Autism and Sexual Fetishism – A Match Made in Hell

Introduction

One of the lesser considered examples of vaccine damage inherent to autism is the connection between autism and sexual fetishism and paraphilias. This article will take a comparatively broad definition of the terms fetish and paraphilia, as sometimes these terms are defined as meaning the person with the fetish is only capable of experiencing sexuual arousal and orgasm via imagining or partaking in the fetish. This article will not be as strict by including cases where arousal etc are enhanced by the practise of the fetish.

A fetish, strictly speaking, is arousal from either a part of the body that is non-sexual (e.g. foot fetishes) or by an object (e.g. leather fetishes). Paraphilia is a broader term that includes arousal via other forms of sexual deviance, such as arousal via a class of persons (e.g. hybristophilia, attraction to criminals, usually notorious killers). This article will look at the evidence for a connection between autism and deviant sexuality.

Autism and Transgenderism

The connection between autism and transgenderism has been extensively discussed, and it is agreed by most analysts that there is a connection between these two factors.

However, one context that has been neglected is the connection between autism and transgenderism specifically as fetish. This section only considers those who adopt this transgender identity as a teenager or adult and does not include young children who were ‘transed’ by their parents at a young age due to motives such as Munchausens by Proxy or not wanting a gay son. Those children were led by parents and were too young to have a sexual motive.

Firstly, I will start with the evidence that transgender ‘identity’ is in fact a sexual paraphilia. Transgenderism as a concept began in the 1920s and 1930s with the case of Lili Elbe, but became developed as a concept in the 1950s and 1960s by sexologists such as John Money.

In the 1980s, Ray Blanchard coined the term autogynephilia, meaning men attracted to the idea of themselves as women. Blanchard defined four types of sexual arousal associated with autogynephilia: arousal from cross dressing, from ‘acting feminine’, from bodily functions (such as period fetishes), and having parts of a female body. Blanchard said that there were two types of men who identify as women, the homosexual transsexuals who are effeminate gay men and the autogynephiles.

Personally, I am not so convinced that there is no element of fetish with the homosexual male cohort as well. I think the paraphilic element for them is being so attractive and so feminine that they are able to attract ‘straight’ men, and they fetishise straight men as a group.

What about the women who identify as men? I think some observers have incorrectly dismissed sexual fetish among this group. I think the female impersonators are a bit more complex because there are some cases where it seems to be a trauma response similar to an eating disorder (some of the young females identifying as transgender today may well have reacted to trauma via eating disorders 20 years ago).

However, there is a large amount of fetish involved with the female transgender group. People in this group have often read a large amount of ‘slash’ or ‘yaoi’ fiction. This is fiction about gay men and gay male sex/relationships (usually) written by women. Many heterosexual women are interested in this type of fiction, and some take this interest to an extreme and start identifying with real gay men and seeking sexual encounters with gay men. They fetishise gay men. Also some of these women seem to have a sexual fixation on standing to urinate, which is associated with manhood.

From this evidence I would conclude that the majority of the time, transgenderism in men and women has a fetish motivation.

What about autism? Evidence that autism is linked to transgender identity is significant. The connection is even reported in outlets that promote autism and transgenderism. For example, this from the University of Cambridge:

Transgender and gender-diverse adults are three to six times more likely as cisgender adults (individuals whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth) to be diagnosed as autistic, according to a new study by scientists at the University of Cambridge’s Autism Research Centre. This research, conducted using data from over 600,000 adult individuals, confirms previous smaller scale studies from clinics.

The UK’s child ‘gender identity’ clinic showed even higher rates of autism.

An internal review discovered 372 of these patients – some 35 per cent – exhibited ‘moderate or severe autistic traits.’

It follows that sexual motivation is a likely motivation for pursuing transgenderism in autism.

Autism and CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material)

Even darker and more deviant, there is a connection between autism and viewing and collecting child abuse imagery.

In this case, because it is a criminal offence, there is no real statistical analysis that can be done. Before someone strawmans this argument, I am not saying all or even most autistics look at CSAM. I am suggesting it is likely that the proportion of autistic males who view CSAM may be higher than the proportion of ordinary males who look at CSAM.

