Artiklar om Dr Andrew Wakefield (vaccin/autism)

Ytterligare en artikel om vaccin – den här gången om Dr Andrew Wakefield som var regissör för filmen Vaxxed, och också en av de som blev intervjuade i Ty Bollingers serie “The truth about vaccines”. Det finns också en video att se, om man klickar på länken här nedan.

http://newsvoice.se/2014/08/29/ny-svensk-dokumentar-om-dr-andrew-wakefield-som-fann-en-koppling-mellan-trippelvaccin-och-autism/

Svensk dokumentär om dr Andrew Wakefield som fann en koppling mellan trippelvaccin och autism

PREMIÄR. Dr Andrew Wakefield intervjuas i ett samarbete med journalisten Celia Farber i New York. Syftet är att beskriva hur media, svensk public service och forskarsamhället i allmänhet behandlat upptäckten av kopplingen mellan trippelvaccin för barn, kroniska tarmproblem och autism.

Text: Torbjörn Sassersson | Premiär 29 aug 2014 | Se artiklar om Wakefield

Premiären av dokumentären med Wakefield kommer i samband med att forskaren dr William Thompson vid amerikanska myndigheten CDC den 25 augusti 2014 avslöjar att CDC under många år dolt information inför den medicinska världen och allmänheten att risken för barn att drabbas av autism ökar flerfaldigt vid trippelvaccinering. Särskilt drabbade är svarta barn.

Reaktionen inom etablissemanget, public service, myndighetsvärlden, medicinjournalistiken och skolmedicinen kan beskrivas med ett ord: vaccinriskförnekelse.

Smutskastningskampanj genom ”public service”

Den smutskastningskampanj som dr Andrew Wakefield utsatts för kan betecknas som en av de mest omfattande mot en enskild person i modern tid. Den har pågått i över 15 år och spänner över tidningar, webben, TV, radio och Wikipedia etc. Enorma ekonomiska intressen står på spel för läkemedelsindustrin som befarar att övertron mot vaccin ska ersättas av kunskap om riskerna med vaccin och hur ineffektiva de egentligen är. Myndigheter uttrycker mest en oro för en nedsatt så kallad ”vaccinationstäckning”. Denna oro är inte baserad på en fast vetenskaplig grund.

De svenska journalister inom gammelmedia som varit mest aggressiva mot Wakefield är Inger Atterstam på SvD och Karin Bojs på DN (sök bland artiklar på NewsVoice). I övrigt har SVT och Granskningsnämnden kraftigt bidragit till en orättvis behandling av och förvillande uppfattning om Wakefield och hans vetenskapliga fynd.


Produktion: NewsVoice, Sasser Media Lab
Intervju: Celia Farber
Kamera: Francesca Alesse, redaktör på Aljazeera America
Redigering och ljud: Pål Bergström
Produktions-team: Linda Karlström (Vaccin.me), Marina Ahlm (Vaccin.me), Marina Szöges (Dagens Homeopati), Ann-Charlotte Stewart, Torbjörn Sassersson (NewsVoice.se)

Och en till artikel (och man hittar också en video genom att klicka på länken):

http://vaccin.me/2014/02/16/mpr-vaccinet-kan-starta-en-autoimmun-reaktion-wakefields-fynd-om-sambandet-mellan-tarmskador-och-autism-bekraftat/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VaccinationBiverkningar+%28Vaccination+%26+biverkningar%29

Mpr-vaccinet kan starta en autoimmun reaktion – Wakefields fynd om sambandet mellan tarmskador och autism bekräftat

16 februari, 2014 By 

År 1998 publicerade dr Andrew Wakefield och hans kollegor en studie som undersökte 12 barn med neurologisk fördröjning. Studien, ofta refererad till som Lancet 12, orsakade stor uppståndelse eftersom föräldrarna till barnen i studien påpekade att barnens problem uppstått i samband med mpr-vaccinationen. Wakefield upptäckte att barnen led av skador i tarmarna, vilket gjorde att proteiner som orsakar hjärnsjukdom kunde komma ut i blodomloppet. Hans fynd har nyligen bekräftats av en mycket stor studie som konstaterade att barn med autism hade förstoppning, diarré och en känslighet för olika livsmedel sex till åtta gånger oftare än barn som utvecklades normalt.

Text: Marina Ahlm    Bild: Studie gjord av Thompson och Wakefield år 1995

Wakefield upptäckte i samband med sin studie att mpr-vaccin kunde ha en möjlig koppling till barnens tarminflammation och förlust av tarmens barriärfunktion, vilket gjorde att encefalopatiska (orsakar hjärnsjukdom) proteiner kunde komma ut i blodomloppet. Detta var därmed en faktor i utvecklingen av neuropsykiatriska funktionshinder. Dr Wakefield beskrev 12 barn med neurologisk fördröjning varav 8 hade autism. Alla dessa barn hade magbesvär och hade utvecklat autism i samband med mpr-vaccinet, enligt föräldrarnas utsago.

