For most of history, poliomyelitis was a relatively unremarkable disease – it caused paralysis and occasionally death, but only in a tiny fraction of those infected. It was essentially unknown in infants and adults, and usually only caused mild symptoms in children. This all changed in the early 1900s, when the disease mysteriously transformed into an epidemic, killing many and maiming many more, even among the supposedly 'protected' populations of adults and babies.
Deadly recurrences of polio became a fact of life in developed countries, particularly in cities during the summer. Movie theaters, beaches and swimming pools were closed; families fled to the countryside when the weather got warm. Clearly something had changed, but what could cause a mild disease to turn into a killer all but overnight? The secret lies, paradoxically, in our better understanding of sanitation.
In babies, polio can be mistaken for a mild cold – if there are symptoms at all – because they still have protective antibodies left over from their mothers. This early exposure was enough to make the infant immune to that particular serotype of the disease for the rest of his or her life. It's only when children grow older and lose those maternal antibodies that a polio infection can present in its devastating, paralytic form. Clearly there was something new to prevent the early exposure of infants to the polio virus. One major clue was the fact that the disease primarily affected white, wealthy families. The cleaner your surroundings were, the more likely you were to get the worst form of polio. Perhaps there was something in the water?
We now know that polio is spread through a fecal-oral contact route, and almost always through contaminated water. The adoption of modern plumbing, sewer systems and water treatment facilities in the late 1800s and early 1900s meant that infants were far less likely to be exposed to polio during the early 'safe' phase. Without that immunity gained in infancy, a chance infection later in life could be deadly. If your mother had herself never been exposed to polio, you didn't even have the blessing of a safe period in infancy. You, and your young immune system, were just as much at risk as older children and adults.
As with all new technologies, improved sanitation had some utterly unforeseeable ramifications. Clean water upset a millennia-old balance between poliomyelitis and our immune systems. Once one of the world's most feared diseases, however, polio is now all but nonexistent. After the epidemic peaked in the 1940s and 50s, polio went into a swift decline thanks to two successful vaccines. Keeping polio at bay, of course, depends on everyone getting their kids vaccinated – or going back to pre-modern standards of cleanliness.
Share your thoughts and join the technology debate!
William P Glasheen
Former faculty internal medicine, UVa. Currently healthcare analytics.
Excellent article. I was looking for something like this to make a point I learned decades ago in a course "Natural History of Infectious Disease". You nailed it. As for the naysayers... Less posting and more classroom work, please.
I am a university-educated technical type that read 6 to 8 hours a day
Bullshit article. Polio numbers were always high and did not start to drop until modern sanitation, better nutrition, and clean municipal city water. Vaccines were introduced long after polio numbers had dropped by 95 %.
Questioning official narratives.
You are right but the corporate propagandists have effectively blinded people to believe that only a patentable billion dollar solution to any and all ailments will suffice.
Lovely article, thank you. Just a thought... Maybe in addition to going back to 'pre-modern standards of cleanliness' mothers could go back to breast feeding and avoid vaccines, and potential dangers, and give their babies a 'safe period'...
If the mother was never exposed to Polio, even she wouldn't be able to pass the protection to her baby, so your comment is null in this instance.
J. P. Byrd
very interesting piece. In a related scenario: there has been a marked increase in severe food allergies in children starting in the 1990's. This correlates to the increased used of various antibacterial products in the home. The theory goes that homes became too clean, to the detriment of the immune systems of young children. Without exposure to various bacteria, viruses, etc..., their immune systems went unchallenged, never having exercised. Later, when such a kid eats a peanut, raspberry, or whatever, their crippled immune system over-reacts and anaphylaxis results. Parents, believing they were helping their children, protecting them from pathogens, were actually weakening them, possibly shortening their lifespan .
William P Glasheen
Don't blame yourself for your child's type 1 diabetes. Not ... your ... fault. This is a disease of the immune system attacking the islet cells in the pancreas. We don't yet know why it happens.
I agree with you that we have been shutting down our immune systems with the over use of antibacterial, antimicrobial and antibiotics....I don't remember growing up in the 1970's anyone having peanut allergies....I grew up eating PBJ sandwiches at least 2-3 times a week.
Are we better off than we were 300 years ago? Yes of course we are. On average we live longer healthier and happier lives than we did 300 years ago. A stroll around a cemetery will prove that.
This makes me wonder if our daughter, born in 1991 and a type one diabetic by 1997, may been innocently raised in some wrong way. It has been a gut punch since and still today. I'll never know what caused her disease. But I am happy to say she and her husband have two fantastic girls, 2 and 4 years old. My little happy grand daughters. They'll never know their "Bumpa" is holding his breath praying they contact no childhood disease. So, here's the question, are we better off now than two-three hundred years ago? On large scale I say yes. But it's the little things we as parents probably innocently do that causes harm. My wish is we all re consider our times "better".