Bernard Greenberg
Hiding polio
(Acute flaccid paralysis)
[Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert, was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians. Less cases were identified as polio after the vaccination for very specific reasons.]
"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank
and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that
the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the
criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
http://www.mercola.com/2000/feb/6/vaccine.htm
Bernard Greenberg (late Dean -- School of Public Health, University of N.
Carolina) who -- during the polio epidemics of the 50's -- chaired the
Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the American Public Health
Association, submitted testimony to the Congressional Hearings on polio
vaccines (HR0541, 1962). His evidence respecting diagnostic modifications
and statistical manipulation, seriously challenged the popularly promoted
view that the epidemics subsided as a result of vaccine intervention. In
his words "As a result of . . . changes in both diagnosis and diagnostic
methods, the rates of paralytic poliomyelitis plummeted from the early
1950's to a low in 1957."
Thomas W. Kavanagh, Ph.D.:
As I wrote elsewhere, and with updating:
> In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual
> Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in
> paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August,
> 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank
> and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician
> Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings,
> revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and
> ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained
> that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by
> changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
The citation in the above quote (note 2) is to that well known medical
authority: "J.I. Rodale: The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases, Rodale Books
Inc., Emmaus Pennsylvania (1962). " It is so well known and respected that
my local public library has taken the 1976 edition (apparently the latest
one offered) off their shelves as being "out of date."
Dr. Herbert Ratner did chair a panel discussion at the May 1960 meetings of
the IMS. The panel consisted of Dr. Herald Cox, the aforementioned Dr.
Greenberg, and Dr. Herman Kleinman. Of these, only Ratner and Kleinman were
MDs; Cox was Sc.D, and Greenberg, like me, a Ph.D. The proceedings (edited
from a transcript) were printed the August and September issues of the
Illinois Medical Journal (IMJ). Funny how only the August issue ever gets
mentioned on the web.
Yesterday [Saturday, Dec. 15, 2007] I read those two articles at the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) over in Newark.
Unfortunately, their copier was down, so I could not make copies; but I did
take notes.
Then I tried to track down the oft-cited HR 10541 at Seton Hall Law School
Rodino Library. But their Congressional Serial Set only goes back to the
1970s. They sent me to the Newark Public Library, which has many
Congressional resources, but not this one. But the NPL did give me the
correct citation: not HR 10541, but "Intensive Immunization Programs", and
"Y4in8/4:Im6." [don't ask me what that code means.] So, via Lexus-Nexus, I
found that Rutgers Gov Pubs has both a microfiche and a hardcopy.
Interestingly, reading the Nexus-Lexus catalog copy, I noticed that while
the list of witnesses at the HR 10541 hearings included about 10 people, it
did *not* list Dr. Greenberg.
I went down to Rutgers this morning [Sunday, Dec. 16, 2007] and read an
original hard copy of the HR 10541 hearings. Fortunately their copiers were
working.
First conclusion, intimated by the above "witness list": despite numerous
citations [including the quote from Rodale] that he did, Dr. Greenberg did
not, and I emphasize *did not*, "testify at Congressional hearings" on HR
10541. Rather, almost the entire text of the IMJ transcripts were reprinted
as pages 90-109 of the Hearing of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce on "Intensive Immunization Programs."
Note: the above referenced URL: "eg greenberg
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html" is a link to the paragraph:
] Bernard Greenberg (late Dean -- School of Public Health, University of N.
] Carolina) who -- during the polio epidemics of the 50's -- chaired the
] Committee on Evaluation and Standards for the American Public Health
] Association, submitted testimony to the Congressional Hearings on polio
] vaccines (HR0541, 1962). "
Here the active "testified" is changed to the passive "submitted testimony."
But this is doubly erroneous. First of all, this was not "testimony," which
implies statements given under oath: there were no oaths involved in the
1960 panel discussion. Then, Greenberg himself did not submit the
"testimony," someone else did. Note also that the number of the bill is in
error.
The above URL,
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/greenberg_h.html itself includes
a link to its source,
http://www.mercola.com/2000/feb/6/vaccine.htm
{Note: that particular page is difficult to access. I got through it once,
avoiding giving my email. YMMV}
In the full article, "Universal Childhood Immunization," following the above
paragraph, the next paragraph reverts to the active voice, "It is of further
interest that Dr. Greenberg testified ..." But again, he did *not*
"testify."
