Alternate Polio Narrative

A friend of mine posted this alternative narrative to the Polio epidemic on Facebook and it resonates with me: 


Polio is a nickname for poliomyelitis, which means inflammation of the grey matter of the spinal cord. 

If you get a lesion on your spinal cord, that part of your body may develop paralysis. 

This disease nearly always occurred in children, which is why it was called infantile paralysis for decades. 

Polio was basically non-existent before the 1800’s. 

You don’t really see it in medical literature until the 1890’s when it began to appear in epidemic form. 

As it turns out, the paralysis of poliomyelitis can be caused by many different things. 

Several viruses can cause it, as can several different bacterial infections. 

Surprisingly, pesticides could also cause it. 

Studies were conducted in the late 1800’s with a popular pesticide called Paris Green. 

They purposely fed animals too much pesticide and it paralysed them in their “hind quarters” just like what was happening with children. 

Scientists did autopsies on the animals, found lesions in their spinal cords, and pronounced they had died from polio-from pesticide poisoning. 

The pesticide contained a metal called arsenic, and may explain why parents originally referred to polio as teething paralysis. 

A popular medical treatment at the time was “teething powders”, a concoction given to infants who were teething. 

They contained massive amounts of similar metal - mercury. 

Teething powders became popular in the early 1800’s and appeared about the same time you started seeing isolated cases of polio. Coincidence? 

It became clear that certain viruses and bacteria could also cause paralysis, but only if they got inside the nervous system. 

For all of human history, these microbes had never caused problems, but starting in the late 1800’s, they suddenly gained the ability to get into the nervous system. 

This likely had something to do with a new pesticide that was invented in 1892 - lead arsenate. 

It was a combination of lead and arsenic sprinkled and sprayed onto many fruits and vegetables that were later eaten. 

It’s popularity was due to the fact it couldn’t easily be washed off with water - an advantage for farmers who didn’t have to re-spray after a storm, but a disadvantage for mothers trying to clean their children’s food. 

It appears that not only did this metallic pesticide create paralysis through direct poisoning, but caused a leaky gut issue in children that allowed different viruses and bacteria to pass through the intestines and into the spinal cord directly behind. 

Remember that humans had lived with these viruses and bacterial infections for hundreds of years with no paralysis until the late 1800’s. 

Within a year or two of the invention of this new pesticide, polio began to appear in that same area of the country. 

In the 1940’s, at the end of WW2, a new pesticide called DDT began being used by nearly everyone and polio became much worse. 

Unlike lead arsenate which was sprayed onto food, DDT was sprayed directly onto children in an attempt to protect them from flies and mosquitoes. 

Ironically, it was thought that these insects could transmit polio, and DDT was sprayed onto children to prevent polio. 

By 1952 people began to stop using DDT because many insects had already started to develop a resistance to it. 

Parents also began to suspect it was more toxic than they had been told. 

At the same time, cases of infantile paralysis, or polio, began to plummet. 

1952 was the peak for polio cases in the United States - not just the kind caused by poliovirus, but the paralysis due to all other viruses, bacteria and direct pesticide poisoning. 

They all began to disappear as DDT stoppped being sprayed on nearly everything. 

Even though all types of infantile paralysis began to go away after 1952, most history books will say it’s because of the Salk polio vaccine. 

This is just not true. 

The vaccine worked very poorly, and most of the public didn’t even get it till years later. 

It was officially introduced in 1955, but was quickly withdrawn because it was inadvertently causing paralysis due to manufacturing problems. 

Many didn’t get a polio vaccine until years later, when a different, presumably safer version of the polio vaccine, the Sabin oral polio vaccine, came out in 1961. 

By then polio had all but disappeared from the United States. 

As it turns out, even the new vaccine wasn’t needed. 

Polio had nearly vanished by then. 

It had appeared suddenly in the 1890’s alongside the introduction of the pesticide, lead arsenate, and had suddenly disappeared in the early 1950’s alongside the abandonment of DDT. 

Anna Kay


Of course there was push back: 

John Doe: 
This is an extremely distorted take on very well documented events. 

Polio has been around since ancient Egypt. It is truly bizarre to see it described as some thing that rose out of nothing in the late 1800s, or was spurned by 19th century pesticides. 

It was around thousands of years, mostly endemic. There are several documented outbreaks before the late 1800s. Whoever wrote this just has their facts totally wrong. This is not my opinion, you can look up anything I’m saying, it’s well documented. 

The reason that it remained an endemic rather than a pandemic had multiple factors, but largely it was because of the combination of exponentially booming growth and children no longer being exposed to it at an early age. 

See, in the 19th and especially 20th centuries, children who would normally be exposed to a lot of bacteria now had functioning plumbing and hygiene had improved vastly. The downside of this was that there was less exposure at a young age to diseases like polio, so people could not develop a resistance. When they did encounter polio later in life, they had no natural protection. 

