Neenyah Ostrom points out in her ChronicIllnet article published in Red Flags Weekly, “Will the Poliovirus Eradication Program Rid the World of Childhood Paralysis?  -  With So Little Poliovirus Detected Around the World, What Is Causing Today’s Outbreaks of Acute Flaccid Paralysis? ", that although the number of diagnosed cases of “polio” are at near-eradication levels, there continues to be “non-polio” paralysis around the globe.   Called “acute flaccid paralysis”, its name bears a striking resemblance to the definition for paralytic polio  (i.e., “asymmetrical flaccid paralysis”) in the textbook, Pediatric Infectious Diseases by Hugh Moffet.

What does this all mean in terms of the diagnoses of previous cases of “polio” and the alleged success of the “polio” vaccination program? 

As I stated in my 1993 testimony to the Institute of Medicine,

‘In determining vaccine effectiveness, the role of replacement disease, disease renaming and other similar factors should be included.  For instance, the significance of an apparent rise in flaccid paralysis should be determined, including whether or not it represents replacement disease, or perhaps, instead, reflects a better understanding of the differences between polio and flaccid paralysis.  If polio has merely been replaced by flaccid paralysis, rather than eliminated, the success of the polio vaccine needs to be reevaluated.  If polio has been renamed, it should be determined whether or not many formerly classified cases should have instead been classified as flaccid paralysis, thereby effecting our evaluation of the effectiveness of polio vaccine in wiping out "polio".’

      Pediatrics Peddling Vaccines

During a recent week, numerous articles were published touting a Pediatrics “study” allegedly proving infants can tolerate thousands of vaccines, have strong immune systems from birth, and denying any risk for the ever increasing vaccine load shouldered by them.  (For another view, see January 23, 2002 testimony by Rick Rollens to the California State Senate.)

Why was there no explanation about how the universal call for colostrum for newborns and breast milk for infants doesn’t jibe with their notion that infant immune systems are strong from birth?  Will there be a lessening of emphasis on breast milk, rather than vaccines, if consistency is sought?