Rebuttal to article in New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

(NaturalNews) In the January 13, 2011 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), slipped away from its historically solid scientific moorings with the printing of "The Age-Old Struggle against the anti-vaccinationists," by Poland and Jacobson. This reply is limited to just a few points; with so much misinformation in their article, it is not possible to address it all in one rebuttal.

The idea that one disease, (cowpox) could prevent infection by another disease, (smallpox) was a rumor amongst dairymaids. Veterinarians and country physicians of the time knew the rumor was not true and it could easily have been disproved by simply asking patients with smallpox if they had had cowpox. But Jenner, although informed otherwise, was unwilling to believe the idea was false. He went ahead to test the theory on a single subject by spreading pus from cowpox sores into cuts he made in the arms of an eight-year old boy. The boy not only became ill, he developed ulcers on his arms that took months to heal. A few weeks later, he spread smallpox pus into more cuts. The boy did not get smallpox and thus the idea of smallpox vaccination was born.

Read more


Letter to Nobel Prize Committee, October 16, 2008

Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 2008
To: Nobel Prize Committee
From: Jennifer Craig
Subject: 2008 prize in medicine

I wish to refute the second sentence in your promotion of the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine to Montagnier, namely “The report identified clusters of previously healthy young men who suffered from different life threatening medical conditions previously not seen in this population.” This population means, I assume, gay men. I present evidence that these young men were not healthy as they led a lifestyle that defied wellness. Their lifestyle included, the intake of nitrite inhalers, recreational drugs, repeated antibiotics, and multiple sexual partners leading to sexually transmitted disease. Furthermore, as an outcast group, they suffered psychologically.

 Homosexual men have a long history of being scorned and persecuted in Christian societies where they were, and still are by the Christian Right, seen as sinful, sick, child-molesters and doomed to die. In the Nazi era, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and those labelled as mentally retarded were thought to be a danger to the German people and were, therefore, eligible for extinction.

American psychiatrists considered homosexuality a mental illness until the 1970s and only took it off their diagnostic manual after forceful protests by the fledgling Gay Rights movement. As late as the 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) still classified homosexuality as an illness. 

For decades same-sex acts were illegal. “In the District of Columbia alone, there were 1000 arrests each year in the early 1950s. In every state, local newspapers published names of those charged together with their place of work, resulting in many workers getting fired. The postal service opened the mail of gay men and lesbians and passed on their names. Colleges maintained lists of suspected gay students.” Simple affectionate acts in public, such as two women kissing each other on greeting, could lead to arrest.

Naturally, many gay men did not openly acknowledge their same-sex desires and the term “in the closet” came into being. Social activities between gay men mainly took place in bars often run by organized crime that stood to benefit from these covert gay meeting places. Ian Young writes in his 1995 book, The Stonewall Experiment, “The Big Apple in the 1970s, any Friday night: the Anvil full of gay men, sweatily packed together, dancing, buying drinks, snorting poppers, having fun, a large percentage of them ‘ripped to the tits’, for there were a great many drugs at the Anvil. In the cellar the flickering light of the projector (for this was B.V. – Before Video) illuminated dark puddles on the stone floor, and there were black rooms and cubby-holes for sex with improper strangers. The windows were sealed, the party timeless, human voices barely audible over the disco throb.”

Gay bars were frequently raided by the police. Then on June 27, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, the customers responded to a police raid by a show of mass anger that was to last several days. Lionel Wright says in his article, The Stonewall Riots – 1969, “People in the crowd started shouting “Gay Power!” And as word spread through Greenwich Village and across the city, hundreds of gay men and lesbians, black, white, Hispanic, and predominantly working class, converged on the Christopher Street area around the Stonewall Inn to join the fray.” The police brought in their crack riot-control squad who “found themselves face-to-face with their worst nightmare: a chorus line of mocking queens, their arms clasped around each other, kicking their heels in the air Rockettes-style and singing at the tops of their sardonic voices.” 

