Theophilus,

Polio was already on the decline when the Salk vaccine came out. The same year that it was introduced, the AMA changed the definitions of polio. Prior to that year, "polio" had included what branched into three separate diseases, based on the new definitions. So the numbers for polio would greatly have decreased even without a vaccine that year, simply because many cases of spinal meningitis, etc. were no longer diagnosed as "polio."

There is no proof that the vaccine ever prevented a polio illness. There is proof, however, that it caused as many as hundreds of thousands of people to contract polio. Do a little research and you will learn the reasons for this. One of the labs making the vaccine did not properly lyse the virus, resulting in hundreds of thousands of cases of people being injected with the real live polio virus--many of whom unsurprisingly got polio as a result. This information became known by the governmental agencies involved, and it was determined that the best course was to obscure this fact from the public, lest they lose the public trust and cause a much greater disaster when people rejected their recommendations outright.

Here's a snippet from history.com on the subject: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/salk-announces-polio-vaccine



Or you can get the information from the National Institute of Health (NIH), at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/



So far from preventing disease, the polio vaccines literally, and provably, caused tens of thousands of polio cases. Incidentally, the figures published above are considered conservative. Some believe that at least 600,000 injections of the defective vaccine had taken place (a figure of at least 380,000 is in the published record) and perhaps over 220,000 illnesses were caused by it.

Paul Offit published an article some years ago saying, "Salk's name came close to being reviled instead of honored. A large field trial of his vaccine had led the government to declare it safe. But in 1955, cases of immunized children coming down with polio started to show up. These cases came in children inoculated with vaccine from Cutter Laboratories in California. After some fumbling by government officials, the vaccine was pulled from the market. Too late, because 220,000 people were infected by the virus in the Cutter vaccine; 70,000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralyzed and 10 died" (2005). We will probably never know the full tale of woe attributable to the polio vaccine.

In other words, the vaccine itself gave life to the disease, extending its reign of terror. Compare that polio, for a moment, with the current coronavirus crisis. Will you be standing in line for the first vaccine offered for that?

In today's world, most polio cases in the wild seem to stem from the vaccine itself. This is why it is referred to as cVDPV = "circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus." Look it up in Google. Several recent outbreaks around the world have been documented as cVDPV. Some of those reports have already disappeared off the internet as documentation like that is too inconvenient for the pharmaceutical industry. (I witnessed this myself, accessing the CDC website regarding a particular outbreak both before and after the information was pulled.)

I see vaccines as being quite similar to computer antivirus softwares. Those who know how to make the antivirus certainly must know how to make a virus. And without a virus, who would buy their antivirus program? Take a few thoughtful moments to think about that obvious conflict of interest and what it might mean.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As many articles as you have which say it didn't do ant good, I can find articles that said it did.
And we, with small pox eradicated it from the world. Do you have a mark from a smallpox vaccine. If you are you, it's because it's not needed.

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-details/smallpox-vaccine

Also, "Do a little research and you will learn the reasons for this." Watch the snotty stuff.

Theophilus, I think you have understated the support for your position. I am guessing you could find at least 20, perhaps a hundred or more, articles in support of your position for every article I find opposed to it.

It's too bad that in a text-only format, tones of voice cannot be properly conveyed. But when I said "do a little research" I was neither implying that you had not already done some, nor was I intending to be "snotty." Please don't take it that way.

I just don't happen to understand truth in this world to generally be in the majority. I look at facts, not people's opinions of them. For example, the Bible: I have experienced it to be true in my own life, despite the millions of people who mock it. Christians are certainly not in the majority, yet those who have Christ have the truth, the way, and the life. Mrs. White tells us our beliefs should never be based on majority opinion, even when that opinion consists of a vote by our church leaders. On what, then, may we base our beliefs in an area not specifically addressed in the Bible, like vaccines?

We are to be as Berean in other areas of life as we are about spiritual truths. God is honored when we choose to educate our minds and not merely become reflectors of other men's thoughts. Daniel and his three friends could never have been wiser than the other wise men of Babylon if they had simply quoted those wise men in support of their understandings.

As Mrs. White teaches us, truth can stand the test of scrutiny. It can stand on its own merits. Those who hold a particular position, believing it to be the truth, have nothing to lose by investigating it further, comparing it to other positions. In that spirit, I would invite you to read the following article:

https://www.vaccinesandchristianity...fined-making-the-vaccine-look-effective/

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

About five of every 10,000 people given the vaccine will inadvertently transfer the virus from the site of inoculation to another site (usually the eyelid, face, nose, mouth, genitals or rectum).

About one of every 100,000 people who get the smallpox vaccine will develop an infection of their brain called encephalitis.

About one of every 1 million people given the smallpox vaccine will develop a severe progressive form of the disease that is often fatal. These people usually have severe immunologic deficits prior to receipt of the vaccine.

Interesting, those who have immunologic deficits are susceptible to the coronavirus. Wonder how a vaccine would affect them.

Theophilus, why don't you give evidence against Green?
Present a link to a journal article on a controlled polio experiment of an average population with more than 30 in each group showing that vaccines prevent disease.

Seems like that should be quite convincing, no?

Looks like there should be a lot of links indicating vaccines prevent disease, no?
....that is, if it's true......

But, it's not science. It's marketing.
Those who are the biggest bullies, such as Salk, get to pedal their snake oil products.
Those who can get people to not even consider if science supports it, get to push their products.
Pharmakeia sorceries

I predict that there are going to be a lot of births on new year's day next year. Also on the days leading up to it and following it.

I'm a prophet!

A revealing video.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

A lot of things now demanded in order to "protect" people, are actually making them weaker!!!

Another link -- a panel of scientists discussing the virus, vaccines, etc. -- two videos

Vaccine Roundtable

What did they do in the the Wuhan microbiology lab?
and a lot of other information.

These two video's may not be up for too much longer.

Surprise, surprise, the Fauci video is gone for "violating community standards"...

Here is a video with some good information.
https://youtu.be/eDDCz1IsXF0