Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined
by Marco Cáceres
Perhaps the most egregious example of clever sleight of hand (… not to mention the outright, blatant rewriting of history) on the part of public health officials in the United States occurred in 1954 when the U.S. government changed the diagnostic criteria for polio.1 It was the year that medical researcher and virologist Jonas Salk produced his inactivated injectable polio vaccine (IPV). The vaccine was licensed in 1955 and began to be used to inoculate millions of children against polio.
The Salk vaccine has been widely hailed as the vanquisher of polio, and it is commonly used as the shining example of how vaccines are the miracle drugs for combating infectious diseases… and now even against diseases that are not infectious. Pick any disease, illness or disorder you want. You got cancer, cholera, peanut allergies, stress, obesity… we’ll develop a vaccine for it.
What the apologists for the Salk vaccine regurgitate from a common script (… some might say scripture) is that before the vaccine was introduced and tested on one million children—the so-called “Polio Pioneers”—in 19542 more than 50,000 people in the U.S. were contracting polio each year, and that by the end of the 1950s the numbers were down to less than 10,000.3 Ergo, the Salk vaccine saved the U.S. from polio. Open and shut case.
Hmm, not so fast.
What is conveniently omitted from this heroic story is that the reason the number of polio cases in the U.S. dropped so precipitously following the mass introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1955 was not medical, but rather administrative. Yes it’s true, in 1952 there were 52,879 reported cases of polio in the U.S. And yes, in 1955 the number went down to 28,985, and by 1959 it had dropped to 8,425.3 But first of all, it’s important to note that the numbers were already declining significantly prior to the initial use of the Salk vaccine. In 1953, there were 35,592 cases of polio in the U.S.3 So there were other things going on in the U.S. at the time totally unrelated to the Salk vaccine.
More importantly, though, in 1954 the U.S. government simply redefined polio. Yes, the government can do that. It does this kind of stuff occasionally in order to help it meet its public policy objectives when it is unable to actually achieve them. How often have you heard of Congress playing smoke and mirrors, gimmicks with the national budget deficit, or on the issue of the unemployment rate? Exactly.
When it comes to government and public policy, the truth is seldom absolute. That’s just the nature of the beast.
According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:
In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.1
The Salk ‘Miracle’ Myth
by Marco Cáceres
A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled “Sixty Years Later, Recalling the Jonas Salk Polio ‘Miracle’” written by Virginia Linn keeps the myth of the so-called miracle of the Salk polio vaccine alive and well.1 It also serves as a continuing testimony to the laziness of the mainstream media to do its historical homework. Ms. Linn’s piece opens with, “Sixty years ago this coming Sunday (April 12), the Salk polio vaccine was declared ‘safe, effective and potent,’ an announcement cheered with the fervor of a national holiday. At the time, the dreaded disease was infecting more than 50,000 children in the United States a year, killing many and leaving some so paralyzed they could breathe only with the help of an iron lung.”1
It is true that before the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955, more than 50,000 people in the US contracted polio in one year. In 1952, a total of 52,879 people got polio. But by 1955, the numbers had already declined by 45%. In 1953, 35,592 contracted polio in the US. In 1954, it was 38,476. In 1955, it was 28,985.2
So it is a fact of history that the numbers dropped precipitously before the Salk vaccine was widely distributed. Now, let’s start with 1954 when medical researcher and virologist Salk actually came up with his inactivated injectable polio vaccine. That same year, the government redefined polio. According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:
In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.3
Under the new definition of polio, thousands of cases which would have previously been counted as polio would no longer be counted as polio. The change in the definition laid the groundwork for creating the impression that the Salk vaccine was effective.
In 1955, the government began a nationwide mass vaccination campaign using the Salk vaccine. From 1957 to 1958, the number of polio cases (despite the new, stricter definition) spiked upward by 50% because the vaccine itself induced paralysis.4 5 From 1958 to 1959, polio cases increased by 80%.4 Afterward, polio began to decline, probably because the bulk of the vaccinations had already been given during the second half of the 1950s… and because of the new, stricter definition. In 1960, there were only 3,190 cases of polio, compared to 8,425 in 1959.2
The number of polio cases would have been even much higher in 1957-1959 had the government not changed the rules in midstream. By then, though, Jonas Salk had already been on the cover of TIME magazine and was an international hero. There were good reasons that polio dramatically declined in the US, but Mr. Salk and his vaccine was not necessarily one of them. In fact, polio declined despite the Salk vaccine.
Diseases in the vaccinated
“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
Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, December 7th 1985)
Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic
Dr Tim O’Shea
Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?
Before 1900, reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.
What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?
Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade,  just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.
But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.
Sources cited in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic suggest a vaccine connection much more specifically. We learn that a class of vaccine adjuvants – excipients – is a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic. 
But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.