Independent Media & Commentary from the Cursed Prophetess of Troy
Primary Menu
Author: cassandrasboxmedia
Independent Writer from the UK, blending alternative media perspectives, gender critical views, conspiracy, left wing politics and economics, support for Julian Assange and alternative spirituality.
Smallpox vaccination, as practiced for most of the 19th century, was an exercise in filth spreading. It was done via arm to arm vaccination, that is by raising a pustule on one person’s arm and then using that pustule to vaccinate other people in a long chain of vaccinations which went back to an original vaccination with cow pus. This led to a significant spread of disease and vaccine death – that could be covered up by ignoring the source of the disease.
Syphilis
One disease that was spread during the practice of vaccination was syphilis.
It was of course known in the 19th century that syphilis could be spread by sexual activity and could be passed from mother to child (congenital syphilis). Over time, it became more and more obvious that vaccination could also spread syphilis, although this was denied by the authorities for many years.
Statistical evidence pointed to the increase in death from syphilis among young children under compulsory vaccination in the United Kingdom. In 1847, before compulsory vaccination, the number of deaths was 255 in England for children under 1 year. By 1884, the number of deaths had increased to 1733. The number shows a steady increase over this time period.
[Table from Creighton’s Cowpox and Vaccinal Syphilis]
There were also several anecdotes that demonstrated the possibility of syphilis after vaccination. P. A. Taylor cites cases where multiple people were given syphilis by vaccination from the same vaccinifer, for example a case where 29 out of 38 children vaccinated contracted syphilis.
Infant syphilis deaths were covered up by blaming the mother’s alleged immorality.
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis, or consumption, was a common cause of death in the 19th century.
In the UK and Europe, consumption caused widespread public concern during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was seen as an endemic disease of the urban poor. By 1815 it was the cause of one in four deaths in England. Up from 20% in 17th century London. In Europe, rates of tuberculosis began to rise; in the early 1600s and peaked in the 1800s when it also accounted for nearly 25% of all deaths. Between 1851 and 1910 in England and Wales four million died from consumption. More than one-third of those fatalities were aged 15 to 34; half of those aged 20 to 24, giving Consumption the name the robber of youth.
Anti-vaccinationists suspected that one of the reasons that it was so prominent was vaccination.
In all European armies, vaccination is the order of the day. On their arrival with their corps, the young soldiers are forthwith carefully revaccinated. Now, the military statistics of all countries show an enormous proportion of various forms of tuberculosis among soldiers, especially during the first and second year after their enlistment. […] To sum up, the young soldiers find with their corps material conditions of life, which, for a very large number, are superior to those of their native surroundings. […] Whence then can come these attacks of tuberculosis, so sudden, so numerous, upon subjects that, but a few months before, the council of revision rightly declared to be fit for service.
Some also believed that because cattle can be subject to tuberculosis, the ‘glycerinated calf lymph’ method of extracting vaccine matter (infecting a cow with smallpox and then extracting the matter) might pose a risk.
Leprosy
The spread of leprosy via vaccination was significant mainly in imperial possessions. As colonialism was widespread in the 19th century, one of the items imposed and cajoled onto the native populations was vaccination.
William Tebb describes the situation in Hawaii regarding leprosy. He states that it was completely unknown prior to the introduction of vaccination, but since vaccination was introduced it had spread:
In a leading article on “The Nature of Leprosy” The Lancet, July 30th, 1881, p. 186, says :—” The great Importance of the subject of the nature and mode of extension of leprosy is evident from the steady increase in certain countries into which it has been introduced. In the Sandwich Islands [i.e. Hawaii], for instance, the disease was unknown forty years ago, and now a tenth part of the inhabitants are lepers. In Honolulu, at one time quite free, there are not less than two hundred and fifty cases.”
He goes into detail about how leprosy is spread, showing that while it is not spread by casual contact, it can be spread via inoculation or anything involving piercing the skin. He gives numerous examples of leprosy caused by vaccination and travelled to multiple countries in order to investigate the issue. He found cases not just in Hawaii but also India, South Africa, and other countries. Some cases had the first symptoms at the site of vaccination.
Conclusion
Vaccination was a proven method to spread diseases in the nineteenth century, and in fact, could spread much worse diseases than smallpox (since smallpox either resulted in recovery or death in most cases, whereas these other diseases often led to a slow increase in symptoms). As such the idea that vaccination was a life saver was fatally flawed.
Vaccine deaths have always existed, and have always been denied. This is a story of some of these forgotten vaccine deaths.
Inoculation Deaths
Inoculation, or variolation, was the practice of deliberately infecting someone with smallpox. This was the practice that was used prior to the introduction of the Jennerian method of deliberately infecting people with cowpox as a method to protect from smallpox.
This practice was very dangerous. The more sensible (if that’s the right word) inoculators admitted this risk, they just argued that the odds were better with inoculation than natural infection since they had observed that people generally only got smallpox once.
