“The Moth in the Iron Lung: a biography of polio” is a book by Forrest Maready.
First let me say, “he’s totally bonkers, but all the best people are.” That’s a quote from Lewis Carroll and I think it applies well to this particular trip down the rabbit hole. All in good humor here, that’s not a commentary on the book itself but rather on the subject matter.
Ignorance is bliss, illusions serve a vital and necessary purpose in the world. LOL, I’m actually a bit hesitant to recommend this book and shatter any illusions, but it was right up my alley.
I was especially pleased by how Maready brought back some of the wonder, curiosity, and humility that modern science has so often been lacking. Does anybody even think to ask, “what, where, why, when” anymore? We do not we say, “shut up and respect the narrative,” er, I mean “respect the science.” “Science” has become this hard, unyielding thing that perceives any “why” questions as a kind of blasphemy.
So narratives, myths, and legends tend to shape our current perceptions. We’ve all been immersed in historical narratives about vaccines and disease, vaccines being kind of the hero, the miracle that has allegedly rescued us all from great suffering and death. Some of that narrative was built on the back of tales told about the polio epidemic. Maready provides us some historical facts and details we may not have known and offers a possible hypothesis as to what was really going on at the time.
I’ve already done a great deal of research into polio, DDT, and what the introduction of basic sanitation might have done to our gut microbiome and whatever inherited immunity we might get from our mothers, so being open to such ideas and willing to challenge the standard medical narrative if only in my own mind, is already familiar territory. Maready’s book was encouraging because it was like, oh look at that, there’s somebody else in the world willing to think critically. What a novel idea!
You would have to read the book. I am not saying the book is about any of those things I have just mentioned and I don’t wish to provide any spoilers. I am simply saying there are many complexities to human health that we simply don’t understand fully. Hindsight is always 20/20.
One of my favorite sayings is, “you do not know what you think you know.” How much of our current medical “science” is actually based on facts and data and how much of it is simply based on socially approved narratives and historical lies? That can be a disturbing reality to confront, but I believe it is desperately needed.
Just in my own lifetime, I’ve seen many medical disasters, many cases of, “oops, that was actually not in your best interest at all.” At the moment I’m personally still sucking on some mercury filled amalgam fillings for cavities unable to afford to replace them. In fact, even today the FDA acknowledges that mercury is a very dangerous heavy metal, but don’t worry, it should be perfectly fine just sitting in your mouth. Much of my generation dutifully went to the dentist and had our mouths filled with mercury. I guess I should be grateful we are no longer just routinely coating the gums of teething infants in the stuff.
Speaking of which, mercury poisoning is probably what gave the Mad Hatter his edgy charisma in the first place and inspired Alice to go tripping down the rabbit hole. Sigh. The more things change the more they stay the same.
For me personally, “The Moth in the Iron Lung” helped me to become a bit more philosophically patient or perhaps spiritually compassionate about the sheer ignorance of humankind. We simply don’t know what we don’t know and our capacity to really foul things up, including our own health and well being, is quite unprecedented.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
My husband says not to forget that they are still just practicing medicine and he says that to my docs regularly. And he says it for good reason because I’ve had a lot of medical trauma and learned the hard way that docs and meds aren’t what they’re advertised to be. Did you know that no one has ever seen a virus? Virology is theory. Gives a whole new perspective on conspiracy theory when it comes to COVID 19…
LikeLiked by 6 people
Yes, indeed, even the best doctors with good intentions are still “practicing” medicine. Alas, we are often who they practice on.
And yes, virology is a theory and there are still so many unknowns. Even with what we think we know, it was fairly well accepted that the presence of a pathogen does not indicate disease anyway…until we got to covid when we suddenly invented the notion of, “asymptomatic infections.”
LikeLiked by 5 people
We’ve been able to see viruses since the 1940s. Countless people have seen viruses. I don’t know what is meant by “virology is a theory,” but viruses are real, physical objects. They’ve been seen. They cause diseases, including COVID.
Not sure what is meant by “suddenly invented the notion of, “asymptomatic infections,” but the concept or principle of asymptomatic infection is decades old. It didn’t begin with COVID. Maybe there is some confusion over the meaning of words such as “disease” and “infection?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used to agree with you but I’ve learned differently. The newer thinking is that infections are caused by microscopic parasites. Even that COVID 19 consists of synthetic parasites and isn’t a virus at all. One thing we can count on when it comes to science is that facts change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What “newer thinking?” Where did you learned something different? References?
So, those millions of electron micrographs of virus particles don’t show virus particles? What do they show?
What do you mean by “microscopic parasites?” A virus is a microscopic parasite. Are there pictures of these microscopic parasites somewhere?
SARS-CoV 2 isn’t a virus? ”Synthetic parasites?” What do you mean by this? Could you describe a “synthetic parasite?” Any micrographs of this?
I apologize for all the questions, but honestly, I don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Thank you. Polio as a supposed viral disease was a good wheeze by the pharmaceutical companies to cover up chemical harm from their products.
‘Sir, our chemicals are harming people.’
‘Just make up a story that something so small that only our scientists can see it are causing the problems. Then blame it on evolution, and get the advertising boys on to it.’
It reminds me a bit of Naked Gun ‘Nothing to see here.’ as the firework factory blows up.
I saw an article recently on Love Canal, Niagara in the States where I understand a lot of people were falling ill due to the chemicals buried in the ground.
As to “How much of our current medical “science” is actually based on facts and data and how much of it is simply based on socially approved narratives and historical lies?” most of it I would say. There are a lot of vested interests, mainly financial.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Just make up a story that something so small that only our scientists can see it are causing the problems. Then blame it on evolution, and get the advertising boys on to it.”
Right?! Exactly. Back in the day everything from children’s toys to wall paper was coated in arsenic. We now know that was quite toxic and dangerous. In our attempts to prevent fires, we went on to spray everything down with asbestos, yet another toxin. And when polio first hit, we would literally spray small children down with DDT.
A lot of things, like coating teething baby gums with mercury sounds absolutely loony in modern times, but at the time they were normalized and routine. People wanted to do what was “right,” what everyone else was doing. Ironically mercury probably does kill many germs, it just happens to destroy the body in the process.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Polio viruses exist. You don’t have to be scientist to see them. Anyone with an electron microscope can see them. And these viruses cause polio.
LikeLike
I don’t think we can say “these viruses cause polio.” That’s an over simplification that really doesn’t tell the whole story. Polio is actually rare, as in 200 people will have the virus but only one will have any symptoms at all. That one with the symptoms only has about a 2% chance of developing any kind of serious disease.
So it is quite possible to have viruses and no disease.
Ironically, the only reason why we even have polio today is due to residuals left by the vaccine. It doesn’t exist in the wild.
LikeLike
Polio viruses still exist in the wild. They have not been to a totally eradicated. Natural cases are quite rare but still occur in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Yes, we can say that the viruses known as polio viruses cause polio. The fact that most cases of polio are mild or asymptomatic doesn’t means the viruses called polio viruses don’t cause polio. The links between these viruses and polio are well-established by decades of research. And if the polio viruses didn’t cause polio, then vaccines containing these viruses would not work at all. But they do work.
Many types of viruses cause mild illnesses, but they still are the cause of a given disease. Of course you can “have” a given virus and not have the disease. That’s what an asymptomatic infection is all about, and as I said in another comment, the concept of asymptomatic infections goes back decades. It doesn’t mean that the same virus doesn’t cause a given disease linked to that vIrus in other cases.
LikeLike
Josh, a disease is not a “disease” if it doesn’t cause symptoms. Therefore the presence of a virus does not necessarily indicate a disease. Therefore something else must be going to trigger illness.
Acting as if the mere presence of a virus indicates an infection is not accurate. There are always other mechanisms at play that lead to illness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure you’re following what I’m saying or maybe I’m not following what you’re saying. Let me try again.
There is a group of closely related viruses called polio viruses. These viruses enter the human body and cause human infections. Sometime the infections are asymptomatic for a variety of reasons (see below). In these cases, the infection does not lead to or result in the symptoms of a disease. In other cases, the infection leads to symptoms and the disease called polio.
There may be additional factors involved in determining whether you get an asymptotic infection or a symptomatic infection and polio; for example, previous natural infection, vaccination, etc. But you don’t get a case of the disease called polio unless the polio virus is present, causing an infection, and replicating in the body to the point where symptoms are produced.
In short, no polio virus in the body and you never get a disease state called polio. The polio virus is the essential element in the disease polio. In those cases where the disease polio appears, the common element is the polio virus. This is what I mean when I say polio viruses cause polio. I don’t think that this is a controversial position.
(If these viruses didn’t cause polio, then the polio vaccines would have no effect on the number of cases of the disease called polio, because the vaccines themselves are made with polio viruses.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In short, no polio virus in the body and you never get a disease state called polio. The polio virus is the essential element in the disease polio.”
