Yes, true on both sides! I guess what it needs is to actually look into the science; and there does seem to be good science on each side of the divide--very interesting, and I wish I had to time follow up on all of it, but will not even try, sad to say. (Because I cannot.) Yet it's worth noting that there *is* good science on *both* sides--or so I have gathered.
Well, it won't work as "proof" for you I know, but one can google up *many* electron micrograph pictures on the web, also find in books, of images purportedly of polio virus. How do they know that's what it is? I have no idea.
I fully understand and appreciate that various sorts of toxicity *can* cause those same or similar symptoms; and have no doubt that polio is sometimes a more convenient explanation than "poisoning due to an appalling pool of toxic waste delivered to you courtesy of "SoullessButMassivelyProfitable MultinationalCorpX." But the assumption that therefore *everything* that has been called polio is actually toxicity, well, I just don't know.
I'm curious how many of the folks making this claim are of the opinion that *some* diseases are in fact caused by viruses or bacteria, but polio just isn't one of them; or whether they are also in the camp you have often quoted, which claims that *no* microbes ever cause illness? The person you most recently referenced on the polio issue, for instance; do they deny contagion and infection altogether, or only with reference to polio, do you happen to know?
Shannon