The Stonewall riots are considered to be the birth of Gay Liberation Movement and gay activism. Men came out of the closet in large numbers and the difficult task of becoming a distinct social group began. “No people can cohese without social guidelines, and gays, aware of it or not, sought them desperately. When they came, they took the form of commercial messages, controlled for the most part by extensive criminal networks, promoting porn stars as role models, bathhouses as the chief recreation, and drugs to put the gay consumers in the right frame of mind … the Mafia became a kind of anonymous corporate sponsor of the gay lifestyle.”

Unlike the Woman’s Movement that encouraged women to honour their bodies, to respect themselves and to seek love rather than sex, Gay Lib’s slogan became “promiscuity knits together the social fabric of the gay male community”, a slogan provided by Canada’s magazine The Body Politic. Promiscuity is confirmed by many respondents interviewed for The Stonewall Experiment and for The Band Played OnA CDC study of the first 100 men in the US to come down with AIDS revealed that the median number of partners over each lifetime was 1,160. 

Across the US and Canada Gay Liberation spawned a $100 million industry of bathhouses and sex clubs. These bathhouses were breeding grounds for disease. “A Denver study found that an average bathhouse patron having his typical 2.2 sexual contacts a night risked a 33 percent chance of walking out of the tubs with syphilis or gonorrhoea, because about one in eight of those wandering the hallways had asymptomatic cases of these diseases.” As a consequence, gay men used antibiotics for prolonged periods. Antibiotics kill off good bugs as well as bad bugs and thus decimate the intestinal flora. As the gut plays a huge role in the maintenance of a healthy immune system, overuse of antibiotics alone can be responsible for immune suppression.

A “new” sexual act among gay men in the 1970s was ‘fisting’ – the manual manipulation of the inside of a partner’s rectum and lower intestine. Not all, or even a majority of gay men engaged in fisting but those who did were over-represented among AIDS cases. Fisters used a lubricant known to inhibit the production of prostaglandin E1, a substance which helps regulate T-cell production. A low T-cell count is considered to be diagnostic of AIDS.

Ian Young writes, “If fisters were over-represented among men who developed AIDS, it might well have had something to do with the massive drug intake which they shared with many other ghetto gay men, at a time when taking half a dozen drugs during a night at the disco was a common practice.”

A survey of 102 fisters, when such surveys were conducted on gay men, published in 1981, indicated that 99% of those polled ‘always’ or ‘almost always’ used drugs as part of fisting scenes.  Types of drugs used included poppers, speed, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and LSD.

Perhaps the prime suspect as the cause of immune collapse in these young men is the inhalation of amyl nitrite, known as ‘poppers’. I remember giving amyl nitrite to patients with angina when I was a nurse in the 1950s. The solution came in little glass ampoules that looked like tiny wine bottles. We had to cover the neck of the ampoule with a piece of gauze before snapping it off. The resultant ‘pop’ gave amyl nitrite its colloquial name. Our medical use of it ended with the introduction of nitro-glycerine so that Burroughs Welcome, its pharmaceutical manufacturer, found another market in the gay ghettos where it became a staple of the new gay lifestyle. Poppers were legal and needed no prescription.

Amyl nitrite dilates the blood vessels and thus enhances sexual arousal and prolongs orgasm. However, the chemical events that occur after inhalation are: a) it is converted into nitric oxide; b) in the presence of nitric oxide the blood’s capacity to transport oxygen is compromised; c) without oxygen the first areas to be damaged are the linings of the smallest blood vessels, particularly in the lungs; c) dead organic material is produced which cannot be completely removed because of the system’s weakened state; e) fungi enter the game because their role is to eat away all kinds of waste; g) pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a fungal disease, develops. 

Clinically, the toxic effects of amyl nitrite include: rapid flushing of the face or cyanosis, confusion, dizziness, fainting, weakness, yellow vision, low blood pressure, anaemia, strokes, thymus atrophy and chronic depletion of T-cells. The liquid is highly flammable and when spilt on the skin causes burns. Poppers have been used to commit suicide by drinking it and even to commit murder when the victim was gagged with a nitrite-soaked sock. 

Lauritsen explains why poppers became a mass phenomenon among gay men: they were legal as long as they were advertised as room odorizers and marketed to only gay men; at $3 a vial they were affordable; they were assumed to be harmless.

Some of the more reputable gay magazines refused to carry poppers ads and some printed warnings. For example, a researcher, Sue Watson, wrote a letter to a 1982 issue of Advocate, saying, “Our studies show that amyl nitrite strongly suppresses the segment of the immune system (cellular immunity) which normally protects individuals against Kaposi’s sarcoma, pneumocystis pneumonia, herpes virus, Candida, amebiasis, and a variety of other opportunistic infections. The upshot of this research is that persons using nitrite inhalants may be at risk for the development of AIDS”.

To give you some idea of the pervasiveness of the inhalant, the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported that sales in just one US state added up to $50 million in 1976. At $3 per vial that equals more than 16 million bottles.

The use of other drugs by gay men mirrored the increase in use of recreational drugs by everyone in that era. For example, between 1981 and 1993, the number of cocaine overdose victims delivered to hospitals in the US jumped from 3,000 to 120,000, a 4,000% increase.

By 1981, an unusual assortment of disorders had arisen in the gay community: syphilis, hepatitis, cytomegalovirus, amoebiasis (increased by 7,000% since 1974), herpes and intestinal infections usually seen in the tropics. 

Amyl nitrite as the cause of AIDS was the most common hypothesis before April 23, 1984. But this was in an era when it was legitimate to debate the cause of AIDS. Following the 1984 viral-cause announcement, no other hypotheses were, or are, allowed. Even to a non-researcher it is obvious that other avenues to explore in the search for the cause of AIDS are drugs – recreational, poppers, antibiotics, lubricants – lack of sleep, sexually transmitted diseases, particularly syphilis, intestinal infections, stress, and any combination of these.

 Wright, Lionel. The Stonewall Riots – 1969. Socialism Today, #40, July 1999 Young, Ian. The Stonewall Experiment. Cassell, 1995, p.6 Wright, Lionel. The Stonewall Riots – 1969. Socialism Today, #40, July 1999 Ibid. p.91 Null, G. AIDS: a Second Opinion. Seven Stories Press, 2002, p. 129 Shilts, Randy. And the Band Played On. St. Martin’s Press, 1987, p.19 Young, Ian. The Stonewall Experiment. Cassell, 1995, p.174

Ibid. p.173

 Ibid. p. 173

 Young, Ian. The Stonewall Experiment. Cassell, 1995, p.105

 Engelbrecht, T & Köhnlein, C. Virus Mania. Trafford Publishing, 2007, p.100

 Lauritsen, John. Queer Advertising. Address to the Queer Studies Symposium, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, Januray 15, 2000

 Ibid. p. 108

 Ibid. p. 102

 Duesberg, P. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishing, 1996, p. 260-261



April 17, 2012

History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn

The old English proverb, “history repeats itself” is never better illustrated than in the practice of vaccination, a practice that became widespread in the nineteenth century and is still carried on today. A number of nineteenth century books on vaccination raise issues that are remarkably similar to those of today. However, because we have failed to learn the lessons presented by earlier writers, mostly physicians, we are now repeating the same mistakes, with dire consequences for the health of the population.
The purpose of this article is to consider what some of the notable physicians of the time had to say about vaccination; it is not to provide data for their opinions, although that data is available but beyond the scope of an article.
Four issues raised in the nineteenth century will be described and compared with today. First, the article will look at the refusal to accept data about vaccination; second, it will discuss the scientific debate about vaccination; third, it will consider mass vaccination and its consequences and fourth, it will criticize compulsory vaccination.

1. Refusal to Accept Data

Edward Jenner, an English apothecary, believing a rumour amongst dairymaids that succumbing to cowpox, a mild disease, prevented smallpox, decided to test out this rumour by inserting cowpox pus under a human’s skin to induce a case of cowpox.  If the subject got cowpox, he would then try and induce smallpox. 

