Originally published August 11 2015
The CDC, polio and the false history of vaccines
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) When all else fails in trying to defend their position, pro-vaccine fanatics will often revert to fairy tales about how vaccines supposedly eliminated polio. "Do you want polio to come back?" they'll often ask, smirking with confident superiority. Except that vaccines didn't actually eliminate polio.The history of this debilitating disease and its supposed eradication have been heavily altered to fit the official narrative.
In fact, when the polio vaccine was first licensed back in 1954, health authorities made sweeping changes to the way polio was defined. A series of diagnostic changes in the years following the vaccine's release minimized the reported number of polio cases, in other words, their reporting made it seem as though polio was on its way out thanks to the vaccine.
One of these changes was redefining the number of polio cases needed to declare an epidemic. As explained in a report by Dr. Herbert Ratner, M.D., entitled The Present Status of Polio Vaccines, which was published in 1960, health authorities nearly doubled the number of polio cases necessary to declare an epidemic, which effectively "eliminated" all polio epidemics from the official data sheets.
"Presently, a community is considered to have an epidemic when it has 35 cases of polio per year per 100,000 population," reads the report. "Prior to the introduction of the Salk vaccine the National Foundation defined an epidemic as 20 or more cases of polio per year per 100,000 population. On this basis there were many epidemics throughout the United States yearly. The present higher rate has resulted in not a real, but a semantic elimination of epidemics."
After release of polio vaccine, only the CDC was allowed to confirm polio cases Another change involved changing who was allowed to make an official diagnosis of polio. Prior to the vaccine's release, a standard set of objective criteria was used by practicing physicians to determine whether or not an individual had some form of poliomyelitis. Post-vaccine, only the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was allowed to make a polio diagnosis, and its criteria was much different.
"[M]ost diagnoses were based upon clinical observation, not sophisticated virological studies," wrote Christopher Kent, D.C., FCCI, in the March 2000 issue of The Chiropractic Journal.
"Since polio was epidemic, most physicians were cavalier in making a diagnosis of 'non-paralytic poliomyelitis' in children presenting with vague symptoms of muscle aches, malaise, and fever. Since polio was 'going around,' such children must have had polio."
Redefining polio as 'acute flaccid paralysis' has allowed health experts to falsely declare India and Africa 'polio-free' Another diagnostic change involved the adjustment of polio parameters from one day of paralysis to two months, creating the illusion that polio had been eradicated by the vaccine when it was really just eliminated through a change in its definition. Likewise, non-paralytic poliomyelitis, which had previously been designated as polio (though it didn't produce the harrowing symptoms displayed throughout the media at the time), was changed to "meningitis, viral or aseptic," in the late 1950s.
Similar changes have taken place in the modern day as developing areas of the world such as India and various countries throughout Africa are now being targeted with the same types of polio vaccine propaganda. A graph published by VacTruth visualizes this change, noting that between 1996 and 2012, polio was deliberately redefined as "acute flaccid paralysis" in order to make it appear as though polio had been eradicated:
"Of the '35,000 cases of polio reported on average in the late 1940s and early 1950s,' only 15,000 were paralytic," claims the CDC on their website.
Read other articles that expose the lies told by the vaccine industry at Vaccines.news
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml