£ 1, 893 9 4
|
1906
|
10, 168 178
|
1, 857 143
|
1907
|
8, 430
4 6
|
1, 973
17 5
|
1908
|
8, 061
140
|
1, 938
181
|
1909
|
8, 006 0 0
|
1, 963 0 0
|
Fascination
vs. Repulsion with Numbers
Among all the
economists of the history, I admire Adam Smith most of all. Adam Smith’s works have been inspiring many
economists throughout centuries, and many scholars can’t help mentioning him in
the course of their work. His pen did
leave few stones unturned, and each time with an economic point of view. Although most of the modern terms were
inexistent at his time, he described things his own way and often cut to the
core of the matter. I had to refer to
his famous book, Wealth of Nations, for many times in the past, and the most
recent review of it gave me a term that has become an anchor for my paper. That term is “Political Arithmetick”. Adam Smith remarkably acknowledged ‘I have no
great faith in political arithmetick’ (Smith, Wealth of Nations, I, p.534). In a 1785 letter written from Edinburgh Custom House to
George Chalmers, Smith reiterated his sentiment: ‘You know that I have little
faith in Political Arithmetic’ (Smith, Correspondence, p. 288). There were serious limitations in gathering
and analyzing quantitative information during the early introduction of
vaccination to England, and no wonder many, like Smith, put little faith in
numbers.
Davenant gave a good
definition to the term Political Arithmetick: “By Political Arithmetick, we
mean the art of reasoning by figures, upon things relating to government.”
(Hoppit, 1996) The golden age of
political arithmetick began in 1662 with the publication of John Graunt’s book
“Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality”, and passing
with the death of its key proponents, Gregory King in 1712 and Charles Davenant
in 1714. The term itself was devised by
Sir William Petty in about 1671 or 1672.
The use of statistics in policy debate became more prevalent at around
the same period. It is up to one’s
imagination to count the areas which were influenced by Political Arithmetick –
social order, military matters, religious affiliation, economic performance, public finances, to name a few.
Furthermore, ‘Medical Arithmetick’ was being enthusiastically championed
by 1780s, though its origins are rooted in much earlier periods. As another author put it ‘Without medical
arithmetic it is impossible to reach the “grandeur of generality”, the sublime
of medical divination.’(Hoppit, 1996).
Almost a century
after Adam Smith’s remark about unreliability of political arithmetick, a
medical man, Dr. Guy, was presenting a paper on smallpox and vaccination at The
Royal Statistical Society, and to the question whether vaccination were a
preventive of smallpox, he answered that “there can be no answer except such as
is couched in the language of figures” (Greenwood, 1930). An amazing contrast in faith in numbers, isn’t it? Where does it come from? The thing is proponents of vaccination then
and now had no other way of proving the efficacy of vaccines, smallpox vaccine
in particular, than talking in the language of numbers. Even though it may sound very odd, medicine
had little role in proving efficacy of vaccines. The thing is vaccines are
injected mostly to people in near-perfect health, and it would be very
unethical to expose control groups to the dreadful diseases in order to prove
the efficacy of vaccines. The
proponents of vaccination, people with strong ties in the governments and
pharmaceutical-medical industry, have been trying to prove the efficacy of
vaccines through statistical study of population mortality and morbidity, often
making unbelievable claims. Having
reviewed dozens of historical materials about smallpox vaccination, I saw an
obvious “play with numbers” in order to reach “politically correct”
conclusions. Medical historians McKeown
and Record stated that 'the data (on mortality and natality) are so treacherous
that they can be interpreted to fit any hypothesis' (Razzell, 1965).
Few tables below will
illustrate this point:
Table 2. Mean Annual Rate of Mortality per million
from smallpox at all ages in three groups of years, selected with reference to
optional and obligatory vaccination
(Milnes, 1897).