Images Of Poliomyelitis » plag_home » aoa » Age Of Autism
 

Detrimental Literary Structures

 
 

"The Age Of Polio"(1,9) by Olmsted and Blaxill

 
 

REVIEW By Jim West

Contact

Olmsted and Blaxill (editors of AgeOfAutism) published an article September, 2011, that promotes a politically profitable theme: Poliovirus and pesticides together cause polio epidemics.  While on the surface this may seem revolutionary, yet it actually maintains orthodox virus theory by incorporating the irrefutable pesticide/polio theory that I brought forth.  AgeOfAutism is promoting industry's catholic defense, i.e., taking ownership of opposition themes and corrupting those themes.  Olmsted follows The Ecologist, which published a major pesticide/polio article in 2005, written by Janine Roberts, who plagiaristically built upon my work. My work was already online by 1998 and published widely by Townsend Letter For Doctors and Patients, June 2000.  Some may think I'm grasping for ownership here, however, I'm trying to maintain a place in the pesticide/polio conversation.

Few Positives

Olmsted/Blaxill format their material in a professional manner, publishing via TypePad.  Olmsted's UPI credentials imply professionalism. They do contribute an interesting history of lead and arsenic poisoning.

Many Negatives

Upon review, Olmsted/Blaxill are found to be sloppy and illogical. Their style is plagiaristic. For instance, they use an authoritative tone of primary discovery. They write, "our research over the past two years", then falsely label my work as "recent", that my work had "caught their attention" yet is "too simple".  They admit being very aware of my work, while rejecting my theme that pesticides and similar chemicals alone cause polio. My evidence is rejected without evidence as “too simple”, as they quickly move on to assert their combined pesticide/virus causation theory. They provide little if any scientific evidence. They never contacted me despite the revolutionary nature of the topics and the errors they could be stepping into. They appear willing to trade accuracy for the appearance of originality. They do reference me once, ref #6 on their second page, which appears to be a technical compliance. They use the word "recent" do describe my work, though I was published widely seven years before The Ecologist's (Roberts) plagiaristic article (2005), and well over a decade before Olmsted's articles (Sept, 2011).

Examples

a) Olmsted/Blaxill promote the predatory virus concept as fact, yet poliovirus is dubious, in view that the famous scientific claims for poliovirus isolation are clearly contradictory and unfounded.

b) Olmsted/Blaxill gives the impression that virus/pesticide causation is their idea, but I tabled the concept (virus/pesticide causation) in my main article as I discard it.

c) Olmsted/Blaxill dramatically promote vaccines: "[T]he strong pesticide theory can’t explain the sudden protective effect of poliovirus vaccinations". They push this ex cathedra (no supporting data, based on author's reputation). Yet  my main polio article does explain the falseness of vaccination’s "sudden protective effect".  I show that both the rise and fall of polio is shown to be aligned linearly with pesticide exposure and that poliovirus pathology is terribly weak, if for no other reason than it omits toxicology.

d) They use a comparative graph to show the beginning of mass pesticide application vs the beginning of polio epidemics. I had already researched and presented this similarly. They present a reversed xy axes, otherwise their graph is very similar to mine. They focus on the early pesticide "lead arsenate" as did Roberts with "calcium arsenate", where my graph focused on "pesticide introductions".

e) They use Roberts' research, whose vast problems I've reviewed.

f) They reference Caverly, however, Ralph Scobey introduced Caverly’s research. Scobey, Biskind and Mobbs are arcana (historically disconnected text, unreferenced) that I unearthed. Olmsted rewrites Scobey/Caverly while trying to be original.  By omitting proper references to Scobey and I, Olmsted/Blaxill appear to be original, diligent researchers.  This is abundantly evidenced by the naive praise that Olmsted allows as comments on his blogs.

g) Their "Part III: Making Sense of Campobello" gives the impression of discovery that FDR acquired polio due to fruit pesticides in the area of the Bay of Fundy.  Though my work is the seminal research on FDR toxicology, citing the "pesticide-polio" theory, Olmsted/Blaxill completely omit me, listing five other sources, all non-toxicological.  The arcane authors, Biskind, Mobbs, and Scobey, all pointed to fruit pesticides generally as a cause for polio.

Conclusion

There are likely more items but this is all for now.

Their articles are interesting, as too are Roberts', though one must be cautious and knowledgeable enough to step between the dung piles, which can be virtually ubiquitious.  Their style, as medical dissidents, undermines dissidentia in general.
 

Footnotes
1) Olmsted: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/09/the-age-of-polio-how-an-old-virus-and-new-toxins-triggered-a-man-made-epidemic.html
2) Ostrom/Urnovitz: Virus isolation is unfounded.
3) JWest: Virus causation tabled and discarded.
4) JWest: Pesticide introductions and polio.
5) JRoberts' vast problems.
6) Omsted:  http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/09/the-age-of-polio-how-an-old-virus-and-new-toxins-triggered-a-man-made-epidemic-.html#more
7) JWest: Originated toxicology of FDR's polio.
8) JWest: Main pesticide-polio article.
9)
10) This page is a response to John Scudamore who asked me to comment on Olmsted's polio work.

Top


Images Of Poliomyelitis » plag_home » aoa » Age Of Autism

©Jim West/HARpub 2009 - All Rights Reserved