Talk:Poliomyelitis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poliomyelitis is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to medicine. For guidelines see WikiProject Clinical Medicine and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

	This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 OR 2 Polio and Pesticides 3 WHO 4 SV40 5 POV 6 interesting 7 Polio in Minnesota 8 TO-DO on POLIO 9 Cause of Roosevelt's paralysis 10 viral entry 11 The Six remaining polio-endemic countries 12 salk vaccine deadly 13 Fred R. Klenner 14 Incorrect info? 15 Poliovirus split 16 Bulbar polio redirect 17 Eradication Section Split 18 Notable survivor list 19 Roosevelt's diagnosis

[edit] OR

moving original research here. "Flat earth" stuff that deviates from known facts becomes Wikipedia material only when a lot of folk "believe" in it. - Nunh-huh 06:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Polio and Pesticides

Correction, "Flat earth" stuff was believed by a repressive church.

I've read "Policy and guidelines" and there is nothing that says anything about "popularity" being a prerequisite. The works I quote are based in orthodox journals.

Much evidence contradicts the poliovirus theory. Completely omitted from current orthodox medical science are the toxicological correlations. A great history of poliovirus criticism exists during the era of 1908 to 1956, which is unknown to the modern era.

The highly funded virology of polio clouds the toxicology of polio. Orthodoxy completely omits and avoids the obvious toxicology of polio. The symptoms of "polio" are similar to DDT poisoning, for instance. The dumping of DDT into the U.S. food supply matches the rise and fall of polio during 1940-72.

The foundations of polio virology are extremely weak. Poliovirus has not been properly characterized because the supposed virus was rarely if ever isolated, ie., filtration was not employed; impure tissue extracts were utilized in lab experiments.

A problem with "polio" (as virus caused) is that the diagnoses of polio epidemics did not, could not, and rarely attempted to, distinguish between the many various neurological diseases. Thus, even if one were to accept the virus theory, one cannot know if a declared "polio epidemic" was polio, encephalitis, meningitis, a variety of flu-like diseases, or a mixture of all of them.

http://www.geocities.com/harpub

(unsigned)

• To save anyone else the trouble, the reason this theory is "unknown to the modern era" is because it is arrant nonsense, supported only by hyperbole and graphs showing all the signs of statistical manipulation. I think this section can be removed from talk and archived somewhere. ::Didactylos 03:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I find Didactylos' attitude to be 'flat earth'. If we do not consider alternative explanations for how the world works then how can we correct mistakes and advance? Richard Lynton 2 April 2006.

• Round Earth, I think. There is a tendency to assume taht our fourbears were stupid or careless reflected in the quoted text above. On the contrary, when Polio was common it had the attention of the public, and was commonly seen by them and by their doctors, and netiehr found it very difficult to seaprate out Polio from other diseases. Yes, among the cases reported as Polio there may be a few that are due to other causes, but to suggest that one event that coincides with one burst of Polio is the cause of that burst - though presumably the others are due to other causes - is to both assume things about our ancestors that are untrue and to unecessarily multiply hypotheses.

• Science is about discovering the truth. Galileo was put under house arrest for explaining that the earth went around the sun. His beliefs went against Aristotle's teachings and upset many who thought Aristotle was infallible. Today we do not say that Aristotle was stupid. However we see those who locked up Galileo as fundamentalist. Richard Lynton 4 April 2006.

Sure, we consider alternative explanations. And if they are found to be without merit we reject them. thx1138 16:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Or, to quote Carl Sagan,

  "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

  -- MarcoTolo 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHO

The reason I phrased it as announced a campaign rather than is involved in eradication is that the United Nations is very political, and often their agencies don't do what they say they're planning to do. I earnestly hope this campaign succeeds, however. Polio is horrible -- worse than malaria. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The plan to eradicate polio is older than 2004, however 2004 was hoped to be the year of the final campaign to get rid of the disease. The campaign has met unforeseen resistance in Nigeria, but the last report I read from BBC says that it is still hope. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3546877.stm -- Gustavf 16:41, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

We may want to update the polio spread thing. This article from the Globe and Mail points out it's hit Sudan; It's also hit Botswana in the past few weeks.

Combined with AIDS in the latter region, it's going to get nasty.

All because people decided to make a vaccine political. It'd be as comical as the anti-flouride stuff in the 50s, if it weren't so deadly. -- Penta 04:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SV40

SV40 is not known to cause cancer, only known to be associated with certain types of cancer, so this page is factually incorrect.

