[back] Smallpox vaccination

The Fallacy Of Vaccination

By John Pitcairn

President of the Anti-Vaccination League of America

From Both Sides Of The Vaccination Question, The Anti-Vaccination League of America, Philadelphia, 1911

The Dangers Of Vaccination
Vaccination And Compulsion
The History Of Vaccination
Arm-To-Arm Vaccination
The Alleged Immunity of Vaccination
Many Former Vaccinists Have Repudiated It
The Immunity Theory, A Pure Hypothesis
Statistical Arguments Brought Forth
What Is Vaccine Virus?

Vaccination is the putting of an impure thing into the blood - a virus or poison -- often resulting in serious evil effects. In vogue for more than one hundred years, it has been received by most persons without question. Yet the time is passing when people will accept a medical dogma on blind faith; they now demand to know something about the practices to which they are called on to submit. And most insistent of all should be the demand to know something of a practice which, like vaccination, involves the risk of disease and of possible death.

The Dangers Of Vaccination
That vaccination has such risks is conceded even by its most zealous advocates. In Philadelphia and vicinity there were in the autumn of 1901 no fewer than thirty-six cases of tetanus, or lockjaw, which were admitted to have resulted from vaccination, and nearly all wore fatal. After a study of these and fifty-nine similar cases a prominent Philadelphia physician and professor, himself an ardent believer in vaccination, arrived at the conclusion that neither careless dressing of the wound nor infection from a foreign source could account for the cases of lockjaw following vaccination, for, as he pointed out, cases had occurred not only among the ignorant and filthy, but also and equally among those who lived under the most favorable conditions, and even where the utmost precautions had been taken. He concluded, therefore, that the danger lay in the virus itself. Then, ignoring the fact that this virus is nothing but the matter running from diseased sores, he recommended greater care in its preparation.1

During the same year -- 1901 -- Cleveland, Ohio, was suffering from a severe epidemic of smallpox. Vaccination was carried on all over the city, and with what results? In one household three children whose vaccination had been pronounced "highly successful" broke out with a profuse eruption of smallpox nineteen days after the operation. In many instances arms swelled down to the elbow and wrist, with enlargement of the glands in the armpits, and the patients were thrown into a high fever. It was not unusual to find pieces of flesh as big as a dollar and twice as thick dropping out of the vaccination sores, leaving ugly, suppurating wounds which took from six weeks to three months to heal. The health officer of the city was appalled at the sights that met his eyes, and, despite his ardent belief in vaccination, after witnessing, to use his own words, "the tears and cries and pains and misery" of the people, he declared that "the man who can stand all that is no man." A sigh of relief went over the city when he stopped vaccination.2

Turning to England and Wales we find that from 1881 to 1907, inclusive, the Registrar-General reported 1,108 deaths from vaccination, the deaths averaging one every week during the first sixteen years.3 And, remember, these 1,108 deaths are all admitted by vaccinists themselves to have been due to vaccination. The reports take no account of that greater number of deaths from vaccination that were ascribed to other causes. In regard to this, Professor Alfred England and Wales alone vaccination is the probable cause of 10,000 deaths every year -- deaths by five diseases of the most terrible and disgusting character, introduced by the vaccine virus.4

Vaccination And Compulsion
But I need hardly appeal to statistics, which might be gathered from every civilized country. Consult any mother having practical acquaintance with the results of vaccination as observed by herself and you will rarely fail to hear something of its serious and lasting ill effects.

Surely these facts and figures are enough to show that vaccination involves serious risks, and to make it incumbent upon all, and especially on parents, to make some inquiry at least before they submit either themselves or their children to these risks.

But, someone may ask, if all this is true why does vaccination continue? It continues, very largely, because it is enforced by law. But it has been enforced almost from its birth and has thus come to be regarded as more or less a matter of course. In all modern history no other medical operation has ever been legally enforced. But vaccination needed enforcement. Without compulsion it could never have survived, for from the very day of its introduction it has been strenuously opposed both by laymen and by members of the medical profession. Eminent physicians, it is true, have supported it, but equally eminent physicians and also renowned bacteriologists and statisticians have condemned it as productive of the gravest injuries. What is vaccination? It is easier to ask this question than to get a satisfactory answer. Put the qnestion to a number of doctors and observe the conflicting replies. Not all would agree with Webster's definition, that it is inoculation with cowpox,5 for the modern American school now holds that it is inoculation with smallpox modified from the cow!6 And then: What is vaccine virus? Of course it comes from the cow, but where did it originate? And what is its effect when put into the human blood? Ask such questions and you will see the confusion that reigns. Vaccination today is not what it was yesterday, and still less what it was in Jenner's day. Indeed, one of the most conspicuous features of the practice has been its constant shiftiness. And so I propose to answer the question, "What is vaccination?" by a brief survey of its history, showing what it has been as well as what it now is.

