Based on the forgoing, it it evident that some sort of injury or poisoning is NECESSARY for paralytic illness, but the polio virus insufficient, which can at worst be an opportunistic harmful invader. But no threat to healthy people in healthy environments.
So, what do people do to "prevent" the disease? Start with the injury (poisoning, injection). Not unlike training the body to produce the most uniquely harmful feature of the COVID virus, the spike protein. Brilliant!
1)Is similar damage seen in proximal sensory neurons and is it also in a retrograde, in sensory neurons that would be towards the extremities, direction? If sensory neurons display the same behavior and it is also retrograde then that would be strong validation for the mechanism.
2)Is an injection required to produce this effect or would a similar wound without injected material cause a similar effect? i.e. is the effect related to the wound/wound response or to the presence of a foreign body or to the injection of foreign material which remains in the body or to something about the injected substance even if that 'something about the injected substance' is not that it contains a microbial pathogen
3)Does the material of the hypodermic needle change this effect? SS vs. plastic etc? Is there a dose response related to the volume of the injected material or proximity to nerves?
4)Is anything else known to travel this retrograde path? My limited reseach didn't turn anything up.
I realise that most of these questions don't have known answers yet and I am sure that you have already thought about most of them quite a bit more than I have.
So if I were to follow the logic proposed it appears that there's a factor of mechanical disruption which may not be taken into account, to the extent that individuals who do become infected with polio after vaccination may have another entryway into the nervous system due to this possible puncturing? If true, I'd be curious if using cohorts such as people who have spinal taps or other invasive procedures may increase susceptibility. As a caveat I would be curious why such an otherwise minor procedure would be able to produce such levels of neural invasion, but this would be a question based on ignorance as to how many people suffer some sort of nerve damage/puncturing on a daily basis.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘after vaccination.’ The polio era ends with vaccination since antibodies neutralize viremia. The polio era is about needle injections given to kids 1880-1954
This is fascinating! If true, does it imply that in a completely injection-naive person, the risk/reward ratio of being vaccinated against polio skews toward "not worth it", whereas in a person who's had any kind of injection or surgical procedure (or deep puncture wound perhaps?), it may be a better option?
Since the "provocation" question hasn't been asked in mainstream medicine, it's a safe bet nobody's collected intel on whether injection-naive people have gotten poliomyelitis and if so whether they have had other injuries that might accomplish the same thing as an unsterile injection... but it'd be exciting to know about that.
The classic statistical studies find a similar portion of “no injections” in paralysis cases and simulated controls. But this just means no vaccine, injections for medicine would have been less reliably recorded since no one cared after the fact.
Even today, you want polio immunity, because otherwise you might encounter it as adult and outcomes always seemed worse for older cases, and so since there’s no more natural polio, only one way to get it. But if was still wild, per the needle theory, no reason for vax if (somehow) not going to get other injections. And this would test the theory because you could follow outcomes in such a group.
You give people antibodies, then even if the virus gets into the blood during infection it won’t enter nerve cells regardless of increased susceptibility. But also the viruses have a tough time staying viable without a constant supply of totally non-immune children and dies out, even if the IPV is “leaky,” doesn’t matter.
Human only. If not totally stable in north, they are year round in tropics. The three polio viruses are members of enterovirus c family, closely related enough to recomb as happens with some OPV deattenuations. But only polioviruses “like” to cause paralysis so much in this family, presumably their receptor use is more efficient since this is the part of the genome that is most distinct in different subspecies. They can die out, type 2 has. But over time would probably re-evolve from other enterovirus c.
I suspect most people reading this will not be at all troubled by the fact that we conducted these horrifying experiments on animals. They are just mice... right?
Does that not align with the thinking of a psychopath? Humans are animals too -- a psychopathic murderer thinks of killing a human as most think about experimenting on and killing a mouse... or a monkey...
If the benefits of the experiments are applied to humans -- then surely the experiments should be carried out on humans.
Alternatively - don't experiment on humans or any other animals.
While on the topic of mass psychopathy ... let's watch some videos:
Your comment made me think of our plucky little beagle torturer.
Years ago I commented to a microbiologist friend that the treatment of lab animals such as chimpanzees, for instance, trying to infect them with the "AIDS virus", might be needlessly cruel. She got quite angry with me. I wasn't in the club so not qualified to speak on that topic I guess.
But if you have a culture that's accepted abortion in any and all circumstances, I don't see how lab animals are going to fare any better.
