HOME
      HYGIENELIBRARY CATALOG      HADWIN'SMAGAZINE ARTICLES





The Case Against Vaccination

Verbatim Report of

AN ADDRESS

By

WALTER HADWEN
J.P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., Etc
(Gold Medalist in Medicine and in Surgery)

At

GODDARDíS ASSEMBLY ROOMS,

GLOUCESTER

On Saturday, January 25th, 1896
(During the Gloucester Smallpox Epidemic)

   

Foreward to Tenth Edition

   THE speech here reproduced was delivered twenty-eight yearsago, before the "Conscience Clause" was known. The speaker had been ninetimes prosecuted for refusing to submit his own children to vaccination.

   During the intervening years the cause of Anti-vaccination hasmade steady progress, and at the present date three-fifths of the parents in thiscountry have followed Dr. Hadwenís example. But the passage of time has no effectupon the arguments against vaccination. Objections to an already venerable superstitionremain invulnerable in 1924, though they were expressed in 1896. No apology is needed,therefore, for the reproduction of the speech as it was uttered so long ago.

   The speaker looks back, through the twenty-eight years, upona period of strenuous and painful struggle, and forward to the ultimate doom of vaccination,now imminent.

   The latest statistics are given on the last page of this pamphlet.

   March 1924.

   


The Case Against Vaccination.

ADDRESS BY DR. HADWEN, J.P.,

AT GODDARDíS ROOMS, GLOUCESTER.

JAN 25, 1896.

 

   A large and enthusiastic meeting of citizens was held in theNorthgate Assembly Rooms, Gloucester, on Saturday evening, January 25th. The hallwas crowded, and many failed to gain admittance. Mr. S. BLAND, J.P., presided.

   The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, said: Ladies and Gentlemen,--Theissue of the Doctorsí Manifesto on the present outbreak of small-pox in Gloucesterhas opened the floodgates of discussion and denunciation upon the vaccination question.The anti-vaccinators, firm in their convictions, remain unmoved by the stale sophistries,bogus statistics, and stupid taunts thrown at them. (Cheers.) The spectacle of afew individuals opposing the unanimous dictum of the local doctors is a fair buttfor the small jokes of those superior persons who, to save themselves the troubleof study and thought, give their bodies to the doctor and their souls to the priest,relying on the necromancy of the one, and on the other, for their physical and spiritualsalvation. I yield to no one in proper respect for both of those professions--(hear,hear)--but knowing as I do, and as you do, the discarded fallacies and tremendousblunders which have received their unanimous support in the past, I maintain theGod-given right of liberty of conscience and the use of my reasoning powers to acceptor reject any of their present dogmas. (Cheers.) We read the truism in an older Bookthan any of their treatises, "that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he alsoreap." That eminent physician, Sir Andrew Clarke, said--"Nature never forgetsand never forgives." And until it is an indisputably proven fact, which it isnot present, and I do not think ever will be, that you can preserve health by theinoculation of disease, I will have none of it. (Cheers.)

   Many years ago my attention was directed to the subject of vaccinationby an extraordinary event. The Guardians of Keighley Union were sent in a body toprison for refusing to enforce the Compulsory Vaccination Acts. That led me to studythe whole question, with the result that I became an anti-vaccinator by conviction.In the course of events I was forced to the front in a public discussion of the subject,in which Dr. Bond was our chief opponent. Neither of us convinced the other, butthe result showed that the public were convinced, for shortly afterwards our Boardof Guardians, yielding to the pleadings of our good friend Councillor Karn and others,stopped prosecutions, and very few people have voluntarily adopted vaccination fortheir children since. At that time only a solitary medical man here and there wasfound on our side. But since then we have been joined, amongst others, by two ofthe foremost scientists in our country--Drs. Creighton and Crookshank--in denouncingvaccination as a superstition and a fraud. (Cheers.) The disputes as to obscure scientifictheories are therefore no longer in the hands of non-scientific laymen. We can leaveit to the doctors to fight them out. They have never refuted Crookshank and Creighton,and until they do so we are abundantly justified in our attitude of opposition andunbelief. Into the merits or demerits of the question I am not going to enter particularlyto-night.

   I have by my side in the person of Dr. Hadwen--(cheers)-- aduly certified medical practitioner, who, by the examinations he has passed and thediplomas he has obtained in the medical schools, is thoroughly well qualified todeal with any subject pertaining to the laws of health and the treatment of disease.You have had a taste of his advocacy in the admirable letters which he has contributedto the "Citizen," and as I venture to think you are more anxious to hearhim than me, I will not debar you from that pleasure any longer. Mr. Bland explainedin conclusion that Dr. Hadwen was not a paid advocate of the Anti-Vaccination Society,which was really poor in funds, though rich in the allegiance of its supporters andin the intelligence of those who adopted its principles, but he came at the sacrificeof his time and his practice, in furtherance of the cause to which he had committedhimself after studying it exhaustively in all its bearings. (Cheers.)

   

Dr. Hadwenís Speech

   

   Dr. HADWEN, whose reception was most cordial, said: Mr. Chairman,Ladies and Gentlemen,--It certainly does oneís heart good to see such a splendidand enthusiastic audience here to-night. It shows that one thing is very certain:that whether you are united upon the question under discussion or not you are deeplyinterested in the subject. (hear, hear.) Upon coming into the room I had placed inmy hands a paper, written, I see, by Dr. Bond, in which he gives "Fifteen reasonswhy we should believe in the efficacy of vaccination as a preventive of smallpox."I do not know whether Dr. Bond is here himself, but should he be here, I will invitehim to come on the platform and discuss those points with me after I have finishedwhat I have to say. I have cast my eyes over them; I shall take up most of thosearguments in the course of my address, and I have only now to say that every statementmade in that paper has been smashed and pulverised thousands of times before. (Cheers.)

   I had better, at the outset, state to you distinctly the positionI occupy on the subject. I stand here not only as a medical man, but as a fatherand a citizen. As a medical man I look upon vaccination as an insult to common sense,as superstitious in its origin, unscientific in theory and practice, and uselessand dangerous in its character; whilst as a father and a citizen I view the CompulsoryVaccination Acts as demoralising in their tendencies, degrading in their character,cruel and unjust in their enactments, and an unwarrantable interference with parentalresponsibility and liberty--(cheers)--such as ought not to be tolerated in a countrylike England, which has boasted of her civil and religious freedom for generationspast. (Renewed cheers.)

 

NOT PURELY A MEDICAL QUESTION.

   One is constantly told that this is purely a medical question,and that if I want to air it I should discuss it before a medical audience or byletters in the medical papers. Those who say that know what is the treatment medicalanti-vaccinists receive in the journals in question. But it is not a purely medicalquestion. It is one of observation, of history and of statistics, and any intelligentlayman can understand it as well as a medical man. It is a mere superstitious creed,and needs no professional knowledge to grasp it. And what is more, I can say fromwhat I have learned in experience that intelligent, thoughtful and studious anti-vaccinatorsknow more about this subject than the majority of the medical men of to-day. (Cheers.)And, furthermore, I say that the very moment you take a medical prescription andyou incorporate it in an Act of Parliament, and you enforce it against the willsand consciences of intelligent people by fines, distraints and imprisonments, itpasses beyond the confines of a purely medical question--and becomes essentiallya social and political one. (Cheers.)

   The medical profession of to-day is divided into two great sections.On the one hand we have a section, who form, I am bound to say, the majority, whobelieve that the only remedy for small-pox is vaccination with all its risks. Onthe other hand there is another section, the minority to which I have the honourto belong, which believes that the remedy for small-pox is not vaccination but sanitation--(cheers)--whichis accompanied by no risk at all. We protest against the diseasing of children byAct of Parliament. We say that small-pox is a filth disease, and that if we get ridof the filth we shall get rid of the disease. We also declare that when a personis ill the doctor is justified in doing all he possibly can for his patient; butwhen a person is well he has no right whatever to interfere with the normal functionsof the human body as he does when he introduces disease, especially the disease ofan inferior animal, unless he can give a distinct and absolute guarantee, not onlythat the operation will effect the purpose avowed, but also that it will produceno injurious results. (Cheers.) And with all the fifteen reasons Dr. Bond can produceI will defy him to give such a guarantee. It is a serious blot upon the medical professionthat it has encouraged and that it has helped to enforce a measure and that the Gloucesterdoctors even to-day are urging the Guardians to prosecute in order to enforce it,when they cannot guarantee that it will effect the purpose professed, nor yet thatit will produce no injurious results. The public vaccinators are told in their Ordersthat they must hold themselves responsible for the quality of the lymph they use.But where is there one who would think of doing so when he can but know that theoperation is accompanied with risk? Therefore what right have they to interfere withhealthy children? (Cheers.) Remember, the Order is most distinct to public vaccinatorsthat it is only healthy children that are to be diseased. ("Shame.")

