There is a program that depreciates how much the pediatricians are reimbursed if there are patients not taking immunizations. Follow the money.<quoted text>
My sons pediatrician has a sigh up in their office that effective April 1, 2011, the will not accept patient who do not get immunizations.
Immunizations are one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to protect children against childhood diseases and Tennessee law requires documented immunizations.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chattanoogan.com.
#9854 Jul 28, 2014
#9855 Jul 28, 2014
It's all part of the plan.....The ZOG strikes!! They will do what it takes to control you AND your children!!
#9856 Jul 28, 2014
Did those voices tell you that?
#9857 Jul 29, 2014
(this information was discovered 5 years after the vaccines were put to market)
The lab which conducted the PCR analysis is an independent source, the companies manufacturing the vaccines have done zero post market testing, and why should they? It isn't mandatory. There aren't any consequences, as they have ZERO liability.
You have yet to offer anything beyond "nope" or "so you have nothing"
Go back in journals... to the 1950's, back before doctors were spoon feed pharma reps & paid to promote drugs. read doctors concerns of autoimmunity post vaccine.
I'm old enough to have lived & worked in the industry for decades.
Polio is a great example of the misdirection you have swallowed.
We never had a polio epidemic, there are dozens of paralytic viruses, now that we can properly identify those viruses they are now properly named.
In the 1950's any paralytic virus was called polio.
Don't you find it a bit odd that those viruses didn't appear until after polio was eradicated?
In 1954 most health departments worked with the WHO definition:
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.
How were polio cases counted in 1955?
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.
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. At the same time, the number of nonparalytic cases was bound to increase because any case of poliomyelitis-like disease which could not be classified as paralytic poliomyelitis according to the new criteria was classified as nonparalytic poliomyelitis. Many of these cases, although reported as such, were not non-paralytic poliomyelitis.
It was after the SALK vaccine was introduced, when fully vaccinated people continued to get “polio”, that doctors started looking a lot more carefully at the viruses in individuals. Many viruses were found to cause paralysis, for example coxsackie B, enterovirus, along with a dozen other viruses now know to have been lumped in the "polio" criteria.
#9858 Jul 29, 2014
By 1960, in order to be defined as “poliomyelitis”, virus tests on stool samples were required. If polioviruses were not seen, additional tests to find other viruses were run, and sometimes, no virus could be found at all. Whatever the “cause”, paralysis following sickness was no longer automatically classified as polio.
It was now re-classified under many different diagnoses, with “Acute Flaccid Paralysis” as the loose umbrella heading under which paralysis caused by poliomyelitis viruses was a sub-category.
The history of polio in the U.S. is presented with numbers like this:
…in seven years the Salk vaccine reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by more than 96 percent, from 38,476 reported cases in 1954 to 1,312 in 1961.
These statistics are simply not accurate. The 1954 “polio” data includes all paralysis. While some of this may have been from polio, in reality, much of it was from other causes. With the change of diagnostic criteria in 1955 that reduced case numbers, followed by laboratory testing that excluded vast numbers of other causes, the 1961 data only includes the small subgroup of paralysis caused by poliomyelitis. This is then compared with the catch-all 1954 definition.
Because it was impossible to know what proportion of 1954 data were really caused by poliomyelitis viruses, the 1954 data was left as it was, and nothing of the back story is revealed to the readers. When people say:“we know the polio vaccine saved us from huge epidemics of this devastating disease” they are basing their knowledge on misinformation.
If polio is wiped out, will that mean the end of “infantile paralysis?”
How was the prevaccine data from developing countries collected, before they implemented vaccination programmes?
Doctors used “lameness surveys” as a means to look for people with deformed or shrivelled legs, on the presumption that such problems were causes by the polioviruses, and then multiplied that data to cover the surrounding areas which weren’t directly surveyed.
1970 – 1980
Lameness surveys demonstrate that polio is widespread in many developing countries, leading to the introduction of routine immunization with OPV in almost all national immunization programs.
