http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th
Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing
rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in
the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk
vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on
the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify
at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to
hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr.
Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases
was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

[unquote]

All David and Mark had to do was go to whale.to site, but I guess they
cannot do that because of their sceptical religion...
Why would we do that? The whale.to site is well recognized as being the
Internet's largest suppository for bullshit. It has been cited by every
study of Internet accuracy as being in the bottom. BTW, the bottom of
the ocean is where whale shit winds up. The site is aptly named.
This thread is not about whale.to.
You posted it as a reference, and, thus made the thread about the whale.

This thread is about the incompetence of David Wright, and your own,
Mark.

Aren't you ashamed of your incompetence?
What incompetence?

You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.

Details in my original post (before it was snipped).

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children
does more harm than good." -- Dr J Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine
Control Officer, FDA.

asswipe

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:

You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.

Oh, Yuri, stop it. I can't see through the tears of laughter.

You provided the quote. It is up to you to "substantiate" it.

--
Peter Bowditch

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> repeated, repeatedly:
asswipe

Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 98 for
markprobert@lumbercartel. com asswipe

Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:c32ef$476065a1$d8fe9e03$24539@PRIMUS.CA...

I spent a few minutes on this problem, and did find some good evidence
that the statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg did work on how data had been
manipulated in order to promote the polio vaccine.

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank
and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained
that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by
changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank
and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained
that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by
changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

The citation in the above quote (note 2) is to that well known medical
authority: "J.I. Rodale: The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases, Rodale Books
Inc., Emmaus Pennsylvania (1962). " It is so well known and respected that
my local public library has taken the 1976 edition (apparently the latest
one offered) off their shelves as being "out of date."

Dr. Herbert Ratner did chair a panel discussion at the May 1960 meetings of
the IMS. The panel consisted of Dr. Herald Cox, the aforementioned Dr.
Greenberg, and Dr. Herman Kleinman. Of these, only Ratner and Kleinman were
MDs; Cox was Sc.D, and Greenberg, like me, a PhD. The proceedings (edited
from a transcript) were printed the August and September issues of the
Illinois Medical Journal (IMJ). Funny how only the August issue ever gets
mentioned on the web.

Yesterday I read those two articles at the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) over in Newark. Unfortunately, their copier
was down, so I could not make copies; but I did take notes. I did notice
that many of the web quotes from Dr. Greenberg's alleged 1962 Congressional
testimony were in the 1960 panel transcript.

Hmmm.

Then I tried to track down the oft-cited HR 10541 at Seton Hall Law School
Rodino Library. But their Congressional Serial Set only goes back to the
1970s. They sent me to the Newark Public Library, which has many
Congressional resources, but not this one. But the NPL did give me the
correct citation: not HR 10541, but "Intensive Immunization Programs", and
"Y4in8/4:Im6." [don't ask me what that code means.] So, via Lexus-Nexus, I
found that Rutgers Gov Pubs had both a microfiche and a hardcopy.
Interestingly, reading the Nexus-Lexus copy, I noticed that while the list
of witnesses at the HR 10541 hearings included about 10 people, they did
*not* Dr. Greenberg.

I went down to Rutgers this morning and read the original hard copy of HR
10541. Fortunately their copiers were working.

First conclusion, intimated by the above "witness list": despite numerous
citations that he did, Dr. Greenberg did not, and I emphasize *did not*,
"testify at Congressional hearings" on HR 10541. Rather, almost the entire
text of the IMJ edited transcripts were reprinted as pages 90-109 of the
Hearing of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on "Intensive
Immunization Programs." This should have been obvious to anyone viewing the
report, as Hearing statements are printed in a different type face and font
size than are attachements {This is one of those hints they don't teach you
in Historiography classes}. I say "almost entire text" because while the IMJ
originals do include in-text endnote numbers, the articles contain no
endnotes; rather they conclude with the comments, "Bibliography available
upon request." The House text has no indication of endtnotes.

HR 10541 was passed (after House amendments {to exclude Christian
Scientists}, and with no Senate hearings) as the Vaccination Assistance Act
of 1962, US Statutes at Large 76:1155.

In the following discussion, page number citations will refer to the 1962
Congressional reprint of the 1960 IMS panel discussion.

[Aside: there are a few web cites to HR 10541 pages 110 and above. These are
to the reprint of an article from the Chicago Sunday Times magazine of Mar.
5, 1961 [a highly respected medical source ], by Joan Beck, entitled "The
Truth About the Polio Vaccines: Do Salk Shots Really Prevent Polio." It
consists largely of direct quotes from the 1960 IMS panel.]

