Minutus

That would be easily accounted for by what I wrote below--which comes down largely to susceptibility; it's not a robust virus, and the majority of exposures do not result in infection; and the majority of infections do not result in any serious (or recognizable) illness.
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

Hi Sheri,

Below:
I don't remember, I read it a long time ago.
If you were to research the matter, you could probably find out just how the conclusion was reached, how it was determined that the usual expression of "infection with the polio virus" is simply a "cold." Probably I could google it and find out, but really is there any source I could quote that you would find credible? And if not, what sense would it make for me to bother...
I don't know, Sheri, and don't have time to research that.

I would also like to know, what is the "good science" behind the proposal that no microbe causes any disease? And what is the basis for saying that the *many* published photos purporting to be electron micrographs of polio and other viruses, are not what they claim to be? It's a heckuva conspiracy theory...

Shannon

Then you are aware of the cases that have occasionally been in the news, e.g. the grandfather and baby who I mentioned (in the news within the last year or so), and been able to determine that they are baseless?
Yep as mentioned, they occasionally arise.
But can I verify that they're true? Nope, I certainly can't.
It is tough having to take someone's word for so much in this sort of area, esp. when some of them are *known* to be inaccurate or unreliable for whatever reason--and I am pointing fingers at neither side in particular right now.
I've got it in my "read" file... When I've tried in the past, I didn't find it satisfying, but when I have time I'll have another go.

Tanya - don't want to argue with you, because I buy into everything you say - and I don't, don't don't trust the drug companies!! Never!!
But epidemics - no - there is something contagious going on there - or are you going to tell me that the Black Death that spread across Europe in the Middle Ages was actually a sinister plot involving helicopters spraying people with nasty substances?
Liz

I didn't say epidemics didn't occur. I did say there was no polio epidemic. There was ongoing research which wanted
to see its expected financial returns. Thus, there was a distortion of the numbers of those affected, a distortion of the
state of the disease; ie, it was on the wane in the culture prior to release of the vaccine. The numbers were not epidemic
as defined by 10% of the population being affected. And they denied environmental/public health factors which were
controllable without pumping people full of more toxic chemicals.
As for the black death? I am not up to speed with that disease. It was carried by rats. Was it contagious between people?
I have no idea. It hit the heavily populated areas, as I understand it. These were areas with sewage in the streets, rats all over
carrying whatever. It could be viewed as people living in a toxic dump, akin to those living in areas sprayed with DDT, as in
Long Island where the rate of breast and other cancers was extremely high. They would drive these huge tanker trucks down
the streets and do aerial type spraying from the trucks onto the lawns and everything else. That could be seen as an
epidemic of cancer, but it wasn't anything contagious--it was envrionmental poisoning.
tanya

Yes, it was carried by rats, but whether it was contagious between people, I don't really know. But the question remains:
Why the plague, with buboes and such striking symptoms?
Why evreyone at that same time?
Why did it spread across Europe?
Doesn't sound like environmental poisoning to me.
Liz
Liz

Your blinders are laminating to your eyes. You really need to work them off.
tanya

environmental poisoning? absolutely yes! entire cities were involved with
very close living quarters, sewage in the streets, unclean water, etc. the
rats were everywhere and all people were exposed simultaneously.
what else do you call it.
tanya

Sorry Tanya - you'll have to do better than that. Answer my questions.
Liz