What was the case definition used for these lameness surveys?
The case definition used most frequently consists of (1) flaccid paralysis with atrophy,(2) no decrease in sensation, and (3) a history of acute onset with no subsequent progression of disease. This definition assumes that the sequelae of residual paralytic poliomyelitis are observable and distinctive enough to be reliably attributed to poliomyelitis; however, the sensitivity and specificity of the definition have not been evaluated.
Were the surveys conducted with consistent methodology around the world and throughout the 10 year process?
The percentage of all lame children who are categorized as having paralysis due to poliomyelitis has varied markedly from one survey to another…Some variation is to be expected, but the specificity of the case definition is a reasonable concern. Also, the case definition has not been applied uniformly.
How can we be sure lameness surveys were accurate?
We can’t be. Lameness surveys were essentially a “look and guess” exercise. Even though poliomyelitis researchers knew from the U.S experience that large numbers of polio cases had other causes, lameness surveys were used as factual evidence that poliomyelitis viruses were the sole cause of lameness around the world.
1992 – 1993
The Global Polio Laboratory Network is formally established to facilitate high quality virologic investigation in all countries.
This process appears to parallel what occurred in the U.S, whereby a loose definition of polio is used to collect the pre-vaccine incidence of the illness.
#9859 Jul 29, 2014
As vaccination programs are implemented, a formal process of accurate and consistent diagnosis is put into place. Only at this point, after vaccination is in use, is there any attempt to accurately and consistently separate the non-polio caused cases of acute flaccid paralysis from the polio caused cases.
When polio has been eradicated from an area, how much acute flaccid paralysis is still occurring?
Here is an example from the Americas after the eradication of polio:
"In 1993, regional vaccination coverage among children with at least three doses of oral poliovirus vaccine was 87%; 33 of 38 countries had achieved and maintained coverage of more than 80%. Routine vaccination has been supplemented by annual national immunization days *. Since August 21, 1991 (when the last confirmed case was reported), approximately 6000 acute flaccid paralysis cases have been investigated; however, none of these cases were confirmed as paralytic polio resulting from wild poliovirus. In addition, approximately 25,000 stool specimens obtained from these patients and their contacts were negative for wild poliovirus. Finally, key surveillance indicators have been at acceptable levels in all countries during the past 3 years. Based on review of these data, all 26 national or multinational certification commissions recommended that their countries be certified as polio-free.
This World Health Organization database, which goes back to 1996, provides a lot of information about polio cases and acute flaccid paralysis cases.
How many cases of acute flaccid paralysis (excluding cases due to polio) occurred from 1996 to 2009?
608,832 cases of AFP were reported, worldwide. Looking at the data, year by year, certain countries have ND in the AFP cases reported column. ND means No Data. Which means that the 608,832 cases is incomplete and that there were even more cases of non-polio AFP during this period.
In the same period, there were 39,131 cases of polio identified.
Here is some information on Acute Flaccid Paralysis in India:
In India polio cases had come down from 24,257 in 1988 to 4793 cases in 1994 with the help of routine immunization, well before the ‘eradication programme’ started in India, In those days all cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) with residual paralysis beyond 60 days were diagnosed as polio.
There was also an unexplained increase in AFP – especially non polio AFP. In 2005 there were 10,055 non polio AFP cases in Uttar Pradesh (UP) where 561 cases were expected. A delegation from the Public Report on Health (PRoH)(Council for Social Welfare, New Delhi) in November 2006 investigated the problem of residual paralysis in ‘non polio AFP’. The PRoH found that most cases of AFP were not being followed up (unless they cultured virus in the stools). Information provided under the Right to Information Act and available from National Polio Surveillance Project (NPSP) is shown in the Table. Of the 10264 cases of AFP, 209 were cases of polio or compatible with polio. Of the remaining 10055, only 2553 were followed up; of these, 898 had residual paralysis (that would qualify them to be diagnosed as polio using the old definition) and 217 died. Projecting these figures on those not followed up, it will appear that approximately 4800 cases had residual paralysis or died in UP after acquiring non polio AFP in the year 2005. This figure must be compared to the all India figures of 4793 polio cases in 1994. It is not surprising the NPSP is not keen on the follow up of these cases. The data from 2006, after 6 doses of mOPV had been administered in 2005, in districts of UP, are worse.
#9860 Jul 29, 2014
The Acute Flaccid Paralysis cases in India continue to increase, year by year. For the year 2009, using the WHO data, we find 50,416 total cases. Out of this total 752 were polio.
In 2000 WHO announced:
"There were 719 cases of wild poliovirus in 2000. This represents a 99% reduction in cases since the programme began in 1988, with 350,000 estimated cases from lameness surveys."
Note the similarity to the announcement of a 96% reduction in the U.S. by 1961, based on enlarged pre-vaccine numbers and selective post-vaccine numbers.
The rest of the story of polio in the year 2000:
There were a total of 2,971 cases of polio in the year 2000.
Of these cases, 719 were identified as cases due to wild poliovirus.
The other 2,252 may have been due to wild poliovirus or they may have been due to the vaccine virus. They were left off of the WHO timeline.
There were 27,654 cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, which were left off of the WHO timeline.
Based on the quotes from the Bernier article (see above) the accuracy of the claimed 350,000 annual cases of polio-caused paralysis based on the lameness surveys, is dubious at best.
Puliyel also questions the validity of these numbers:
"WHO claims five million children have been saved from polio paralysis. It is instructive to see how this figure is arrived at. In 1988, there were 32,419 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis. The WHO arbitarily raised this number ten-fold to 350,000 claiming incomplete reporting. In 2004 with the changed definition, only culture positive paralysis was considered polio and there were 2000 such cases. Subtracting 2000 from 350,000, the WHO calculated that 348,000 children were saved from paralysis that year."
To sum up:
The numbers used in the U.S. to claim that the Salk vaccine caused a huge reduction in the number of cases of paralysis due to polio were manipulated by changing the criteria for diagnosing the disease.
The numbers used in the worldwide program to eradicate polio were estimates using very loose standards that hypothesized the number of cases, and extrapolated them across large areas before vaccination campaigns were ignited. This was followed by much stricter diagnostic standards that weeded out Acute Flaccid Paralysis from other causes.
As the number of cases subjected to laboratory analysis rose, and the number of cases of polio dropped, the number of cases of acute flaccid paralysis rose.
Is there an epidemic of acute flaccid paralysis occurring due to various non-polio causes? Are any steps being taken to deal with this expanding problem?
Over 600,000 people coming down with some degree of paralysis in a period of 13 years seems like cause for concern.
There never was a polio epidemic.
Everything "paralytic" was called polio pre-vaccine.
Post vaccine, everything paralytic was relabeled as anything BUT polio.
Now, with citations posted, please prove your position, as i have mine.
#9861 Jul 29, 2014
Man, what a truckload of crap.
#9862 Jul 29, 2014
the majority of this information was pulled from an old hard drive.
Some links are no longer available, or have been archived with only PDF format available for text view. Please excuse notations in text, these come from data gathered & written for other purposes, decades ago.
Having lived during the time frame when "polio" was being used as a blanket to cover all paralytic illnesses, & having witnessed the shift in diagnostic criteria put into play as a means to quell public concern as well as boost public confidence in governments ability to protect the populace during a time of (manufactured) crisis, gives those of us who were involved in medicine during the time a longer view on these matters.
Polio is not, nor will it ever be eradicated.
Now you just bash away at this timeline.
Dismiss it, as you have everything else, without any proof of your own, simply disregard it with a wave of your almighty hand.
And by all means, keep your head firmly shoved up your hind end.
It really suits you.
#9863 Jul 29, 2014
Follow the links, extrapolate the data, and prove it.
#9864 Jul 29, 2014
You claim that you alone have access to this "evidence". If you cannot produce the sources then your claims may be ignored.
