Vaccination: Proved Useless and Dangerous (1889)

By Alfred R. Wallace – 35 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary

The mass poisoning of populations through trickery and force is a very old story.

In reading Wallace’s book, you’ll see how the formula of lies, deception, and coercion employed over 150 years ago was flawlessly repeated during Operation Lock Step.

Though the technology and poisons may have changed, the overarching pattern and method remained identical.

Wallace is significant—he published his theory of evolution by natural selection before Darwin. I’m certain he would be far more well known today if not for his outspoken opposition to vaccination.

In "Vaccination Proved Useless & Dangerous," Alfred R. Wallace presents a groundbreaking statistical analysis that challenges the fundamental assumptions about vaccination's effectiveness in preventing Small-pox. Published in 1889, this meticulous examination of forty-five years of registration statistics (1838-1882) reveals uncomfortable truths about mortality rates, data collection practices, and public health policy.

Wallace, employing rigorous statistical methodology and examining extensive data from civilian and military populations, demonstrates that vaccination not only failed to significantly reduce Small-pox mortality but potentially contributed to increased deaths from other diseases. The work directly confronts the medical establishment's claims, exposing flawed record-keeping practices, systematic bias in data collection, and the failure of compulsory vaccination laws to achieve their intended goals.

This comprehensive study, enhanced with diagrams and detailed statistical comparisons, presents a compelling argument against mandatory vaccination policies while raising serious questions about the relationship between medical authority, statistical evidence, and public health legislation.

With thanks to Alfred Wallace.

Vaccination Proved Useless And Dangerous Wallace

1.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Analogy

Imagine a city requiring all homeowners to install a specific type of expensive security system, enforcing this requirement with fines and jail time for non-compliance. The security company shows data claiming houses with their system are rarely robbed, but they count any house with visible damage to the security panel (which often occurs during break-ins) as "unprotected," even if the homeowner has proof of installation.

Meanwhile, independent researchers discover that:

1. The city's overall burglary rate hasn't decreased more than neighboring cities without mandatory security systems

2. Gated communities with 100% security system compliance still experience the same burglary rates as regular neighborhoods

3. Houses with the mandatory system are experiencing increased rates of electrical fires

4. The security company is counting break-ins as "non-protected homes" whenever the burglar damages the security panel, artificially inflating the effectiveness of their system

Just as this hypothetical security system mandate would be revealed as ineffective through proper statistical analysis, Wallace's study showed that mandatory vaccination was a costly, ineffective program perpetuated by flawed data collection and institutional bias rather than genuine effectiveness. In both cases, the supposed solution was mandatory, expensive, potentially harmful, and maintained by manipulated statistics rather than genuine results.

12-point summary

1. Statistical Evidence Against Effectiveness: The 45-year study demonstrated that vaccination failed to significantly reduce Small-pox mortality, with only a 57 per million reduction compared to Typhus's 382 per million decrease without mandatory intervention.

2. Military Population Contradiction: Despite being a "perfectly protected" population through strict vaccination and revaccination, military personnel showed Small-pox mortality rates comparable to or worse than civilian populations living in poor conditions.

3. Hospital Data Bias: A systematic bias in hospital record-keeping was revealed, where severe cases with obscured vaccination marks were routinely classified as unvaccinated, creating artificially inflated mortality rates for the unvaccinated population.

4. Disease Transmission Risk: The study documented a concerning increase in five specific diseases (including Syphilis and Cancer) coinciding with mandatory vaccination, with their combined mortality increase exceeding total Small-pox deaths.

5. Age-Related Patterns: Small-pox mortality followed natural age-related patterns regardless of vaccination status, being highest in infancy, lowest in adolescence, and rising again in old age.

6. Record-Keeping Manipulation: Medical practitioners admitted to deliberately omitting vaccination complications from death certificates to protect vaccination's reputation, revealing systematic data manipulation.

7. Sanitation Impact: General sanitary improvements showed greater success in reducing mortality from other diseases like Typhus, suggesting environmental factors were more significant than vaccination.

8. Naval vs. Army Comparison: The Navy's higher Small-pox mortality rate (157 per million) compared to the Army's (83 per million) demonstrated that confined conditions affected outcomes more than vaccination status.

9. Statistical Methodology: Wallace's use of deaths per million living rather than raw numbers eliminated population growth bias, providing more accurate trend analysis over the 45-year period.

10. Enforcement Failure: The occurrence of one of the most severe Small-pox epidemics after 33 years of compulsory vaccination demonstrated the failure of enforcement policies.

