» » Vaccination a Delusion Its Penal Enforcement a Crime, Proved by the Official Evidence in the Reports of the Royal Commission

Vaccination a Delusion Its Penal Enforcement a Crime, Proved by the Official Evidence in the Reports of the Royal Commission

Vaccination a Delusion
Its Penal Enforcement a Crime, Proved by the Official
Evidence in the Reports of the Royal Commission
Title: Vaccination a Delusion Its Penal Enforcement a Crime, Proved by the Official Evidence in the Reports of the Royal Commission
Release Date: 2019-02-19
Type book: Text
Copyright Status: Public domain in the USA.
Date added: 27 March 2019
Count views: 56
Read book
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17

Transcriber’s Note: Vaccination is not a delusion. Thanks to vaccination,killer diseases such as small-pox, polio and tetanus have been more or lesseliminated. The supposed link between vaccination and autism comes fromone fraudulent study which actively falsified its data (BMJ 2011; 342:c7452).If you’re reading this with the aim of justifying not vaccinating yourselfor members of your family, stop right there and go and read some modern-dayscience instead.


Vaccination a Delusion

Its Penal Enforcement a Crime:





Butler & Tanner,
The Selwood Printing Works,
Frome, and London.



This Essay has been written for the purpose of influencingParliament, and securing the speedy abolitionof the unjust, cruel, and pernicious Vaccinationlaws. For this purpose it has been necessary to speakplainly of the ignorance and incompetence displayedby the Royal Commission, proofs of which I give fromtheir “Final Report” and the evidence they havecollected and printed.

I most solemnly urge upon our Legislators that thisis a question not only of the liberties of Englishmen,but one affecting the lives of their children, and thehealth of the whole community; and that they willbe individually responsible if they do not inquire intothis matter for themselves,—not accept the statementsor opinions of others.

In order that they may do this with a minimumexpenditure of time and labour, I have put beforethem the essential facts, in almost every case takenfrom the Reports of the Royal Commission or of theRegistrar-General, and with references to page, question,or paragraph, so that they can themselves verifyevery statement I make. I thus abundantly prove,first, that in all previous legislation they have beenmisled by facts and figures that are untrue and bypromises that have been all unfulfilled; and thatsimilar misstatements have characterised the wholeofficial advocacy of Vaccination from the time ofJenner down to this day. I claim, therefore, that allofficial statements as to Vaccination are untrustworthy.


I then show that all the statistics of small-poxmortality, whether of London; of England, Scotland,and Ireland; of the best vaccinated ContinentalStates; of unvaccinated Leicester; or of the revaccinatedArmy and Navy, without any exception,prove the absolute inutility of Vaccination; and I feelconfident that every unprejudiced person who willcarefully read these few pages, and will verify suchof my statements as seem to them most incredible,will be compelled to come to the same conclusion.

I appeal from the medical and official apologists ofVaccination to the intelligence and common sense ofmy fellow-countrymen, and I urge them to insistupon the immediate abolition of all legislation enforcingor supporting this useless and dangerousoperation.


I. Vaccination and Small-Pox 5
II. Much of the Evidence adduced for Vaccination is Worthless 23
III. The General Statistics of Small-Pox Mortality in relation to Vaccination 31
IV. Two Great Experiments which are conclusive against Vaccination 54
V. Critical Remarks on the “Final Report” 70
VI. Summary and Conclusion 80



Among the greatest self-created scourges of civilizedhumanity are the group of zymotic diseases, or thosewhich arise from infection, and are believed to be dueto the agency of minute organisms which rapidly increasein bodies offering favourable conditions, andoften cause death. Such diseases are: plague, small-pox,measles, whooping-cough, yellow fever, typhusand enteric fevers, scarlet fever and diphtheria, andcholera. The conditions which especially favour thesediseases are foul air and water, decaying organic matter,overcrowding, and other unwholesome surroundings,whence they have been termed “filth diseases.” Themost terrible and fatal of these—the plague—prevailsonly where people live under the very worst sanitaryconditions as regards ventilation, water supply, andgeneral cleanliness. Till about 250 years ago it wasas common in England as small-pox has been duringthe present century, but a very partial and limitedadvance in healthy conditions of life entirely abolishedit, its place being to some extent taken by small-pox,cholera, and fevers. The exact mode by which allthese diseases spread is not known; cholera, typhus,and enteric fever are believed to be communicatedthrough the dejecta from the patient contaminatingdrinking water. The other diseases are spread eitherby bodily contact or by transmission of germs through[6]the air; but with all of them there must be conditionsfavouring their reception and increase. Not only aremany persons apparently insusceptible through life tosome of these diseases, but all the evidence goes toshow that, if the whole population of a country livedunder thoroughly healthy conditions as regards pureair, pure water, and wholesome food, none of themcould ever obtain a footing, and they would die out ascompletely as the plague and leprosy have died out,though both were once so prevalent in England.

