One Vote Against BCG

Long-smoldering U.S. medical skepticism over the use of BCG* as a vaccine against tuberculosis burst into flame last week at a medical convention in Chicago. Declared Professor Jay Arthur Myers, TB authority at the University of Minnesota: not only are the claims of good results from BCG unfounded, but the whole idea of a vaccine against tuberculosis is based on a fallacy.

In a deceptively mild, "I-hate-to-say-it-but" manner, Dr. Myers whacked away at the claims of BCG advocates. His main points:

P:Since an ordinary attack of tuberculosis does not produce dependable immunity, there is no basis for hoping that a mild, artificial infection can do so.

P:The bacilli in the vaccines often are either so weakened that they soon die, having had no effect, or are so virulent that they actually cause tuberculosis.

P:Such induced tuberculosis is mild at first and may stay dormant for years, then flare up as a serious disease.

P:Those vaccinated with BCG give a positive reaction to tuberculin afterward; hence this test for the presence of tuberculosis is useless in their cases.

"The greatest decreases [in TB] and the lowest mortality rates in the world have occurred in places where BCG has not been used," said Dr. Myers. In Denmark, where BCG has been extensively, used, the death rate was cut in 30 years from 174 to 30 per 100,000, but in Iceland, with similar people and conditions, it has been cut in 20 years from 203 to 26 without BCG. In Rio de Janeiro, the death rate has dropped among unvaccinated adults but increased among BCG-vaccinated infants.

*I.e., bacillus of Calmette and Guerin, two doctors of France's Pasteur Institute, who first tested it on calves in 1908.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.