Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Vaccination isn't perfect but does work.

[John Cunningham]

Bek,
Human genomes are about 99% the same as monkey's - it doesn't make humans monkeys though does it?
And who is your claim widely acknowledged by? Polio and AFP are distinguishable.
John

On 27/05/2013, at 9:30 PM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Corin,
>
> Just to add to Punters post, it is widely acknowledged that smallpox and monkeypox are clinically indistinguishable from each other and the same goes for polio and AFP. So how many cases of polio were actually AFP and how many cases of smallpox were moneypox?
>
> Also the monkeypox genome is over 96% identical to that of smallpox.
>
> Bek
>

[Meryl Dorey]

John,

Being an epidemiologist (who has admitted to not being good at maths…), perhaps this reference will be good enough for you?

Differential Diagnosis of Acute Flaccid Paralysis and Its Role in Poliomyelitis

Surveillance

Arthur Marx,1 Jonathan D. Glass,2 and Roland W. Sutter1

Epidemiologic Reviews

Copyright © 2000 by The Johns Hopkins University School ot Hygiene and Public Health

Vol. 22, No. 2

 DEFINITION OF ACUTE FLACCID PARALYSIS Acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) is a clinical syndrome characterized by rapid onset of weakness, including (less frequently) weakness of the muscles of respiration and swallowing, progressing to maximum severity within several days to weeks. The term "flaccid" indicates the absence of spasticity or other signs of disordered central nervous system motor tracts such as hyperreflexia, clonus, or extensor plantar responses (1). When applied to voluntary muscles, "paralysis" means loss of contraction due to interruption of motor pathways from the cortex to the muscle fiber. It is preferable to use the term "paresis" for slight loss of motor strength and "paralysis" or "plegia" for severe loss of motor strength (1). The differential diagnosis of AFP varies considerably with age. No single operational clinical case definition of AFP or paralytic poliomyelitis that combines both high sensitivity and high specificity has emerged (2-4). The currently used case definition increases sensitivity in detecting the existence of AFP but tends to decrease specificity in detecting paralytic poliomyelitis.

But if not,  here is diagnostic criteria from the WHO. Hey, look at that! For clinical diagnoses, the patient's vaccination status is taken into account. Who'd a thunk? And do you think it might just be possible that, were a child to present with paralysis who had receive 5, 10, 15 or more doses of oral polio vaccine, the doctor would simply not send a sample off to be tested but would instead, diagnose AFP? That would avoid so many 'inconvenient' questions from the parents. And didn't this happen 47,500 times just last year in India in order for the country to be declared free of polio. Too bad they weren't trying to declare themselves free of paralysis. Now that WOULD be a good effort!

WHO-recommended surveillance standard of poliomyelitis

http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/poliomyelitis_surveillance/en/

Rationale for surveillance

Poliomyelitis is targeted for eradication. Highly sensitive surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), including immediate case investigation, and specimen collection are critical for the detection of wild poliovirus circulation with the ultimate objective of polio eradication. AFP surveillance is also critical for documenting the absence of poliovirus circulation for polio-free certification

---

Recommended case definition

Clinical case definition

Any child under 15 years of age with AFP* or any person of any age with paralytic illness if polio is suspected

Case classification

Suspected case: A case that meets the clinical case definition
Confirmed case: See diagram in special aspects section

*Including Guillain-Barré syndrome

---

Recommended types of surveillance

• Aggregated data on AFP cases should be included in routine monthly surveillance reports
• Designated reporting sites at all levels should report at a specified frequency (e.g. weekly or monthly) even if there are zero cases (often referred to as "zero reporting")
• All outbreaks should be investigated immediately
• All AFP cases under 15 years of age or with paralytic illness at an age where polio is suspected should be reported immediately and investigated within 48 hours, and two stool specimens should be collected 24-48 hours apart and within 14 days of the onset of paralysis
• Active surveillance: Regular weekly visits should be made to selected reporting sites that are most likely to admit acute flaccid paralysis patients (e.g. major hospitals, physiotherapy centers) to look for unreported AFP cases

---

Recommended minimum data elements

Aggregated data

• Number of third doses of oral polio vaccine (OPV3) administered to infants
• Number of AFP cases

Case-based data

(to be linked to specimen-based data for analysis)

• Unique identifier
• Geographical area (e.g. district and province names)
• Date of birth
• Sex: 1 = male; 2 = female; 9 = unknown
• Date of paralysis
• Date of notification
• Date of case investigation
• Total polio vaccine doses received: 99 = unknown
• Fever at onset of paralysis: 1 = yes; 2 = no; 9 = unknown
• Progression of paralysis within four days: 1 = yes; 2 = no; 9 = unknown
• Asymmetric paralysis: 1 = yes; 2 = no; 9 = unknown Date of 60-day follow-up examination
• Findings at 60-day follow-up: 1 = residual weakness; 2 = no residual weakness; 3 = lost to follow-up; 4 = death before follow-up; 9 = unknown
• Final classification: 1 = confirmed; 2 = compatible; 3 = discarded

Specimen-based data

(to be linked to case-based data for analysis)