Oh and PS: the beagle torturer also permitted the AIDS meds experimentation on orphaned children in foster care institutions in NY. Not sure there's a pit of hell deep enough for him and his flunkies.
Wow! Great article and very well researched. I guess it begs the question of whether there are agents (eg Vitamin D?) that are neuro protective against this effect. However it's not as likely to get funding if it's drawing attention to an uncomfortable truth...
"Needle injections burst a hole in your blood brain barrier" couldn't possibly lead to any other significant research findings. I see no problem with humanity just not looking into this one forever.
Ok, so here’s a theory! Damage caused by tonsillectomy/ vaccine injection/ just trauma from a needle insertion causes either/or both
i) change to local microbiome so protection from polio is lost locally
ii) an immune response which attracts immune cells. If these cells just happened to be dealing with some polio then the polio gets taken to the site of injury and gets a head start on the nerve. Obviously eagerly awaiting next instalment to see what the time delay between the trauma and the increased risk of paralysis is and then need to know how long ‘healing’ an injury takes from an immune cell point of view.
This detail, the "sub-etiology," requires a lot more research / experimentation obviously. Could certainly be recruitment of immune cells that then enhance infection of peripheral nerve, this is speculated in polio research in general as a possible source of BBB leak. I had a guess about the sub-etiology while writing, but when I considered that we don't know if the issue is more peripheral nerve infection or more transit through secondary nerve, then how can the 'sub-etiology' be known. But it needs to be something that is "common" after injection to match with the animal experiments where the difference is so reliably observed.
Either way the important story is that virus in blood goes from peripheral nerve to spinal cord very rapidly, this is the 'gist' of polio provocation, enough to understand.
I would guess for most people the healing is in 30 days, in line with the failure to find statistical relationships for longer durations. But I think after this, a minority is still vulnerable to provocation for a longer time. If the half-life of provocation is 10 days, still will be some number of people susceptible for a year or so, and if you are injecting everybody, then that will give you more paralysis in polio season regardless of injection timing.
If it took us 40 years to uncover how Merck created the Heptavax using chimpanzee blood and could have contributed to the aids crisis, what could be hiding about the polio vaccines?
Even 33% positivity, as in the unvaccinated, indicates that taking a test at Walgreens selects for a much higher chance of being virus+ than any wide sample of any group would be. So only a subset of unvaccinated are showing up, probably a lot being those who suspect illness. And, same for other groups. So now the problem is the exact same for any test negative study. 1) what does lower virus+ actually mean? Just getting sick more with other stuff? There’s no way to know. 2) what is the real denominator - this denominator is just the people who came in for a test, not all people with a given shot status. These rates have the wrong denominators (people who come for a test)…
Sure. But the percentages for all self-reported symptoms were FAR higher in the unvaccinated, and everyone who did more than one test (for work, etc.) was weeded out.
So everything seems to favor the vaccinated as they would be far more likely to test just because of an upcoming gathering or a rare public appearance without a mask (GASP!). yet the positivity rate of the vaccinated were higher across the board and increased with every dose.
Likelihood to test isn’t the same as likelihood to test for the right reason. Every group is doing a pretty good job of that, but the unvaccinated less so. To account for this with real infection rates vs the unvaccinated having an additional bias for a few extra tests for the wrong reason, it’s not even clear what the real infection rates would be - not same as 33 vs 42. Could be more like .1 vs 5. Because the question you are now asking is 'how many right tests removed does it take to 'add' a wrong test," which isn't clearly a valid concept. So who knows. Test negative designs are very bad at informing.
Then the Cleveland Clinic studies showed that among their workers, the more jabs they got, the more COVID they got: https://www.hartgroup.org/make-worse/
How much of these data must we try to explain away before entertaining the very reasonable hypotheses that either:
* since at least omicron, the COVID-19 variants have been mutating in such a way to preferentially infect the vaccinated
* because of immune imprinting these injections now provide only a short-lived boost in immunity against COVID-19 that wanes into the negative within weeks
* with so many unvaccinated having now developed natural immunity by surviving exactly one bout of omicron, the unvaccinated as a group are now far better protected by this natural immunity that the people who keep messing up their natural immune responses by continually instructing their cells to create spike proteins associated with now effectively extinct COVID variants
Right. And notice no one even has attempted to validate the format - compare test negative results to real rates in a population with a reliable denominator. As far as I know. Anyway I don't touch this format, it's no good.