The History Of Vaccination
The direct progenitor of vaccination was smallpox inoculation -- the insertion into the blood of a healthy person of the running matter from the sore of a smallpox patient. This practice was introduced into England, in 1721, by Lady Mary Wortley Montage, wife of the British Ambassador at Constantinople. Writing from that city Lady Montage said that the smallpox was rendered entirely harmless there by the invention of what the Turks called "ingrafting"' and that there was a set of old women who made it their business to perform the operation.7

This practice of "a set of old women" in Turkey was adopted in England, where it was soon regarded as the greatest of medical discoveries, and its influence in checking smallpox was spoken of as "one of the best established of medical facts."8 Indeed the praises lavished upon inoculation by the medical profession of that day have been equaled only by those since accorded to the ever-changing forms of vaccination. In 1754 the Royal College of Physicians, of London, in a formal resolution declared that the arguments which had been urged against smallpox inoculation had been refuted by experience, and that the College thought the practice to be "highly salutary to the human race."9 But the facts could not long be ignored. Instead of proving itself a harmless and beneficent invention, experience made it evident that the practice of smallpox inoculation actually and naturally enough spread smaIlpox, -- every inoculated person becoming a new centre of contagion. This fact so strongly impressed itself on the British public that in 1840 the inoculation which had been so highly endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians was condemned by Act of Parliament as a criminal offense.10

But previous to this time a new "scientific" protection against smallpox bad been discovered. This discovery, as is well known, was given to the world in 1898, by Edward Jenner,11 popularly called the Father of Vaccination. It is not so well known, however, that the vaccination advocated by Jenner, like smallpox inoculation, has long since been repudiated by the medical profession. Jenner's first experiment was with swinepox, with which he inoculated one of his own children.12 He then adopted the belief of the country people that one who had had cowpox could never take smallpox.12 With this in mind he performed his first vaccination in 1796, using a virus taken from the sore of a milkmaid infected with cowpox.14 Not satisfied with this he next turned to horse-grease, as he called it though it afterward appeared that he was really dealing, not with horse-grease, but with horsepox -- using virus taken from the sore of a man who had been handling the heels of a sick mare.15 These experiments led Jenner to his final "great discovery." This was neither cowpox nor horse-grease, but a combination of both.16

The cow, infected with horse-grease, was in its turn to give this horse-grease cowpox to a human being. From the sores of a human being the the virus was then to be taken which Jenner claimed would make a person "forever after secure from the infection of the smallpox."17 Four years later, in a petition to the House of Common, he stated that his new species of inoculation "must finally annihilate that dreadful disorder."18 The claims which had been made for the old inoculation were now transferred to vaccination. It was vaccination with horse-grease cowpox which now became "one of the best established of medical facts" and "highly salutary to the human race."19 But pernicious results followed vaccination just as they had followed inoculation. Simple observation showed that vaccination did not confer immunity for life. And not only this, but smallpox continued to spread. Then came the cry that vaccination must be repeated, a first vaccination in infancy and a second in youth, and this soon became the established doctrine.20 But still the vaccinated suffered from smallpox. Then followed other changes, until at last Jennerian vaccination was abandoned in all save the name.21

Arm-To-Arm Vaccination
First came what was called "arm-to-arm vaccination." This consisted of inoculation with pus from the sore of a vaccinated person. Then it was arm-to-arm vaccination that became "one of the best established of medical facts" and "highly salutary to the human race." But, alas, for this improvement! Its continued practice brought the discovery that scrofula, tuberculosis, and even worse diseases latent in the constitution of the subject from whom the vaccine virus was taken, were being sown among the people.22 The growing doubt and agitation in the public mind finally led in England to the appointment of a Royal Commission -- to investigate the subject. This Commission, of which Lord Herschell was chairman, was in session for seven years -- from 1889 to 1896 -- and received the testimony of experts from all parts of the civilized world. Its report is comprised in fourteen folio volumes and constitutes the most exhaustive collection of medical evidence ever taken.23 Though out of the sixteen members of the Commission only three were anti-vaccinists yet the result of its investigation was the passage by Parliament of the "Conscience Clause" of the Vaccination Acts. This clause, passed in 1898, exempted from vaccination the children of parents who declared a conscientious objection to the practice. England, the birthplace of vaccination, after a century of experience of its disastrous effects, thus freed her people from its enforcement.24

The testimony taken before the Commission not only caused the enactment of the Conscience Clause, it proved also the death blow of arm-to-arm vaccination. The horse-grease cowpox of Jenner had already been discarded. Arm-to-arm vaccination, in its turn, was now discarded. Both were condemned as thoroughly as they had previously been indorsed. Now it was held that vaccine must be derived from spontaneous cowpox without infection from horse-grease, and that the matter from the running sores on a calf thus diseased furnished the only sure protection against smallpox.25 The pus from horse-grease, Jenner's "true and genuine life-preserving fluid," was entirely lost sight of. The new theory was only acclaimed, the true method of protection had at last been found. And again we have the "best established of medical facts," so "highly salutary to the human race." Even this, in its turn, is now condemned and discarded. Cowpox itself has fallen into disrepute, and at the present time we have a return to the old system of smallpox inoculation which Jenner specifically denounced, for the vaccine now used consists of pus taken from the sores of human smallpox and supposed to be modified by inoculation through a series of calves.24 Without notice to the public the word "vaccination" has been used in medical literatuire to mean totally different things at different ties? When Jenner used it he meant cowpox, not smallpox, matter. Now it is used to mean smallpox, not cowpox matter. And it is still called Jennerian vaccination! Can inconsistency go further?