A man called Jurin (a pro-inoculator) collected statistical data on the question of inoculation. He stated that inoculation had a death rate of 1 in 48 (13 in 624). But that the natural disease killed 1 in 6, so that the odds were better with inoculation (of course, what this logic ignores is that you aren’t guaranteed to get smallpox, and even if you were, you might get it many years later, meaning many life years lost to inoculation).
The Case of John Baker
When Edward Jenner entered into this discussion, he performed experiments on children to attempt to prove that cowpox protected from smallpox. This bit is well known, what is less emphasised, however, is Jenner’s arguments relating to horse grease and cowpox. Jenner believed that there was more than one form of disease of the cow’s teat – horse grease cowpox and spontaneous cowpox. In his initial text, the Inquiry, he argued that the protective form of cowpox was the horse grease form. Jenner believed that the disease was essentially artificial in the cow. The chain of events was as follows, in Jenner’s mind: the horse developed a disease known as grease which affected the heels of the horse. The farrier would have to dress the heels of the horse, causing the disease to be on his hands. However, he also did double duty milking the cow, and as such, then spread the disease to the cow’s teat. Pustules and inflammation developed on the teat as a result and this was horse grease cowpox (which could protect from smallpox).
This is relevant because Jenner wanted to compare direct horse grease with horse grease cowpox. As such, he vaccinated two children, one with horse grease direct and one with cowpox. The child vaccinated with the horse grease was John Baker, a 5-year-old. Jenner had intended to test his immunity by inoculating him for smallpox, but he was ‘rendered unfit for inoculation’, Jenner said, by a fever he caught in the workhouse. The boy died and the most plausible assumption is that he died as a result of the vaccination experiment.
‘Preserving Vaccination From Reproach’
Vaccination death has always been covered up by the medical establishment. As critics of vaccination have pointed out, one way this is done is to put the symptom on the death certificate, but not the cause of the symptom. In this way it can be stated that the child died of erysipelas or some other condition, without blaming vaccination.
What is of interest is we have one case from the 19th century where a doctor openly stated they concealed vaccination as the cause of death on a death certificate. Henry May, a physician from Birmingham (United Kingdom) stated the following in 1874:
A death from Vaccination occurred not long ago in my practice, and although I had not vaccinated the child, yet in my desire to preserve Vaccination from reproach, I omitted all mention of it from my certificate of death.
For much of the twentieth century, deaths from vaccination were higher than deaths from smallpox. Smallpox declined due to increased sanitation:
A Mr. John Cryer, an ardent anti-vaccinationist, taught school in Bradford, Eng. One day he noticed a lad of about twelve years—a new pupil in school. He questioned him: “Where did you come from?” “Sheffield, sir.” “How long have you resided there?” “Six years, sir.” “How many are there in the family ?” “Six of us, sir.” “Then you were in Sheffield during the small-pox epidemic ?” “Yes, sir.” “Did any of you have the small-pox?” “Oh, no, sir, we lived in a front street.” That last sentence tells the whole story. It is worth more than a dozen reports of Local Guardians; worth more than whole columns of statistics. It hits the nail square on the head, and locates the disease. Why didn’t the lad say: “Oh, no, sir, we were all vaccinated?”
Vaccination also declined significantly after the mandates were eased and objection clauses inserted.
Nevertheless we have multiple deaths reported from vaccination. Between 1933-1946 there were 89 child deaths from vaccination according to the official statistics. During the same time 28 died from smallpox. This will likely be a large undercount due to the concealment of vaccination deaths.
This is a very small sample of death that has occurred as a result of smallpox inoculation and vaccination.
The media and governments put a large amount of effort into attempting to manipulate people into taking vaccines, or vaccinating their children. However, these manipulation strategies also exist at the level of the paediatrician. Doctors are armed with strategies that seek to manipulate you into vaccination. Now I would suggest avoiding a doctor’s office as much as possible, but nevertheless we should take a look at the strategies they use to trick people into taking vaccines. Partly to expose the strategy, but also partly to expose how unethical they are.
The CASE approach to ‘vaccine hesitancy’ (as they insist on calling rejection of vaccination) stands for “Corroborate, About me, Science, and Explain/advise.” The analysis of CASE below draws on this linked article to demonstrate the manipulation involved in ‘combating vaccine hesitancy’.
The first thing that we observe is that they need a specific strategy for explaining their case in the first place. I would suggest that this relates quite strongly to the psychology of the physician themselves. As Vaccination is a key Pillar of Faith in allopathic medicine, any challenge to vaccination, no matter how limited, is a threat to the paradigm. I would suggest that one function of having such a strategy is to get the physician to refocus their own thoughts and not get angry at the challenger to the Vaccine Faith (as anger is unlikely to convince anyone to vaccinate).
So let’s explore the strategy. The first aspect of the strategy, Corroborate, is meant to psychologically soothe the patient/parent, by signaling that the concern is acknowledged. This is done by signaling a limited form of acknowledgement of the statement, by stating that they understand where the criticism is coming from. Of course, the doctor won’t do anything such as actually take the concern seriously, no, that would be bad now wouldn’t it. We just have to pretend to humour the anti-vax nutcase so we can get them to jab, jab, jab.