Actually there are several other things that can produce symptoms and a disease that looks very much like what we might call “polio.” So you absolutely can get a disease state we might call polio, that wasn’t really polio at all. You can also have polio viruses with no disease state present in the body.
I mention this because there are a lot of nuances to human health and our bodies are a complex system. To simply say something akin to, “shut up stupid, germs cause disease and that’s the end of the story ” is simplistic and reductionist and a huge part of what is wrong with modern science.
And as far as I know, Maready who wrote this book, shares your belief in the existence polio viruses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You can also have polio viruses with no disease state present in the body.”
Yes, I said this already. It’s called an asymptomatic infection. We see this with many pathogens. It’s doesn’t mean that polio viruses cannot cause polio or that other pathogen do not cause their respective diseases.
“Actually there are several other things that can produce symptoms and a disease that looks very much like what we might call “polio.”
Yes, but I assume that you accept that there is also a disease called polio, that there are actual cases of actual polio? The disease polio actually exists? It’s a real, distinguishable, and identifiable disease, yes? In these cases, the common element is the presence of replicating polio viruses.
“Shut up stupid, germs cause disease and that’s the end of the story.”
I did not say this. Of course, biology is complex. Please stop putting words in my mouth, and please stop misrepresenting what I said.
Simple question, and this is the point I started with. Do the viruses that we call polio viruses exist and do they cause a disease that we call polio? Yes or no?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Of course biology is complex.” Now please answer my simplistic, reductionist question with a cut and dry “yes” or “no.”
A proper answer that embraces the genuine spirit of science much better would be, “I’m not sure, I don’t know.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, biology is complex.
But some questions in biology *do* have simple, straight-forward, clear, testable, and repeatably confirmed answers. The question of whether polio viruses cause polio is one of those questions. Yes, there’s more to whether or not you’ll develop the disease polio than just the presence of the virus, but the virus is the essential element in the disease.
Nothing in science is settled absolutely and without any doubt whatsoever for all time. Science does not deal in absolute truths.
However. There are some questions which have been tested to a very high degree and we can now say with a very high degree of certainty that this is how the world works. That is, for some questions, there is a very high level of certainty or very little doubt that the answers that have to put forth are correct. Not absolute certainty, not absolute zero doubt, but something approaching it.
If all questions are to answered “I’m not sure, I don’t know,” then we learn little and make little progress in the effort to understand how the natural world works. To make progress, at some point, you have say, yes, there’s a really, really high probability that a certain conclusion is correct. For example, there’s a very high probability that certain microbes cause human disease. And by acting on that conclusion, we have prevented millions of lives over the last century and a half.
I’ll word the question this way. Would you say that there is a very high degree of certainty (not absolute, but very high) that polio viruses exist and that cause a disease that we call polio? Yes or no? (Is this sufficiently less “cut and dry?”)
LikeLike
At one point in history there was a very high degree of certainty that if we doused microbes in mercury, they would die. We were not wrong! We can now say with a, “very high degree of certainty that this is how the world works.”
Obviously however, our understanding of “how the world works” was rather narrow and short sighted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mixed up “saved lives” and “prevented premature deaths” in the last sentence of the next to the last paragraph. Meant to write “prevented millions of premature deaths” or “saved millions of lives.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a whole other debate Josh, one involving ethics, philosophy, and hypotheticals. We like to say things like, “we saved a million people from premature death” but that is hyperbole, a narrative. We could just as easily say that in the process we have unleashed new and inventive autoimmune diseases, driven cancer rates through the roof, and made myocarditis a common childhood ailment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re not talking about mercury. We’re talking about polio virus.
Let’s skip the evasions and digressions. This is an easy one. Is there a high degree of certainty that polio viruses exist and cause polio? Yes or no.
LikeLike
Right, Josh! This is such an easy one! If we just wipe the gums of teething infants down with mercury, they can’t develop any enterovirus at all! In fact, we can completely sanitize their entire gut microbiome! And we know this kind of works because we actually did it! See, easy peasy science.
If it makes you feel any better, Macready who wrote this book, seems to believe “polio viruses exist and cause polio.”
Myself, I happen to believe that about 98% of what we think we know about virology is woefully inadequate and in fact our ignorance and complete lack of understanding often makes us downright dangerous when it comes to how we address human health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One disease. Smallpox. A hundred million deaths in the 20th century. Zero deaths in the 21st century. Not hyperbole.