 

HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT.

   Thomas Carlyle has told us "that no error is fully confuteduntil you have seen not only that it is an error, but also how it became one."It will, therefore, be as well for me to take you over something of the history ofthe movement, and give an idea how this gigantic superstition and this monstrousfraud of vaccination came to be enforced, and came to be adopted by the professionand the public. The "discoverer" so-called was, as you all know, a manby the name of Edward Jenner, who lived at Berkeley, in your own county. He was not,however, the discoverer. The whole thing was a superstition of the Gloucestershiredairymaids years before Jenner was born--(laughter)--and the very experiment, so-called,that he performed had been performed by an old farmer named Benjamin Jesty twentyyears previously. Now this man Jenner had never passed a medical examination in hislife. He belonged to the good old times when George III. was King--(laughter)--whenmedical examinations were not compulsory. Jenner looked upon the whole thing as asuperfluity, and he hung up "Surgeon, apothecary," over his door withoutany of the qualifications that warranted the assumption. It was not until twentyyears after he was in practice that he thought it advisible to get a few lettersafter his name. Consequently he then communicated with a Scotch University and obtainedthe degree of Doctor of Medicine for the sum of £15 and nothing more. (Laughter.)It is true that a little while before, he had obtained a Fellowship of the RoyalSociety. but his latest biographer and apologist, Dr. Norman Moore, had to confessthat it was obtained by little less than a fraud. It was obtained by writing a mostextraordinary paper about a fabulous cuckoo, for the most part composed of arrantabsurdities and imaginative freaks such as no ornithologist of the present day wouldpay the slightest heed to. A few years after this, rather dissatisfied with the onlymedical qualification he had obtained, Jenner communicated with the University ofOxford and asked them to grant him their honorary degree of M.D., and after a goodmany fruitless attempts he got it. Then he sent to the Royal College of Physiciansin London to get their diploma, and even presented his Oxford degree as an argumentin his favour. But they considered he had had quite enough on the cheap already,and told him distinctly that until he passed the usual examinations they were notgoing to give him any more. This was a sufficient check in Jennerís case, and hesettled down quietly without any diploma of physician.

   The period in which he lived was undoubtedly a very filthy period.It was a time when, to take London for instance, the streets were nothing but a massof cobble stones, the roads were so narrow that the people could almost shake handsacross the street, and as for fresh air they scarcely knew anything about it, forlocomotion such as we have to-day was unknown. Sanitary arrangements were altogetherabsent. They obtained their water from conduits and wells in the neighbourhood, Waterclosets there were none, and no drainage system existed. It was in London especiallythat small-pox abounded, where bodies were buried in Old St. Paulís Churchyard inCovent Garden only a foot below the soil, and people had to get up in the middleof the night and burn frankincense to keep off the stench; and where those who couldafford it had houses on each side of the Fleet river, so that when the wind blewtowards the east they lived in the west, and when it blew towards the west they livedin the east. This was the condition of old London, and you cannot be surprised ifsmall-pox was then what Dr. Bond calls a scourge; you cannot be surprised if small-poxhas declined since, even after this wonderful discovery of vaccination--(laughterand cheers)--and let us not forget that sanitary improvements began in London asearly as 1766, and small-pox began to decline as a consequence before vaccinationwas invented.

   I wonít go now into the personal character of Jenner, but Dr.Creighton has well described him when he tells us that he was vain and petulant,crafty and greedy, a man with more grandiloquence and bounce than solid attainment,unscrupulous to a degree, a man who in all his writings was never precise when hecould possibly be vague, and never straightforward when he could be secretive. Thisis the character that Dr. Creighton gives him; and as for the statement, which weconstantly hear, that Jenner received such wonderful homage in the later years ofhis life, we well know that his closing years were years of misery as the failuresof his fetish began to crowd upon him. It was on January 23rd, 1823, that he wrotehis last letter to his confidential friend, Gardner, when he told him he was neversurrounded by so many perplexities. Two days later Jenner breathed his last.

 

A SUPERSTITIOUS PERIOD.

   This practice of vaccination was simply a legend. The idea ofcharming away disease has been common in all countries and at all times, not onlyamongst the ignorant but amongst the educated. In old herb books we find how muchthe remedies for certain diseases depended on the jingle of the names; and thereis no doubt that the way in which the idea got amongst the dairymaids that a personwho had cow-pox never had small-pox depended upon the jingle of cow-pox and small-pox,and it was this which had such an extraordinary effect upon the mass of the peopleat that time. In the old herb books, for instance, we find that if you want to preventsuffering from the bite of a mad dog you must carry a herb called houndís tongue,and again, to prevent the ill-consequence of a dog bite you must take a portion ofthe root of a dog rose. This kind of thing was common at that time; it was a mostsuperstitious period in which Jenner lived, when live frogs were swallowed for thecure of worms; when cow dung and human excreta were mixed with milk and butter fordiptheria; when the brains of a man who had died a violent death were given in teaspoonfuldoses for the cure of small-pox. Even Jenner had invented, not merely a cure forsmallpox, but also one for hydrophobia, which quite takes the steam out of Pasteurístreatment. All you had to do was to duck the man who had been bitten three timesin a stream of running water, only taking care that each time you ducked him lifebecame almost extinct. (Laughter.) He said he never knew that to fail under any circumstances.(Renewed laughter.) He evidently had an idea that persons bitten by a mad dog becomepossessed of an evil spirit, and should be treated as they used to treat the witches.So much for Jenner.

   When he first of all heard the story of the cow-pox legend thatthe dairymaids talked about, that if you only had cow-pox you canít have small-pox,he began to mention it at the meetings of the Medico-convivial Society, where theold doctors of the day met together to smoke their pipes, drink their glasses ofgrog, and talk over their cases. But he no sooner mentioned it than they laughedat it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where small-pox hadfollowed cow-pox, and Jenner found he would have to drop it.

 

JENNERíS EXPERIMENTS.

   In 1796, however, he performed his first experiment as it iscalled. He took a boy named James Phipps and inoculated him with some lymph whichhe took from a cow-pox vesicle. A short time afterwards he inoculated this boy withsmall-pox, and for very solid reasons which could be explained, the small-pox didnot take. "Now," said Jenner, "is the grand discovery. This will answermy purpose, and I shall soon be able to get another paper for the Royal Society,"to follow in the wake of the glorious cuckoo, which has been wittily termed "thebird that laid the vaccination egg." (Laughter.) That was in 1796, and we areclose upon the century since that wonderful experiment. Russia is preparing to celebrateit, and the Bristol medical men are sending round for subscriptions for £1,000in order to purchase the relics of this wonderful man--such as his snuff box, hislancets, and the chair the great man sat in--to put in the museum of the BristolUniversity. I have noticed that the doctors have omitted one important article whichappeared in the Bristol Exhibition--a hair from the tail of the first cow that suppliedthe vaccine lymph. (Loud laughter.) I am sorry they have left that out. I am surenothing would so stir the hearts of the coming race of medical men as an evidenceof belief in the principle contained in the old herb book by which a person had tocarry a hair of the tail of the dog that bit him. (Laughter.) I do not know whetherthe sensation from Russia is going to filter through to England, but unless you peoplein Gloucester are going to be swayed by the manifesto issued by the medical men myadvice to you is to keep your rejoicings for the 5th November, and then if you happento be hard tip for a companion for Guy Fawkes I would advise you to have an effigyof Edward Jenner to help feed the flames of your bonfire. (Laughter and cheers.)

