Here is a long critique of Humphries book "Dissolving Illusions" highlighting the deficiencies of her analysis.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wrong-about-polio-a-review-of-suzanne-humphries-md-and-roman-bystrianyks-dissolving-illusions-part-1-the-short-version/It is a very long piece so only summary and conclusion is copied below.
Summary and conclusion
I think it obvious that Humphries presentation is defective in numerous ways and displays a callousness towards suffering:
- Humphries begins by comparing incidence rates for a number of diseases, essentially comparing apples to oranges;
- When Humphries does discuss disease incidence and deaths, she ignores the tremendous toll polio has in terms of suffering and disability, something she does as well with measles;
- Humphries ignores that all the diseases she compared with polio were either already eliminated or on a sharp decline at the same time polio was on the ascendance;
- Whether 1/100 or 1/200 cases actually became paralyzed, when one counts up the actual number of cases of paralyses, it makes little difference;
- Humphries dismisses that even after Greenberg’s adjustments, 7,000 or more cases of paralysis remained;
- Humphries misuses the Michigan data, which actually found “among the 242 patients originally diagnosed as paralytic, 187, or 77% were confirmed by laboratory tests to have poliomyelitis. The vast majority of these (84%) were found to have residual paralysis 60 days after onset of the illness”, thus, 65% had paralysis 60 days later;
- And, though, as exemplified by Greenberg and the Michigan study, changing definitions and mistakes in differential diagnosis, Humphries ignores the fact that the actual number of people reported to be affected by the polio virus is a significant underestimate, and that many suffered mild decrements in ability during their lifetimes, and later post-polio syndrome and, possibly, chronic fatigue syndrome;
- Humphries ignores the cultural changes in the US – having survived the Great Depression and been victorious in World War II, with many previous diseases eliminated or on the decline, with the miracle of antibiotics, parents found an ascending, unpredictable disease that so visibly affected children to be extremely frightening;
- Humphries opinion of the March of Dimes discounts the major role the March of Dimes played in helping polio victims (help that is doubtful would have come from elsewhere) and, by implication, Humphries probably would dismiss various organizations soliciting funds for numerous other “low incidence” diseases and conditions; and
- Humphries ignores post-polio syndrome and, possibly, chronic fatigue syndrome, where studies have found the former and, perhaps, the latter actually a result of damage caused by the polio virus, not misdiagnosed as polio.
Though I think this paper alone makes a compelling case that Humphries lacks credibility, I like to be thorough, so I will be working on subsequent papers. As now planned:
- Part 2 will focus in more depth on definitions/criteria for paralysis, lab confirmation, when and what types, and differential diagnoses and the role the vaccine played in the decline and disappearance of polio;
- Part 3 will focus on the Cutter Incident, vaccine-associated polio, the role of tonsillectomies and provocation from other medical injections, and claims by Humphries that DDT and arsenic played a significant role, SV40 vaccine contamination, and discuss the Central Dogma that polio resulted from improved sanitation, together with other variables that partially explain the ascendance of polio; and
- Part 4 will focus on treatments, including the iron lung, surgeries, immobilizations, various physical therapies, and nutritional approaches.
Basically, I intend to demonstrate that either Humphries is completely wrong (intentionally or not) about every point she so feebly tries to make or she grossly exaggerates, grossly overgeneralizes, and emphasizes ancient history. Based on her approach she would basically negate most of modern medical science. Stay tuned!