See [1] and the Wikipedia entry on SV40.

[edit] POV

From the article:

Most families allowed their children to take the vaccine. Some Muslim families refused due to false rumors that the vaccine causes impotence or infertility or both.

This is point of view. Surely the Muslim families who refuse vaccinnes do not believe that their refusal is due to false rumors. Instead the article should cite a group of people who believe those families are acting on false rumors.

--ErikStewart 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

in order to not regard the rumours as baseless in fact, should there not be some credible evidence that impotence or infertility have occurred, or a credible mechanism for such to occur be adduced? Midgley 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interesting

Robin_Miller flew Polio to the outback. I'm not sure where to put it.

Immunity requires three infections, one with each of the strains. The same presumably applies to immunity from sub-clinical infection with the wild virus, should one be so lucky, as to the live attenuated viruses. The killed vaccine doesn't have th esame problem of competitive inhibition, but is less effective. Swings and roundabouts. Midgley 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have good data, please, please add it. Sourcing is more important than WHERE you place the data since someone else can easily move it, but not everyone knows where to look for verification that the data is accurate in the first place. In lieu of sourcing; providing key technical words, key names, key dates, and such can provide the clues needed to allow others to google to verify. Thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 02:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polio in Minnesota

There was a polio outbreak in an Amish community in Minnesota last year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301733.html

I was just wondering why this wasn't included in the tables listing polio cases by location. CecilPL 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

CDC a more apposite reference, or deeper, anyway. Midgley 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TO-DO on POLIO

A nice article for a thesis, this needs brought down to the common man, and totally ignores history, unless it's way down in the bottom—which would violate WP:MOS guidelines on introductions. There is no sense of the fear people had of congregating to swim..., at ballparks, in any large venue.

This one also fails to mention FDR, The March of Dimes, or the near panic fears in the world's populous which all should be touched by the intro and these shortcomings boggles the mind. In sum, it's a clinical article, and needs historical and cultural meat as far as I was able to skim it last evening.

My resultant TO-DO note (I was in deep waters elesewhere) in:

Polio — dumbify intro and mention FDR in introbody. Does not even begin to give the horror of the disease and fear. In sum far too clinical.

B'regardsFrankB 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. History of infectious diseases in general deserves some attention. Midgley 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Roosevelt's paralysis

I'd like to change the sentence "United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt contracted polio in 1921 and was paralyzed from the waist down as a result." under "History" to the following (just the text is shown below, I will fix up the references):

"Franklin D. Roosevelt may have contracted polio in 1921. Yet his age (39 years) and many features of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune peripheral neuropathy). A peer-reviewed study published in 2003, using Bayesian analysis, found that six of eight posterior probabilities favored a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome over poliomyelitis. Regardless of the cause, the result was that Roosevelt was totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down. He could sit up and, with aid of leg braces, stand upright, but could not walk. Although the paralysis (whether from poliomyelitis or Guillain-Barré syndrome) had no cure at the time, for the rest of his life Roosevelt refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed. He tried a wide range of therapies, but none had any effect. Nevertheless, he became convinced of the benefits of hydrotherapy, and in 1926 he bought a resort at Warm Springs, Georgia, where he founded a hydrotherapy center for the treatment of polio patients which still operates as the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation (with an expanded mission). Furthermore, after he became President, he helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes), that supported the rehabilitation of victims of paralytic polio and the discovery of the polio vaccines."

I would also like to change the picture caption to: "Franklin D. Roosevelt helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes)", since the current caption is not justified by the evidence. Or, just "Franklin D. Roosevelt".

I would be willing to make a future separate article on FDR's paralytic illness, with more detail. At that point, I could shorten the section within the polio article, if that would help.

Since this is a major change, and since the new information casts doubt on the previously countlessly repeated and unquestioned assertion that Roosevelt's paralysis was caused by polio, I thought it would be good idea to start a discussion thread to give a chance for others to disagree.

The big change is factual information initially described in a peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Medical Biography [2], of which I was a co-author and which I can add as a reference in the article. I've also added information about FDR helping found the March of Dimes, and Warm Springs.

I would ask anyone who objects to the changes to please read the published article [3] first.