However, what can be said is the following: there have been multiple convictions for viewing this material among autistic males. There are also admissions in recorded literature when autistic males were asked about viewing this content. One study called “Sexuality in Autism, Hypersexuality and Paraphilic Behavior in Women and Men with High Functioning ASD” found admission to paraphilias including paedophilia fetishes was more common among autistic males.

Furthermore, there is an article in a law journal called “The Asperger’s Defence In Digital Child Pornography Investigations”. This discusses its use as a legal defence. In itself, the fact that this article exists shows that this is a live issue in law, as there is no point writing an article about an irrelevant legal defence.

Why the connection?

After exploring the evidence we could ask why this connection exists. Here are some plausible explanations:

Autism is inherently connected to obsessive behaviour, and fetish involves an obsessive fixation on the non sexual as sexual.

Autism is inherently connected to social incompetence. High social incompetence leads to inability to form relationships which means sexual outlets via conventional relationships are unavailable. As such, there may be an increased reliance on pornography. Pornography is filled with extreme sexual degeneracy and is a problem in general society but is likely to be even more prominent among autistics. Pornography encourages masturbation and orgasm over fetishes, which then increases the presence of these fetishes in the population.

Social incompetence may also promote perceiving people as objects, which leads to sexual fetishism and paraphilia.

The emotional impairment in autism leads to autistics having a lower emotional maturity than is normal. This can lead to wanting children with the same emotional age as them to demonstrate sexual activity. This effect of vaccination injury is beyond words in its continued victimisation of those subjected to child sexual abuse.

Conclusion

Autism is inherently linked to deviant and primarily unhealthy forms of sexual arousal and expression. This negative outcome of autism is rarely discussed in the media, by neurodiversity activists, etc. It is both a result of, and further impairs, the ability of autistics to form meaningful romantic and sexual relationships.

The article “The Contributory Role of Autism Symptomology in Child Pornography Offending” by C. Allely was also used in writing this article.

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism Part 5: The Kulenkampff et al. Paper

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1898; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1898-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section will look at a paper published in 1974 showing cases of injury from the DTP Vaccine (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis). It caused new demands for compensation for vaccine injuries.

Prior Concerns about the DTP Vaccine

There had been some prior concerns about possible vaccine risks, but they were not as mainstream. There had been some reports of encephalitis caused by the vaccine in the literature between 1948 and 1960.

The Paper

The paper was called ‘Neurological Complications of Pertussis Inoculation’ and it was published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood. It can be found for free online via Research Gate for anyone who wants to read the full paper.

The paper looked at 36 children who had been seen at the Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, who had neurological injuries within 14 days of inoculation. The paper argued that there was a causal connection between the vaccine and the symptoms due to the timing of onset of symptoms as well as similarities between complications from the disease and the natural virus.

Symptoms included convulsions, long term neurological injury, and in one case death was reported as an outcome linked by the authors to the vaccine.

The authors suggested that more statistical work be carried out on the rate of vaccine injuries and injuries from natural infection, as well as withholding vaccination from those with certain contraindications.

The Effect on Vaccination Rates

The effects on vaccination rates were drastic. The DTP vaccination rate declined from 78.5% in 1971 to 37% in 1974. The vaccination rate did not recover until into the 1980s.

Demands for Compensation

There was a lot of concern about lack of compensation for injuries. No government program existed to compensate injuries. There was also evidence that the government compensation for the thalidomide scandal had been inadequate. As such new movements emerged to demand compensation.

An organisation was created to this effect – The Association of Vaccine Damaged Children. This organisation sought to prove the reality of vaccine injuries and to demand compensation. They argued that if children were demanded to take the risk of vaccination, then the family should be compensated should the vaccine go wrong. However they did not seek to demonstrate that vaccine injury was common, only that it was real.

The media also covered some cases of vaccine injury in a sympathetic way. There were also some doctors who supported the thesis put forth by Kulenkampff. Dr. Gordon Stewart reported 160 cases of encephalopathy that he believed were vaccine induced. He also provided quotes to the media.

The 1979 Act

As a result the government passed the Vaccine Damage Payments Act in 1979. This act provided a low level of compensation for vaccine injuries, £10,000, for those 80% disabled by vaccination, or the family of a vaccine death. The compensation applied for those who were both injured by a vaccine and for those who contracted a virus from a vaccinated individual. The legal standard applied was ‘balance of probability’ i.e. proving a 51% probability that the injury is vaccine induced.