Look at life expectancy in 1900. Look at life expectancy today. More significantly with respect to this discussion. Look at the change in the leading causes of death. Not hyperbole.
You want to go back to 19th century medicine? Be my guest. For some reason, you seem to want to hate on medical science, only counting the failures while ignoring the successes. Not much I can do about that.
LikeLike
I didn’t ask what Macready thought. I asked what you thought. But all I get are evasions. So it goes.
Yes, it’s an easy one. Eighty plus years of research makes it an easy one.
LikeLike
Anyone with an electron microscope, eh Josh. Have you checked how much they cost old chap? I think you will find they are beyond the scope of ordinary folk. But I daresay if we ask nicely, a university or similar might let us have a look.
As to interpreting what you see that is another matter isn’t it? Of course you believe everything you are told about viruses, so I do sympathise. You have an amazing faith in science, a religious zeal no less.
LikeLike
Yes, if you ask nicely, someone would probably let you see for yourself. You can enroll in a virology course. Learn about viruses. Sign up for virology lab. Use the scope as part of the lab. Not that this would change anything because you have to want to learn.
So, all those thousands and thousands and thousands of people (could be a million people by now) who have seen viruses using electron microscopes are lying about what they saw. They made it all up. All those millions of electron micrographs are just Photoshop images. The virology textbooks are filled with nothing but lies, and millions of scientists and doctors go along with the lie because … why, exactly?
It’s the mother of all conspiracy theories! Actually, it’s your denial of reality that’s blind faith and religious zeal.
Virology is not “faith.” It’s evidence, facts, data, testable hypotheses. The “interpretations” have been tested again and again and again.
No one has to tell me what to conclude about viruses. I can do that for myself. I can see the viruses myself. I can create pure virus cultures myself. I can infect cells myself. I can use an electron microscope to follow the replication cycle myself. I can use the tools of molecular biology to watch the viral genes turn on and off. I can watch the host cells die myself. And I can watch an infected host organism die myself.
No faith required. I can replicate everything I’ve been told for myself. See it for myself. Had you chosen a different path in life, you could done the same.
The Earth is round. Polio viruses cause polio.
LikeLike
We are talking about viruses Josh, not discussing the shape of the earth.
Who was it that buggered you up when you were young, Josh, to make you hate yourself and the truth so much?
LikeLike
Perhaps you missed the point. Denying the existence of polio viruses is essentially the equivalent of saying that the Earth is flat. Both positions require a denial of reality and an enhanced ability to ignore overwhelming evidence.
As to your question, I would ask you the same.
LikeLike
It is just as well I checked as I see you have replied to yourself again Josh, a bad habit. This is the level of your competence, you are a vaccine cultist, science is your god and the vaccine your saviour. I asked you once to give your background to back up your claims. I do on my site, IB does on hers. If you do not do this then you will be ignored.
LikeLike
So, you’re down to just dribbling out insults. Very impressive.
Why should I give you my background? It’s clear that this would just lead to ad hominem attacks from you. And it would make no difference. I could tell you I have a Nobel Prize in virology and it would make no difference. You’d still call me a “cultist” and ignore the evidence.
My claims are not backed up by my “background.” My background is not relevant to my claim that viruses exist, although in fact, it’s more than adequate with respect to the subject at hands. My claims are backed up by more than a century of research, observations, data, facts, tested hypotheses, and replicated experiments. It’s backed up by the work of thousands and thousands of doctors and scientists. Not that this has any impact on you.
In a previous comment, I outlined the steps you could take to draw your own conclusions about viruses. I showed how you can prove viruses exists for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Do the experiments yourself. The fact that you cannot or will not do this is you problem, not mine.
I’m a cultist? I believe the appropriate word here would be “projection.”
And now you will stick your fingers in you ears and say “lalalalalalalalala.” Enjoy the echo.
LikeLike
Nice try Josh, but a simple ‘No I won’t provide my background would have sufficed.
If you were an honest man you would not be afraid to give your background but you hide behind the fear of ad hominem attacks.
You made a claim that “I can do that for myself. I can see the viruses myself. I can create pure virus cultures myself. I can infect cells myself. I can use an electron microscope to follow the replication cycle myself. I can use the tools of molecular biology to watch the viral genes turn on and off. I can watch the host cells die myself.”
You don’t tell us ‘I have done this etc.’ only say ‘I can etc’. There is a world of difference between the two. So if you have done it say so, if not then you are just bullshitting us.
If you were so knowledgeable you would have set up your own website by now and written extensively.
