Polio is ‘invisible’ under EM too. How come ‘they’ (ie things that look like what people think viruses should look like, ie tiny round artefacts) are never found in ‘positive’ samples from patients and only in stressed cell cultures? How are these things that are said to be causative of disease (and not perhaps the result of it) been shown to be transmissible and pathogenic particles when the process of EM immobilises them in resin? https://jowaller.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
Things like the polio vaccine working are only ‘established’ facts if you confine yourself to pharma marketing website wikipedia. Noting the number of deaths from a disease and noting when the vaccine was introduced (after all sorts of other changes in public health such as sanitiation, banning of DDT and improved housing) doesn’t prove vaccine efficacy nor vaccine effectiveness (which are different things). The measles vaccine eg was introduced in 1968 when morbidity and mortality from the detox event called ‘measles’ was already virtually zero. The mRNA Pfizer jab in tests had an absolute efficacy (at preventing common symptoms) of 0.85%, not clinically significant. You might have to look up the difference between absolute and relative efficacy.
I’m not going to address your silly last point. You’re not a serious questioning person.
Right. We should all respect people who’ve spent a few hours on the internet over scientists and physicians who’ve spent decades researching the causes of disease.
Actually, I am a scientist who's spent decades researching the causes of disease. All scientists now use the internets to do research. If you're referring to bench work these experiments are written up in journals to be criticised and assessed by everyone. Anyone can look at the evidence provided and the conclusions drawn and see if there are inconsistencies or biases. I'm lucky enough to have a background which enables me to more easily understand what is evidenced based and what isn't.
For many years I was wrong about the causes of disease. Being able to admit that we might be wrong is the only marker of intelligent that matters.
Thank you for bringing up public health improvements such as sanitary sewage treatment and disposal. Because there's a link in that to the polio epidemic. The disease of poliomyelitis has been around in humans for a long, long time, but only in the late 19th and early 20th century did we begin to experience epidemics of devastating paralytic polio. Why is that?
Turns out, the polio virus is excreted abundantly in feces. In pre-modern times, everybody got exposed to the virus early in life and few people developed severe symptoms (even during the epidemics, 75% of those exposed to the virus were asymptomatic). As a result, mothers transferred their acquired polio immunity to their babies, and within a relatively short time those babies in turn received exposure to the virus (because of poor sanitation) and developed life-long immunity. Everything was stable until the modern improvements in sewage disposal.
But with that improvement, babies no longer developed their own immunity and after the loss of maternal immunity they were vulnerable to the virus. And those who fell ill were at risk to the worst symptoms, such as paralysis. In 1949 the virus was isolated by from cultured cells that were capable of allowing viral reproduction. That step in turn allowed Salk and Sabin to develop vaccines based on either killed virus (Salk, 1955) or attenuated live virus (Sabin, 1961). Here's a useful source: https://polioeradication.org/about-polio/history-of-polio/
None of this had anything to do with DDT, which was only developed in the 1940s and then used recklessly until the 1970s. At the time DDT use was increasing, polio incidence was declining. Perhaps you should argue that DDT prevents polio, because that at least has a positive correlation of events.
Improvements in sewage from the 1800s onwards suddenly had an impact on polio and mother and baby immunity from 1942 to 1952 when cases shot up? Eh? The officially listed ‘polio’ cases went from some 25,000 in 1943 before US civilian use of DDT, to over 280,000 cases in 1952 at the peak, more than a tenfold increase. Funny how this co-incidence with the increased use of DDT.
And why was the 'virus' only 'isolated'- ie cytopathic effects seen- in cell culture not samples if sewage was stuffed full of it? Why weren't negative controls of stressed cell cultures done? Because that would have shown the virus had not been 'isolated'. And would have prevented Salk and Sabin from injecting people with cell cultures, heavy metals and adjuvants and then changing the diagnostic criteria for the set of symptoms known as polio.
There is a perfect correlation between DDT exposure and polio incidence. After 1954 American production was mostly for export, so it wasn't used recklessly in the states. You're just making stuff up
Perhaps you should say that sanitation causes disease. Oh that is what you did say.
