>>12813032>And your evidence is rather weak.I literally gave a graph of DDT usage in the USA (not just production), which was highest in 1959, so if it was the leading cause of polio, then it makes no sense that polio cases were already dramatically dropping in the mid-50's when DDT usage was highest. Your link even supports what I'm saying, showing that there was no significant regulation of DDT until the 70's. Obviously DDT was nasty stuff, but the supporting evidence for its disuse causing the drop in viral diseases is weak at best. The dates are simply not lining up. Right now it seems much more plausible that vaccines did in fact cause the fall in new cases since those dates line up quite well.
