The Case Against Vaccination (1896)

By Walter R. Hadwen – 30 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary

On the day we received the extraordinary news that a good man, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now leads the largest-budgeted agency within an otherwise corrupt government, it’s fitting to reflect on the highest-profile liar and fraud who set The Poisoning in motion—the force that has brought us to this point.

Edward Jenner was the first to ignite this movement, laying the foundation for a medical tyranny that, another fraud, Louis Pasteur later amplified and entrenched.

A medical tyranny built by oligarchs, created and enforced by men chosen by oligarchs.

A system that defies logic—until you understand oligarchy and its relentless will to power. A will to poison.

Then, it all makes perfect sense.

In memory of Edward Jenner (1749-1823).

With thanks to Walter Hadwen.

The Case Against Vaccination Walter Hadwen, (1896) 8th Ed

6.03MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Related Posts

1. Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology (1923)

2. Vaccination: Proved Useless and Dangerous (1889)

3. Vaccination: The best of all possible worlds.

4. Where are we? - Lies are Unbekoming

5. Bobby - Lies are Unbekoming

6. Dissolving Illusions - Lies are Unbekoming

7. Poisoning Babies - Lies are Unbekoming

8. Two Control Groups: Sweden 2020 & Leicester 1885

9. Childhood Vaccination - Lies are Unbekoming

10. SIDS - Lies are Unbekoming

11. Killing Babies - Lies are Unbekoming

Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers)

This deep dive is based on the book:

Discussion No.50:

21 important insights from “The Case Against Vaccination”

Thank you for your support.

Analogy

Imagine a small town where everyone has always dried their clothes outdoors. One day, someone invents an expensive, complex drying machine. Despite mixed results in testing, the town council mandates that everyone must use this machine instead of outdoor drying. They claim it's more reliable than sunlight and wind, even though clothes occasionally come out damaged or dirtier than before.

The wealthy residents can pay to keep drying their clothes outdoors, but poorer families must use the machine or face penalties. When clothes are damaged, officials blame the owners' washing methods rather than the machine. Meanwhile, some repair shop owners, who profit from maintaining these machines, insist they're essential despite growing evidence that simply improving drainage and providing better clotheslines would be more effective.

As more clothes are damaged and people question the machine's necessity, a movement grows arguing that each family should have the right to choose their drying method. They discover that neighborhoods with better drainage and cleaner air have fewer clothing problems regardless of drying method. Yet the council continues enforcing machine use, claiming it's for the public good, while ignoring the growing evidence that the real solution lies in improving the town's basic cleanliness and infrastructure.

This analogy reflects the key themes of the vaccination debate: a natural process replaced by an artificial one, class-based enforcement, financial interests influencing policy, the suppression of evidence about risks, and the ultimate realization that environmental improvements (sanitation) rather than technological intervention might be the better solution. It also captures the fundamental conflict between individual choice and government mandate in matters of personal health and safety.

12-point summary

1. Origins and Credibility: The vaccination movement's scientific foundation was questionable. Edward Jenner, who pioneered vaccination, lacked formal medical qualifications and based his theory on folk wisdom rather than rigorous scientific study. His conclusions came from essentially one experiment with James Phipps, raising serious questions about the scientific validity of widespread vaccination policies.

2. Statistical Manipulation: Evidence supporting vaccination was often misleading. The document reveals how statistics were manipulated to support pro-vaccination arguments. Data collection methods were flawed, with many cases left "undescribed" and timing of data collection strategically chosen to show better results for vaccination. This systematic misrepresentation of data undermined the credibility of vaccination advocacy.

3. Class Discrimination: Vaccination laws disproportionately affected the poor. While wealthy families could pay fines to avoid vaccination, poor families faced goods seizure and imprisonment. This economic disparity in enforcement revealed how public health policy became a tool of social inequality.

4. Sanitation vs. Vaccination: Environmental improvements proved more effective than vaccination. The document provides compelling evidence that sanitation improvements, not vaccination, led to the greatest reductions in smallpox. Prussia's experience particularly demonstrated this, where massive vaccination failures were followed by successful disease control through sanitation reforms.

