LOL what? So I have to find the rest of the cherries to show that the few that THEY PICKED are representative of the whole? If they had a basic understanding of science or math, and weren't trying to mislead people, they would show all the cherries right up front to begin with.
LOL what? You are getting confused between 'picking' and 'cherry picking'. Here is what cherry picking means:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
That is what you are mean also by saying they are misleading people. So its not unreasonable for me to ask you for the significant data that contradict that position. Since you KNOW its misleading, then you should have this, otherwise its pure speculation.
Even if there are more cases of aseptic meningitis now than ever, that doesn't mean they are from polio. Cancer is another thing that can lead to aseptic meningitis. So increases in it may be because of increases in cancer, syphilis, etc.
That table does not show that there are more cases of aseptic meningitis now than ever. It showed those months/years soon after the new definition of polio was introduced.
So have you found that in those years there has been a big increase of cancer which caused the aseptic meningitis?
If we use an even stricter definition and only include those that become permanently paralyzed, then that also has mostly been eliminated in nations that vaccinate against it.
Don't know what your point is here, but the stricter the definition should lead to lesser reported cases.
In their case, "the well" would be their thoughts on polio and they host the "polio.pdf" file right off their main domain, so I thought it was representative, but there are probably different people involved with that site that don't all agree on the same exact things.
Whether they agree or disagree is not the issue. The issue here is attempting to use what you percieve as negative information to dismiss other information. That's poisoning the well.
Section 2 in the pdf is titled "How is Polio Contracted?" To be specific, they say that sugar intake makes people more susceptible and they seem to be saying that if people ate less sugar then the vaccine wouldn't be needed.
Again you are raising something that I did not originally state. I showed quotes and stats from the pdf, but it does not say have any position on other theories which is in that pdf. That pdf has information from different people. So its pretty pointless trying to debate me about this.
But I'll comment on what you wrote
they seem to be saying that if people ate less sugar then the vaccine wouldn't be needed.
Since your position is that vaccine makes us immune from polio
translation: they seem to be saying that if people ate less sugar then they'll be immune from polio
Eating less sugar does not make you immune to polio and neither does the text say so.
They point out things such as children eating less ice cream during one summer in North Carolina. The most reported cases of polio in 2010 were in the African Congo. How much ice cream do they eat there?
You are distorting what have been presented. By asking 'how much ice cream do they eat there', you are basically saying ice cream causes polio. That is not what they said.