Nothing is better than serology, even though this introduces a bias for 'showing up to give blood,' but this bias hopefully dilutes the biases that go into the decisions to get vax or not. Boosted look fine in serology as of June 2022. Table 2 last lines https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296142v1 This is not "vaccinated can't make N antibodies" meme because the 2-dose only are basically level with the unvaccinated.
Afterward, boosted were probably the ones getting all the infections, because everyone else already had natural immunity. You can't measure vaccine efficacy multiple seasons in a row because the "control" group gets better immunity from infection. But they still got infected more or equally. Eventually the vaccines are a wash even if they "work." From this it follows that even if they make infections worse, you also can't know that.
The Walgreen's data shows the unvaccinated were in general younger, healthier, and more infected once (and for most my guess is only once) with COVID, so it stands to reason that overall the vaccinated have spread this crap around a lot more per person simply because they have worse immune systems, stay infected longer, and are even more likely to get Paxlovid and then rebound. And, of course, more likely to have avoided infection before omicron. Of course, you are correct that we can't know exactly who was better off. As for the seroincidence data, I am curious about how many of the cohort were still seronegative when the study ended in June 2022 and how many still are today broken out by vaccination status.
Based on the forgoing, it it evident that some sort of injury or poisoning is NECESSARY for paralytic illness, but the polio virus insufficient, which can at worst be an opportunistic harmful invader. But no threat to healthy people in healthy environments.
So, what do people do to "prevent" the disease? Start with the injury (poisoning, injection). Not unlike training the body to produce the most uniquely harmful feature of the COVID virus, the spike protein. Brilliant!
A few questions come to mind:
1)Is similar damage seen in proximal sensory neurons and is it also in a retrograde, in sensory neurons that would be towards the extremities, direction? If sensory neurons display the same behavior and it is also retrograde then that would be strong validation for the mechanism.
2)Is an injection required to produce this effect or would a similar wound without injected material cause a similar effect? i.e. is the effect related to the wound/wound response or to the presence of a foreign body or to the injection of foreign material which remains in the body or to something about the injected substance even if that 'something about the injected substance' is not that it contains a microbial pathogen
3)Does the material of the hypodermic needle change this effect? SS vs. plastic etc? Is there a dose response related to the volume of the injected material or proximity to nerves?
4)Is anything else known to travel this retrograde path? My limited reseach didn't turn anything up.
I realise that most of these questions don't have known answers yet and I am sure that you have already thought about most of them quite a bit more than I have.
So if I were to follow the logic proposed it appears that there's a factor of mechanical disruption which may not be taken into account, to the extent that individuals who do become infected with polio after vaccination may have another entryway into the nervous system due to this possible puncturing? If true, I'd be curious if using cohorts such as people who have spinal taps or other invasive procedures may increase susceptibility. As a caveat I would be curious why such an otherwise minor procedure would be able to produce such levels of neural invasion, but this would be a question based on ignorance as to how many people suffer some sort of nerve damage/puncturing on a daily basis.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘after vaccination.’ The polio era ends with vaccination since antibodies neutralize viremia. The polio era is about needle injections given to kids 1880-1954
This is fascinating! If true, does it imply that in a completely injection-naive person, the risk/reward ratio of being vaccinated against polio skews toward "not worth it", whereas in a person who's had any kind of injection or surgical procedure (or deep puncture wound perhaps?), it may be a better option?
Since the "provocation" question hasn't been asked in mainstream medicine, it's a safe bet nobody's collected intel on whether injection-naive people have gotten poliomyelitis and if so whether they have had other injuries that might accomplish the same thing as an unsterile injection... but it'd be exciting to know about that.
The classic statistical studies find a similar portion of “no injections” in paralysis cases and simulated controls. But this just means no vaccine, injections for medicine would have been less reliably recorded since no one cared after the fact.
Even today, you want polio immunity, because otherwise you might encounter it as adult and outcomes always seemed worse for older cases, and so since there’s no more natural polio, only one way to get it. But if was still wild, per the needle theory, no reason for vax if (somehow) not going to get other injections. And this would test the theory because you could follow outcomes in such a group.
Why is polio no longer a 'thing'.
You give people antibodies, then even if the virus gets into the blood during infection it won’t enter nerve cells regardless of increased susceptibility. But also the viruses have a tough time staying viable without a constant supply of totally non-immune children and dies out, even if the IPV is “leaky,” doesn’t matter.
Where does polio live, in the wild? Like, is it strictly a human disease or does it have animal reservoirs or live in the soil (like tetanus) or what?
I mean, assuming it's just humans, if you can actually have the virus die out for lack of non-immune hosts. Do we know that?