11. Verification Problems: The inability to verify vaccination status in severe cases where marks were obscured created a fundamental flaw in the entire statistical foundation supporting vaccination.

12. Cost to Personal Liberty: The enforcement of vaccination through fines and imprisonment represented what Wallace termed a "cruel and criminal despotism," sacrificing personal medical choice without demonstrable public health benefits.

35 Questions & Answers

1. What was the significance of the 45-year period chosen for analysis in Wallace's study?

The 45-year period (1838-1882) represented the complete series of available official records from the Registrar-General's statistics. This timespan provided the only trustworthy and comprehensive data set available for analyzing vaccination's effects on public health.

The length of this period allowed for observation of multiple epidemics, vaccination law changes, and long-term mortality trends. It captured the implementation of encouraged vaccination, compulsory vaccination, and penal vaccination, enabling analysis of each policy's impact on public health outcomes.

2. How did Wallace address population growth in his statistical analysis?

Wallace eliminated the effect of population increase by calculating deaths per million living rather than using absolute mortality numbers. This method provided true comparative results across different time periods and populations.

The approach allowed for accurate comparison between different sized populations and different years, preventing the distortion that would occur from using raw death numbers in a growing population. This methodology was particularly important when comparing urban areas of different sizes and military populations to civilian ones.

3. What methods were used to calculate death rates per million population?

Death rates were calculated using the Registrar-General's reports of deaths combined with census population data. The calculations involved dividing the number of deaths by the number of millions in the corresponding population, ensuring accurate representation of mortality rates across different population sizes.

For age-specific calculations, particularly for males between 15 and 55 years, Wallace used detailed census data to determine the proportion of males in this age range (0.528 of total males) and applied this factor to calculate accurate death rates for comparable age groups.

4. Why did Wallace choose to present the data in diagrammatic curves?

Diagrammatic curves were chosen to make the results clear and indisputable by presenting the figures for the whole period in a format that prevented manipulation through selective year comparison or special period division. This visual representation made the statistics intelligible to all readers, regardless of their statistical expertise.

The curves allowed for immediate visualization of trends, epidemics, and the relationship between different factors such as vaccination rates and mortality rates. This format also clearly demonstrated the lack of correlation between increased vaccination and decreased smallpox mortality.

5. How did Wallace account for age distribution in mortality statistics?

Wallace carefully separated mortality statistics by age groups, particularly focusing on the 15-55 age range when comparing military and civilian populations. This methodology ensured that comparisons between different populations were based on similar age distributions, preventing misleading conclusions from unadjusted data.

The age-adjusted analysis revealed that when properly compared, the supposedly protected military populations showed no significant advantage over civilian populations in similar age groups. This discovery challenged the common assumption that re-vaccinated soldiers and sailors enjoyed special protection against smallpox.

6. What were the key findings regarding Small-pox mortality trends between 1838 and 1882?

Small-pox mortality showed only a very slight diminution during the forty-five year period, with an average reduction of just 57 deaths per million per annum from the first to second half of the period. Most significantly, an exceedingly severe Small-pox epidemic occurred within the last twelve years of the period, demonstrating the failure of vaccination to prevent major outbreaks.

The mortality reduction was notably less impressive than that of other diseases, particularly Typhus, which showed a reduction of 382 per million - more than six times the reduction seen in Small-pox. This occurred despite increased vaccination enforcement and penalties during the period.

7. How did Small-pox mortality compare to other zymotic diseases during the study period?

Other zymotic diseases showed greater reduction in mortality than Small-pox, particularly during the last 35 years of the study. While Small-pox mortality decreased slightly, diseases like Typhus and Typhoid fevers demonstrated much more significant reductions in mortality rates, despite not having specific preventive measures enforced by law.

The mortality from the chief zymotic diseases decreased more consistently, though not proportionally as great due to increased deaths from Diarrhea in the latter half of the period. The contrast between Small-pox and other disease trends suggested that general sanitation improvements, rather than vaccination, were responsible for reduced mortality.

8. What evidence challenged the claim that vaccination reduced Small-pox severity?

The proportion of deaths to Small-pox cases remained virtually identical to pre-vaccination era rates, with hospital records showing 18.8 percent mortality in pre-vaccination times compared to 18.5 percent in the vaccination era. This similarity in death rates occurred despite improved medical treatment and hospital conditions in the nineteenth century compared to the eighteenth.

