vaccine's early reports, it is surprising that the authorities weren't able to report an even greater drop in the incidence of paralytic polio than they did! Even if there hadn't been a bit of vaccine used, the reported incidence rate had to drop.
What About the Decrease in 1956?
When the people who are pro-vaccine are forced to defend their position, they point to the impressive decrease in polio from 1955 to 1956, the first year of the vaccine. The drop was 37 per cent, reported the United States Public Health Service pridefully, and there was no doubt that Salk vaccine had been responsible. Interestingly enough, in the same period infectious hepatitis decreased 38 1/2 per cent--no vaccine, no inoculations, no explanation by the United States Public Health Service. The record of polio shows it to be one of the diseases which runs in cycles, up one year, down another. Polio naturally decreases after a high incidence year. In 1953, it showed a drop of 42 per cent over 1952's high incidence. In 1916 to 1917, the drop was equally impressive, but there was no vaccine which could recive the credit for the improved state of things. It had just spontaneously happened.
Unfortunately, the Salk vaccine is not willing to take the rap when the polio cases rises, in the same way it is willing to take the bows when it falls. When polio goes up, the authorities say it's because not enough people have availed themselves of the shots. Yet, in 1956, when the rates went down, the polio experts assured us that the decrease occurred only because so many people had had their vaccine shots. Now if enough people had been vaccinated after the vaccine was in use only one year, how, after 5 years of vaccination, can we be expected to believe that polio rates are rising because not enough people have availed themselves of the vaccine?
Jim's comment: keep in mind these people had no idea that the fraud was deeper starting with the lie that polio was caused by a virus, and the fraud of living and dead viruses.
The Facts Don't Match the Hopes.
The claims are one thing--the ideal of how everyone wishes the Salk vaccine had worked out--the facts are something else. It began with the field trials of the vaccine prior to its national release in 1955. After these trials the public was told that the vaccine was 90 per cent effective in preventing polio. These same field trials get this evaluation from K. A. Brownlee in the Journal of the American Statistical Association (50: 1005, 1955): " ... 59 per cent of the trial was worthless because of a lack of adequate controls. The remaining 41 per cent may be all right, but contains internal evidence of bias in favor of the vaccinated...The reviewer (Mr. Brownlee) would point out that gamma globulin was triumphantly proclaimed effective by the National Foundation after a similar trial..." "(Gamma globulin has since been shown to be valueless in preventing polio.) Doesn't it seem to be a grave omission that this opinion by a top statistician, appearing in a technical magazine devoted to statistics, was never referred to in the Journal of the American Medical Association? If one is searching for the truth about the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine, the results of the field trials are obviously not the place to look. The truth is that no one knows where to look. Officials of the Public Health Service are preconditioned to expect nothing but success from the Salk vaccine, no matter what the situation seems to be. When persons who had one or two shots got polio, we are told that they were not "fully protected," although the National Foundation's pamphlet for physicians says that paralytic attacks should be 75 to 80 per cent lower among persons with one or two inoculations than among the unvaccinated. That's just a little less than the 90 per cent we're led to expect from the full series of shots. However, in the same pamphlet, we read the frequency of paralytic polio is 59 per cent in the unvaccinated, 47 per cent among those who have had one shot, and 32 per cent among these with two shots. When one considers the vast number of unvaccinated over vaccinated, the percentage does not seem to mean much as an advantage.
No Attempt to Eliminate Personal Bias
Also, there as been no attempt to eliminate personal bias in diagnosing polio. There are a dozen illnesses due to viruses other than poliomyelitis which are difficult to distinguish from paralytic polio, except by special virus tests--tests which, incidentally, are not readily done by the average practicing physician. (Jim's comment : he was trying to expose Salk and his vaccine field trial test. He had no clue that the virus was a fraud also.) When a doctor sees a patient with one of these paralytic illnesses, he asks if the patient has had the Salk injections. If the answer is yes, he will begin serious testing for one of the other illnesses, and, if a doubt arises, he is likely to say it is not polio. How could he? The patient has had the shots that the physician believes effectively protect him from polio.