Dr Wakefield hade redan innan studien varit kritisk mot kombinationsvaccinet mot mässling, påssjuka och röda hund. Han gjorde därför rekommendationen att återgå till att ge mässlingsvaccinet som singeldos. Anledningen till detta var att efter introduktionen av kombinationsvaccinet drabbades ovanligt många barn av allvarliga biverkningar som encefalit (hjärninflammation) och meningit (hjärnhinneinflammation). Vaccinet slutade användas år 1992 i Japan där man återgick till att använda singeldoser. I Kanada drog man också tillbaka en typ av mpr-vaccin och 1993 bytte man ut det befintliga vaccinet i Storbritannien mot ett annat. Wakefield var dock inte övertygad om att detta vaccin var säkrare än det föregående. Hans oro för detta har bekräftats av andra (1).

År 2002 publicerade Wakefield och hans medarbetare en studie som undersöker förhållandet mellan mässlingsvirus och autism. Författarna testade tarmbiopsiprover för förekomst av mässlingsvirus från barn med och utan autism.  75 av 90 barn med autism befanns ha virusgenom från mässling i tarmvävnad, jämfört med endast 5 av 70 kontrollpatienter.

Kritiken mot detta blev att eftersom mässlingsvaccinets virus är levande och försvagade så innebär det att vaccinviruset replikerar sig 15-20 gånger efter vaccinationen. Om man nu vet att virus muterar, även om de kommer från ett vaccin, hur kan man vara säker på att dessa muterade virus inte utgör någon sjukdomsrisk? Vaccinviruset lär alltså med all sannolikhet komma att tas upp av specifika celler som ansvarar för virusupptag, och färdas vidare i kroppen. Därmed kan de detekteras i intestinala (tarm-) vävnader. Kritikerna tyckte också att eftersom naturliga mässlingsvirus fortfarande cirkulerar i England, hade det varit viktigt att fastställa om mässlingsviruset var naturligt mässlingsvirus eller vaccinvirus (2).

Det är en intressant aspekt med tanke på att det vid olika utbrott av vaccinerbara sjukdomar sällan undersöks huruvida utbrottet härstammar från vaccinvirus eller vilt virus. I länder där det levande poliovaccinet används är det däremot allmänt känt att vaccinet i sig själv leder till att virus muterar och sprids i det vilda (3)(4). Kikhosta drabbar numera ofta välvaccinerade populationer och en studie har visat att bakterien muterat och blivit resistent mot vaccinet (5). Intressant är att en del forskare hävdar att viruset muterat redan för 20 år sedan, vilket skulle innebära att alla som vaccinerats under denna tid varit helt oskyddade mot den vilda formen av kikhostebakterien (6). Mellan 2009 och 2010 hade USA ett utbrott av påssjuka med 3 502 bekräftade fall. Av dessa studerade man 1 648 fall och fann att 89 procent av dessa hade fått två doser av vaccinet. Utbrottet spårades till en 11-årig pojke som dessutom var vaccinerad (7).  Att vacciner inte kan kontrollera virus är helt uppenbart.

År 2003 publicerades en studie som visade att virus-inducerad autoimmunitet kan spela en avgörande roll i autism. Forskarna fann antikroppar mot en antigen i mässlingsviruset, något som återfanns i 83 procent av autistiska barn men inte i normala barn eller syskon till autistiska barn. Slutsatsen blev att autistiska barn kan överreagera på mässlingsvirus vilket i avsaknad av en vild typ av mässlingsinfektion kan vara ett tecken på en onormal immunreaktion mot vaccinstammen eller virusreaktivering (8).

MINE – den nya degenerativa sjukdomen i vaccinerade barn

År 2004 publicerades en artikel i Journal of Pediatric Neurology vilken beskriver hur reduceringen av mässling i  USA visat sig ha en signifikant konsekvens i form av en ny neurodegenerativ sjukdom, MINE-syndrom (Measles-Induced Neuroautistic Encephalopathy). MINE har samma konstellation av symtom som autism. Det är en variant av SSPE (Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis) som är en allvarlig men ytterst sällsynt komplikation efter en mässlingsinfektion (har även uppkommit i vaccinerade). Orsaken till uppkomsten är inte helt klarlagd men av någon anledning klarar inte kroppen av att ta hand om viruset som då ligger kvar i kroppen och senare kan orsaka skada.

Innan införandet  av mässlingsvaccinet rapporterades det över 500 000 fall av mässling varje år i USA. Under samma tidpunkt uppkom det årligen 60 fall av SSPE och de senaste åren har det endast rapporterats runt 5 fall per år. I relation till detta har det sedan slutet av 1990-talet  varit över 2 000 barn som diagnosticerats med MINE och tusentals fler med autism. Gemensamt för dessa barn är att de alla fått mpr-vaccin. Inget barn uppvisade några symtom innan vaccinering. Vid blodprov uppvisade alla vaccinstammar från mässling. Alla autistiska symtom uppstod flera månader efter vaccinering (vilket är vanligt för ”långsamma virus” som mässlingsviruset) och alla har haft symtom som tytt på immunologiska problem, t ex allergier, eksem och upprepade infektioner (9). 

