Sides Of The Vaccination Question,
The Anti-Vaccination League of America, Philadelphia,
The Fallacy Of Vaccination
By John Pitcairn
President of the Anti-Vaccination League of America
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
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
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 were 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 favorible
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 out 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 this, 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
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.
And, remember, these 1,108 deaths are all admitted by
vaccinists themselves to have been due to vaccination.
The reports take no account of the greater number of
deaths from vaccination that were ascribed to other
causes. In regard to this, Professor Alfred stated that
in 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.
But I need hardly appeal to stastics, 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
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.
compulsion it could never have survived; for from the
very day of its introduction it has been strenously
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 question 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.
6 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 Montagn, wife of the British
Ambassador at Constantinople. Writing from that city
Lady Montaga 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
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."
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 no longer 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
srnallpox, -- every inoculated person becoming a new
center 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 condemed by Act of
Parliament as a criminal offense.
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
12 He then
adopted the belief of the country people that one who
had had cowpox could never take smallpox.
this in mind he performed his first vaccination in 1796,
using a virus taken from the sore of a milkmaid infected
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.
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."
years later, in a petition to the House of Common, he
stated that his new species of inoculation "must
finally annihilate that dreadful disorder."
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."
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.
the cry that vaccination must be repeated; a first
vaccination in infancy and a second in youth; and this
soon became the established doctrine.
still the vaccinated suffered from smallpox. Then
followed other changes, until at last Jennerian
vaccination was abandoned in all save the insane.
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, 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.
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.
though out of the sixteen members of the Commission only
three were anti-vaccinationists, 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
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 endorsed. 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 highly acclaimed; the true method of
protection had at last been found. And again we have the
"best established of medical facts," so "highy
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
victims and is supposed to be modified by inoculation
through a series of calves.
notice to the public, the word "vaccination"
has been used in medical literatuire to mean totally
different things at different times. 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
27 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
claim was soon modified and two vaccinations were
considered necessary to confer lifelong immunity.
obstinacy of smallpox in attacking persons so vaccinated
then resulted in shortening the period of immunity to
afterward it was reduced to seven years,
32 and, in
the Spanish-American War, as shown by the practice of
our army surgeons, six weeks was considered the
limit of immunity.
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 percent!
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
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 is 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
36 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 proven that which is established. Yet
long usage proves nothing; such as the practice of
blood-letting, followed for centuries. Moreover, not one
of the many varieties of vaccination has ever been well
established as it has been displaced by its "in-
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 victims, 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.87 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.
38 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
anong 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 vaccinaion 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
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 case 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
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
44 The law
is strictly enforced and complied with. There being, as
recently stated by Surgeon-General Takaki, no anti-vaccinationists
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"!
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 running 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 cultured from, 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 adding a mixture 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.
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.
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
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
Deaths From Cowpox And Other Effects Of Vaccination In
England And Wales
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
Publication, London, 1890, pp. 113-120, 131-140,
23. First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
and Final Report, ibid.,
Government Publications, London, 1889, 1800, 1893, 1806,
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,
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,
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,
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
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
(Categories) [Go to original article on above website
for clearer graph]
above table is collated from the official statistics
published in the
Annual reports of the Surgeon-General of the Unied
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.
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.,
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,
Westminster Review, August, 1904, vol. clxii, No. 2, pp.
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.
See also The Lancet, May 19, 1906, vol. i for 1906, part
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
statistics supplied by Baron Kanehiro Takaki, late
Director-General of tbe
Medical Department of The Imperial Japanese Navy
[extracted to a graph by
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
by S. Kubota, Director of the Sanitary Bureau of the
Department of Home
[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
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.
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.
Biggs, John Thomas, J.P., Testimony in "Fourth
Report of the Royal
Commission appointed to inquire into tbe 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
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,
Constable, H. Strickland. Our Medicine Men: A Few Hints,
England, Leng and Co.
Creighton, Charles, M.D. The Natural History of Cow Pox
Syphilis? Cassell and Company, 1887.
"Vaccination," article signed "C.
in Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition (Omitted in
some of the American
reprints). Jenner and Vaccination; A Strange Chapter of
London, Swan Sonneunchein and Co., 1889. Testimony, in
"Second Report of the
Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject
Minutes of Evidence, pp. 153-187, Appendix X, pp.
Government publication, 1890. A History of Epidemics in
Britain, vol. ii,
chapter iv, Smallpox, pp. 434-631, Cambridge University
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,
* * *
(c) HARPUB 1997-1999
All Rights Reserved