History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn, by Craig, PhD

[Guest guest]

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/17/history-repeats-itself-lessons-the-vaccinationists-refuse-to-learn-by-jennifer-craig-phd/

History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn, by

Craig, PhD

– April 17, 2012Posted in:

Articles

Print

PDF

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

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

Jesty­a Dorsetshire farmer­Plett, a teacher, and Jensen, a Holstein

farmer, as “successful experimenters” in the field of cowpox vaccination

several years before Jenner’s first inoculation.”1 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.”2

(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.”3 Nevertheless, despite the

underlying false premise, experimentation went ahead.

Jenner’s first experiment on 8-year old 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

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.”4

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%.”5

Not only were there more cases of smallpox, there were more deaths from

it. The report of Dr. 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.”6

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!”7

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.”8

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. Witt, an

infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in

San , California.

Witt reported that in early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser

Permanente in San , 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.”9 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.

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.”10

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.11

Former FDA Commissioner 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.12

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 [13] and one in California [14]. 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.15

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.”16

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 …”17 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.”18

Being accused of mental unsoundness if you question vaccination goes on

today. For example, a January issue of Canada’s Maclean’s magazine [19]

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.”20

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.” 21

Hadwen’s warning is just as applicable today but is it incorporated in

the current medical ethos?

In 1850, Sir 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.”22

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. It 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.[23]

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.[24]

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.”25

Ironically, today, the most mandates for vaccination are passed in the

Land of the Free. For example, Rick , 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.[26]

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 signed the order, the drug maker gave him a hefty

campaign donation?[27]

Why does the medical profession allow politicians to order medical

prescriptions? Are these politicians not practicing medicine without a

licence?

Summary

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 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.

Conclusion:

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.” 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.

References:

1.Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.30

2.

http://whale.to/hadwen9.html

3. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885.

Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33

4. Jenner, E. Further Observations on the Variolae Vaccina, of

Cowpox

5. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished

by General Books, 2009. p.32

6. McBean, The Poisoned Needle, Health Research, Pomeroy, WA, 1993

7. Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.81

8. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished

by General Books, 2009. p.33

9.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…

10. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885.

Republished by General Books, 2009. p.56

11. , N. Immunization: Theory vs. Reality. New Atlantean Press,

1995

12. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1993,vol.269,

No.21, p.2785

13. H & P, Just a Little Prick. Reisinger Memorial

Trust, New Zealand, 2006

14. IAS. Unvaccinated children are healthier. Waves, Spring/Summer,

2002

15. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished

by General Books, 2009. p.58

16. Wilder, A. History of Medicine, New England Eclectic Publishing

Company, 1901

17. Rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suzanne_Humphries

18. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished

by General Books, 2009. p.3

19. Maclean’s, January 16, 2012

20. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished

by General Books, 2009. p.3

21.

http://whale.to/hadwen9.html

22. Paget, Sir . Lectures on Inflammation, & Ogilvy,

1850

23. VRAN Newsletter, Winter 2005

24.

http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/

25.

http://whale.to/hadwen9.html

26.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html

27. Gillman, T.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/perry-says-he-regrets-gardasil.html

28. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885.

Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33

Read PDF HERE

Abput Dr. Craig

In olden days Craig was born in Yorkshire, England. She grew up

in war time, trained as a nurse at Leeds Infirmary, emigrated to Canada,

got married, had two children, went back to school, earned a Ph.D, became

an academic and wrote academic twaddle. Enlightenment came when she moved

to in 1994 and attended creative writing course. Her first book,

Yes Sister, No Sister: a Leeds Nurse in the 1950s, a memoir about

training as a nurse, was published in 2002 after 27 rejections. In 2010

it was re-published for the mass paperback market, moved straight into

The Times bestseller list for 17 weeks and has sold 142,000

copies.

She has also published Jabs, Jenner & Juggernauts: a Look at

Vaccination and has two finished novels waiting for perceptive

publishers.

She lives in with a Bichon Frise and is fortunate to have two of

her five grandchildren near by.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start June 1