it would put a dent in the (not perfect) history of pesticides, maybe

The polio virus.
There are several pathogens that cause poliomyelitis, which is the inflammation of the gray/polio area of the spine.  Polio is not the only one, there is also the echovirus, coxsackievirus etc.. .  If you read the article then you would see that it was man made toxins like arsenic and mercury which were used by ubiquitously in medicine for teething and to clean the bowels.   It created "holes or pathways in the stomach" right behind the lower spine where the majority of paralyzing inflammation occurred.

Without the man made chemicals there was no problem with "polio", because the spine was not exposed.  If the polio virus were causing it in the blood stream like many believe,  then it would have been located all across the spine, not just one area. 

The Salk vaccine was not a success at all because it created antibodies in the blood and not the gut. Then when they made an oral vaccine it was effective against polio, but not against the other pathogens that caused the inflammation which were caused by arsenic and mercury.

Mercury and Arsenic are elements...they exist in nature. It's like calling oxygen "man made".

Yikes, can't pull the wool over your eyes.
Did it occur to you that the purpose of man made was to refer to the cause of the problem not being cause by a virus and rather some product that was consumed, like ddt on plants and in wall paper or mercury in teething fomula?   Are you saying these aren't toxic because they are in nature?

Yikes, can't pull the wool over your eyes.
Did it occur to you that the purpose of man made was to refer to the cause of the problem not being cause by a virus and rather some product that was consumed, like ddt on plants and in wall paper or mercury in teething fomula?   Are you saying these aren't toxic because they are in nature?

Oxygen toxicity is a thing. Everything can be toxic in the right amounts.

If you (or your source) can't even get the basics of science right in terms of classifying substances correctly, what does that say for the rest of the hypothesis?

Oh, and polio, which has been around for thousands of years, became an epidemic during the industrial era due to an improvement in hygiene and sanitation standards. Ironic...I know.

Pre-industrial revolution, people were exposed to the virus as children, thus enabling populations to have herd immunity. As city sanitation improved and hygiene improved, fewer and fewer of the population were exposed to the virus in their early years...reducing immunity. Or so the "theory" goes.

Oxygen toxicity is a thing. Everything can be toxic in the right amounts.

If you (or your source) can't even get the basics of science right in terms of classifying substances correctly, what does that say for the rest of the hypothesis?

Oh, and polio, which has been around for thousands of years, became an epidemic during the industrial era due to an improvement in hygiene and sanitation standards. Ironic...I know.

Pre-industrial revolution, people were exposed to the virus as children, thus enabling populations to have herd immunity. As city sanitation improved and hygiene improved, fewer and fewer of the population were exposed to the virus in their early years...reducing immunity. Or so the "theory" goes.

Oxygen toxicity is a thing. Everything can be toxic in the right amounts.

If you (or your source) can't even get the basics of science right in terms of classifying substances correctly, what does that say for the rest of the hypothesis?

Oh, and polio, which has been around for thousands of years, became an epidemic during the industrial era due to an improvement in hygiene and sanitation standards. Ironic...I know.

Pre-industrial revolution, people were exposed to the virus as children, thus enabling populations to have herd immunity. As city sanitation improved and hygiene improved, fewer and fewer of the population were exposed to the virus in their early years...reducing immunity. Or so the "theory" goes.

Wtf are you even talking about?
Man made problem means that if they didn't eat the f^%^ing mercury then there wouldn't have been a problem.  Got it  Not that the mercury is man made .  Holy shit!!

I don't have enough information or expertise to say if what the guy posted was right or not.

Is it plausible there were a variety of factors that caused poliomyelitis and that a combination of factors led the demise of the condition? Sure. These sort of mistakes and things have happened before. Do I have any reason to suspect that happened here? Not really. And for a remarkable claim you're going to need remarkable proof. I'm not going to wholly dismiss it because it is certainly plausible given the state of medicine and scientific rigor even into the 50s-60s, so it does get that.

But the thing is, that really doesn't speak to your argument. Lets assume everything you've said about the polio vaccine is true and that it really didn't do much of anything. Does this apply to other vaccines? Smallpox? Measles? Mumps? Chicken Pox?

And one vaccine being not what it was initially suspected of being does not make ALL vaccines like that, nor does it argue to the efficacy of the COVID vaccine nor any others.

What you've done is introduce an interesting observation and set of questions to an issue that is connected only barely to the one you are now making, and it is certainly not evidence of anything greater.