• Unique identifier
• Specimen number: 1 = first specimen; 2 = second specimen; 3 = other; 9 = unknown
• Date of onset of paralysis
• Date of last OPV dose
• Date of collection of stool specimen
• Date stool specimen sent to laboratory
• Date stool specimen received in laboratory
• Condition of stool: 1 = good; 2 = poor; 9 = unknown
• Date final culture results sent from laboratory to EPI
• Date intratypic differentiation results sent from laboratory to EPI
• Results
  - Polio type1 isolated? 1 = yes, wild; 2 = yes, Sabin; 3 = yes, pending intratypic differentiation; 4 = yes, mixture of wild and Sabin; 5 = no polio type 1 isolated; 6 = specimen not processed; 9 = unknown
  - Polio type 2 isolated? 1 = yes, wild; 2 = yes, Sabin; 3 = yes, pending intratypic differentiation; 4 = yes, mixture of wild and Sabin; 5 = no polio type 2 isolated; 6 = specimen not processed; 9= unknown
  - Polio type 3 isolated? 1 = yes, wild; 2 = yes, Sabin; 3 = yes, pending intratypic differentiation; 4 = yes, mixture of wild and Sabin; 5 = no polio type 3 isolated; 6 = specimen not processed; 9 = unknown
  - Non-polio enterovirus (NPEV) isolated? 1 = yes; 2 = no NPEV isolated; 3 = specimen not processed; 9 = unknown

---

Recommended data analyses, presentations, reports

Aggregated data

• Cases and incidence rate by month, year and geographical area
• OPV3 coverage by year and geographical area
• Completeness/timeliness of monthly reporting

Case-based data

same as aggregated data plus the following:

• Confirmed cases by age group, sex, immunization status, geographical area, month and year
• Confirmed cases from which wild poliovirus was isolated, by geographical area, sex, month and year
• Compatible cases by geographical area and month
• All suspect cases by final classification
• Non-polio enterovirus isolation rate
• Indicators of surveillance performance
  - Percentage of all expected monthly reports that were received: target >=90%
  - Annualized non-polio AFP rate per 100 000 children under 15 years of age: target >=1/100 000
  - Percentage of AFP cases investigated within 48 hours: target >=80%
  - Percentage of AFP cases with two adequate stool specimens collected 24-48 hours apart and <=14 days after onset: target >=80%
  - Percentage of specimens arriving at the laboratory in good condition: target >=80%
  - Percentage of specimens arriving at a WHO-accredited laboratory within three days of being sent: target >=80%
  - Percentage of specimens for which laboratory results sent within 28 days of receipt of specimens: target >=80%

---

Principal uses of data for decision-making

• Track wild poliovirus circulation
• Use data for classifying cases as confirmed, polio-compatible or discarded (see special aspects section)
• Monitor routine coverage, as well as performance of surveillance (by means of the standard indicators listed above) in all geographical areas and focus efforts in low-performing geographical areas
• Monitor seasonality to determine low season of poliovirus transmission in the interest of planning national immunization days (NIDs)
• Identify high-risk areas with a view to planning mop-up immunization campaigns
• Provide evidence to certification commissions of the interruption of wild poliovirus circulation

---

Special aspects

The scheme in the following illustration should be used to classify AFP cases. Countries should use the clinical classification until their surveillance performance meets the following three criteria:

• a non-polio AFP rate of at least 1/100 000 children under 15 years of age
• two adequate specimens* collected from at least 60% of detected AFP cases
• all specimens processed in a WHO-accredited laboratory

So John where did you get your information from to state so categorically that polio and AFP are distinguishable?

Meryl

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Meryl Dorey]

First of all John - just because you either don't like or don't understand the information I sent, please don't try to put it onto Tristan - though I do consider that a compliment since he is so incredibly intelligent and expresses himself so well.

Secondly - do you really interpret that quote below as saying that polio and AFP are clinically separate? Talk about grasping at straws. It says clearly that the current definition makes it less likely to misdiagnose something as AFP but more likely to misdiagnose polio In other words, they are still guessing either way. And they have been guessing for 50 years. Don't we feel great knowing that billions of dollars have been spent and millions of lives have been put at risk due to guesswork? And that is what passes for science. Incredible.

On 29/05/2013, at 1:09 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

No Meryl,

It isn't, and borrowing Tristan's arguments won't do you any good.

"The currently used case definition increases sensitivity in detecting the existence of AFP but tends to decrease specificity in detecting paralytic poliomyelitis."

John

[Katie Brockie]

To quote from an Indian medical student who knows what he is talking about:
"Acute flaccid paralysis is the manifestation of many different diseases, not a disease itself. It has many causes, polio being one of them, the rest are GB syndrome, diphtheria, myasthenia gravis and many others. Polio was never redefined as AFP.

Before the National Polio Surveillance Project (NPSP) started in India, reporting of cases was done only when physicians suspected cases of AFP were due to polio(1). However, NPSP made reporting and subsequent follow up of all AFP cases mandatory irrespective of what the physician thought about the underlying cause - whether it's polio or GB syndrome didn't matter - all cases were reported."

The data is here for you to examine:

http://www.npspindia.org/About%20Us.asp

Click on the tab "AFP and Polio" data on the left, and you'll get an up-to-date spreadsheet of all AFP cases for the last 13 months, and earlier. They then publish tables of results from lab tests and stool samples.  You can see the numbers for yourself.

