The Polio Hoax
Uncovering the virus deception.
The polio fraud began in the early 1900s with Simon Flexner of the Rockefeller Institute.
He is said to have established the etiologic agent of polio by a number of experiments, as described by a 1911 publication.
“All doubt as to the infectious character of the disease has been removed by the experimental investigation of Flexner and others.”
Ground up nervous tissue was injected into the brains of monkeys. Signs of paralysis in the monkeys was proclaimed by Flexner as evidence for the presence of an unseen pathogen in the biological material inoculated.
Medical men were perplexed by the absence of contagion during the experiments.
“Monkeys did not spontaneously take the disease, and the question naturally arose why a disease which was so fatal in this species should not occur naturally or spontaneously in that species.”
Answers to that question could have been provided if control experiments weren’t neglected. Could it be that the sickness observed in the monkeys were not caused by an imagined pathogen?
Simon Flexner disregarded the fact that any injection into the brain is invariably attended with consequences to the creature operated on, with paralysis as a frequent complication.
“Every physiologist or pathologist knows that intradural inoculation [into the brain].. even of the simplest septic or aseptic product, is almost invariably attended with consequences most grave to the creature so operated upon. Naturally, paralysis most frequently follows.”
[…]
“If an opening be made in the cranium of the dog, or the rabbit, directly over the nerve-centres,—and the nervous system of either is much more impressible than that of man, and a drop of pus, blood, or bouillon introduced in the submeningeal space, the miracle would be if the creature did not speedily develop a paralysis of facial muscles and posterior extremities!”
In 1886 for example, Dr. Edward Spitzka injected into the brains of dogs a variety of innocuous substances, such as normal calf tissue and soap. Paralysis and death followed.
Simon Flexner jumped to conclusions based on erroneous evidence, because the inflammation of the nervous system set up by the placement of a foreign substance in contact with the brain was sufficient to account for all the symptoms displayed by the monkeys experimented on—no imagined virus required.
“Advocates of the contagion theory were at a loss to account for the fact that spontaneous transmission among laboratory monkeys was never known to occur.”
Despite decades of artificial inoculations in monkeys, virologists were unable to demonstrate the phenomenon they hypothesized to occur: host-to-host transmission. In 1932, the International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis reported that all attempts to demonstrate experimental contagion had been futile.
“The natural insusceptibility of monkeys is also evidenced by the fact that contagion from one animal to another has never been demonstrated.”
The complete failure to experimentally demonstrate contagion made Dr. Ralph Scobey question the purported transmissibility of the disease in an article published in 1952.
“It is extremely difficult to understand how a human can contract poliomyelitis from another individual through dissemination of a virus by contact, carriers, excrement, unclean hands, unwashed fruits and vegetables, flies, etc. when a healthy animal in the same cage with an “infected” animal, exposed to all of these natural factors, remains unaffected.”
Due to the inability to isolate and image the alleged polio virus, Dr. Oliver Dahl questioned the existence of a polio virus in an article published in The Times News in 1935.
“How is any thinking person to believe that there is a virus that in some way causes inflammation in the gray matter of the spinal cord of infants when this supposed to be virus has never been isolated? It is but a hypothetical something. A reasoning mind could better believe that the moon is made of cheese, for the moon at least has the shape and color of cheese. No one has ever seen, smelt nor felt, nor in any other way isolated this supposed to be poliomyelitis virus.”
In fact, epidemiologist and public health administrator Leslie Lumsden admitted that they didn’t actually know with certainty whether polio was infectious.
“We do not know the main source or sources of the infection nor, with certainty, whether the disease is infectious.”
Virologists were baffled by the simple question: “What is the disease agent in infantile paralysis?”
“Before we begin to discuss the disease itself in humans, I feel we should have a clearer understanding of the laboratory side. Doctor Meyer, will you summarize the present status of poliomyelitis in the field of experimental research? Dr. Meyer: That is a difficult question to answer directly, since we are still baffled by the simple question, “What is the disease agent in infantile paralysis?” … We do not know whether it is a living germ or something else growing in the cells of the brain. We cannot isolate it like a germ in a test tube, and it is too small to be seen with a microscope.”
The polio “virus” was nothing more than an unseen, imagined entity—brought about by uncontrolled and artificial animal experiments. Until the 1950s, the only way to isolate a polio “virus” was through the inoculation of a monkey.
“Until recently, inoculation of monkeys has remained the only means of isolating these viruses, and the production in the monkey of the characteristic myelitis with anterior-horn-cell degeneration has been the criterion for the identification of this group of agents.”
However, the belief in the existence of this hypothetical pathogen was based on faulty evidence, because the injection of uninfected tissue into laboratory animals could likewise produce paralytic disturbances, as described by a 1986 article published in Journal of the American Medical Association.
“It would be demonstrated that injection of uninfected nervous tissue into laboratory animals could produce paralytic disturbances with central nervous system inflammation and demyelination.”
The fact that researchers could induce paralysis in experimental animals by the injection of normal tissue brought the field of virology into question in an article published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics in 1950.
“Although Landsteiner and others have been able to inject emulsions of spinal cord material into experimental animals to cause a paralytic disease, a number of workers have also caused paralysis in experimental animals simply by injecting normal nervous tissues. This fact would indicate that some of our modern studies relating to the so-called virus of poliomyelitis require careful reappraisal.”