The government believed they could keep payments low, because vaccine injuries were so rare.

Conclusion

Confidence in vaccination slowly recovered by the mid 1980s. Vaccination had been normalised in Britain by this time. The next scandal to affect vaccination in the UK was the Andrew Wakefield et al. 1998 paper on the MMR vaccine.

Two sources used for this article were the book Vaccinating Britain and the article the Pertussis Vaccine Controversy (these are obviously sources supportive of vaccination).

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism Part 4 – The National Antivaccination League – 1896-1972

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1898; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1898-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section will look at the resistance from ordinary people to vaccination during the late 19th century.

The Roots of the NAVL

The National Antivaccination League (NAVL) was founded in 1896. Its roots are in earlier organisations, such as Gibbs’ Anti Compulsory Vaccination League, started in 1866 in London. Afterwards, it became the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination, and then finally the NAVL.

Activities of the League – Publications

The League produced multiple publications over a period of years. They put out one regular publication called the Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review. This publication had started in 1879 by William Tebb and continued as the official publication of the NAVL.

The League also published a significant number of books questioning vaccination. These included books by many notable UK antivaccinationists, such as Maurice Beddow Bayly (who wrote on diphtheria and tuberculosis vaccines) J. T. Biggs (who wrote extensively on Leicester’s vaccination resistance) and Arnold Lupton (an MP opposed to vaccination).

Activities of the League – Advising Parents

The League gave advice to parents on how to avoid vaccination. One example in the Royal College of Surgeons archives, shows a leaflet produced by the League relating to the 1907 vaccination laws, which allowed conscientious objection. The leaflet showed specifically the steps to be taken to avoid vaccination.

Lily Loat – Tireless Antivaccination Activist

One of the key reasons for the successes of the NAVL was its secretary Lily Loat, who is one of the unsung heroes of historical antivaccinationism. She dedicated her life to opposing vaccination and was the secretary of the League for nearly 50 years.

Lily Loat joined the League in 1898, and became Secretary in 1909, and remained in that position until her death in 1958. She was a public voice of antivaccinationists, and also supported antivivisection causes. She also edited the Vaccination Inquirer.

She spoke at public meetings in both the UK and US. A couple of these addresses can be found via whale.to, where she discusses brain injuries caused by vaccination. Loat also wrote a book called The Truth about Vaccination and Immunisation, published in 1951. She worked for the League while sick with her final illness.

Lionel Dole, an antivaccinationist who wrote a book in the 1960s, mentioned Loat’s portrayal in the mainstream media:

The fact that she received no obituary notices whatever from our national newspapers was the highest compliment they could pay her. The only radio tribute to her great work was an oblique smear in a Granada TV serial. It showed two police officers looking with horror under a blanket at the corpse of an old woman recluse who had died of smallpox and who was said to have been a notoriously eccentric crank. Later in the episode, the junior officer remarks that at one time she had “actually started a league for the abolition of compulsory vaccination”; his Chief Inspector replies: “Oh, so it caught up with her!”

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has a short biography of Loat, it requires a UK library card to access, and I am not sure if it is accessible in the US or elsewhere.

The End of the League

The Vaccination Inquirer ceased publication in 1972. One of the reasons for this was that the League struggled to replace Loat as secretary. Loat’s dedication to the movement was unmatchable.

Conclusion

The NAVL was the most notable organisation opposing vaccination in the first half of the twentieth century. Its demise in 1972 did not end British vaccine scepticism, however. In 1974 a paper would be published by Kulenkampff et al, showing brain injury from DTP vaccines. This would cause the DTP vaccination rate to plummet and begin a new vaccine injury movement.

The Humiliation of Autism

Introduction

One factor often ignored by those analysing autism is the inherent humiliation that is associated with autism. Humiliation is a factor, that unlike other aspects of autism, is worse the intelligence and function of the autistic individual. Intelligence allows the person to perceive their failings, but not to remedy them, resulting in humiliation and shame.

This article will discuss some of the humiliations of autism and why autism essentially means either completely avoiding other people or embarrassing oneself in public on a regular basis.

Sexual Humiliation

In a previous article, I discussed incels and how the incel phenomenon is inherently linked to autism. Autism leads to consistent sexual rejection and frustration.