Apparently the above cite from the 1962 Rodale Encyclopedia article (if it
is correct) is the earliest source of the claim that Greenberg testified on
HR 10541. I can trace Web citations back to about 1996, but since many Web
sources liberally grab from each other, the trail of citations is unclear.

But to now the crux of the matter: at the 1960 panel discussion, reprinted
in 1962, Dr. Greenberg did say, "My primary concern, my only concern, is the
very misleading way that most of this data has been handled from a
statistical point of view" (1962:94), and he did use the word "manipulated"
once, ["A scientific examination of the data, and the manner in which the
data were manipulated, will reveal that the true effectiveness of the
present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly over rated" (1962:95)]. That is,
Greenberg *did* call into question the effectiveness of the vaccine
[Rodale's above "ineffectiveness"].

However, in my reading, neither Greenberg personally, or the panel as a
whole, concluded that the "vaccine [was] a frank and ineptly disguised
fraud" or that "data had been manipulated to hide the dangers." Neither the
words "fraud" nor "danger" occur in the transcript.

Indeed, Dr. Greenberg's final comment on the matter (and remember he was
speaking as a statistician, not as an MD):

"I am agnostic [as to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am
sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is.
Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to
push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too
complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective
there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect, sayiong,
"Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this business
to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more cautious.' By being more
cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio vaccine too
slowly. And that's what i am trying to emphasize: They must realize they are
making this mistake possible. the issue must be pursued." (1962:103)

Conclusions:

As noted above, Greenberg did note how data had been handled in a "very
misleading way." But he ascribed much of that to the mass media, singling
out a "recent Associated Press release" (1962:95), not to a 'medical
establishment' conspiracy [single quotes: my terms]

Greenberg did describe how the methods for calculating incidents of polio
had changed from 1955 to 1959. But at no point did he, nor anyone else on
the panel, ascribe this to malicious intent by a 'medical establishment.'
Indeed, he explicitly commented that the post-1959 "*improved* methods of
diagnosis have prevailed" (1962:97) [my emphasis].

Greenberg did question the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine, but not of
vaccines in general. Indeed, Greenberg eagerly awaited both a live virus
vaccine (more effective), and an oral vaccine (as the primary route of polio
infection was oral).

Ultimately: the way the 1960 panel's discussion is being presented today is
probably even more misleading than the way the 1955-59 statistics were.

There's lies, damned lies, statistics, and the web.



Keep up the good work, Yuri. Always fun to work with you.

tk

Thomas W. Kavanagh, PhD

Seton Hall University

Dept of Sociology/Anthropology

Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:c32ef$476065a1$d8fe9e03$24539@PRIMUS.CA...

I spent a few minutes on this problem, and did find some good evidence
that the statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg did work on how data had been
manipulated in order to promote the polio vaccine.

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank
and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained
that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by
changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:c32ef$476065a1$d8fe9e03$24539@PRIMUS.CA...

I spent a few minutes on this problem, and did find some good evidence
that the statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg did work on how data had been
manipulated in order to promote the polio vaccine.

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank
and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained
that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by
changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th
Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing
rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in
the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk
vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on
the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify
at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to
hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr.
Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases
was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

[unquote]

All David and Mark had to do was go to whale.to site, but I guess they
cannot do that because of their sceptical religion...
Why would we do that? The whale.to site is well recognized as being the
Internet's largest suppository for bullshit. It has been cited by every
study of Internet accuracy as being in the bottom. BTW, the bottom of
the ocean is where whale shit winds up. The site is aptly named.
This thread is not about whale.to.
You posted it as a reference, and, thus made the thread about the whale.

This thread is about the incompetence of David Wright, and your own,
Mark.

Aren't you ashamed of your incompetence?
What incompetence?

You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.

That was not my job,

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:

You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.

Oh, Yuri, stop it. I can't see through the tears of laughter.

You provided the quote. It is up to you to "substantiate" it.

Hi, Yuri:

How ya been.

It's been a long time since we corresponded on sci.archealogy.

I found this thread while doing a search on medical myths. I saw your name
and thought I'd look closer as your posts are always so interesting.

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th
Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing
rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the
August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as
a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel,
statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at
Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide
the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr.
Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases
was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

The citation of the above quote (note 2) is to that well known medical
authority: "J.I. Rodale: The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases, Rodale Books
Inc., Emmaus Pennsylvania (1962). " It is so well known and respected that
my local public library has taken the 1976 edition (apparently the latest
one offered) off their shelves as being "out of date."

