/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15856466
You seem to nut understand.
Mengengitis is the expression of syptoms.
"Brain inflamation".

The vaccine allegedly helps to protect a seperate entity called "manigiococcus bacteria" which allegedly cause menegitis.
But the induced trauma of parents who lose their child to a vaccine or to be more accurate "adjuvant induced" Menegitis, is a vehicle for PR.
"Children die" bla bla.
"Get your child a additional vaccine against one type of brain inflamation".
And now people and obviously YOU equivocate the Disease with one alleged bacteria.
Your child still can get menengitis but then they will call it simply:
"Aseptic menegitis" and when parents then spiral "oh yeah the vaccine actually works, but only against menignococcal menengits not the other ones, your child must have one of the other types of menengitises"

When its all the same shit, poison to the brain, brain inflamed, child subsequently retarded, paralayzed or dead.

They did the same shit with polio.
When they deployed the vaccine, they literally made it extremely hard to even diagnose polio because they narrowed the criteria of diagnoses so much.
When someone after that had a paralysis they simply renamed it to: aseptic menegitis, flacid myelits, guillian barre syndrome, multiple sclerosis.
Before the vaccine deployment literally every fever and weakness of the limbs could be declared polio.
After the paralysis had to persist for at least 60 days. Which is retarded because if a child gets sick they write down a diagnosis within the first visits, and not at a later follow up.
Thats why the statistics of polio have the steep and rapid falling, which exceeded their speed of vaccination tenfold.

>>15637067
No redpill here.
The big question is, how helpful is it?
And especcially how accurate is the diagnosis of the disease?

Problem here is agsin correlation vs causation.

They played the same shit with pertussis.
A common disease PATTERN is coughing and wheezing in infants, it is a common pattern, that does not seem to go away.

So what happened?
>child coghs and wheezed must be pertussis
>deploy vaccine
>child still coughs and wheezes
>this cannot be Pertussis so we relabel it
>Mycoplasmosis, bronchiolitis, RSV, bronchitis etc.
>now deploy new vaccine
>incidence og coughin and wheezing in infants is the same
>must be then mycoplasmosis or bronchitis because everything alese is vaccinated against

The vaccination is a criteria to exclude a disease during differencial diagnosis and therefore not even test for it.
It becomes a biased and self fulfilling prophecy.

Children do not get healthier or protected against a disease pattern.
The disease pattern still occurs, they only allow themselves to relabel it according to the vaccination record.

You will see in the future that the next thing will become mycoplasmosis, to explain away, why children still get sick with the same exact disease pattern.

It does not even matter to look i to the safety of the vaccine.
The important part is, are they even able to distinctively diffirenciate between diseases and are children effectively healthier when they are vaccinated against all this shit.
The relabeling and changing of criteria of diagnosis is a easy task to make something appear "helpful". It all does not matter if we do not look into health in general.

>>15541182
Because they redefined the condition and stopped spraying lead arsenate and DDT on people:
>>15538724

they just renamed it after the introduction of tha vax
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-87hhrg84426/pdf/CHRG-87hhrg84426.pdf

>But the most incredible discovery is a change in the rules by changing the definition of “paralytic poliomyelitis” before and after the 1955 introduction of the Salk vaccine. It is like comparing a sneeze and pneumonia. “Prior to 1954,” Joan Beck, in reporting this same panel in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (Mar. 5, 1961), observes, “any physician who reported a case of paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a favor because funds were available to help pay his medical expenses (from a large voluntary health organization). At that time most HDs used a definition of paralytic poliomyelitis which specified “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.” Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. “In 1955, these criteria were changed. Now, unless there is paralysis lasting at least 60 days after the onset of the disease, it is not diagnosed as paralytic polio.

They did the solve and cuagula Trick:
> before 1955, 24 hours of: anything causing limb numbness or stiffness or aches = polio
> after 1955 60 days of persistant paralyitic symptoms.
> Also split it up in menegitis, chinese paralytic syndrome, flacid myeltis, acute flacid myelites, myelitis transverse, MS etc, gullian barré syndrome

>>15426415
Or how about Polio?!?

>~1900 AD
>Polio epidemic
>Declare anyone as as infected by the Polio who has these symptoms for 24h : stiffness in the limbs, fever, stiff neck, rashes, menegitis, encephalopathy
>now create such a fear and a "solution" that people will take the solution even if they are fine
>Vaccine with aluminium and shitton of streptomycin and neomycin as "preventative medicine"
>people get sick
>die (cutter incident)
>must be Polio
>World medical council in 1955 says: "only people who have paralysis for longer than 60 days are now Polio cases and all former symptoms are actually seperate diseases"

You collect several diseases.
Pack them together to one new disease.
Then everyone will have the new disease.
Then after a while, you make the disease by definition so specific, that it's disappearing.
why did polio disappear?"