And, after a short -- two sentence -- paragraph, comes this: "A
distinguished interdisciplinary medical panel moderated at the 120th Annual
meeting of the Illinois State medicial society ... B. Greenberg
*contributed* the following observation..." That 120th Annual Meeting was
the 1960 panel discussion whose transcript was attached to the House record
on HR 10541 in 1962. But here Greenberg's comments are not "testimony" but
merely a "contribution." Of course, there are no citations in the
mercola.com "newsletter", so unless one knew that the "testimony" and
"contibution" refered to the same original 1960 panel text, one might be
mislead into thinking that they were separate documents. Good scholarship,
eh.
HR 10541 was passed (after House amendments {to exclude Christian Scientists
who objected on reliogious grounds}, and with no Senate hearings) as the
Vaccination Assistance Act of 1962, US Statutes at Large 76:1155.
In the following discussion, page number citations will refer to the 1962
Congressional reprint of the 1960 IMS panel discussion.
{Aside: there are a few web cites to HR 10541 pages 110 and above. These are
to the reprint of an article from the Chicago Sunday Times magazine of Mar.
5, 1961 [another highly respected medical source ;-)], by Joan Beck,
entitled "The Truth About the Polio Vaccines: Do Salk Shots Really Prevent
Polio." It
consists largely of direct quotes from the 1960 IMS panel.}
Apparently the above cite from the 1962 Rodale Encyclopedia article (if it
is correct) is the earliest source of the claim that Greenberg testified on
HR 10541. I can trace Web citations back to about 1996, but since many Web
sources liberally grab from each other, the trail of citations is unclear.
But to now the crux of the matter: at the 1960 panel discussion, reprinted
in 1962, Dr. Greenberg did say, "My primary concern, my only concern, is the
very misleading way that most of this data has been handled from a
statistical point of view" (1962:94), and he did use the word "manipulated"
once, ["A scientific examination of the data, and the manner in which the
data were manipulated, will reveal that the true effectiveness of the
present Salk vaccine is unknown and greatly over rated" (1962:95)]. That is,
Greenberg *did* call into question the effectiveness of the vaccine
(Rodale's above "ineffectiveness"), but that was only because the
statistical methods of analysis were faulty, not because he thought the
vaccine was faulty.
In my reading of the text, neither Greenberg personally, or the panel as a
whole, concluded that the "vaccine [was] a frank and ineptly disguised
fraud" or that "data had been manipulated to hide the dangers." Neither the
words "fraud," "hide," nor "dangers" occur in the transcript.
Indeed, Dr. Greenberg's final comment on the matter (and remember he was
speaking as a statistician, not as an MD):
"I am agnostic [as to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am
sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is.
Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to
push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too
complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective
there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect, saying,
"Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this business
to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more cautious.' By being more
cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio vaccine too
slowly. And that's what I am trying to emphasize: They must realize they are
making this mistake possible. The issue must be pursued." (1962:103)
Conclusions:
As noted above, Greenberg did note how data had been handled in a "very
misleading way." But he ascribed much of that to the mass media, singling
out a "recent Associated Press release" (1962:95), not to a 'medical
establishment' conspiracy [single quotes enclose my terms]
Greenberg did describe how the methods for calculating incidents of polio
had changed from 1955 to 1959. But at no point did he, nor anyone else on
the panel, ascribe this to malicious intent by a 'medical establishment.'
Indeed, he explicitly commented that the post-1959 were "*improved* methods
of
diagnosis" (1962:97) [my emphasis].
Again, Greenberg did question the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine as being
unknown because of the statistical problems, but not of vaccines in general.
Indeed, Greenberg eagerly awaited both a live virus vaccine (more
effective), and an oral vaccine (as the primary route of polio infection was
oral).
Ultimately, the way the 1960 panel discussion is being presented today is
probably even more misleading than the way the 1955-59 statistics were then.
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics; and then there's the Web.
Thomas W. Kavanagh, Ph.D.
Seton Hall University