Human only. If not totally stable in north, they are year round in tropics. The three polio viruses are members of enterovirus c family, closely related enough to recomb as happens with some OPV deattenuations. But only polioviruses “like” to cause paralysis so much in this family, presumably their receptor use is more efficient since this is the part of the genome that is most distinct in different subspecies. They can die out, type 2 has. But over time would probably re-evolve from other enterovirus c.
I suspect most people reading this will not be at all troubled by the fact that we conducted these horrifying experiments on animals. They are just mice... right?
Does that not align with the thinking of a psychopath? Humans are animals too -- a psychopathic murderer thinks of killing a human as most think about experimenting on and killing a mouse... or a monkey...
If the benefits of the experiments are applied to humans -- then surely the experiments should be carried out on humans.
Alternatively - don't experiment on humans or any other animals.
While on the topic of mass psychopathy ... let's watch some videos:
Industrial Farm Cruelty
https://t.me/leaklive/11666
https://cubeoftruth.com/av
Horrifying Animal Experimentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuKaHh3ZKIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKRgwHJumM
Your comment made me think of our plucky little beagle torturer.
Years ago I commented to a microbiologist friend that the treatment of lab animals such as chimpanzees, for instance, trying to infect them with the "AIDS virus", might be needlessly cruel. She got quite angry with me. I wasn't in the club so not qualified to speak on that topic I guess.
But if you have a culture that's accepted abortion in any and all circumstances, I don't see how lab animals are going to fare any better.
Humans nearly drove the majestic whale to extinction ... so that we could have illumination...
How f789ing sick is that.
Oh yes but we needed light say the MORE-ONS.
There is only one solution to this never-ending nightmare that we inflect on other species....
Thank goodness electricity and petrochemicals came along, it “saved the whales”. Environmentalists should be singing its praises.
Oh and PS: the beagle torturer also permitted the AIDS meds experimentation on orphaned children in foster care institutions in NY. Not sure there's a pit of hell deep enough for him and his flunkies.
Wow! Great article and very well researched. I guess it begs the question of whether there are agents (eg Vitamin D?) that are neuro protective against this effect. However it's not as likely to get funding if it's drawing attention to an uncomfortable truth...
"Needle injections burst a hole in your blood brain barrier" couldn't possibly lead to any other significant research findings. I see no problem with humanity just not looking into this one forever.
Ok, so here’s a theory! Damage caused by tonsillectomy/ vaccine injection/ just trauma from a needle insertion causes either/or both
i) change to local microbiome so protection from polio is lost locally
ii) an immune response which attracts immune cells. If these cells just happened to be dealing with some polio then the polio gets taken to the site of injury and gets a head start on the nerve. Obviously eagerly awaiting next instalment to see what the time delay between the trauma and the increased risk of paralysis is and then need to know how long ‘healing’ an injury takes from an immune cell point of view.
This detail, the "sub-etiology," requires a lot more research / experimentation obviously. Could certainly be recruitment of immune cells that then enhance infection of peripheral nerve, this is speculated in polio research in general as a possible source of BBB leak. I had a guess about the sub-etiology while writing, but when I considered that we don't know if the issue is more peripheral nerve infection or more transit through secondary nerve, then how can the 'sub-etiology' be known. But it needs to be something that is "common" after injection to match with the animal experiments where the difference is so reliably observed.
Either way the important story is that virus in blood goes from peripheral nerve to spinal cord very rapidly, this is the 'gist' of polio provocation, enough to understand.
I would guess for most people the healing is in 30 days, in line with the failure to find statistical relationships for longer durations. But I think after this, a minority is still vulnerable to provocation for a longer time. If the half-life of provocation is 10 days, still will be some number of people susceptible for a year or so, and if you are injecting everybody, then that will give you more paralysis in polio season regardless of injection timing.
If it took us 40 years to uncover how Merck created the Heptavax using chimpanzee blood and could have contributed to the aids crisis, what could be hiding about the polio vaccines?
https://twitter.com/factbid/status/1721691518258356501
Hi, Brian!
I know that you are very busy, but I thought that you might find this new study somewhat interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/17x24sq/finally_a_scientific_paper_examines_walgreens/
Even 33% positivity, as in the unvaccinated, indicates that taking a test at Walgreens selects for a much higher chance of being virus+ than any wide sample of any group would be. So only a subset of unvaccinated are showing up, probably a lot being those who suspect illness. And, same for other groups. So now the problem is the exact same for any test negative study. 1) what does lower virus+ actually mean? Just getting sick more with other stuff? There’s no way to know. 2) what is the real denominator - this denominator is just the people who came in for a test, not all people with a given shot status. These rates have the wrong denominators (people who come for a test)…
Sure. But the percentages for all self-reported symptoms were FAR higher in the unvaccinated, and everyone who did more than one test (for work, etc.) was weeded out.