Dr. Herbert Ratner did chair a panel discussion at the May 1960 meetings
of the IMS. The panel consisted of Dr. Herald Cox, the aforementioned Dr.
Greenberg, and Dr. Herman Kleinman. Of these, only Ratner and Kleinman
were MDs; Cox was Sc.D, and Greenberg, PhD [not that any of that matters].
The proceedings (edited from a transcript) were printed the August and
September issues of the Illinois Medical Journal (IMJ). Funny how only the
August issue ever gets mentioned.

Yesterday, I read those articles at the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) over in Newark. Unfortunately, their
copier was down, so I could not make copies; but I did take notes. I did
notice that many of the web quotes from Dr. Greenberg's alleged 1962
Congressional testimony were paralleled in the 1960 panel transcript.

Hmmm.

Then I tried to track down the oft-cited 1962 HR 10541 at Seton Hall Law
School Rodino Library. But their Congressional Serial Set only goes back
to the 1970s. They sent me to the Newark Public Library, which has many
Congressional resources, but not this one. But the NPL did give me the
more correct citation: not HR 10541, but "Intensive Immunization
Programs", and "Y4in8/4:Im6." [don't ask me what that code means.] So, via
Lexus-Nexus, I found that Rutgers Gov Pubs had both a microfiche and a
hardcopy. Interestingly, reading the Nexus-Lexus copy, I noticed that
while the list of witnesses at the HR 10541 hearings included about 10
people, they did *not* Dr. Greenberg.

This morning, I went down to Rutgers and read the original hard copy of HR
10541. Fortunately their copiers were working.

First conclusion, intimated by the above "witness list": despite numerous
citations that he did, Dr. Greenberg did not, and I emphasize *did not*,
"testify at Congressinal hearings" on HR 10541.

Rather, almost the entire text of the IMJ edited transcripts were
reprinted as pages 90-109 of the Hearing of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce on "Intensive Immunization Programs." This should
have been obvious to anyone viewing the report as the actual Hearing
statements are printed in a different type face and font size than are the
attachments. {This is one of those hints they don't teach you in
Historiography classes}]. I say "almost entire text" because while the IMJ
originals do include in-text endnote numbers, the articles conclude with
the comment, "Bibliography available upon request." The House text has no
indication of endtnotes.

HR 10541 was passed (after House amendments {to exclude Christian
Scientists}, and with no Senate hearings), as the Vaccination Assistance
Act of 1962, US Statutes at Large 76:1155.

In the following discussion, page number citations will refer to the 1962
Congressional reprint of the 1960 IMS panel discussion.

[Aside: there are a few web cites to HR 10541 pages 110 and above. These
are to the reprint of an article from the Chicago Sunday Times magazine of
Mar. 5, 1961 [a highly respected medical source ], by Joan Beck,
entitled "The Truth About the Polio Vaccines: Do Salk Shots Really Prevent
Polio." It consists largely of direct quotes from the 1960 panel.]

Apparently the above quote from the 1962 Rodale Encyclopedia article (if
it is correct) is the earliest source of the claim that Greenberg
testified.

I can trace Web citations back to about 1996, but since many Web sources
liberally grab from each other, the trail of citations is unclear.

But to now the crux of the matter: at the 1960 panel discussion, reprinted
in 1962, Dr. Greenberg did say, "My primary concern, my only concern, is
the very misleading way that most of this data has been handled from a
statistical point of view" (1962:94), and he did use the word
"manipulated" once, ["A scientific examination of the data, and the manner
in which the data were manipulated, will reveal that the true
effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly over
rated" (1962:95)].

That is, Greenberg *did* call into question the effectiveness of the
vaccine [Rodale's above "ineffectiveness"].

However, in my reading, neither Greenberg personally, or the panel as a
whole, concluded that the "vaccine [was] a frank and ineptly disguised
fraud" or that "data had been manipulated to hide the dangers." Neither
the words "fraud" nor "danger" occur in the transcript.

Indeed, Dr. Greenberg's final comment on the matter (and remember he was
speaking as a statistician, not as an MD):

"I am agnostic [to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am
sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is.
Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to
push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too
complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective
there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect,
sayiong, "Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this
business to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more cautious.' By
being more cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio
vaccine too slowly. And that's what i am trying to emphasize: They must
realize they are making this mistake possible. the issue must be pursued."
(1962:103)

Conclusions:

As noted above, Greenberg did note how data had been handled in a "very
misleading way." But he ascribed much of that to the mass media, singling
out a "recent Associated Press release" (1962:95), not to a 'medical
establishment' conspiracy [single quotes, my terms]

Greenberg did describe how the methods for calculating incidents of polio
had changed from 1955 to 1959. But at no point did he, nor anyone else on
the panel, ascribe this to malicious intent by a 'medical establishment.'