This aspect of autism involves the obvious, such as attempting sexual approach and inevitability being rejected (because the attempt is always going to show autistic failings, such as poor eye contact, inappropriate comments, etc).

There is also a deeper level to this humiliation. That is the humiliation of never being perceived as sexually desirable and a viable partner. It is beyond the humiliation of an individual rejection.

Nothing can be done about this. Obviously you cannot compel people to find you sexually desirable or want to date you. Thus the only option left is constant burning shame.

Meltdowns

Imagine an adult having a full blown 2 year old style tantrum. That’s what meltdown looks like.

Now imagine having these in public in front of a bunch of people, screaming and crying, etc. Then imagine having to see the people you did this in front of again ever. I have been thrown out of two group therapy groups for doing this, by the way.

Not to mention you have to be aware of this happening at any time. I’ve never done this at work, for example, but it is always a possibility that you could and then get fired.

Which leads us on to…

Unemployment

As explained in previous articles, autistics have an extremely high unemployment rate. Even the intelligent ones. This causes high levels of humiliation as it is embarrassing to never be able to contribute to your family.

Social Incompetence

Not being able to relate to and understand other people also leads to humiliation. This happens when inevitably you say the incorrect thing and everyone else judges you for it. If you are intelligent you always realise after the fact you have said something stupid and then you burn up with humiliation.

Immature Obsessive Interests

Autistic ‘special interests’ are often in childish things, for example obsessing over video games or children’s toys. This again can be embarrassing.

Gait Disturbances

Autism can involve elements of ataxia and poor motor control. For example, I have issues where I still walk on tip toes particularly on my left leg and I have had problems trying to correct this. When I was at school one of my teachers even criticised me for it in drama class. Also there is a high risk of falling flat on your face and tripping over your own feet.

Conclusion

The daily humiliation associated with autism is a factor ignored by all of those in the neurodiversity movement and pro vaccinationists.

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism, Part 3.3 – Popular Resistance

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1898; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1898-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section will look at the resistance from ordinary people to vaccination during the late 19th century.

Working Class Antivaccinationism

It had long been pointed out by antivaccinationists that the 1853 mandate was a piece of class legislation. Fines associated with non vaccination were easily payable by wealthy vaccine resistors, but ordinary resistors faced distraint (forced selling of their property) or prison.

Working class antivaccinationists saw vaccination as an attack and a threat to their bodies. They feared a threat to their employment (mandatory vaccination for employment), due to individual cases of employers attempting to force vaccination on their staff, particularly during an outbreak.

Working class people saw vaccination as an assault on their families. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there was a belief among the elite that working class parenting, particularly working class mothering, was inadequate. Working class women were demonised for working (even though economic survival of the family depended on their income) and were seen as failing to contribute good children to a strong British race (see Anna Davin’s Imperialism and Motherhood). Working class people also perceived vaccination as a means of portraying their children as inherently diseased, and thus demonising them as the problem.

Vaccination was also linked to the New Poor Law, which compelled people into the workhouse if they were unable to find sufficient work to survive. The 1840 act which provided free vaccination was done via the Poor Law. Staff who were working in the vaccination program also worked in Poor Law administration. This associated vaccination with pauperism, a connection resented by working class people.

Resistance was associated with the East End of London, as well as certain working class towns, such as Leicester and Gloucester. It was also linked to other working class self improvement movements, such as the temperance movement. Examples of non compliance, other than the obvious refusing to vaccinate, included treating distraint sales as a protest venue, and physical assault against vaccination officers. (For more information about working class antivaccinationism, see the article ‘They Might as Well Brand Us’ by Nadja Durbach).

The largest display of resistance would occur in Leicester in 1885.

The Leicester Protest

Leicester was a hub of vaccination resistance. Antivaccinationist J. T. Biggs gives a very long account of Leicester and how the quarantine methods they employed after the 1871 smallpox outbreak were more successful than vaccination. Most of the city lost faith in vaccination after 1871, and there was a large amount of non-compliance with the vaccination edicts.

In 1885, there was a large protest against the mandatory vaccination laws in Leicester. This protest advocated for individual liberty and rejected the state control of working class children. Mothers stated that they wanted to protect their children from vaccination. The procession down the streets of Leicester included a horse and cow as the representations of vaccine lymph, furniture (as a representation of the distraint sales mentioned above) and an effigy of Edward Jenner. Further meetings also took place after the protest, stating the continued intent to resist vaccination.

