The Ad Hoc Rescue: A Polio Deception

How inventive speculation became dogma.

I want the reader to pay close attention to the term Ad Hoc Rescue.

It refers to the act of desperatly holding on to an unproven assumption and making up excuses and assumptions as to why your belief is true, despite facts to the contrary.

How does this apply to poliomyelitis research?

During the historical time period of the late 1800s, the concept of an “infectious” agent as the cause of disease overwhelmingly tended to be the initial assumption. The germ theory of disease had become greatly entrenched as dogma in the medical world.

Any kind of illness of unknown etiology could therefore be considered to be “infectious.”

Pellagra and scurvy were once thought to be contagious and infectious. Source: Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg.

Any disease could be considered contagious simply because it occured in outbreaks.

Source.

The researchers investigating poliomyelitis were therefore equipped with a tunnel vision trying to validate what people were already accustomed to thinking and predisposed to believe.

The idea of polio being communicable was therefore assumed to be true. However, this idea was contradicted by the fact that it was usually impossible, even in epidemics, to trace lines of contact from case to case.

Polio scientists who were desperate to hold on to their belief therefore postulated that the disease were spread through suspected “abortive” cases.

“One of the theories advanced was that the disease is transmitted by contact—a theory originating not so much in the observation of frequent contact itself, but more in the suspicion that mild illnesses coincident with frank cases, not definitely diagnosable but suspected as abortive forms of the disease, aided in the dissemination of the infection.”

It turned out this idea was not satisfactory.

“Failing even to find these in sufficient number to account for the spread of the disease, there was added the supposed transmission of the virus through healthy persons.”

The medical establishment took use of the ad hoc rescue because they desperatly wanted to be right and hold on to their belief, despite evidence to the contrary.

Source.

Consequently, they began to make up excuses as to why their belief could still be true, despite the fact that they had no real evidence for what were making up.

They desperatly wanted to believe that polio was a contagious disease, so they made up the idea that the disease was mainly “spread” through healthy people rather than sick people.

This hypothesis allowed for virtually unlimited possibilities for tracing a theoretical chain of contagion between cases. Thus, the medical authorities could pursue their belief of the alleged contagious nature of polio.

The animal experiments trying to establish that polio was communicable were also misguided. They resorted to injecting monkey brains to prove an “infectious” agent was the cause of polio because they knew that “no animal gets the disease from another, no matter how intimately exposed.”

Source.

The medical establishment still continues pushing their erroneous belief of a contagious and “infectious” agent as the cause of polio.

In order to justify their faulty diagnosis methods they make use of the ad hoc rescue, as the World Health Organization states that up to 90% of people who are “infected” with the alleged polio “virus” does not experience any symptoms.

Only one in 200 people will allegedly be afflicted with paralytic symptoms.

The CDC states that;

“Note that “poliomyelitis” (or “polio” for short) is defined as the paralytic disease. So only people with the paralytic infection are considered to have the disease.”

The medical authorities diagnostic procedure does admittedly not have a statistical relationship to the disease for which it is employed. Their own measurment clearly does not establish an association or correlation between the variables.

How can anyone claim that their diagnostic practices have any real practical value when the claimed alleged etiologic agent supposedly only causes the disease in 0.5% of people?

In order to defend their flawed data they resort to their ad hoc invention of “asymptomatic infection.”