The consistency in mortality rates suggested that vaccination had no impact on disease severity, as vaccinated populations showed no improvement in survival rates when compared to historical data. This evidence directly contradicted claims that vaccination, while not preventing infection, made the disease less dangerous.

9. How did urban mortality rates differ across major cities?

Major cities showed significant variations in Small-pox mortality rates, with Manchester recording 131 per million, Leeds 119, Brighton 114, Bradford 104, and Oldham 89 per million for adult populations between ages 15 and 55. These variations occurred despite similar vaccination laws and enforcement across these urban areas.

Notably, several of these large towns had considerably less adult Small-pox mortality than the Navy, and some had rates only slightly higher than the Army, despite having populations living under far worse sanitary conditions. This comparison provided strong evidence against the claimed effectiveness of revaccination in military populations.

10. What patterns emerged in infant mortality rates versus adult mortality?

Infant mortality from Small-pox was consistently higher than adult mortality, following the general pattern of all-cause mortality rates. The death rate was greatest in the first year of life, then diminished gradually to between the 15th and 20th year, before rising again in old age.

This pattern was particularly significant because it occurred regardless of vaccination status, suggesting that age, rather than vaccination, was the primary determinant of mortality risk. The high infant mortality rates also complicated statistical analysis, as many deaths occurred before vaccination age.

11. What were the Small-pox mortality rates in the Army compared to civilian populations?

The Army showed a Small-pox mortality rate of 83 per million, which was particularly notable given that soldiers were subjected to stringent vaccination and re-vaccination requirements. This rate, while lower than some civilian populations, was not significantly better than several large towns with worse sanitary conditions.

The relatively high mortality rate in a supposedly "perfectly protected population" demonstrated the failure of re-vaccination to provide the claimed absolute protection against Small-pox. The Army's experience directly contradicted official statements about vaccination's effectiveness in military populations.

12. Why was the Navy's Small-pox mortality rate higher than the Army's?

The Navy's mortality rate of 157 per million was nearly double that of the Army's 83 per million, despite both services following identical vaccination regulations. The primary explanation suggested was the less efficient ventilation and isolation possible on board ships compared to Army hospitals.

This difference was particularly striking because the Navy's general mortality from disease was actually lower than the Army's, indicating that the higher Small-pox rate was due to specific conditions related to the disease's transmission rather than overall health conditions.

13. How did military vaccination requirements differ from civilian practices?

Military personnel were subjected to both vaccination and re-vaccination under the most stringent official regulations, creating what was termed a "perfectly protected population." This level of enforcement and compliance far exceeded what was achievable in civilian populations.

The military requirements created an ideal test case for vaccination's effectiveness, as it eliminated many variables present in civilian populations such as incomplete coverage or poor quality control. The failure to achieve better results under these optimal conditions provided strong evidence against vaccination's claimed benefits.

14. What evidence contradicted claims about military vaccination success?

The military data showed that there had not been a single year without two or more deaths in the Army, and only two years without deaths in the Navy. This contradicted widely circulated statements that Small-pox was "almost unknown" in these services.

These consistent deaths occurred despite the military's advantages of having young, healthy men living under good sanitary conditions with access to prompt medical care. The comparison with civilian populations, particularly those living in much worse conditions but showing similar or better mortality rates, further undermined claims of vaccination success.

15. How did sanitary conditions affect military mortality rates?

While general mortality rates showed the benefits of good military sanitary conditions, with both services having lower overall disease death rates than civilian populations, these advantages did not translate to proportionally lower Small-pox mortality.

This disparity between general health outcomes and Small-pox specific outcomes suggested that vaccination, rather than sanitation, was the key variable in Small-pox mortality. The fact that military populations with superior sanitation still suffered significant Small-pox mortality undermined claims about vaccination's protective effects.

16. What problems were identified in hospital vaccination records?

The recording of vaccination status was fundamentally flawed due to the inability to verify vaccination marks in severe cases. Confluent Small-pox, which was ordinarily fatal, often obliterated vaccination marks, leading to these cases being recorded as unvaccinated or doubtful, even when patients or families claimed vaccination had occurred.

Hospital records systematically misclassified cases, as demonstrated by multiple investigations where supposedly "unvaccinated" deaths were later proven to have been vaccinated. In one notable investigation by Mr. John Pickering of Leeds, 15 cases recorded as "not vaccinated" were proven to have been successfully vaccinated, with some having received multiple vaccinations.