The Alleged Immunity of Vaccination
But the inconsistency is not confined to the matter of the vaccine virus. It is equally glaring in the claims as to immunity. At first one vaccination was to protect for life,28 this claim was soon modified and two vaccinations were considered necessary to confer lifelong immunity.20 The obstinacy of smallpox in attacking persons so vaccinated then resulted in shortening the period of immunity to fourteen years,30 afterward it was reduced to seven years,31 then five,32 and, in the Spanish-American War, as shown by the practice of our army surgeons, six weeks was considered the limit of immunity.33 What could better prove that vaccination never has provided immunity? For if six weeks is now the limit of immunity, then it was likewise the limit when Jenner and the College of Physicians so confidently proclaimed immunity for life. But vaccination does not provide immunity even for six weeks. This is proved by the statistics of our Philippine Army. During the five years from 1898 to 1902 there were in that army 737 cases of smallpox, with 261 deaths -- a mortality of over 35 per cent!34 And yet, referring to these very cases, Chief Surgeon Lippincott reported that "vaccinations and re-vaccinations many times repeated, went on as systematically as the drills at a well-regulated post." He added, "I believe I can say that no army was ever so carefully looked after in the matter of vaccination as ours, and that the department commander, General Otis, fully alive to the necessity, did everything in his power to make our work possible and effective."35 But the soldiers still took smallpox and died of it. Where, then, is the immunity even for six weeks? But we need not go to the army for our illustrations, ask anyone who has suffered from smallpox whether he has been vaccinated, and the answer generally will be, "Yes." Where, then, is the triumph of vaccination? Where the "scientific" protection against smallpox? Science is pre-eminently consistent but the only note of consistency we can discern in vaccination is that each change has invariably been proclaimed as the infallible protection and the "best established of medical facts."

Many Former Vaccinists Have Repudiated It
In view of the steadily receding character of the immunity claims made for vaccination, what, then, are the arguments by which it is still defended? First, appeal is made to an asserted unanimity of opinion in the medical profession. The statement will hardly be denied, however, that few physicians have made any original study of the subject. Vaccination is taught in the medical schools as a fact established beyond question, and it is the tendency of the human mind to accept as proved that which is established. Yet long usage proves nothing, instance the practice of blood-letting, followed for centuries. Moreover, not one of the many varieties of vaccination has even been well established are it has been displaced by its "infallible" successor.

There are many remarkable examples of medical men, who, formerly accepting vaccination as a matter of course, have been led by investigation to repudiate it entirely. Such a man was Doctor W. J. Collins, a public vaccinator of London, who, in twenty-five years vaccinated many thousands of persons. Study and his own experience finally led him to the conclusion that vaccination had never diminished smallpox, but on the contrary, had often produced it. He expressed the conviction that cowpox inoculation, whether performed with matter originating in the greasy heels of the consumptive horse or in the running sores of human smallpox, is a practice dangerous to the community at large, and he was so convinced of this that he abandoned vaccination altogether, thereby giving up an income of at least $2,500 a year.36

Among the distinguished physicians whose names come to mind in this connection are the eminent pathologist, Doctor Charles Creighton, and the equally eminent bacteriologist Professor Edgar M. Crookshank. For the purpose of writing the article on vaccination for the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Doctor Creighton made an original and exhaustive inquiry into the subject. The conviction soon forced itself upon him that vaccination is both useless and dangerous. Despite his changed views, however, the compilers of the Encyclopedia still desired him to write the article giving his honest and unbiased conclusions. The result may be read by anyone -- fifteen columns, in which reason and science, experience and statistics, combine to prove the utter fallacy of vaccination.37 It should be noted, in passing, that Doctor Creighton's article, signed "C. C.," is not to be found in some of the American reprints of the Britannica.