Polio is ‘invisible’ under EM too. How come ‘they’ (ie things that look like what people think viruses should look like, ie tiny round artefacts) are never found in ‘positive’ samples from patients and only in stressed cell cultures? How are these things that are said to be causative of disease (and not perhaps the result of it) been shown to be transmissible and pathogenic particles when the process of EM immobilises them in resin? https://jowaller.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
Things like the polio vaccine working are only ‘established’ facts if you confine yourself to pharma marketing website wikipedia. Noting the number of deaths from a disease and noting when the vaccine was introduced (after all sorts of other changes in public health such as sanitiation, banning of DDT and improved housing) doesn’t prove vaccine efficacy nor vaccine effectiveness (which are different things). The measles vaccine eg was introduced in 1968 when morbidity and mortality from the detox event called ‘measles’ was already virtually zero. The mRNA Pfizer jab in tests had an absolute efficacy (at preventing common symptoms) of 0.85%, not clinically significant. You might have to look up the difference between absolute and relative efficacy.
I’m not going to address your silly last point. You’re not a serious questioning person.
Tell me about all the people around you with polio. Do you even hear yourself?
I’m not saying people don’t get ill!! Please don’t equate the existence of the alleged cause of illness with symptoms themselves.
Right. We should all respect people who’ve spent a few hours on the internet over scientists and physicians who’ve spent decades researching the causes of disease.
Actually, I am a scientist who's spent decades researching the causes of disease. All scientists now use the internets to do research. If you're referring to bench work these experiments are written up in journals to be criticised and assessed by everyone. Anyone can look at the evidence provided and the conclusions drawn and see if there are inconsistencies or biases. I'm lucky enough to have a background which enables me to more easily understand what is evidenced based and what isn't.
For many years I was wrong about the causes of disease. Being able to admit that we might be wrong is the only marker of intelligent that matters.
Who do you work for?
Cancer research UK, Institute of cancer Research, the NHS.. Who do you work for.
Thank you for bringing up public health improvements such as sanitary sewage treatment and disposal. Because there's a link in that to the polio epidemic. The disease of poliomyelitis has been around in humans for a long, long time, but only in the late 19th and early 20th century did we begin to experience epidemics of devastating paralytic polio. Why is that?
Turns out, the polio virus is excreted abundantly in feces. In pre-modern times, everybody got exposed to the virus early in life and few people developed severe symptoms (even during the epidemics, 75% of those exposed to the virus were asymptomatic). As a result, mothers transferred their acquired polio immunity to their babies, and within a relatively short time those babies in turn received exposure to the virus (because of poor sanitation) and developed life-long immunity. Everything was stable until the modern improvements in sewage disposal.
But with that improvement, babies no longer developed their own immunity and after the loss of maternal immunity they were vulnerable to the virus. And those who fell ill were at risk to the worst symptoms, such as paralysis. In 1949 the virus was isolated by from cultured cells that were capable of allowing viral reproduction. That step in turn allowed Salk and Sabin to develop vaccines based on either killed virus (Salk, 1955) or attenuated live virus (Sabin, 1961). Here's a useful source: https://polioeradication.org/about-polio/history-of-polio/
None of this had anything to do with DDT, which was only developed in the 1940s and then used recklessly until the 1970s. At the time DDT use was increasing, polio incidence was declining. Perhaps you should argue that DDT prevents polio, because that at least has a positive correlation of events.
Improvements in sewage from the 1800s onwards suddenly had an impact on polio and mother and baby immunity from 1942 to 1952 when cases shot up? Eh? The officially listed ‘polio’ cases went from some 25,000 in 1943 before US civilian use of DDT, to over 280,000 cases in 1952 at the peak, more than a tenfold increase. Funny how this co-incidence with the increased use of DDT.
And why was the 'virus' only 'isolated'- ie cytopathic effects seen- in cell culture not samples if sewage was stuffed full of it? Why weren't negative controls of stressed cell cultures done? Because that would have shown the virus had not been 'isolated'. And would have prevented Salk and Sabin from injecting people with cell cultures, heavy metals and adjuvants and then changing the diagnostic criteria for the set of symptoms known as polio.
There is a perfect correlation between DDT exposure and polio incidence. After 1954 American production was mostly for export, so it wasn't used recklessly in the states. You're just making stuff up
Perhaps you should say that sanitation causes disease. Oh that is what you did say.
Ridiculous.