A couple of papers seem to suggest that polio myelitus epidemics increased because improvements to sanitation meant that infections were happening later in older children when there was less protection from maternal antibodies and so disease severity was greater:
Secondly I wonder if diseases like malaria give some cross protective immunity to other diseases, so reducing malaria through DDT use would indirectly affect these other diseases, though this would only apply to some rural areas:
It looks like malaria infection can give some cross reactive protection to SARS-Cov2, maybe that would help explain why Africa was not disasterously affected by Covid?:
It seems like immunology is a vast universe poorly understood by mainstream science, and tinkering with vaccines, though strongly beneficial in some cases, is ignorant of more distant effects elsewhere...
Malaria-having in children, historically, is confounded with general medical neglect. So in terms of my Injection Theory for polio, this is consistent. Is malaria generally protective -- an interesting question. Parasites in lymph glands, who knows, could dampen polio viremia... But as for SARS-CoV-2, I don't think Africa needs any specific "protection" - there simply aren't a lot of old people around to be infected, compared to the open-air "nursing home" of the West.
I left a comment about polio on Kory's post. Honestly, the toxin theory is so weak from a clinical perspective, I don't know what to think about any doctor promoting or falling for it except to keep a distance...
Hmm. I find it exceedingly difficult to see the patently obvious hocus-pocus at work in the manufacturing process for the polio vaccines in this 1950's propaganda video from the US govt and the Salk Institute and to then put any stock in the theory that they worked, regardless how one may wish to parse the definition of the word 'worked':
Not an argument of any form. "Check out these shenanigans at the screwdriver factory -- you really want to tell me these screws were driven in by one of those...?"
Paralytic cases aren't separately reported before 1950, so you can only model them based on the proportion that was reported in 1950-1954. For the purposes of defining the trend in 1954, in that case, you would still wind up just with the math from overall cases ruling the trend.
This also keeps it more compatible with the global numbers in 1949 - 1954, though a handful of countries are only reporting paralyzed cases. But just in general, when you look at reported para/non-para in 1950-1959 (so, both pre- and Salk- era epidemics) you always have synchronized rates. It's different after the end of epidemics in the Sabin era.
It was probably better than 50% of kids being infected with malaria (even if asymptomatically) in some parts of the South (1930s malariometry surveys).
What I learned during this pandemic is that vaccines are very complicated. Each has amazing history, like a detective story. Some work and some do not. All have shortcomings of various importance. Some are outright scams but some are NOT outright scams.
It gets more complicated when the definition is changed to suit the Owners of the World who wish to use the access to the bodies for...reasons.
Reasons which are deeply uncomfortable for many, but especially those who use their brains and expensive educations to earn their way in the world and so forth. Far far better to hold on as long as possible to the mythology than deal with the fact that their skill sets are being actively employed in something nefarious.
So many Ostensible reasons are used, while the Real reasons sit there staring silently at the Oppenheimer Gene Editing Toys.
When I read the reclassification theory for the first time, in Dissolving Illusions, I thought "What an intriguing idea. I would like to write a post about this." But then I look at the viral isolations in the late 50s, plenty of polio positive in all of them - so what am I going to write a post about? I am not going to lie to readers. It is a cute idea but not a match for what happened.
As a general comment, the approach taken is the same as I would take to make a post corroborating the theory - "here is this claim, but has anyone looked for the reclassified cases / deaths, wouldn't that be a good proof and make for a post a million likes" Except the reclassified cases / deaths don't exist.
There wasn’t only DDT in the mix, there was white lead and arsenic. Since polio affects the lower spine, a very well protected area, how do you suppose the infective agent was able to get to those areas?
None of those would have suddenly stopped affecting anyone in 1955. Polio affects the entirety of the spinal cord, some of the brainstem, and facial nerves. How it gets there is naturally more properly discussed in the post entitled "explaining polio" https://unglossed.substack.com/p/explaining-polio-pt-1
Pertussis and diphtheria were other examples of childhood infectious diseases which (for whatever reason) increased relentlessly over decades and decades in the West. Likewise cholera among all ages. Really, the entirety of urban diseases that were ameliorated by either sanitation or lower crowding / urbanization.