Conclusion

Today, antivaccinationism is often portrayed by vaccinationists as a ‘privileged’ position advocated for by primarily middle-class mothers. If we look at history we can see this is far from the case and that many ordinary people were committed antivacciantionists.

A Quick Analysis Demonstrating that a ~1 in 30 Autism Rate is Not Natural

Both neurodiversity activists and those who consider autism to be negative but also promote vaccination consider a 1 in 30 autism rate to be normal for humanity. 1 in 30 is the approximate current rate of autism among children in the United States. As these groups believe that autism is genetic, it must follow that they consider this rate to be relatively consistent across recorded history, because the human genome has not radically changed over this period. As such, it follows that, even given the limitations of recorded history in terms of preservation of evidence, there must be significant evidence of autism in past societies.

In this post, I am simply employing informed common sense to the idea that, for example, the Roman empire or Victorian London had a 1 in 30 autism rate.

It is surprising, when you look at their posts and accounts, how little plausible evidence they are able to dredge up of autism examples prior to the twentieth century. I don’t rule out a few cases of autism existing before vaccines because it is possible that substances such as aluminium, mercury, etc could have got into someone’s brain in another way. Usually, neurodiversity activists point to say, Isaac Newton, or some other example of a figure considered to be positive in history as an example (funnily enough, I have never seen them point to someone who is considered to have had a negative impact on society).

But to prove autism is normal, a few scattered examples are not enough. They have to prove 1 in 30, or they at least have to prove close enough that 1 in 30 is a plausible extrapolation. At this, they have failed miserably. In fact, I haven’t even seen an example where they make the attempt.

Another significant problem for the account that autism is natural is the unemployment rate and financial burdens of autism and its relation to human societies. We can use an employment rate as a reasonable proxy for the ability to function in a society. In the United Kingdom, the unemployment rate for autism is 78%. If we do a little simplification on the maths, we can use two-thirds unemployment as a rate generous to autism. Then, if we simplify our 1 in 30 rate to 1 in 33 or 3/100 to give us a rough approximation, it follows that if 3/100 people in the population are autistic and 2/3 of those cannot work due to autism, then 2/100 of the population is unemployed due to autism.

Think about this for a moment. Really think about it. Does it seem plausible that societies with fewer modern economic resources could sustain such a population? No.

We can start by going back within the past 50-125 years with modern welfare state systems. Are we supposed to believe that governments never noticed the huge amount of benefits being spent on autistic children and adults? Especially more conservative governments, who are always talking about the need to cut benefits? While estimates of the economic burden of autism are necessarily rough and somewhat problematic, it has been stated that to provide for an autistic without intellectual disability costs around a million pounds when taking into account all economic costs.

Going back further, in the Victorian era, there were systems such as Poor Law relief and as a last resort workhouses. Are we supposed to believe that no one noticed severely autistic children as a cause of this burden on families?

If we want to go back further, do we really believe that hunter-gatherer societies could have dealt with such an autism rate? Even high functioning autistic people would have been a heavy burden because of the necessity for communication and social cohesion in these societies.

As such, autism promoters need to provide some hard proof that this autism rate is normal and natural before I am even willing to consider that vaccines are not the primary cause.

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism, Part 3.2: White, Creighton and Crookshank

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1898; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1898-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section forms part 3.2 looking at three main antivaccinationists active in the late nineteenth century, William White, Charles Creighton, and Edgar Crookshank.

William White

White authored a book called Story of a Great Delusion in 1885, looking at the history of inoculation and vaccination from an antivaccinationist perspective. It covers the entire period from the introduction of inoculation up to what was then the present day.

The book is primarily a historical account and he goes into detail not just about Jenner but the research of other important vaccinationists, such as George Pearson, another notable doctor, and William Woodville, doctor at the Smallpox Hospital in London. It explores their tense relationships and goes into more detail about Jenner’s personality (he had a significant habit of falling out with those who mostly agreed with him).

He also goes into the history of the government role in vaccination, such as the provision of vaccine lymph by the National Vaccine Establishment, and how £3,000 was budgeted for lymph, as an attempt to spread vaccination among the poor. He argues that Jenner’s ability to argue with everyone was one factor why government intervention was necessary to ensure the continuation of vaccination, rather than a reliance on private institutions.

He covers the introduction of the vaccine mandate – essentially the increasing intertwining between vaccination and government – and the introduction of ideological vaccine resistance, such as the founding of The Anti Vaccinator pamphlet by John Pickering.

Throughout the book he does make some arguments explaining why vaccination is a flawed practice, such as that it simply exchanges one disease for another while not decreasing death rate and that vaccine compulsion is purely about medical industry profit, rather than effectiveness. White believed the ineffectiveness of vaccination had been well demonstrated by the mandate introduction in 1853.

Charles Creighton

Dr. Creighton was a physician of note in the late nineteenth century, who completed a famous work on the history of epidemics in Britain. He was primarily interested in medical history rather than being a practicing doctor.

The story of how Dr. Creighton became an antivaccinationist is rather interesting. He was approached by the Encyclopedia Britannica to write an article on ‘Vaccination’ for their new edition. Feeling it was only justified to research the topic if he was going to write about it, he did – and became an ardent antivaccinationist. Perhaps surprisingly, the Encyclopedia agreed to publish whatever he wrote, so that edition ended up containing an antivaccinationist account.

He wrote two books condemning vaccination in 1887 and 1889.

His book Cowpox and Vaccinal Syphilis goes into great detail on the topic of vaccine lymph. This included the historical disputes between Jenner and Woodville, and whether the two sources were equivalent. Jenner had issues obtaining cowpox lymph for vaccination, and this whole issue tied into the debate about ‘spurious cowpox’, which was one of Jenner’s excuses for vaccination failure. The primary argument in the book in terms of the dangers of vaccination is that cowpox is completely unlike smallpox, and is actually closer to syphilis (which was historically known also as ‘great pox’). There had been an increasing number of deaths from infantile syphilis after the vaccine mandate was introduced. In Creighton’s view, cowpox was causing this syphilis increase.

Jenner and Vaccination is a more general work on vaccination as a whole. He argues that Jenner used sleight of hand to redefine cowpox as variolae vaccinae (which literally means, cow smallpox). This manipulation led people to accept similarities between the two diseases that did not exist. Jenner also defined cowpox as a mild disease despite significant issues of ulceration to gain support for vaccination. He also argues that because Jenner used a very mild form of inoculation (deliberate infection with smallpox) to ‘test’ whether or not the vaccinated had immunity, this led to false claims of immunity. The mild (known as Suttonian, after Daniel Sutton) method of inoculation caused only a small effect anyway, so it having little to no effect after a cowpox inoculation proved nothing. He also mentioned the redefinition of smallpox as chickenpox after vaccination to avoid accusations of vaccine failure.

Creighton became involved in the National Anti-Vaccination League, and ended up being excluded from the mainstream medical community.

Edgar Crookshank

Crookshank published two volumes addressing vaccination in 1889. The second volume is a compilation of essays about vaccination and varying vaccination experiments performed by its advocates. As such we will focus on the first volume as that contains Crookshank’s actual arguments.

History and Pathology of Vaccination makes several arguments. One of the most interesting is Crookshank’s analysis of Jenner’s two different versions of his original paper on vaccination. Jenner originally tried to publish a paper on vaccination in 1796 via the Royal Society, but they rejected the paper. Instead, Jenner published the paper himself in 1798. There are significant differences between the two. Jenner did add more experiments and cases in an attempt to bolster his argument (the original paper had only contained the vaccination of James Phipps, one case). He also sought to tone down the negative effects of cowpox in the new paper, and attribute issues with the disease as incidental effects not directly caused by cowpox/vaccination.

A second argument made by Crookshank is to discuss all the different sources that were used as vaccine lymph, explored further in this post.

Conclusion

This period was the height of Britain’s history of resistance to vaccines, and this included the number and intelligence of those resisting vaccination. There are many critics who I have not covered, also active during this time, such as William Tebb and Alfred Russel Wallace. But there was more than intellectual resistance – there was popular resistance from the working class, the topic of the next article in this series.