   Jenner inoculated this boy James Phipps in 1796. Then, as soonas he had done that, he wrote it down--(laughter)--and went round the neighbourhoodcollecting desultory information with regard to cow-pox and cow-poxed milkers. Hegot cases of those who had had cow-pox years before and had never had small-pox,as if everybody was bound to have the small-pox. Then he took some worn-out paupers,over 6o years of age, who had had the cow-pox years and years before and inoculatedthem with small-pox to see if they would take. He found they did not take, becauseas people get advanced in life they are more or less proof against it. "This,"said Jenner, "is the grand proof of the value of inoculation of cowpox as apreventive of small-pox."

 

HOW JENNER CHANGED HIS TACTICS.

   These were the materials which he got together in order to presenthis paper to the Royal Society. It was not to be surprised at that, with miserablematerial such as this, the Royal Society, though at that time at so low an ebb scientifically,should, nevertheless, immediately reject his paper as unsatisfactory and unsuitedto a scientific society or a healthy public. (Cheers.) Jenner took care in that papernever to mention the cases of people who had cow-pox and had small-pox afterwards,he mentioned the cases of a dozen old men who had cow-pox and did not take small-poxafterwards, but he could have had hundreds of cases who had had both. These he tookgood care never to say anything about. As soon, however, as he came back with hispaper the cow doctors were at him. They said this was all rubbish and began to pouron him hundreds of cases, just as we pelt the pro-vaccinists with figures showingthat 90 per cent, of those who have had small-pox have already been vaccinated. (Cheers.)

   So Dr. Jenner soon found he would have to change his whistle,and invented a novel idea. The idea he started was this: he said there are two kindsof pox. One is the genuine kind and the other spurious, and those who have had cow-poxand yet have had small-pox afterwards, have had the spurious variety. Those who hadcow-pox and did not have small-pox afterwards were those who bad had the genuinedisease. This was a very clever and specious kind of argument, and the next thingthat Jenner had to do was to find out where the genuine cow-pox could be found. Accordingly,on going into a stable one day he found that a cow had been affected with a verypeculiar kind of disease that was produced in this way. It seems that a man had beenseeing to the grease upon a horseís heels, and had gone to milk the cows withoutwashing his hands. The result was that it produced that peculiar kind of diseaseknown by the name of horse-grease cow-pox. "This," said Jenner, "isthe life-preserving fluid," and he went home to write about the wonderful virtuesof horse-grease cow-pox. However, it was necessary to perform an experiment, andhe inoculated a boy named John Baker with horse-grease, direct from the horseís heels.He intended later to inoculate him with small-pox in order to see whether it wouldtake, but it was something like the case of the man, you remember, who had an ideathat if he only gave his horse a gradually diminishing diet he would at last be ableto keep it on nothing. You remember that the horse died before the experiment couldbe completed, and it was the same with John Baker, for the poor boy died in the workhousedirectly afterwards from a contagious fever contracted from the inoculation. ("Shame.")

 

JENNER SUBSTITUTES HORSE-GREASE FOR COW-POX.

   He then took some of the horse-grease cow-pox and inoculatedsix children, and without waiting to see the result or to prove whether it wouldtake or not he rushed to London to get his paper printed. And in that paper he hadthe audacity to assert that it was not necessary to wait to see the result becausethe proofs he already had were so conclusive, and time experiments had told suchan extraordinary tale--although he had completed but one experiment in his life,and that did not prove it at all. That boy James Phipps was hawked about the countryas a proof of the value of vaccination, but he had not been inoculated with horse-greasecow-pox at all, but with spontaneous cow-pox, which Jenner now declared in his secondpaper was absolutely useless and unprotective against the disease!

   But as soon as the paper was published the outcry was tremendous."What," said the people, "take horse-grease, filthy grease from horsesíheels, take that and put it into the blood of a child?" No, they would havenothing to do with it. They did not mind having cow-pox without the horse, but theycould not think of having the cow-pox with the horse in it. Dr. Pearson wrote Jennertelling him he must take the horse out, or "it would damn the whole thing."Consequently--there is no accounting for taste--they denounced horse-grease cow-pox,but were prepared to accept spontaneous cow-pox.

 

JENNER HARKS BACK TO COW-POX.

   What did Jenner do? Did he attempt to stick up for his creedor to prove that he was right? No; he wanted money. He said he was looking forward"in the fond hope of enjoying independence," declaring he was in an impecuniouscondition. He accepted the verdict of the people. They wanted cow-pox; they shouldhave it. And accordingly he wrote a third paper and tried to wipe out what he hadwritten before. With the exception of a solitary footnote, in that paper, horse-greasecow-pox was not mentioned at all, and he fell back on the spontaneous cow-pox theorywhich he had previously denounced as useless and unprotective. This spontaneous cow-poxis what we are recommended to have by Dr. Bond in almost his last clause, i.e., lymphdirect from the cow--which is denounced by the discoverer himself as absolutely unproteciveagainst the disease in question. (Cheers.)

    Well, having told you briefly the history of the matter, youmay ask, "However was it that this thing was foisted on the people? How camethe medical men of the country to accept it?" In the first place science wasthen at a very low ebb. It was about that time Joanna Stephens lived. She had a wonderfulremedy for stone, which gained great notoriety. There was much anxiety to obtainit, and at last a subscription list was opened. It was headed by the Archbishop ofCanterbury, and all the leading doctors subscribed. Joanna wanted £5,000 forher recipe. The money was obtained amid the recipe came to light. It ran as follows:"My medicines are a powder, a decoction and a pill. The powder consists of egg-shellsand snails, both calcined. The decoction is made by boiling some herbs (togetherwith a ball, which consists of soap, swineís cresses burnt to a blackness, and honey)in water. The pills consist of snails calcined, wild carrot seeds, burdock seeds,ashen keys, hips and haws, all burnt to a blackness, soap and honey." She gother £5,000 and the doctors got their recipe: they say that fools and their moneyare soon parted. (Laughter.) I donít begrudge either Joanna Stephens the money orthe doctors her recipe, but I donít think any more of the doctors in consequence,and we canít be surprised at their accepting with so little opposition the wonderfulrecipe of Jenner for small-pox.

   There was another reason why they accepted it, and that wasthat the majority of the doctors of that time had never heard of or seen cow-pox.Dr. Denham, writing at that time, said the majority had never heard of it. However,when Jenner came forward with the letters F.R.S., M.D., after his name, with allthe impudence of a charlatan, saying, "Such is the singular character of mydiscovery that a person who is once inoculated with cow-pox is for ever afterwardssecure against small-pox," the whole of the profession was arrested by the deliberatestatement made, and they all bowed down before the golden calf which Nebuchadnezzarthe king had set up. (Laughter and cheers.)

 

VACCINATION PREFERRED TO INOCULATION.

   Another reason was that inoculation had turned out a failure.What was inoculation? It consisted in this: It was supposed at that time that small-poxwas a permanent evil influence amongst us, and that everybody was obliged to haveit some time or other before they died. Consequently it was thought if they couldonly have the small-pox in a mild form and at a convenient season it would be niceto have it over, just as mothers now think that their little ones must have measles,scarlatina, whooping-cough, Chicken-pox. etc., and are glad to get it over. It wasconsequently said, what is more simple? Let us give the people a mild case of small-poxwhen they are well and able to resist it. This idea, which became very popular, firstof all originated in India. They had there a small-pox goddess whose name was Matah,and the Hindoos used to inoculate themselves with small-pox in order to appease thegoddess, fancying that if they did so and if small-pox came along they would thenhave it in a very mild form, or, perhaps, that her Majesty would look kindly uponthem and they might not have it at all. This filtered through to the Ottoman Court,and in 1721 Lady Worthy Montague, wife of the then Ambassador, was so struck withit that in her letters to London she told them that everybody in Turkey was beinginoculated with small-pox. Coming from such a person and from the very cream of Societythe people were taken with it, and it became the fashion through the length and breadthof England to inoculate with small-pox. But they soon found that it spread the diseasetremendously. It was between 1700 and 1800 that small-pox was so rife. You donítsee so much now. Why? They were then giving people small-pox right through the countryby inoculation. Dr. Bond talks about the unanimity of the profession. Why, the wholeprofession were unanimous about that then! They said inoculation was the thing andthat it must be done. Talk about the unanimity of the profession! That goes for nothing;we have principles to deal with, not the unanimity or otherwise of the profession.(Cheers.) Majorities are never a proof of the truth. The consequence was that small-poxspread, for though a person inoculated might have it mildly he was able to give itto others much more severely. Dr. Lettsom, writing in 1806, tells us that whereassmall-pox deaths for 42 years before inoculation were only 72 per thousand, theywere 89 per thousand in the 42 years after. Consequently the doctors were gettingstaggered, though they carried this out unanimously for 80 years, and when Jennercame forward and said, "Hereís a mild kind of small-pox; itís not infectious;it is certain to stop the small-pox;" why, the doctors at once fell in withit and received it with open arms. The people craved for it, and instead of wantingto get the small-pox over as before, everyone began to cry for the cow-pox whichJenner brought before their notice. In the first twelve months the King had acceptedit, the Queen and her courtiers had fallen in with it, and the illegitimate sonsof the Duke of Clarence were vaccinated with it. (Laughter.) And when they saw thisdone honest mothers knew their doom. And depend upon it, my friends, such was theterror of small-pox inoculation at that time that if you and I had been living thenI am quite sure we should have joined the "genteel mob."