Despite Jenner’s reputation as being the first to try out cowpox inoculation he “cannot be accredited with original discovery in the matter of cowpox inoculation, since all the chroniclers name Benjamin Jesty—a Dorsetshire farmer—Plett, a teacher, and Jensen, a Holstein farmer, as "successful experimenters" in the field of cowpox vaccination several years before Jenner's first inoculation.”[ Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.30] Perhaps their names are not recorded in history because the procedure did not prevent smallpox?

The truth of the rumour that having had cowpox protected you from smallpox could have been tested by a simple survey; that is, recording how many people with smallpox had had cowpox.  Anyhow, many people knew it was false. Walter Hadwen, JP, MD, LRCP, MRCS, LSA, said in an address to the public on January 25, 1896 “When he (Jenner) first heard the story of the cowpox legend he began to mention it at the meetings of the medico-convivial society, where the old doctors of the day met to smoke their pipes, drink their glasses of grog, and talk over their cases. But he no sooner mentioned it than they laughed at it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where smallpox had followed cowpox.”[] (A cow doctor was a vet.)

Even Jenner’s supporters acknowledged the falseness of the rumour. The second report of the Royal Jennerian Society, 1806, states, “The Committee admit to having seen a few cases of smallpox by persons who had passed through the cow-pox in the usual way.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.33] Nevertheless, despite the underlying false premise, experimentation went ahead.

Jenner’s first experiment on 8-year old James Phipps took place on May 14, 1796. He then repeated the procedure on several other children. Convinced of the success of his experiments he promised the credulous George III that his vaccine would have “the singularly beneficial effect of rendering through life the person so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of the smallpox.”[ Jenner, E. Further Observations on the Variolae Vaccina, of Cowpox]

The king conveyed to parliament his desire that Jenner be awarded a benefaction out of the public purse and the equivalent of half a million dollars was awarded. From then on vaccination spawned an army of paid vaccinators who enforced the practice with zeal. 

Cases of smallpox following vaccination began to occur with alarming frequency. Winterburn cites numerous instances. For example, “The Smallpox Hospital, London, is believed to be a fair representative of English experience: the number of cases of smallpox after vaccination has steadily risen from about 5% at the beginning of this century to 44% in 1845, 64% in 1855, 78% in 1865, 90% in 1875, and is now (1885) about 96%.” [ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.32] 

Not only were there more cases of smallpox, there were more deaths from it. The report of Dr. William Farr, Compiler of Statistics of the Registrar General of London stated: “Smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced. The mean annual mortality for 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of 2.04, whereas after compulsory vaccination in 1871 the death rate was 10.24. In 1872 the death rate was 8.33 and this after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments.”[][ McBean, The Poisoned Needle, Health Research, Pomeroy, WA, 1993]

Despite these figures and numerous others reported, pro-vaccinists continued to pronounce that vaccination prevented smallpox. They still do.

After a disastrous smallpox epidemic in 1872, a Royal Commission on Vaccination was appointed in 1889 to look into the whole matter. Seven years and 136 meetings later the Commission issued “five principal reports, consisting of closely printed matter, together with the eight bulky appendices, weigh altogether more than 14 lb. avoirdupois!” Despite this weighty contrary evidence, it failed “to make a dent in their triple-plate conviction that in spite of everything vaccination does prevent smallpox!”[ Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.81]

Dr. Maclean, a well-known medical authority of the time, offered an explanation for the “triple-plate conviction” when he said, in 1810, “It will be thought incumbent on the vaccinators to come forward and disprove the numerous facts decisive against vaccination stated on unimpeachable authority, or make the amende honorable by a manly recantation. But experience forbids us to expect any such fair and magnanimous proceeding, and we may be assured that, under no circumstances, will they abandon so lucrative a practice, until the practice abandons them.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33]

Maclean’s words are still true. The same conviction that vaccines prevent disease persists today, a conviction accompanied by the same downplaying of any evidence to the contrary.

 In 2012 research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are higher among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This conclusion is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

Witt reported that in early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illness target unvaccinated kids, thinking they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."[] Witt should be congratulated for admitting this fact.

We have figures from the 1800s showing that large percentages of smallpox cases had been vaccinated and we have figures from 2010 showing that the majority of pertussis cases had been vaccinated, yet people continue to believe that vaccination prevents disease. How many more lessons do we need?