The next step is About Me, that is, explaining how they are so much more knowledgeable on this issue than you. Now, I’m sure as they are always whining about how overworked they are, they have time to read multiple papers about vaccines and much historical discussion of vaccination a week. They completely ignore the fact that many anti vaccine parents have read more literature on vaccines than they have! I would hazard a bet that I have read more literature on vaccines than your average GP and I’m still improving and absorbing information constantly.
Next comes the Science, and by Science here folks we mean repeating information on the NHS/CDC, etc website. Then the explain/advise, which is why the doctor wants you to just take the vaccine already so that they can get more money for their practice. Furthermore, their explain/advise strategy is to try and push you into getting injected immediately, one of the examples given pushes the idea of getting vaccinated ‘today’. I don’t know if anyone’s ever done fraud awareness or the like. One thing you will get told on any fraud awareness webpage is that if anyone tries to rush you into doing something such as handing over details by invoking a sense of urgency that this a red flag for fraud. Now that really sums it all up, doesn’t it?
Image Credit: Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com
Edward Jenner is the ‘founding father’ in vaccine ideology. The official narrative holds that Jenner was some sort of genius, who discovered cowpox inoculation and thus saved millions of lives from smallpox. So let’s discuss Edward Jenner and his theories, from a critical perspective.
Did Jenner Discover Vaccination?
The short answer to this question is no. Jenner was not the first person to practice a cowpox inoculation to protect from smallpox. A farmer called Benjamin Jesty is known to have used a needle to scratch the cowpox virus into the arms of his wife and sons several years before Jenner. The idea of cowpox protection was not invented by either, but existed as rural rumour in certain parts of the country (see below on milkmaids). The beginnings of the ideology behind vaccination already existed in the practice of smallpox inoculation, that is, deliberately infecting people with smallpox to attempt to induce a mild disease rather than risk natural infection. Inoculation goes back a long time in certain parts of the world, such as China, and was introduced into the UK in 1721 by Lady Mary Montagu. Although there is a valid distinction drawn in histories of smallpox, ideologically inoculation is vaccination as we would use the term today, that is attempting to induce a mild form of the disease via artificial means (i.e. the lancet) to avoid natural infection.1
The Milkmaid Myth
Jenner’s encounter with a milkmaid is often outlined as the first exposure of the young Jenner to the cowpox-smallpox theory of protection.
It is a story often told. The author vaguely remembers hearing it in secondary school when she studied the history of medicine. When Jenner was 13, he was said to have overheard a milkmaid discussing her alleged immunity to smallpox based upon having had a cowpox infection.
As the story goes, an English milkmaid told physician Edward Jenner that she would never get smallpox — a deadly disease and a leading cause of blindness — because she had had cowpox, a mild, uncommon illness in cattle that can spread to humans through sores on a cow’s udder. The milkmaid’s reasoning — that infection with cowpox protected her from smallpox — was a common belief among dairy workers
This is said to have interested the young Jenner in the issue of cowpox as a smallpox preventative. The story has been used for decades to promote the myth of vaccination.
Alas this story is most likely untrue.
It is one of those tales, that when one thinks about it for a moment, has a mythical quality. But we can go further than this.
The above account was first related by a man called John Baron, who was Jenner’s official biographer after his death. Baron was well known for his sycophancy, to the extent that even modern pro-vaccinationists have considered this excessive. According to Crookshank, an anti-vaccinationist who studied the issue carefully in the late nineteenth century, Fosbrooke, the first biographer of Jenner, did not mention this incident (p.127). While Crookshank does not question the whole incident, Baron’s well known sycophancy and desire to give Jenner priority for the vaccine ‘discovery’ gives him a strong motive to fabricate the tale. (And let’s be honest, the idea is rather romantic and makes a good story).
If Jenner did not originate the idea and did not perform the first vaccinations, what was his contribution? One could suggest Jenner’s writings on the topic formalising the idea. This is where Jenner does have some claim, since it seems he was the first to formally put forward in print the idea of cowpox vaccination. However, we can ask ourselves what this research actually amounted to. Men such as Baron would have us believe that Jenner’s works on the topic were filled with extensive research and strong scientific methodology. What is the truth?
Jenner’s initial paper on cowpox, An Inquiry Into the Causes and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ, was published in 1798. However, there was an earlier version of the paper. Jenner was a member of the Royal Society due to a paper he had published about cuckoos. He sent this earlier version of the paper to the Royal Society in 1796 – however they rejected the paper. They thought that it might negatively affect Jenner’s reputation.
For our purposes, we will only focus on the evidence Jenner brings forward for the claim that cowpox protects against smallpox and not about Jenner’s other speculations (about the origins of cowpox, etc). If we look at the original 1796 paper, that Jenner considered worthy of Royal Society publication, we can examine the evidence Jenner had for his theory. Crookshank discusses the 1796 rejected paper in detail.