If the patient admits that he had not had the injections, the physician is likely to be less careful in his diagnosis. He is likely to assume even without exhaustive tests, that the disease that looks like polio, especially since the patient has not had protection from the vaccine. All of this may be done in the best faith and with complete honesty on the part of the physician, but chances for complete objectivity are slim, and such diagnoses provide a poor basis for the scientific tabulations being made by the united States Public Health Service.
Effectiveness is "Unknown and Greatly Overrated"
Dr. Greenberg states flatly that " A scientific examination of the data, and the manner in which the data were manipulated, will reveal that the true effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly overrated."
The Francis report of the field trials of 1954 says no more than that the vaccine used then was 72 per cent effective in preventing paralytic polio for one season. For 1955, changes in the manufacture and testing of the vaccine were introduced. Methiolate was removed. Live viruses were found in several lots and the foundation of Salk's theory of lots from different manufactures became alarming, especially since the product was to be administered on a mass basis. To insure "absolute safety," an extra filtration step was introduced in November, 1955. The effects of all of these changes, and any other since then, upon the present vaccine are unknown.
" I Am Getting Nervous"
Dr. Kleinman, who had actually been a forceful promoter of the Salk vaccine in his home state of Minnesota, was next to make a statement: "...Let me tell you why I am getting nervous about the Salk vaccine. My first reason is the definite increase in paralytic polio. In Minnesota, we have found that 20 per cent of our 1959 paralytic experience has occurred in triple and quadruple vaccinees......"
"...Laboratory findings are another reason why I am getting nervous. If polio antibodies mean anything in respect to protection, then I am forced to conclude that much of the Salk vaccine we have been using is useless...
" I should like to emphasize Dr. Greenberg's remarks on the changing concepts of polio. It is now extremely difficult to get a Minnesota physician to make a preliminary diagnosis and report of paralytic polio...As a result, the only polio that is being reported today are cases with frank paralysis."
" Absolutely Silly "
" I would also like to agree with Dr. Greenberg that the insistence upon a 60 day duration of paralysis for paralytic polio is absolutely silly. There isn't a doctor in this room who hasn't seen a case of frank paralytic polio which has not recovered within 60 days....
" I would like, then, to have my position understood...as that of an agnostic so far as the Salk vaccine is concerned. I am not against it. I think it is the only medium we have which has some degree of reliability; but I think there are better methods, and I think we should take advantage of these methods if it seems at all reasonable."
Complete Investigation of Campaign Is Necessary
Of course it is impossible to carry the entire discussion in these pages, but its essence is here. Show this material to those who have been depending on the Salk vaccine to keep them and their children polio-free, in spite of bad diet and careless exposure to crowds during the season. Urge them to write to their congressmen demanding a comlete public investigation of the campaign that has led Americans to believe that a Salk-vaccinated child is safe from polio. The grim fallacy of this impression is all too evident in the statistics, yet the papers, radio and TV blare out the lie again and again. The Salk vaccine is a fiasco, and the public must not be deluded any longer into believing it is anything else.
Jim's comment. He says write to your congressman. What he didn't know is that President Eisenhower knew what was going on, not to mention the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service ( Leonard Scheele )not only knew but saved their worthless butts.
OUTLAW VACCINES NOW
Data Handled in a Misleading Way
Statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, spoke first: "...my primary concern, my only concern (as a statistician ) is the very misleading way that most of this data ( on the Salk vaccine results ) has been handled from a statistical point of view. " He goes on to tell of the rise in polio incidence in 1958, 1959 , and the resultant alarm sounded by officials of the Public Health Service and "one large voluntary health organization" over every mass communication media, to persuade more Americans to become vaccinated. " ... the misinformation and unjustified conclusion about the cause of this rise in incidence gave concern to those interested in a sound program based on logic and fact rather than personal opinion and prejudice, " says Dr. Greenberg. " One of the most obvious pieces of misinformation, " he goes on," ...is that the 50 per cent rise in paralytic poliomylitis in 1958 and the real accelerated increase in 1959 have been caused by persons failing to be vaccinated. This represents a certain amount of 'double talk' and an unwillingness to face facts and to evaluate the true effectiveness of the Salk vaccine...If the Salk vaccine is to take credit for the decline from 1955 to 1957, how can those individuals who were vaccinated several years ago contribute to the increase in 1958 and 1959? Are not these persons still vaccinated? " Dr. Greenberg refers to an Associated Press release warning of the threat of increased polio and giving as the main reason that "millions of children and adults have never been vaccinated." If all of these millions never were vaccinated, undoubtedly the number given as vaccinated during 1955, 1956 and 1957 was exaggerated, for then the same officials were claiming that the polio reduction was due to the vaccine and all those who had taken advantage of it.