 

COMPULSION DEMANDED.

   Two years after that the whole of the London doctors signeda testimonial and declared that this discovery was such that persons once vaccinatedwere for ever protected against small-pox. We have found out since then by experiencethat doctors are as liable to make mistakes as other people. It would have been justas well, before putting their pens to a testimonial like that, to have rememberedthe old proverb, "Never prophesy until you know."

   They very soon began to talk about compulsion. In 1840 vaccinationwas paid for out of the public rates, and the doctors said inoculation must be putdown. The vaccinators and inoculators--here were two sets of doctors then, as now--foughtagainst one another like the pro-vaccinists and the anti-vaccinists at the presenttime. The vaccinists were in a majority, and could not rest until they had the inoculatorsput down. Consequently in 1840 an Act was passed that anybody who tried to inoculateanother with small-pox would be liable to a monthís imprisonment. In 1853 they managedto pass that Compulsory Vaccination Act which we are here to protest against to-night.(Cheers.) I think one of the most serious complaints against the whole system isthis: They dare not trust it to its own merits. Do people want small-pox? If theSystem is any good it will speak for itself; if it is bad they have no right to enforceit. You may ask, "Why was compulsion necessary?" The reason was simplythis--the people were beginning to find out it was no good; they were beginning toclamour again for inoculation, and the working classes, who reason more by the hardfacts of experience than by medical dogmas, found that it was not the slightest usefor protecting People against small-pox. In 1811 there had occurred a notable instanceof failure. Lord Robert Grosvenor, ten years of age, who had been vaccinated by Jennerhimself, was now taken with small-pox, and lay hovering between life and death. Jennersat by the bedside of his illustrious patient, and when at last the boy began toturn and get better Jenner turned to the father with "What a lucky job he wasvaccinated. If he had not been, he would surely have died." Thus Jenner startedthe glorious doctrine of mitigation, which has been handed down as the heirloom ofthe medical vaccinists ever since.

 

THE GLAMOUR OF A NAME.

   Another reason why the doctors accepted it was this: Jennergave a brand new name to cow-pox that had not been heard of before, he called cow-poxsmall-pox of the cow, or Variolae Vacciae, but you may search in vain for any attemptupon his part to prove it. He might as well have called it diphtheria of the cow,for all the analogy it bore. It gave a scientific air to the whole thing, althoughthere was just as much science in it as in the heads of the old women of Gloucestershire.(Laughter) The theory was this cow-pox is small-pox of the cow; therefore, if yougive a person this cow-pox it is the same as small-pox, only in a very mild form,and it is not infectious. Sir John Simon, the great high priest of the vaccine cultin England for many years, said that the reason cow-pox prevents small-pox is becauseit is small-pox, and that a person who has had cow-pox has really passed throughsmall-pox. And Jenner himself absolutely declared that it is not that cow-pox isa preventive of small-pox but it is small-pox itself. Look at the incongruity ofthe whole thing. Someone has remarked that "the lawís an ass," and I amsure it is in the present instance. By the Act of 1840 anyone who gave another small-poxwas liable to a monthís imprisonment; by the Act of 1853 if you donít give anothersmall-pox--which is what cow-pox is supposed to be--you are liable to a fine of £1and costs. So that between the two things, as Mr. Alfred Milnes has said, "aman is about as happy as a Jew in Russia." (Laughter.)

 

COW-POX AND SMALL-POX COMPARED.

   What is cow-pox? It is a disease which occurs on the teats ofcows; it only occurs when they are in milk; only in one part of the body, and naturallyonly in the female animal; it results in an ugly chancre; and is not infectious.Small-pox, on the other hand, is not limited to the female sex as is cow-pox, norto one portion of the body; it presents different physical signs, and, furthermore,is tremendously infectious, and the course and symptoms of the two diseases are totallydifferent. Therefore there is no analogy between the two. Badcock, of Brighton, acceptingthis theory, however, inoculated a number of cows with small-pox, and fancied thatit should have become cow-pox. But it never produced anything but small-pox. So muchhad this question obscured the minds of the medical profession that the French savantsformed the Lyons Commission to go thoroughly into the whole thing, and Mons. Chauveau,the eminent French scientist, after experimenting, told his Government that it wastotally impossible to convert smallpox into cow-pox. The fact is, as Dr. Creightonsaid, to try and turn small-pox into cow-pox you may as well try to convert a horsechestnut into a chestnut horse. If they can turn cow-pox into small-pox I say letthem do the conjuring trick backwards, and Iíll believe them. (Cheers.)

   Look at the absurdity of the whole thing! For the sake of argumenttake it for granted that cow-pox is small-pox, and that to vaccinate is to give small-pox.Then, according to Jennerís theory, the person inoculated with small-pox should nottake it, like his case of James Phipps. But is it not a fact that you can be successfullyre-vaccinated frequently? If, therefore, vaccination is a form of small-pox, it doesnot prevent you having "small-pox" again. If once vaccinating does notprevent your being re-vaccinated, how can it protect against the genuine article?(Cheers.) If it canít protect you against the bite of a cat, how can it against thescrunch of a tiger? Why, these Gloucester doctors, in boasting of their re-vaccination,are absolutely damning their whole creed, for if their theory were correct they haveno business to be able to be re-vaccinated at all! But I may be told, this may betrue enough. There may be no science in it--and I have no hesitation in saying thatthe gentlemen alluded to by the Chairman, Dr. Crookshank and Dr. Creighton, haveknocked the bottom out of this grotesque superstition and shown that vaccinationhas no scientific leg to stand on--but there are some remedies, which, though youcanít prove the physiological effect they have or see the science that belongs tothem, yet you know by experience will produce certain results. Now let us test vaccinationby this law.

 

THE TEACHING OF EXPERIENCE.

   I have clearly proved that there is no science in vaccination;now we will see what experience has to say upon the subject. Since the passing ofthe Act in 1853 we have had no less than three distinct epidemics. In 1857-9 we hadmore than 14,000 deaths from smallpox; in the 1863-5 epidemic the deaths had increasedto 20,000; and in 1871-2 they totalled up to the tune of 44,800. It might be asked;Did not the population increase? Between the first and second epidemics the populationdid increase by 7 per cent., but the smallpox deaths increased by 41 per cent. Betweenthe second and third epidemics the population went up by 9 per cent. and the small-poxby 120 per cent. Small-pox is an epidemic disease, and if cow-pox is to do anythingas a preventive of small-pox it should prevent an epidemic. It is all very well tosay what a splendid protection it is when there is no epidemic about, but the questionis: How will it stand when small-pox comes? But, as Dr. Druitt has well remarked:"You may just as well try to stop small-pox epidemics by vaccination as to preventa thunderstorm with an umbrella." In 1880 the Registrar-General reported thatalthough typhus fever and other zymotics had gone down, the only one to show a risewas small-pox; i.e., after thirty years of compulsory vaccination it was 50 per centabove the average of the previous 10 years. We got rid of the black death and gaolfever entirely. What did it? Good water, good drainage, and the whitewash brush.(Cheers.) Yet the only zymotic which shows a notable increase is the only one againstwhich a special prophylactic has been used, and so remarkable was this that the Registrar-Generalhad to draw attention to it. Undoubtedly small-pox would have gone too if the inoculatorshad not taken such pains for nearly 100 years to establish it in this country.