So everything seems to favor the vaccinated as they would be far more likely to test just because of an upcoming gathering or a rare public appearance without a mask (GASP!). yet the positivity rate of the vaccinated were higher across the board and increased with every dose.
Likelihood to test isn’t the same as likelihood to test for the right reason. Every group is doing a pretty good job of that, but the unvaccinated less so. To account for this with real infection rates vs the unvaccinated having an additional bias for a few extra tests for the wrong reason, it’s not even clear what the real infection rates would be - not same as 33 vs 42. Could be more like .1 vs 5. Because the question you are now asking is 'how many right tests removed does it take to 'add' a wrong test," which isn't clearly a valid concept. So who knows. Test negative designs are very bad at informing.
Of course, they are, which is why they are currently the favored tests for "measuring" supposed vaccine efficacy.
Still, there has been a clear morbidity pattern favoring the unvaccinated since omicron started in 2022.
First the UKHSA data started showing these huge case rate advantages for the unvaccinated all the way back in 2021. These kept getting worse and worse until March 2022, when UKHSA pulled the plug on these data: https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ttx8yi/newest_ukhsa_data_per_100000_covid19_case_rates/
Then the raw Walgreens data for showed for over a yea that the percentage of people who came to Walgreens to get tested for COVID who tested positive was lower for the unvaccinated for every single age range:(https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/xg7l7n/last_week_unvaccinated_individuals_accounted_for/
Then the Cleveland Clinic studies showed that among their workers, the more jabs they got, the more COVID they got: https://www.hartgroup.org/make-worse/
Then the CDC published data that showed that even these vaccine's effectiveness against hospitalization turned negative with 145 days: https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/cdc-admits-bivalent-boosters-worse
Then a study came out that showed that vaccinated kids remain infectious much longer than do unvaccinated kids: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/17h5u0c/another_lying_headline_vaxxed_and_unvaxxed/
How much of these data must we try to explain away before entertaining the very reasonable hypotheses that either:
* since at least omicron, the COVID-19 variants have been mutating in such a way to preferentially infect the vaccinated
* because of immune imprinting these injections now provide only a short-lived boost in immunity against COVID-19 that wanes into the negative within weeks
* with so many unvaccinated having now developed natural immunity by surviving exactly one bout of omicron, the unvaccinated as a group are now far better protected by this natural immunity that the people who keep messing up their natural immune responses by continually instructing their cells to create spike proteins associated with now effectively extinct COVID variants
or any combination of the above?
Right. And notice no one even has attempted to validate the format - compare test negative results to real rates in a population with a reliable denominator. As far as I know. Anyway I don't touch this format, it's no good.
Nothing is better than serology, even though this introduces a bias for 'showing up to give blood,' but this bias hopefully dilutes the biases that go into the decisions to get vax or not. Boosted look fine in serology as of June 2022. Table 2 last lines https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296142v1 This is not "vaccinated can't make N antibodies" meme because the 2-dose only are basically level with the unvaccinated.
Afterward, boosted were probably the ones getting all the infections, because everyone else already had natural immunity. You can't measure vaccine efficacy multiple seasons in a row because the "control" group gets better immunity from infection. But they still got infected more or equally. Eventually the vaccines are a wash even if they "work." From this it follows that even if they make infections worse, you also can't know that.
The Walgreen's data shows the unvaccinated were in general younger, healthier, and more infected once (and for most my guess is only once) with COVID, so it stands to reason that overall the vaccinated have spread this crap around a lot more per person simply because they have worse immune systems, stay infected longer, and are even more likely to get Paxlovid and then rebound. And, of course, more likely to have avoided infection before omicron. Of course, you are correct that we can't know exactly who was better off. As for the seroincidence data, I am curious about how many of the cohort were still seronegative when the study ended in June 2022 and how many still are today broken out by vaccination status.
What about DDT? Heard a fair amount about that.
Not DDT https://unglossed.substack.com/i/138451614/not-ddt
See Brian's previous post. Short answer is polio paralysis not caused by DDT
Injected DDT?
Or injected TDaP? or injected DTaP? or MMR?
DDT was sprayed heavily before being outlawed decades ago.