17. How were "doubtful" cases classified in hospital statistics?

The "doubtful" classification primarily appeared in severe cases where vaccination marks were obscured by the disease, creating a systematic bias in the statistics. Before 1880, these cases were typically absorbed into the unvaccinated category, artificially inflating the mortality rates for unvaccinated individuals.

Significantly, mild cases were never classified as doubtful because vaccination marks remained clearly visible, creating an inherent statistical bias. The doubtful category received the worst cases but never any mild ones, leading to artificially high mortality rates in this group.

18. What evidence suggested systematic bias in vaccination status reporting?

Medical practitioners openly admitted to manipulating death certificates to protect vaccination's reputation. A striking example came from the Birmingham Medical Review, where a doctor confessed to omitting mention of vaccination-induced erysipelas as a cause of death to preserve vaccination from reproach.

Multiple investigations revealed systematic misclassification of vaccinated individuals as unvaccinated. In one instance at Preston, six out of ten supposedly unvaccinated fatal cases were proven to have been vaccinated, including one individual who had been revaccinated.

19. How did hospitals handle cases where vaccination marks were obscured?

Hospitals typically classified cases with obscured vaccination marks as either "unvaccinated" or "doubtful," even when patients or their families testified to previous vaccination. This practice was justified by medical authorities who claimed that only visible marks could confirm vaccination status.

This classification system created a self-fulfilling prophecy where the worst cases, which were most likely to obscure vaccination marks, were systematically recorded as unvaccinated, while mild cases with visible marks were properly recorded as vaccinated.

20. What role did medical prejudice play in record-keeping?

Medical authorities openly dismissed patient and family testimony about vaccination status, with Dr. Vacher stating that "mere assertions of patients or their friends that they were vaccinated counted for nothing." This prejudice led to the systematic discounting of vaccination histories unless supported by visible marks.

This prejudicial approach to record-keeping created a circular logic where the worst cases, being most likely to obscure vaccination marks, were recorded as unvaccinated, thereby supporting the predetermined conclusion about vaccination's effectiveness.

21. What correlations were found between vaccination and other diseases?

The study identified a steady increase in mortality from five specific diseases (Syphilis, Cancer, Tabes Mesenterica, Pyaemia, and skin diseases) coinciding with the enforcement of vaccination. The increased deaths from these diseases between 1855 and 1880 exceeded the total deaths from Small-pox during the same period.

This correlation was particularly concerning because these diseases were known to be transmissible through inoculation, and their steady increase coincided with more stringent vaccination enforcement. The study documented 478 cases of vaccine-syphilis alone, demonstrating the reality of disease transmission through vaccination.

22. How did Typhus mortality rates compare to Small-pox?

Typhus and allied fevers showed a reduction of 382 deaths per million, more than six times the reduction seen in Small-pox (57 per million). This dramatic decrease occurred without any specific preventive measures like vaccination.

This comparison was particularly significant because it demonstrated that general sanitary improvements and better medical knowledge were more effective at reducing disease mortality than compulsory vaccination. The greater success in reducing Typhus mortality without compulsory intervention challenged the necessity of mandatory vaccination programs.

23. How did mortality from various diseases change over the study period?

Each of the tracked diseases showed constant increases in mortality rates, creating a steady and continuous pattern when summed together. The progressive increase grew from 36 additional deaths per million in 1855-59 to 357 per million by 1880, demonstrating a consistent upward trend.

The spread of sanitation, cleanliness, and advanced medical knowledge should have rendered these diseases both less frequent and less fatal. The fact that they increased instead suggested a counteracting cause, which the study proposed might be vaccination itself.

24. How did all-cause mortality rates compare between military and civilian populations?

The adult male population of England showed an average mortality of 11,300 per million for ages 15-55, while the Navy recorded 11,000 per million from all causes and only 7,150 from disease. The Army's rate was 10,300 per million at home, demonstrating the general health advantages of military populations.

This difference in overall mortality demonstrated that military populations were generally healthier than civilians, making their similar or worse Small-pox mortality rates even more significant as evidence against vaccination's effectiveness.

25. What was the relationship between vaccination and reported skin diseases?

Skin diseases showed a steady increase in mortality coinciding with enforced vaccination, rising from 12 deaths per million in the 1850s to 22 per million by 1880. This increase occurred despite improved general medical care and sanitation during the period.

The correlation was particularly noteworthy because vaccination involved direct modification of the skin, and the increase in skin disease mortality paralleled the enforcement of vaccination laws, suggesting a possible causal relationship.

