Evaluating the measles immunisation campaign

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Evidence on measles is unreliable EDITOR,--D M Salisbury and S D Horsley justify the success of the measles and rubella immunisation campaign by using data that cannot be criticised.1 Regrettably, such data cannot be used to give year on year comparisons for measles infections. Data collected by public health departments on measles notifications--the only data that have been available over a number of years in England--show no indication of benefit from the highly expensive campaign last autumn. Figures recently declared to general practitioners in Brighton, Hove, and Lewes indicate that more cases of measles were notified in the first quarter of 1995 (n=11) than in the first quarter of 1994 (n=9). Salisbury and Horsley use data collected from central laboratories on proved measles infection. Although salivary antibody diagnosis is far more reliable, only in the past few months have general practitioners notifying certain diseases been asked to submit salivary samples for confirmatory diagnosis. As would be expected, the number of notifications greatly exceeds the number of confirmed cases--as it always has done. Consequently, such data cannot be used to prove the success of the disruptive use of £20m at a time when other health care costs are being reduced. I would like to see an independent evaluation of the mass immunisation campaign before any further public money is spent in this way.

This publication has 1 reference indexed in Scilit: