Armstrong – Table of Contents

Armstrong felt that the spraying as applied, usually to children, was inefficient due to
inadequate delivery into the nasal cavity.
Armstrong presented the following conclusions about the study: 1) Chemicals
capable of blocking the olfactory route of infection must be thoroughly applied to the
nasal vault if maximum protection was to be secured. 2) Many children actively resisted
and thus rendered spraying difficult. (When asked later why this was so, Armstrong
answered: “They wiggle.”) 3) Sympathetic parents, unfamiliar with the anatomy of the
nose, were not, as a class, qualified to administer prophylactics properly. 4) A house-to-
house survey revealed complaints from 885 among 4,631-sprayed individuals. Headache,
temporary nausea, burning of nostrils, symptoms of head cold, irritated throat and
irritation of eyes, in the order named, were the most usual complaints. Had the
applications of the chemicals been more uniformly thorough, more unpleasant
consequences might have developed. 5) Seven instances of hypersensitivity or of
idiosyncrasy to the drugs were reported from the whole epidemic area. 6) The actual
incidence of poliomyelitis in the group sprayed by whatever method was less than the
calculated incidence based upon the rate in the unsprayed group (16:217) (Birmingham
area). In the total epidemic area there were estimated 270,000 sprayed and 160,000 not
sprayed individuals. 7) The occurrence of cases in persons who had sprayed for several
weeks in the advised manner threw question on upon the method as employed. 8) In the
face of an epidemic of poliomyelitis, the people could be relied upon to employ any
simple, inexpensive prophylactic method of promise. 9) It seemed probable that the most
effective method of application, as well as the most ideal solution, had not been found
yet. Investigative work should therefore be continued.