Note, i have not claimed anything. You are making the absurd claims. You must provide the evidence supporting this claims.
Crap about old hard drives is just that.
I don't believe that you were involved in medicine at any time.
If you were, then you would understand my demand that you provide evidence, and you certainly would not be showing your inability to interpret the literature.
It is you who has your head shoved up where the sun does not shine.
#9865 Jul 29, 2014
It seems clear that you are having problems interpreting the sources.
Look at the introduction of the who document.
Provide specific quotes of the specific claims you are making, and explain just what you think these mean. Prove to me and the others that you actually comprehend what you are reading.
#9866 Jul 29, 2014
As for your work in medicine--again, not your seeming inability to understand the difference between autoimmunization and immunization.
How can any educated person give your claims any credence.
#9867 Jul 29, 2014
Wow, shocking. Proof that Polio has almost been eradicated in America....THROUGH IMMUNIZATIONS you idiot!
#9868 Jul 29, 2014
Actually, all the links are there.
I just wondered how long it would take you to seize the opportunity to jump up & down pointing a finger without researching the data.
How many viral causes of paralysis are known today as opposed to say, 1954?
Do you know?
#9869 Jul 29, 2014
Look at the second post. You do NOT understand the research.
Regarding the second, you tell me.
Keep in mind that vaccines are not available, and the world population is over 7 billion compared to no more than 2 billion in 1950.
You provide the exact numbers and the sources for those numbers.
Autoimmunization vs immunization--remains a problem for you.
#9870 Jul 29, 2014
That's vaccines are not available in all countries.
Typos do not invalidate the comments.
#9871 Jul 31, 2014
Finding the information regarding the polio statistics on the WHO website isn't as easy as it once was. As time passes, servers are upgraded, pages get moved. Links change.
Everything posted by "Geeze" can be found if you actually look.
And Zeke. Get a job you ridiculous hack. You and your pitiful "prove it" routine is beyond third rate.
You've never posted anything of substance and never will.
Geeze is right about polio. There never was an epidemic. There are, and always have been dozens of viruses that cause paralysis.
In 1950 mankind lacked the resources to identify them. Now we do. See how simple that is.
F.D.R. didn't have polio.
Polio struck children in the summer.
He was a 39 year old man with CLASSIC G.B.S. struck ill in December.
#9872 Jul 31, 2014
Another crank aren't you? None if you anti-vacs and pseudo scientists have added nothing of substance to this thread. This post is a shining example.
As I have written before, if you make outrageous claims that contradict standard scientific claims, then you need to provide the evidence.
1. If indeed the evidence referenced by Geeze is available, then provide specific URL's to the sources.
2. Geeze has made it clear in a number if posts that he does not understand the research reports he claims to have read.
3. Given number 2, any educated person is likely to discount Geeze's claims about so-called evidence lurking on his hard drive or in the nether regions of the Internet.
4. The remarks about changes in links do not apply in this case. I have had no problem in finding links posted by Geeze. However, Geeze, and now you, are relulctant to provide sources for most of you claims.
5. Given your implied claims that my demands for evidence are unreasonable, and "third rate" then I don't need to provide any more evidence than exhibited in your post, to concluded that you are a ignorant fool with an agenda, If not an idiot.
#9873 Jul 31, 2014
Every time you post, this is what I see.
Ad hominem logical fallacy
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.
Add your comments below
|Hepatitis A found in Save On Foods pineapple cups||Sep 4||PurifyCleaning||1|
|Gay men can now donate blood three months after...||Jul '17||Darby||4|
|Rebuttal over Cochrane Review of DAAs-What is t...||Jul '17||hcvnewdrugs||1|
|Scientific Evidence and the EU Court||Jul '17||VAERS NVICP||1|
|The Liver - Super Foods & Supplements||Jun '17||hcvnewdrugs||1|
|EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illnesses ...||Jun '17||RIGHT ON||2|
Find what you want!
Search Hepatitis Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC