ns 1

PRICE, 25 CENTS.
LIBRARY.

VACCINATION: /tor

Its Fallacies and Evils.

ROBERT A. GUNN, M. D.

THIRD EDITION,
REVISED AND ENLARGED.

NEW YORK:
N1CKLES PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1882.

£a«\wiWs*
Harvey Cushing / John Hay Whitney

MEDICAL LIBRARY

Yale University
 VACCINATION:

ITS FALLACIES AND EVILS.

BY

ROBERT A. GUNN, M. D.

fcijtrt (CtJitton,

REVISED AND ENLARGED.

NEW YORK:
NICKLES PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1882.
 .

\Mcc
 VACCINATION
Its Fallacies ahd Evils.

All must crumble before

fallacies classified as science
investigation. Such has been the fate of all the pretentious
theories of earlier medicine, and such is the predestined end
of the delusive hypotheses upon which are based many of
the medical dogmas of to-day.
Of these dogmas I believe the practice known as vaccina-
tion to be most absurd, and most pernicious. I do not
believe that a single person has ever been protected from
I! small-pox by it while I know that many serious bodily
;

evils and even deaths have resulted from its employment.

Although I had often seen bad residts following vaccina-
tion, like the majority of the profession, I never questioned
the authority of the books regarding its prophylactic power
against small-pox till my attention was specially directed to
the subject, in 1872. A severe epidemic of small-pox pre-
vailed in New York, during that year, notwithstanding the
fact that the health authorities had claimed the year previous,
that the city was thoroughly protected by vaccination. The
various medical societies appointed committees to enquire
into the causes of the epidemic and why vaccination had
failed to prevent it. member of such a
I was appointed a
committee from a medical society to which I belonged, and
then, for the first time, I began a careful study of the sub-
juct of vaccination. I commenced with Jenner's own
writings and carefully followed the history of the subject as
prepared by himself and his disciples, and before I got
through I was forced to the conclusion that vaccination was
the most stupendous fallacy that had ever been fostered by
the medical profession. Since then, facts and figures have
accumulated, in my hands, to such an extent as to compel
me to abandon the practice of vaccination and to come out
squarely in opj^osition to it.

In my knowledge'of this subject prior to 1872, I do not

think I was an exception to the majority of the profession.
All our medical textbooks assert that vaccination is prophy-
lactic against small-pox. In proof of this, they refer to the
great ravages of the disease prior to the discovery (?) of
Jenner, and its decrease since that time. The professors in
our medical colleges instruct the students in the same way,
and when they, in turn, are asked for an opinion, the univer-
sal answer is, "certainly, vaccination is a sure preventive
against small-pox." Few physicians attempt to investigate
the subject further. They have been taught to believe in
vaccination, and it is unpardonable heresy to dispute its
efficacy. Those who are opposed to it are denounced as
ignorant, while in reality they are the only ones who are
fully informed on the subject; and the time not distant
is
when the public will become so enlightened regarding this
fallacy, that the vaccinator's lancet will be left to rust beside
its twin monstrosity, the blood-letter's lancet.

Many believe in the value of vaccination because the

medical profession generally recommend it. To such I
would say, that twenty years ago the entire medical profes-
sion believed that blood-letting afforded the only relief in
all kinds of fever, and that a drink of water given to a
fever patient was certain death.A few reformers denounced
this barbarous practice and some of them lived to see its
complete overthrow, while the "leading minds in the pro-
fession " fought for it to the last. The leaders of the aboli-
tionmovement in America were regarded as lunatics and
some of them narrowly escaped death at the hands of the
mob, but they lived to see their principles triumph and
themselves honored by the whole civilized world. Thus it
—
has ever been with every effort at reform with every strug-
—
gle of truth against error and so it will be in this opposi-
tion of organized medical despotism to the enlightenment
of the people regarding the monstrous and barbarous prac-
tice of vaccination.
Every intelligent person who takes the time to investigate
this subject, will find abundant evidence in the published
writings and public records of the advocates of vaccination,
to prove its litter worthlessness, without reading a line of
anti-vaccination literature. And if we could add to this all
the suppressed facts, we would have a mass of evidence be-
fore which no vaccinator would dare to hold up his head.

With the view of presenting the subject in its proper

lightwe shall consider: 1st. The History of Small-pox.
2d. The History of Vaccination; and 3d. The Evils of
Vaccination.

HISTORY OP SMALL-POX.

There is a great diversity of opinion among medical

writers regarding the anticpiity of small-pox. Some assert
that it was one of the plagues that so often devastated the
oriental nations of antiquity. Others affirm that it prevailed
in China and Hindoostan, a thousand years before the Chris-
tian era, but that it was confined to very narrow limits, for
centuries, till it finally spread into Europe, about the begin-
ning of the eighth century. Certain it is, however, that we
have no description of any disease having the characteristics
of small-pox till the latter half of the sixth century, when

it is described as breaking out in Arabia, A. D. 571 the —

year in which Mahomet was was widely dissem-
born. It
inated by the wars and expeditions of the Arabs, and is be-
lieved to have entered Europe at the time of the overthrow
of the Gothic monarchy in Spain, by the Moors. Whatever
its soiffce or time of appearance it extended over Em-ope

with fearful rapidity; and the loathsomeness of its nature

and the terrible havoc to life attending it, filled the minds
of the people with the greatest dread.
 4

It is characteristically a contagious disease, and cannot be

communicated except by actual contact with the person or
the effluvia arising from the excretions of the afflicted, or
with the clothing impregnated with the virus from the pus-
tules. This fact was early recognized and its spread into dif-
;

ferent coun tries was always supposed to be traceable to direct

importation. On this point Sir Thomas Watson, in his Practice,
says " "While almost all men are prone to take the disorder,
:

large portions of the world have remained for centuries en-

tirely exempt from it, until at length it was imported and ;

that then it infallibly diffused and established itself in those

parts."
Small-pox was unknown in the New World before the
discovery by Columbus but it was
;
Domingo
carried into St.
in 1517. Three years later a negro, covered with pustules,
was landed on the Mexican coast, and from him the disease
spread so that in a short time, it is said, three millions and
a half of i^eople perished from it in Mexico alone. The
absurdity of this claim of the vaccinators is too apparent to
demand any attempt at contradiction. The population of
Mexico in 1876, was 10,000,000. It certainly could not have
been 3,000,000 in all, hi 1520 and even so, what means
;

could have been employed at that time, to ascertain

the number of deaths from small-pox. The disease
was carried to Iceland in 1707, and to Greenland
in 1733. Wherever it went devastation followed in its train;
and so great was the popular dread that the people were
willing to adopt any means that offered the slightest im-
munity against its ravages.
An examination of the statistics of small-pox proves that
its greatest ravages occurred at the time when the commer-
cial communications of the various nations began to be
more general, and that the first ravages of the disease were
greater than any subsequent ones. It would appear as an
epidemic in various quarters of the globe and at various
times, but it rarely proved as fatal as the first visitation.

This was, no doubt, due to the fact that fear kept people
from exposing themselves, and led to the practice of isolat-
ing the victims during the entire continuance of the disease.
 5
As early as 1713, an English physician who had settled in
Constantinople, wrote to a practitioner in London, concern-
ing a new process, which was claimed to be successfully
employed as a preventive against the ravages of small-pox.
This process consisted in taking the virus of the small-pox
and introducing it into a slight puncture in the skin, thus
producing the disease, it was claimed, in a milder form.
This practice was called inoculation, and was introduced
into England by Lady Mary Wortley Montague, wife of the
British Ambassador at the Ottoman Court. She had her
own children inoculated, and was so zealous in her work,
that by the middle of the century, (1750,) the practice had been
extensively adopted in England, and had spread to various
countries of Europe, and even to America. Its advocates
claimed that the ravages of small-pox were thus greatly
diminished, and the profession and public, alike, worked
zealously to promulgate the practice. After vaccination was
introduced, it was ascertained that inoculation added greatly
to the number of small-pox cases, and that the mortality
was not chminished, but rather increased. Stringent laws
were then passed, in different countries, making the practice
of inoculation a crime.

HISTORY OF VACCINATION.

In 1798, Edward Jenner, of Gloucestershire, England,

called public attention to his discovery, that the virus of
cow-pox introduced into the human body, was a prophylactic
against small-pox. His attention had been directed to the
subject several years previous, by hearing a milk-maid say
that she could not take small-pox because she had had cow-
pox. On examination, he ascertained that cows were often
affected with a pustular eruption on the udder, and that the
persons milking them were frequently affected by similar
eruptions on their hands and the popular belief was, that
;

persons thus affected were not susceptible to small-pox.

He soon began to experiment, by inoculating persons with
the lymph from the cow-pox pustules, and as these persons
did not have small-pox afterward, he thought he had proved
the truth of the popular belief in the prophylactic power of
 6

the cow-pox. In order to convince those who doubted the

value of this pretended discovery, he experimented, by in-
oculating with sinall-pox virus, those he had previously in-
oculated with cow-pox virus. Some of the persons thus
experimented on did not have the small-pox, but unfortun-
ately for his discovery, others fell victims to his experiments.
He then discovered(?) that there were two kinds of eruptions
met with on the udder of the cow, one of which was spuri-
ous cow-pox, and not protective against small-pox. The
spurious was a spontaneous eruption, peculiar to the cow,
while the genuine was produced by contagion from the
grease in the horse. This grease, passing through the cow,
and then inoculated into the human body, Jenner declared,
as early as 1798, to be a fireventive of small-pox "for life."
This is Jenner's wonderful discovery, which has since been
known as vaccination.

On this subject, Jenner writes, as follows: "In this dairy

country, (Gloucestershire,) a great number of cows is kept,
and the office of milking is performed, indiscriminately, by
men and maid servants. One of the former having applied
dressings to the heels of a horse affected with the grease, in-
cautiously milked the cows, with some particles of the in-
fectious matter adhering to his fingers. The disease thus
communicated to the cows, and from the cows to the dairy-
maids, spread through the farm until most of the domestics
and the cattle feel its unpleasant consecpiences. This dis-
ease has obtained the name of cow-pox." In describing the
disorder thus contracted, he further says " Inflamed spots
;

begin to appear on the hands, sometimes on the wrists,

which quickly rim on to suppuration. Absorption takes
place and tumors appear in each axilla. The system be-
comes affected, the pulse is quickened, and shivering, with
general lassitude, and pains about the loins and limbs, with
vomiting, come on. The head is painful and the patient is
every now and then affected with delirium. These symptoms
generally continue from one day to three or four,
leaving
ulcerated sores about the hands, which commonly heal
slowly, frequently becoming phagedenic, like those
from
whence they sprung. The lips, eyelids, nostrils, and other
parts of the body are sometimes affected with sores. No
eruptions on the skin have followed the decline of the
feverish symptoms in any instance that has come under my
inspection, one only excepted. Thus the disease makes its
progress from the horse to the nipple of the cow, and from
the cow to the human subject. * * * * What renders
the cow-pox Tu-us so extremely singular is, that the person
who has thus been affected is for ever after secure from the
infection of the small-pox."
Of the pustular sores that appear spontaneously on the
nipples of cows, he says: "This disease is not to be con-
sidered as similar in any respect to that of which I am treat-
ing, as it is incapable of producing any specific effect on the
human constitution." Both of these points are reiterated
again and again in his writings, so there can be no misun-
derstanding the source from which he derived his virus for
what he called effective vaccination.
After he had settled this point satisfactorily to himself,
reports came to him that even persons affected with the true
cow-pox had not been protected from small-pox. He then
made the assertion, that it was only in a certain state of the
pustule that virus was afforded capable of imparting to the
constitution its protecting power ; and that matter, taken
after this period, might excite a but not of
local disease,
such a sort as to render the individual proof against the
effects of variolus contagion. Then, he pretended, that if
kept a few days, the virus underwent decomposition, and
was thus rendered incapable of affording protection against
small-pox. Thus, as tbe Arabian prophet had new revela-
meet every unexpected exigency, so Jenner advanced
tions to
a new theory every time that vaccination was shown to be a
failure.
For a time Jenner's discovery was bitterly opposed by the
profession and even some of those who adopted it, claimed
;

that inoculation directly from the grease of the horse, into

the human body, was as protective as that which passed
through the cow. Then came the claim that the virus taken
from the person inoculated with the cow-pox could be used
 8

to protect other persons ; and, as the symptoms thus pro-

duced were less severe than direct inoculation from the cow,
this method of vaccination soon became the prevailing one.
At first, however, it was considered necessary to have re-

course to the cow for a fresh supply of virus, every few

years but even this was soon regarded as unnecessary, and
;

so the practice of vaccination from arm to arm was almost

universally relied upon as a preventive of small-pox, for half
a century.
From England, vaccination was introduced into the vari-
ous countries of Europe, crossed the Atlantic to America,
and even found its way to the jungles of Asia and to the
barbarous tribes of Africa.
The movement took hold of the popular mind, and the
medical profession accepted on the same principle that
it

they discontinued blood-letting. Then compulsory vaccina-

tion laws were passed in many of the countries of Europe-
and the practice has come clown to us as "the grandest dis-
covery of modern times."
At first, all agreed with Jenner, that one vaccination pro-
tected a person for life, against small-pox this, however, ;

was soon found to be untrue. Then, one thorough vaccina-

tion in infancy and one after puberty, were deemed neces-
sary. This also proved a delusion. Its advocates next
advised the practice to be repeated at maturity. Then it
was thought necessary that it should be repeated every
seven years; and now, to insure perfect immunity, it is
claimed, that every one should be vaccinated every two or
three years.
This is the position occupied by most of the profession
at the present day, although even here there is a marked
difference of opinion among the so-called best authorities.
In the London Lancet of March 24, 1877, the editor writes
as follows : "After successful vaccination in infancy, re-vac-
cination is needed only once.The second operation should,
if be performed at the age of puberty, or, there
practicable,
being immediate danger of small-pox, at the age of twelve.
Ee-vaccination at an earlier age is futile. Eepeated re-vac-
cinations are foolish. Ee-vaccination, when successful is
needed once only.''
 As the question now stands, it is impossible to ascertain
what constitutes effective vaccination. In every country
where it is practiced, the profession are divided respecting
the merits of humanized and bovine virus. One party
claims that vaccination from arm to arm is more certain,
while it can do no harm. The other contends that it does
not protect, and that numerous diseases are communicated
thereby, while they claim that the bovine virus is certain
and harmless. The bovine virus, that is thus advocated,
has been obtained by inoculation from the spontaneous cow-
pox, and Jenner declared that this would not protect against
smallpox. Again, some have advocated the inoculation of
a cow with small-pox virus, to obtain a supply of vaccine
virus, while others claim that this only spreads the small-
pox.
The truth is, that no two physicians agree as to what con-
stitutes effective vaccination. Some still agree with Jenner,
that one vaccination is sufficient ; others take sides with the
Lancet, and believe that only one re-vaccination is necessary.
Some say we must vaccinate every seven years, while others
still, affirm that we must be vaccinated eveiy two or three
years to be perfectly protected against small-pox..
Whatever way we look at the question, it is certain that
none of the methods now employed correspond with the
discovery of Jenner; and the time is not far distant, when
all will be rejected.

Had Jenner been a conscientious searcher after truth, he

never would have asserted, six years after he commenced his
investigations, that the vaccine disease "for ever after se-
cured against the infection of small-pox." Had he been a
real scientist he would never have invented new theories to
account for every failure in the results of his investigations,
at least, till a sufficient number of years had elapsed to
prove the general truth of his assertion. Had he discovered
any actual scientific truth, it would have come down to us
precisely as he gave it to the public in 1798.
Physiology teaches us that all poisons are either ehminated
from the body, or so interfere with the functions and tissues
as to produce disease or death. When zymatic poisons, such
 10

as those of small-pox, scarlet fever, measles, etc., are intro-

duced into the system, the normal functions are interfered
with,and thus we have a condition that is called disease. A
goes on between the vital forces and the poison, and
conflict
one or the other must succumb. If the vitality of the
patient is sufficiently strong, or in other words, if the patient
is healthy and robust, the poison is eliminated, and the body
is left with its conqionent parts in the same conditions as
before its introduction. If, on the other hand, there is not

sufficient vitality, the poison gains the ascendency and the

patient dies. Poisons such as syphilitic may remain in the
system for a long time, but when they do, they manifest them-
selves by abnormal conditions of the various tissues, which
result from the efforts of nature to throw off the morbid
influence.
Persons who are exposed to the contagion of small-pox,
when in a debilitated condition are liable to take the disease,
while those who and robust may escajie entirely,
are strong
cr have it and the same is true of ah other diseases.
lightly ;

"When a specific virus is introduced into the body by inocu-

lation, it is more apt to affect the system but even here ;

some escape infection altogether, others are slightly affected,

while some suffer severely in consequence. Those who re-
cover throw off the poison entirely, and may be similarly
affected at any time afterwards, provided they are exposed
to the infection while in a debilitated condition. This fact
has been so often demonstrated by persons having scarlet
fever, measles, cholera, diphtheriaand small-pox, two and
three times, that its Now what
truth cannot be questioned.
is true of these diseases must also be true of the vaccine

disease, and it is for the same reason that vaccination may

be repeatedly performed on the same person, and be found
to take each time. Then I ask, is it reasonable to suppose
that vaccination can protect against small-pox, when it can-
not protect against itself, and when one attack of smaU-pox
cannot protect against another. The very first person Jen-
ner vaccinated and pronounced safe "for life" against small-
pox, afterwards took the disease and died from it, and ever
since that, the history of the subject proves that such results
 —

11

are so frequent, that the value of vaccination as a prophylac-

tic against small-pox is completely disproved.
But we are told, that vaccination has arrested the fearful
ravages of small-pox, and reduced its mortality to almost
nothing. We have been told over and over again that
small-pox had been stamped out in different localities, by
efficient vaccination ;and after it had again appeared the
cry came, "the people are not half vaccinated."
Now what is the truth of this matter ? It is simply this
that the first visitations of all epidemics are more fatal than
subsequent ones.
The plagues that formerly devasted the Eastern world
were less and less severe with each visitation, till now they
have entirely disappeared. Those that swejjt over Eurojje
up to the beginning of the eighteenth century also became
less fatal with each return, till now they are unknown.
Cholera, which, at one time, carried panic and death to
almost every door, can now hardly gain a foothold in any
civilized country. And small-pox, too, had gradually be-
come less prevalent, and less fatal, till in Jenner's time it

appeared in a very mild form and attended with but little

mortality. To what can we attribute the decline of these
diseases? I suppose, had Jenner pretended that vaccination
was prophylactic against all, it would be so asserted to-day;
but this change occurred in some of them before Jenner's
time, and he cannot even claim the diminution of sniall-pox as
depending on a discovery that had not then been promul-
gated. No! the only pretense that can be advanced to
account for this decreased mortality, is that civilization
brought knowledge of hygienic and quarantine advantages;
and as these measures were adopted the diseases declined.
In 1864, a report was published in England, in which
tables were compiled to prove the value of vaccination.
They commenced with the year 1838, which was before the
compulsory vaccination laws were passed, and ended in
1861. The unfairness of their figures becomes apparent
when it is known that small-pox prevailed more in 1838
than any time during the century, and then no returns are
given for the years 1843^4-45-46, because epidemics pre-
 : :

12

vailed and the deaths had increased in those years. The

following is a summary of the table
For the years 1838, '39 and '40, before the compulsory
was passed, the annual average death-rate
vaccination act
was claimed to be 11,944. From 1841 to 1853, vaccination
was provided gratuitously but was not obligatory, and the
average annual death-rate was 5,221, not including the epi-
demics of 1843 to '46, which are omitted from the reports.
From 1854 to '61, inclusive, vaccination was obligatory, and
the annual average death-rate was 3,240. Here they stopped
and claimed for vaccination the difference in the annual death-
rate, between 11,944, and 3,240. In the last year included in
then- table the number of deaths was 1,320. In 1862, which
is omitted from the table, it was 1,628; in 1863, 5,964J; in

1864, 7,684 and in 1865, 6,411 and again in 1871, the

; ;

deaths were 7,876 in London alone. Now if vaccination

reduced the death-rate from 16,268 in 1838, to 1,320 in 1861,
what increased the death-rate so much in the four succeed-
ing years, and in 1871?

The facts in regard to the stamping out of small-pox in

England, as reported by the Registrar-General, are sum-
marized as follows
Vaccination was made compulsory by act of Parliament
in the year 1853 ; again in 1867, and
more stringent in still

Since 1853, we have had three epidemics of small-

1871.
\ ,
pox, each being more severe than the one preceding.
-•
%
Date. Death from Small-pox.
1st. 1857-58-59 14,244
2d. 1863-64-65 20,059
3d. 1870-71-72 44,840
Increase of population from 1st to 2d epidemic 7 per cent.
Increase of small-pox in the same period, nearly .... 50 per cent.
Increase of population from 2d to 3d epidemic 10 per cent.
Increase of small-pox in the same period 120 per cent.
Deaths from smaU-pox in the ten years after the enforcement
first
of vaccination, 1854 to 1863 33 515
In the second ten years, 1864 to 1873 70 458
 13

The Eegistrar-General in his Annual Summary for the

year 1880, tabulates the small-pox mortality of London for
the last forty years as follows :

Decades. Estimated Mean Population. Small-pox Deaths.

1841-50 2,103,487 8,416

1851-60 2,270,489 7,150
1861-70 3,018,193 8,347
1871-80 3,466,486 15,543

In addition to these facts, the same returns show that for

the year ending December 31, 1881, 2,371 persons died in
London of small-pox.

Again, a careful examination of all returns of sinall-pox

shows that the highest mortality in any one year, in London,
in the last century, was 3,992 while the total deaths from
;

this disease during the first twenty years of the present

century, was 20,462, or an annual average of 1,023, when
neither inoculation or vaccination was practiced to any
extent. From the passage of the registration act in 1838, X'
to 1853, when the Compulsory Vaccination Act was passed,
the official returns of the Eegistrar-General show the total
number be 10,521, which makes an
of small-pox deaths to
annual average ef 1,032. For the twenty-four years of
compulsory vaccination ending with 1877, the annual aver-
age death-rate was 1,092. Again, for the decade ending
with 1880, and with 93 per cent, of the population protected(?)
by vaccination, the average annual death-rate increased to
1,554 ; while during the year 1881, it was further increased
to 2,371.

In Sweden from 1775 to 1792, without vaccination the

deaths from small-pox per million inhabitants ranged from
300 to 900 per year. From 1802 to 1810, with from two to
forty jjersons in every thousand vaccinated, the deaths per
million inhabitants per year, were successively, 600 ; 600;
600; 450; 600; 850; 750; 1,000; 300.
 :

14

The following table shows the ratio of the subsequent years:

Vaccinated per 1.000 Deaths per Million

Inhabitants. Inhabitants.
Year.

1825 250 400

1839 590 575
1851 735 700
1874 970 960

In the face of these figures, is it not absurd to claim that

vaccination has stamped out small-pox in England and
Sweden.

The rame result is demonstrated by the official returns of

shown in the following table
Prussia, as

No. of Persons TJnvaccinated Deaths from Small-pox

Year. in every 100,000. to every 100.000 inhabitants.

1820 08,000 10
1831 -13,000 12
1841 33,000 14
1850 22,000 16
1860 15,000 19
1871 12,000 243
1872 12,000 2G0

In the great small-pox epidemic of 1870-72, at Cologne,

2,400 persons took the disease, of which 2,351 were vaccin-
ated and the majority re-vaccinated, while only 49 were un-
vaccinated. At that time the population of Cologne was
125,000, of which 8,000 were unvaccinated. This gave one
case of small-jsox to 53 vaccinated persons, while there was
only one case to every 161 of the unvaccinated.

Valuable statistics have also been collected from hospital

reports, which further demonstrate the fallacy of vaccina-
tion. From 1700' to 1779, there were collected from hospi-
tal reports, 24,994 cases of small-pox, of which 4,707, or
18.83 per cent. died. From 1836 to 1880, of 48,248 hospital
cases, 8,926, or18^ per cent. died. Of the first, none were
vaccinated, while of the latter, 34,423 were reported as pro-
tected( ?) by vaccination.
 : : ;

15

VACCINATORS FALSIFY STATISTICS.

The statistics above quoted are at variance with many of

those presented by the advocates of vaccination, who have
persistently kept up a system of falsification and misrepre-
sentation, to bolster ivp their crumbling fallacy.
The National Vaccine Establishment of England, was
created by Act of Parliament in 1808. The Board of Man-
agers of this establishment in then- report for 1811, wrote
as follows
"Previous to the discovery of vaccination, the average number
of deathsby small-pox within the London bills of mortality was
2,000 annually; whereas during 1811, only 751 died of the dis-
ease," etc.

In 1818 this Board again says

" Instead of 2,000 deaths by small-pox, which was the annual
average previous to the practice of vaccination, there died in 1818,
only 421."
In 1826 we find in the report of this same Board these
words
"But when we reflect that before the introduction of vaccina-
tion the average number
of deaths from small-pox was annually
about 4,000, no stronger argument can reasonably be demanded
in favor of the value of this important discovery."

Again, in 1836, the paid officials of this vaccine establish-

ment, encouraged by the fact that their report of 1826 had
not been questioned, still further falsify facts by the follow-
ing report:
"The annual loss of life by small-pox in the metropolis before
vaccination was established, exceeded 5,000."

Contrast with these statements the official report of Dr.

Farr, and we have a fair illustration of the manner in which
vaccination statistics are manipulated in England, and in
every other country, where the paid advocates of vaccination
and the producers of the virus feel called upon to keep up
the popular delusion concerning the prophylactic value of
vaccination.
 :

16

Dr. Farr states the facts in these words

"Small-pox attained its maximum mortality after inoculation

was introduced. The annual deaths from small-pox in London,
from 1760 to 1779, were on an average 2,323. In the next twenty
years, 1780 to 1799, they declined to 1,7-40. The disease, there-
fore, began to grow less fatal before vaccination was discovered,
indicating, together with the diminution of fevers, the general
improvement of health then taking place."
These are facts that cannot be gain-said, and they irre-
futably disprove the assertion that 40,000 died annually in
England, before the introduction of vaccination, which is
the claim made by vaccinators to prove the value of their
vaunted prophylactic.
In the reports of small-pox hospitals, a number of cases
are always reported as unvaccinated and in the fatal con-
;

fluent cases, where vaccination marks could not possibly be

seen, and where no inquiry has been made regarding rjre-
vious protection, they are invariably returned as unvaccin-
ated. I have personal knowledge of several such cases in
New York, during the past winter.
An expose of this kind was made in 1875, by Mr. John
Pickering, of Leeds, England. The Leeds' small-pox hos-
pital had reported 715 cases treated, from January 29, 1872,
to October 24, 1875, of which they reported 600 vaccinated
and 115 not vaccinated. Mr. Pickering and his friend Mr.
Kenwortht, investigated about half of this number, and
though they could find no trace of many of the patients,
they ascertained the following facts six living witnesses
were entered " unvaccinated," all of whom had been vaccin-
ated; nine deceased persons were entered " unvaccinated,"
all of whom had been vaccinated ; eight cases entered as
"unvaccinated," should have been entered unsuccessfully
vaccinated; four cases were entered "un vaccinated," which
should have been returned "certified unfit."
Proofs of these facts were presented to the Leeds' Board of
Guardians, with the offer to continue the inquiry over the
other cases, but an investigation was refused.
 17

This is but another sample of the manner in which statis"

tics in support of vaccination are manufactured, but such
figures cannot deceive any one who is earnestly endeavoring
to ascertain the truth concerning this important questioD

VACCINATION IN AMERICA.

In quoting statistics on small-pox and vaccination, we to*"

obliged to use those of foreign countries, for the reason

that none are accessible in America. Even the Boards of
Health of our large cities make no effort to ascertain whether
those attacked with small-pox have been vaccinated.
In New York and Brooklyn, repeated endeavors have been
v v
made tostamp out small-pox by thorough and systematic
vaccination. It has been made compulsory in our schools,
and during the past ten years, re-vaccination has been
demanded, or in its place a certificate from a physician that
re-vaccination was unnecessary. Vaccinators have gone
from house to house, to vaccinate old and young, and it is
claimed by the Health Board of New York, that they have
vaccinated 800,000 persons during the past eight years.
The profession generally have enjoined the people to have
recourse to repeated re-vaccination, and with 3,000 physicians
in private practice in New York, it is certain that the entire
population, with very few exceptions have been vaccinated
from one to six times. Yet small-pox prevails, and this
protected people are as much hi dread of the disease as if
they had never been vaccinated.
For the past ten years I have rarely met persons marked
with small-pox, without asking them if they had been vac-
cinated; and in almost every case I received an answer in
the affirmative, while many knew of a number of cases of
deaths from small-pox, among friends who had been vaccin-
ated and re-vaccinated. During the past year I have known
of several cases of small-pox in persons who had
been re-vaccinated and pronounced thoroughly protected by
the public vaccinators, notwithstanding the declaration of
Dr. Taylor, the chief of the Vaccination Bureau, that "Vac-
cination is an absolute protective against variola.''
 18

In 1S72 and 1873, 1 corresponded -with over two hundred

medical men, and questioned them on the value of vaccma-
tion in their experience. The aggregate number of small-
pox cases seen by these physicians was 6,423; of which
4,020 had been Vaccinated, and 3,008 of these re-vaccinated.
In my own practice, I have seen 20 cases of small-pox, o;
which fifteen had been vaccinated, and eleven of these re
vaccinated. Of my own cases, four died, three of whom
had been vaccinated, and one of the three re-vaccinateil,
while the fourth was that of a child who had not been vac-
cinated on account of poor health.

THE VACCINATORS' CHANGE OF BASE.

After the advocates of vaccination were forced to aban-

don the claim that it protected for life against
small-pox, they declared that when vaccinated persons did
take the disease, it was only in a mild form. This was dis-

proved, even in Jenner's time, by the death, from small-pox,

of persons who had been vaccinated, and such cases have
multiplied to such an extent with every epidemic, that
another change of base was found necessary.
Re-vaccination every few years was then advocated as a
certain means of mitigating the severity of small-pox, and
still deaths occurred.
It is now the custom to claim that every person who
escapes small-pox, whether vaccinated once or a dozen times
has been protected by the vaccination ; while it is asserted
was not properly performed, in all cases
that the vaccination
where small-pox does occur. In other words, they claim
that we are protected till the breaking out of the disease
proves the contrary, and then they assert that we had no
proper protection.
Again, every mild case is pronounced varioloid, if found
among the vaccinated, and variola, seen in the unvaccin-
if

ated. This claim is entirely without foundation in fact, as

it is well known that all diseases attack persons with differ-
ent degrees of severity, the strong and robust being slightly
affected, while the weakly suffer severely. One child is very
 19

sick with measles, while another in the same family may-

have the disease so slightly as not to affect it in the least;
one may die from scarlet fever, while another may only be
slightly indisposed for a few days one may have the whoop-
;

ing-cough for a week or two, while another may suffer from

it for months. One person may die from cholera in a few
hours, while another may have it severely, and yet recover;
and one may feel slightly indisposed from malarial influences,
while another may be a great sufferer for months, from the
same This being true, is it reasonable to suppose
cause.
that small-pox should be an exception to the general rule,
and only those who have been vaccinated, have it lightly'?
Certainly not; the facts prove the weakly
that it is

who die from small-pox, whether

have been they
vaccinated or not. And, besides, it is the rule not to vac-
cinate delicate, sickly children, and when such take small-
pox they are more liable to die, and the want of vaccination
is assigned as the sole cause of the disease.

THE PROPHYLAXIS OF VACCINATION HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED.

Notwithstanding all that has been claimed in favor of
vaccination, I contend that its prophylaxis against small-
pox has never been tested. Ever since its introduction, the
most rigid cpiarantine regulations have been enforced hi all
small-pox cases, and from the very nature of the disease, it
must be admitted that such measures, of themselves, are
calculated to prevent its spread, while superior knowledge
enables physicians to treat it more successfully than
formerly.
Tii all large cities, contagious diseases, including small-
pox, prevail most extensively and fatally in the low-lying,
badly-drained and ventilated, filthy and densely populated
districts, where contagion cannot be prevented and in these ;

districts, too, vaccination has been almost universally per-

formed, because it has been enforced and done without
charge.
If vaccination and re-vaccination will certainly prevent

small-pox, why do its advocates insist on the enforcement

 20

of quarantine regulations? Why do they exclude unvac-

chiated children from our public schools ? Why are those
who have been protected(?) by repeated vaccinations so
panic-stricken when a case of small-pox is discovered in
their midst? Certainly these facts prove that they have no
faith in their vaunted prophylactic. The whole history of
the way vaccination protects against small-pox is summed up
in the action of theNew York Health Board, as illustrated
by management during the past winter. A case of
their
suspected small-pox is reported, and an inspector is sent to
examine the patient. The diagnosis is confirmed and the
patient is removed before vesication takes place, which is
before the period of contagion. The house is then thor-
oughly fumigated, antiseptics are used in every direction,
and then all the inmates are thoroughly vaccinated. If no
other cases occur, the credit is given entirely to the protec-
tive influence of the vaccination while the removal of the
;

patient before he could possibly communicate the disease,

and the hygienic measures employed, are never mentioned.
If vaccination is the vaunted protective it is claimed to
be, why not depend on it alone ? Why not prove by actual
facts that the vaccinated are safe from sniall-pox under all
circumstances, while the unvaccinated are certain to take
the disease whenever exposed to it? This cannot be done,
but on the contrary thousands have lost faith hi vaccination
because of its repeated failures.
All the protection we have against small-pox comes from
our improved knowledge of the hygiene of the person, the
home, and the community; and if one-quarter of the money
that is now spent to support a vaccination aristocracy was
applied to improving the conditions of life in localities
where small-pox usually originates, we would not only ban-
ish small-pox, but with it all other zymotic diseases. I con-
tend that vaccination, without quarantine and hygienic con-
ditions, would show an enomious increase of sniall-pox in a
very short time, while the strict observance of the latter,
without vaccination, would tend to improve the general
 :

21

physical condition of our people and this further diminish

the fatality of small-pox.
Until the advocates of vaccination are willing to depend
on their own prophylactic, they should cease to urge it upon
those who have no faith in it.
THE EVILS OF VACCINATION.

Even if there was any evidence to prove that vaccination

was a prophylactic against small-pox, the appalling evils that
have been and are still produced by it are sufficient to con-
demn the practice as a crime.
Every physician of experience has met with numerous
cases of cutaneous eruptions, erysipelas, and syphilis, which
were directly traceable to vaccination, and if these could all
be collected and presented in one report, they would form a
more terrible picture than the worst that has ever been
drawn to portray the horrors of sniall-jiox.
In 1872, I condensed into a report, the following summary
of evidence (under oath), taken by a committee of the British
House of Commons, in 1871, on this subject. It speaks for
itself

Dn. Collins testifies :

" After twenty years experience as a
vaccinator, during six or seven small-pox epidemics, I have
ceased to vaccinate ten or twelve years ; and gave up at
least £500 sterling a years by so doing. I consider vaccina-
tion not only useless, but an evil. Have often seen children
with syphilitic eruptions, after vaccination, whose parents
were free from any taint. Have seen children, hitherto
healthy with no trace of struma, after vaccination assume a
scrofulous character, with every characteristic of a strumous
habit. Erysipelas and phlegmanous ulcers are also by no
means uncommon after vacccination. In a particular case I
vaccinated an apparently healthy child with lymph from the
national vaccine establishment, and on the eighth day, from a
true Jennerian vesicle on its arm, I, at the request of the
parents, friends of the first, vaccinated another healthy child;
and three weeks after both children were brought to me,
 22.

having decided syphilitic symptoms; when, on examination,

it was found that the father of the first child had constitu-
tional syphilis. The parents of the second child were per-
fectly healthy, but the syphilis had been conveyed to it by
the vaccine lymph taken from the other. Was once con-
sulted by some young ladies who had been vaccinated from
then- brother, who had been suckled by a syphilitic nurse,
and, on being discovered, it was found that her own child
had the usual syphilitic symptoms."
Dr. Pearce testifies :
" I have given special attention to
the subject of vaccination for eighteen years. Returns show
a large increase of consumption. Knew a lady and her
elder brother, unvaccinated, the only survivors of ten children,
the rest having been vaccinated, five of whom died in child-
hood, and the remaning three at from fifteen to eighteen, of
consumption. The mother always attributed the death of
her eight children to vaccination. The ancestors on both
sides for generations were all healthy country people.
There was no defect of nutrition, no re-breathed air of
work-shops.When vaccinating, as I formerly did extensively,
I was astonished to find that I had unwittingly transmitted
syphilisfrom lymph sujoplied by the Jenn'erian Institution;
I had proved that no taint existed in the parents; had
twenty or twenty-four such cases within four years at
Northampton."

Referring to the 540 practitioners who are reported to

have taken grounds against his positions, he says " They :

are chiefly surgeons of hospitals, who perhaps have never

vaccinated or been in general practice the answers of such
;

men are of no value.

Mr. Whitehead, of Manchester, reports
several instances of syphilitic taint, transmitted from a true
Jennerian vesicle. This is positive evidence but men may ;

say that they never have seen what they never had an
opportunity of seeing. Dr. Ballard had stated that a true
Jennerian vesicle cannot be distinguished from a vesicle
containing syphilis."
 23

Dr. J. J. Gabth Wilkinson testifies " I have vaccinated :

to within the last five years without thinking about it.

Vaccination is so entirely secumdem artem, the large majority
cannot think about it. "We are continually coming upon
venerable fallacies but on this question prestige and interest
;

prevent investigation. Six positive cases are worth 10,000

negatives, which go for nothing."

Dr. Seljestrom, a man of great scientific eminence,

and a legislator in Sweden, says :
"I have always
felt that if vaccination does not stand against small-pox
it is nil ; if it does so stand, millions to one but
what it imparts other and more powerful disorders into the
system. My own coachman's child took erysipelas concur-
rently with vaccination, and both the child and its mother,
who was nursing it, who had had small-pox, died of the
erysipelas. Knew a case of an eminent literary man crippled
with a skin affection, a kind of eczema of the leg, ever since
being re-vaccinated four years since. Have often, almost
daily, heard parents say, " my children have never been the
came since they were vaccinated."
Mr. G. S. Gibson testifies :
" I attribute the large increase
in infant mortality to their being poisoned in the first year
of life, in a greater proportion than formerly, by vaccination.
Constitutional diseases may be perpetuated in the same way,
and the foundation laid for tubercular disease of some kind."
Prof. Ricord says in a French Medical Journal, of March
10th, 1865 :
" At first I repulsed the idea that syphilis could be
transmitted by vaccination, but to-day I hesitate no more to

proclaim the reality."

Mr. Emery testifies " I have seen much suffering, ulcerous

:

sores, etc.,from vaccination. Vaccination is matter taken

from the cow, put into the arm, and from arm to arm, for
thirty years, and all manner of dirt is scraped out of one
person's arm and put into another. I had a healthy child,
eleven weeks old, vaccinated in May, 18G9. On the ninth
day it became very ill, the arm, body, and legs swollen, and
 24

turned red and green, having no rest night or day till its
death, a month after. Have since seen one hundred to one
hundred and fifty healthy children suffering, immediately,
after vaccination, and parents who have lost their children bj
it."

Me. Covington mentions the case of a healthy child, twelve

months old, in whom syphilitic appearances showed them-
selves five weeks after vaccination. His own child was taken
ill immediately after vaccination, and suffered for nine months,

and afterwards from abscesses, etc., for four years. In a

third case, a child of four months, immediately broke out
with sores, and died in the tenth month. Believes vaccina-
tion conveys consumption, syphilis, and many other like
diseases.

Mr. Adison deposes "That on the 8th day of September,

:

1870, hehad a sound, healthy child, three months old, vacci-

nated against his will, to obey laws three days after it- ;

broke out in a fearful rash, which continued to increase for

eight weeks, when it died."