About the time Doctor Creighton's article was published, Professor Crookshank was engaged in investigating the diseases transmissible from the lower animals to man, and the question naturally arose whether his observations would support or refute Doctor Creighton's conclusions. Professor Crookshank, who favored vaccination, went into an original and exhaustive examination of the subject, and the result was two volumes against vaccination.33

The Immunity Theory, A Pure Hypothesis
The immunity theory by which vaccination is supported is a pure hypothesis. Without technical details the theory is that the introduction of vaccine virus into the human blood produces such a change therein, by the increase of certain of its corpuscles, that there is created an antagonism to the supposed smallpox germ or bacillus. The theory may be popularly illustrated by the practice among the Borgias of taking poison in small doses, gradually increased, in order to secure immunity from similar poison, or by the opium or morphine habit -- persons who indulge in this habit becoming in time immune to doses that would kill the average man. At first blush this sounds quite plausible, but the great trouble with the argument is that those who are thus rendered "immune" by vaccination do take smallpox and also die of it. Even the vaccinists admit that the vaccinated take smallpox -- but the admission is made with qualifications. If the person dies of smallpox, then the vaccination was not successful, if the case is only a mild one, then it was only partially successful!

In one of the leading scientific works on this subject, written by two prominent vaccinists of Philadelphia, the statement is made and made seriously -- that in a certain ease where a vaccinated person had taken smallpox, a proof that the vaccination was "spurious" was its "signal failure to protect against smallpox."39 But even supposing the possibility that by vaccination many times repeated one may eventually become immune -- that is, provided he does not die from the process, who would envy him the condition of his blood? He is "immune" by virtue of blood poisoning, for vaccination if it "takes" means nothing less than blood poisoning. And with poisoned blood, in what condition is the system to resist the ailments to which mankind is liable? The case is well illustrated by the morphine or opium habit. It is true that one addicted to this habit becomes in time immune to the effects of morphine or opium, but who envies him his immunity?

Statistical Arguments Brought Forth
Pages might be filled with an analysis of the statistics brought forward to uphold vaccination, but space will permit the notice of only two or three. In general the argument from experience claims that since the introduction of vaccination smallpox has remarkably decreased. This statement is true, but the suggestion that the decrease is due to vaccination is a mere assumption. It would be nearer the truth to say that the decrease is due to public sanitation, the betterment of living conditions and the enforcement of isolation. This is especially evident in the German Empire, where sanitary and quarantine measures are so strictly enforced.40 Again, in Cuba, Panama and New Orleans, for example, the scourge of yellow fever has been exterminated solely by hygienic measures and the prevention of mosquito inoculation. The benefits of sanitation and quarantine have been freely admitted in the cases of all contagious diseases except smallpox. But where smallpox is concerned there is a curious change of front. Everything is due to vaccination! In yellow fever the vaccinist will wage relentless war to stamp out the mosquito inoculator, but in smallpox the war is waged against those who would stamp out the human inoculator.

In addition to the claim that vaccination has decreased smallpox, hospital statistics are cited to show that the mortality of smallpox among the vaccinated is never more than 17 or 18 per cent., while that of the unvaccinated runs to over 60 per cent.41 It may be noted that the necessity to prove a low mortality among the vaccinated has led, perhaps unconsciously, to forgetfulness of the claim that vaccination is certain protection against smallpox. But we pass this by to note something even more remarkable. Under the filthy conditions prevailing before vaccination was even heard of, the average smallpox mortality was less than 17 per cent.42 And now the mortality among the Vaccinated is said to be as high as 60 percent. If true, this would show not that vaccination protects, but that an opposition to vaccination carries with it an increased liability to smallpox. In other words, if you now refuse to be vaccinated, then, in spite of all modern science, sanitation and hygiene, you will be many more times liable to smallpox than if you had never heard of vaccination.

Statistics that lead to so ridiculous a conclusion are -- well, suspicious. And the suspicion is strengthened when we consider that the hospitals receive many smallpox patients in the advanced stages of the disease, when it is necessarily difficult, and even impossible, to determine the question of vaccination.43

Japan is a favorite example of the blessings of vaccination. In Japan, under the law of 1872, strengthened in 1885, vaccination is compulsory during the first six months of life, again at six years, still again at fourteen, and after this whenever smallpox occurs. For all males there is still further vaccination on entry to the army and navy.44 The law is strictly enforced and complied with. There being, as recently stated by Surgeon-General Takaki, no anti-vaccinationists in Japan.45 Of this paradise of vaccination it is said: "Smallpox, once the scourge of the island, is now all but unknown.46

I have before me the official statistics of the Sanitary Bureau of Tokyo, from 1889 to 1908. During these years there were in Japan 171,500 cases of smallpox, an average of over 8,500 a year, with 48,000 deaths -- a mortality of 28 per cent. And in 1908, when the Empire should have been reaping the best fruits of its rigorous vaccination laws, the smallpox cases numbered 18,000 -- a number not exceeded since 1897 -- and the deaths were nearly 6,000, or over 32 per cent. Eighteen thousand cases, and "smallpox almost unknown"!47

[Data from Pitcairn's references, graph by HARpub]

What Is Vaccine Virus?
The fatalities from vaccination are frequently ascribed to "impure virus," and physicians are cautioned to see that their virus is "pure." As if there were such a thing as pure vaccine virus! Disguise it as you may, vaccine virus is simply the putrid matter ruining from the sore of a diseased calf. Further than this no physician, nor even manufacturer, knows what it is.

