Greenberg and polio

"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
...

Yes, funny how the Egyptians had polio before Christ was born. The
must have also had advanced chemistry to synthesize DDT.

http://www.johnpowell.net/pages/Stele.jpg

yawn, its polio EPIDEMICS http://www.whale.to/v/polio2.htm
like autism EPIDEMICS http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

if polio is a poison disease which it obviously is, then it is bleeding
obvious it has been around since the invention of poisons

"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
...


Yes, I love correlations. They show *conclusively* that thimerosal is
responsible for both economic growth and the increase in home runs in
Major League Baseball. All the evidence you need is right he



it will the seatbelts argument next

"tkavanag" wrote in message
...


Yup, Yuri, and you lose. Greenberg was in favor of
vaccination/innoculation.

tk


who said he wasn't?

In message , JOHN wrote:
"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
...

Yes, I love correlations. They show *conclusively* that thimerosal is
responsible for both economic growth and the increase in home runs in
Major League Baseball. All the evidence you need is right he

it will the seatbelts argument next

Thank you.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

In message , JOHN wrote:

if polio is a poison disease which it obviously is, then it is bleeding
obvious it has been around since the invention of poisons

So either the poisons are gone or the paralytic polio is still
around, right? Which is it?

Numerical note: US paralytic polio cases 1951-1960 totaled 92,984
US population in 1960 was 179,323,175
US population in 2000 was 281,421,906
The same per capita rate in 2000 as the average for 1951-1960
would have been 14,592 per year.

Where are they?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

JOHN wrote:
"tkavanag" wrote in message
...

Yup, Yuri, and you lose. Greenberg was in favor of
vaccination/innoculation.

tk


who said he wasn't?


Yuri surely tried to imply it.

On Dec 18, 4:40 am, "JOHN" wrote:

if polio is a poison disease which it obviously is,...

OK, john, how do *you* reconcile this assertion with the Cutter
Incident? The lots were manufactured *exactly the same*, except that
the one with LESS formaldehyde resulted in polio while the ones with
MORE formaldehyde did not result in polio. Please, walk us through
your logic.

On Dec 12, 4:37 pm, "Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote:

As I posted already, his views were also published in the August, 1960,
Illinois Medical Journal.

"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and
ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr.
Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that
the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the
criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)"

Yuri.

Ahhhhhhh. I love interlibrary loan.

For those of you who are interested, here's the complete reference for
the entire world to see (and to show how the antivac whacks distort
the truth).

"The Present Status of Polio Vaccines" Moderator: Herbert Ratner, MD.
Panelists Herald R. Cox, ScD, Bernard G. Greenberg, PhD, Herman
Kleinman, MD, and Paul Meier, PhD. Illinois Medical Journal. August,
1960. pp 84-93. (Panel discussion edited from a transcript presented
before the Section on Preventative Medicne and Public Health at the
120th annual meeting of the ISMS in Chicago, May 26, 1960.)

Dr. Greenberg's position wasn't that the polio vaccine was
ineffective, his position was that it wasn't *very* effective. He also
made no statements that the vaccine was in any way dangerous.

Here are a couple of excerpts from him about polio trends:

"Without a doubt, the increasing trend has been reduced to some extent
by the Salk vaccine."

"However, any future substantial reduction in this trend will require
a more potent vaccine, not simply vaccinating more people. If there
were no other vaccine, complete vaccination of all susceptible persons
in the population with the Salk vaccine would be justifiable." Potency
is a function of increasing the number of inactivated viral antigens
in the Salk vaccine, or using live virus as with the Sabin vaccine.

"Today it may be a serious mistake to be ultraconservative in
accepting the new live virus vaccines under the impression that there
is no hurry because an almost equivalent immunizer exists in the Salk
vaccine. A delay in accepting and promoting better vaccines will be a
costly one." He said this in 1960. In 1961 the monovalent live Sabin
vaccine was licensed.

Clearly, Dr. Greenberg believed the Sabin vaccine was the answer and
better than the Salk vaccine since technical hurdles (virus
propagation in cell culture) prevented the Salk vaccine from being
sufficiently potent.

The paper also provides an elaboration as to why polio diagnosis was
redefined. With the advent of cell culture-derived polio virus
propagation, *laboratory* diagnostic testing that detected poliovirus
antibodies was also developed. Previously, the diagnosis was based on
*clinical* diagnosis (i.e., not antibody testing or virus isolation,
but instead relying upon patient symptoms). It turns out that two
other viruses were causing polio-like symptoms in people: Coxsackie
B-5 and ECHO9 viruses. These infections were mistakenly identified as
polio, when they were not. In other words, a new, more accurate and
sensitive tool became available for diagnosing polio virus infection.

Another feature of the paper shows one of the reasons why the Salk
vaccine wasn't as good as they thought it was from the first clinical
trial. Cell culture propagation of the viruses for the Salk vaccine
produced only about 10 million (10^7) viruses per ml of culture fluid
in the 1950s. This was 10-fold less than what was needed (10^8/ml) for
effective ("potent") inactivated viral vaccines without adjuvant
(which were not formulated in polio vaccines because safe ones were
unavailable in the 1950s). It wasn't until 1967 that cells used for
propagating polio viruses could be grown on microspheres, which
increased the number of cells in the vaccine production run and, thus,
the amount of virus produced. See this ref:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../216064a0.html

Later, the viruses were adapted to continuous microsphere cell culture
in Vero cells that resulted in 10^9 viruses per ml - and what is used
in today's inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Of course, the live
trivalent Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) was licensed in 1963 and
essentially displaced the Salk vaccine. With the ability to produce
large numbers of virus in culture in the early 1970s AND with the
eradication of wild polio in the US, the IPV replaced OPV in 2000 to
obviate the rare instances of pathogenic vaccine reversion of the
Sabin vaccine.

I sure wish the antivac whacks could learn to tell the truth.

Vaccine-man wrote:

I sure wish the antivac whacks could learn to tell the truth.

Such optimism!

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

In message , Vaccine-man wrote:

I sure wish the antivac whacks could learn to tell the truth.

That's a very generous view.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+