Katie

[Meryl Dorey]

Thanks Katie - you've just proven my point perfectly and I appreciate that! AFP is polio because prior to lab testing - everything that we call AFP today was called polio. And since countries like India and Pakistan have only very recently started widespread lab testing of these cases, we saw an artificial decline in polio with a concomitant increase in AFP. but really, the overall incidence of paralysis - which is what the vaccine was meant to prevent - has either gone on unchanged or, as we saw last year with 47,500 cases and a huge number of deaths - increased.

So where is the benefit of the vaccine and how do you prove that it is worth using?

All the best,

Meryl

[John Cunningham]

No Bek.

I'm not saying that.  i'm saying they're not the same.  Why is it you find simple statements so difficult to understand?

John

On 30/05/2013, at 12:05 AM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

So JC, are you saying that they are not related?

Bek

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:07:08 PM UTC+10, JC wrote:

No Bek.  I didn't.

I made the point that the viruses are different.  Not the same.

John

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 09:41:01 UTC+10, Bek wrote:

JC, are you saying that monkeypox evolved from smallpox?

Type polio and NPAFP into pubmed and almost every study that comes up states that they are clinically indistinguishable.

Bek

[Katie Brockie]

Meryl,
where is your evidence that, prior to lab testing, everything that we call AFP today was called polio? Bearing in mind that the poliovirus was identified in 1908.

Thanks,
Katie

[John Cunningham]

Bek,
I have trouble understanding several things about you.  For starters, I have given up writing complex replies to you because you try and interpret my words and put your own spin on them.  For example, you started by claiming that there were many similarities between the DNA of two viruses.  I gave you an analogy that a similar situation exists between humans and monkeys, yet we're clearly different.  You then made the leap to this "are you saying that monkeypox evolved from smallpox?" - something I never even came close to inferring - and then "So JC, are you saying that they are not related?" - again, a subtle but important misinterpretation.  So now, just for you, I keep things simple.  I hope I've explained why.  
OK?
John

On 31/05/2013, at 12:41 AM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

JC, I have difficulty understanding how, as a doctor, you don't seem to have the ability to answer questions beyond simple statements. "the're different" and "they're not the same" adds absolutely nothing to this debate. I expect more from a doctor.

Bek

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:02:46 PM UTC+10, JC wrote:

No Bek.

I'm not saying that.  i'm saying they're not the same.  Why is it you find simple statements so difficult to understand?

John

On 30/05/2013, at 12:05 AM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

So JC, are you saying that they are not related?

Bek

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:07:08 PM UTC+10, JC wrote:

No Bek.  I didn't.

I made the point that the viruses are different.  Not the same.

John

On Wednesday, 29 May 2013 09:41:01 UTC+10, Bek wrote:

JC, are you saying that monkeypox evolved from smallpox?

Type polio and NPAFP into pubmed and almost every study that comes up states that they are clinically indistinguishable.

Bek

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Katie Brockie]

Bek said :

"Where is your evidence that all the cases of clinically diagnosed polio were not NPAFP?"

Here is part of a summary of Salk's famous vaccine trial, which involved over 1,000,000 children in the US:

"The field study’s most serious challenge was in determining just how many cases of polio there were. Any case of polio, “paralytic, nonparalytic, suspect or doubtful” occurring in a study area was to be reported by local physicians and/or health officers. Migrants and children in out-of-area summer camps had to be tracked down (Francis, 1957: 83-85). Most cases (>86%) were admitted to hospital, where physical examinations were performed by physicians and by specially trained physical therapists, and blood and stool samples obtained. Discharged patients were re-evaluated by a physical therapist 50-70 days later. These clinical evaluations were reviewed by a physician “especially skilled in the clinical aspect of poliomyelitis,” while any fatal cases were to be autopsied. All these evaluations were performed by individuals ignorant of the child’s vaccination status (Francis, 1957; 76-82).
Despite considerable efforts at standardization, variations in these clinical assessments arose. To resolve the numerous uncertainties--was this a case of poliomyelitis or not, and if so, of what severity?--a small group of specialists redid the classification scheme and reviewed many of the individual diagnoses during the analysis phase."

http://bit.ly/12qcxkN

"Jacob von Heine in 1840 was the first to recognise poliomyelitis as a clinical disease entity. He separated the disease from other forms of paralysis and termed it infantile spinal paralysis. The disease was sometimes called Heine-Medin's disease before it became generally known as poliomyelitis. He wrote a monograph on congenital and acquired dislocation, and was also the first to describe spastic paraplegia, also in 1840."
http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/584.html

"A student of Medin's, Ivar Wickam, confirmed with data from the Scandinavian epidemic of 1905 (over 1,000 cases) that Medin's hypothesis of different forms of the disease was correct. He also determined that polio is highly contagious and that even the mild cases should be considered severe, as they too are infectious. Three years after the epidemic, scientists Karl Landsteiner (best known for identifying the different blood types) and Erwin Popper determined that a virus caused the disease. They showed this by injecting a monkey with fluid from the neural tissue of a deceased polio victim. During this period of discovery, epidemics increased in frequency and intensity and moved out of Sweden to other places in Europe and, eventually, across the Atlantic to the Americas."
http://www.vaccineethics.org/salk_polio/pre1955_C.php

Now, please show me the evidence that all cases of AFP were called polio.

Thanks

Katie

 

[John Cunningham]

It's a simple answer to your statement.