Dagoldman 22:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While he may not have actually had polio the fact that everyone thought he had polio was very important. Maybe you should just say something like while recent studies strongly suggest that he was misdiagnosed at the time it was common knowledge that he had polio and this encouraged him to search for treantments and helped rally support for the disease. --Gbleem 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I made changes in response to your suggestions. Dagoldman 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Guillain-Barré syndrome usually gets better - the residual deficit is often hard to detect, not paralysis. Midgley 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] viral entry

There is some reason to believe that the virus enters the body through the ear. Beadtot 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Like an earwig sneaking in to lay eggs? Link to your source please. Lisapollison 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Six remaining polio-endemic countries

The World Health Organization says that Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Niger, Afghanistan and Egypt, are the six remaining polio-endemic countries: Does anyone know where should I (or anyone) put this information?! I can't seem to find a place where it fits! __Maysara 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] salk vaccine deadly

[4]

I found this article. Is this a good source or conspiracy theory stuff? --Gbleem 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred R. Klenner

What to do with Fred R. Klenner? I took him out but he did create a treatment. We have nothing about treatment just prevention. Should Klenner get a see also or a note in treatment? --Gbleem 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrepeatable results don't have a place in an encyclopaedia. If the item was that Fred said Vitamin C would cure it, and everyone else tried it and said "oh yes, so it does, right that is another disease vanquished by science how very clever of Fred" then he'd belong in there. But no, not as it is. A high proportion of people who catch Polio get better. If you give them Vitamin C they'll still get better. Midgley 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unrepeatable results" - how do you know they are unrepeatable? They weren't repeated, I agree.

Nobody knows the "truth." The idea behind an encyclopedia is to present facts and history. Interestingly, Klenner presented his 60 out 60 recoveries (I read that to be 100%) from polio at an AMA convention in 1949. They ignored his results. He published his findings in 1949, and the results are still being excluded from discussion in 2006 per Midgley. Well, why not present the two or three sentences I wrote, and then add the treatment has never been repeated to test the validity of his findings? --Tbbarnard 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means assert they are repeatable, and when you can support that assertion, it can go in an encyclopaedia. WP is not a collection of all things that cannot be proved to be not true. Above, teh word "interestingly" appears. It isn't interesting. It wasn't interesting. It was boring and tedious then and it is boring and tedious now to see snake-oil retailed as medicine. Midgley 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked up to see what was shown under vitamin C in wiki, and there was a sentence or two not unlike the entry I tried to make here. --Tbbarnard 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone less biased that Midgley please review? He thinks that vitamin C is snake oil. It is a substance that humans cannot live without. --Tbbarnard 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think sometimes people ought to have to try to drive around their own personal POV biases in order to see just how big they are--it's like a tumbleweed I saw in Pasco, Washington once, blocking the whole street, and I had to drive around the block and come in from the other way. (Me, too, by the way, I'm no better or worse with biases than others, I just try to remember that I have them.) Klenner's polio research is simply the best known of his research and a stream of scientific studies funded and done in the 1940s on the impact of Vitamin C on viral diseases. For better or worse it and he are part of the American Medical Tradition, including what was important and going on in the 1940s, namely research into Polio.

People will read papers with comments like this:

"Pro and con arguments about clinical effects of vitamin C had been published as early as the 1940s;^7-13 among the general public the association of vitamin C with the common cold was achieving the status of folk medicine,⁴ encouraged by popular writers."^15-16

And its footnotes, also quoted from L R Shapiro, S Samuels, L Breslow, and T Camacho, Patterns of vitamin C intake from food and supplements: survey of an adult population in Alameda County, California in American Journal of Public Health, 1983 July; 73(7): 773–778.[5]:

9. Klenner FR: Massive doses of vitamin C and the virus diseases. Southern Med and Surg 1951; 103:101-107.

10. Klenner FR: The use of vitamin C as an antibiotic. J Appl Nutr 1953; 6:274-278.

And turn to Wikipedia wondering, hmmm, was Polio one of the viruses Klenner looked at? A quick run to the Polio page, and there down in the bottom is a sentence explaining that, yes, it was, and the research was never replicated. I didn't check the particular content that Tbbarnard was trying to insert, and I realize that may be Midgley's primary complaint, the particular form of the content or the content itself rather than its substance. Let's try to find a way to included a comment about Klenner that is acceptable and belongs in the article. -- KP Botany 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect info?

