Thanks for your critical response.
The lead time is impossible to know exactly because the data is difficult to obtain. It was at that time, illegal to disseminate pesticide distribution information. Thus, the toxicology book cited, Hayes and Laws, extrapolated pesticide production from transportation data.
There are variances of lead time between the compared data sets. My excuse for that I was unable to find how the transportation data migrated into the government record system.
That is why the peaks and valleys correlation is important. With that correlation and the close association of data events, the association between the persistent pesticides production and polio incidence becomes an important topic.
That the topic is completely avoided in literature -- is thereby evidence of a political, industrial problem, since industry has a great bearing on public media.
You also find on my site an article authorized by the modern day biochemist, Howard Urnovitz, that deflates completely any of the famous studies that claimed isolation for poliovirus.
With regard to other claims of virus causation, I am certain that no one should take such claims at face value, which is what most people do.
If one critically examines the seminal "discovery" studies for any of the prominent viruses, one will find similar contradictions, such as with poliovirus, and as Mitchel Cohen points out, West Nile virus.
There are two main problems to look for when critically reading virology.
1) Toxicology (environmental or medical invasion) is missing at all levels of disease investigation (epidemiology, clinical, laboratory).
2) Isolation of the virus, though claimed, is not actually achieved. Only the word "isolate" is redefined.
Chickenpox parties is another topic which would take us afar, and could be approached a little later.