The physician who buys from the drug store has no assurance of the harmlessness of his Purchase. This was strikingly illustrated by the United States Government report on the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A vaccine farm near Philadelphia had procured from Japan what was supposed to be a new culture of cowpox, and the virus from this culture was sold to another vaccine farm near Detroit. Then followed the disastrous outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which spread through several States and was suppressed only at great expense. In the Government investigation that followed it was proved that the disease had originated in the new culture of "cowpox," which was found to be a culture of foot and mouth disease.41 But of whatever disease it may be a culture, all vaccine virus is the putrid product of disease, and this is what mothers are asked to put into the blood of their children! The blood is the life-giving stream on which all the fortress of the body depend. Maintain its purity and the body will be in health. Defile it and the body will be diseased. This proposition is axiomatic and needs no demonstration. Yet vaccination involves a denial of it. The vaccinator would improve on the blood formed in the laboratory of Nature. He would perfect it by admixture with diseased pus! For the support of a position so contrary to the instincts of reason a large burden of positive proof is imperative. And what proof has been given? Constant shifting of theory and practice, broken-down claims of immunity, discredited statistics, and a virus the mystery of which is equaled only by its danger.

References

1. "Tetanus And Vaccination -- An Analytical Study Of Ninety-five Cases Of This Rare (sic) Complication", by Joseph McFarland, M.D., Professor of Pathology and Bacteriology in the Medico-Chirurgical College of Philadelphia. Read At the Second Annual Meeting of the American Association of Pathologists and Bacteriologists, March 28, 1902, and before the Philadelphia County Medical Society, April 23, 1902. Printed in the Journal of Medical Research, Boston, May, 1902, vol. vii, new series, vol. ii, pp. 474-493, 1 plate, 2 charts, and in Proceedings of the Philadelphia County Medical Society, session of 1902, vol. xxiii, new series, vol. iv, pp. 166-178.

2. "How We Rid Cleveland Of Smallpox", by Martin Friedrich, M.D., Health Officer of Cleveland, Ohio, in The Cleveland Medical Journal, February, 1902, vol. i, No. 2, pp. 77-89. See also: "How Cleveland Stamped Out Smallpox", by B. O. Flower, in The Arena, April, 1902, vol. xxvii, pp.426-429, "The Confessions Of A Vaccinator", The Vaccination Inquirer, September 1, 1902, vol. xxiv, No. 282, pp.119-120. "The Mystery Of Cleveland, Ohio". "The Silence Of Dr. Friedrich", ibid., June 1, 1908, vol. xxx, No. 351, pp. 49-52.

3. The Registrar-General's Report of Births. Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales, published annually, vols. xliv-lxx, 1881 to 1907. As reported in this Government Publication the deaths resulting from vaccination were as follows:

Deaths From Cowpox And Other Effects Of Vaccination In England And Wales
Years | Volume | Pages | Males | Females | Total
1881 | xliv | 140-141 | 25 | 33 | 58
1882 | xlv | 140-141 | 33 | 32 | 65
1883 | xlvi | 140-141 | 31 | 24 | 55
1884 | xlvii | 140-141 | 28 | 25 | 53
1885 | xlviii | 108-109 | 28 | 24 | 52
1886 | xlix | 108-109 | 19 | 26 | 45
1887 | l | 108-109 | 25 | 20 | 45
1888 | li | 110-111 | 20 | 25 | 45
1889 | lii | 112-113 | 27 | 31 | 58
1890 | liii | 112-113 | 22 | 21 | 43
1891 | liv | 112-113 | 21 | 22 | 43
1892 | lv | 112-113 | 30 | 28 | 58
1893 | lvi | 112-113 | 34 | 25 | 59
1894 | lvii | 112-113 | 26 | 24 | 50
1895 | lviii | 112-113 | 29 | 27 | 56
1896 | lix | 134-135 | 23 | 19 | 42
1897 | lx | 136-137 | 21 | 15 | 36
1898 | lxi | 136-137 | 9 | 17 | 26
1899 | lxii | 138-139 | 23 | 11 | 34
1900 | lxiii | 138-139 | 11 | 14 | 25
1901 | lxiv | 138-139 | 6 | 11 | 17
1902 | lxv | 138-139 | 11 | 11 | 22
1903 | lxvi | 118-132 | 11 | 15 | 26
1904 | lxvii | 140-154 | 17 | 11 | 28
1905 | lxviii | 34-48 | 11 | 15 | 26
1906 | lxix | 36-50 | 17 | 17 | 29
1907 | lxx | 36-50 | 11 | 5 | 12

4. Forty-Five Years Of Registration Statistics, Proving Vaccination To Be Both Useless And Dangerous, by Alfred R. Wallace. LL.D., second edition, London, 1889, p. 38, Third Report of the [British] Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Vaccination, Minutes of Evidence, Government Publication, London, 1890, p. 34, q. 7713.