År 2009 skrev Vijendra K. Singh en undersökande artikel där han beskriver autoimmunitet som den största faktorn för utvecklandet av autism.  En stor sannolik faktor för utvecklandet av autoimmunitet är mässling, antingen från en latent infektion eller från mpr-vaccinet. På något sätt tar sig viruset förbi blod-hjärnbarriären och skadar hjärnans myelin genom att starta en autoimmun reaktion. Myelinet har en isolerande förmåga på nervcellerna vilket gör att en nervimpuls kan fortplanta sig snabbare. Efter att denna artikel publicerats skrev 152 familjer och berättade om sin upplevelse av autism. Cirka 52 procent menade att de autistiska symtomen började efter mpr-vaccinet, 33 procent efter dtp-vaccinet, 8 procent berättade att det fanns en koppling till vaccinering men de kunde inte säga vilken, och 7 procent sade att de inte märkt något samband med vaccinering.

Men för att återgå till Wakefields fynd så har en nyligen publicerad studie av forskare vid UC Davis MIND Institute, visat att Andrew Wakefield hade rätt vad gäller samband mellan neuropsykiatriska tillstånd, som autism, och gastrointestinala problem (GI). Studien heter ”Gastrointestinala problem hos barn med autism, försenad utveckling eller typisk utveckling” och publicerades i Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

I studien upptäcktes det att barn med autism hade förstoppning, diarré och en känslighet för olika livsmedel sex till åtta gånger oftare än hos barn som utvecklades normalt. Symtomen var relaterade till beteendeproblem, inklusive socialt tillbakadragande, irritabilitet och repetitivt beteende. Undersökningen som jämför GI-problem hos barn med autism, utvecklingsförsening och typisk (normal) utveckling är den hittills största som gjorts, med en stor etnisk spridning.

Föräldrar till barn med autism har länge sagt att deras barn har kraftiga GI-problem men lite anses känt om vad som orsakar vilket. GI-problem kan skapa beteendeproblem  och dessa beteendeproblem kan skapa eller förvärra GI-problem. Forskarna tog inte upp varför barnen med autism och utvecklingsförsening upplevt mer GI-problem . De noterade att deras resultat tyder på att ämnet förtjänar ytterligare utredning (11).

Källor

1. Pediatric MMR Vaccination Safety – Mark R. Geier, MD, PhD; David A Geier

2. THE ”WAKEFIELD” STUDIES: STUDIES HYPOTHESIZING THAT MMR CAUSES AUTISM

3. Polio Surge In Nigeria After Vaccine Virus Mutates – Maria Cheng

4. Long-term circulation of vaccine-derived poliovirus that causes paralytic disease – J Virol. 2002 Jul;76(13):6791-9

5. U.S. health officials find potentially vaccine-resistant whopping cough – Vaccine News Daily

6. Concerns Raised Over Whopping Cough Vaccin’s Potency – ABC News

7.  Mumps Outbreak in Orthodox Jewish Communities in the United States – NEJM

8. Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism – Pediatr Neurol. 2003 Apr;28(4):292-4

9. Some aspects about the clinical and pathogenetic characteristics of the presumed persistent measles infections: SSPE and MINE – Journal of Pediatric Neurology, Vol. 2, No. 3, July-Sept, 2004, pp. 121-124

10. A major subset of autism  – AnnAls of CliniCAl PsyChiAtry 2009;21(3):148-161 

11. Children who have autism far more likely to have tummy troubles – ScienceDaily

Läs mer

Link found between measles virus and gut abnormalities in children with developmental disorder – Journal of Clinical Pathology

Regressive behavioral disorder diagnosis – Wakefields patent US6534259 B1

Testimony before congressional oversight commitee on autism and immunisation – John J. O´Leary

The MMR question – Correnspondence The Lancet

New research links measles, autistic gut disorders – Autism research review international

Fourteen studies 

We support Dr. Andrew Wakefield

New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield´s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism)

”That Paper” By Andrew Wakefield

The history of MMR´s safety

The following peer-reviewed papers support the findings of the original work by Wakefield and colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK

 

Fler exempel på vaccinationer som kan sprida smitta

A case of yellow fever vaccine-associated disease – The New Zealand Medical Journal

Rotavirus vaccines: viral shedding and risk for transmission – The Lancet

Chickenpox The Disease & The Vaccine Fact Sheet – NVIC

 

Advertisements

Vaccinföreläsning med Ann-Charlotte Stewart

Just nu är det lite vaccintema på mina blogginlägg, det finns mycket att säga, och det är viktigt att sprida information om vad vacciner kan ställa till med. Nu tänkte jag dela Ann-Charlotte Stewarts föreläsning om vacciner, hon är specialist på Gardasil, men har en hel del att säga om andra vacciner också. Föreläsningen är uppdelad på fyra olika videos, här är dom:


Här är texten som är publicerad på youtube om den här delen av föreläsningen:
“Ann-Charlotte Stewart är doktor i medicinsk genetik och disputerade 1993 i ämnet papillomvirus och livmoderhalscancer. Hon har en postdoc i USA, och forskade på livmoderhalscancer/HPV vid University of New Mexico. Ann-Charlotte Stewart berättar om varför hon hoppade av mitt i en lovande karriär. Vi tycks bli allt sjukare med degenerativa sjukdomar och autoimmuna sjukdomar. Ann-Charlotte berättar vad som hände historiskt då kostnaden för vacciner ökade, liksom om de stadigt växande biverkningarna vilket i förlängningen löstes genom att vaccinbolagen fick immunitet mot skadestånd. Kända biverkningar av vaccin. Vi får se utdrag från bipacksedeln av GMO-vaccin/Hepatit B. Barn till och med dör inom timmar/dagar efter vaccination. “Trots att vi har den största konsumtionen av antibiotika och vacciner hos alla grupper av barn historiskt så är våra barn fetare, sjukare och dummare än någonsin” citat Dr Tim O´Shea.”