For example, in a study entitled The Effects of the Injection of Normal Brain Emulsion into Rabbits published in 1932, Dr. Edward Hurst demonstrated that the injection of sterile brain tissue into rabbits can cause severe toxic manifestations, including paralysis and death.
“The introduction parenterally in rabbits of emulsions of normal brain tissue is followed by severe toxic manifestations leading to wasting and death. In a few cases paralyses occur.”
In the 1940s, when the electron microscope was developed for biological material and commercial use, virologists finally had access to a powerful microscope to view their imagined polio virus.
However, virologists could not find anything different in hosts supposedly infected with a polio virus from what could be imaged in healthy subjects.
In 1949, a group of virologists perfomed control experiments and found particles indistinguishable from what was believed to be polio “viruses” in normal uninfected tissue.
“Rhian et al. (1949) concluded that none of the occurrences in electron micrographs of preparations of poliomyelitis virus published up to that time showed any conclusive evidence that they really corresponded to poliomyelitis virus. These authors obtained particles of essentially the same size, shape, and nitrogen content from both normal and Lansing poliomyelitis virus-infected tissue.”
These virologists concluded that the imaged particles purporting to depict polio “viruses” were simply non-specific debris.
“From a critical examination of our work, and that of others, we conclude that there is no evidence that a virus of the poliomyelitis group has ever been unequivocally identified on electron micrographs thus far published.”
In agreement, virologist Joseph L. Melnick stated in 1951 that there was no clear evidence that the polio virus had been isolated and imaged, because when experiments were adequately controlled by subjecting normal tissues to the same procedures, no difference was found in normal tissue compared to the presumably infected tissue.
“In spite of many attempts, there is as yet no clear evidence that the virus has been obtained in pure form or that it has been visualized in the electron microscope. When such experiments are adequately controlled by subjecting normal tissues to the same procedures of differential sedimentation or fractional precipitation, then similar "purified" material has been obtained (43, 82, 83).”
In the early 1950s, the alleged polio virus began to be study in vitro. Polio researchers would inoculate harvested organs of monkeys, instead of injecting living monkeys.
It was postulated that signs of deterioration in the organ tissue would indicate the presence of a virus.
However, researchers soon discovered that these lab-created effects were not dependent on the addition of a (presumable infected) host sample, as described by a 1973 article.
“It has been recognized for a long time that uninoculated cell cultures may show spontaneously the cytopathological effects (CPE)”
It has since been established that these tissue changes are artifacts resulting from the artificial conditions of the experiment.
This faulty method was used to produce a polio vaccine—and when the polio vaccine was launched, the diagnostic criteria of polio changed, thus artificially reducing case numbers which brought about favourable results of vaccination.
Polio as a disease does not necessitate the existence of a virus, as described by polio researcher Dr. Ralph Scobey in 1953.
“It is generally believed at the present time that poliomyelitis is a communicable disease caused by a virus. However, this broad definition excludes other conditions to which the term "poliomyelitis" can also be applied. The meaning of the Greek words from which "poliomyelitis" is derived implies inflammation of the gray matter of the central nervous system regardless of the etiology.”
In his 1952 article entitled The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis and Obstructions to Its Investigation, he describes how polio, resulting from poisons, has been demonstrated clinically in humans and produced artificially in experimental animals. The marked seasonality of polio could be explained by the use of poisonous insecticides, Scobey suggests.
“The poison cause of paralysis has been known for many years. Poliomyelitis, resulting from poisons, has been demonstrated clinically in humans and produced artificially in experimental animals. A relationship between harvest and poliomyelitis has been suggested repeatedly. At such times, corresponding with epidemics of poliomyelitis, some foods of harvest may be poisonous as a result of fertilizers, insect sprays and intrinsic chemical changes.”
Arsenic, once a common insecticide, has been shown to cause pathological alterations typical of polio, as described by a 1905 publication.
“We know that such poisons as lead, arsenic, etc., are able to produce distinct changes in the cells of the central nervous system. Pathological alterations, typical of anterior poliomyelitis, have been demonstrated in poisoning of various kinds, more especially by lead.”
In 1882 for example, Edward C. Sequin established that arsenic can cause poliomyelitis, in his publication Myelitis Following Acute Arsenical Poisoning.
“Arsenical paralysis is the expression of a myelitis. This myelitis approximates the type known as poliomyelitis.”
Dr. Robert Lovett outlines a few examples of polio resulting from the exposure to metallic poisons in an article published in 1907.
“Vulpian produced, experimentally, paralysis of the extensors and lesions resembling those of poliomyelitis in a dog by lead poisoning, and in a case of lead poisoning found pronounced poliomyelitis with colloid degeneration and cell atrophy. Phillippe and Gauthard report a case of anterior poliomyelitis from lead poisoning, and Obrastoff one from arsenical poisoning. Onuf reported the case of a painter with flaccid paralysis of both legs, in whom autopsy showed lesions characteristic of the disease.”
This information should be printed out and put in every paediatrician's letterbox, with the warning that persistently ignoring the facts and "vaccinating" children of unsuspecting parents constitutes deliberate bodily harm and fraud, which will not remain without consequences.
There has to be a connection between the Flexner brothers and the Rothschilds. Trying to find it...I know it's there. Lots of Zionist connections between them all.