For his evidence, Jenner first lists 10 ‘cowpoxed milkers’, that is, 10 milkers who had natural cowpox infections (some a long time ago). These milkers proved insusceptible to smallpox inoculation. Then Jenner outlines the case of his first vaccination, that of the 8-year-old James Phipps. He vaccinated Phipps with cowpox, and then several weeks later inoculated him for smallpox. The inoculation did not ‘take’, thus proving in Jenner’s mind the theory of protection. This is the sum total of the evidence for cowpox inoculation in the 1796 version of the paper (Chapter 7). The 1798 paper adds some more evidence, a couple more cases of milkers and a chain of cowpox inoculations (although, it seems he only performed the inoculation test on 3 of those, plus Phipps). Jenner drew the conclusion from this evidence that cowpox provided life long protection against smallpox infection.
As we can see from this discussion, Jenner had limited evidence for his claims and draws excessive conclusions from this limited evidence.
1 for accuracy, the Chinese used a method of putting smallpox sores in the nose, but the method used in Europe involved the lancet.
Currently, the varicella vaccine is not on the UK childhood vaccine schedule, but as of yesterday, the JVCI is seeking to change this.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended a vaccine against varicella, commonly known as chickenpox, should be added to the UK’s routine childhood immunisation programme.
The vaccine would be offered to all children in 2 doses, at 12 and 18 months of age.
The committee has submitted its recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), which will take a final decision on whether to implement a programme.
It will probably be rubberstamped, so that they can start giving the vaccine as soon as possible. Of course, we should just ignore the evidence that the JCVI is corrupt and ignored real problems with the Urabe MMR vaccine. Pharma profit is clearly much more important.
The vast majority of people remember getting chickenpox as a child. What happened? You were off school for a week and itched a lot. That was about it. Nothing happened. Your parents weren’t worried. The school wasn’t worried. No one cared. You were possibly told that if you get the chickenpox young, you’re better off. And we need a vaccine for this?
The JVCI has come up with a model to address this problem. Because many people are probably thinking exactly the same as what I’m thinking, even if they support some vaccines. Kind of like when even many Covid fanatics drew the line at injecting mRNA into their five year old because there was no benefit.
The purported justification for this vaccine is some really rare, fringe cases where someone got significantly sick. As such we should inject all healthy children with chickenpox vaccines. Of course this is nuts. The model seeks to play up the risks of chickenpox, and claims that the risks have been underestimated, well of course, what else are they going to say? Now of course we should probably be a bit scpetical given the UK government’s track records with modelling (Neil Ferguson is quite strongly coming to mind at this stage).
The rate of vaccination injury is not even considered in the JVCI model. Even if we assume the vaccine is effective, a very low rate of vaccine injury will massively outweigh any benefits of saving people from chickenpox since well, chickenpox just isn’t very deadly (I can’t believe I have to point this out). Yet the JVCI page online does not mention that adverse reactions as a consideration in their model. Parents having to take a week off work is considered though. Because that is far more important than vaccine injury.
Even more horrible, they want to stick this in MMR, yes, they want to make the MMR vaccine even worse. The only mention of vaccine injury comes in this section with a reference to increased febrile seizures with a combined MMRV vaccine as opposed to MMR + V vaccines. Honestly this rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while children are poisoned to death. Nevertheless rare, not of concern, etc, standard pro vaccine spiel.
They also seek to justify why they want to promote the vaccine at this time, since, they previously rejected the idea of chickenpox vaccines:
Due to the larger pool of varicella-susceptible children following the pandemic restrictions and, as vaccination is predicted to significantly decrease circulation of varicella, susceptible people may continue to be vulnerable to catching varicella as they head into adulthood.
In other words, let’s use the lockdown that we did to push more of what we want: or, problem-reaction-solution.
They also state that the vaccine recommendation will put us in line with other countries like the United States. Yeah, because we really want to be in line with the United States’ vaccine insanity.
In conclusion, this rather odd sentence from the recommendation stuck out to me:
The community arm of the study estimated the quality adjusted life year (QALY) loss in cases which would not be captured in any medical datasets. This study aimed to assess the impact of mild varicella on quality of life, healthcare use and the financial and health impact on the family unit.
As we can see from the above information, a study was literally done on ‘mild varicella’ i.e. being off school and itching for a week and its effects on ‘quality of life’ and ‘the family unit’. This may seem a bit nuts but trivial, i.e. why would anyone study the effect of being mildly sick for a week? In fact it shows the deeper hubris involved in the vaccination program. All minor inconveniences caused by Nature must be abolished even if it’s being itchy for a week. Consequences? What are those? The idea of a vaccine for everything, no matter how rare or trivial, proves that vaccination is not about our health, but pharma profits and medical hubris.
I have mentioned in previous articles the cult of sterility and cleansing that exists as part of the practice of vaccination. Images such as the white coat, sterile room, mask, etc. promote the idea of the sterile and cleanliness.
