Greenberg and polio

"Vaccine-man" wrote in message

he did mention some statistical fraud
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html

which was how they managed to make the vaccine look effective, still do

as it was just a cover for industrial poisons
http://www.whale.to/v/polio2.htm

Can you, since Yuri is unable to, provide us the reference to
Greenberg's comments? You have none listed on your web site, just
words that you say are attributed to him.

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

Also, I want to add that this is NOT the only publication from Greenberg on
polio.

It is the only publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

yURI, a peer review journal requires that the studies pass review by
intelligent people.

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.

Are you now telling us that these words in the above paragraph are
what's in the IMJ? You don't want me coming back here and show you've
perpetuated intellectual fraud, do you? As before, I need page, volume
and issue info to obtain this document. Please provide it since you're
citing it.

yURI is citing the citers because he is incapable of conducting his own
research. yURI flunked out of the University of Google.

"Citizen Jimserac" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 6:37 pm, "Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote:
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message

...



"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
...
Well, well. I just finished reading "The Probably Influence of Salk
Poliomyelitis Vaccine on Reported Poliomyelitis in North Carolina" by
Bernard Greenberg and Charles Cameron (North Carolina Medical Journal.
1955. 16(9) 391-395.). This is the only publication from Greenberg on
polio.

Also, I want to add that this is NOT the only publication from Greenberg
on
polio.

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.

His conclusions are this: Don't expect to see much of a decline
in the number of polio cases in North Carolina for a couple of years
using the Salk vaccine because we're waiting too long to vaccinate
kids. His prediction for an average year (North Carolina was one of
the hardest hit states with polio at the time):

% Vaccinated Cases
0 640
25 553
50 476
75 398
100 321

At this time, kids were getting vaccinated in the 2nd grade, thus the
majority of infections were in kids younger than 6, a rather large
susceptible population. Of course, today we vaccinate and boost at
much younger ages (starting at 2 months), thus reducing the size of
the susceptible population. Thus, the incidence of polio declined to
zero in the U. S.

Anyone who suggests Dr. Greenberg was against polio vaccination isn't
telling the truth.

Well, I guess you're right in so far as Greenberg's views on the matter
as
of 1955. But his more sceptical views re polio vaccines were expressed
ca
1960. Ability to change your views if the evidence demands it is a sign
of
an honest scientist.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=-http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of
children
does more harm than good." -- Dr J Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine
Control Officer, FDA.

Is there an online site to access the Illinois Medical Journal?

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac

This matter has now been clarified by Thomas W. Kavanagh.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in
the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases
against which they were supposed to provide protection." -- Dr A. Sabin,
developer of the Oral Polio vaccine.

On Dec 12, 7:14 pm, "Peter Moran" wrote:
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message

...





"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...

"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
...
Well, well. I just finished reading "The Probably Influence of Salk
Poliomyelitis Vaccine on Reported Poliomyelitis in North Carolina" by
Bernard Greenberg and Charles Cameron (North Carolina Medical Journal.
1955. 16(9) 391-395.). This is the only publication from Greenberg on
polio.

Also, I want to add that this is NOT the only publication from Greenberg
on polio.

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)"

This is not a direct publication by Greenberg and what would its relevance
be even if this was a correct account of his opinion at the time? It is
absolutely obvious to anyone working in any capacity within medicine that
the epidemics of paralysis in children of the polio days have stopped. It
is even obvious to the many "alternative" practitioners who try to find
reasons other than vaccinations for the phenomenon.

PM

The reason why the epidemics of paralysis in children have stopped is
quite obvious. It's because the use of DDT has been reduced.

Yuri.

Polio epidemics in the US correlate extremely well with the production
of pesticides. The truth about polio,
http://www.geocities.com/harpub/pol_all.htm

"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message
...

"Citizen Jimserac" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 6:37 pm, "Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote:
"Yuri Kuchinsky" wrote in message

...



"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
...
Well, well. I just finished reading "The Probably Influence of Salk
Poliomyelitis Vaccine on Reported Poliomyelitis in North Carolina" by
Bernard Greenberg and Charles Cameron (North Carolina Medical
Journal.
1955. 16(9) 391-395.). This is the only publication from Greenberg on
polio.

Also, I want to add that this is NOT the only publication from Greenberg
on
polio.

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.

His conclusions are this: Don't expect to see much of a decline
in the number of polio cases in North Carolina for a couple of years
using the Salk vaccine because we're waiting too long to vaccinate
kids. His prediction for an average year (North Carolina was one of
the hardest hit states with polio at the time):

% Vaccinated Cases
0 640
25 553
50 476
75 398
100 321

At this time, kids were getting vaccinated in the 2nd grade, thus the
majority of infections were in kids younger than 6, a rather large
susceptible population. Of course, today we vaccinate and boost at
much younger ages (starting at 2 months), thus reducing the size of
the susceptible population. Thus, the incidence of polio declined to
zero in the U. S.

Anyone who suggests Dr. Greenberg was against polio vaccination isn't
telling the truth.

Well, I guess you're right in so far as Greenberg's views on the
matter as
of 1955. But his more sceptical views re polio vaccines were expressed
ca
1960. Ability to change your views if the evidence demands it is a
sign of
an honest scientist.

Is there an online site to access the Illinois Medical Journal?
This matter has now been clarified by Thomas W. Kavanagh.

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

tk

In message , wrote:

The reason why the epidemics of paralysis in children have stopped is
quite obvious. It's because the use of DDT has been reduced.

That's a marvelous example of the effect preceding the cause.

--
| 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 --------------+

On Dec 17, 4:43 pm, wrote:

The reason why the epidemics of paralysis in children have stopped is
quite obvious. It's because the use of DDT has been reduced.

Yuri.

Gee, Yuri. How does that jive with the Cutter Incident? Come on, all
those people got polio. Are you suggesting the improperly inactivated
lot had DDT in it, while the properly inactivated lot didn't?

Polio epidemics in the US correlate extremely well with the production
of pesticides. The truth about polio,http://www.geocities.com/harpub/pol_all.htm

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

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....14935900cbbef8

On Dec 17, 8:27 pm, "D. C. Sessions" wrote:
In message , wrote:

The reason why the epidemics of paralysis in children have stopped is
quite obvious. It's because the use of DDT has been reduced.

That's a marvelous example of the effect preceding the cause.

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

Vaccine-man wrote:

On Dec 17, 8:27 pm, "D. C. Sessions" wrote:
In message , wrote:

The reason why the epidemics of paralysis in children have stopped is
quite obvious. It's because the use of DDT has been reduced.

That's a marvelous example of the effect preceding the cause.

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

No, it was the SV40 virus from the monkeys living further south in the
African jungles. The DDT didn't come to Egypt until Caliph Omar used
it to control cockroaches fleeing from the burning Alexandria Library
in 640AD.


--
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