This doesn't pass the smell test.
GIFY
Year Reported Cases Notes
1935 ~8,000 Typical low year
1936 ~2,500 Sudden drop
1937 ~10,000+ Large jump again
1942 ~4,000 Low point
1943 ~12,000 Cases triple
1949 ~42,000 Huge epidemic year
1950 ~33,000 Drop
1951 ~28,000 Slight drop
1952 ~58,000 All-time high
1953 ~35,000 Natural drop (but still very high)
Why did immediately after the vaccine did it drop by 90 percent and stay down? I would have an emunas chachamim crisis if there were big Rabbis who believed the vaccine played no role.
Grokked it for you - Also if you’re gonna take the time to respond to me, watch the 15 minute video I provided otherwise don’t waste my time. If you’re not gonna look at the information I provide you to actually debunk it then you’re not contributing anything just stating your opinion without looking at the facts or the information I provided is how homeless people at a bus station argue about which sandwich at The gas station taste better
After the polio vaccine was introduced in 1955 (inactivated polio vaccine, or IPV, developed by Jonas Salk), significant changes were made to the diagnostic criteria for poliomyelitis in the United States, which some, like Dr. Suzanne Humphries in the referenced video, argue contributed to a perceived decline in polio cases. Below are the key changes to the diagnostic criteria, based on available information:
1 Stricter Case Definition:
◦ Pre-Vaccine Era (Before 1955): Prior to the vaccine, a diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis could be made based on clinical symptoms alone, such as fever, muscle weakness, or paralysis, often without laboratory confirmation. Non-paralytic polio was diagnosed with symptoms like fever, sore throat, or muscle pain, even if transient.
◦ Post-Vaccine Era (After 1955): The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other health authorities tightened the criteria. A case of paralytic polio required confirmation of paralysis lasting at least 60 days after onset, with residual paralysis still present at follow-up. This excluded cases where paralysis was temporary or resolved quickly, reducing the number of reported polio cases.
2 Laboratory Confirmation:
◦ After 1955, laboratory testing to confirm the presence of poliovirus became more common. Cases without virological or serological evidence of poliovirus infection were less likely to be classified as polio. This was a shift from earlier practices where clinical presentation alone was often sufficient for diagnosis.
◦ The increased use of lab testing helped distinguish polio from other enteroviral infections or conditions with similar symptoms, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or aseptic meningitis.
3 Reclassification of Similar Conditions:
◦ Diseases like coxsackievirus infections, echovirus infections, and other enteroviral diseases, which can mimic polio symptoms, were more frequently identified and separated from polio diagnoses due to improved diagnostic techniques. For example, what was once called “non-paralytic polio” might now be diagnosed as aseptic meningitis caused by other viruses.
◦ Dr. Humphries and some sources claim that this reclassification led to a significant drop in reported polio cases, as conditions previously labeled as polio were now categorized differently. For instance, Humphries references a 1950s study suggesting that up to 90% of polio cases might have been reclassified after these diagnostic changes.
4 Surveillance and Reporting Changes:
◦ The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis and the CDC implemented more rigorous surveillance systems post-vaccine. This included stricter guidelines for reporting polio cases to ensure consistency. Cases not meeting the new criteria were excluded from official polio statistics, which critics argue artificially lowered reported incidence.
Context and Controversy:
• Pro-Vaccine Perspective: Public health authorities attribute the decline in polio cases primarily to the widespread use of the Salk vaccine (IPV) and later the Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV). Improved sanitation and hygiene also played a role in reducing poliovirus transmission. The diagnostic changes are seen as a refinement of medical understanding, ensuring more accurate identification of true polio cases.
• Skeptical Perspective (e.g., Dr. Humphries): Critics argue that these diagnostic shifts exaggerated the vaccine’s impact by reducing reported polio cases independently of vaccine efficacy. They point to environmental factors (e.g., reduced DDT exposure) and reclassification as significant contributors to the decline.
Evidence and Limitations:
• Data from the CDC shows polio cases in the U.S. dropped from 35,000 in 1953 to 5,300 by 1957, post-vaccine. While this aligns with vaccine rollout, the tightened criteria likely contributed to lower reported numbers.
• Historical records confirm the diagnostic changes, particularly the 60-day paralysis rule, as noted in medical literature from the time (e.g., CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports).
• However, claims like those from Humphries lack peer-reviewed consensus and may overstate the impact of diagnostic changes compared to vaccination and sanitation improvements.
For a deeper understanding, you can review primary sources like CDC archives or medical journals from the 1950s, available through academic databases, or cross-reference with WHO’s polio eradication documentation. If you’d like me to search for specific studies or posts on X to further clarify these changes, let me know!
Topic Wiki