Indeed, he explicitly commented that the post-1959 "*improved* methods of
diagnosis have prevailed" (1962:97) [my emphasis].

Greenberg did question the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine, but not of
vaccines in general.

Indeed, Greenberg eagerly awaited both a live virus vaccine (more
effective), and an oral vaccine (as the primary route of polio infection
was oral).

The way the 1960 panel's discussion is today being presented is probably
even more "misleading" than the way the 1955-59 statistics were.

If you want to get a misleading idea to a mass market, there's lies,
damned lies, statistics, and then there's the web.

Keep up the good work, Yuri, it's always fun working with you.

tk

Thomas W. Kavanagh, PhD

Seton Hall University

Dept of Sociology/Anthropology

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html

In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th
Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing
rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in
the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk
vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on
the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at
Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide
the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr.
Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases
was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)

The citation of the above quote (note 2) is to that well known medical
authority: "J.I. Rodale: The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases, Rodale
Books Inc., Emmaus Pennsylvania (1962). " It is so well known and
respected that my local public library has taken the 1976 edition
(apparently the latest one offered) off their shelves as being "out of
date."

How nice of them...

Dr. Herbert Ratner did chair a panel discussion at the May 1960 meetings
of the IMS. The panel consisted of Dr. Herald Cox, the aforementioned Dr.
Greenberg, and Dr. Herman Kleinman. Of these, only Ratner and Kleinman
were MDs; Cox was Sc.D, and Greenberg, PhD [not that any of that
matters]. The proceedings (edited from a transcript) were printed the
August and September issues of the Illinois Medical Journal (IMJ). Funny
how only the August issue ever gets mentioned.

I wonder why.

Yesterday, I read those articles at the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) over in Newark. Unfortunately, their
copier was down, so I could not make copies; but I did take notes. I did
notice that many of the web quotes from Dr. Greenberg's alleged 1962
Congressional testimony were paralleled in the 1960 panel transcript.

Hmmm.

Then I tried to track down the oft-cited 1962 HR 10541 at Seton Hall Law
School Rodino Library. But their Congressional Serial Set only goes back
to the 1970s. They sent me to the Newark Public Library, which has many
Congressional resources, but not this one. But the NPL did give me the
more correct citation: not HR 10541, but "Intensive Immunization
Programs", and "Y4in8/4:Im6." [don't ask me what that code means.] So,
via Lexus-Nexus, I found that Rutgers Gov Pubs had both a microfiche and
a hardcopy. Interestingly, reading the Nexus-Lexus copy, I noticed that
while the list of witnesses at the HR 10541 hearings included about 10
people, they did *not* Dr. Greenberg.

This morning, I went down to Rutgers and read the original hard copy of
HR 10541. Fortunately their copiers were working.

First conclusion, intimated by the above "witness list": despite numerous
citations that he did, Dr. Greenberg did not, and I emphasize *did not*,
"testify at Congressinal hearings" on HR 10541.

I see. So this was a misunderstanding.

Rather, almost the entire text of the IMJ edited transcripts were
reprinted as pages 90-109 of the Hearing of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce on "Intensive Immunization Programs." This should
have been obvious to anyone viewing the report as the actual Hearing
statements are printed in a different type face and font size than are
the attachments. {This is one of those hints they don't teach you in
Historiography classes}]. I say "almost entire text" because while the
IMJ originals do include in-text endnote numbers, the articles conclude
with the comment, "Bibliography available upon request." The House text
has no indication of endtnotes.

So only his testimony

was included, while he was not present there in person.

HR 10541 was passed (after House amendments {to exclude Christian
Scientists}, and with no Senate hearings), as the Vaccination Assistance
Act of 1962, US Statutes at Large 76:1155.

In the following discussion, page number citations will refer to the 1962
Congressional reprint of the 1960 IMS panel discussion.

[Aside: there are a few web cites to HR 10541 pages 110 and above. These
are to the reprint of an article from the Chicago Sunday Times magazine
of Mar. 5, 1961 [a highly respected medical source ], by Joan Beck,
entitled "The Truth About the Polio Vaccines: Do Salk Shots Really
Prevent Polio." It consists largely of direct quotes from the 1960
panel.]