Small pox and monkeypox are vaguely similar in their DNA structure, but they're not the same.  I never made a comment about evolution of humans or viruses, so I'll leave that up to you.  Whether they did or not is not particularly relevant, unless you think that monkeys are the same as humans.  It's like chemistry, which you clearly excel at.  H2 is similar to H2O, yet very different as well.

John

On 03/06/2013, at 9:59 PM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

JC,

I am not a doctor, you are.  All i have been trying to do is get your answer to my question, something that seems to be quite difficult to do.

I pointed out the fact that smallpox and monkeypox are quite similar viruses. You stated that humans and monkeys are quite similar too. That did not answer my question. I asked whether you thought that monkeypox evolved from smallpox - considering they have almost identical clinical symptoms. Your answer, "no they are different". I further try to gain some clarification about their similarities and differences, and your answer seem to be to avoid the question "to keep things simple" for my benefit. 

JC, why can't you just answer my questions? If the questions are too difficult or you simply do not know the answer, just say so.

Bek 

[Katie Brockie]

Bek - first of all, clinical diagnosis can not be ignored or written off. It is very often correct. Second - did you not read where it says"Most cases (>86%) were admitted to hospital, where physical examinations were performed by physicians and by specially trained physical therapists, and blood and stool samples obtained. Discharged patients were re-evaluated by a physical therapist 50-70 days later. These clinical evaluations were reviewed by a physician “especially skilled in the clinical aspect of poliomyelitis,” while any fatal cases were to be autopsied. All these evaluations were performed by individuals ignorant of the child’s vaccination status"

and

"To resolve the numerous uncertainties--was this a case of poliomyelitis or not, and if so, of what severity?--a small group of specialists redid the classification scheme and reviewed many of the individual diagnoses during the analysis phase."

Now - please show me the evidence that they were wrong in their diagnosis??

Katie

[John Cunningham]

Isn't it good then that the polio virus doesn't cause disease then Tristan. It can't cause AFP because you know that no virus or bacteria cause disease. According to you all those cases were due to come mass hysteria. 

John

On 06/06/2013, at 11:11, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

“Now, please show me the evidence that all cases of AFP were called polio.”

According to the WHO there were 1005 cases of AFP in 1996 of which 1005 were polio in India . In Nigeria there were 942 cases of AFP of which 942 were polio. In DRC there were 219 cases of AFP of which 219 were polio. In Sudan there was 54 cases of AFP of which 51 were polio. In Albania 146 AFP and 138 polio. Do I need to go on? Basically, the less advanced a country was in its attempt to eradicate polio (in 1996) the more likely it was that ALL AFP cases were called polio.

 

At any rate, you have already tried this dishonest shifting the burden of proof tactic. YOU want to persuade us that the vaccine works so you must answer our questions about the data. You have no right to demand anything from us.

 

YOU need to quantify how many AFP cases were labelled something other than polio before the vaccine was introduced. If you can't do that then you need to try a new tact ie find some data that might corroborate your beliefs.

 

Probably avoid disability data though if I were you.

 

Oh and the Salk trial used a non-inert placebo. The rate of paralysis was higher in the placebo group than in the general population. And it doesn’t in any way falsify our point. Before the vaccine polio was diagnosed clinically, after the vaccine (and during its trial) it was diagnosed based on other criteria as well.

 

Oh and let's not mention that after the widespread introduction of the vaccine there was a massive outbreak of polio should we (which was blamed on one solitary laboratory). Actually, let's do mention it.

 

You're just clutching at straws here.

 

We are constantly told that polio was a massive scourge in the early 1950s. We are told that "you never see polio anymore". We are told that it was all because of the vaccine. But the problem is that all the data shows that rates of crippling amongst children is at least as high as ever.

 

This gives us two and only two possible explanations. The polio vaccine doesn't prevent polio and most cases were just subsequently renamed. OR polio was only ever seen in trivial numbers of children such that completely eradicating it (through the vaccine) didn't even make a dent to overall numbers of crippled children.

 

Either way we have been lied to. And either way the polio vaccine isn't worth much.

[Katie Brockie]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:04 PM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

“Now, please show me the evidence that all cases of AFP were called polio.”

We are talking historically here. Pre- the vaccination, so your recent figures are not pertinent.

According to the WHO there were 1005 cases of AFP in 1996 of which 1005 were polio in India . In Nigeria there were 942 cases of AFP of which 942 were polio. In DRC there were 219 cases of AFP of which 219 were polio. In Sudan there was 54 cases of AFP of which 51 were polio. In Albania 146 AFP and 138 polio. Do I need to go on? Basically, the less advanced a country was in its attempt to eradicate polio (in 1996) the more likely it was that ALL AFP cases were called polio.

 

At any rate, you have already tried this dishonest shifting the burden of proof tactic. YOU want to persuade us that the vaccine works so you must answer our questions about the data. You have no right to demand anything from us.

 

I have answered the questions. Now it's time to answer some yourself.

YOU need to quantify how many AFP cases were labelled something other than polio before the vaccine was introduced. If you can't do that then you need to try a new tact ie find some data that might corroborate your beliefs.

In another thread I provided plenty of info on the fact that many of the illnesses which now come under the umbrella of AFP were identified and recognised as different from polio as they have different clinical and laboratory confirmed symptoms and outcomes.

 

Probably avoid disability data though if I were you.