26. What were the key components of compulsory vaccination laws?

The laws enforced vaccination through a system of fines and imprisonment for noncompliant parents. These penal laws increased in severity over time, moving from encouraged vaccination to compulsory vaccination, and finally to penal vaccination with strict enforcement.

The legislation removed personal choice in medical treatment, requiring compliance regardless of individual beliefs or concerns about vaccination's safety or efficacy. The laws particularly impacted poorer families who could not afford to pay fines for non-compliance.

27. How did penal enforcement of vaccination affect public health?

Penal enforcement failed to achieve its intended goal of reducing Small-pox mortality, as demonstrated by the occurrence of one of the most severe epidemics after 33 years of official, compulsory, and penal vaccination. The strict enforcement actually coincided with periods of increased Small-pox mortality.

The laws created a "cruel and criminal despotism" that ignored mounting evidence against vaccination's effectiveness while potentially contributing to increased mortality from other diseases. The enforcement of vaccination coincided with increases in multiple inoculable diseases.

28. What administrative challenges arose in vaccination reporting?

The system faced significant challenges in accurately tracking vaccination status, particularly in cases where vaccination marks were obscured by disease progression. The administrative system relied heavily on visible vaccination marks rather than written records or patient testimony.

Record-keeping was further complicated by bias among medical officials who systematically discounted patient claims of vaccination unless supported by visible marks. This created a self-reinforcing system where the worst cases were typically recorded as unvaccinated.

29. How did legal requirements affect medical record-keeping?

Legal requirements created pressure on medical practitioners to support vaccination, leading to documented cases of deliberate misreporting. Medical officers admitted to omitting vaccination complications from death certificates to protect the practice's reputation.

The legal framework also influenced how "doubtful" cases were classified, with a tendency to record severe cases as unvaccinated when vaccination status couldn't be definitively proven, creating a systematic bias in official statistics.

30. What role did Parliament play in vaccination policy?

Parliament enforced vaccination through increasingly stringent laws despite mounting statistical evidence against its effectiveness. The legislative body relied on what Wallace described as "misstatements of interested officials" and "dogmas of a professional clique."

Members of Parliament were directly addressed in Wallace's work, being urged to conduct personal investigation into vaccination statistics rather than accepting official statements without verification. The author called for immediate repeal of vaccination laws based on the statistical evidence presented.

31. What were Wallace's main conclusions about vaccination effectiveness?

Wallace concluded that vaccination had proven both useless and dangerous, failing to prevent or mitigate Small-pox while potentially increasing mortality from other diseases. His analysis showed that the slight decrease in Small-pox mortality was less than that of other diseases that had no enforced preventive measures.

The statistical evidence demonstrated that vaccination could not be proved to have saved a single human life, while it had admittedly caused many deaths and was probably responsible for greater mortality than Small-pox itself through the increase in other diseases.

32. How did the study challenge established medical opinions?

The study directly contradicted medical authorities' claims about vaccination's protective effects, particularly in military and hospital settings. It demonstrated that supposedly "perfectly protected" populations showed no significant advantage in Small-pox mortality rates.

Wallace's statistical analysis exposed the circular logic and confirmation bias in medical record-keeping, showing how the classification system itself created the appearance of vaccination effectiveness by systematically misclassifying severe cases.

33. What alternatives to compulsory vaccination were suggested?

The study emphasized the effectiveness of general sanitation and improved living conditions, pointing to the greater success in reducing Typhus mortality through these measures compared to vaccination's impact on Small-pox.

Wallace advocated for removing compulsory elements from vaccination policy, arguing that any medical treatment should justify itself through demonstrable effectiveness rather than legal enforcement.

34. What reforms to medical record-keeping were proposed?

The study called for more accurate and unbiased recording of vaccination status, including proper consideration of patient and family testimony rather than relying solely on visible vaccination marks.

Wallace advocated for classification of cases by both age and eruption type, arguing that this was the only scientifically valid way to evaluate Small-pox mortality and vaccination effectiveness.

35. How did this study influence the vaccination debate?

The study provided a comprehensive statistical challenge to compulsory vaccination, presenting evidence that undermined the fundamental assumptions supporting vaccination laws. It demonstrated that forty-five years of registration statistics failed to support claims of vaccination's effectiveness.

The work became a cornerstone document for the anti-compulsory vaccination movement, providing scientific and statistical evidence to support the campaign for vaccination choice and the repeal of penal laws.

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.