Not only did cowpox pus not prevent smallpox, it fostered its spread and produced numerous adverse effects. In 1807, Mr. Birch, of St. Thomas Hospital and Surgeon Extraordinary to the then Prince of Wales, said, “It is no infrequent thing, however, to hear a public vaccinator say that he has vaccinated a certain number of thousands and has never seen the slightest evil resulting. Well, one need not see the sun, if he will only resolutely shut his eyes. Again, I am sorry to say, that many medical men who recognize evil results, imagine that they may be covered up by prevarication. As if any good was ever done by a lie.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.56]

Today, only a fraction of adverse events following vaccination are reported. In the US, Congress passed its National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986. The Act required all doctors who administer vaccines to report reactions to federal health officials. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that only 10% of doctors report such incidents.[ Miller, N. Immunization: Theory vs. Reality. New Atlantean Press, 1995]

Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that although the FDA receives many
reports of adverse events, these probably represent only a fraction of those encountered by providers.[ Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1993,vol.269, No.21, p.2785]
Only adverse events that present within a few days of vaccination are considered to be the result of the vaccine; more chronic effects, such as asthma, are not associated with vaccination by the Authorities. A comparative study of vaccinated and non-vaccinated children would answer many questions but for some reason Health Authorities refuse to do it. 

Two small comparative studies have been done by parent groups: one in New Zealand[ Butler H & P, Just a Little Prick. Robert Reisinger Memorial Trust, New Zealand, 2006] and one in California.[ IAS. Unvaccinated children are healthier. Waves, Spring/Summer, 2002] Both studies showed that chronic conditions, such as autism, asthma and eczema, were more prevalent in vaccinated children. Whatever the results, why should parent groups have to conduct research that should be done by Health Authorities?

Back in the 1800s the injection of cowpox pus under the skin caused many diseases: syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy in particular. Records of this secondary infection include, for example: in 1867, M. Depaul, the chief of the Vaccination Service of the French Academy of Medicine, published an essay on the danger of syphilitic infection through vaccination. He enumerated half a dozen outbreaks of vaccinal-syphilis, in the course of which 160 children had been infected.[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.58]

Dr. A. Wilder, Professor of Pathology and former editor of The New York Medical Times, went so far as to say in 1901, “Vaccination is the infusion of a contaminating element into the system, and after such contamination you can never be sure of regaining the former purity of the body. Consumption (TB) follows in the wake of vaccination as certainly as effect follows cause.”[ Wilder, A. History of Medicine, New England Eclectic Publishing Company, 1901]
Today’s children will certainly never regain their former “purity of the body” after being assaulted with vaccines from Day One. Not only do they suffer from chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes and eczema but in 2012 the autism rate was 1:88 children and, as boys are more affected than girls, their rate is 1:54. 

Instead of a massive research effort to explore the reason for this epidemic governments and the corporate press go to extraordinary lengths to deny any link between autism and vaccination despite the proven fact that metals such as aluminum and mercury,  used in vaccines, cause neurological damage.
But a $17 billion a year industry is threatened.

2. Scientific Debate About Vaccination

That people can discuss issues, basing their arguments on verifiable data, is crucial in all fields of endeavor but more so in issues affecting health and well-being. One has only to look at the discussion forums around vaccination, whether for or against, to quickly realize that ignorance, prejudice and ad hominem attacks prevail.

For example, from Rational (sic) Wiki, “Suzanne Humphries is a nephrologist (kidney doctor) who has recently become a vocal proponent of pseudoscience and quack medicine. Humphries has been involved with the International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine hysteria …”[] The author is anonymous and has repeatedly reversed sections of the webpage after Dr Humphries attempted to correct her credentials and other overtly false information about her publications. 

That Dr. Humphries is an internist and board-certified nephrologist, who enjoyed a successful career until she spoke her truth about vaccination, and that the IMCV is composed of highly credentialed people may, of course, be discounted when it comes to vaccination. Furthermore, any zealot with computer access feels free to hurl abuse at our most educated citizens because they, presumably, are in possession of irrefutable knowledge relayed by Fox news and can follow the democratic principle that my ignorance is equal to your expertise.