 

Oh and the Salk trial used a non-inert placebo. The rate of paralysis was higher in the placebo group than in the general population. And it doesn’t in any way falsify our point. Before the vaccine polio was diagnosed clinically, after the vaccine (and during its trial) it was diagnosed based on other criteria as well.

 

Oh and let's not mention that after the widespread introduction of the vaccine there was a massive outbreak of polio should we (which was blamed on one solitary laboratory). Actually, let's do mention it.

 

You're just clutching at straws here.

 

We are constantly told that polio was a massive scourge in the early 1950s. We are told that "you never see polio anymore". We are told that it was all because of the vaccine. But the problem is that all the data shows that rates of crippling amongst children is at least as high as ever.

The data on disabled children now and then is irrelevant. There may still be many diabled children around today, but (here's the important thing) they are NOT disabled from polio.

 

This gives us two and only two possible explanations. The polio vaccine doesn't prevent polio and most cases were just subsequently renamed. OR polio was only ever seen in trivial numbers of children such that completely eradicating it (through the vaccine) didn't even make a dent to overall numbers of crippled children.

 

Either way we have been lied to. And either way the polio vaccine isn't worth much.

Polio was a terrifying disease in its time, and it has almost been eradicated.

 

 

Katie

[Katie Brockie]

Bek said:
"Why is allopathy so obsessed with naming diseases? What does it matter if its polio or NPAFP or smallpox or monkeypox? Its the symptoms that matter!"

Hang on - I thought the so-called problem with conventional medicine is that it "only treats the symptoms". (Which is not true anyway).

Katie

[John Cunningham]

Impressive Bek.

That one part of the outer core of a virus may be similar to another is of no surprise.  It still doesn't make them identical.

And why does allopathy like naming, identifying and categorising disease?  Because it allows us to treat and cure disease, provide a prognosis, and investigate it further.  Why does is matter if AFP is caused by polio or some other virus?  You can ponder that for a while.  It's not really that hard.  Same too for smallpox and most other "pox" diseases.  If you want to dumb it down you could consider that anything called "pox" should be the same, but alas, they aren't.

I promise to keep it simple.  Think about it for a while.

John

On 05/06/2013, at 8:59 PM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

JC,

If they are only are "vaguely similar in their DNA structure" why do they suggest the smallpox vaccine as a prophylactic?

 Why is allopathy so obsessed with naming diseases? What does it matter if its polio or NPAFP or smallpox or monkeypox? Its the symptoms that matter! You credit vaccines with erradicating polio and smallpox and i bet the people who are paralysed with NPAFP or covered in blisters which look and act like smallpox, praise the lord every day for the vaccines that spared them from smallpox and polio.

Bek  

[John Cunningham]

Clinically indistinguishable, except for natural history and prognosis.  We'd better treat the symptoms then, since they're important, or not important, depending on what mood you're in?  For a committee member of the AVN, you're clearly they're shining light.

John

On 06/06/2013, at 11:59 AM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Katie,

Polio is clinically indistinguishable from a number of other viruses.

Here a a few examples:

"In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873

"aseptic meningitis clinically indistinguishable from non paralytic polio"

http://ebm.sagepub.com/content/95/3/597.full.pdf

"Nonpolio enterovirus can cause a wide range of symptoms that are clinically indistinguishable from those of other viral syndromes."

http://inovapeds.org/library/readings/Exanthems/PIR-Enteroviruses.pdf

"Thus, the majority of nonparalytic CNS infections, clinically indistinguishable from "nonparalytic poliomyelitis," are due to other viruses."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373380/pdf/amjphnation00308-0011.pdf

Once again i am NOT saying that every case of clinically diagnosed polio was incorrect but there is NO evidence to say how many were clinically misdiagnosed or correctly diagnosed.

Where is your evidence that "it is very often correct"?

I have already stated that the Salk trial was well done, but the fact that they had to redo the classification scheme because of numerous uncertainties, tells of how easy it must have been to misdiagnose polio.

The testing and autopsies that were done in the trial were not done before the trial and so the numbers just can not be trusted. 

   

Bek 

[Katie Brockie]

Bek - I've answered below each link. Apologies for the formatting.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Katie,

Polio is clinically indistinguishable from a number of other viruses.

Here a a few examples:

"In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873

"January 12, 2012, marked a significant milestone for India. It
was the first anniversary of the last reported wild polio case
from India. Keeping the country free of polio for a whole year
was a feat that is a tribute to the Government of India and its
2.3 million vaccinators, who visited over 200 million households
to ensure that the nearly 170 million children (under five years
in age) were repeatedly immunised with oral polio vaccine (OPV)."

"aseptic meningitis clinically indistinguishable from non paralytic polio"

http://ebm.sagepub.com/content/95/3/597.full.pdf

The article is from 1957
"In contrast to the ever-growing number of
viruses capable of producing the nonparalytic
poliomyelitis syndrome in humans, there are
no known viruses, other than polioviruses,
which have definitely been proven capable of
causing the paralytic form of the disease in
man."

"Nonpolio enterovirus can cause a wide range of symptoms that are clinically indistinguishable from those of other viral syndromes."

http://inovapeds.org/library/readings/Exanthems/PIR-Enteroviruses.pdf

Notice the sentnce you quoted begins "NONPOLIO enterovirus...."

"The pattern of enteroviral epidemics occurring each season has
not included the polioviruses since
the use of vaccination virtually
eliminated paralytic poliomyelitis
from developed nations. "
Most infections caused by poliovirus
are asymptomatic or subclinical;
only about 1% become clinically
apparent. Of the three serotypes of
poliovirus, type 1 causes the majority
of epidemics. Three clinical syndromes
are attributed to poliovirus
infection—abortive poliomyelitis,
aseptic meningitis, and paralytic
poliomyelitis. Abortive poliomyelitis
is characterized by a nonspecific
febrile illness that includes headache,
sore throat, and no CNS
involvement. These symptoms last
2 to 3 days before resolving. Poliovirus
infection also can be manifested
as aseptic meningitis, indistinguishable
from the same syndrome
caused by other enteroviruses.
Paralytic poliomyelitis begins
with a minor febrile illness that is
followed by a short asymptomatic
period of 2 to 3 days. A sudden
onset of asymmetric flaccid paralysis
with no significant sensory loss
is the characteristic finding of paralytic
disease. Maximum neurologic
damage occurs within a few days.
Motor neuron damage is permanent,
but some recovery results from other
nerve cells taking over some of the
function. The most substantial portion
of functional recovery occurs
within the first 6 months; little or
no recovery is noted after 1 year.
Bulbar poliomyelitis affects the
sensory, speech, and cardiorespiratory
centers of the brainstem and
can cause death by paralysis of the
respiratory muscles."

"Thus, the majority of nonparalytic CNS infections, clinically indistinguishable from "nonparalytic poliomyelitis," are due to other viruses."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373380/pdf/amjphnation00308-0011.pdf

Article from 1960:
"Thus Coxsackie, ECHO, and
polioviruses were each related to disease
in the same population during the
same time interval; although the syndromes
were clinically distinct, involving
both the CNS and respiratory systems,
the association of group B
Coxsackie viruses with aseptic meningitis
and an ECHO virus with pleurodynia
points out the importance of the laboratory
in the study of the epidemic."

Once again i am NOT saying that every case of clinically diagnosed polio was incorrect but there is NO evidence to say how many were clinically misdiagnosed or correctly diagnosed.

Where is your evidence that "it is very often correct"?

I have already stated that the Salk trial was well done, but the fact that they had to redo the classification scheme because of numerous uncertainties, tells of how easy it must have been to misdiagnose polio.

The testing and autopsies that were done in the trial were not done before the trial and so the numbers just can not be trusted. 

   

Bek 

Bek - do you think that the thousands of children who were paralysed or died from polio were actually infected with something else? Bearing in mind the information from the articles you provided.

Cheers

Katie

[John Cunningham]

Bek, 

Maybe it's because no one is quite sure of your question anymore.  You've made several claims about symptoms - one minutes they're the key, and the next minute that's all that allopathy, in your opinion, treats.  Next minute homeopathy treats people based upon the symptoms, and can you even claimed cure based upon symptoms, despite the disease process still in progress.

You see Bek, science is hard.  Anatomy and chemistry are only the basics, and if, perchance, you find them difficult, then understanding the nuances and details of pharmacology, immunology, physiology, etc etc etc will be even more challenging.  I realise that homeopathy is easy to understand, and become qualified in, because it's easy to grasp the concepts.  This doesn't, however, make it correct.  Just because something sounds easy, doesn't make it right.  That's one of the problems facing scientists - communicating difficult and complex problems to the general public, and it's also one of the issues where the AVN has taken advantage of medical science - they take complex issues, simplify them, and then try and produce apparent inconsistencies.  I say apparent because they are only apparent to those with a pre-existing bias, such as Meryl or Greg, or with those who have no training in the area, such as yourself.

I appreciate you're a committee member of the AVN, so you cannot be seen to be critical of Meryl or Greg, but please consider also that many people who got HD's in subjects that you're struggling to pass have produced the evidence-based "allopathy" you think you know.  I propose that you don't know allopathy, or vaccination, in even the basic terms yet.  Do you?

John

On 07/06/2013, at 1:15 AM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

JC and Katie,

Neither of you could even address anything i posted relating to the topic, how can you claim the polio vaccine a success when you have no stable numbers to rely on? I'm provided enough evidence to show that polio is easy to misdiagnose, now it's your turn to show evidence that i'm wrong.

 You both seem quite interested in my opinions about allopathy. Happy to answer that but i think that subject needs its own topic.

Why cant either of you answer my questions?

Bek 

[John Cunningham]

"Clinically" is the word there, Tristan, that you've failed to understand.

Actually, you've got the whole thing back to front.  My point was not making a diagnosis based upon prognosis, but the other way around.  Give it up, mate.  You're lacking what it takes.

John

On 11/06/2013, at 10:22 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Clinically indistinguishable, except for natural history and prognosis."

 

I'm sorry. I take back every criticism - both implicit and explicit - I have ever made of those in the medical profession. How on earth I could have second-guessed such people is really appalling on my part. I mean we are dealing with a bunch of people who can make a diagnosis based on a prognosis here. These angels amongst men can see into the future!

 

And here's l'il ol' me questioning these omniscient beings.

John

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[JC]

Tristan and Bek,

So bringing it back to the correct thread, what is it that we're meant to be treating, Tristan and Bek?

Is it the symptoms, or the underlying disease process.  I get confused, see, because one minute treating the symptoms is the most important thing, and the next minute i'm told that treating the underlying disease is the key.