Youtubetext del 2:
“Ann-Charlotte pratar om det allmänna barnvaccinationsprogrammet, hur det ser ut – visste du att det är frivilligt? Vad innehåller vacciner? Varför innehåller vaccin antigener och adjuvanser? Ann-Charlotte kommer in på aluminium. Tiomersal och svininfluensan 2009, samt autism. Är vacciner säkra och effektiva?”


Youtubetext del 3:
“Är det verkligen vaccinernas förtjänst att dödsfallen har gått ner i olika sjukdomar som vi vaccinerar mot som kikhosta, polio, mässling. Ann-Charlotte går på djupet vad gäller HPV och HPV-vaccin, som hon har forskat inom. Gardasil ger många svåra biverkningar, även dödsfall. Örebro Läns Landsting ändrar på sin hemsida angående Gardasil på Ann-Charlottes anmodan. Vaccinerade versus ovaccinerade. Vad det gäller mikrober så är miljön är allt!”


Youtubetext del 4:
“Vad försvagar immunförsvaret? Vad stärker immunförsvaret? Vad behöver vi och vad ska vi göra för att få bättre immunförsvar och bättre hälsa? Lästips för den som vill fördjupa sig i ämnet.”

För att hitta mer info om Ann-Charlotte Stewart kan man få tag på henne via hennes Facebookprofil https://www.facebook.com/anncharlotte.stewart
googlar man på hennes namn så finns det tyvärr en massa hemsidor med svartmålning och misskreditering, VOF-folket försöker göra vad dom kan för att mörka och gömma undan sån här information.

Article about the Salk polio vaccine tragedy

I have been following the discussion about vaccines for a while now, if you have a chance to watch Ty Bollingers videos “The truth about vaccines” I urge you to do it – really important information!
One of the (many) things they talked about was the polio vaccine – here’s an article about that…

https://idsent.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/the-salk-polio-vaccine-tragedy/

History is a powerful thing. If you accurately tell the story of an event that occurred, you get one picture, one understanding of it. Leave one tiny little detail out, however, and the whole picture changes. You can get thousands of details right, but get one wrong, or simply omit telling it, and an historical event can become so distorted that it becomes a lie. Take the story of the Salk inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). During the first half of the 1950s, Jonas Salk, MD developed the first injectable vaccine against polio containing inactivated, or “killed”, strains of the poliovirus.

As a dead, rather than live, virus vaccine, Dr. Salk’s IPV supposedly carried no risk of giving recipients “vaccine-associated polio paralysis.”1 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “IPV is produced from wild-type poliovirus strains of each serotype that have been inactivated (killed) with formalin.”2

Here’s that little detail, though. The poliovirus that Dr. Salk killed with formalin, or formaldehyde, were not always killed; they sometimes only appeared to be killed.

Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would ‘resurrect’ in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.3

Oops.

Field trials for the Salk vaccine were conducted on more than 1,800,000 children in the United States in 1954.4 Sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), now known as the March of Dimes, “623,972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as ‘observed’ controls.’5

On April 12, 1955, Thomas Francis Jr., MD, director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced to the world that the Salk vaccine was “safe, effective, and potent,”—that it was “up to 90%” effective in preventing paralytic polio. Dr. Francis had been one of Dr. Salk’s professors at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology where Salk did his postgraduate training.4

During mid-April of 1955, about 400,000 people—mostly schoolchildren—in the U.S. were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories.6 It turns out that more than 200,000 of these children, living in five western and midwestern states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico7), were injected with vaccines “in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.” The Cutter-produced vaccines ended up causing 40,000 cases of polio. It severely paralyzed 200 children and killed 10.8

The first of these cases to be reported was that of a young girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the vaccine on April 18, 1955.7

Five days later, she developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead.7

In his book The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, Paul Offit, MD writes, “Seventy-five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.” A team led by epidemiologisit Alexander Langmuir of the Communicable Diseases Center (now the CDC) in Atlanta, GA determined that “the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus,” adds Dr. Offit.7

Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio.7

The so-called “Cutter Incident” led to the recall of the Cutter vaccine and the eventual replacement of the Salk IPV with the attenuated (weakened) live oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin, MD and introduced in 1963. (A modified inactivated Salk vaccine was re-introduced in the 1990s after the only cases of polio occurring in the U.S. were vaccine strain polio cases because live OPV can cause vaccine strain polio in the recipient or a close contact of a recently vaccinated person shedding live vaccine strain polio virus in body fluids.)8

But the fact that some improperly inactivated lots of the original polio vaccine paralyzed and killed American children was concealed from the public for a long time.