The Slow Death of the Salk Vaccine
For the most part, people who dread the grim possibility of polio's striking in their family rest easy once the children have had their third Salk shot, and easier yet if they've had their fourth. How soothing to know that the children are safe. How reassuring to read the words of Basil O'Connor, President of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, spoken in March of 1959: "Because of it (Salk vaccine), no child in this country or anywhere else in the world need ever suffer paralysis of one disease--polio." How calming, the words of Dr. A. D. Lanqmuir of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which he wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association (171:271, 1959) "... the marked downward trend of poliomyelitis in the past 4 years is due in large part to the immunization program..." How wonderful to know that, according to a publication of the Health Information Foundation )March 1959), "Until recently, polio was a widespread and increasing danger, and little could be done to control it. But medical progress, culminating in the Salk vaccine, has reduced this disease to its lowest levels in many years. The evidence is now overwhelming that the full series of 3 or more Salk inoculations provides a high level of protection from paralytic polio." How deceiving! In 1959, more than 5,000 paralytic polio cases occurred--50 percent more than in 1958, and 100 per cent more than 1957. This trend has developed in spite of 300,000,000 doses of Salk vaccine administered in the nation by the end of 1959.
Some Statistical Principles Violated
According to Dr. Ernest Ziesler, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at the Chicago Medical School and Ph.D in mathematics, in the Minority of one (June, 1960) the position that polio among the vaccinated is less frequent than among nonvaccinated is not quite proven. First, he notes that a primary statistical principle is that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from samples that are not random. No sample, consisting of volunteers for some procedure, such as vaccination, is random. The people who volunteer have to be different from those who do not volunteer to an extent that may affect the experiment. Mothers who bring their babies in to a doctor for vaccination may be more informed of the current medical thinking, they may be more concerned about their children's health, they may be able to spend more money on their children, they may be free to bring them to a doctor when other mothers have to work, they may have only one child or a small family, they may feed their children more carefully, supervise their rest more consistently. These and many other factors might make one mother volunteer to have her child vaccinated while another does not.
Any one of these might also have had a bearing on whether or not the child contracts polio, regardless of his having been vaccinated. It is as though a parent were to have his child inoculated against snake bite, then forbid the child to go anywhere snakes might be found. If the child does not then ever suffer from snake bite, one cannot claim that the inoculation was any more responsible than the fact that other precautions were taken to avoid the possibility of snake bite. Yet this is precisely the assumption of the promoters of the Salk vaccine. They simply refuse to recognize the possibility that any of the above factors could influence the occurrence of polio, or lack of it, in the unvaccinated. Without good evidence of equality, comparisons between volunteers and nonvolunteers should not be made.
The True Situation
Encyclopedia of COMMON DISEASES by J.I. Rodale. Rodale books. 1962
Public Owes gratitude to Panelists and Journal
We believe that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the men who had the courage to participate in this panel discussion. There is no question that they laid themselves open to professional and private reprisals. They have accuused organized medicine and the government's medical authorities of conspiracy to deceive the public about the effectiveness and safety of the Salk vaccine. You can be sure this will not be taken lightly by these groups. This is especially true because of the stature of the panel members in their profession. These men can't be brushed off as cranks or know-nothings. Each of them has been especially honored by his profession for his expertness in his chosen field. These men speak with undeniable authority.