5. Webster's New International Dictionary. Springfield, Mass., 1910, p. 2261.

6. "The Antivaccinationists' Standpoint", by Saxton Pope, M.D., in California State Board of Health, Monthly Bulletin, Vaccination Number, August, 1910, vol, vi, No. 2, p. 53, "Vaccination And Antivaccination", by Joseph McFarland, Professor of Pathology and Bacteriology, Medico-Chirurgical College, Philadelphia, Pa., in The Monthly Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine, Philadelphia, October, 1906, vol. xx, new series, vol. ix, No. 10, p. 438, "Sanitary Show-down", by Zachary T. Miller, M.D., in American Institute of Homoeopathy: Transactions of the Sixtieth Session, 1904, p. 110, "Answers To Eight Questions, Some Of Which Are Wise And Some Foolish", in Medical Notes and Queries, Philadelphia, March, 1910, vol. v. No. 3, pp. 78-79, Acute Contagious Diseases, by William M. Welch, M.D., and Jay F. Schamberg, A.B., M.D., Philadelphia, 1905, pp. 87-90, 93, A Treatise On The Acute, Infectious Exanthemata, by William Thomas Corlett, M.D., Philadelpha, 1901, pp. 130-131, "Vaccination And Its Relation To Animal Experimentation", by Jay Frank Schamberg, M.D., in Defense of Research, Phamphlet I, Issued by the Council on Defense of Medical Research of the American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill., 1909, pp. 44-45, 50, see the same, in shorter form, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, March 26, 1910, vol. liv, No. 13, pp. 1029-1301, 1033.

7. The Letters And Works Of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, new edition, London, 1887, vol. i, p. 184.

8. For evidence of the favor with which smallpox inoculation was regarded by the medical profession during the Eighteenth Century, and some of the arguments advanced to make the practice popular, see Domestic Medicine, or, the Family Physician: Being an attempt To render the Medical Art more generally useful, by shewing people what is in their own power both with respect to the Prevention and Cure of Diseases. Chiefly Calculated to recommend a proper attention to Regimen and Simple Medicines, by William Buchan, M.D., Philadelpha, 1772, pp. 158-167.

9. See the text of the resolution as quoted in History and Pathology of Vaccination.. Vol. I, A Critical Inquiry, by Edgar M. Crookshank, M.b., London, 1889, p. 45.

10. Act of 4 and 5 Victoria, c. 29, s. 8, July 23, 1840, English Statues, 4to., vol. xv, p. 353.

11. An Inquiry Into The Causes And Effects Of The Variolae Vaccinae, A Disease Discovered In Some Of The Western Counties Of England, Particularly Gloucestershire, And Known By The Name Of The Cow Pox, by Edward Jenner, M.D., F.R.S., etc., London, 1798.

12. The Life Of Edward Jenner, M.D., LL.D., F.R.S., by John Baron, M.D., F.R.S., London, 1827, 1838, vol. i, pp. 130-1331.

13. Ibid., chapter iv, "Early History of Vaccination," p. 121 et seq.

14. Ibid., vol. i, p. 137.

15. Jenner's Inquiry (note 11, above), case xviii, plate No.2, pp. 33-35, Jenner's Further Observations (see preceding note), pp. 92-93, 83, note.

16. Jenner's Inquiry (note 11, above), pp. 2-6.; Baron's Life Of Jenner (note 12, above), vol. i, pp. 135-136, 141, 146.

17. Jenner's Inquiry (note 11, above), p. 7.

18. "The Humble Petition Of Edward Jenner, Doctor Of Physic presented to the House of Commons, March 17, 1802", quoted in The Story Of A Great Delusion In A Series Of Matter-Of-Fact Chapters, by William White, London, 1885, pp. 184-185.

19. See Baron's Life Of Jenner (note 12, above), vol. i, pp. 254-255.

20. A Handbook Of Vaccination, by Edward C. Seaton, M.D., Philadelphia. 1868, pp. 305-306.

21. Exit Dr. Jenner: A Speech At The Annual Meeting Of The National Anti-Vaccination League In Caxton Hall, Westminster, On 27th February, 1906, by C. Creighton, M.D., London, 1906; Crookshank's History And Pathology Of Vaccination. Vol. I, A Critical Inquiry (note 9, aboe), chapter xvi, pp. 300-301.

22. Which? Sanitation And Sanitary Remedies, Or Vaccination And The Drug Treatment? by John Pickering, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., etc., London, 1892, pp. 3-4, note 228; See the testimony of Mr. William Tebb before the British Royal Commission on Vaccination, May 14, June 11, 18 and 25, and July 2, 1890, in Third Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject or Vaccination, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, Government Publication, London, 1890, pp. 113-120, 131-140, 142-175.

