• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve been saying something similar from the beginning…not about polio specifically, but more in terms of somehow death being the only metric. We don’t know what the long-term consequences are or how severe they will be…but yes, I think if the consequences were more, shall we say tangible (paralysis, poch mark scars), that might be different.

That said, so many people are so convinced they are right about being anti-vax, I don’t know that it would matter.

They’re more concerned about other adults telling them what to do than the friends and family around them. They’re pathetic, overly-sensitive, selfish pricks who lack the desire to use basic logic and reason. Fuck ‘em all.
 
Upvote 0
Polio predates DDT. This is pretty widely debunked.
from a quick Google:

DDT was first synthesized in 1874, as indicated here, and not recognized as an insecticide till 1939.

Polio predates all this. Just follow the citations in the Wikipedia article on the history of polio. A cluster of cases was documented in the 1840s, a clinical description appears in the late 1700s, and evidence of polio goes way back in human history, although not manifesting in epidemics.

So, no, DDT did not cause polio.
 
Upvote 0
from a quick Google:

DDT was first synthesized in 1874, as indicated here, and not recognized as an insecticide till 1939.

Polio predates all this. Just follow the citations in the Wikipedia article on the history of polio. A cluster of cases was documented in the 1840s, a clinical description appears in the late 1700s, and evidence of polio goes way back in human history, although not manifesting in epidemics.

So, no, DDT did not cause polio.
Wikipedia wow Lmao. Sources? Polio was a disease. Truth source..lmao. This world is crazy.
 
Upvote 0
Sure, I understand a train of thought. I also understand punctuation. I further understand that nothing in the wiki suggested polio isn't a disease, and in fact, the very first sentence on the wiki for polio reads as follows:

"Poliomyelitis, commonly shortened to polio, is an infectious disease caused by the poliovirus."

You see that... "infectious disease." If you're worried about truth being trampled on, maybe you should be taking @DubCoffman62 to task and not wiki in this instance.
 
Upvote 0
Do you understand train of thought. I don’t write to prove how smart I am.Wikipedia is a joke. Polio debilitating disease. Truth has been trampled on by everyone. Spending a second longer on this is time I won’t waste.

Communication is everything. Your ability to properly convey that thought process into a digestible form, especially over a medium such as a message board, is absolutely crucial.

And you don't need Wiki to demonstrate that polio is dated before DDT's. You can find peer reviewed medical findings, articles, and research papers well sourced beyond Wiki.
 
Upvote 0
Sure, I understand a train of thought. I also understand punctuation. I further understand that nothing in the wiki suggested polio isn't a disease, and in fact, the very first sentence on the wiki for polio reads as follows:

"Poliomyelitis, commonly shortened to polio, is an infectious disease caused by the poliovirus."

You see that... "infectious disease." If you're worried about truth being trampled on, maybe you should be taking @DubCoffman62 to task and not wiki in this instance.
I read it years ago before wiki existed and diseases were politicized
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top