A bow should go, too, to the Illinois Medical Journal for printing the transcript of the discussion. We consider how it went with the editor when his intention was made known. We wonder if he is still editor.
Jim's Comment. Some of those men were very brave. But the ones pushing the live virus like Dr. Cox, it was all set up. Rivers, and O'Connor had all their bases covered with the media and medical association backing them. All the parents who believed their doctor who had no clue that their doctor had been lied to. That reminds me of today. nothing has changed. The corrupt still run the country and money, not lives are what is important to the deceivers.
Salk Issue Confused?
Dr. Meier of the University of Chicago then commented, has anyone heard of any doubts concerning the Salk vaccine. He said, " How is it that today you hear from members of this panel that the Salk vaccine situation is confused ; yet what everybody knows from reading the newspapers, and has known since the vaccine was introduced, is that the situation , as far as the Salk vaccine is concerned, was and is marvelous? The reason for this discrepancy lies, I think, in a new attitude of many public health and publicity men. It is hard to convince the public that something is good. Consequently, the best way to push forward a new program is to decide on on what you think the best decision is and not to question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issues."
(Does that not sound like the entire flouridation scheme? )
Dr. Cox and Dr. Ratner than spoke of the testing procedures for insuring safety of the Salk vaccine. ach offered evidence to show that, in mass production, testing procedures were pared to a minimum, and only one test, not the recommended 3 was done to determine the vaccine's safety. Figures submitted show that the vaccine used in 1955 was inadequately tested, and the cases of vaccine-induced polio which followed were not wholly a surprise to the scientist.
Does it Work or Not?
How good is the Salk polio vaccine? The New York Times ( April 24, 1960 ) will tell you that the results "... of the Salk vaccine have shown that it is even more effective than had been predicted from 1954-1955 field trials..." Four days previous to that statement, which means that the vaccine was more than 90 per cent effective against all 3 types of polio virus, the same paper carried a news story on a purified and concentrated Salk vaccine giving an even higher rate of immunity. Yet, bfore the announcement, vaccinated persons were already made by many public health figures to feel 100 per cent safe from polio.
In the Saturday Evening Post ( July 25, 1960), we read, in connection with trials on the new live-virus vaccine, that there "...is recent evidence that Salk vaccine has not been as effective as it was hoped it would be... (the) report evaluating the 1954-55 field trials rated the vaccine 80 to 90 per cent effective. Many people subconsciously thought of this as almost 100 per cent protection and hailed the end of polio." Not the least of these "hailers" was the National Foundation, which turned its atention to other things, having finally caused the end of polio. Even Dr. Salk was looking for new research fields to conquer. Now everyone is rolling up his sleeves again, promoting the new oral vaccines, and Dr. Salk is trying to salvage his doomed vaccine by making superconcentrated batches that are better than the old kind.
The oral vaccine discovered by Dr. Albert Sabin consists of live polio viruses that have been so weakened that they no longer cause the active disease, but do cause the body to manufactor a resistance against any stronger polio virus which might attack. Dr. sabin says, in Archives of internal medicine (July, 1960), that the vaccine has proven itself.
Dr. E. Russell Alexander of the United States Public Health Service Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta Georgia, faces the issue a bit more honestly as he is quoted in the New York Times (April 21, 1960) Commenting on the growing incidence of polio in the United States, he said "it has been a sobering experience for those enthusiastic epidemiologists who had anticipated a progressive disappearance of this disease with increasing use of the Salk vaccine." In the October 16, 1959, Public Health Service report on polio, we find that, of 3,389 paralytic cases, whose vaccination records are known, 595 cases of paralytic polio were recorded among persons who had received three or more shots of Salk vaccine, another 302 had had two shots, Dr. Harold Faber predicted in the Journal of the American Medical Association (April 9, 1960, that of a probable 6,000 paralytic cases expected by the end of 1960, 1000 were likely to have had the 3 shots.