I assume the point of the author intentionally being misleading about these events is to create a vague sense of mistrust about the COVID-19 vaccines. But the irony, of course, and perhaps the reason for focusing on DDT, is that actually it was the anti-vaccine paranoid people of the time, in largely less educated areas, that sprayed DDT all over their towns in an effort to wipe out Polio. DDT was sort of like the original ivermectin, an alternative, moronic solution by people who simply didn’t wanna concede that science knows more than they do. 

I’m not sure what the point this author is making is, but luckily, we have our eyes and ears. The Covid vaccine is safe, taking it is a requirement to end this pandemic, just as it was required to end the polio epidemic. 

I know if anyone is reading this and you don’t already know this, you’re just gonna feel frustrated by what I’m saying, but what you’re definitely not gonna be able to do is prove any of it wrong. It’s all factual, unlike this lengthy, dishonest bit of propaganda. 

I hope at some point people’s emotional reaction to the situation we are in can give way to basic common sense, and that they will join the vast majority of people sensible enough to get vaccinated, for our loved ones and strangers alike.

To which I responded: 

I myself admit I have no idea what happened during the Polio epidemic/pandemic. However, I do know the doctor that Ally is quoting could take anyone to task on this subject and I respect that. I am not sure if this theory about Polio is 100% accurate, but it is an interesting theory that I would like to explore more. I’ve heard other “experts” on the subject say similar things. You mentioned sanitation being a factor, which I have heard from other sources was a big part in eradicating Polio, but again, I am do not know and I am open to hearing other explanations. So, I am glad Ally posted this theory as I like to be scientific and explore all views. 

If we want to “concede to science”, then would we also have to admit that the C!9 mRNA injection is not 100% “safe” as you over-simply put it? Here is Pfizer’s own data reluctantly released by the company two weeks ago; specifically refer to page 7 showing 1223 deaths (and how many adverse reactions?) within this first 3 month(?) period being reported on: 

If we want to “concede to science” then we may say that the C!9 mRNA injection is, at best, about 97% safe? Using that same logic, can we also concede that the C!9 virus itself is about 99% safe? 

If we want to “concede to science” then we know that C!9 virus is a respiratory virus that is not actually comparable to the Polio virus in terms of vacksenating. C!9 is more comparable to influenza, which we’ve been vacksenating against for 90 years(?) now because of its ability to mutate.  Dr. Dan Stock explains here:  Conceding to this science, can we ask if we will we have to vacksenate infinitely for the C!9 respiratory virus? Can we concede that Polio was had an 85% mortality rate vs 99% for C!9? 

If we want to “concede to science” then don’t we know that comparing DDT to Ivermecktan is not at all accurate? If we concede to science, we know that calling Ivermecktan a "moronic solution" is unscientific.  Ivermecktan has been an approved medication for decades now (WHO, CDC etc.) and studies are presently being done to show it’s safety and effectiveness on C!9 
* However, it his difficult to fund a study on such a cost effective treatment when people stand to make much more money off the vackseens. Luckily, Ivermecktan is only one of many options available to consider. 

If we want to “concede to science” then let’s also talk about vitamin D, zinc, vitamin C, exercise, sunshine and a whole gamut of other options that people can do to protect themselves from C!9, including staying away from pesticide laden foods. Prevention and early treatment should be a subject that everyone is interested in, wether vacksenated or not.  Your espousing of the vackseen as being the ONLY solution is unscientific in itself because we just don’t know if it’s helping or complicating this situation at this point. Period. 

Outside of science you insinuate that people who do NOT get the injection are having an emotional reaction? Could it also be said that it is the emotional reaction of fear of the 99% safe virus and fear of not fitting in with their peers that people ARE acquiescing to these Donald Trump warp speed MAGA jabs from a company (Pfizer) that was found guilty in 2009 for the biggest medical fraud in history owing $2.9 billion, pushed by a doctor (Fauci) who may be responsible for some of the most heinous medical experiments of our age in a government who hoaxed its own people in 2004 with the “weapons of mass destruction” claim, then bailing out all the corporations in 2009? No disrespect to people who get the injection, as I defend their right to take any medicine they see fit for this situation, but could it not be argued that an emotional reaction could be motivation on both sides of this debate? 

It is ok to disagree, but please be civil and methodical about it. Brow beating and shaming people into submitting to take the jab is NOT the solution. I think when you state “concede to science” what you really mean is “submit to popular opinion”. Sorry, but there are billions of people who will NOT submit to popular opinions, so please get used to it. Even the most highly skilled doctor is "practicing" medicine and should give medical advice NOT medical demands. Let’s have some civil exchange of ideas here and find common ground.

* note: all misspelling intentional to evade the bots and or to refute the definitions of these words.



Leave a comment

Add comment