5. Medical Profession Division: Doctors were split between financial interests and scientific skepticism. The vaccination debate created a profound divide in the medical community, with some doctors questioning the practice while others, potentially influenced by financial incentives from public funds, continued to support it.

6. Safety Concerns: Vaccination carried serious risks that were often downplayed. The presentation of 6,000 injury cases and 800 deaths to the Royal Commission, along with documented cases of disease transmission through vaccination, highlighted the procedure's dangers. The inability to guarantee pure lymph added to these concerns.

7. Legislative Evolution: Compulsory vaccination laws became increasingly strict despite mounting evidence of failures. Starting with the 1840 act and becoming more stringent by 1853, vaccination laws grew more coercive even as evidence of their ineffectiveness accumulated.

8. Military Experience: Even strict military vaccination policies failed to prevent outbreaks. Despite having the most rigorously enforced vaccination programs, military units still experienced significant smallpox outbreaks, challenging claims about vaccination's effectiveness.

9. Government Response: Officials often attempted to cover up vaccination failures. Cases like Emily Maud Child's death revealed how authorities would go to great lengths to avoid acknowledging vaccination-related injuries and deaths.

10. Personal Liberty: The anti-vaccination movement became a broader fight for personal freedom. Opposition to vaccination evolved into a larger struggle for civil liberties and conscience rights, particularly regarding medical choice and parental authority.

11. Scientific Methodology: Early vaccination development lacked scientific rigor. The document reveals how vaccination theory developed through a combination of folk wisdom, limited experimentation, and commercial interests rather than systematic scientific investigation.

12. Public Health Policy: The debate revealed fundamental questions about state medical intervention. The controversy highlighted tensions between public health goals and individual rights, raising questions about the proper role of government in medical decisions that remain relevant today.

30 Questions & Answers

Question 1: How did Edward Jenner develop his vaccination theory and what was his background and qualifications?

According to the address, Jenner had humble beginnings and never passed a medical examination in his life. He initially practiced as a "Surgeon, apothecary" without formal qualifications, and only obtained his medical degree twenty years into practice by communicating with a Scottish University for the sum of £15. While he later obtained a Fellowship of the Royal Society, Dr. Norman Moore, his biographer, had to confess it was "obtained by little less than a fraud" through writing an extraordinary paper about a cuckoo that was filled with absurdities.

The development of vaccination came from Jenner hearing tales from dairymaids about cow-pox preventing smallpox. His first experiment involved James Phipps, whom he inoculated with lymph from a cow-pox vesicle and later attempted to infect with smallpox. When this failed, Jenner declared it a success, though critics point out he had only completed one experiment in his life, which did not prove anything conclusively.

Question 2: What was the state of public health and sanitation in London during the early vaccination period?

London during Jenner's time was described as incredibly unsanitary. The streets were nothing but cobblestones, so narrow that people could shake hands across them. Fresh air was scarce, and sanitary arrangements were completely absent. Water came from conduits and wells in the neighborhood, with no water closets or drainage systems existing at all.

The conditions were particularly dire around Old St. Paul's Churchyard in Covent Garden, where bodies were buried just a foot below the soil, and people had to burn frankincense at night to combat the stench. Those who could afford it had houses on opposite sides of the Fleet river, moving between them depending on which way the wind blew to avoid the worst of the smell. Notably, sanitary improvements began in London as early as 1766, and smallpox began to decline as a consequence before vaccination was invented.

Question 3: How did vaccination practices evolve from folk medicine beliefs about cow-pox?

The practice originated from a widespread belief among dairymaids that those who contracted cow-pox would not get smallpox. This folk wisdom was part of a broader tradition of folk remedies and superstitions, similar to beliefs about preventing rabies by carrying hound's tongue or taking dog rose root for dog bites. The idea depended upon what Hadwen called "the jingle of cow-pox and small-pox."

Jenner took this folk belief and attempted to give it scientific legitimacy, though he went through several iterations of his theory. When faced with evidence that people who had cow-pox could still get smallpox, he invented the concept of "spurious" cow-pox versus "genuine" cow-pox to explain the failures. He later experimented with "horse-grease cow-pox" before returning to his original theory when public opinion turned against this variation.

Question 4: What role did Lady Montagu and early inoculation play in the development of vaccination?

In 1721, Lady Wortley Montagu, wife of the then Ambassador, introduced inoculation to England after observing the practice in Turkey. She wrote letters to London describing how everyone in Turkey was being inoculated with smallpox. Coming from someone of her social standing, this endorsement made the practice fashionable throughout England's upper classes.

The practice of inoculation was based on the belief that smallpox was an inevitable evil influence that everyone must face before death. The idea was to give people a mild case when they were healthy and could resist it better. This practice originated in India, where there was a smallpox goddess named Matah, and people would inoculate themselves to appease her. However, this method often spread the disease tremendously, and between 1700 and 1800, smallpox became more prevalent as people were given the disease through inoculation.

Question 5: How did the Compulsory Vaccination Acts develop and what were their key provisions?

The Compulsory Vaccination Acts evolved through several stages, beginning in 1840 when vaccination was first paid for out of public rates. The initial act made it illegal to inoculate with smallpox, punishable by one month's imprisonment. By 1853, a more comprehensive Compulsory Vaccination Act was passed, which the speaker and his audience were protesting against.

The Act required all children to be vaccinated, with parents facing fines, seizure of goods, or imprisonment for non-compliance. The law was particularly criticized for its unequal application - wealthy individuals could pay a fine and avoid vaccination, while poor families faced more severe consequences. The enforcement became increasingly strict, particularly in Prussia, where children had to be re-vaccinated when starting school, entering college, and joining the military, with some facing up to ten insertions in each arm.

Question 6: What were the main differences between cow-pox and smallpox according to vaccination critics?

Cow-pox and smallpox were described as fundamentally different diseases with distinct characteristics. Cow-pox was portrayed as a localized condition occurring only on the teats of cows, specifically when they were in milk, and only in the female animal. It resulted in an ugly chancre and was not infectious. This specificity of location and host was emphasized as a key distinguishing factor.

Smallpox, in contrast, was described as having no such limitations. It could affect any part of the body, wasn't limited by gender, and was highly infectious. The course and symptoms of the two diseases were described as totally different, with critics arguing there was no valid analogy between them. Even attempts to convert one into the other, such as Badcock's experiments inoculating cows with smallpox, failed to produce cow-pox, leading French scientists to conclude such conversion was impossible.

Question 7: How did the medical profession become divided over vaccination?

The medical profession split into two distinct sections over vaccination. The majority believed vaccination, despite its risks, was the only remedy for smallpox. However, a minority, including the speaker, believed sanitation rather than vaccination was the answer, arguing this approach carried no risk at all. This division created significant professional tension and debate.

The split became more pronounced as vaccination became compulsory and tied to financial interests. Doctors who supported vaccination received payment from public funds, while those who opposed it often faced professional criticism. The speaker noted that intelligent, studious anti-vaccinators often knew more about the subject than the majority of medical men, highlighting how this wasn't purely a medical question but one of observation, history, and statistics that any intelligent layman could understand.

Question 8: What were the various sources of lymph used for vaccination and their associated problems?

Various sources of lymph were tried, each with its own complications. These included cow-pox, horse-grease cow-pox, spontaneous cow-pox, and even more exotic sources like buffalo-pox (which was abandoned due to its horrible stench). Doctors also experimented with lymph from sheep and donkeys, and some even suggested using powdered smallpox scabs in what was mockingly called a "small-pox omelette."

The quality and purity of lymph was a major concern. Public vaccinators were told to be responsible for the quality of lymph they used, but this was problematic as they couldn't guarantee its safety. Government Microscopist Farn admitted he could never guarantee the purity of lymph, and couldn't even recognize syphilis germs under the highest-power microscope. This uncertainty led to serious complications, including the transmission of other diseases through vaccination.

Question 9: What evidence was presented regarding vaccination's ability to prevent or mitigate smallpox?