Scope Magazine ( June 29, 1960) reported on an outbreak of polio in British Columbia, Canada. Of 17 cases of paralytic polio from January, 1960, to March 25, 1960, 6 were fully vaccinated and 4 were partially vaccinated with the Salk polio vaccine. One of the paralyzed children had had two complete series--a total of 6 injections! In the New York Times (April 24, 1960) , we see this statement: "About 2/3 of the polio cases are among unvaccinated persons." This means that 1/3 of the persons who contract polio are among the vaccinated!
The point of all this is that the expected, the promised immunity from paralytic polio, which is implied or guaranteed for those who have had the Salk vaccine, simply does not exist. One can hardly label as deliberate and unashamed lies, the assertions that the polio rate is going down steadily spoken by such persons as Basil O'Connor and Dr. A.D. Langmuir--who have much better reason to be aware of the published figures on rising polio rates than we do. Yet, these respected personages, and others in similar positions, persist in creating the impression that the child who has been vaccinated with the Salk vaccine is guaranteed safe from paralytic polio. The actual fact is that there is no absolute proof that the vaccine works in humans at all, and no scientific assurance whatsoever that your child with 3 or 4 or 5 shots of Salk vaccine is any safer after receiving them than he was before.
Scientific Experts Reveal the Salk Vaccine Hoax.
In a series of two articles, the respected Illinois Medical Journal ( August, 1960 and September, 1960) has had the courage to expose the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disquised fraud. And don't think it didn't take courage to publish a direct contradiction to the releases and pronouncements of the AMA, the United States Public Health Service and just about every other organization and agency that has anything to do with health and medicine in the United states. It took courage, and it took a solid foundation of proof furnished by qualified, reputable experts whose opinions and statements could not be discredited. The opportunity to present such evidence came through a panel discussion moderated by none other than Herbert Ratner, M.D.., Director of Public Health, Oak Park, Illinois, and Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, at Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago. The panelists were Herald R. Cox, Sc.D., a leading authority on live virus vaccines, as well as killed vaccines, and at that time, president-elect of the Society of American Bacteriologist; Herman Kleinman, M.D.., an epidemiologist from the Minnesota Department of Health, and co-author in 1957 of a paper entitled " The Efficacy of Poliomyelitis Vaccines with Special Reference to its Use in Minnesota, 1955-56, " wherein it was concluded that " analysis has revealed (that) the use of two doses of Salk poliomyelitis vaccine...(was) 83 % protective against paralytic poliomyelitis" ; Paul Meier, Ph.D., a biostatistician from the University of Chicago, who is known in the field of polio for this analysis, "Safety Testing of Poliomyelitis Vaccine," which suggested, futilely, that a searching study of the entire Salk vaccine program by an appropriate body be conducted; and Bernard G. Greenberg, Ph.D., of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina, School of Public Heal;th, and former chairman of the committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association. This distinguished panel presented its views before the Section on Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois State Medical Society ( May 26, 1960 ). There can be no question of the qualifications of these men, and their conclusions have yet to be answered or disproved.
The chairman, Dr. Ratner, began the session with a review of the increasing rise in the polio rate in the United States, quoting Dr. Langmuir ( in charge of polio surveillance for the United States Public Health Service) when he said that the polio trend"...has been a sobering experience for overenthusiastic health officers and epidemiologists alike." Dr. Langmuir made a prediction in the fall of 1955, that, by 1957, there would be less than 100 cases of paralytic polio in the United States. This has proven to be grossly optimistic. The 1959 figure for paralytic polio was 6,000 cases, 1,000 of which occurred in persons who had recieved 3, 4 or more doses of Salk vaccine.
Manufacturing Methods Deficient
Dr. Cox went on to say that a worthwhile killed virus vaccine must have at least 100 million particles per dose. In mass production the Salk vaccine manufactures don't often get more than 10 to 30 million. This means that the vaccine would have to be concentrated 5 to 10 times to get a proper end product. This means that the 39 cents a cubic centimeter it costs to make the killed vaccine would have to be multiplied 5 or 10 times, plus labor costs, to make a proper vaccine. Dr. Cox's company didn't think it worthwhile to risk such large sums, when other companies were not above making and selling the cheaper product. " No one manufactured the vaccine that would properly have 100 million particles per cubic centimeter. Actually no one ever got the proper vacine."
