[back] Smallpox vaccination lies

[Extracted from] Chapter 90: LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION BY J.T. BIGGS J.P.)

Dr. Ogle's statistical fraud regarding Leicester

"This notorious table of Dr. Ogle's was produced under the auspices of the then Registrar-General, for the especial purpose of enabling the Royal Commission to strike a blow at Leicester. It seems almost incredible that the Royal Commission should not only accept it without adequate examination, but proceed so eagerly to build up on this sandy foundation their chief—indeed, I may say their only—indictment of Leicester. As a statistical fabric, the table is smashed to atoms."--J.T Biggs

CHAPTER 90: Leicester's Traducers Unmasked.

Dr. Ogle, who handed in Table G, page 646, Royal Commission, Sixth Report, upon which the Royal Commissioners' criticisms of Leicester are founded, has not furnished the actual figures upon which the calculations in the table are based, so that its accuracy might be tested. Moreover, the years comprising the periods seem to have been arbitrarily selected for a specific purpose; they are not the customary quinquennial periods used by the Registrar-General. The usual years would be 1861-65, 1871-75, and 1881-85 ; instead of which, 1863-67, 1873-77, and 1883-87 were resorted to. Why have the actual figures been withheld, and why were these particular yours selected? Dr. Ogle's examination on this on bio will be found at pages 407-8 and Questions 27,197 to 27,209, Sixth Report of the Royal Com­mission. When asked by Dr. (now Sir William) Collins (Question 27,203) whether he had made a similar comparison with other towns than Leicester, Dr. Ogle excused himself by replying :— " No. . . . such abstraction is a very laborious piece of work."

That the Dissentient Commissioners viewed the table with great mistrust is shown in their report, for they say, in paragraphs 181 and 182 :—

" We are not prepared to attach much weight to figures put in by Dr. Ogle,   instituting   a comparison between Leicester and the whole of England and Wales in regard to the changes in the infantile mortality from various diseases.
    To make such comparison valuable it would be, as Dr. Ogle seemed inclined to admit, better to compare an urban population similar to that of Leicester, but in which vaccination was thoroughly carried out. If we want to ascertain by the method of differences whether vaccination exerts a detrimental effect by increasing the mortality from certain infantile diseases, it is surely imperative to see that the places or times compared differ as little as possible in respect of circumstances other than vaccination.     In the statistics which Mr. Biggs furnished, we do not find any evidence that the increasing disuse of infantile vaccination in Leicester has prejudicially affected the mortality of young children ; on the contrary, there has not only been a marked reduction of the general death-rate since 1875, but a reduction in the death-rate of infants under one year—a rate which reached its highest point since 1838 in the period 1868-72, when vaccination was most thoroughly enforced."

For myself, I have all along entertained grave doubts as to the accuracy of the figures in this table, as all the circumstances connected with its preparation and production were calculated to arouse suspicion. I therefore wrote to the Registrar-General, asking, him whether he could furnish the figures upon which Dr. Ogle's table was based, or otherwise inform me where they could be found. In reply, he gave no clue, but merely referred me to Dr. Ogle's table, stating that the figures were now over twenty years old, and would occupy more time than could be spared to look up.     I then tried to obtain the information from a member of the Royal Commission, but he was unable to furnish the required figures, as only the results, and not the figures upon which those results were based, had boon given to the Royal Commission.

Under these circumstances, I turned to our local records, and found that it was possible to obtain from our Medical Officers' reports the requisite numbers for Leicester for the last period in Dr. Ogle's table—viz., 1883-87. They differ so materially that I give both the actual figures and the results they produce. These not only entirely undermine Dr. Ogle's table, but also all the criticisms based thereupon which were levelled by the Royal Commission against Leicester.

TABLE 33.
Table showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, from 1883-87, the actual number of deaths under one year of age from Diarrhoea and Dysentery, Syphilis, Erysipelas, Tubes Mesenterica and Scrofula, Bronchitis, all other causes; and from all causes, with the death-rate from each, per million births. The number of births is also given.

We are now in a position to compare Dr. Ogle's figures in his Table C, with the results obtained from the actual deaths.

TABLE 34.
Table showing for LEICESTER the corrections, for the period 1883-87, in the per million death-rates, and the percentages of increase or decrease, given in Dr. Ogle's Table G.    (Page 646, Sixth Report, Royal Commission.)

* Increase or decrease in 20 years.

When I found these serious discrepancies, I made a further effort to obtain the original figures from the Registrar-General, but without avail, as will be seen from the following letters :—

General Register Office,
Somerset House,
London, W.C
11th September, 1912.

    Sir,--I am directed by the Registrar-General to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant,
and in say that he regrets he cannot comply with your inquest. The calculation referred to is nearly twenty
years old, and either to find the original manuscript or in reconstruct the data would involve a greater expenditure
 of time than can be spared for the matter.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
T. H. C. Stevenson,
                            Superintendent of Statistics.

Mr. J. T. BIGGS,
    49 Waterloo Street,
      Leicester.

_________________________________________

                                                                                        49 Waterloo Street,
                                                                                                     Leicester.

                                                                                                    10th September, 1012.

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
Somerset House,
London.