The receipt of the injection is a cult ritual. It is a sacred act. One is prepared for the receipt of the injection by the doctor, the modern day priest. The clean sterile environment, free of danger, germs, serves like the stained glass of old – to induce reverence, and as a reminder of what bounty one (or one’s child) will receive for undergoing the pain of the needle – a sterile, germ free body.
However, the actual historical practice of vaccination is at odds with that sterile image. One of the paradoxes of vaccination has always been that it has sought to purify via defilement, to prevent disease by invoking it. Nowadays, the process has been so sanitised that the disease is barely invoked, being a few dead particles of virus that while bringing forward horrific injuries does not create the disease it attempts to protect from.
This was not always the case. The defilement aspect was much more obvious in historical vaccination and inoculation. Historically, inoculation/vaccination was performed by taking matter from a pustule. Sometimes, the matter was preserved on another surface before being rubbed into a wound made with a lancet; on other occasions, it was rubbed directly into the wound. For example, when performing his first vaccination, Edward Jenner took matter from a pustule on the hand of a milkmaid; her hand had become infected with cowpox from milking the cow.
THE more accurately to observe the progress of the [cowpox] infection, I selected a healthy boy, about eight years old, for the purpose of inoculation for the Cow Pox. The matter was taken from a sore on the hand of a dairymaid, who was infected by her master’s cows, and it was inserted, on the 14th of May, 1796, into the arm of the boy by means of two superficial incisions, barely penetrating the cutis, each about half an inch long.
In reality, although vaccination purported to be cowpox inoculation, there were multiple sources of ‘vaccine lymph’, with people experimenting with sheep pox, goat pox, and horse pox (Jenner believed that the cowpox came originally from the diseased heel of horses). Equine lymph in particular was significant in its usage.
For most of the nineteenth century, the kind of vaccination practiced was largely arm-to-arm vaccination. An initial set of vaccinations would have been performed direct from the cow or from a cowpoxed milkmaid who caught the infection via handling the teat. After the vaccinations had roused pustules on the arms of those undergoing the procedure, a vaccinifer could be selected to take a fresh batch of lymph from and carry on the chain of vaccinations. The vaccinifer would usually be selected by how well the vaccination ‘took’, that is the size and shape of the pustule produced, and whether it was adjudged to be a ‘good’ pustule.
This method came under criticism and was eventually banned. The replacement method ended up going back to the cow:
By referring to the cut on this page it will be seen that the living calf or heifer is first bound down on a movable tilting table, and its belly is shaved and on the clean, tender skin of a most tender part one or two hundred cuts or scratches are then made, as shown, and into these cuts or scratches is rubbed some “seed virus,” obtained directly or indirectly from human smallpox, and other known or unknown human or animal infections. Now after the calf has been inoculated as described, it is removed from the table and allowed to stand on its feet in its stall securely tied, and carefully fed and tended and allowed to remain thus for about a week, with its one or two hundred festering wounds gradually filling up with ulcerative or suppurative disease matter. At this stage the calf is now again strapped on the table for the collection of this accumulated disease matter.
What is the point of elaborating upon this information? Simply because when looked at objectively, the idea that this practice reduced disease is rather absurd. A priori, taking lymph from a pustule on another human being or an animal had the potential to spread many other diseases that were present in the vaccine lymph. There were multiple cases of syphilis from vaccination, and observed increases in infant syphilis deaths. There were contrasting views on the reasons for this rise, with Creighton seeing cowpox as essentially a form of syphilis where others believed the syphilis was spread along with the vaccine matter. Some other anti-vaccinationists, such as Alfred Russell Wallace, pointed to an increase in pyaemia (a form of sepsis) and skin diseases.
This contrast between historical and modern practices of vaccination reveals an interesting tension in the vaccine narrative. On the one hand, anyone would have to agree that the above procedures are unsanitary and dangerous, especially pro-vaccinationists, since they lived in morbid fear of the Covid virus, a disease much milder than smallpox or syphilis. On the other hand, any pro-vaccinationist would also argue that Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, and thus the procedures described above, reduced disease and death.
Recently, I have been reading some of the anti-vaccine literature written in the nineteenth century. There are many things fascinating about it, one of which was that the antivaxxers of the time were much less diplomatic than our antivaxxers. Take this excerpt from John Pickering, for instance:
Vaccination, then, is simply a vile, useless, mischievous, unnatural, and barbaric piece of quackery; a trade for fools, for sorcerers, snake-charmers, rain-makers, fakirs, and fetich worshippers,—not for men of education, not for men who profess acquaintance with the laws of nature.
Another notable point is the fact that the average person is probably not even aware of the fact that there were anti-vaccination activists, leagues, etc, in the nineteenth century that fought against compulsory vaccination laws.