So - Bek and Tristan - what defines the disease?  Is it the symptoms, or something else?  Is it enough to treat the symptoms?  Do they "make" the disease?  Or should we be looking at what causes those symptoms, so that we can treat the underlying disorder?

Take for example a headache.  Simple question Tristan AND Bek - what's the disease, what are the symptoms, what should we be treating?

John

[Bek]

I will try to make this as simple as possible.
You need to treat the patient not the disease. It is the patient who is sick not the body and not the tissues.
Symptoms are not causes, they are only results of the patient being sick.

You need to treat HOW a person is sick, by that i mean how does his headache for eg, affect him.

Pathogens are not causes. Bacteria and virus are not causes. A patient cannot be susceptible to pathogens if they are in a state of health. A person becomes sick PRIOR to him becoming susceptible.

Bek

[punter]

Why do you even need to ask these things? If you can't extrapolate from what I have already told you about GNM then I would have thought that reflects pretty poorly on you.

But I will help you out all the same:

The thing that defines the disease is the response of the psyche to the conflict-shock. They are the "artefacts" on the CT scans that you so easily dismiss. But these will manifest themselves in various parts of the body. With the exception of poisoning and parasites all disease is caused this way. Fever,  headaches, sore muscles (ie "flu") can be brought about by the healing phase of several different conflict shocks. 

It isn't enough to treat the symptoms - indeed that is exactly what you should not do as any lessening of the symptoms delays (or ends) the healing phase. And that especially goes for headaches which are the epileptoid crisis (essentially the middle and worst part of the healing phase) for many diseases. 

So you don't treat anything save for resolving the initial conflict (for territorial conflicts this may be ill-advised). From that point on the symptoms are all necessary for healing. Caffeine and other mild drugs may be OK to smoothe out the severity of the symptoms but it must be understood that any dampening of the symptoms delays the healing. Antibiotics and strong analgesics have the potential to completely arrest the healing phase - as well as meaning you need to go through the process all over again, Hamer says this can lead to scarring of the brain (I have no reason to doubt this bit but I haven't seen any evidence of it).

[Bek]

My posts have not been getting through so lets hoping this does.

I will try to make this as simple as possible, you need to treat the patient not the disease.

You need to be able to determine HOW the disease affects the patient. Eg how does this headache affect this person? What makes this headache unique for this person. Is this an acute attack or is this a chronic issue?

The biggest issue with allopathy is you cannot see the real causation of disease. 

Pathogens are not causes. Bacteria are not causes. Viruses are not causes.

Symptoms are only the result of a sick person, they are not the cause. 

J T Kent puts it pretty well:

"If a person has a necrotic condition of his hand and we believe that only the hand is sick, then removal of the hand would equate to a cure. If the hand is cancerous in itself and from itself, and seeing he would die of cancer we should remove the hand and so cure the patient. But this is Reductio ad absurdum, for nothing exists without a cause."

and

"He who considers disease results to be the disease itself, and expects to do away with these as disease, is insane. In the course of time we will be able to show perfectly that the microscopical little fellows are not the disease cause, but that they only come after, that they are the scavengers accompanying the disease, and that they are perfectly harmless in every respect. They are the outcome of the disease, are present wherever the disease is, and by the microscope it has been discovered that every pathological result has its corresponding bacteria. The old school considers these the cause."

In allopathy the most common form of treatment is suppression. Allopathy (or antipathy) works against the body. If a person had a fever, you try to lower the fever. If constipated, take a laxative. If in pain, take an opioid. Cant sleep, take a sedative. Allergies? take an antihistamine. Whatever the body tries to do allopathy tries to do the opposite.

Allopathy doesn't work.

Bek

[John Cunningham]

Punter,

I haven't seen any evidence of anything you've just claimed.

Have you?  Modern CT scanners no longer produce the artefacts that Hamer referred to.  Does that mean disease no longer occurs?

It must.

I haven't seen any evidence of anything you've just claimed, and have more than enough reasons to doubt it.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate.

[Peter McCarthy]

Bek, please read about Barry Marshall, the Australian scientist that proved H pilorii are a gastrointestinal bacteria that can infect perfectly healthy people and cause all of the symptoms "allopathy" calls gastritis or peptic ulcer disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661189/

I really feel like you've gone down a GNM rabbit hole a bit like Tristan and this story might help you return to the real world.

The cliff notes:
- Dr Marshall , a perfectly healthy human being with no symptoms of gastritis and no previous infection with H pilorii
- deliberately ingests this bacteria as an experiment to show it is the cause of gastritis. He did this willingly and with intent so all of your (and Tristan's) GNM mumbo jumbo goes out the window.
- gets gastritis symptoms coincident with H pilorii infection.
- (you'll like this bit) CURES! His symptoms with antibiotics that eliminated the H pillori infection.
- is awarded Nobel prize.

[punter]

"I haven't seen any evidence of anything you've just claimed."

And Johnny Cochrane didn't "see" any evidence that OJ was guilty. But I wouldn't expect him to be looking any harder than you have been. 

"Have you?"

Yep.

"Modern CT scanners no longer produce the artefacts that Hamer referred to.  Does that mean disease no longer occurs?"

Ummm, no. It means that Hamer is definitely right when he sees the Hamer-herd and links it to disease.