Rev. Hume Rothery testifies :

"I had a healthy child
which suffered from a long series of very large boils, coming
on three months after vaccination, which I believe to bo the
cause. Another case, a healthy child, nine months old when
vaccinated, was afterwards afflicted with sore eyes for many
years, and they are still weak it being afterwards found
;

that sore eyes prevailed in the family from which she was
vaccinated. A third case, a fortnight after vaccination, (at
nine months old,) became covered with an offensive eruption
all is now three years old, and has seldom
over the body,
since been from sores and scabs her elder brother, not
free ;

vaccinated, father and mother, and families are remarkably

healthy. A fourth case, now four years old, healthy before
vaccination, has never since been so; nine months afterwards
foul sores broke out, which continued, and appear likely to
continue; there is a hole in one hand, and the foot probably
crippled for life. In a fifth case, vaccinated when a babe,
 25
the family all perfectly healthy, cancer appeared on the chin,
at eighteen months old, and she lost the left breast from
cancer at thirteen. A sixth case, exceedingly well before
vaccination, was never Its flesh rotted on
well afterward.
slightest scratch of a pin, and now and then broke out in
in scales and sores; it died when twenty months old. Six
other children were vaccinated from this child, not one of
whom survived. A seventh case, a healthy baby before
vaccination, became ever after an indescribable sufferer, and
died at nearly eight, his body being literally rotten; father,
mother, and five other children all remarkably healthy. In
an eighth case, a healthy boy, four months old, was vaccinated;
three months afterwards the arm began to break out, the
head was one mass of sores, which continued for twelve
months; believe it was syphilis; there had never been any
disease in parents' families. Could mention a considerable
—
number of other cases, eight all of deaths from Rochdale; —
twelve from Smallbridge, many others from Scotland; all
attested before magistrates, with the understanding that they
were to be laid before this committee. Could mention a
number of other cases, but the sufferers are afraid to come
forward. A child may appear healthy, but no one can say
where a latent taint exists."
Dr. Nicholson, a pro-vaccinator, writes : "If a case
can be made out against vaccination, by all means
:

let the law be repealed " whilst Dr. Blanc, also a

vaccinator, says: "Persons who deny such transmission are
greater foes to vaccination than its declared adversaries."

Mr. Simon testifies :

" There is not the least doxibt that
syphilis has,on several occasions been communicated on the
continent by what was purported to be vaccination. Lymph
ought not to be taken from a subject who can be reasonably
supposed syphilitic. A vaccinator should assume that such
would convey syphilis. Practically, we should expect lymph
taken from a syphilitic child would be syphilitic, as the safe
side to err on, without attaching importance to negative
experiments."
 26

Dr. Bakewell testifies :

" There is a very strong opinion
among medical men in the West Indies that leprosy has been
communicated by vaccination. They often apply to me for
lymph from England, though there would be an equal chance
of English lymph being contaminated by syphilis have ;

seen several cases of leprosy where vaccination seemed to

be the only explanation have a case now, a child from
;

India, a leper, both parents being English saw another, a ;

Creole of Trinidad, also of English parents Sir Ranald

Martin agreed with me that the leprosy arose from vaccina-
tion. Have seen several cases of leprosy resulting from
vaccination, arrived at the conclusion with reluctance in the
Have no doubt death resulted from
face of difficulties.
syphilis,produced by vaccination, in the Eivalta cases.
There are two hundred and fifty-eight such cases mentioned
by Lancereaux as having occurred in France, Italy, and
Germany. Think there are others of which we have no
knowledge."

Mb. Hutchinson testifies " I was asked by the medical

:

man to examine into the communication of syphilis to

several adult servants and shof>men who were re-vaccinated,
on the 7th of February last, from one child, lent to the
operator from a pubhc vaccinating station. Of thirteen so
vaccinated whom I saw on the fourth or fifth of April, eleven
had on their arms sores characteristic of syphilis the pri- —
mary sore of syphilitic contagion ; the two who escaped
were the first vaccinated. A few days later saw the child
(six months old), from whom the lymph was taken, and
though it appeared in good health, I should have no doubt
it was the subject of inherited syphilis it had an eruption;

on the body, then very slight indeed, and probably not

present at the time of vaccination."

Dr. Wsi. Collins, of London, concludes an article on this

subject, in these words : "lam bound to admit that I have
no faith in vaccination, nay, I look upon it with the greatest
disgust, and firmly believe that it is often the medium of
conveying many filthy and loathsome diseases from one child
 27

to another, and no protection from small-pox. Indeed,

it is

I consider we are now

living in the Jennerian epoch for the
slaughter of the innocent, and the unthinking portion of the
population."

The Lancet of November 16, 1861, contained an account

of the inoculation of forty-six children with syphilis, con-
veyed by means of vaccination. And in 1866, thirteen
children were similarly affected by vaccination from a child,
who had been vaccinated with lymph obtained from the
medical authorities. On the same subject the Lancet of
January, 1866, says " This highly important subject has
:

been fully treated by the Siglo Medica, a Spanish medical

paper. In this article we find statistical tables of value.
The author, in collecting data respecting instances of syphi-
litic contamination through the vaccine virus, shows that the
disease was communicated in 221 out of 311 vaccinations."
Volume twelve of the Union Medicate, a French magazine,
contains a report of the celebrated Rivalta cases in Italy in
1861. In these cases 46 children were vaccinated with virus
from an infant that seemed healthy, and seventeen were
afterward vaccinated from one of the children of the first
series, and of these forty-four were affected with syphilis,

and they in turn propagated the infection to their mothers

and nurses. Dr. Henbt Lee, a great authority in syphilis,
stated after investigation, that he could come to no other
conclusion but that the disease was communicated by vac-
cination in the Rivalta cases.

Prof. Joseph Jones, of Nashville, Tennessee, of the late

Confederate army, published, in 1867, a pamphlet of 164
pages, in which he gives the sworn testimony of many prom-
inent physicians in the Southern States, proving beyond
doubt, that many hundreds of soldiers had died from syphi-
lis and gangrene caused by vaccination.
At times when any number of vaccinations are being per-
formed, hardly a week passes without reports of deaths from
erysipelas following vaccination. In spite of the utmost
care, I frequently met with such cases in my own practice,
 28

before I abandoned vaccination, and there arefew physicians

who have not similar experiences to record.
That erysipelas and infantile syphilis have increased to an
alarming extent during the past twenty years, can be proved
by the death returns of every country where vaccination is
practiced, and the best authorities in the world no longer
deny that both of these diseases have been largely augmented
by vaccination.
Such cases are being reported from every part of the
United States, and the individual testimony of physicians,
in private practice, would fill many volumes without exhaust-
ing the horrors that have been developed by vaccination.
Vaccinators had long denied that disease of any kind
could be communicated by vaccination, but by degrees,
many in this country tacitly admitted their error, by substi-
tuting bovine for humanized virus.
It was positively declared by the Metropolitan Board of
Health, of the City of New York, in 1872, that the human-
ized vaccine lymph had never conveyed diseases from one
person to auother. They were actually forced to abandon
that position in less than three years. A bureau was then
established, in the department, for the purpose of supplying
bovine virus, and all physicians in the city were notified that
they should adopt it in their practice. They asserted that
this viruswas the genuine vaccine lymph, obtained in France
from pustules spontaneously formed on the udders of cattle ;

and have since declared that they use no other. This claim
had allayed the fears of the people about the dangers of vac-
cination, as it was thought no disease could follow the use
of this bovine virus. Dr. Martin, of Boston, the New York
Health Board, and a number of other enterprising doctors,
are now engaged in producing this " virus," which Jenner
claimed " did not protect against small-pox," and these are
the men who mislead the public by false statistics and are
urging the passage of compulsory vaccination laws. But
they do more than this. They deceive the people in regard
to the kind of virus they use and offer for sale.
 29

At a recent meeting of the First Anti- Vaccination League

of America, the writer stated that the officials of the Board
of Health coUected the scabs from the arms of children vac-
cinated by them, without regard to the health of the children,
and sold them at two dollars a scab. A Herald reporter in-
terviewed Dk. Taylor, chief of the Vaccination Bureau, and
he was obliged to admit that such scabs were collected, but
were not used at home. He then acknowledged that they
were sold for use in Cuba and South America. Is not even
this admission enough to stamp the men who claim to sup-
ply "only pure(?) bovine virus," as unworthy of public
confidence.
The pubhc must not be mislead, however, by the claim,
that no disease can be communicated by bovine virus.
Domestic which man
cattle are subject to all the diseases to
is liable, with the possible exception of syphilis, and many

careful observers have found those diseases in progress after

vaccination. Erysipelas and various cutaneous eruptions are
common sequences of bovine vaccination, and Dk. G. H.
Merkell, of Boston, has reported cases having aU the char-
acteristics of syphilis, foUowing the use of Db. Martin's
virus on children previously healthy, and in whose families
no taint of disease could be traced.
On this subject The Lancet, (London), June 22, 1879
says: "The notion that animal lymph would be free from
chances of syphilitic contamination is so fallacious that we
are surprised to see Dr. Martin, of Boston, Mass., U. >S.
reproduce it."