Intact Parents, Injured Children: A Discussion of the Inherent Tension in the Vaccine Injury Movement

Think about what the CDC’s grotesque vaccine schedule does to the relationship between parents and their children. The kid does not know what’s going on. Yet every few months the parents offer up the child to strangers who inflict pain with sharp metal objects while smiling, laughing, and saying “it’s okay,” “you’re a champ.” The shots can cause fever, digestive problems, seizures, and worse for days, months, or even years. The parents go through this Molochian ritual over fifty times. The child has no words to express what’s happening. The child cannot possibly give consent. The psychological scars from this betrayal are permanent and the child learns to never trust the parents again.
Dr. Toby Rogers

Parents teach the idea of not following herd mentality. How many times have parents said “If so and so jumped off a cliff, would you?” to their children? How about this – if the white-coat told you to push your own child off the cliff, would you do it? Of course the answer is no, it’s only yes if the cliff is disguised as a sterile lighthouse shining light across the sea of disease. But nevertheless – if the white-coat told you, would you do it? Everyone is aware of the Milgram experiment. Vaccination is society’s Milgram experiment writ large, so insidious the authority of the white-coat that parents will destroy their own children.

Let’s see how this goes. A parent takes their child to be vaccinated, seeks the white-coat for the ‘well baby check-up’. Or perhaps not, perhaps the parent has some doubts about the shots, but the authority of the white-coat’s fanaticism removes this well enough. The child – probably in discomfort, fear, receives the holy baptism of the injection. However when they get home they aren’t right. They are having seizures, or a fever (dosed with paracetamol/acetaminophen no doubt, which aggravates the injuries). Then everything gets worse. The child stops speaking, stops making eye contact, loses skills. The white-coat gaslights the parent and claims the child was always this way, always damaged. The parent knows this is a lie, as there is nothing wrong with their memory.

The parent seeks those in the same boat with them, and the few doctors who will not lie to them about their children’s injury. They speak out about the child being vaccine-injured. They unite with other parents to tell the truth about vaccines. They promote and amplify doctors and experts telling the truth about vaccines. So far there is no problem: the gaslighting establishment medics need to be exposed as liars and frauds. Parents can give powerful testimony to the way their children were destroyed by vaccines.

So where is the problem?

The reality of the vaccine-injury movement – with the exception of the Covid ‘vaccine’, and to a lesser extent the Gardasil vaccine – is that the vast majority of those speaking are parents. This certainly applies very strongly to specifically autistic vaccine-injury. In part this is out of necessity: some autistic people are simply too severely vaccine-damaged to communicate regarding their injuries. In part this is out of the success of the ‘neurodiversity’ movement that convinces those with ‘high functioning’ autism that autism makes them special and unique and that there is nothing wrong with it. Nevertheless this necessity creates a skew, that those with are personally autistic vaccine-injured don’t get a voice or a prominent role in the vaccine-injury movement.

You can try this for yourself: when you think of people speaking about autism and vaccine injury, who first comes to mind? When I test this on myself, I come up with Robert F Kennedy, Jr, Andy Wakefield, JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Christopher Exley, Del Bigtree, you get the idea. No autistic people whatsoever. This creates a problem. Parents can articulate what they observe their child do and the distress of their child from the outside. Any medical professionals can describe what they have seen in injured children. Journalists can accurately describe the corruption. Doctors and journalists and advocates but no-one of any profile is doing this from the inside.

But now we must trespass on even more controversial territory, that is the question of guilt.

Does anyone else know what a paradox it is? That I can appreciate parents who speak out about their child’s vaccine injuries while feeling such bitterness and anger? To know that your parents love you but that they also ruined you for life?

And then this brings us to the most fundamental question: who is ruined? We can do this in a very simple way. Let’s use an example. Andy Wakefield has talked in interviews about the children in his 1998 Lancet study and how the parents of the vaccine-injured children were told that they should stick their child in a home, because ‘that’s autism’ and nothing could be done to help them. What is unsaid that – well fundamentally, that’s true. Not in the sense that nothing could be done to ease the child’s suffering, necessarily – but in the sense that the parent has the full capability to abandon their vaccine-injured child and walk away, whereas the child has no such luxury to abandon their vaccine-injuries. Don’t misunderstand me: I am not saying that this would be easy to do or would cause no distress to the parent. Just that it is possible: and therein lies the problem. The parent is intact: distressed, angry, feeling guilt, but nevertheless intact.