This low level of discourse is not new. Winterburn writes in 1885, “It seems ludicrous that a question of so much import, and of so purely a scientific nature, should be a matter of partisan clamor, but it ceases to be comic, and becomes painfully embarrassing, when men cannot discuss a question of vital importance to themselves and the race without being accused of sinister motives or of mental unsoundness. And yet this is just what has happened ever since the earliest years of Vaccination.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.3]

Being accused of mental unsoundness if you question vaccination goes on today. For example, a January issue of Canada’s Maclean’s magazine[ Maclean’s, January 16, 2012] proclaims on its cover, “How Vaccine Cranks Put Your Kids at Risk P.50.” The article inside is a wonderful example of Public Health propaganda parroted by an ignorant journalist and without a shred of evidence to be seen.

Winterburn, an American MD, Ph.D, is quite clear about the cause of this decline in the standards of scientific discourse. “Jenner began it in his efforts to suppress every fact which told against his theory, and his mantle has passed with the passing years to men of like aptitude for the suppression of disagreeable truths.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.3]

3. Mass Vaccination

Vaccinating people was the first time that physicians treated, and billed, healthy people. Dr. Hadwen said in his address in 1896, “I declare that when a person is ill, the doctor, is justified in doing all he possibly can for his patient; but when a person is well he has no right whatever to interfere with the normal functions of the human body as he does when he introduces disease, especially the disease of an inferior animal.”[] 
Hadwen’s warning is just as applicable today but is it incorporated in the current medical ethos?

In 1850, Sir James Paget warned, “I think it may be laid down as an invariable rule of practice, that no one should be vaccinated except after the most rigid scrutiny. The carelessness of the Health Authorities in this particular is amazing. Vaccination is performed, with the easy nonchalance of the impossibility of doing harm, upon multitudes without the slightest inquiry as to their physical condition or antecedents; and this among the very class, where the greatest danger always lurks – the tenement house population. Vaccination to be effective, pervades and alters the entire constitution.”[ Paget, Sir James. Lectures on Inflammation, Wilson & Ogilvy, 1850]

Today’s equivalent of the “tenement house population” is the poor of Africa who not only suffer from chronic malnutrition, diarrhea, tuberculosis and parasites but gifts of vaccines from the West, which have added to their burden by increased chronic disease. The WHO admits its mass vaccination programs are causing epidemics of diseases that are no less serious than the ones third world populations are being vaccinated against. I admits that worldwide, the 16 billion injections administered either for vaccines or drugs in the developing world each year cause an estimated 21,000,000 cases of Hepatitis B, 2,000,000 cases of Hepatitis C, and 260,000 cases of HIV.[

Health Authorities are just as cavalier today. Once a vaccine schedule has been written it is observed like an edict from on high, particularly by nurses who are trained to follow orders. In many cases the notion that vaccines are harmful is simply absent. Not only that, the accepted ethical principle of informed consent does not apply to vaccination. Instead, coercion and guilt trips are laid on people, parents in particular, who refuse vaccination. 

A recent example of administration of vaccines with “easy nonchalance” happened in Belgium in January, 2012. Nine-week old twins, born one month premature, were each given nine vaccines in one day. One of the twins had a cold on that day but apart from that, premature babies, with their immature organs, are extremely vulnerable. One week later, that twin died. Medical personnel denied a link to the vaccines.[]

4. Compulsory Vaccination

As the British government failed to recognize that smallpox vaccination did not prevent the disease, it passed a compulsory vaccination act in 1856. Between 1870 and 1872 one of the worst smallpox epidemics took place.

Dr. Hadwen, that wise physician, quoted earlier, said, “The very moment you take a medical prescription and you incorporate it in an Act of Parliament, and you enforce it against the wills and conscience of intelligent people by fines, distraints and imprisonments, it passes beyond the confines of a purely medical question – and becomes essentially a social and political one.”[]

Ironically, today, the most mandates for vaccination are passed in the Land of the Free. For example, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, tried to mandate that Gardasil be given to all girls and boys in the state. Gardasil is a questionable vaccine that is given to adolescents purportedly to prevent cervical cancer in 30 years. Naturally, no one knows if that’s the case.