    Dear Sir,—While thanking you for your letter of 11th September, I am sorry you are unable to comply with my request. It is quite true the calculation contained in Dr. Ogle's Table C, page 646, Sixth Report of the Royal Commission, is nearly twenty years old, but that does not, unfortunately, prevent the continuance of the adverse criticisms of Leicester, which are based upon this Table.
    On Investigating the last period—namely, 1883-87—and comparing with the figures in our Medical Officer's Health Reports for these years, serious discrepancies are revealed, which not only vitiate Dr. Ogle's conclusions, but disclose errors of such dimensions as to make the table valueless.
    For instance, the errors in the per million rates as between the first (assuming this to be correct) and last period, when corrected, are 2,139 per million for Diarrhoea and Dysentery, 310 per million for Syphilis, 84 per million for Erysipelas, 1,339 per million for Tabes Mesenterica and Scrofula, 1,258 for Bronchitis, 8,635 for All Other Causes, and 3,605 for All Causes.
    The errors for the percentage increase or decrease are shown to be:—Diarrhoea and Dysentery, 5.04 ; Syphilis, 21.2; Erysipelas, 12.4; Tabes Mesenterica and Scrofula, 27.76 ; Bronchitis, 13.3 ; All Other Causes—5.65 ; and All Causes—1.65.
    I enclose the actual figures and the calculations based thereon, and shall be glad if you will kindly point out the errors or discrepancies, if any, in these figures, as I am anxious not only to have them correct, but to avoid doing any injustice to Dr. Ogle by their publication.
                                                                 Yours faithfully,
                                                                           J. T. Biggs.

___________________

General Register Office,
Somerset House,
London, W.C.
25th September, 1912.

Sir,—I am directed by the Registrar-General to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, and to say that, owing to the pressure of current work, time cannot be spared to investigate the figures furnished therein. Moreover, the Registrar-General cannot admit that a discrepancy between the returns compiled in this Office and those prepared by a Medical Officer of Health imply an error in the former equal to that discrepancy.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
T. H. C. Stevenson,
Superintendent of Statistics.

Mr. J T. BIGGS,                          
49 Waterloo Street,
Leicester.

On comparing the preceding tables, it will be seen that the increase or decrease between the first and last periods in Dr. Ogle's table is not only incorrect for each of the diseases dealt with, but all these errors, excepting one, are used to tell against Leicester.

For " Diarrhoea," the disease to which the infantile population of Leicester is specially liable, instead of an increase of 1,782 per million in the death-rate, there is an actual decrease of 357, or an error of no less than 2,139 per million.

For "Syphilis," Dr. Ogle gives the increase in the death-rate as 685 per million, whereas it was only 475, an error of 210 per million.

For "Erysipelas," the actual increase in the death-rate was 198 per million, and not 282, as given by Dr. Ogle, or an error of 84 per million.

For "Tabes Mesenterica and Scrofula," Dr. Ogle gives an increase of 1,245 per million, whereas there was an actual decrease of 94, an error of 1,339 per million.

For "Bronchitis," the increase was 9,404 per million, and not 10,662, as given by Dr. Ogle, an error of 1,258 per million.

For "All Other Causes," Dr. Ogle shows a increase in the death-rate of 20,688 per million, instead of only 12,053, an error of no less than 8,635 per million.

For "All Causes "—that is, the deaths of infants under one year of age from all causes, per million births—Dr. Ogle shows a decrease of 5,032 per million, whereas it should be 2,427, or an error of 3,605 per million !

Dr. Ogle's percentage death-rates for Leicester are, as a natural sequence, equally faulty. There is an error of over 5 per cent, in the death-rate for " Diarrhoea" ; of 21.2 per cent, for " Syphilis" ; of 12.4 per cent, for "Erysipelas"; of 27.76 per cent, for " Tabes Mesenterica and Scrofula" ; of 13.3 per cent, for "Bronchitis" ; of 5.65 per cent, for " All Other Causes" ; and of 1.65 per cent, for "All Causes."

These results are obtained from testing a single period for Leicester only, and from but one-sixth of the figures in the whole table. If, on investigation, so small a portion is found to contain all these blunders, what does it matter whether they tell for or against Leicester? In either case, the table and the arguments based thereon are shattered !

After this, it would not be unreasonable to expect that other parts of Dr. Ogle's table would prove to be equally vulnerable, and, if submitted to a similar test and process of disintegration, the probable result is that very little, if anything, would be left of the Royal Commission's indictment against Leicester. This is the more likely when we bear in mind that the decrease in the all-age and all-cause death-rate of England and Wales, from the year 1863 to the year 1887, was only 3.9 per thousand, whilst that of Leicester for the same period was 10.9 per thousand, showing a gain in favour of Leicester of no less than 7 per thousand.

This notorious table of Dr. Ogle's was produced under the auspices of the then Registrar-General, for the especial purpose of enabling the Royal Commission to strike a blow at Leicester. It seems almost incredible that the Royal Commission should not only accept it without adequate examination, but proceed so eagerly to build up on this sandy foundation their chief—indeed, I may say their only—indictment of Leicester. As a statistical fabric, the table is smashed to atoms. Henceforth it must take its appropriate place, side by side with the " Ceara " fable and the " Franco-German" Army statistical fraud.