Clinical Review

Mumps and the UK epidemic 2005

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7500.1132 (Published 12 May 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1132

False Government Rubella Scare Stories - Only 20,000 Percent Overstated



Dear Sir,

FALSE GOVERNMENT RUBELLA SCARE STORIES
- ONLY A 20,000 PERCENT 'OVERSTATEMENT'



Tony Floyd, Medical Student, Newcastle University cited truly shocking
rubella figures [1] .......


.... shocking
because they are impossible.


Mr Floyd says:

"In

the United
States .... [i]n 1964 there was [sic] approximately
12.5 million cases of rubella, as many as 11,000 fetal deaths, and
approximately 20,000 cases of congenital rubella.
"

The
authority cited was a 1984 article [2] by, among others, Walter
Orenstein, a Director of the US National Immunisation
Programme. His job was to promote vaccination.

On those
figures Mr Floyd extrapolated further figures which are so out of line
with what is known that the wheels of this bandwagon start to fall off.


Why impossible
..... ? Because the true figure was nearer 20,000 percent
lower. The incidence in
1964 would have resulted in
less
than 200 congenital rubella syndrome
('CRS') cases for the whole of the USA and not 20,000
.


The 1964 recorded rubella incidence for Maryland, USA, was, for
example, 1:1000
population [3], [4]. The sub-group of CRS cases was typically
1:1000 of total rubella cases [5]. The largest annual total of
nationally reported cases of
rubella in the United States was in 1969, when 57,681 cases were
reported (58 cases per 100,000 population). [5] At around 12,000
percent fewer cases than the figures Mr Floyd cites, well within the
order of magnitude of error government is comfortable working with, but
not an error the public would tolerate (if only the media would spill
the beans).


The figures Mr
Floyd cites are also impossible for the very reason that if the 1964
figures were as he claims, then the disease concerned would seem to
have
been something new, that overcame the naturally acquired immunity of 1
in 16 Americans to rubella infection [5]. That immunity
was
acquired when epidemics of rubella occurred every
6-9 years, and in
annual rubella outbreaks.


If it did that to naturally acquired immunity in 1964, it would today
do even greater damage to the weaker 'immunity' conferred by vaccines
(and those of you who think existing vaccinations will protect against
a pandemic of 'flu or anything else should think again -
sometimes faith is not worth dying for).


A web search produces numerous webpages repeating the figures Mr Floyd
cites, referring to 1964 as a 'pandemic' and attributing the Orenstein
paper as
their source. It is
strange therefore that other more recent texts appear not to refer to
these figures, making passing reference and no more, such as 'epidemics of rubella occurred every 6-9
years, with the last major U.S. epidemic occurring in 1964-1965.
'
and without mentioning 'pandemic'. [5] If the figures had
been as outrageously large as Mr Floyd claims, and reliable, then they
would be a major issue for any work of reference on the topic, but that
seems not to be the case. Further, where also are all the 1960's
papers telling us all about this remarkable pandemic and commenting on
what kind of rubella or rubella-like disease this might be?


Where are all the US paediatricians who might have been starting out in
practice then or who were still in medical school who might have
remembered such an auspicious 'pandemic'.


Then how is it that we start to hear about these horror stories in a
paper published 20 years later and just in the middle of the big push
for the MMR vaccine in the USA and only 4 years before its introduction
into the UK?


Why did Mr Orenstein not comment on the 1940 rubella epidemic which was
three times that of 1964, when Maryland saw 10,000 cases of rubella -
three times greater than in 1964 and a pattern, if repeated throughout
the US would still have seen 8000 percent fewer cases than those
claimed by Mr Floyd in 1964? [3]


It is becoming increasingly clear to me from seeing the kinds of
exaggerations that have been taking place that drug companies in the
post WWII era of the 1950's and 60's could only have been looking
closely at the rapidly falling disease incidences in the western
world. In doing this they could not have failed to realise three
things. This was a lucrative business opportunity to introduce
mass national vaccination programmes. They could only win. Two
hundred years of disease statistics showed disease incidence had been
dropping dramatically, continuing with low levels post 1940.
It would be like
playing
football downhill with a gale on your back against a one legged
team.
They must have
realised their vaccines would be heralded as the saviours of the world
from disease. They also must have realised that if someone did
not do something pretty damn quickly, the opportunity would be gone, as
the morbidity and mortality levels continued to fall to very low levels
through the rest of the 20th century.


What troubles me also greatly is that DT vaccines first appeared in the
1920's, just in time for Kanner to 'discover' autism and which he
described as something not seen before (and so anyone claiming it had
been around in 1800, there appears to be some difficulty with that
proposition). What further troubles me is the association between
DT/DTP and autism from the earliest times of its introduction into the
USA in the 1940's.


This also then means that if vaccines, and not just MMR vaccines, have
been implicated in autism (and many other ailments besides), the claim
that autism appears coincidentally around the time when MMR is
administered is self-confounding. With the authorities failing
to admit the vaccine/autism connection for other vaccines, the claim
rings hollow. Further, we see an acceleration of autism when
vaccination is accelerated and expanded.


Finally, the case study forming the basis for modern vaccination is
smallpox vaccine. However, the claim that smallpox vaccine
eradicated smallpox rings hollow when the history is considered.
Despite compulsory vaccination through the Vaccination Acts of 1840,
1841 and 1853 and the Acts of 1861, 1867 and 1871 making parents liable
to repeated fines, the smallpox vaccine still had not eradicated
smallpox in 150 years since Jenner's demonstration of cowpox
vaccination.
[6] The last
large epidemic of smallpox (but not the last epidemic) was in London in
1901- 02.
[6] Legislation to
make immunisation compulsory was widely unpopular
(the
vaccine was lethal)
and all legislation
enforcing compulsion was finally withdrawn in 1948. [6]


What is particularly troubling about the smallpox story is that
smallpox continued to be imported into the UK from overseas up to the
1970s. How is it that a population without herd immunity suddenly
seems not to be dropping like flies to this 'dangerous' disease? What
is more, by the mid 1970s, it was clear that the risk of death
from the complications of smallpox vaccination outweighed the predicted
number of deaths that would follow importations. [6]


Consider in parallel cholera, which seems to have vanished with the
advent of clean water. Smallpox vaccine is no success
story. It illustrates instead the success of medicine and
drug company interests over commonsense and our political masters.




email Clifford Miller bmj0505431"insert an 'at' sign"cliffordmiller.com


________________________________________________________________________

[1] The
Cost of a Rubella Outbreak Would be More than Just Financial
25 May
2005

[2]
Orenstein
WA, Bart KJ, Hinman AR, Preblud SR, Greaves WL, Doster SW, Stetler HC,
Sirotkin B. The opportunity and obligation to eliminate rubella from
the United States.
JAMA. 1984 Apr 20;251(15):1988-94.
PubMed


[3]
Maryland Department of Health,
3,583 cases of
rubella during 1964. http://edcp.org/html/rubella.html
accessed 30 May 2005


[4] Population 3.9
million in 1970, increasing by 1/2 million every 10 years - provides
estimated population 3.5 +
million in 1964


http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/popproj/TOTPOP_PROJ04.pdf

[5]
Epidemiology & The Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Disease 5th
Edn, Jan 1999, p178-9, W Atkinson MD MPH, S Humiston MD MPH, C Wolfe, R
Nelson

[6]
Immunisation against Infectious Disease 1996 - The 'Green
Book'.

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests
01 June 2005
Clifford G. Miller
Lawyer, graduate physicist, former university examining lecturer in law
BR3 3LA
Click to like:
9
Vote down!