"and have more than enough reasons to doubt it."

Well I don't dispute that. But I don't really care about your opinion.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bek]

Peter, this 'experiment' is not evidence that PC causes gastritis.

"On the fourteenth day, when biopsy specimens for light and electron microscopy were taken, it was expected that continuing gastritis and PC infection would be present, but no organisms could be seen in any specimens."

Please remember that correlation does not equal causation.

Bek

[Bek]

[Bek]

Peter, Marshall's experiment does not prove that PC causes gastritis.

You need to remember that correlation does not equal causation.

From the paper itself, "on the fourteenth day, when biopsy specimens for light and electron microscopy were taken, it was expected that continuing gastritis and PC infection would be present, but no organisms could be seen in any of the specimens."

I wont even get into the obvious bias in the paper.

Bek

[Peter McCarthy]

I'm not sure we are looking at the same article. What is PC?

Marshall infected himself with H pillori from a patient with gastritis. He immediately developed symptoms referred to as gastritis. And when the H pillori infection was cleared he no longer had said symptoms. It's really pretty cut and dried. Keep your head in the sand if you wish.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate.

[Bek]

Peter it is quite obvious that you have not even bothered to read the original article published in the MJA.

PC stands for Pyloric Campylobacter which is the former name of HP and the name used in the original article.

The experiment is so open to bias, was not done under any strict guidelines and there is no evidence to show that PC CAUSED the gastric symptoms. 

"Marshall infected himself with H pillori from a patient with gastritis. He immediately developed symptoms referred to as gastritis."

If this is enough for you to claim cause, then children who go in to a doctors office functioning normally, have a vaccine, then immediatley develop ASD symptoms, must have developed those symptoms FROM the vaccine.  

Its your logic.

Bek

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:49:01 PM UTC-7, mtp_69_i wrote:

I'm not sure we are looking at the same article. What is PC?

Marshall infected himself with H pillori from a patient with gastritis. He immediately developed symptoms referred to as gastritis. And when the H pillori infection was cleared he no longer had said symptoms. It's really pretty cut and dried. Keep your head in the sand if you wish.

On 4 Jul 2013 08:55, "Bek" <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter, this 'experiment' is not evidence that PC causes gastritis.

"On the fourteenth day, when biopsy specimens for light and electron microscopy were taken, it was expected that continuing gastritis and PC infection would be present, but no organisms could be seen in any specimens."

Please remember that correlation does not equal causation.

Bek

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Peter McCarthy]

It's great that you went back and read the original article. Unfortunately given I'm not clairvoyant I missed the fact you weren't talking about the article I'd actually linked to, which doesn't use the acronym PC once.

Like I said before, Bek, if you want to keep your head in the sand then so be it. The evidence clearly shows H pilori is the the cause of gastritis. These data have been through the highest level of peer review and they stand up. Unlike your imaginary connection between vaccines and autism, which incidentally has also been put through peer review and failed miserably.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[Bek]

Peter, 

Clairvoyant or not, if you use an example to prove your point i expect that you have actually read the original yourself.

My head is very much sand free. I pointed out the blatant bias and unscientific methods used in your 'evidence' which you have not addressed.

You stated that "The evidence clearly shows H pilori is the the cause of gastritis" which is wrong.

There are a number of causes of gastritis. There is stress gastritis, chemical gastritis, gastritis caused by autoimmune diseases, by radiation injury, even allergies.

Peter, you can't have it both ways, correlation does not equal causation, if you believe that in Mashall's experiment it does then you must also you the same criteria when it comes to vaccines and autism. 

Bek

[Peter McCarthy]

[Quote: Bek]

You stated that "The evidence clearly shows H pilori is the the cause of gastritis" which is wrong.

No it is not wrong. Perhaps I needed to spell it out though. H pilori is the cause of the gastritis discussed in that paper. I thought you'd read it...

As far as correlation causation autism blah blah goes, again you're wrong. The sad thing is you know this because you've obviously done some reading into H pilori and gastritis but you're so invested in it (or you think I'm such a dope) that you'll ignore the countless studies and their data that agree with Marshall (not to mention the peer review, Nobel prize etc I mentioned before) and try and pretend that the jury is still out on Marshalls story.

PS - that peer review I said agrees with Marshall and his correlation/causation of H pilori with gastritis, finds strongly against you and your story of vaccines causing autism. Call to authority? You betcha.

PPS - you left out GNM as a cause of gastritis. I know it makes me sick to my stomach.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[Bek]

So now that i have highlighted to you that there are many causes of gastritis, you now say you are only talking about the gastritis in the one paper.

Peter i keep an open mind (something you should try once in a while)  I need evidence before i will believe something. Calls to authority, are not evidence. Countless studies based on a flawed, unscientific and unbelievably biased 'experiment' IS NOT EVIDENCE! 

As for "correlation causation autism blah blah" besides being incredibly disrespectful to those who have autistic children, i have never said (and i don't recall anyone ever saying) that ALL cases of autism are caused by vaccination. What i was saying was if Marshalls experiment was enough for you to say that H pilori caused gastritis in this case then you must also admit that some cases of autism are caused by vaccination. As i said before its your logic.

   

GNM cannot cause gastritis, it could be used to explain and treat gastritis but i don't know enough about GNM to comment. Homeopathy is my department.

Bek