I'm not sure who wrote the Polio entry for Wikipedia, but I'm curious about this statement:

"The first immunization of children against polio began at Arsenal Elementary School and the Watson Home for Children in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1954."

I was always under the impression that the very first vaccination was at Franklin Sherman Elementary School in McLean, Virginia.

Link

The Watson Home vaccinations were in 1953, before Franklin Sherman's in 1954. I think this is a difference in a Phase II clinical trial in 1953 and a large Phase III trial in 1954. Rmhermen 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information!!!! Please don't add information that is not directly related to the topic. I was very disappointed to see two rude comments on this page. Middle and high schoolers use Wikipedia for papers and such and this information is not needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hailleyfargo (talk • contribs).

• I think you'll find that it's the middle and high-schoolers that are actually adding the rude comments! - Alison^✍ 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poliovirus split

• The article is getting long-ish (around 53k) and one easy split would be to make Poliovirus a standalone article. Moving Poliomyelitis#The virus and the taxobox to the new page would reduce the size to about 45k. Comments? -- MarcoTolo 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• So, having elicited a grand total of zero comments, I'm going to be bold and make the split. -- MarcoTolo 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• All done. I'd appreciate it if folks could double check the two articles (Poliomyelitis and Poliovirus) to see what I missed in the move. -- MarcoTolo 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked out, looks good (just a few missed redirects and a sentence or two that that needed to stay) thanks for getting that done. I have also added some stuff to the virus article to round it out a bit.--DO11.10 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - both articles are much clearer with your edits. Thanks for batting cleanup. -- MarcoTolo 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbar polio redirect

The Bulbar polio article is (at the time of this writing) insufficiently autonomous to be condidered a seperate article, and has been redirected back to the main page for the time being. See also Talk:Bulbar polio for further details.--DO11.10 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eradication Section Split

I think the section on eradication is long enough and relevant enough to merit its own page. Any protests?

Candent shlimazel 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that. The table needs to remain in both articles though. Also the name of the article cannot be as proposed. Something like Poliomyelitis eradication (note lowercase here, and a redirect from Polio eradication) would be more in line with the Manual of Style and Naming conventions. Let's hear what others have to say.--DO11.10 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I worry a little with splits like this: statistics-based articles seem to stagnant sometimes (or occasionally grow without bound). That said, its a very minor concern - no real objection from me. -- MarcoTolo 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Move completed - did I miss anything? -- MarcoTolo 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I did tweak a few things, hopefully for the better. Thanks for doing that Marco, and for cleaning up all of those references!--DO11.10 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable survivor list

I removed Johnnie Baima from the famous/notable survivor list. The article about Johnnie Baima was recently deleted as not notable. This list reflects the same definition of notability.--DO11.10 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that polio was so widespread before the introduction of the polio vaccine, it seems the survivor list may be somewhat questionable. In other words, might not there be many hundreds (thousands?) of famous people who are "polio survivors"? Maybe the list should be limited to those who suffered permanent paralysis, or were severely incapacitated for a significant period. Or maybe there might be separate lists, for the different categories of polio. Dagoldman 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is the spirit of the section. The respective articles of all of the entrants so far have indicated that they were in some way affected by polio. Since people generally don't even know that they have had the mild form of the illness, most people who know they did have polio probably had some degree of paralysis. IMO the criteria for inclusion should be:

1. Have a Wikipedia biography (this is absolutely required)
2. It must state in their Wikipedia bio that the person had polio (again if they know that they had it, it was likely a more serious form) or the polio status can be sourced from somewhere else.

These criteria seem to be similar other lists of "notable survivors".--DO11.10 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I confirmed all of the survivors and removed the ones where no mention was made in the wiki bio, or could be verified given the resources on the bio page. I also removed the Bayesian analysis bit, as that is far more extensively covered in the illness article.--DO11.10 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you've edited is fine. I'm just thinking that someone with mild symptoms, but no paralysis, might say they had polio. It would take a lot of research to figure out. Thanks for looking through the bios. By the way, the wikipedia article on Claudius says that, up to WWII, it was thought he had polio. Dagoldman 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So I found this list of notable survivors, then I went through the list and verified that the individuals fit the above criteria before I added them. The bios for most of the individuals stated that the person had either long recovery periods, or were to some extent paralyzed or disfigured due to the disease. There was one bio (I can't remember which one) that specifically said the polio was non-paralytic, I did not add that person. I don't know what to do with Claudius (and also Siptah an Egyptian Pharaoh), if you want to add them (or if you find other people that fit the above criteria) please feel free to do so.--DO11.10 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roosevelt's diagnosis