Polio is different but only in terms of exactly what created increased vulnerability and ameliorated it (instead of more / less urbanization it was something / vaccines). So your argument -- no disease can keep increasing until ameliorated -- is fundamentally wrong.
This is a really tiresome line of question. Peaks and declines were already part of polio's seasonality. But if I say anything about obvious facts it sounds like I am equivocating. You obviously didn't know diphtheria increased for decades "in given geographies" in the late 19th. It did. Question therefore already answered above.
You are supposing that "if disease" then polio rates cannot be interpreted like any other human statistic, i.e. as an event that happens overall or per-person per time. And thus they cannot simply increase - but this is stupid. If "crime" or "babies" can go up than so can "disease." And if a trend in going up clearly reverses after the introduction of a specific intervention targeted at the disease then this isn't any different than an intervention on any other statistic. Pull your brain out of your toilet and put it in a bag of rice until you can see a doctor.
Great article as always!
A couple of papers seem to suggest that polio myelitus epidemics increased because improvements to sanitation meant that infections were happening later in older children when there was less protection from maternal antibodies and so disease severity was greater:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47555926_From_Emergence_to_Eradication_The_Epidemiology_of_Poliomyelitis_Deconstructed
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11450825_The_Polio_Model_Does_it_apply_to_polio
Secondly I wonder if diseases like malaria give some cross protective immunity to other diseases, so reducing malaria through DDT use would indirectly affect these other diseases, though this would only apply to some rural areas:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malaria_US_curves.gif
It looks like malaria infection can give some cross reactive protection to SARS-Cov2, maybe that would help explain why Africa was not disasterously affected by Covid?:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-26709-7
BTW it looks like Pierry Kory also subscribes to the DDT hypothesis, so I guess great minds are not infallible:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/debate-was-covid-19-a-pandemic-caused
It seems like immunology is a vast universe poorly understood by mainstream science, and tinkering with vaccines, though strongly beneficial in some cases, is ignorant of more distant effects elsewhere...
Thanks! The hygiene theory for polio is "cute" but unsatisfactory. I address it in https://unglossed.substack.com/i/138670204/it-wasnt-hygiene - nothing clever, if you just look for counter-examples, they are abundant.
Malaria-having in children, historically, is confounded with general medical neglect. So in terms of my Injection Theory for polio, this is consistent. Is malaria generally protective -- an interesting question. Parasites in lymph glands, who knows, could dampen polio viremia... But as for SARS-CoV-2, I don't think Africa needs any specific "protection" - there simply aren't a lot of old people around to be infected, compared to the open-air "nursing home" of the West.
I left a comment about polio on Kory's post. Honestly, the toxin theory is so weak from a clinical perspective, I don't know what to think about any doctor promoting or falling for it except to keep a distance...
Hmm. I find it exceedingly difficult to see the patently obvious hocus-pocus at work in the manufacturing process for the polio vaccines in this 1950's propaganda video from the US govt and the Salk Institute and to then put any stock in the theory that they worked, regardless how one may wish to parse the definition of the word 'worked':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vghbJh7105g
Not an argument of any form. "Check out these shenanigans at the screwdriver factory -- you really want to tell me these screws were driven in by one of those...?"
Many people like my spouse, ran behind the DDT trucks and played in the mist. No ill effects occurred.
One can have polio with no symptoms, or just the symptoms of a cold type illness. So I'm assuming in these charts that these were paralytic cases
Paralytic cases aren't separately reported before 1950, so you can only model them based on the proportion that was reported in 1950-1954. For the purposes of defining the trend in 1954, in that case, you would still wind up just with the math from overall cases ruling the trend.
