Pesticides/Polio was HELP - Janine Robert, activist/author/filmmaker has had a stroke

[Sheri Nakken]

At 10:53 AM 2/28/2010, you wrote:
Liz...........

That is not poliomyelitis which they say is caused by a virus.

Toxic manipulated stuff that contains who knows what, on sugar lumps - another story...............

Vaccinated babies giving it in swimming pools..................where is evidence of that?

Do some reading on the research they did - injected a bunch of goop into a monkey brain and voila, paralyzed.
Take some time to read Janine's book

which puts it in a very readable from
and Jim West's website
But if you take a little time to research what went on at the time in the 40s & 50s you will see many objected to calling poliomyelitis infectious.
It was never proven then and it has never been proven since.

Take an hour of your time - you owe it to yourself and your patients not to continue to spread the lies they want you to believe
IT IS VITAL to understand this as the same thing is happening today to sell drugs and vaccines
You OWE it to your patients................

http://www.harpub.co.cc/
http://www.wellwithin1.com/scobexog.htm
Is The Public Health Law Responsible For The Poliomyelitis Mystery?

No one got it from a family member, I will say again
No nurse or doctor got it from a patient.

It was a political decision early in the 20th century to say it was contagious and therefore most research into why stopped
http://www.harpub.co.cc/scoblaw.htm
"From this beginning in the period of medical history from 1905 to 1911, poliomyelitis eventually has become throughout the world not only reportable, but according to the law, an infectious contagious disease. From the time that compulsory reporting of poliomyelitis was adopted as a public health measure in certain localities up until the present time when such reporting is universal, the implication that poliomyelitis is an infectious contagious disease has been included in the public health law. If it had been made reportable only and no suggestion as to its possible etiology had been implied in the law, unlimited research would have undoubtedly been carried out during the last half century and the mystery surrounding the disease would probably have been solved. "

What if they had done that with beriberi, pellegra and others

"At one time or another the classical dietary deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, and even sunstroke, have been considered to be communicable infectious diseases. If by law any one, or all of these diseases, had been made a reportable communicable disease, it is obvious that today it would legally be a germ disease and a search for the causative germ might still be in progress. If beriberi and pellagra had been made reportable communicable diseases, it is conceivable that the epochal studies on vitamins by Funk and subsequent workers could have been ignored in the search for the infectious agent as the etiological factor in these diseases. The progress of medicine would have been seriously retarded. "

Spend some time on these pages, Liz...........
http://www.harpub.co.cc/
if you spread the lies they have told us, you are part of the problem not the solution

Ignorance is not bliss

and what about the SV40 contamination of polio vaccine then and now - oral or injectable.

You have to question everything.
Nothing 'gets' me more than those who are informed spouting out their propaganda as if it were truth, especially a non-allopathic practitioner

Sheri

[Liz Brynin]

Fine everybody. It won't be polio if you say it isn't - it's just a cold - that about sums up your argument.
All I know is that the live polio virus contains three different strands of polio - and also that the anti-vaccination groups here in the UK warn that you are at risk of contracting polio from your child for up to three months post-vaccine.
You/your child are also not supposed to go near anyone with a compromised immune system during those three months - for obvious reasons.
As I repeat, they changed the vaccine because of the cases of polio occurring after vaccination.
But hey ! join the pro-vaccine lobby - why don't you - of course it's not polio - just a cold. And of course if it does turn out to be polio, because the person is paralysed or worse, well, it's coincidental.
Liz

[Tanya Marquette]

My understanding is that every case of 'polio' in the usa since the salk vaccine have come from the vaccine.
As for the 'virus,' it seems the information that sherri has gathered and shared show significant links to neurotoxic
exposure in the general public. This does not reflect well for the vaccine which was introduced after the decline
of the polio non-epidemic.
tanya

[Liz Brynin]

Hi Tanya
But that's exactly it! The virus was giving people polio - not just the child who was vaccinated, but those who came into contact with his/her faeces - and the polio they contracted was not a 'polio look-alike' but real polio! That's why they eventually had to admit their vaccine was dangerous, and why they reverted to using a killed-virus version.
You can't blame it on neuro-toxins - of course they're in the vaccine too, but these were real cases of polio. Otherwise, how do you explain the transmission to family relatives and others who came into contact with these vaccinated children?
And the problem with nappies and swimming pools is real - they are risky because of the live virus coming out in the child's stool - just like the real disease.
Liz
-----