Let’s step back a bit into the topic of this article. Vaccination in the nineteenth century meant vaccination for smallpox, as other vaccinations were not invented until late in that century. Edward Jenner was the original promoter of this practice, as an alternative to the then-practiced inoculation for smallpox. Inoculation essentially meant deliberately infecting people with smallpox, on the theory that everyone would get the disease anyway and after having it be immune, so it was better to deliberately inflict it at a time and place of choice, and with a mild version, rather than risk natural infection. As inoculation led to deaths from smallpox and risked spreading the natural infection, the idea of using vaccinia (cowpox) was an alternative approach that came to be promoted by Jenner. There was a prevalent belief that dairy maids would not get smallpox because of having cowpox, so Jenner ran experiments where he deliberately introduced cowpox to see if it would protect from smallpox.
Jenner’s conclusion was as follows:
When it has been uniformly found in such abundant instances that the human frame, when once it has felt the influence of the genuine cow-pox in the way that has been described, is never afterwards at any period of its existence assailable by the smallpox, may I not with perfect confidence congratulate my country and society at large on their beholding, in the mild form of the cow-pox, an antidote that is capable of extirpating from the earth a disease which is every hour devouring its victims; a disease that has ever been considered as the severest scourge of the human race!
This theory of ‘perfect security’, alas, fell apart pretty quickly. As early as 1805, William Rowley published many examples of vaccine failure. One could argue that Rowley was somewhat biased as he sought to defend the previous practice of inoculation against vaccination but nevertheless the evidence stacked up. How did the vaccinators deal with case after case of smallpox after vaccination?
What we see is a narrative change. Instead of the claim of ‘perfect security’ we see other claims come to the fore to defend the practice of vaccination. Some of these were that those who got smallpox after cowpox didn’t have the ‘genuine’ cowpox (a claim made by Jenner himself) or that the vaccination did not ‘take’ effectively. However by far the most interesting of these claims is that while vaccination did not always prevent infection, it did reduce the severity of the disease if you happened to contract smallpox.
Rowley refers to this argument:
But another refuge of the learned Cow-pox inoculators, after they seemed beaten out of many of their strong holds by opposing irrefutable facts, that could not be denied, then a new idea strikes the vaccinating mind, namely, that wherever Small Pox made its appearance, it would be wise to try another project — to inoculate the neighbouring children with the Cow Pox, in order to render the Small Pox milder.
Charles Pearce, writing much later, also refers to this argument made by the vaccinators:
It is no longer denied that the vaccinated do succumb small-pox, but it is contended that a certain amount protection is awarded. It is, moreover, assumed that those who recover from small-pox having been vaccinated, would probably have died had they not had some protection.
This kind of argument is now starting to sound eerily familiar. This is of course exactly the same claims made regarding the Covid ‘vaccines’: initially they said that you would not get Covid, and then when it became obvious that ‘breakthrough infections’ were everywhere, the narrative changed to the Covid ‘vaccine’ preventing severe disease.
Thus we can conclude that the same goalpost-moving has been used to prop up the vaccination fraud from the beginning.
I have always hated needles. Most children hate needles, but outside the superficial irritation of injection, we don’t ask why.
Children hate needles because the body knows what the mind does not. The mind knows the prick, the puncture, the afterneedle lollipop. The body knows so much more. The body remembers what the child does not – the fevers doused in paracetamol, the sleepless nights, the screech. The body felt the poison settle in its tissues, felt it leach from the injection site. The skin can heal, scab, but not the havoc on the body wreaked.
When the body observes and processes the sight of a needle, in the sterile doctor’s office, there must be a reaction. A child might cry or scream, an adult might flinch or recoil. They say to deal with trypanophobia that you shouldn’t look.
There is a reason they tell you that you shouldn’t look.
The original sin is not knowledge but hubris. Knowledge is to know the limits of one’s own mortal shell but hubris is to play god. To play god is to create in one’s image.
This creation is the specialty of the white-coat. The mother may birth children but the white-coat creates them. His creation is not what mother birthed; nature is overwritten with science. His creation is forced to bear his hubris, his role as modern day Frankenstein. The white-coat’s monsters are crafted without the scarlines that made Frankenstein’s monster so physically repulsive. It is not physical disgust that leads to the rejection of our modern monsters, but mental: bodies that there is seemingly nothing wrong with, and yet, everyone can tell from the gawkish awkwardness, that pervasive sense of offness, wrongness, unease, that fundamental defect.
Frankenstein – the ‘mad scientist’ – is the archetype of hubris, the fanatic with a plan that inevitably results in his demise. But the real peddlers of hubris are those seen as sober, sane, even boring. Those who dabble in jabs, in a standard establishment lab. Those who play dogsbody for Pharma, with pipettes and Petri dishes and cells from god-knows-where. Who go home to their spouse and children. Sit at the table. Watch the news, read the papers, go to the gym. Who would not be perceived as fanatical, extreme, or mad in any way. And yet who are the backbone of the utter, utter madness of vaccination.
No Frankenstein could create something so freakish as needlecraft.