The evidence presented against vaccination's effectiveness included several significant epidemics that occurred despite high vaccination rates. In Prussia, which had the most stringent vaccination laws in Europe, 124,978 vaccinated citizens died of smallpox in 1871-72, after thirty-five years of compulsory vaccination. The speaker also cited statistics from various hospitals showing that vaccinated individuals still contracted and died from smallpox.

The concept of mitigation (the idea that vaccination would make smallpox milder) was also challenged. The speaker pointed out that long before vaccination, there were naturally mild cases of smallpox, quoting Dr. Wagstaffe's 1721 observation that there were two kinds of smallpox - one which doctors couldn't cure and another which nurses couldn't kill. The speaker argued that claims about vaccination's mitigating effects were impossible to prove, as there was no way to know how severe a case would have been without vaccination.

Question 10: How did sanitation improvements affect smallpox rates compared to vaccination?

Sanitation improvements showed remarkable results in reducing smallpox rates. In Prussia, after the devastating epidemic of 1871-72, authorities introduced comprehensive sanitation measures: bringing good water into cities, purifying the river Spree, implementing complete drainage systems, and building better military barracks. Following these improvements, smallpox rates declined dramatically, leading to its near extinction in Prussia.

The speaker emphasized that while typhus fever and other zymotic diseases had decreased through sanitation, smallpox was ironically the only disease showing increased rates after thirty years of compulsory vaccination. The Registrar-General reported that by 1880, smallpox rates were 50 percent above the average of the previous ten years, despite vaccination being compulsory. This was presented as evidence that sanitation, not vaccination, was the key to disease prevention, with the speaker comparing attempts to prevent smallpox through vaccination to "preventing a thunderstorm with an umbrella."

Question 11: What statistics were presented about vaccination effectiveness in Sheffield?

The Sheffield epidemic of 1887 occurred in the worst quarter of the town, covering 135 acres previously condemned by the Government Inspector. The outbreak resulted in no fewer than 7,000 cases of smallpox and 600 deaths, despite extensive vaccination efforts. The data showed ten cases of smallpox under one year old, 87 cases under five years of age, and 241 cases between five and ten - all of these children were reportedly vaccinated.

More telling was that this area had been a persistent source of smallpox outbreaks, and even with 56,000 vaccinations performed, the disease continued to spread. The epidemic only ended when heavy rains washed the sewers and drains, clearing away filth from the gutters and streets. This natural sanitation accomplished what thousands of vaccinations had failed to achieve, supporting the argument that cleanliness, not vaccination, was the key to disease prevention.

Question 12: How were mortality rates affected by the Compulsory Vaccination Act?

After the 1853 Compulsory Vaccination Act, smallpox epidemics actually increased in severity. Between 1857-9, there were more than 14,000 deaths from smallpox; in the 1863-5 epidemic, deaths increased to 20,000; and in 1871-2, they totaled 44,800. While the population increased by 7 percent between the first and second epidemics, smallpox deaths increased by 41 percent. Between the second and third epidemics, population growth was 9 percent, but smallpox deaths rose by 120 percent.

In Leicester, statistics showed that when vaccination rates were high (98 percent of children vaccinated from 1868-72), the mortality rate for children under one year was 107 per thousand. However, when vaccination rates dropped to just two percent (1888-9), the general mortality of children declined to 63 per thousand. Additionally, the number of children dying from erysipelas had decreased from 10.3 to 4.7 per 10,000 deaths during this period of reduced vaccination.

Question 13: What were the key statistics regarding vaccination injuries and deaths?

According to the address, 6,000 cases of injury from vaccination were presented to the Royal Commission, with 800 deaths reported. These figures were described as coming from "the most reliable statistics" and represented what the speaker called "a very sorry fact." The injuries were particularly concerning because they occurred in healthy children who were compulsorily subjected to the procedure.

Beyond immediate injuries, the speaker cited a dramatic increase in infant syphilis following the Compulsory Vaccination Act. Before 1853, annual deaths from syphilis in children under one year did not exceed 380; the very next year, this number nearly doubled to 591. By 1883, infant syphilis deaths had reached 1,813, representing a four-fold increase in infants since the passing of the Act, while adult rates remained relatively stable.

Question 14: How did Prussia's vaccination results compare to other countries?

Prussia, which had supposedly maintained better vaccination records than any other European country except Sweden, implemented extremely strict vaccination laws. Starting in 1834, twenty years before England's Compulsory Vaccination Act, Prussia required multiple vaccinations: at birth, school entry, college entry, and military service. The enforcement was so severe that refusing vaccination could result in being forcibly held down and receiving ten insertions in each arm.

However, despite these stringent measures, Prussia experienced devastating smallpox outbreaks. In 1871-72, after thirty-five years of compulsory vaccination, smallpox claimed 124,978 lives among their vaccinated and re-vaccinated citizens. This catastrophic failure led Prussia to reform its approach, implementing comprehensive sanitation measures which proved more effective than vaccination in controlling the disease.

Question 15: What statistical methods were criticized in the vaccination debate?

The speaker heavily criticized the manipulation of statistics by pro-vaccinators. One example was the "statistical trick" revealed in Sheffield's epidemic report, where census collectors gathered data toward the end of the epidemic rather than at the beginning, after many unvaccinated individuals had been counted among the vaccinated class. This method of data collection was said to skew the results in favor of vaccination.

Another criticism focused on hospital statistics, where out of 1,457 cases, over 1,000 were left "undescribed," with no indication of vaccination status. The speaker argued that such incomplete data, upon which vaccinators based their case, amounted to fraud. He also highlighted how mortality statistics were manipulated by recording deaths from vaccination complications under different causes, such as "super-added disease," rather than attributing them to the vaccination itself.

Question 16: How did class differences affect vaccination enforcement?

The Vaccination Act was criticized as an "unequal law" that disproportionately affected the poor. Wealthy individuals could simply pay a sovereign fine and avoid vaccination without further consequences. However, poor families faced more severe penalties, including the seizure of their goods or imprisonment if they couldn't pay the fine. This class-based discrimination in enforcement was highlighted as a fundamental injustice in the system.

The speaker emphasized that a poor woman's child was just as dear to her as a prince's child was to its parents, yet the law placed poor families in a much harder position regarding their children's protection. This inequity was particularly galling because the poor, who often lived in worse sanitary conditions, were more vulnerable to complications from vaccination yet had fewer options for avoiding it.

Question 17: What legal penalties were imposed for refusing vaccination?

The legal consequences for refusing vaccination were severe and multilayered. Initially, parents faced fines for non-compliance, but if unable to pay, their goods could be seized. Those who still refused could be imprisoned. The system allowed for repeated prosecutions, meaning parents could be fined multiple times for the same unvaccinated child, creating an ongoing financial burden.

The implementation of these penalties was particularly strict in Prussia, where individuals could be physically restrained and forcibly vaccinated with multiple insertions if they refused to comply voluntarily. In England, the enforcement of these penalties fell to local authorities, with some regions being more aggressive in their prosecution than others. The speaker noted that the Gloucester Guardians were being urged to recommence prosecutions at the time of the address.

Question 18: How did the anti-vaccination movement organize and resist?

The anti-vaccination movement organized through public meetings, publications, and coordinated legal resistance. They established organizations like the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which also opposed vaccination. The movement gained particular strength in certain localities, such as Leicester, where they achieved significant reductions in vaccination rates through collective resistance.

The resistance was characterized by both intellectual and practical approaches. They published scientific critiques, gathered statistics, and presented cases of vaccination injuries to the Royal Commission. They also employed moral and religious arguments, comparing their struggle to historical movements for religious freedom and civil rights. The speaker encouraged listeners to make a "firm stand" against vaccination, framing it as a fight for liberty of conscience.

Question 19: What role did medical authorities play in enforcing vaccination?

Medical authorities served as both enforcers and advocates of vaccination policy. They were responsible for administering vaccinations, certifying their necessity, and in many cases, prosecuting those who refused to comply. The speaker noted that doctors were divided into "vaccinators and inoculators," with the majority supporting and implementing the vaccination programs.

These authorities were criticized for having financial interests in maintaining vaccination programs, as they received payment from public funds for performing vaccinations. The speaker also accused them of covering up vaccination injuries by attributing deaths to other causes and manipulating statistics to support their position. Their role in enforcement was particularly controversial when they supported prosecuting parents while being unable to guarantee the safety of the procedure.