Another f ing strawman.   What are you talking about?  Seriously sounds like BS. 
Did I or the article say the vaccine didn't do anything?   I and the article said that the oral one was successful, but since it wasn't only the "polio virus" that caused polio myletiitis, it didn't go away. The other vaccine which was administered in the blood wasn't a success, because the problem was coming from the stomach, and is a notorious failure.    At the very least the history of vaccines needs revising, and it should be told honestly.
I didn't say that all vaccines don't work or anything like that.  You are pulling things out of your prejudice ass.

Humans have been ingesting mercurous compounds for thousands of years. The romans had mercury mines. Arsenic was even more ubiquitous, with its use as the poison of poisons.

Yet, with these 2 elements in their compound salts being in circulation in human populations for millennia…polio epidemics were rare to non-existent.

Rare to nonexistent yet important enough for Egyptians to portray them in hieroglyphs?

If you read the article then you would have seen that when humans are babies their stomachs are situated in front of where the tail of spine is.  As they grow older adults don't have the problem as much because the spine end, or location of the infection is much higher than the stomach.   We gave it to babies for teething and put it on food.  I doubt the Romans or Egyptians did and if they did you can't prove that they didn't have an outbreak, but it looks like Egyptians cared enough to depict it.

Did the Egyptians depict polio as an epidemic in their hieroglyphs?

Again, compounds of these elements have been in circulation in human populations for millennia, yet there is no evidence of polio cases in those periods coming anything close to what we had post industrial revolution. The Egyptians, being meticulous record keepers as they were, would probably have not missed off polio epidemic(s) from their hieroglyphs.

I don't know how many different ways I can poke the same holes in your hypothesis.

Christ almighty yes.  look it up.
 
Really? No evidence coming anywhere close to the industrial revolution in Egypt and Rome?  I wonder why there might not be as much evidence.


Hey you obviously need to take a little time and read the article more carefully.  It explains why it might be the case. It was given to children and their spinal cord location was near their stomach whereas in adults the location moves away from the stomach for the second time, should be the third if you read the article. .  Do you have evidence that arsenic and mercury were being given to kids like Tylenol during Roman times, teething babies?

  At the very least the history of vaccines needs revising, and it should be told honestly.
I didn't say that all vaccines don't work or anything like that.  You are pulling things out of your prejudice ass.

Very well, you did not actually state that.

However, this claim does not stand up. While I think "strawman" gets overused and often times is used in technicality rather than actual distinction with difference, I have to say by your standard, what you posted here is one and is indicative of prejudice.

This would put a serious dent in the perfect history of vaccines.

The claim of vaccine perfection has not been made by anyone serious, nor would this damage it if true. And there is a long way to go before this is proven true. You need to supply a lot more information beyond coincidental history, which while raising a possible line of inquiry (if indeed polio outbreaks are closely correlated with certain pesticide programs or other such chemical releases that certainly could be something to investigate) does not therefore result in the person's claim being true, only that we might begin to do more research and investigation.

I gave your source about as fair a hearing as I could. I didn't dismiss your source out of hand, despite the obvious lack of credentials and relevant education, nor the lack of scientific evidence nor a host of other things. All of that could be true and he could still be right. But this is something whose scope begins and ends with polio, and has zero applicability outside of it, save perhaps for other earlier diseases for which early vaccines were developed that might have had similar environmental causes and even then many of those diseases do have verifiable vaccines. And it certainly doesn't apply to modern vaccines in which environmental factors are much more closely scrutinized.

I wasn't perfect but I think you got a fairer look from me than just about anyone else on this forum would give. Hangook77 might agree with you more on this, but that isn't the same as being fair. Because if you posted something he disagreed with, he would just trash whatever you posted.

Christ almighty yes.  look it up.
 
Really? No evidence coming anywhere close to the industrial revolution in Egypt and Rome?  I wonder why there might not be as much evidence.


Hey you obviously need to take a little time and read the article more carefully.  It explains why it might be the case. It was given to children and their spinal cord location was near their stomach whereas in adults the location moves away from the stomach for the second time, should be the third if you read the article. .  Do you have evidence that arsenic and mercury were being given to kids like Tylenol during Roman times, teething babies?

Why the F did you ask if they had depicted polio in their hieroglyphs then?  Seriously this is too dumb.  I’m done with you.  Try to read the article a little more carefully.   And you asking why they didn’t have the evidence from Roman times compared to the industrial revolution is completely stupid and you don’t answer articles points about teething or anything. Dumb beyond belief.