I gave you the chance to be open about yourself and you blew it. I shall not respond again.
LikeLike
I have no fear of ad hom attacks. None at all.
The problem is that you use ad homs to ignore or disregard evidence. You seem to believe that if you can somehow discredit the person by saying they are “cult members” or “worship science” or their name or occupation can be turn into an nasty anagram, then you can ignore mountains of research. You do this repeatedly. When you disagree with someone, you engage in personal attacks in place of engaging with the evidence or making a supportable argument.
So, once I provide “background,” it’s over. You’ll use it disregard anything I say, no matter how well it’s supported. You’ll attack the person instead of the data and the facts. You’ll use “background” as an excuse to insult and to stick your fingers in your ears. And so I have avoided this. You’ve amply demonstrated that giving you “background” is pointless and counterproductive.
But I promise you, I’m not bullshitting you.
BTW, a very large number knowledgable people do not have web sites. They’re busy with other things.
LikeLike
Another thing that’s especially bad in our Age of Scientism is that the fake Academics like to pose as though ‘religious bigotry’ has always been against their heroic search for truth. In reality, the Church has always followed the ‘settled science’ and not the other way around.
Two of Scientism’s other biggest hoaxes is that theories have to be falsifiable empirically (an elastic term that they use to discredit any theory they don’t like): they say that this has always been part of the scientific method when in reality it was dreamed up by a philosopher named Karl Popper only a few decades ago. The other is their contempt for ethics or metaphysics: the ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’ approach so beloved by Neocons today, which they use to justify suppressing any dissent against their established dogmas.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I really appreciate what you said about how, “fake Academics like to pose as though ‘religious bigotry’ has always been against their heroic search for truth.” So true!
LOL, meanwhile my biggest complaint in life is that the church doesn’t question modern scientism nearly enough and seems to share that same contempt for metaphysics and ethics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very good comment. I see ‘Settled science’ will anagram to:
detects lies enc
cc densest elite
lens deceits etc
snides elect etc
All of which indicate the falseness of so-called ‘Settled science’.
As regards ‘religious bigotry’ as science has become a religion for very many the term applies to them as much as anyone else.
Interestingly I see that ‘biologist’ and ‘geologist’ are both single word anagrams out of the phrase and that these two groups are the most affected by Darwin and evolutionary theory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thinking for oneself! What an untoward and subversive idea! Want the internet AI to start a case on you?
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOL! Yep, I’m sure this is going on my permanent record somewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some of the “vaccines are the hero” narrative can, I believe, be blamed on Star Trek! 😄😄
I missed out on the Star Trek series, simply because we weren’t watching TV. Recently, the various Star Treks came available for free on Prime, so I watched most of TNG (got bored towards the end and stopped; they definitely were running out of new story ideas), all of DS9 and all of Voyager.
Even in the original series, pretty much everything could be fixed with an injection. It was in Voyager that it really jumped the shark. Some characters were about to go somewhere and be exposed to strong radiation. Janeway was talking to the Doctor about it and he basically brushed it off, saying “I can make a vaccine for that”.
A vaccine.
For radiation.
*facepalm*
How many people, growing up on science fiction like this, saw some version of the magical injection that provided that most elusive of cures?
As for DDT, that’s another narrative that is questionable. Our current fear of DDT traces back to The Silent Spring, and the claim it was the cause of all sorts of damage. The thinning of eggshells in raptors being high up there, being blamed on the cumulative build up of DDT in the food chain. The problem is, there isn’t actually any evidentiary basis on the claims. It turns out that things like lack of calcium or various illnesses and disease caused the weak eggshells, not DDT. There was a scientist, whose name I cannot remember, that used to do the speaking circuit to defend DDT. He began every lecture by openly eating a teaspoon of it. He lived a hearty and healthy life, until he was killed in a mountain climbing accident.
The movie, Not Evil, Just Wrong, addressed the issue in the second half of the movie. On the one hand, they interviewed an environmentalist in Africa; a white woman sitting in her chair among the trees, saying “listen to the birds? Now imagine, no birds?” On the other, they interviewed a local mother whose child died of malaria, painfully and horrifically, in her arms – something we in North America eliminated entirely through the use of DDT. Just remembering that part of the movie brings me to tears. DDT technically isn’t banned, but African countries were told they wouldn’t get any aid money if they still used DDT, so it may as well be. It’s estimated as many as 3 million children have died of malaria since this de facto ban on DDT, when even tiny amounts of it, sprayed judiciously around the home, would stop the malaria mosquito from entering. To the White Savior environmentalist, the (false) possibility that birds might die was more important then saving the lives of brown children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL, Star Trek, now there’s a good theory! I do remember how absolutely everything could be fixed with an injection.