This also keeps it more compatible with the global numbers in 1949 - 1954, though a handful of countries are only reporting paralyzed cases. But just in general, when you look at reported para/non-para in 1950-1959 (so, both pre- and Salk- era epidemics) you always have synchronized rates. It's different after the end of epidemics in the Sabin era.
Ah... well, I had both Salk and Sabin so I'm either doubly poisoned or doubly protected... lol... quite the least of my worries right now.
Quite a common combo - a lot of kids wound up with 5/6 total doses after the Sabin transition
At least I have an excuse for my craziness... and mental lapses ;)
My dad drove one of those DDT trucks over a couple of summers and described the kids running behind the truck. “We didn’t know back then,” he said.
It was probably better than 50% of kids being infected with malaria (even if asymptomatically) in some parts of the South (1930s malariometry surveys).
And this was in the 60s... no malaria at that time.
When did Africa stop using it?
What I learned during this pandemic is that vaccines are very complicated. Each has amazing history, like a detective story. Some work and some do not. All have shortcomings of various importance. Some are outright scams but some are NOT outright scams.
It gets more complicated when the definition is changed to suit the Owners of the World who wish to use the access to the bodies for...reasons.
Reasons which are deeply uncomfortable for many, but especially those who use their brains and expensive educations to earn their way in the world and so forth. Far far better to hold on as long as possible to the mythology than deal with the fact that their skill sets are being actively employed in something nefarious.
So many Ostensible reasons are used, while the Real reasons sit there staring silently at the Oppenheimer Gene Editing Toys.
And add on riders such as "technology"
When I read the reclassification theory for the first time, in Dissolving Illusions, I thought "What an intriguing idea. I would like to write a post about this." But then I look at the viral isolations in the late 50s, plenty of polio positive in all of them - so what am I going to write a post about? I am not going to lie to readers. It is a cute idea but not a match for what happened.
Write about exactly that.. it could give clarity.
The reclassification post is linked to in this post. It is here https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-polio-reclassification-theory
As a general comment, the approach taken is the same as I would take to make a post corroborating the theory - "here is this claim, but has anyone looked for the reclassified cases / deaths, wouldn't that be a good proof and make for a post a million likes" Except the reclassified cases / deaths don't exist.
Thank you so much!
You can just reply to post emails (secret feature)
Just hitting reply to the post email like any other email should work.
Testing Testing 123...
Bull. The trend is produced here. It's up.
There wasn’t only DDT in the mix, there was white lead and arsenic. Since polio affects the lower spine, a very well protected area, how do you suppose the infective agent was able to get to those areas?
None of those would have suddenly stopped affecting anyone in 1955. Polio affects the entirety of the spinal cord, some of the brainstem, and facial nerves. How it gets there is naturally more properly discussed in the post entitled "explaining polio" https://unglossed.substack.com/p/explaining-polio-pt-1
Pertussis and diphtheria were other examples of childhood infectious diseases which (for whatever reason) increased relentlessly over decades and decades in the West. Likewise cholera among all ages. Really, the entirety of urban diseases that were ameliorated by either sanitation or lower crowding / urbanization.
Polio is different but only in terms of exactly what created increased vulnerability and ameliorated it (instead of more / less urbanization it was something / vaccines). So your argument -- no disease can keep increasing until ameliorated -- is fundamentally wrong.
This is a really tiresome line of question. Peaks and declines were already part of polio's seasonality. But if I say anything about obvious facts it sounds like I am equivocating. You obviously didn't know diphtheria increased for decades "in given geographies" in the late 19th. It did. Question therefore already answered above.
Beep bop me equations beep bloopppp I'm math blormmbg
You are supposing that "if disease" then polio rates cannot be interpreted like any other human statistic, i.e. as an event that happens overall or per-person per time. And thus they cannot simply increase - but this is stupid. If "crime" or "babies" can go up than so can "disease." And if a trend in going up clearly reverses after the introduction of a specific intervention targeted at the disease then this isn't any different than an intervention on any other statistic. Pull your brain out of your toilet and put it in a bag of rice until you can see a doctor.