Whether or not Roosevelt actually had polio is not important to the philanthropy and legacy of polio. What is important is that everyone thought he had polio, that is why he was went to such great lengths and was instrumental in raising money for polio. A 2003 study that says that it was not polio has nothing to do with the philanthropy encouraged by Roosevelt and others at the time. The conclusions of the study are merely an interesting footnote, that is why I footnoted the bit about Guillain-Barré syndrome, people can read about the study and find more information there.--DO11.10 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees FDR is strongly associated with the philanthropy and legacy of polio, which is why there has always been some discussion of FDR in the polio article. So if FDR didn't have polio, I think there would be interest in that, so we need to mention it somewhere in the article. To help resolve this, since FDR is the person most widely known as a polio survivor, what if we put the FDR illness information under "famous polio survivors" as a paragraph, and then list the other survivors as bullet points? I agree FDR's illness does not warrant a lot of text in the article, but the basic facts need to be retained, and it would help to add a link to the separate article on FDR's illness. "Notes and References" now has 57 references, and only one note (the one where you have repeatedly put the FDR information). It's really a reference section, and I would argue to change back to "References". Looking at your edits, I'm wondering if perhaps more is going on than just moving around text, that perhaps you don't agree with the conclusion that FDR probably has GBS. Twice, you've edited the statement that FDR "probably had GBS" to 1) "may have had GBS" and 2) "potentially had GBS", which I would argue are both much too weak considering the current evidence. If you don't agree with the findings of the referenced peer-reviewed article, we can discuss that (maybe you already have somewhere). Otherwise, could we 1) retain the wording that FDR probably did not have polio, 2) add a link to the separate wikipedia article on FDR's illness, 3) put the FDR illness text back in the regular text, under "famous polio survivors" and 4) try to shorten the FDR text some. I appreciate your overall edits to the polio article. Dagoldman 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First, my changes to this portion of the article had nothing to do with whether I, personally, agree with your study. And really, the study and its conclusions seem reasonable to me. My point is that changing Roosevelt's diagnosis in 2003 alters none of the consequences of his polio diagnosis at the time. How about this as a compromise, put the following under "Famous survivors":

Politicians including United States Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell and U.S. president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although Roosevelt's diagnosis of polio was unquestioned at the time, and thereafter in countless references to paralytic poliomyelitis, his age (39 years) and many features of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune peripheral neuropathy.)^[1] (See:Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness for more information.)

It seems that the above conveys the point without going into too much detail. Second, I am a scientist, and true to my nature the word "probably" just sounds all wrong (for reasons that even I can't fully explain). The changes I propose eliminate the problem though. Thoughts?--DO11.10 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding the information on FDR's illness, similar to what you proposed, to the "famous survivors" section, and removing from philanthropy section. I put as separate paragraph under "famous survivor", since FDR has been by far the most famous in the public mind. Dagoldman 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On another note I am curious, what happened to FDR's body, did "they" ever take any tissue samples or do an autopsy? Would there be a way to get samples to determine biologically whether or not he had Polio? Would one be able to tell if it was polio even of the samples were available now?--DO11.10 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, no autopsy was done after FDR's death (thus fueling innumerable conspiracy theories). If an autopsy had been done, tissue samples would likely have been formalin-fixed before H&E staining; few viral types retain infectivity post-fixation. If spinal cord tissue section had been taken (and then properly stored), yes, you should be able to see evidence of anterior horn cell dysfunction. The histological picture should be at least reasonalby clear at that point, but to "prove" PV, you'd have to use an immunohistochemical label (might be difficult on old samples) and/or try for direct virus visualization via electron microscopy (or some third thing which I've missed). -- MarcoTolo 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I can also verify that apparently no autopsy. An associate of mine previously searched the archives of the states of Georgia and New York and found no record of an autopsy. Also, the books that have been written on FDR's final illness and death do not mention any autopsy findings. Also, no autopsy is indicated on FDR's death certificate. As to whether one could tell if it was polio if samples were available, I don't know. Dagoldman 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The changes you have made are fine with me, thanks. Also thanks to both of you for the information.--DO11.10 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)