Dr. Cox continued, "...the killed (virus) does a fairly good job...against Type ll polio virus. But Type ll represents only about 3 per cent of paralytic cases throughout the world. The killed vaccine does a poor job against Type l, however, which causes 85 per cent of paralytic cases, and Type lll, which causes about 12 per cent. In other words, the killed vaccine is doing its best job against the least important type...it was proven in Israel in 1958, when it had its big Type l epidemic. They did not see any difference in protection between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated."
If you are a petro chemical pill pushing pimp, pharma whore or a jagoff,---- may you rot in hell for all the disease, disability and death you have caused.
Live Viruses Found
Even with the recommended procedures, the vaccine's safety was doubted by some. Dr. Ratner tells us that," In 1953, experienced investigators at the Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago failed to produce a safe vaccine by the Salk formula. Their findings were dismissed by the backers of Salk. ( Jim's comment. Ratner did not know of the live virus fraud. The people at Michael Reese, doing the experiments would have known, and the backers of Salk were the decievers.)
"In the spring of 1955, one of the manufactors using safety tests more rigid than those required by United States Public Health Service found live virus in its own vaccine, in another manufacture's vaccine on the open market, and in one of Dr. Salk's vaccine preparations, used as a standard for commercial vaccines...Some of the released vaccine of this manufacture, however had already been used in Massachusetts, which experienced an epidemic. ...
Jim's comment. For some reason he doesn't mention the great salk vaccine massacre of 1955. 200 kids paralyzed and 10 dead. All from his vaccine. it was called the Cutter incident. The Cutter company was the fall guy. The man who said he found live virus in Cutter's vaccine was Louis Gebhart. The little known facts are that Gebhart worked with Salk on the vaccine typing program, that Ely lilly's vaccine also caused many cases of polio, and that the Cutter company was independant of the Rockefeller Institute.
J.I. Rodale was the Founder and Editor of Prevention Magazine.
Will the Oral Vaccine Take Over?
The United States Public Service demanded to know the answers to several questions before approving the new vaccine. You will note that ( where they apply) the questions have yet to be answered about the Salk vaccine.
1, How much immunity is conferred by the vaccine, and for how long?
2. Should the mono- and trivalent vaccines be given early in life?
3. Is it significant that the attenuated strains can and do revert to forms virulent to monkeys?
( Jim's comment. This shows that they believed in the germ theory and the living virus lie. However their questions were relevent for the time.)
We don't know yet how much Salk vaccine is good for how long, yet we're urged to take it. We don't about the safety of the injections of Salk polio vaccine for tiny babies; we just do it, taking a chance that it will be all right. As to the question of safety of a vaccine whose virus becomes strong enough to kill monkeys, the consideration of the possibility is admirable, but what of the danger in the Salk vaccine mentioned in Medical News ( June 22, 1960): There is a dangerous virus sometimes present in the kidney cells of monkeys used to make the polio vaccines for humans. " Virus-infected culture fluids used to prepare killed poliomyelitis or adreno virus vaccines are commonly contaminated with simian agents..." This statement was made at the Second International Conference on Live Polio Vaccines.
The Sabin vaccine has been extensively used overseas, and the reported results are heartening. The British Medical Journal ( June 4, 1960 ) tells of two countries ( Estonia and Lithuania) who used the Sabin vaccine on all between two months and 20 years of age. Estonia's polio figures for the years 1955 to 1959 read like this: 1955--180; 1956--213; 1957--102; 1958--963; 1959--8. Lithuania : 1955--411; 1956--247; 1957--124; 1957--264; 1959--17. The results are said to be similar in the Soviet Union. The figures certainly qualify for the " startling if true department." We have no reason to doubt their authenicity, but can we be certain that the vaccin and nothing else was responsible? More time is needed. ( Jim's comment. he knew there was something wrong but again didn't know about the fraud Salk and company were pulling off with the virus lies.)