In September, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published figures of the side-effects of Gardasil, introduced in 2006. In those five years, there had been reports of 71 deaths. Other serious events, like paralysis, were not attributed to the vaccine by the CDC although they have been reported elsewhere.[]
Cancer is not a communicable disease. Yet a politician signed an order compelling the vaccine to be given to Texas youngsters. Why? Could it be that days after Perry signed the order, the drug maker gave him a hefty campaign donation?[ Gillman, T.]
Why does the medical profession allow politicians to order medical prescriptions? Are these politicians not practicing medicine without a licence?


George Santayana, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  We are, indeed, repeating past errors in the practice of vaccination.

There are many lessons from the past to be learned but the ones addressed in this article are:
The belief that vaccination prevented smallpox is now in the realm of myth. Until Medicine, (a term that includes all health professions), opens its eyes, examines the data of the past and, recognizes the facts, it will continue to believe the legend that cowpox prevented smallpox. The data clearly show that vaccinated people contracted smallpox and that increasing numbers died from it. 

In 1807, Mr. Birch warned medical men to open their eyes and recognize the “evil results” of vaccination. In 1810, Dr. Maclean told us that it is incumbent on vaccinators to come forward to disprove the evidence against vaccination. Today adverse events are rarely reported. 

In 1901, Dr. Wilder said that after vaccine contamination, the former purity of the body can never be regained. Today we have a generation of children whose health has been ruined by vaccines.

In 1885, Winterburn said that it ceases to be comic when a scientific matter cannot be rationally discussed without an educated questioner being accused of mental unsoundness. He attributed the decline in rational discourse to Jenner who ignored or suppressed the fact that cowpox did not prevent smallpox. The “partisan clamor” of today is noisy and nasty and adds nothing to the debate.

We have accepted that Medicine has the right to interfere with the normal functioning of the human body despite the warning of Dr. Hadwen in 1896. Sir James Paget expressed dismay in 1850 that individuals were vaccinated without undergoing a thorough medical examination. Today we see children being lined up for jabs with no questions asked. 

In 1896, Dr. Hadwen noted that mandated vaccination is a political issue, not a medical one. Today, we have politicians not only denying parents the right to decide for themselves but they make vaccination compulsory. No questions are asked by Medicine when politicians mandate a medical prescription. In other circumstances they would be accused of practicing medicine without a licence.


The idea that putting noxious substances under the skin will prevent disease is based on a false premise, the premise that cowpox prevented smallpox. Despite the huge volume of contrary evidence, this myth is still believed. 

Dr. Maclean told us in 1810, “experience forbids us to expect fair and magnanimous proceedings and we may be assured that, under no circumstances, will vaccinators abandon so lucrative a practice, until the practice abandons them.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33

The growing numbers of parents with vaccine-damaged children are the only ones likely to alter the current state of affairs. As consumers they can exert their power and refuse the product and thus allow the practice to abandon the vaccine makers. 









February 26, 2010

Somewhere in medical education the idea that smallpox was eradicated by a vaccine took hold in students’ heads and has remained there ever since. Would that more accurate information endure with such persistence? Even physicians who have explored vaccination continue to believe that the injection of pus from a cowpox sore prevented smallpox. For example, Cave and Mitchell, in What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children’s Vaccinations, on page 10, say, ‘A more scientific approach was used in the late eighteenth century when Edward Jenner, who discovered that inoculating people with the animal disease cowpox made people immune to the deadly human disease smallpox. This was an interesting concept, and fortunately for Jenner it helped save lives …”1  Did they ever ask themselves how the inoculation of pus from a diseased animal could possibly prevent, rather than create, a disease in humans? This article explores the history of smallpox vaccination and presents evidence that vaccinating people with cowpox pus did not prevent smallpox, did not save lives and did not eradicate smallpox. Instead it caused deaths and began a pernicious multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

To read the rest of this article, go to:

Read the full article here