> because they just renamed and redefined it after the introduction of tha vax
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-87hhrg84426/pdf/CHRG-87hhrg84426.pdf

>picrel

They did the solve and cuagula Trick:
> before 1955, 24h of:(stiff neck, pain in the limbs, fever) = polio
> after 1955 60 days of persistant paralyitic symptoms.
> Also split it up in menegitis, chinese paralytic syndrome, flacid myeltis, gullian barré syndrome, tansverse myelitis, encephalitis etc.

>>15398217
Change definition of a disease.
Get different epidimiological outcome.

Let me give an example for polio.
They changed how polio is defined.
From 1 day of partial paralysis in a limb to 60 days of paralysis.
Imagine how less it would be diagnosed just because of this strike of a pen.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-87hhrg84426/pdf/CHRG-87hhrg84426.pdf

>But the most incredible discovery is a change in the rules by changing the definition of “paralytic poliomyelitis” before and after the 1955 introduction of the Salk vaccine. It is like comparing a sneeze and pneumonia. “Prior to 1954,” Joan Beck, in reporting this same panel in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (Mar. 5, 1961), observes, “any physician who reported a case of paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a favor because funds were available to help pay his medical expenses (from a large voluntary health organization). At that time most HDs used a definition of paralytic poliomyelitis which specified “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.” Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. “In 1955, these criteria were changed. Now, unless there is paralysis lasting at least 60 days after the onset of the disease, it is not diagnosed as paralytic polio.

Also they """diferienciated""" afterwards into transverse myelitis, gullian barré syndrome, flacid myelitis, multiple seclerosis, encephalitis, chinese paralytic syndrom etc.

If you would obtain knowledge on what is considered a "pathognomic disease" and look up on diseases, then you would see, there is no gigantic list distinct disease, but only a small amount diseases, which will be renamed based on circumstances.

>>15298907
As I explained here:
>>15298831

You collect several diseases.
Pack them together to one new disease.
Then everyone will have the new disease.
Then after a while, you make the disease by definition so specific, that it's disappearing.
why did polio disappear?"

> because they just renamed it after the introduction of tha vax
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-87hhrg84426/pdf/CHRG-87hhrg84426.pdf

>But the most incredible discovery is a change in the rules by changing the definition of “paralytic poliomyelitis” before and after the 1955 introduction of the Salk vaccine. It is like comparing a sneeze and pneumonia. “Prior to 1954,” Joan Beck, in reporting this same panel in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (Mar. 5, 1961), observes, “any physician who reported a case of paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a favor because funds were available to help pay his medical expenses (from a large voluntary health organization). At that time most HDs used a definition of paralytic poliomyelitis which specified “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.” Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. “In 1955, these criteria were changed. Now, unless there is paralysis lasting at least 60 days after the onset of the disease, it is not diagnosed as paralytic polio.

They did the solve and cuagula Trick:
> before 1955, 24h of:(stiff neck, pain in the limbs, fever) = polio
> after 1955 60 days of persistant paralyitic symptoms.
> Also split it up in menegitis, chinese paralytic syndrome, flacid myeltis, gullian barré syndrome, tansverse myelitis, encephalitis etc.

>>15273929
>success with vaccines for polio
why did polio disappear?"

> because they just renamed it after the introduction of tha vax
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-87hhrg84426/pdf/CHRG-87hhrg84426.pdf

>But the most incredible discovery is a change in the rules by changing the definition of “paralytic poliomyelitis” before and after the 1955 introduction of the Salk vaccine. It is like comparing a sneeze and pneumonia. “Prior to 1954,” Joan Beck, in reporting this same panel in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (Mar. 5, 1961), observes, “any physician who reported a case of paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a favor because funds were available to help pay his medical expenses (from a large voluntary health organization). At that time most HDs used a definition of paralytic poliomyelitis which specified “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.” Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. “In 1955, these criteria were changed. Now, unless there is paralysis lasting at least 60 days after the onset of the disease, it is not diagnosed as paralytic polio.

They did the solve and cuagula Trick:
> before 1955, 24h of:(stiff neck, pain in the limbs, fever) = polio
> after 1955 60 days of persistant paralyitic symptoms.
> Also split it up in menegitis, chinese paralytic syndrome, flacid myeltis, gullian barré syndrome, tansverse myelitis, encephalitis etc.

How to start and eliminate a pandemic with the strike of a pen?
read:>>15271894