But during the last century there was no suchknowledge, and no general belief in the efficacy ofsimple, healthy conditions of life as the only effectualsafeguard against these diseases. Small-pox, althoughthen, as now, an epidemic disease and of very varyingdegrees of virulence, was much dreaded, because, owingchiefly to improper treatment, it was often fatal, andstill more often produced disfigurement or even blindness.When, therefore, the method of inoculation wasintroduced from the East in the early part of theeighteenth century, it was quickly welcomed, becausea mild form of the disease was produced which rarelycaused death or disfigurement, though it was believedto be an effectual protection against taking the diseaseby ordinary infection. It was, however, soon foundthat the mild small-pox usually produced by inoculationwas quite as infectious as the natural disease,and became quite as fatal to persons who caught it.Towards the end of the last century many medicalmen became so impressed with its danger that theyadvocated more attention to sanitation and the isolationof patients, because inoculation, though it mayhave saved individuals, really increased the totaldeaths from small-pox.

Under these circumstances we can well understandthe favourable reception given to an operation whichproduced a slight, non-infectious disease, which yetwas alleged to protect against small-pox as completelyas did the inoculated disease itself. This was Vaccination,which arose from the belief of farmers in Gloucestershire[7]and elsewhere that those who had caughtcow-pox from cows were free from small-pox for therest of their lives. Jenner, in 1798, published hisInquiry, giving an account of the facts which, inhis opinion, proved this to be the case. But in thelight of our present knowledge we see that they arewholly inconclusive. Six of his patients had hadcow-pox when young, and were inoculated with small-poxin the usual way from twenty-one to fifty-threeyears afterwards, and because they did not take thedisease, he concluded that the cow-pox had preservedthem. But we know that a considerable proportionof persons in middle age are insusceptible to small-poxinfection; besides which even those who most stronglyuphold vaccination now admit that its effects die out entirelyin a few years—some say four or five, some ten—sothat these people who had had cow-pox so long beforewere certainly not protected by it from taking small-pox.Several other patients were farriers or stablemen who were infected by horse-grease, not by cow-pox,and were also said to be insusceptible to small-poxinoculation, though not so completely as those whohad had cow-pox. The remainder of Jenner’s caseswere six children, from five to eight years old, whowere vaccinated, and then inoculated a few weeks ormonths afterwards. These cases are fallacious fromtwo causes. In the first place, any remnant of theeffects of the vaccination (which were sometimessevere), or the existence of scurvy, then very prevalent,or of any other skin-disease, might prevent the test-inoculationfrom producing any effect.[1] The other[8]cause of uncertainty arises from the fact that this“variolous test” consisted in inoculating with small-poxvirus obtained from the last of a series of successivepatients in whom the effect produced was aminimum, consisting of very few pustules, sometimesonly one, and a very slight amount of fever. Theresults of this test, whether on a person who had hadcow-pox or who had not had it, was usually so slightthat it could easily be described by a believer in theinfluence of the one disease on the other as having “noeffect”; and Dr. Creighton declares, after a study ofthe whole literature of the subject, that the descriptionof the results of the test is almost always loose andgeneral, and that in the few cases where more detailis given the symptoms described are almost the samein the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated. Again, nocareful tests were ever made by inoculating at thesame time, and in exactly the same way, two groupsof persons of similar age, constitution, and health, theone group having been vaccinated the other not, andnone of them having had small-pox, and then havingthe resulting effects carefully described and comparedby independent experts. Such “control” experimentswould now be required in any case of such importanceas this; but it was never done in the early days ofvaccination, and it appears never to have been doneto this day. The alleged “test” was, it is true, appliedin a great number of cases by the early observers,especially by Dr. Woodville, physician to a small-poxhospital; but Dr. Creighton shows reason for believingthat the lymph he used was contaminated with small-pox,[9]and that the supposed vaccinations were reallyinoculations. This lymph was widely spread all overthe country, and was supplied to Jenner himself, andwe thus have explained the effect of the “vaccination”in preventing the subsequent “inoculation” fromproducing much effect, since both were really mildforms of small-pox inoculation. This matter is fullyexplained by Dr. Creighton in his evidence before theRoyal Commission, printed in the Second Report.Professor E. M. Crookshank, who has made a specialstudy of cow-pox and other animal diseases and theirrelation to human small-pox, gives important confirmatoryevidence, to be found in the Fourth Report.

This brief statement of the early history of vaccinationhas been introduced here in order to give whatseems to be a probable explanation of the remarkablefact that a large portion of the medical professionaccepted, as proved, that vaccination protected againsta subsequent inoculation of small-pox, when in realitythere was no such proof, as the subsequent history ofsmall-pox epidemics has shown. The medical andother members of the Royal Commission could notrealize the possibility of such a failure to get at thetruth. Again and again they asked the witnessesabove referred to to explain how it was possible thatso many educated specialists could be thus deceived.They overlooked the fact that a century ago was, asregards the majority of the medical profession, a pre-scientificage; and nothing proves this more clearlythan the absence of any systematic “control” experiments,and the extreme haste with which some ofthe heads of the profession expressed their belief inthe lifelong protection against small-pox afforded byvaccination, only four years after the discovery hadbeen first announced. This testimony caused Parliamentto vote Jenner £10,000 in 1802.

Ample proof now exists of the fallacy of this belief,since vaccination gives no protection whatever, as willbe shown later on. But there was also no lack of[10]proof of this failure to protect in the first ten years ofthe century; and had it not been for the unscientifichaste of the medical witnesses to declare that vaccinationprotected against small-pox during a whole lifetime—afact of which they had not and could notpossibly have any evidence—this proof of failurewould have convinced them and have prevented whatis really one of the scandals of the nineteenth century.These early proofs of failure will be now briefly indicated.

Only six years after the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
Comments (0)
Free online library ideabooks.net