In their book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk write, “You may be wondering how this information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the vaccine controversy.”)9 According to them, Congressman Priest, who represented the 6th District of Tennessee, admitted in 1956 that,

… in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of ‘knowledge about controversy.’ If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would b terrible… We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.”9

Two key points to note here. First, the problem with the Cutter-produced vaccine should have come as a surprise to the scientists and public health officials who were familiar with the development of the Salk IPV. According to Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk:

The Salk invention was an injectable, supposedly formaldehyde-inactivated version of poliovirus vaccine. There were serious problems with the viral inactivation process that were known by insiders from the outset of the vaccine’s development.9

Unfortunately, whenever scientists involved in the vaccine’s development raised concerns that poliovirus had not been fully killed, they were “rapidly subdued.”9

As a result of ignoring the warnings by highly qualified scientists who repeatedly and publicly explained why and how the inactivation process was flawed from the beginning, the vaccine virus needlessly infected, paralyzed, and killed children and their household contacts.9

Secondly, Cutter Laboratories was not the only manufacturer of the the Salk IPV. Wyeth Laboratories also produced a defective Salk vaccine that caused paralysis. Other pharmaceutical companies are believed to have done so, as well. But only Cutter’s vaccine was recalled. This means that, potentially, tens of millions of doses of improperly inactivated “live” Salk vaccine were sold and injected into children in the U.S. and around the world until the “inactivated” Salk vaccine was replaced by the live oral Sabin vaccine in the early-1960s.

This may help explain, at least partially, why the cases of polio in the U.S. increased by 50% from 1957 to 1958, and by 80% between 1958 and 1959.10 According to Bernard Greenberg, PhD, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:

In five New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950s, with pressure to find a magic bullet, statistics were manipulated by health authorities to give the quite the opposite impression.10

Keep in mind that these dramatic increases in polio following the introduction of the Salk IPV occurred shortly after the U.S. government had already significantly relaxed its guidelines for diagnosing polio. In 1954, the government redefined polio. I wrote about this other little detail of history that has been widely overlooked in my article “Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined.”11 Dr. Greenberg explained this classic example of government sleight of hand…

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.12

We can only imagine how much worse the official number of polio cases would have been during the second half of the 1950s had the same diagnosis standard continued to be followed, rather than arbitrarily changed in midstream. By any measure, the early Salk polio vaccine campaigns cannot be termed an unqualified “success.” Yet, since the story has been so repeatedly, utterly inaccurately told, our understanding of the history of the polio vaccine “miracle” is that it is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. And, as we have seen with the Sabin live oral polio vaccine that continues to cause vaccine strain polio cases around the world, there are big questions about how high the price has been—and will continue to be—for using that polio vaccine as well.

History is indeed a powerful thing. If you teach it wrong for more than half a century, it is hard to unteach, because a particular version of a story can become so ingrained in the public’s collective memory that few can accept that what we’ve come to believe to be an unquestioned scientific truth is, in fact, a myth.

And if that sacred cow is an illusion, then what else may we have gotten wrong along the way? Suddenly, mainstream vaccine science doesn’t feel so certain, so… scientific.


References:

1 Polio Global Eradication Initiative. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). polioeradication.org.
2 World Health Organization. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). WHO.int
3 Mercola J. The Forgotten History of Vaccinations You Need to Be Aware Of. Mercola.com Jan. 18, 2015.
4 University of Michigan School of Public Health. 1955 Polio Vaccine Trial Announcement. sph.umich.edu.
5 Meldrum M. “A calculated risk”: the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954BMJ Oct. 31, 1998; 317(7167): 1233–1236.
6 Nathanson N, Langmuir AD. The Cutter Incident: Poliomyelitis Following Formaldehyde-Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccination in the United States During the Spring of 1955Am J Epidemiol Mar. 12, 1963.
7 Offit P. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. 2005, p 84.
8 Fitzpatrick M. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine CrisisJ R Soc Med March 2006; 99(3): 156.
9 Humphries S, Bystrianyk R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History. July 27, 2013.
10 Chaitow L. Vaccination and Immunisation: Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives. 1998, p. 55.
11 Cáceres M. Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was RedefinedThe Vaccine Reaction July 9, 2015.
12 James W. Immunization The Reality Behind the Myth. 1995, p. 36.

https://idsent.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/polio-wasnt-vanquished-it-was-redefined/

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 8,425.3But 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

As I wrote in my piece “The Salk ‘Miracle’ Myth“…

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.4

So as radio broadcaster Paul Harvey used to say for decades at the close of each of his charming commentaries, “And now you know… the rest of the story.”