Good points about DDT, too. We tend to swing from one extreme to another with very little common sense ever applied. Interesting, movie, I’ll have to check that out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting comment. The Star Trek thing is notable, programming to get people to accept poisonous vaccines. It can be found in all sorts of other fiction films and books.
As to DDT, it is clearly toxic to humans even if only long term as documented otherwise it wouldn’t have any effect against mosquitos.
I am not sure where you get there isn’t actually any evidentiary basis for the claims that weak eggshells are caused by DDT poisoning.
As to the scientist who began every lecture by openly eating a teaspoon of DDT I found this related.
DDT so safe you can eat it 1947
The thing is this is a one-off uncontrolled experiment. It is smoke and mirrors, like the celebs who were vaccinated. We haven’t a clue whether they really were or what was in each vial.
We cannot know if the scientist was being deceptive, no DDT but another white substance, or what he might have done to neutralise the toxicity afterwards or even before, all of which is possible.
As to malaria and children dying, again this is based on broad statistics, easily manipulated by those who wish to cover up other causes of death, including vaccines.
Without a detailed assessment of each individual case such broad sweeping statements are ultimately meaningless with the full context which big pharma love to obscure.
As regards “…we in North America eliminated entirely through the use of DDT”, this is not true. It is only one link but see this.
https://asm.org/Articles/2023/September/The-History-of-Malaria-in-the-United-States
It says for example
“Throughout the 1930s and early 1940s, federal relief organizations dedicated funding and workers to the malaria control effort by improving drainage across the country. It is estimated that over nearly 7 years, 33,655 miles of ditches were dug, effectively eliminating over half a million acres of Anopheles mosquito breeding areas. Advancement and modernization of sanitation played a significant role in nearly eliminating malaria from the U.S. in the 1930s.”
DDT is not mentioned but insecticides are.
“Once the spread of malaria was significantly reduced, primarily through drainage implementation and the use of insecticides.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
DDT brings up a really good issue around medical ethics. Of course it’s toxic, that’s how it kills mosquitoes. On the other hand, mosquitoes and the diseases they bring kill a whole lot of people. Which is worse for human health, the toxicity of DDT or the risk of mosquitoes? That debate rages on to this day.
I should also mention that DDT was used to try to kill polio which is why I used it in my example. We would literally douse children down with it. However before DDT, we used far more toxic pesticides! Exceedingly toxic, makes DDT look almost benign. In fact DDT was almost an improvement. DDT did not cure polio but it’s very unlikely it caused it either.
LikeLike
I definitely want to read that book now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanitybytes
Interesting article which we octogenarians still alive today should discern and be thankful for still being alive after being exposed to all the chemicals and follies we experienced in our lifetimes.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen, Rudy! As a kid we used to chase the DDT truck spraying the fields so we could splash around and cool off. And as I pointed out, most of us are still sucking on our mercury fillings. Three cheers for our bodies that are “wonderfully and fearfully made.” I have not yet become an octogenarian, but yes indeed, that is certainly something to celebrate. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanity bytes
I think we also need to add three cheers for the modern medicine and medical technology that has come about to cure our side effects from all the chemicals we have been exposed to.in our lifetimes.
Not to sure we humans are still ahead of the game in the long run though based on falling mortality rates lately mainly a result of some foolish choices to ingest drugs for recreational purposes.
Regards and goodwill blogging
LikeLiked by 1 person
My sister had the luxury of being able to afford having all her mercury fillings replaced many years ago. She tried to convince me to do the same, but when I asked my dentist about it, he said any mercury in those old fillings had probably already leeched out into my body. … Not sure that’s much comfort …
Just to throw another random idea out there, have you heard about the cases where a polio virus has been used to treat brain tumors?? To reiterate, biology is very complex, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true, biology can be complex! I have not yet heard of how one might use the polio virus to treat brain tumors, but I do know there is quite a bit of research going on. Viruses can not only cause certain cancers, but they can also create immunity against some others. We have so much to learn! This is one reason why mass vaccination programs against relatively mild illnesses might not be such a good idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think we can use polio viruses treat brain tumors, because as I’ve learned here, we don’t know if they exist.
LikeLike
Pingback: Bits and pieces – May, 2024 – The Tree of Life