23. First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Final Report, ibid., Government Publications, London, 1889, 1800, 1893, 1806, 1897.

24. Act of 61 and 62 Victoria, c. 49, August 12, 1898, English Law Reports: Statutes, vol. xxxv, p.251, renewed in 1903; Act of 7 Edward 7, c. 31, August 28, 1907, ibid., vol. xiv, p.175.

25. "Aninal Vaccination", in The Lancet, August 10, 1867, vol. ii for 1867, pp. 162-163.

26. See note 6, above.

27. Ibid; "What Is "Pure" Lymph?" by Inquisitor, in The Westminster Review, March, 1906, vol. clxv, No. 3, p. 307.

28. Jenner's Inquiry (note 11, above), p.7.

29. The London Medical Gazette, August 2, 1844, new series, vol. ii, p. 608, quoted in White's story of A Great Delusion (note 18, above), p.473.

30. See note 20, above.

31. "A Review Of Some Of The False Claims, Erroneous Deductions And Self-Contradictions Of The Upholders Of The Vaccination-Dogma", by J.W. Hodge, M.D., reprinted from Medical Century, September, 1903, p. 5.

32. First Annual Report of the Commissioner of Health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1905-6, by Samuel G. Dixon, M.D., Commissioner of Health, p.48.

33. According to statements made by veterans of the American Army in the Philippine Islands it was customary for the soldiers to be vaccinated or revaccinated upon enlistment, again on arrival in San Francisco, again while on passage across the Pacific Ocean, and still again on arrival in Manila, and thereafter whenever they were moved to a new location.

34. The following table shows the number of smallpox eases and deaths in the American Army in the Philippine Islands, during a period of five years, from 1898 to 1902, inclusive:

Smallpox In The American Army In The Philippine Islands
Year | Cases | Deaths | Case-rate Mortality Percentage | Mean Strength | Death Rate Per Million
1898 | 76 | 21 | 27.63 | 9,907 | 2,120
1899 | 267 | 78 | 29.21 | 39,280 | 1,986
1900 | 246 | 113 | 45.93 | 66,526 | 1,690
1901 | 85 | 37 | 43.53 | 59,526 | 622
1902 | 63 | 12 | 19.05 | 37,768 | 318
Total | 737 | 261 | 35.41 | 42,673 | 1,223
Yearly Avg | 147 | 52 | 35.41 | 42,673 | 1,223

The above table is collated from the official statistics published in the Annual reports of the Surgeon-General of the United States Army, issued by the War Department, as follows:

35. See" Extracts From A Paper On The Expedition To The Phillippine Islands, May 27, 1898, to April 27, 1899", by Lieut.-Col. Henry Lippincott, U.S.a., Chief Surgeon, Department of the Pacific and Eighth Army Corps. in The Philadelphia Medical Journal, April 14, 1900, vol. v, p. 829.

36. Have You Been Vaccinated, And What Protection Is it Against The Smallpox? by W.J. Collins, M.D., etc., fourth edition, London, 1868; See also Dr. collins's testimony before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, 1871, quoted in Vaccination Tracts. No. 1. Letters And Opinions Of Medical Men, London, William Young, 1877, p. 14.

37. Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth [British] edition, Edinburgh, 1875-1888, article "Vaccination", signed "C.C."

38. History and Pathology of Vaccination.. Vol. I. A Critical Inquiry. Vol. II. Selected Essays, by edgar M. Crookshank, M.B., London, 1889.

39. Acute Contagious Diseases, by William M. Welch, M.D., and Jay F. Schamberg, A.B., M.D., Philadelphia, 1905, p. 43.

40. "Is Vaccination A Disastrous Delusion?" by Ernest McCormick, second edition, London, 1909, p. 31, reprinted, with additions, from The Westminster Review, August, 1904, vol. clxii, No. 2, pp. 161-179.

41. "Annual Report of the Municipal Hospital for the year ending December 31, 1872", by W.M. Welch, Physician-in-charge, table ix, p. 19, in Annual Report of the Board of Health, Philadelphia, 1872.

42. See The Wonderful Century, Its Successes And Its Failures, by Alfred Russel Wallace, LL.D., Dubl., D.C.L., Oxon, F.R.S., etc., London and New York, 1898, p. 240.

43. Ibid., pp. 237-238.

44. "Vaccination And Smallpox In Japan", in The Vaccination Inquirer, June 1, 1910, vol. xxxi, p. 48.

> The regulation pertaining to vaccination in Japan, enforced from January 1, 1886 (translation of the important points only):

> > First Article: A child must be vaccinated within a year after its birth. In case the result proves unsatisfactory, it must be repeated by three inoculations during the year.

> > Second Article: Notwithstanding that the result of vaccination proves satisfactory, it must be repeated after five to seven years, and again after the next five to seven years.