References:

1 James W. Immunization The Reality Behind the Myth. p. 36.
2 About Jonas Salk. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies N.d.
3 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. U.S. Polio Cases 1952-1962. The History of Vaccines.
4 Cáceres M. The Salk ‘Miracle’ MythThe Vaccine Reaction June 2, 2015.

https://idsent.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/the-two-polio-cases-in-ukraine-were-vaccine-derived-get-it/

The World Health Organization (WHO) has confirmed two cases of vaccine-derived poliovirus type 1 (cVDPV1) in the Ukraine. The cases involved a four-year old child and a 10-month old child in the Zakarpatskaya region of southwestern Ukraine. The onset of paralysis occurred on June 30 and July 7, 2015.1 According to the WHO, the emergence of cVDPV1 was due to “inadequate vaccination coverage” in the Ukraine, as “only 50% of children [in the country] were fully immunized against polio and other vaccine-preventable diseases.”1

Interestingly, the cVDPV1, which is a rare, mutated form of the poliovirus, is caused by the oral polio vaccine itself. A recent article in The Washington Post by Ariana Eunjung Cha notes:

Oral polio vaccines contain a weakened form of the virus that activates an immune response in the body so that it builds up antibodies to protect itself. But it takes some time for this to happen, and meanwhile the virus replicates in the intestines and can be excreted by the person immunized and can spread to others in the community.2

So the take-away point here—or at least the one that logically might elicit the most concern—should be the fact that people vaccinated against the virus can actually excrete (or “shed”) the virus and infect other people. Of course, this is counter-intuitive, because that would mean that vaccinating people to prevent infectious diseases from spreading might actually have the opposite effect.

Sometimes the weakened vaccine strain live virus can mutate and regain virulence, including neurovirulence, which significantly raises risks of serious complications from vaccine strain virus infection. Healthy persons can suffer complications from vaccine strain viral infection but children and adults with immunodeficiency are more likely to develop complications after they receive live virus vaccines or come in close contact with a person who is shedding vaccine strain live virus.3

Just like people with viral infections can shed and transmit wild-type virus, people given live virus vaccines can shed and transmit vaccine strain live attenuated virus. Like wild-type virus, vaccine strain live virus can be shed in body fluids, such as saliva, nasal and throat secretions, breastmilk, urine and blood, stool, and skin lesions. Shedding after vaccination with live virus vaccines may continue for days, weeks or months, depending upon the vaccine and the health or other individual host factors of the vaccinated person.4

Now, there’s your newsworthy story.

Instead, the story is seemingly being manipulated in a way that attributes the paralysis of the two children, not on the vaccine which led to the cVDPV1, but to the idea that in under-vaccinated populations “the vaccine-virus can circulate for long time, 12 months or longer, and genetically change into a more virulent form that can paralyze.”2  This makes it easier for the WHO and other health authorities to make their case for increasingly higher levels of vaccination. The WHO stresses that the “emergence of cVDPV strains underscores the importance of maintaining high levels of routine vaccination coverage.”1

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has joined the WHO in calling for parents in the Ukraine to vaccinate following the confirmed polio outbreak.5  Remember now, we’re talking about twochildren. Two. An article by the United Nations News Centre references a press release by UNICEF…

‘The only effective way to protect children from polio is vaccination,’ stressed UNICEF’s representative in Ukraine, Giovanna Barberis, in a press release. ‘The available vaccines supplied by UNICEF should be used as soon as possible to ensure children are protected from polio in Ukraine.’5

The world’s major media sources are taking their cues directly from the WHO without even bothering to ask the painfully obvious question, “Isn’t it a serious problem when you have vaccines causing viruses to mutate and become more dangerous than the original viruses they were designed to protect against?” The second paragraph of the Reuters story by Tom Miles, for example, reads, “The WHO said Ukraine had been at particular risk of an outbreak because of inadequate vaccination coverage. In 2014, only 50 percent of children were fully immunized against polio and other preventable diseases, it said.”6

The second paragraph of the Associated Press (AP) story reads, “Health officials have warned for years that Ukraine was at risk of a polio epidemic because of low vaccination rates. The supply of vaccine has been spotty because of corruption and inefficiency, and many parents resist vaccinating their children because of fears about the procedure.” Another version goes, “Health officials had warned Ukraine was at high risk of a polio outbreak due to its low vaccination rates; only half of children were immunized against diseases like polio last year.”

So naturally many major newspapers simply reprint this and disseminate it to their audiences, stamping the piece with their own unique headline. There’s the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s “Ukraine: sufficient vaccine coming to block polio outbreak.”7  There’s the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s “World Health Organization: 2 polio cases found in Ukraine, caused by mutated virus in vaccine.”8

Then there are those publications like Forbes that actually go to the trouble of writing their own story, using the material provided by the WHO and the AP. They not only repeat the party line within their article, but actually feature it in their headline: “Polio Outbreak In Ukraine Is Grim Reminder Of Need For Continued Vigilance.”9

Predictably, the second paragraph reads:

The outbreak in Ukraine arose from vaccinations in country, World Health Organization spokesman Oliver Rosenbauer explained by email, ‘This strain arose in Ukraine, due to significant vaccination coverage gaps in the country. As many as 50% of children are under- or unimmunized, so there are many susceptible children, and this increases the risk of polio re-emerging or being re-introduced. This further underscores the danger of polio until it is eradicated completely. The best thing countries can do to protect themselves is to maintain high vaccination coverage.’9

To his credit, Donald G. McNeil Jr. of The New York Times started his piece “Polio Paralyzes 2 Children in West Ukraine Outbreak” with a more substantive focus. The third and fourth paragraph go as follows:

The two children, an infant and a 4-year-old, were not paralyzed by the “wild-type virus” that is now known to be circulating only in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but by a strain derived from the oral polio vaccine itself.10

The oral vaccine contains three strains of weakened live virus, and very occasionally—the WHO estimates it as once in a million vaccinations—one mutates to become more virulent. Then, like wild virus, it can be shed in feces and spread to others in sewage.10

Ironically, despite the WHO’s confirmation, it’s not even clear yet that the two cases in the Ukraine are polio. A Russia Today (RT) report cites local authorities in the country as denying a “definitive diagnosis” of polio. According to RT:

[The polio diagnosis] ‘was not confirmed’ by medical trials in Kiev and Moscow. Regional officials told Ukrainian media the symptoms only ‘resembled’ polio, but it could in fact be acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), recorded in the region up to five times on a yearly basis.