[Tanya Marquette]

liz,
i think i am more in the same camp as sherri on this. i have no idea what is in the vaccine--it could be anything.
reading many documents on this, i have to look at the fact that what is called polio one day is called something
else the next, depending on which way the political wind is blowing on the issue. the set of symptoms called
polio seem to crop up in conjunction with toxins in the environment--remove the toxins and the disease ends.
the vaccines are their own toxic event pumped directly into people.
plus, the fact that we did not have an epidemic--we had a pharmaceutical tsunami on the public.
tanya

[Liz Brynin]

Yes, I can see what you mean, but still, how do you explain the transmission of a disease to other people - in no way connected, sometimes?
Liz

[Shannon Nelson]

I'd read over a period of maybe twenty years that the only cases of polio in the US since... well, longer ago than that--have been cases traced directly to "live" vaccination of either the patient or a child with whom they'd been in contact. Believing that seems to me far less of a stretch than believing any of the alternate theories; and if it's a conspiracy of misinformation, it is quite an old one, and mysterious who or why would spread it! This connection--between live polio vaccine and new cases of polio even in *contacts* of the patient-- has been around for quite a while.

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
Such cases have indeed been written of; a recent one was a grandfather who reportedly got polio from changing the diaper of his grandchild. (No I can't prove that it (and other similar stories) are true; nor, I assume, can you prove that they aren't....)

As to your question of why not more cases, an easy possible explanation for that lies in other information that's been long since written up, that being that the polio virus is not a very robust one, and in most cases infection is either avoided, or if contacted, the body easily keeps it to the periphery, showing up only as something like a mild cold. Those cases that progress to paralysis do so when the virus gained entry to the spinal cord; only al small minority.

Shannon

[Tanya Marquette]

liz
we live in a world with some pretty sinister people in it. they have no problem for example watching people
of color with syphillis lose their ability to function and die, just because they can--and did!. we live in a world
where the government lets the armed services spray chemicals over a populated city like nyc to kill a mosquito.
what makes you think that so-called epidemics can't be spread by secretive testing on large/small populations?
what about the possibility of afflicted people being in the same, or similar environments about the same time. their
constitutional weaknesses or susceptibilities may be similar and thus the same types of symptoms become produced?
why would you ever trust anything that comes out of big corporate drug and chemical corporations whose primary
purpose and goal is to make oodles of bucks and attain major controlling power in the world? while it may be
true that there are some nutsy sounding theories out there, many of them prove to be true over time and all of
them assault the current 'wisdom' that sells and subserves populations in their health and in their civil liberties.
tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

That would be easily accounted for by what I wrote below--which comes down largely to susceptibility; it's not a robust virus, and the majority of exposures do not result in infection; and the majority of infections do not result in any serious (or recognizable) illness.
Yes, true on both sides! I guess what it needs is to actually look into the science; and there does seem to be good science on each side of the divide--very interesting, and I wish I had to time follow up on all of it, but will not even try, sad to say. (Because I cannot.) Yet it's worth noting that there *is* good science on *both* sides--or so I have gathered.
Well, it won't work as "proof" for you I know, but one can google up *many* electron micrograph pictures on the web, also find in books, of images purportedly of polio virus. How do they know that's what it is? I have no idea.

I fully understand and appreciate that various sorts of toxicity *can* cause those same or similar symptoms; and have no doubt that polio is sometimes a more convenient explanation than "poisoning due to an appalling pool of toxic waste delivered to you courtesy of "SoullessButMassivelyProfitable MultinationalCorpX." But the assumption that therefore *everything* that has been called polio is actually toxicity, well, I just don't know.

I'm curious how many of the folks making this claim are of the opinion that *some* diseases are in fact caused by viruses or bacteria, but polio just isn't one of them; or whether they are also in the camp you have often quoted, which claims that *no* microbes ever cause illness? The person you most recently referenced on the polio issue, for instance; do they deny contagion and infection altogether, or only with reference to polio, do you happen to know?

Shannon