   I constantly find that when the pro-vaccinists are driven intoa corner as to the failures occurring in this country they always adopt the planof Jenner, and invite us to look at the brilliant successes in other countries. Assoon as ever they are asked to remember the number of vaccinated people who get small-poxthey say, "Oh, look at Ceylon," "come with me to the plains of India,"or they ask you to hook into Central Africa and "see what vaccination does there."Yes, it is all very well to be carried away to those countries where no Registrar-Generalis kept and no official statistics have ever been published. (Cheers.)

 

THE HISTORY OF SMALL-POX IN GERMANY.

   They say, "Look at Prussia, and the way vaccinationhas stamped out small-pox there." Very well, we will look at Prussia, which,I may say, has kept better vaccination records than any other country in Europe,except, perhaps, Sweden. In 1834, which is twenty years before England adopted theCompulsory Vaccination Act, so severe was the Act in Prussia that, in addition toprimary vaccination, every child had to be vaccinated over again when he startedupon his school life; he had to be re-vaccinated on going from college to college;and re-vaccinated over again when he entered the Army, which meant every healthymale out of the whole of Prussia. And so severe was the Act that if any man refusedto be vaccinated he was ordered to be held down and vaccinated by force; and so thoroughlywas it done that he was vaccinated in ten places on each arm. That was stiff enoughfor anybody, I should think. (Laughter,) In 1871-2--thirty-five years after thisCompulsory Vaccination Act--came the terrible epidemic which swept all over Europe.It came to Prussia, and what was the result? In that year small-pox carried off noless than 124,978 of her vaccinated and re-vaccinated citizens after thirty-fiveyears of compulsory vaccination of the description which I have referred to! Thisroused Prussia, and she began to look about her; she saw the cause, and she was determinedto remedy it. She brought good water into her cities, purified her river Spree, introduceda complete drainage system throughout the country--(loud cheers)--she got rid ofher "rookeries," and ordered model barracks to be built for the soldiers;and away fled the small-pox, like the Philistines before the Children of Israel.Sanitation did for Prussia what 35 years of compulsory vaccination was unable toaccomplish. At the present time in Prussia small-pox is almost extinct. (Cheers.)It is not that people are being vaccinated more; they are vaccinated less. (Hear,hear.) They hate it in Germany as we English people do; and you can now get out ofvaccination there by the payment of a shilling fine. Even the very children in Germanyknow well enough how it is hated, and in proof of this I may relate to you an amusingincident. A school inspector went to one of the schools the other day and asked thequestion of the class, "Why was Moses hidden by his mother in the bullrushes?"Very soon a little fellow put up his hand and replied, "Please sir, she didnot want him to be vaccinated." (Loud laughter.)

 

SMALL-POX EPIDEMICS IN ENGLAND.

   We will now come nearer home and take the Metropolitan AsylumsBoard and their statistics. From 1870 to 1886 there were 53,579 cases of small-pox,and out of that number there were 43,919 who had undergone the process spoken ofby Sir John Simon as "removing every taint of susceptibility to infection."But you may say, perhaps, "Will it protect for a time?" Well, I shouldlike to know for how long? (Hear, hear.) Dr. Bond says up to fourteen years, somepeople say ten; in Birmingham they were rejoicing the other day that they had hadnobody take small-pox, no vaccinated child, under three; so that it has got downrather low. (Laughter.) Jenner said that to talk about re-vaccination was to robhis "discovery" of half of its virtues; he was dead against it by the statementhe made that one vaccination was protection for a life-time. On that he got £30,000.(Laughter.) Dr. Bond tells us that that was altered afterwards, and that it was notthe expression of Jennerís matured vision. No, Jenner altered it afterwards; he gothis £30,000 first, though. (Renewed laughter.) He never yielded up the £30,000when he found he had made a mistake.

   How long will it protect? Dr. Bond talks about the Sheffieldepidemic in his letter two or three days ago, and I have no doubt Mr. French Hensley,to whom he replies, will very soon put the matter straight. He tells us that theSheffield statistics show a wonderful immunity of vaccinated children. Dr. Bond basesthat upon the marvellous satistics of Dr. Barry. Dr. Bond has evidently never readthe Royal Commission reports at all. (Laughter and cheers.) It looks as thought Dr.Bond has never seen the cross-examination of Dr. Barry. Dr. Bond has no idea of thefatal fallacy underlying the Sheffield epidemic report, which came to an utter collapsewhen Dr. Barry was cross-examined upon it. He has no idea of all that; he is evidentlysomething like the old lady Sydney Smith talked about, who never read anything onthe opposite side of the question in case she should be prejudiced. (Laughter.) Ifit had not been for the Sheffield report--I am very pleased it was brought forward,although it is a perfectly hollow thing so far as facts go--we should not have hadthe Royal Commission. The vaccinators thought when it fell into Government quartersthat they had such a tremendously strong case that the anti-vaccinators would havebeen wiped off the scene. But when it came before the Royal Commission, Dr. Collins,one of the Commissioners, took Dr. Barry in hand and very soon spoilt the whole game;and it turned out that the whole of the report, from beginning to end, was nothingbut a statistical trick, based upon evidence collected by census collectors towardsthe close of the epidemic instead of at the beginning, when many of the unvaccinatedhad passed over to the vaccinated class. (Cheers.) I will give you some statisticswith regard to Sheffield as far as one can gather them, which I take out of thisvery report. There were ten cases of small-pox under one year old, 87 cases underfive years of age--vaccinated all of them--and 241 cases of vaccinated small-poxbetween the ages of five and ten. In spite of what is said about vaccination protectingup to 14 years of age, this splendid report, that Dr. Bond speaks of with such admiration,declares that Dr. Bondís theory is as false as anything can be, for it gives no lessthan 338 cases of vaccinated small-pox under ten years of age. (Cheers.)

   Well now, let us see what vaccination did for Sheffield. ThisSheffield epidemic occurred in 1887 in the very worst quarter of the town, on 135acres of the most horribly insanitary part of the town, which was condemned yearsago by the Government Inspector, and it has never been put right yet. That is wheresmall-pox has always broken out, that is where small-pox has flourished: and whenthis tremendous epidemic took place on they went, vaccinating and re-vaccinating;and still the small-pox epidemic spread. There were no less than 7,000 cases of small-pox,and, alas! 600 deaths, and still the small-pox went on; until at last God in hismercy opened the floodgate of heaven and down came the rain, which washed the sewersand the drains, cleared away the refuse from the gutters, washed the dirt from thestreets and the filth from the slums and away went the small-pox. Pure water accomplishedfor Sheffield what 56,000 vaccinations had been unable to effect. (Loud cheers.)

   Again, take Gayton, a great authority with the pro-vaccinists,who in his book entitled "The Value of Vaccinationí shows that of 10,403 casesof vaccinated small-pox 20 cases were under one year old, 341 between one and five,and 945 between five and ten; i.e., 1,306 cases of small-pox in vaccinated children,in order to prove the efficacy of vaccination!

 

WHY VACCINATED CHILDREN "DONíT DIE".

   "But," we are told, "the children donít die."Well, that may be all very well; we will see whether they die or not. Turn to Germany,for instance. During that epidemic I spoke of just now there were 2,140 cases ofchildren under ten who had small-pox, and 736 of them died; there were 1,503 casesvaccinated under five, and there were 573 deaths. You may say,

   

   

   "Then why is it they donít die in this country?" Turnto the Mullerís Orphanage in Bristol. In 1872 there were 740 children, all vaccinated,and 292 cases of small-pox amongst them, and there were 17 deaths. But I can giveyou the reason, perhaps, why the children donít die--why vaccinated children donítdie from small-pox so much as we should expect. In 1886, for instance, there were275 cases of small-pox deaths altogether throughout England and Wales; there wasonly one vaccinated child that died from small-pox under ten years of age, but therewere 93 children who died from "chicken-pox." (Laughter.) And the Registrar-General,in commenting upon the fact, declared that nearly, if not all. those cases shouldhave been registered as small-pox, because chicken-pox "never kills ";and Dr. Ogle, the chief in the Registrar-Generalís Department, told the Royal Commissionas a witness before it, that he had never known chicken-pox kill a child in his life.(Cheers.) Why were not they registered as small-pox? In 1893, the last publishedreturns we have, there were 127 children who were reported to have died from "chicken-pox";so perhaps that will explain why "the children donít die." (Laughter andcheers.)