Image credit: Photo by Chokniti Khongchum on Pexels.com
This article isn’t serious. It’s just taking the piss. We are going to break down a couple of articles from the MSM about one of their hate figures Dr. Andrew Wakefield. As we shall see, the media’s propaganda is pathetic, but you don’t need me to point that out. I’m just trying to be funny. (And I felt like some media arseholes deserved my undying scorn). I wrote this a while ago but because I am currently overwhelmed with crap I am struggling to finish research on more topics. So you all can have this instead.
Speaking in the measured, authoritative tones of an expert,
Yeah cos he is one.
Andrew Wakefield delivered his considered judgment on the coronavirus pandemic.
I have no doubt his judgement is more ‘considered’ than the people screeching about how we were all gonna die and posting feverish ‘case’ counts every day as if that shit was relevant to anything. (Remember when they did that in 2020? It seems surreal.)
For Wakefield, it’s not just an alarming time but also a heartening one. A poll found nearly a third of British people are either unsure or definitely wouldn’t take a vaccine for coronavirus.
You don’t need to support Andrew Wakefield to figure out that taking a product rushed to market based on a new technology never used on mass scale in humans before is kind of a bad fucking idea.
The survey was conducted for the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which also found that almost 60 million people in the UK and U.S. subscribe to anti-vaxxer content on social media.
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, you mean, the organisation who is less than transparent with who funds them, according to Dr Joseph Mercola? That one? Besides, what has ‘hate’ got to do with anything? If I state, “All vaccines are dangerous” what is ‘hateful’ about that? When I think of hate, I think of the Azov Battalion or something – oh no wait, sorry, they are now the Heroes Of Ukraine, I wasn’t up to date there with the latest Official Narrative, I apologise.
For the so-called anti-vaxxers
Funny you say ‘so-called’ because it’s generally you guys who call people that (even if they are not anti-vaxxers).
— for whom Wakefield remains a hero —
Yeah, so?
a world forced to communicate largely on the internet is a world particularly vulnerable to their scientific lies and twisted conspiracy theories.
Whose fault is that? Maybe you should have predicted that in Event 201. (They probably did predict that in Event 201).
During a ‘health freedom’ summit in May, Wakefield, the boyfriend of supermodel Elle ‘The Body’ Macpherson, looked cool and relaxed in a black yoga T-shirt as he chatted by video link to an adoring blonde interviewer.
Why is the interviewer’s hair colour relevant to this discussion? Outside of ‘haha look at the thick blonde bimbo’ garden variety misogyny?
‘One of the main tenets of mandatory vaccination has been fear, and never have we seen fear exploited in the way we do now with the coronavirus infection,’ he said.
Citing what he called ‘unambiguous’ evidence that the coronavirus is no more deadly than seasonal flu, and claiming that the pathogen’s death toll had been greatly exaggerated, Wakefield said the crisis had led to ‘a destruction of the economy, a destruction of people and families, and unprecedented violations of health freedom… and it’s all based upon a fallacy’.
Literally none of that is false.
I thought you were supposed to be making the case that Wakefield is a ‘conspiracy theorist’?
Describing vaccines as ‘intrinsically unsafe’,
True. Every single Big Pharma drug can cause significant harm to people who are susceptible to harm from that particular intervention. Vaccines aren’t exempt because magical fairy dust.
(I mean, I’d go a lot further than that, but you don’t need to for the statement to be true).
this valiant truth-teller called on free-thinking people to refuse to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if and when a jab becomes available.
If you are going to be as much of an idiot as you obviously are, don’t try the sarcasm game. Leave that to me.
‘If?’ lol as if they were ever going to let us off the hook by not introducing a vaccine.
Convincing his disciples that he was the victim of a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical industry, medical establishment and media, Wakefield now neatly argues that the same shadowy cabal are lying to the public about coronavirus.
“His disciples”? Seriously?
Having terrified one generation of parents — leading, some believe, to a spike in measles among children and a number of deaths in countries where a minority have promoted his claims — Wakefield is spreading fear and misinformation again.
Yeah guys Andy Wakefield is spreading fear. Not the guys who told you, ‘act like you’ve got it, don’t kill your grandma, cases are skyrocketing, hospitals are overwhelmed, we’re all gonna die’, they were just being rational and level headed and objective.
Critics also dismiss their hysteria about ‘compulsory’ vaccination as a red herring: this is illegal in Britain and has not been proposed in America.
Yeah this didn’t age well.
Interviewed for a TV series misleadingly called The Truth About Vaccines, Wakefield claimed that vaccines ‘are going to kill us’
This didn’t age well either. Yeah you might wanna google ‘died suddenly’.
Wakefield is handsome, charismatic and charming, and it’s no coincidence most of his supporters are women, often well-educated and well-heeled mothers.
Yeah, those women don’t support Andrew Wakefield because they saw their child regress after a vaccine and know what they saw, and he is one of the few people who will acknowledge that what they saw is real while the whole world tells them ‘it wasn’t the vaccine’. They just support him because they are sexually attracted to him. Amazing ‘logic’ on display from this writer.