Thus, it appears the WHO is both emphasizing the wrong point and may be jumping the gun a bit on this story. Meanwhile, the corporate media follows along passively.


References:

1  World Health Organization. Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus – Ukraine. WHO Sept. 1, 2015.
2  Cha AE. Outbreak of rare, mutated poliovirus that originated from vaccine in Ukraine leaves two children paralyzedThe Washington Post Sept. 2, 2015.
3  Fisher BL. The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission (p. 12-13). National Vaccine Information Center November 2014.
4  Fisher BL. The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission (p. 13). National Vaccine Information Center November 2014.
5  Ukraine: UN agencies call for urgent action to stop spread of polio virusUnited Nations News Centre Sept. 4, 2015.
6  Miles T. Ukraine outbreak brings polio back to Europe, WHO saysReuters Sept. 2, 2015.
7  APUkraine: sufficient vaccine coming to block polio outbreakSeattle Post-Intelligencer Sept. 3, 2015.
8  APWorld Health Organization: 2 polio cases found in Ukraine, caused by mutated virus in vaccineMinneapolis Star Tribune Sept. 2, 2015.
9  Thorpe D. Polio Outbreak In Ukraine Is Grim Reminder Of Need For Continued VigilanceForbes Sept. 4, 2015.
10  McNeil DG. Polio Paralyzes 2 Children in West Ukraine OutbreakThe New York Times Sept. 2, 2015.

 

Videoföreläsning med Linda Karlström om risker och vetenskapliga brister med vacciner

Det har ju sänts en serie med videos om vacciner ganska så nyss, Ty Bollingers “The truth about vaccines – jag såg alla avsnitten, och är chockad och förfärad över hur mycket som är fel, om man kallar det där med statiner för århundradets läkemedelsskandal, så kan man kanske kalla det där med vacciner för årtusendets läkemedelsskandal… ska försöka hitta lite videos med info jag kan posta här – det går ju alltid att köpa “The truth about vaccines” – det är en serie på 7 videos, med ungefär 1 1/2 timme för varje avsnitt. Här finns lite mer info: https://www.facebook.com/ttavdocuseries/

Och här är en föreläsning på svenska av Linda Karlström, om riskerna och de vetenskapliga bristerna om vaccin:

Vaccine blogpost about Dr Salk (polio)

Vaccines are a really controversial thing, and they are discussed more and more now, make sure that you get information not just from Big Pharma, so I wanted to share some articles, blogposts and videos now and then – this is a blogpost from Marco Cáceres di Iorio…

https://idsent.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/the-salk-polio-vaccine-tragedy/

MARCO CÁCERES DI IORIO

History is a powerful thing. If you accurately tell the story of an event that occurred, you get one picture, one understanding of it. Leave one tiny little detail out, however, and the whole picture changes. You can get thousands of details right, but get one wrong, or simply omit telling it, and an historical event can become so distorted that it becomes a lie. Take the story of the Salk inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). During the first half of the 1950s, Jonas Salk, MD developed the first injectable vaccine against polio containing inactivated, or “killed”, strains of the poliovirus.

As a dead, rather than live, virus vaccine, Dr. Salk’s IPV supposedly carried no risk of giving recipients “vaccine-associated polio paralysis.”1 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “IPV is produced from wild-type poliovirus strains of each serotype that have been inactivated (killed) with formalin.”2

Here’s that little detail, though. The poliovirus that Dr. Salk killed with formalin, or formaldehyde, were not always killed; they sometimes only appeared to be killed.

Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would ‘resurrect’ in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.3

Oops.

Field trials for the Salk vaccine were conducted on more than 1,800,000 children in the United States in 1954.4 Sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), now known as the March of Dimes, “623,972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as ‘observed’ controls.’5

On April 12, 1955, Thomas Francis Jr., MD, director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced to the world that the Salk vaccine was “safe, effective, and potent,”—that it was “up to 90%” effective in preventing paralytic polio. Dr. Francis had been one of Dr. Salk’s professors at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology where Salk did his postgraduate training.4

During mid-April of 1955, about 400,000 people—mostly schoolchildren—in the U.S. were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories.6 It turns out that more than 200,000 of these children, living in five western and midwestern states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico7), were injected with vaccines “in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.” The Cutter-produced vaccines ended up causing 40,000 cases of polio. It severely paralyzed 200 children and killed 10.8

The first of these cases to be reported was that of a young girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the vaccine on April 18, 1955.7