   

RE-VACCINATION,

      Then they say if it will only protectfor a time re-vaccination is the thing. I want to know how often are we to be re-vaccinated?Jenner said once was enough; Dr. Thorpe Porter, Superintendent of the Dublin Small-poxHospital Sheds, says he has no faith in re-vaccination; Dr. Pringle, the great Indianvaccinator, says re-vaccination is an unpathological and unphysiological blunder;whereas Dr. Seaton says that to be vaccinated once at puberty is quite enough; SirWilliam Jenner says you ought to be vaccinated once in infancy, again at seven years,and again every time an epidemic comes along (laughter); Dr. Oakes says you oughtto be vaccinated every ten years; and a great German vaccinator, whose name I wonítattempt to pronounce, says you ought to be vaccinated every four months until youcannot be re-vaccinated any longer. (Laughter.) What, to be kept in a constant stateof cowpox in order to prevent small-pox? Why, I would sooner have the smallpox--itwould be a thousand times better--and have done with it. (Cheers.)

 

THE SMALL-POX NURSE FABLE.

   Then people say, "What about the nurses; why, donít youknow that for 50 years there has not been known a single nurse in any small-pox hospitalwho has taken the small-pox, because they have been re-vaccinated?" Dr. Corywas responsible for the card which has been handed for years to mothers who broughttheir children to the vaccination station, and which served to stamp this delusionupon the country; and when Dr. Cory was before the Royal Commission this card wasbrought to his notice. "How is it that it has been published; is it a fact?"he was asked, and the answer was "No." "Is it not a fact that nurseswho have taken small-pox had been re-vaccinated?" "Yes." "Howis it that you printed this?" "Oh," said Dr. Cory, "originallythe card was simply concerning Highgate Small-pox Hospital and it was the printer"--oh,that naughty printer--(laughter) "who deleted the definite article when it oughtto be there, who put an Ďsí after the ĎIí who dropped out two capital letters insteadof leaving three, who scattered the word Highgate, and left it as a matter for generalisation!"(Renewed laughter.) In Highgate Small-pox Hospital we know that whenever it was possiblethey got the nurses from the small-pox patients, and the reason these did not haveit was because they had had small-pox beforehand, Now take the nurses in the feverhospital. Dr. Hopwood lately declared that no nurse had died in the Fever Hospitalof London for ten years. But they were never vaccinated against fever, and why didnot they die? The fact of the matter is this, the small-pox nurse fable is a veryabsurd one. We know well enough that small-pox has the faculty of taking hold ofthe weakest; that is the reason why children, whether vaccinated or not, naturallyfall the easiest prey. In Gloucester you have practically no vaccinated childrento suffer. It depends upon the constitution and the amount of resisting power tothe disease. The nurse is a selected person--she will never be likely to be takenon as such unless she is perfectly healthy; As I said, she is frequently taken fromthe ranks of the small-pox patients, but otherwise is perfectly healthy; she hasgood food, regular exercise; she works in a well-ventilated ward; amid, what is more,she has no fear--which I believe is one of the greatest protectives under the sun.(Cheers.) She is in a far better position than her patients who, as a rule, comefrom insanitary places, from the slums and dens of our cities; and it is not, therefore,to be wondered at that the nurses should be able to resist the small-pox. Even inthe time of the plague, when vaccination was not dreamed of, it was remarked in allthe old writings that the doctors and nurses rarely if ever caught the disease. Butit is not that the nurses do not take it, Dr. Cohn, of the Paris Small-pox Hospital,said that in the hospital he had no less than 200 nurses re-vaccinated under hisown eyes, and yet out of that number 15 took small-pox and one of them died. Furthermore,he tells us that at time Bicetre hospital there were 40 medical attendants and apothecarieswho never contracted small-pox at all, although they had neglected to be re-vaccinated;and he mentions, moreover, 40 sisters of mercy who were right in the very centreof the hospital who refused to be re-vaccinated, and not one of them had small-pox.(Cheers.)

 

RE-VACCINATION IN THE ARMY.

   Then look at our re-vaccinated Army. From 1860 to 1888 we hadno less than 3,953 cases of small-pox in the British Army, and 391 of them died.If re-vaccination wonít protect the soldier, how is it going to protect the nurse?(Hear, hear.) In Egypt in 1889 they died at the rate of 1,750 per million from small-pox.But, as a matter of fact, the Government do not believe in re-vaccination. The otherday, when the epidemic broke out in London, a regiment of soldiers was stationedat St. Johnís Wood, near, and so terrified were the Government with regard to thematter that an urgent order came down from the Horse Guards sending the regimentright away to the other end of England, lest the re-vaccinated soldiers should catchsmall-pox. (Laughter.) I heard an amusing incident the other day about a magistratewho had some of those "ignorant fanatics" like some of you--(laughter)--beforehim. He told the defendants that they ought to be ashamed of themselves letting theirchildren go unvaccinated, and added, "Why, I would not let my children go unprotectedfrom this dire disease on any account." A short time afterwards illness cameinto his house, and the doctor told him that a servant had the small-pox; and nosooner did the old gentleman hear that than his courage oozed out at his finger-tips,and he sent for the nearest fire-escape in order that the children might be takenaway through the window, so as to avoid passing the door of the infected chamber.(Laughter.) Then there are those doctors who tell us that not only have they beenre-vaccinated, but that if a small-pox epidemic occurred they would be done again,which shows that they have not much faith in re-vaccination. (Hear, hear.) At Berkhampstead,Sir Astley Cooper, who has been sitting on the Bench, declared in a speech on thesubject that he had been vaccinated no less than seven times, and such was his wonderfulfaith in the operation that he declared, with all the courage of a Roman gladiator,"If an epidemic occurred, I would go and be vaccinated again." (Laughter.)Why, if they had tatooed the old gentleman from head to foot he would still be crying,"Do, pray give me more vaccination." (Renewed laughter.)

 

MITIGATION.

   Then they tell us that vaccination will mitigate the diseasethat it will make it milder. I should like to have it proved. (Hear. hear.) How arewe to know how severely a person is going to have small-pox? If everybody who hadbeen vaccinated had it in a milder form and every person who was unvaccinated hadthe smallpox more severely, there would certainly be some ground for the argument.But we know well enough that long before vaccination was dreamed of the usual kindof small-pox was the mild; and, as Dr. Wagstaff wrote to Dr. Freind in 1721 "Thereis one kind of small-pox which the doctor cannot cure, and another kind which thenurse cannot kill." That is quite enough to show there were very mild casesof small-pox at the time; and Dr. Plot in 1677, in speaking of an epidemic at Oxford,tells us that the whole of the cases were extremely mild, and that with proper carethey all recovered. So that before ever there was vaccination there was plenty ofmild small-pox. (Cheers.)

   Look at the hospital statistics, and see what they have to say.I find from the last published statistics, which are for 1893--I am now speakingfrom memory--that there were 150 unvaccinated cases and 253 vaccinated, but 1,054cases were never stated at all. When out of a total of 1,457 cases over 1,000 areleft undescribed, and we are not told whether they were vaccinated or not, what confidencecan you have in such statistics? I say that such statistics as those, upon whichvaccinators base their case, are nothing more nor less than a fraud. (Cheers.)

   Now, you test the mitigation theory by malignant cases. Mr.Alexander Wheeler proved before the Royal Commission that of those said to be vaccinated82 per cent died, and of those with good marks 85 per cent died; so that the wellmarked patients come worse off when vaccination is most needed. The argument we generallyget is this: If a person happens to have been vaccinated and he goes through lifewithout catching small-pox they say, "What a splendid thing it is that he wasvaccinated"; if he has a mild attack they say, "How very fortunate he wasvaccinated, or he would have had the small-pox very severely"; if he happensto have a severe attack we are told, "It was a lucky job he was vaccinated,or he would have died "; and if a person who has been vaccinated should havethe impudence to go and die, then we are coolly told, "Oh, he had not been vaccinatedproperly." (Laughter.)