While credulous celebrities are not exactly thin on the ground, anti-vaxxers have been delighted to welcome a more valuable ally in their efforts — an immunologist at University College Dublin named Prof Dolores Cahill. Dismissing the ‘hysteria’ over the pandemic, Cahill claimed that if people boosted their immune system with vitamins C and D and zinc supplements, 99 per cent could experience ‘just normal flu symptoms’ from Covid-19 and then be immune to the virus.
Cahill promoting the ‘conspiracy theory’ that Vit C, D, And Zinc improve the immune system. You can’t even take the piss out of this, it’s so ridiculous.
She further claimed that vaccines contain harmful ingredients such as aluminium or mercury
This quote doesn’t specify ‘vaccines’ for Covid – is the author of this article seriously trying to pretend vaccines don’t contain aluminium when it’s literally the adjuvant in most vaccines and that this fact is some sort of nutcase ‘claim’ by Cahill?
(and yes some of them still have mercury)
Wakefield lends arguments to people exasperated by the lockdown seeking to justify their rebellion against it, said Tara Smith, an infectious disease expert at Kent State University in Ohio, who has researched the anti-vaccine movement.
I have autism and I support Andrew Wakefield, research that. I’d like to see your theories on that one, go ahead.
Actually scratch that, I know what your theory would be. That I am just ‘self-hating’ and just need to see the magical land of neurodiversity and then I would live happily ever after. I’d still like to see you peddle it for a laugh though.
She wasn’t remotely surprised that Wakefield has latched on to coronavirus.
Wakefield didn’t have to ‘latch onto’ shit. You shoved Covid down our throats 24/7 for 2 years. Of course the whole world was bloody commenting on it at that point!
‘He has a huge following, it’s almost cult-like. Despite everything he’s done, they adore him.’
Yeah, it’s antivaxxers that are in a cult. Obviously.
The latest figures show only 89.2 per cent of one-year-old children received their first dose of the MMR jab in 2021-22, down from a peak of 92.7 per cent in 2013-14. It was the first time the figure had fallen below 90 per cent since 2010-11. Uptake of the second dose also fell to the lowest level in a decade at 85.7 per cent. Both doses are needed for full protection. [my emphasis]
When the MMR was first introduced [1988 in the United Kingdom] there was only one dose. Hence, I only had one dose of the MMR vaccine (that’s enough of that poison, thank you) – I guess I’m not ‘fully protected’ against measles, mumps and rubella. My life is still fucked though because of this poison (most likely the Pluserix vaccine they literally stopped using because it was too fucking dangerous as well, see image below and my post on Urabe vaccines) and I’m not even ‘fully protected’. Thanks for that, vaccine fanatics, go fuck yourselves.
Of course, no one else will bring up the fact that the only reason they had to introduce another dose is because the ‘protection’ from the MMR isn’t effective. Oh, don’t think it’s just the Covid jabs where they keep adding more doses! No!
The latest survey of 1,485 parents with children aged under four by the UK Health Security Agency found that 91 per cent think vaccines are safe. It also found 15 per cent of parents had seen on social media, or heard through friends, something that made them worried about their child being vaccinated.
Only 15%? Need to up our game, antivaxxers!
This suggested a “shockingly high” number of people have been regularly exposed to material causing them to question the safety of vaccines, said Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which monitors antivax content closely.
Oh this lot again.
[Wakefield] has used his Autism Media Channel to make videos asserting a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
Yeah, that’s kind of his thing, have you not been paying attention for the past 25 years?
In interviews, he has said that autism is an “epidemic”
How is this NOT an epidemic???
and predicts one in 32 children will have autism in the US by 2030.
Pretty sure his prediction for 2030 is higher than this.
Meanwhile, it is one in 30 NOW so how is he wrong?!
To his supporters, he sells “Andrew Wakefield was right” T-shirts for $20.
Oh dear god the horror. I guess we should also cancel M&S. After all they sell t-shirts online too!
“Parents searching for answers about illnesses that come down to the lottery of genetics and disease are quite often susceptible to answers where there is a villain,” Ahmed said. “Bad actors like Wakefield know that by giving people a form of false hope mingled with blame they can create further advocates for their lies.”
Yeah because parents are too stupid to notice when their child regresses after a vaccine. Need I remind the author that it was the parents of the children in the Lancet study who said their children regressed after the MMR?
Though his mainstream social media following is small, his influence comes through backing other antivax projects and other antivaxers promoting Wakefield’s films, the CCDH said.
Stop the press! This genius at the “Centre for Countering Digital Hate” has figured out how the internet works! If people like content online they share it and recommend it! Heck forget the internet, how about this is how real life works? I thought it was supposed to be me with the shitty social skills.
Those include Robert F Kennedy Jr, the nephew of the former US president John F Kennedy, and the American television producer Del Bigtree, who leads a Texas-based antivax group.
Yeah, we know who RFK, Jr. is.
The author does know that Vaxxed: From Cover Up to Catastrophe is also Bigtree’s film as he was a producer on it? Actually probably not. That would involve research.
Cassandra's Box 