> > Third Article: In the event of prevalence of smallpox, the authority will enforce vaccination within any prescribed period irrespective of the Articles First and Second.

> > Fourth Article: Physicians must grant a certificate of the result of vaccination, whether it has taken effect or otherwise.

> > Army Smallpox In Japan, in The Vaccination Inquirer, July 2, 1906, vol. xxviii, p.66.

> > See also The Lancet, May 19, 1906, vol. i for 1906, part 2, p.1441.

45. Ibid.

46. "Vaccination In Japan", in the English periodical Health, July 25, 1908, quoted in The Vaccination Inquirer, September 1, 1908, vol. xxx, p.96.

47. "Smallpox In Vaccinated And Re-vaccinated Japan", in The Vaccination Inquirer, May 1, 1908, vol. xxx, p.28. "Smallpox In Japan", ibid., July 1, 1908, vol. xxx, p.62. "Smallpox In Japan", July 1,1909, vol. xxxi, p.71. "The Argument From Japan", ibid., October 1, 1909, vol. xxxi, pp. 141-143.

The following table shows the number of vaccinations carried out in Japan for each year from 1886 to 1905, inclusive, according to the official statistics supplied by Baron Kanehiro Takaki, late Director-General of tbe Medical Department of The Imperial Japanese Navy [extracted to a graph by HARPUB]:

Annual average population 43,027,661.
Total vaccinations, 91,351,407.

The following table shows the number of smallpox cases and deaths, and the case-rate mortality of smallpox, in Japan, during the period of twenty years from 1889 to 1908, inclusive, according to the official statistics supplied by S. Kubota, Director of the Sanitary Bureau of the Department of Home Affairs, Tokyo:

[See above graph for extracted data]

See also, "The Failure Of Vaccination To Protect From Smallpox In Re-vaccinated Japan", by J.W. Hodge, M.D., in The Twentieth Century Magazine, September, 1910, vol. ii, No. 12, pp. 518-522.

48. "Cattle Plague Is Traced To Tainted Smallpox Virus", in The North American, Philadelphia, Pa., Monday, May 17, 1909, first page, first column.

"The Origins Of The Recent Outbreak Of Foot-And-Mouth Disease In The United States", by John R. Mohler, V.M.D., and Milton J. Rosenau, M.D., in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Circular 147, issued June 16, 1909.

"Discussion in the United States Senate during the debate on the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, February 25, 1909", in Congressional Record, Sixtieth Congress, second session, vol. xliii, No.68, pp. 3147-3150.

The 1908 Outbreak Of Foot-And-Mouth Disease In The United States", by A.D. Melvin, D.V.S., Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Twenty-fifth Annual report of the Bureau of Animal Industry, for the Year 1908, pp. 379-392.

Fourteenth Semi-annual Report of the Chief of the Cattle Bureau to the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, for the Year ending November 30, 1908, by Austin Peters, Chief of Cattle Bureau, pp. 192-198.

Sixteenth Semi-annual Report of the Chief of the Cattle Bureau to the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, for the Year ending November 30, 1909, by Austin Peters, Chief of Cattle Bureau, pp. 132-133.

Bibliography

Biggs, John Thomas, J.P., Testimony in "Fourth Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Vaccination," Minutes of Evidence, pp 150-151, 162-168, 172-195, Appendix III, pp- 415-465, London, Government publication, 1893.

Birch, John. An Appeal to the Public, on the Hazard and Peril of Vaccination, otherwise Cow Pox, together with his Serious Reasons for Uniformly Objecting to Vaccination, and other Tracts by the same Author, third edition, London, J. Harris, 1817.

Collins, William Job, F.R.C.S., and James Allanson Picton. "Statement by Dr. Collins and Mr. Picton of the Grounds of their Dissent from the Commission's Report," in Final Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Vaccination, pp. 156-221, London, Government publication, 1890.

Constable, H. Strickland. Our Medicine Men: A Few Hints, Kingston-upon-Hull, England, Leng and Co.

Creighton, Charles, M.D. The Natural History of Cow Pox and Vaccinal Syphilis? Cassell and Company, 1887. "Vaccination," article signed "C. C.," in Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition (Omitted in some of the American reprints). Jenner and Vaccination, A Strange Chapter of Medical History, London, Swan Sonneunchein and Co., 1889. Testimony, in "Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Vaccination," Minutes of Evidence, pp. 153-187, Appendix X, pp. 288-291, London, Government publication, 1890. A History of Epidemics in Britain, vol. ii, chapter iv, Smallpox, pp. 434-631, Cambridge University Press, 1894.

Crookshank, Edgar Marsh, M.B., J.P. "History and Pathology of Vaccination," 2 vols., London, H. K Lewis, 1889. Testimony, in "Fourth Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Vaccination," Minutes of Evidence, pp.1-123, Appendix I, pp.389-412, London, Government publication, 1893.

Source: (c) HARPUB 1997-1999 All Rights Reserved