When vaccination of all kinds is entirely abandoned, and

people are more thoroughly instructed regarding the
laws of health all forms of zymotic diseases will be
unknown, and the general vitahty of the race will be greatly
improved.

WHO UPHOLDS VACCCTNATION ?

There are severalclasses of persons who uphold vaccina-
tion : The vaccination rings, consisting of the officials
1st.

of health boards, and pubhc vaccinators, who are yearly

 30

receiving millions of dollars from the public treasuries. It

is their interest to favor the practice at all hazards, and they
order to conceal its failures and evils.
falsify statistics in

2d. Thousands of medical men believe in vaccination be-

cause they have been taught to do so, and because the best
authorities recommended it. They have vaccinated because
it was the custom and they were paid for it. They have
supposed vaccination would prevent small-pox, and they
never dreamed of making any investigation for themselves,
or even giving it a moments thought. 3d. A rapidly increas-
ing number of the profession, who have no faith in vaccina-
tion, tell us that if people wish to be vaccinated they might
as well do it and get the fee, as some one else would do so
if they did not. The people believe in it and they encourage
the belief.
Of the first class we have no desire to speak. They inten-
tionally or ignorantly ignore all the facts of history and aim
at making every thing conform to then- ideas and wishes.
Among the second class there are many sincere men who
undertake to defend vaccination, but they cannot see both
sides of the question and with a few old figures and a
;

rehash of the old story, they rush into print to convince the
profession and the people of the great value of vaccination.
It is hard to abandon old theories and beliefs. It is
harder to uproot popular fallacies but that vaccination
still ;

is doomed to follow into oblivion, the practice of blood-let-

ting, and general depletion, and the numerous other empiri-
cal practices that once constituted regular medicine, is as
certain as that the sun shines.

THE OPPONENTS OP VACCINATION.

Those whoseinterest it is to keep up the belief in the

prophylactic value of vaccination against small-pox, have
endeavored to make it appear that anti-vaccinators were
bigoted and ignorant, and therefore not entitled to credence.
The truth is that they are neither bigoted nor ignorant, but
have been compelled to abandon vaccination, after giving
the entire subject a careful and impartial investigation. The
 31

majority have refused to vaccinate under any consideration,

and have relinquished a considerable sum of money, yearly,
rather than continue a practice which they believe to be a
fallacyand a crime. They have espoused an unpopular
cause,and have made many personal sacrifices to uproot
what they conscientiously believe to be wrong. They have
had everything to lose and nothing to gain by entering
upon this crusade against vaccination, and they are confident
that every candid person who will take the trouble to inves-
themselves on their side of the question.
tigate, will enroll
With the conviction that they are right, and with the co-
operation of many of the ablest minds the world has ever
known, they can afford to smile at the invectives and ridicule
of the interested, indifferent, and ignorant phj-sicians, who
find it necessary to do everything in their power to perpetu-
ate the popular faith in vaccination.

The following opinions of eminent physicians and savans,

will givesome idea of the extent of the disbelief in vaccina-
tion, and if they are the "ignorant men" of the nineteenth
century we have no objections to being classed with them :

Dr. Joseph Herman, principal physician at the Imperial

Hospital, Vienna, from 1858 to 18Gi, says " experience : My
of small-pox during those six years of bedside attendance,
has given me the right, or rathar has imposed on me the
duty, of taking part in the bold and spirited onslaught on
vaccination which is now being carried on in Switzerland,
Germany, England, and other countries. I am con-
vinced that vaccination is the greatest mistake and delu-
sion in the science of medicine ; a fanciful illusion in the
mind a phenomenal apparition, devoid of
of the discoverer ;

scientific foundation, and wanting in all the conditions of

scientific possibility."

Dr. C. T. Pearce, London, says " That the increased

:

death-rate of childrenis coeval with the extension of vac-

cination that so far from the practice being protective

;

against small-pox, the liability to small-pox in adult life is

greater in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated."

 32

Sib James Y. Simpson, M.D., Edinburg, says :

" Small-pox

can never be exterminated by vaccination."

Dk. Simon, medical officer to the Privy Council, England,

says " Small-pox after vaccination, has been a disappoint-
:

ment both to the public and the medical profession."

Db. Caeon, Paris, Chevalier of the Legion of Honor, and
late Government Physician to Paris Prisons, says " Vac- :

cination, so-called, modifies not one tittle of either the viru-

lence or the consequences of the small-pox. I have long
since refused to vaccinate at any price."

The Lancet (London), January 21, 1871, says " From the :

early part of the century, cases of smah-pox after vaccination

have been increasing and now amount to four-fifths of cases."

Dr. Vice, Ekerbery, near Stettin, says: "I should be

glad to say a few words about smaU-pox epidemics, because
in the year 1871-72, I had 652 small-pox patients under my
care, of whom
431 were French and 221 German, of various
origin and According to my experience from accu-
ages. —
rate notes taken at the time —
vaccination does not exercise
the slightest influence in mitigating the force of the epi-
demic ; for many had been recently vaccin-
of the patients
ated, some only 14 and others within six months of
days,
their being siezed with the disease. The theory is pro-
pounded, that after vaccination, small-pox is less severe. I
contest it most vigorously, because the majority of those
vaccinated were seized with the genuine small-pox (variola).
Among the French who were not vaccinated, the spurious
small-pox (varicella) principally prevailed ; which speaks
strongly against vaccination.
"You must be aware of the injurious consequences so
frequently resulting from the vaccination of children. Vainly
do I seek to discover the advantages of vaccination." From —
papers read at Medical Congress, Chemnitz, Lower Saxony,
September 27, 1872.

De. Nittingee, of Stuttgart, writes, in 1872, of Wurtem-

berg " In five districts scarcely any medical men practiced
:
 )

33

vaccination. Out of 4G2 physicians in the country, only 229

vaccinated. We have to lament that since vaccination, there
has been no year free from small-pox ; that small-pox hospi-
tals have been built, and are continually open that of 100 ;

patients before vaccination, only 6 to 7 died ; but since, from

10 to 20 die."
Dr. Charles John Bricknell, Banbury, England, says "I :

shallbe ready at any time to state my behef in the inefficacy

of vaccination as a preventive of small-pox, and also that
the practice of vaccination is contrary to the principles of
medical science. I believe it would be a great benefit to
mankind if it were rendered penal to vaccinate."
Dr. Leander Joseph Keller, chief physician to the Aus-
a record of the mortality amongst
trian State Kailways, kept
the company's servants and their families, of 373 small-pox
cases, during 1872. Dr. K. concludes his paper thus :

" 1. Generally more vaccinated than unvaccinated persons

are attacked by small-pox.
2. Re-vaccination did not protect from small-pox, and did
not lessen the general mortality.
3. Neither vaccination nor re-vaccination exercised a
favorable influence upon the small-pox mortality."

Dr. J. Shorthouse, Croydon, England, says :

" Vaccina-

tion is, or is not a preventive. If it be so, it is effective the

first time, and does not need to be repeated. To say that it

requires repeating at stated periods of five, or seven, or ten

humbug and quackery."
years, is arrogant
Dr. John Simon, medical officer of Privy Council, England,
says " The small-pox epidemic of 1870-3, was part of a
:

world-wide prevalence of the disease. It seems universally

testified by skilled observers, that no small-pox epidemic in
living memory had been (if I may so express it,) of equally
malignant intention with that which is here in question."—
Public Health Reports, 1874.
(If this be so, where is the protection of vaccination ?

Dr. Seaton, Superintendent of Vaccination, in his Public

Health Reports for 1874, writing of the epidemic of
small-
 :

34

pox for 1870-73, says "The peculiar intensity of this epi-

:

demic was manifested by the extreme diffusiveness of the

disease ; by its attacking, in unusual proportion, persons
who were regarded as protected against the disease, whether by
previous small-pox or by vaccination, and by the occurrence with
quite remarkable frequency of cases of a malignant and hcemor-
ragic type, and a consequent unusually high ratio of deaths to
attacks"

(Where is the virtue of vaccination, Dr. Seaton?)