Apparently the above quote from the 1962 Rodale Encyclopedia article (if
it is correct) is the earliest source of the claim that Greenberg
testified.

So this looks like the source of the error.

I can trace Web citations back to about 1996, but since many Web sources
liberally grab from each other, the trail of citations is unclear.

But to now the crux of the matter: at the 1960 panel discussion,
reprinted in 1962, Dr. Greenberg did say, "My primary concern, my only
concern, is the very misleading way that most of this data has been
handled from a statistical point of view" (1962:94), and he did use the
word "manipulated" once, ["A scientific examination of the data, and the
manner in which the data were manipulated, will reveal that the true
effectiveness of the present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly over
rated" (1962:95)].

That is, Greenberg *did* call into question the effectiveness of the
vaccine [Rodale's above "ineffectiveness"].

Good.

However, in my reading, neither Greenberg personally, or the panel as a
whole, concluded that the "vaccine [was] a frank and ineptly disguised
fraud" or that "data had been manipulated to hide the dangers." Neither
the words "fraud" nor "danger" occur in the transcript.

Well, _I_ think that the vaccine was a frank and ineptly disguised fraud!

Indeed, Dr. Greenberg's final comment on the matter (and remember he was
speaking as a statistician, not as an MD):

"I am agnostic [to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am
sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is.
Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to
push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too
complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective
there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect,
sayiong, "Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into
this business to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more
cautious.' By being more cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a
better polio vaccine too slowly. And that's what i am trying to
emphasize: They must realize they are making this mistake possible. the
issue must be pursued." (1962:103)

Conclusions:

As noted above, Greenberg did note how data had been handled in a "very
misleading way." But he ascribed much of that to the mass media, singling
out a "recent Associated Press release" (1962:95), not to a 'medical
establishment' conspiracy [single quotes, my terms]

But 'medical establishment' constantly engages in fraud. Examples are dime
a dozen.

Greenberg did describe how the methods for calculating incidents of polio
had changed from 1955 to 1959. But at no point did he, nor anyone else on
the panel, ascribe this to malicious intent by a 'medical establishment.'

If nobody on the panel said this, it's too bad. The fraud is obvious. They
changed the definition of "polio". There was obviously malicious intent to
hide the increase in these types of symptoms due to vaccine.

Indeed, he explicitly commented that the post-1959 "*improved* methods of
diagnosis have prevailed" (1962:97) [my emphasis].

Greenberg did question the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine, but not of
vaccines in general.

And I question vaccines in general.

Indeed, Greenberg eagerly awaited both a live virus vaccine (more
effective), and an oral vaccine (as the primary route of polio infection
was oral).

They are all frauds!

The way the 1960 panel's discussion is today being presented is probably
even more "misleading" than the way the 1955-59 statistics were.

Who knows?

If you want to get a misleading idea to a mass market, there's lies,
damned lies, statistics, and then there's the web.

Keep up the good work, Yuri, it's always fun working with you.

tk

Thomas W. Kavanagh, PhD

Seton Hall University

Dept of Sociology/Anthropology

I'll do my best.

Regards,

Yuri.

On Dec 12, 9:59 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Mark Probert" <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:%_v7j.2562$xd.147@trndny03...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

Aren't you ashamed of your incompetence?
What incompetence?

You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.

That was not my job,

So why did you try to do this job then?

You failed. Admit it.

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:pdt0m3drbtmulmr8rf0i24hkfpt929ptp4@4ax.com...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:

You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.

Oh, Yuri, stop it. I can't see through the tears of laughter.

You provided the quote. It is up to you to "substantiate" it.

Yes, but these incompetent debunkers _tried_ to substantiate the Greenberg
quote but failed.

http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html
In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th
Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing
rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in
the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk
vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on
the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify
at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to
hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr.
Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases
was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
[unquote]
All David and Mark had to do was go to whale.to site, but I guess they
cannot do that because of their sceptical religion...
Why would we do that? The whale.to site is well recognized as being the
Internet's largest suppository for bullshit. It has been cited by every
study of Internet accuracy as being in the bottom. BTW, the bottom of
the ocean is where whale shit winds up. The site is aptly named.
This thread is not about whale.to.
You posted it as a reference, and, thus made the thread about the whale.
This thread is about the incompetence of David Wright, and your own,
Mark.
Aren't you ashamed of your incompetence?
What incompetence?
You failed to find any evidence to substantiate the quote by Dr. Bernard
Greenberg.
That was not my job,

So why did you try to do this job then?

You failed. Admit it.