We can agree with that. Can you agree that if polio stopped and DDT use continued for another 8 years that DDT could not be the cause of polio because science says that causation doesn't suddenly cease to exist if there is actual causation?Can we agree that, assuming that DDT is in fact a cause of polio, that a drastic reduction in the use of DDT would result in a drastic reduction in polio cases?
DDT was banned in 1972. Polio cases dropped dramatically in 1957 and were almost completely gone by 1963. That shows that DDT could not be the causation. This is some pretty simple observational science that you continue to ignore.DDT -was- banned, at least in the U.S., in 1972. Tessa Lena talks about this in her article:
**
DDT as a possible cause of polio
There is a theory that DDT poisoning was a major contributor to paralysis diagnosed as polio. The timeline supports it, and it is one of those cases where I have to humbly accept not knowing the definitive answer at this very second.
The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1954. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. Polio was officially eradicated in the U.S. in 1979. (The vaccine-derived version of polio (!) is reported to be spreading now in developing countries, and according to ABC News, “More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus.”)
**
Source:
![]()
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science
We’re told the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case. There are scientists who believe polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.childrenshealthdefense.org
Official eradication occurs when there have been zero cases for some time. What evidence do you have of DDT production being curtailed in the 1960s? Your chart includes 4 different pesticides and only deals with production, not usage.For starters, Tessa Lena stated that polio wasn't officially eradicated in the U.S. until 1979. Secondly, while DDt may not have been banned until 1972, its production was severely curtailed by the early 60s. Perhaps most important of all, however, Tessa Lena never argued that DDT was the only possible cause of polio. Looking through her article, I came upon another article that I've seen before and that has a graph that I think is interesting. I'll share it below:
No. the peaks don't correlate one to one. The peaks show that in some cases production preceded polio and in other cases it followed polio. It shows nothing more than a random correlation. If there really was a correlation we should see a spike in polio in 1957 after the spike in pesticide production. Since there is no spike and the spike in polio in 1959 happens at the same time a a reduction in those 4 pesticides it is almost impossible for those pesticides to be the cause. The New York Yankees winning the world series more closely correlates to the polio outbreak since the Yankees won every year from 1947 to 1953.**
Pesticide Composite: Summary
Just over three billion pounds of persistent pesticides are represented in the graph below.
Virtually all peaks and valleys correlate with a direct one-to-one relationship with each pesticide as it enters and leaves the US market. Generally, pesticide production precedes polio incidence by 1 to 2 years. I assume that this variation is due to variations in reporting methods and the time it takes to move pesticides from factory to warehouse, through distribution channels, onto the food crops and to the dinner table.
A composite of the three previous graphs, of the persistent pesticides -- lead, arsenic, and the dominant organochlorines (DDT and BHC) -- is represented in the following:
View attachment 56019
These four chemicals were not selected arbitrarily. These are representative of the major pesticides in use during the last major polio epidemic. They persist in the environment as neurotoxins that cause polio-like symptoms, polio-like physiology, and were dumped onto and into human food at dosage levels far above that approved by the FDA. They directly correlate with the incidence of various neurological diseases called "polio" before 1965. They were utilized, according to Biskind, in the "most intensive campaign of mass poisoning in known human history."
**
Source:
Everything You Learned About the Cause of Polio is Wrong
Everything you have learned about the true causes of polio may be wrong...greenmedinfo.com
What does happen that leads to the drops in cases is a vaccine. The vaccine is made from weakened polio virus. The vaccine is introduced in 1955 and we see the drop off in cases really start to occur. In 1954 there were 38,716 polio cases. In 1956 there were 15,140 cases. By 1961 there were only 1,312 cases and 1964 saw 122 cases.
Then if we are actually using science your graph can be completely ignored since nowhere does it provide an axis showing the quantity of pesticide produced. This is something that is either done by someone ignorant of how data is to be represented in a graph or by someone that is purposely modifying the look of data to achieve their desired results.
- the most interesting thing about that graph is that is it is clearly pseudoscience since it doesn't provide any scale for pesticide production. Then the graph also clearly shows there is no cause since production leads cases and production follows cases. One could as easily claim that polio causes pesticide production and be just as accurate.