De. H. Oidtmann, of Linnich, says :

" In Sweden, prior
to the introduction of vaccination, in 1801, died of small-
pox, GOO persons per 1,000,000 inhabitants, and since vac-
cination has been assiduously practiced there, the mortality
of small-pox has gradually but regularly increased. In 1874,
with a population exceeding but little the number of
4,000,000, there died of small-pox, in this State, 4,063,
exhibiting thus an increase of more than 400 per 1,000,000
of inhabitants."

Dk. E. Eobinson, late Medical Officer of Health, Dunkin-

field,England, says " "Whilst I have shown that the in-
:

crease of 53 to 75 per cent, of small-pox after vaccination, is

owing to vaccination as an operation having a tendency to
increase small-pox, I wish the reader to understand that I
do not look upon this tendency as constituting the most
serious of the unsafe conditions inseparably connected with
vaccination. The promotion of the other diseases referred
to in former pages is the influence which condemns vaccina-
tion as an unsafe remedy." —From " Can Disease Protect
Health," 1880, p. 32.

" Db. Stramm, Medical Staff Officer, Prussian Army, says

"I, myself, have been vaccinated, and twice successfully
re-vaccinated and yet, in the exercise of my official medi-
;

cal duties during the late epidemics in Prussia, I have been

attacked with small-pox in the most virulent confluent form,
and been only saved from worse consequences by a speedy
change of climate."
 35

Dr. Ceely, Aylesbury, England, says " They would not

:

be able to annihilate small-pox by vaccination, and he defied

any one to show he had claimed such a result ; from the ex-
perience he had had, no such thing could, or ever would
happen."—Address at Calf Lymph Conference, London,
December, 1879.
Dr. Jules Guebin, Paris, in an address before the French
Academy of Medicine, 1881, says " A large number of
:

medical men consider a general vaccination and re-vaccina-

tion to be in itself one of the causes of small-pox ; a crowd
of the newly vaccinated to be itself a dangerous centre of
infection ; and the 150,000 re-vaccinations in Paris during
the siege to be in some degree responsible for the great
epidemics of 1870-1."
" Db. Chaeles Cameron, member of the House of Commons,
England, says "Since 1836, our statistics have been com-
:

piled so as to enable us to compare the mortality, not merely

in small-pox occurring in all classes of vaccinated persons,
at different periods, but in each separate class of vaccinated
persons —in persons, that is, with 1, 2, 3, or 4 good or indif-

ferent marks. / have gone into these details, and found that
not merely has the mortality in small-pox occurring after vac-
cination progressively increased in the aggregate, but it has
increased in each class of cases, and increased enormously in
the best vaccinated classes of cases." —
Letter in London Times,
May 24. 1881.

Dr. J. J. Garth Wilkinson, of London, Eng. says: "It is

demonstrable that vaccination has no influence whatever
over the small-pox death rate. For the whole hospital death
rate now of vaccinated and unvaccinated is just eighteen per
cent.; almost exactly what it was before vaccination existed."

Prof. Manntell, Royal College Surgeon, Leland; " The

term imperfect or spurious vaccination is frequently met with
in books, and has been the cause of no small degree of con-
fusion in practice, although, at the same time, it has frequently
 36

afforded the practitioner an asylum against the storms now and

then arising out offailures in the protective power of the vaccine
disease."

Dr. Copeland, {Medical Dictionary pp. 832.): "Just half a

century has elapsed since the discovery and introduction of
vaccination, and after a quarter of a century of transcendent
laudations of this measure, with merely occasional whispering of
doubt ; and after another quarter of a century of reverberated
encomiums from well paid 'Vaccination Boards,' raised with a
view of overbearing the increasing murmurings of disbelief
among those who observe and think for themselves, the middle —
of tlie ninteenth century finds the majority of the rjrofession,
in all latitudes and hemispheres, doubtful as to the prepon-
derance of advantages, present and prospective, to be
obtained either from inoculation or vaccination."

Dr. Felix Von Niemeyer, says: " It (vaccination) endangers

life, and in other cases leaves permanent impairment of
health."

Prof. German, M.D., University of Leipsic: "Above all,

the dire fatality which lately occurred at Lebus, a suburb of

Frankfort-on-the-Oder, would alone warrant the abolition
of the vaccination laws. Eighteen school girls, averaging
twelve years of age, were revaccinated, and thereby syphilised
and some of them died. * * * *
Yet the lymph, the
syphilitic lymph, used in this case was obtained from the
Official Royal Establishment for the new regenerated ' or
'

'
annualized vaccine lymph so warmly
' recommended for the
re-vaccination of schools."

Dr. Kolb, Munich :

" In well-vaccinated Bavaria, famous
for compulsion in 1871, out of 30,742 cases, 29,439 were
supplied by the vaccinated."

Prof. Francis W. Newman, of London University, says :

Nothing is clearer to any one who will open his eyes than
that what is now called vaccination has no effect in lessening
small-pox, and has frequent and terrible effect in doing mis-
 —

37

chief. The doctors who urge vaccination do not believe in

it, for they advise re-vaccination."

P. A. Taylor, M.P., England, says : "I have no hesitation

in asserting the confident opinion, as the result of much
study of the question — historically and statistically —that
vaccination is a ridiculous delusion —that there is no evidence
that it has the slightest effect as a preventive of small-pox
that indeed the negative evidence is all the other way, while
the positive evidence of the mischief it has done is incon-
trovertible."

Adolph Count Bedtwitz, of Austria, says: "For let medical

advocates exhaust themselves as they may in sophisms, it

nevertheless remains an eternal truth, that the State has no

right to prescribe a medical creed to any man and no man, ;

with any self-respect, who has once seen through the stupid
superstition, the shameless deceit of vaccination, will, with-
out resisting to the uttermost, ever consent to the degrada-
tion of allowing the near and dear to him to be subjected to
it, or lend a hand to the coercion of others."

Alexander von Humboldt, says :

"I have clearly perceived
the progressive dangerous influence of vaccination in Eng-
land, France and Germany."

Herbert Spencer, writes :

" I wish I had known some
time since that the vaccination persecution had in any case
been carried so far as you describe, as I might have made
use of the fact. It would have served farther to enforce the
parallel between this medical popery which men think so
defensible, and the religious popery which they think so
indefensible."

Dr. Furber, of Topeka, Kansas, says :

" There is no
necessity to resort to such a loathsome imaginary remedy.
Vaccination is a humbug ; enforced vaccination a crime."

Many more similar opinions might be quoted, but enough

has been presented to give an idea of the character of the
men who are opposed to vaccination.
 <

38

DEDUCTIONS.

From the facts presented in the foregoing pages, we can-

not fail to deduce the following :

1st. That Jennerian vaccination is neither practiced or

believed in at the present day, therefore, he made no dis-
covery.
2d. No two physicians agree as to what constitutes effi-

cient vaccination, therefore, the practice is empirical and

unscientific.
3d. That the percentage of fatal small-pox is as great
now, as before Jenner's time.
4th. That small- pox has largely increased during the past
few years, in spite of vaccination.
5th. That serious evils follow vaccination, whether the
virus is humanized or bovine.
6th. That vaccination has never been tested as a prophy-
lactic against small-pox.
7th. That sanitary conditions and strict isolation of
patients, are the only safe guards against all zymotic
diseases.
8th. That the majority of the profession who advocate
vaccination ave pemviirilv interested in its perpetuation.
Accession no.

Audit 1
*™ noj^T
VkctihuXioA '
/"tr

CaMa W rf K /t
J
XhcC
 s

IN PRESS.

EVERYBODY'S DOCTOR:
NEW AND IMPROVED HAND-BOOK

HYGIENE }M DOMESTIC MEDICINE.

ROBERT A. GUNN, M. D.,

EDITOR OF MEDICAL TRIBUNE TROFESSOR OF SURGERY, UNITED
;

STATES MEDICAL COLLEGE.

This book will be issued on or about December 1st, 1882.

NICKLES PUBLISHING COMPANY,

PUBLISHERS,
NEW YORK CITY, N. Y.