   In the hospital statistics of to-day you generally find thatthe unvaccinated people die at the rate of from 30 to 60 and even 80 per cent. orhigher; and yet when we come to look at the fatality of the last century and thehorrible condition of things which I have mentioned to you, we find that the fatalitywas only 18 per cent. If, therefore, the fatality of unvaccinated people last centurywas only 18 per cent., and the average fatality of the present day amongst the unvaccinatedruns from 30 to 80 per cent., I want to know, like Trehawneyís Cornishmen, "thereason why." (Hear, hear.) I do not believe the doctors of the present day areless competent than those of a hundred years ago; and therefore why double and treblethe number of unvaccinated patients who are slipping through their fingers as comparedwith a century before? It is not for me to explain this. Let them explain it themselves.Mitigation is therefore a sham. I remember that the Duke of Connaught, although vaccinatedwith the very finest and the most recherché lymph, had the small-pox afterwards,and they could not understand it. (Laughter.) A great deal of interest was arousedupon the point, and the doctors came to the conclusion that his Royal Highness couldnot have been vaccinated properly. Why, if a Royal Vaccinator cannot do their workproperly what must you poor wretches expect from the rank and file of the profession?(Loud laughter and cheers.)

 

THE NUMBER OF MARKS.

   Then we are told it goes by the marks: that you musthave a certain area, a certain shape, and a certain number. In fact there are anyamount of shuffles: as Cobbett used to say, "Quackery has always one shuffleleft." (Renewed laughter.) When you come to remember that you can have no lessthan 70 different kinds of marks from the same lymph, it shows the utter absurdityof the whole thing. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Marson, who was the surgeon at the HighgateSmallpox hospital, produced a number of statistics showing that the unvaccinatedpatients died at the rate of 35 per cent., and then according to the marks they had,one to three or four marks, so they died less and less until with four marks it almostcame down to a vanishing point. Mr. Marson was submitted to cross-examination beforethe Committee of 1871, and then it turned out that a good many of those patientshad died from what he was pleased to call "super-added disease." That is,although they went in suffering from small-pox, yet there was some other diseasethey had got, and they were put down not as dying from small-pox, but from this otherdisease. It is a most extraordinary coincidence that the more marks the patientshad the more they died from something else than small-pox. (Laughter.) And when youcome to the four mark patients, of whom there were only eleven, absolutely ten diedof "super-added disease," and there was only one left for the record ofsmall-pox, and that one was made to record a fatality of three-quarter per cent.This has been the sheet-anchor of the medical profession for years; these are thestatistics dinned into the ears of the medical students to prejudice their futurecareer in the medical profession ; these are the statistics which present, I haveno hesitation in saying, the most glaring specimen of "cookery" ever pennedby mortal man. (Cheers.) I think I have shown pretty clearly that vaccination isno protection, that mitigation is false, and that re-vaccination is a fallacy.

 

THE DANGERS OF VACCINATION.

   Another most important point is this: You may say, "Nevermind, rather than have the bother of being summoned and the rest of it, I will letmy children undergo the operation." What about the danger? (Cheers.) Upon thissubject I will dare to say this:

   There is not a medical man in the kingdom but will admit thereis a risk. Before the Royal Commission 6,000 cases of injury from vaccination werepresented, with 800 deaths. This is the condition which we have upon the most reliablestatistics, and that represents a very sorry fact. We are told by Dr. Bond that weshould have calf lymph; but we must not forget that some of the most disastrous resultswhich have ever occurred, and which have been recorded only recently, have been theresult of the use of calf lymph; and so terrified is the Government about it thatit will not sanction its use by the public vaccinators. Therefore it is no use goingto cow-pox direct from the calf.

    You may say, "What is this calf lymph?" There arethree kinds. Supposing you have the spontaneous cow-pox taken from the sore on thecowís udders, a calf is strapped to a table and its abdomen having been shaved, about100 punctures are made in it and some cow-pox matter rubbed into them; the calf isthen tied up for eight days when it is strapped down to the table again and thislymph, by means of clamps, is squeezed out of the various sores raised and put intocapillary tubes. Then the calf is let loose and sold to the butcher for prime veal.(Laughter.) That is the spontaneous cow-pox, which Jenner himself said was practicallyuseless.

   With regard to the other kind of cowpox, which is commonly used,you put the matter from a childís arm into the calfís abdomen; and you stand a chanceof getting some human diseases of the worst kind as well as cattle disease into thebargain. The third kind is small-pox virus itself with which Badcock inoculated noless than 20,000 people under the name of vaccination. Even Sir James Watson saidhe could sympathise with, and even applaud a father who would pay multiple finesand even undergo imprisonment rather than submit his child to such a ghastly risk.(Cheers.) He (Sir J. Watson) was then speaking about syphilis.

 

INCREASE OF INFANT SYPHILIS.

   What about syphilis? (Hear, hear.) It is a very strange thingthat up to 1853, when the Compulsory Vaccination Act was passed, the annual deathsfrom syphilis of children under one year old did not, exceed 380; the very next yearthe number had jumped up nearly double, to 591 ; and syphilis in infants under oneyear of age has gone on increasing every year since until 1883, when the number ofdeaths reached 1,813. It has increased four-fold in infants since the passing ofthe Compulsory Vaccination Act, and yet in adults it has remained almost stationary.Surely this speaks for itself. (Hear, hear.) These deaths have only begun to declinesince, in proportion as the number of vaccinations to births have declined. Thereforewe have not merely children dying primarily from vaccination, but from a concurrentdisease. The question is asked, "Cannot you get any pure lymph which will reallyanswer the purpose?" Well, they have tried all sorts. They have tried cow-pox,horse-pox, horse-grease cow-pox, also goat-pox, and that from the sheep; they evenwent to the buffalo, but the buffalo-pox stank so horribly that they had to giveit up. (Laughter.) Surgeon OíHara even advises that we should get some lymph fromthe donkey. (Renewed laughter.) One would have thought that the donkey was low enough,but someone has gone further. Dr. Monckton-Copeman as suggested in the "BritishMedical Journal" that some small-pox scabs should be powdered as fine as possiblein a mortar, placed in an egg, stirred up into a kind of smallpox omelette, and afterbeing put by for a certain time it is ready to be placed in the babiesí arms. ("Shame.")That is what I may call a "fowl" concoction. (Laughter.) We have had almostas many animals suggested for the purpose of supplying lymph as there were in NoahísArk--a regular menagerie of them; the vaccinators are in as big a muddle about itas ever, and yet they say "You must have the genuine variety or you will besure to catch the small-pox." (More laughter.) "Pure lymph from the cow!"It reminds me of the notice one sometimes sees, "Pure milk from the cow; animalsmilked on the premises." (Laughter.) "Pure lymph" calls to mind thegreen fields and pastures of the country! Can it be had, you ask? Well, GovernmentMicroscopist Farn, who examines the lymph sent out, was asked by Dr. Collins, "Asa matter of fact have you ever guaranteed the purity of lymph in your life?"and he had to acknowledge "No."

   And yet members of the medical profession are saying this kindof thing: Dr. Hind wrote to the Devizes Board of Guardians some time ago saying thathe would be very happy indeed to supply them with calf lymph "which would beundoubtedly pure." He is another gentleman who does not appear to have readthe other side of the question. (Laughter.) Mr. Microscopist Fain was further askedby Dr. Collins, "Can you recognise under a microscope of the highest power thegerms of syphilis?" and the answer was "No." And yet they talk about"pure hymph!" From 1881 to 1892 we have had no less than 620 deaths recorded,620 English homes which have been one little occupant the less, 620 mothersí heartswhich have been bleeding as a result of this Compulsory Vaccination Act; and yetthey say "there are no bad results with proper care." How is it, then,that this mischief occurs? If they cannot happen with proper care, then these results,according to that theory, must he due to carelessness, and if so it is manslaughter;and have you ever heard of a medical man being charged with manslaughter in sucha case? (Cheers.) The Grocersí Company a few years ago offered £1,000 to anybodywho would discover an artificial nutritive medium by which the germ vaccinia couldbe cultivated without any foreign elements or risk of disease. No one has claimedthe £1,000 yet, and still they talk about "pure lymph." I will giveyou one or two statistics with regard to Leicester. In 1868-72 the mortality of childrenunder one year was 107 per thousand, when 98 per cent were vaccinated; from 1888-9only two per cent, were vaccinated, and, in spite of what Dr. Bond says, the generalmortality of children had declined from 107 to 63 per thousand. Furthermore, from1874-89 the number of children under one year who died of erysipelas had declinedfrom 193 to 47 per 10,000 deaths. The Guardians of Gloucester are being urged tore-commence prosecutions, and I appeal to them to make a firm stand against it. (Loudcheers.)