Five days later, she developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead.7

In his book The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, Paul Offit, MD writes, “Seventy-five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.” A team led by epidemiologisit Alexander Langmuir of the Communicable Diseases Center (now the CDC) in Atlanta, GA determined that “the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus,” adds Dr. Offit.7

Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio.7

The so-called “Cutter Incident” led to the recall of the Cutter vaccine and the eventual replacement of the Salk IPV with the attenuated (weakened) live oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin, MD and introduced in 1963. (A modified inactivated Salk vaccine was re-introduced in the 1990s after the only cases of polio occurring in the U.S. were vaccine strain polio cases because live OPV can cause vaccine strain polio in the recipient or a close contact of a recently vaccinated person shedding live vaccine strain polio virus in body fluids.)8

But the fact that some improperly inactivated lots of the original polio vaccine paralyzed and killed American children was concealed from the public for a long time.

In their book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk write, “You may be wondering how this information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the vaccine controversy.”)9 According to them, Congressman Priest, who represented the 6th District of Tennessee, admitted in 1956 that,

… in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of ‘knowledge about controversy.’ If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would b terrible… We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.”9

Two key points to note here. First, the problem with the Cutter-produced vaccine should have come as a surprise to the scientists and public health officials who were familiar with the development of the Salk IPV. According to Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk:

The Salk invention was an injectable, supposedly formaldehyde-inactivated version of poliovirus vaccine. There were serious problems with the viral inactivation process that were known by insiders from the outset of the vaccine’s development.9

Unfortunately, whenever scientists involved in the vaccine’s development raised concerns that poliovirus had not been fully killed, they were “rapidly subdued.”9

As a result of ignoring the warnings by highly qualified scientists who repeatedly and publicly explained why and how the inactivation process was flawed from the beginning, the vaccine virus needlessly infected, paralyzed, and killed children and their household contacts.9

Secondly, Cutter Laboratories was not the only manufacturer of the the Salk IPV. Wyeth Laboratories also produced a defective Salk vaccine that caused paralysis. Other pharmaceutical companies are believed to have done so, as well. But only Cutter’s vaccine was recalled. This means that, potentially, tens of millions of doses of improperly inactivated “live” Salk vaccine were sold and injected into children in the U.S. and around the world until the “inactivated” Salk vaccine was replaced by the live oral Sabin vaccine in the early-1960s.

This may help explain, at least partially, why the cases of polio in the U.S. increased by 50% from 1957 to 1958, and by 80% between 1958 and 1959.10 According to Bernard Greenberg, PhD, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:

In five New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950s, with pressure to find a magic bullet, statistics were manipulated by health authorities to give the quite the opposite impression.10

Keep in mind that these dramatic increases in polio following the introduction of the Salk IPV occurred shortly after the U.S. government had already significantly relaxed its guidelines for diagnosing polio. In 1954, the government redefined polio. I wrote about this other little detail of history that has been widely overlooked in my article “Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined.”11 Dr. Greenberg explained this classic example of government sleight of hand…

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.12

We can only imagine how much worse the official number of polio cases would have been during the second half of the 1950s had the same diagnosis standard continued to be followed, rather than arbitrarily changed in midstream. By any measure, the early Salk polio vaccine campaigns cannot be termed an unqualified “success.” Yet, since the story has been so repeatedly, utterly inaccurately told, our understanding of the history of the polio vaccine “miracle” is that it is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. And, as we have seen with the Sabin live oral polio vaccine that continues to cause vaccine strain polio cases around the world, there are big questions about how high the price has been—and will continue to be—for using that polio vaccine as well.

History is indeed a powerful thing. If you teach it wrong for more than half a century, it is hard to unteach, because a particular version of a story can become so ingrained in the public’s collective memory that few can accept that what we’ve come to believe to be an unquestioned scientific truth is, in fact, a myth.

And if that sacred cow is an illusion, then what else may we have gotten wrong along the way? Suddenly, mainstream vaccine science doesn’t feel so certain, so… scientific.


References:

1 Polio Global Eradication Initiative. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). polioeradication.org.
2 World Health Organization. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). WHO.int
3 Mercola J. The Forgotten History of Vaccinations You Need to Be Aware Of. Mercola.com Jan. 18, 2015.
4 University of Michigan School of Public Health. 1955 Polio Vaccine Trial Announcement. sph.umich.edu.
5 Meldrum M. “A calculated risk”: the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954BMJ Oct. 31, 1998; 317(7167): 1233–1236.
6 Nathanson N, Langmuir AD. The Cutter Incident: Poliomyelitis Following Formaldehyde-Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccination in the United States During the Spring of 1955Am J Epidemiol Mar. 12, 1963.
7 Offit P. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. 2005, p 84.
8 Fitzpatrick M. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine CrisisJ R Soc Med March 2006; 99(3): 156.
9 Humphries S, Bystrianyk R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History. July 27, 2013.
10 Chaitow L. Vaccination and Immunisation: Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives. 1998, p. 55.
11 Cáceres M. Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was RedefinedThe Vaccine Reaction July 9, 2015.
12 James W. Immunization The Reality Behind the Myth. 1995, p. 36.

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930