Question 20: How did military vaccination policies differ from civilian ones?

Military vaccination policies were notably more stringent than civilian requirements. In the British Army, from 1860 to 1888, there were 3,953 cases of smallpox with 391 deaths, despite mandatory vaccination and re-vaccination. In Egypt in 1889, the death rate from smallpox among soldiers reached 1,750 per million, indicating the failure of military vaccination policies.

Interestingly, the speaker cited an incident where a regiment stationed at St. John's Wood was hastily moved away when smallpox broke out in London, suggesting that even military authorities lacked confidence in their own vaccination policies. This demonstrated a contradiction between the official stance on vaccination's effectiveness and actual military practice in response to disease outbreaks.

Question 21: What happened in the case of Emily Maud Child?

Emily Maud Child of Leeds became a tragic example of vaccination's potential dangers. After being vaccinated, she died, and a coroner's jury conclusively determined that syphilis from the vaccination caused her death. The case gained significant attention because a certificate documenting her cause of death was sent to the Government, prompting them to send an inspector to investigate.

The Government's response proved particularly controversial. Rather than addressing the vaccination's role in her death, the inspector photographed the teeth of other children, declared them syphilitic, and attempted to blame the mother herself. However, when independent investigators from the Royal Commission examined the case, they found no evidence of syphilis in the remaining children and determined the accusations against the mother were false. This case highlighted both the risks of vaccination and the lengths to which authorities would go to avoid acknowledging vaccine-related deaths.

Question 22: How was James Phipps used as an example in vaccination advocacy?

James Phipps served as Jenner's first experimental subject in 1796, when Jenner inoculated him with lymph from a cow-pox vesicle and later attempted to infect him with smallpox. When Phipps didn't contract smallpox, Jenner declared this single experiment a success and used it as the foundation for his vaccination theory. This one case became the basis for what would become mandatory vaccination policy.

However, the speaker criticized the scientific validity of using a single case as proof, particularly since Jenner never completed any other formal experiments. Furthermore, while Phipps was frequently cited as proof of vaccination's effectiveness, the speaker noted that he had not been inoculated with horse-grease cow-pox, which Jenner later declared was the only effective form. This contradiction was used to highlight the inconsistencies in Jenner's theories and the questionable basis for widespread vaccination policies.

Question 23: What experiences did nurses have with smallpox immunity?

The speaker addressed what he called "the small-pox nurse fable" - the claim that for 50 years, no nurse in any smallpox hospital had contracted smallpox due to re-vaccination. This claim was traced to Dr. Cory, who had created a card promoting this idea to mothers bringing their children for vaccination. When questioned before the Royal Commission, Dr. Cory admitted this was not actually true.

The reality of nurse immunity was more complex. At the Highgate Small-pox Hospital, nurses were often recruited from former smallpox patients, explaining their natural immunity. Moreover, nurses generally had better living conditions than their patients - good food, regular exercise, well-ventilated wards, and crucially, no fear of the disease. The speaker argued that these factors, rather than vaccination, explained their relative resistance to smallpox. He cited examples from the Paris smallpox hospital, where 200 re-vaccinated nurses were documented, of whom 15 contracted smallpox and one died.

Question 24: What happened to John Baker in the horse-grease experiments?

John Baker's case represented one of the darker episodes in vaccination experimentation. Jenner inoculated the boy with horse-grease taken directly from a horse's heels as part of his experiments to develop what he believed would be a more effective form of vaccination. He intended to later inoculate Baker with smallpox to test the procedure's effectiveness.

Tragically, Baker died in the workhouse shortly after the inoculation from what was described as a "contagious fever" contracted from the procedure. The speaker used this case to illustrate the dangerous and experimental nature of early vaccination practices, noting that Baker's death occurred before Jenner could even complete his intended experiment. This case was presented as an example of the human cost of vaccination development and the ethical issues surrounding medical experimentation.

Question 25: How did different doctors' personal views on vaccination evolve?