 

LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.

   There is one thing about this Vaccination Act which I donítlike: itís an unequal law--it presses hardly upon the poor. The rich man can payhis sovereign fine and feel none the worse for it; but the poor man has to eithersubmit or have his goods seized, or go to the prison cell in default of paying hisfine. I say that the poor womanís child is as dear to her as the child of a princeis to its parents, and that she has no right to be put in a harder position for itsprotection than those who are wealthy. (Cheers.)

   But there is another thing that I must mention to you, and thatis the case of Emily Maud Child, of Leeds. That child who was vaccinated, died, anda coronerís jury having held an inquest, it was brought in conclusively that shedied from syphilis, as the result of vaccination. A certificate to that effect wentup to the Government, who sent an inspector down to investigate the case; he tookphotographs of the teeth of the other children, declared they were syphilitic, andreported that it was not vaccine lymph which produced the syphilis, but that thefault lay with the mother herself. (Cries of "Shame.") At last the RoyalCommission heard of the case and sent down independent investigators, who found thatthere was not a vestige of syphilis in the remaining children, and that the chargeagainst the mother was false. (Cheers.) It is a terrible thing, I say, that not onlyhave you to stand the chance of losing the child who is dear to you, but you haveto stand the chance of the powerful machinery of Government being turned on in orderto take away the character of your wife. They tell me I have no right to pick outthese hard cases; but I tell my friends I will stop picking them out when they stopputting them in. (Cheers.) Then, when you go before the Bench, the magistrates tellyou they are "only administrators of the law," which has been the pleaof the greatest persecutors of every age. Remember that the Vaccination Act doesnot deal with the drunkard; it is the best classes of the country, the earnest, honestpeople, the Sunday school teachers, who love their children and their homes. TheScotch Covenantors, Ann Askew, John Wyecliffe, and the apostles of old were toldthat their persecutors were "only the administrators of the law," but theydefied the law, and the proudest privileges and blessings we possess have been wonfor us by the law-breakers of this country. It is not a question merely of the healthbut of the very lives of the children which are at stake in this matter; and I believethat the present century shall not close until we have placed our foot upon the dragonísneck, and plunged the sword of liberty through its heart. (Cheers.) They tell uswe are trying to rouse the country with a "crazy cry"--the cry of libertyof conscience--and, we are not ashamed of that cry. It is that "crazy cry "which snapped the shackles of despotism in the past. That "crazy cry" isspreading at the present time throughout the length and breadth of the country. Weare told that the intelligent portion of the population is against us; itís false.That "crazy cry" is ascending higher and higher, into a raging and tremendousstorm; that liberty which has been won by the blood of our forefathers for the theologicalconscience, is the liberty we demand for the scientific conscience. (Loud cheers.)Already it is thundering at the door of the House of Commons, and it shall be heard.Yes, we are going forward with the "crazy cry " of liberty of conscienceupon our unfurled banner, and we never intend to rest until we get it. (Loud andprolonged cheering.)

   

   Mr. D.C. JONES proposed the following resolution, which wasseconded by Mr. A. RICE, and carried unanimously, amidst great enthusiasm:

   "That this meeting of the inhabitants of Gloucester viewsthe Compulsory Vaccination Act as a serious infringement of the liberty of the subject,and earnestly desires its repeal, believing that the practice of vaccination hasnot only not fulfilled its promise of protection from small-pox, but that it is alsoaccompanied with very serious risks."

   Mr. GEORGE NEWMAN proposed, and Mr. H WHILEY seconded, "thata hearty vote of thanks be accorded Dr. Hadwen for his eloquent and interesting address,"This was carried unanimously, the audience spontaneously rising to their feet andsinging " For heís a jolly good fellow."

   A vote of thanks to the Chairman, proposed by Mr. CARTER andseconded by Mr. T. CLIFFORD, terminated a most enthusiastic meeting.

 

THE MORTALITY AMONG CHILDREN.

   It is often said that unvaccinated children are in special danger.That fable has been dissipated by a table given by Mr. Neville Chamberlain (who appearedquite unable to grasp the meaning of his own figures) on July 23rd, 1923. We reproduceit from the Star of July 26th, in order to incorporate the editorial comment.

      The following table gives the number of deathsper million living from small-pox arranged in decades, and divided up according tothe ages of the sufferers:

 

Under 5

5-10

10-15

1861-70

638

145

56

1871-80

518

285

138

1881-90

80

33

26

1891-1900

29

10

3

1901-1910

22

7

6

1911-1920

0.57

0.32

0.11

It will be noted that there has been an enormous decrease in the small-pox mortalityamong children under 15.

   At the beginning of these periods (1871) It was officially recordedthat 97.5 per cent, of the whole population between the ages of two and 50 was vaccinated.

   At the end of these periods (1921) only 38 per cent of the birthswas vaccinated.

   There has admittedly been a constant decline in the number ofchildren vaccinated.

   The Editor of Truth, commenting upon the above figures on August1st, 1923, observed:

   "No doubt Dr. Garstang will be of the opinion that forcalling attention to these incontrovertible facts I ought to be sent to Broadmoor.For my part I think that a man who cannot see the significance of the above figuresand those referred to in Truth last week ought not to allowed to practise on thepubic as a doctor."

   Dr. Garstang is a medical man who, at a recent Medical Congress,had described all anti-vaccinationists as "criminal lunatics." They canat least draw a logical deduction from figures so easily understood.  

   The following figures form a complete refutation of the claimsfor vaccination. They were given in a written answer by Lord E Percy to a Parliamentaryquestion by Mr March, MP to the Minister of Health on July 16th 1923

Year

Vaccinations per cent of births

Smallpox deaths

Smallpox death-rate per 100,000 population

Deaths from cowpox and other effects of vaccination

1872

85

19,022

82.1

 

1873

85.2

2,303

9.8

 

1874

85.05

2,084

8.8

 

1875

84.9

849

3.5

37

1876

86

2,408

9.9

2132

1877

86.3

4,278

17.3

39

1878

85.3

1,856

7.4

36

1879

86

536

2.1

41

1880

85.1

648

2.5

58

1881

86.6

3,098

11.9

65

1882

85.9

1,317

5.0

55

1883

85.6

957

3.6

53

1884

84.4

2,234

8.2

52

1885

84.7

2,827

10.3

45

1886

83.4

275

1.1

45

1887

82.8

506

1.9

45

1888

81.7

1,026

3.7

58

1889

79.8

23

0.1

43

1890

78

16

.0

43

1891

75.8

49

0.2

58

1892

74.5

431

1.5

59

1893

72.3

1,457

4.9

50

1894

70.04

820

2.7

56

1895

67.8

223

0.7

42

1896

66.0

541

1.7

35

1897

62.4

25

.0

26

1898

61.0

253

0.8

34

1899

66.4

174

0.5

25

1900

68.7

85

0.3

17

1901

71.4

356

1.0

22

1902

71.8

2,464

7.5

26

1903

75.4

760

2.3

28

1904

75.3

507

1.5

26

1905

75.8

116

0.4

29

1906

73.4

21

0.1

12

1907

70.9

10

.0

13

1908

63.2

12

.0

11

1909

59.8

21

0.1

8

1910

55.9

19

0.1

14

1911

52.3

23

0.1

10

1912

50.1

9

.0

7

1913

46.5

10

.0

6

1914

44.6

4

.0

11

1915

45.5

13

.0

4

1916

44.7

18

.0

9

1917

43.3

3

.0

5

1918

41.5

2

.0

7

1919

40.6

28

.1

19

1920

39.5

30 (b)

.1

8

1921

38.3

5

.0

7

1922

a

27

.1

 

   a. Figures for 1922 not yet available.

   b. In addition one death certified as influenza, and so classified, was regarded by the Ministry of Health as definitely ascribable to haemorrhagic smallpox.

 


HOME      HYGIENELIBRARY CATALOG      HADWIN'SMAGAZINE ARTICLES