Parents of vaccine-injured children need to unconditionally be defended from the gaslighting mainstream medical establishment. I am happy to put my bitterness and anger aside for The Cause. After all, nothing matters more than making sure that there are no more human beings like me. But I will never be silent, and if there is a certain amount of discomfort in that refusal, then that is how it will have to be.

Image source: Photo by Ray Bilcliff on Pexels.com

Tiny Creature

Tell me.

Tell me the truth.

Do you consent to utopia

A world without horror

At the price of a child?

Liberation from the burden of disease to control your own fear. To discipline it, to tame it by your profession.

It won’t be your tiny creature. The rigours of medicine will not cause them to convulse or to scream.

But an unknown child that will require confinement in four walls – as they thrash and cry until they die – unavenged.

You will hide it and gaslight the price of utopia – the architect cannot choose his conditions, you might say, cannot choose the world he bends to make right.

But he must know the foundation of his edifice is the tiny creature.

So tell me.

Tell me the truth.

This piece references the below quote from Fyodor Dovstoyevsky’s book The Brothers Karamazov, which encapsulates the ideology of vaccination:

Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of makingmen happy in the end……but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature…And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism Part 3.1 – Initial Opposition to the Smallpox Vaccine Mandate

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism. It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1902; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1902-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. Because most active resistance to vaccination is clustered in this period between 1853 and 1902, Part 3 will have three sub-parts, discussing initial intellectual resistance in John Gibbs and Charles Pearce, the later intellectual resistance of William White, Charles Creighton, and Edgar Crookshank, and popular class resistance.

The Vaccine Mandate

In 1853, the United Kingdom introduced mandatory smallpox vaccination. There was a fine of 20 shillings introduced for non compliance. William White covers the introduction of this mandate in detail in his 1885 book, Story of a Great Delusion. According to White, the mandate was introduced because of the organised interests of the medical profession. There was a lack of discussion on the bill in Parliament, and White states it was an “act for application to the vulgar”, i.e. the working classes. In 1861 and 1867, the level of compulsion was increased, the 1867 amendments made non vaccination a continuous offense and gave the state the power to impose multiple fines.

Prior to the mandate, there was no organised antivaccinationism. There was personal distrust of vaccination among people, particularly the working class, and an apathy of not pursuing vaccination. The mandate triggered new wave of intellectual antivaccinationism, as well as popular vaccination resistance.

John Gibbs

John Gibbs was one of the first to write pamphlets against the vaccine mandate. In 1855 he wrote a letter opposing the mandate. He argued that the mandate was an attack on liberty, and that legislators freely admitted their ignorance on vaccination – relying only on the opinions of the medical profession to pass the bill. He argued that there were statistical issues with the case for vaccination, as there was evidence that smallpox was simply replaced by other causes of death and that there was no decline in the death rate due to vaccination. He also pointed to other diseases spread by vaccination, such as erysipelas (a form of skin rash and swelling), tuberculosis and syphilis.

He drew attention to the moral issues with government forcing a medical intervention on the people and that this opposed self responsibility. Vaccination was in his view “a state religion in physic”.

Charles Pearce

Charles Pearce was an editor of a medical journal, who received papers from Gibbs, and as a result became an antivaccinationist. In 1868, he authored the short book, Vaccination Its Tested Effects, arguing that “vaccination is a crime against nature”.

Pearce points to the theory behind vaccination, that is the idea that cowpox and smallpox are “governed by the same laws” as an error believed by Jenner. He argues that vaccination is not even practised according to Jenner’s theory, since Jenner believed in a chain from horse-cow-human. Vaccine lymph had been spread from human to human for many decades at this point, and had not been anywhere near passage via a cow. He also pointed to the introduction of revaccination as a contradiction to Jenner’s theory of life long protection from vaccination.

He argued that smallpox vaccination did not save lives, by arguing that smallpox increased longevity if you survived, by the fact that there was an increase in mortality from measles after compulsory vaccination was introduced, and that smallpox vaccination could spread syphilis. He points out that there were ups and downs in smallpox due to the laws of epidemics. He believed sanitation and hygiene were the best methods to combat smallpox mortality.

Conclusion

There was increased intellectual resistance to vaccination after the smallpox vaccine mandate was introduced. This would continue to develop further, and British antivaccinationism would reach its peak between 1880-1902 with the cases made by William White, Charles Creighton and Edgar Crookshank against the practise.