The evolution of medical opinions on vaccination showed interesting patterns. Some doctors, like Dr. Creighton and Dr. Crookshank, began as conventional practitioners but became vocal critics after investigating vaccination's scientific basis. Their research led them to denounce vaccination as a superstition and a fraud, demonstrating how detailed study could change professional opinions.

Conversely, the speaker noted how many doctors accepted vaccination without much critical examination, particularly when Jenner added impressive credentials to his name. This highlighted a trend where medical authority, rather than scientific evidence, often determined acceptance of vaccination. The speaker also described cases where doctors maintained public support for vaccination while privately harboring doubts, suggesting professional pressure influenced stated opinions more than scientific conviction.

Question 26: What arguments were made about personal liberty versus public health?

The central argument against compulsory vaccination centered on the fundamental right of individuals to make medical decisions for their children. The speaker emphasized that vaccination laws represented an unwarrantable interference with parental responsibility and liberty, particularly offensive in England, which had boasted of civil and religious freedom for generations past.

The debate extended beyond individual rights to question the very nature of state medical intervention. The speaker argued that if vaccination were truly effective, it would speak for itself and not require legal enforcement. The fact that compulsion was necessary suggested a lack of confidence in the procedure's merits. This was contrasted with other public health measures, like sanitation improvements, which gained public support without requiring legal mandates.

Question 27: How was medical authority challenged by anti-vaccinators?

Anti-vaccinators challenged medical authority on multiple fronts. They argued that vaccination was not purely a medical question but one of observation, history, and statistics that any intelligent layman could understand. The speaker pointed out that many educated anti-vaccinators actually knew more about the subject than most medical practitioners, having studied it more thoroughly.

The challenge to medical authority also focused on exposing conflicts of interest and statistical manipulation. Anti-vaccinators scrutinized medical claims, cross-examined evidence presented to commissions, and highlighted cases where medical authorities attempted to cover up vaccination injuries. They particularly emphasized how financial incentives influenced medical support for vaccination, noting that doctors received payment from public funds for performing vaccinations.

Question 28: What ethical concerns were raised about experimentation?

The ethical issues surrounding vaccination experimentation were numerous and serious. The speaker highlighted the case of John Baker and other children who served as experimental subjects without any guarantee of safety or efficacy. The practice of using healthy children for potentially dangerous procedures was particularly criticized, especially given that public vaccinators were required to only vaccinate healthy children.

Questions were also raised about the ethics of using various animal sources for vaccine lymph. The speaker described disturbing methods of obtaining lymph from calves, including strapping them down, shaving their abdomens, and making multiple punctures. The subsequent sale of these calves for meat added another layer of ethical concern. The speaker argued that such practices, combined with the inability to guarantee the safety of the lymph, made the entire process ethically questionable.

Question 29: How did religious and moral arguments factor into the debate?

Religious and moral arguments against vaccination often focused on the concept of deliberately introducing disease into healthy bodies. The speaker compared this to the biblical principle of reaping what one sows, suggesting that vaccination violated natural and divine law. The movement often drew parallels between their struggle and historical religious persecution, comparing their resistance to that of religious reformers and martyrs.

Moral arguments particularly emphasized the compulsory aspect of vaccination. The speaker noted that the Act primarily affected "the best classes of the country, the earnest, honest people, the Sunday school teachers, who love their children and their homes." This framing positioned vaccination resistance as a moral stand against government overreach, linking it to broader traditions of conscientious objection and civil disobedience.

Question 30: What arguments were made about informed consent and medical risk?

The issue of informed consent centered on the inability of medical authorities to guarantee vaccination's safety. The speaker emphasized that no medical practitioner in Britain would admit there was risk-free lymph, yet they continued to enforce vaccination on unwilling participants. This contradiction between acknowledged risks and compulsory treatment formed a key argument against the practice.

The speaker particularly criticized the unequal distribution of risk and choice. While doctors could not guarantee against serious complications or death, they faced no legal consequences when vaccinations resulted in injury or fatality. Meanwhile, parents who refused vaccination faced legal penalties, creating a system where those enforcing the procedure bore none of its risks. This disparity in accountability and choice became a central argument in the campaign against compulsory vaccination.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.