It is interesting to see that Dr. David E. Price of the United States Public Health Service agrees. He is quoted in the Saturday Evening Post (July 25, 1960) as saying: " ... there are serious objections to drawing conclusions about its ( the Sabin vaccine ) effectiveness after such short observation periods." He said he would like more evidence that the drops in polio incidence are not simply due to fluctuations in the polio pattern. This is an extremely sensible viewpoint, one with which we wholeheartedly agree. But where was this watch and wait attitude with the Salk vaccine? The trials weren't nearly so extensive when the results were published, yet the United States Public Health Service was pushing the vaccine as a great advance on the day it was released to the public. In the next year, the same conservative Health Service was pointing with pride to the toppling polio-incidence figures. The Health Service never mentioned that there are natural fluctions in the polio pattern until it questioned the Sabin vaccine. Could it be that a postponement of the okay on the Sabin vaccine was directed by powerful drug firms who would would be left high and dry with millions of unsalable Salk doses if the Sabin vaccine were approved at once?
We do not know how effective or safe the Sabin polio vaccine is..... No one does. It would appear from available data that it is safer and more effective than the Salk vaccine was shown to be when it was approved. It is our guess that the Sabin vaccine will take over the leadership, and the Salk vaccine will be allowed to fade peacefully into the background as " a great advance, " a real pioneer," "the almost perfect vaccine." Its short-comings will never be truly explored. The story of the money thrown away on it, the people fooled by it, the faith wasted on it, will never be told. Let us hope that the next polio vaccine, whatever it is, will be safe and effective--if there can ever be such a thing. We prefer to rely on the common sense of good health, carefully fortified with good diet and food suppliments, to fight the body's battles against all infections. Vaccines can never take the place of sanitation and the natural immunity of a healthy body in counter acting disease.
Potency Varies Astronomically
Dr. Cox was asked if he knew any variations in the potency of the Salk vaccine that is on the market. He replied that it varies considerably. Dr. Ratner added to this in detail: "New York State Health Department investigations reported in September, 1956, that there was a six hundredfold variation in the potency of commercial Salk vaccine on the market....Today many inoculations of Salk vaccine are needed to accomplish the same results that were claimed in 1955 with one inoculation. In the history of drug therapy there are few drugs, if any, which become progressively inferior with increasing years."
A little later, Dr. Ratner made one of the most amazing declarations of a very a very panel discussion: " To close the discussion on potency, back in May, 1957, the largest producer of Salk vaccine in the United States had several million dollars worth of vaccine on hand which did not pass the minimun potency requirements of the United States Public Health Service. Subsequently, the Division of Biological Standards reinterpreted the minimum requirements to make possible the commercial utilization of this vaccine."
Disappointment of Former Salk Vaccine Proponent
These are the words of one of the foremost promoters of the Salk vaccine in Minnesota. His disappointment is evident and his characterization of the vaccine as the only medium we have which has some reliability" is a far cry from the high estimates of 92 per cent immunity which we've been told we can expect from the Salk vaccine. And even the " some degree of reliability" Dr. Kleinman mentions is hard to accept on the face of the other statements made by this panel.
Dr. Cox spoke next: " First let me say that I am convinced that living virus vaccine is going to be the final answer. I base this statement on my experience in the virus field since 1928. I am not against virus vaccines. I was the first person to prove they could be made...
"...The reason our company refused to make the killed Salk vaccine was because we knew it was impossible to produce enough virus by known tissue culture methods to make a good killed polio virus vaccine.
Reported Rate Had to Decrease
If the vaccine was indeed less effective, one might wonder why the tremendous reduction occurred in the years 1955, 1956, and 1957. Dr. Greenberg offers this explanation: prior to 1954, any physician reporting paralytic polio did his patient a favor by qualifying him for subsidized care, and he was doing his community a favor by reporting a communicable disease. All that was required was an examination on admittance and another 24 hours later; if the classic polio symptoms were discernible, the patient was considered to have polio. No lab test, no residual paralysis were required to establish a paralytic polio case definitely.