Vaccination Experiments in Prisons: A Potted History

Introduction

Vaccinationists have always sought out those who are in a weak position to resist or reject their experiments. These examples include experiments on children and experiments on peoples subjected to colonialism and neocolonialism. However, this group also includes prisoners. This article is not about prisoners and the debates about how offenders are treated. Rather, this article is about vaccinationists, and what their use of prisoners says about them.

The Newgate Prison Experiment

Prison experiments go back to the initial days of inoculation in the United Kingdom. Inoculation (deliberately infecting someone with matter from a (usually) mild case of smallpox) was introduced into England by Lady Montagu around 1721.

As a result, experiments started to be done on the practise, particularly by Charles Maitland, Montagu’s physician. One of the experiments was done in Newgate prison. 6 prisoners were inoculated as an experiment. In this case, the prisoners did benefit with a reprieve. It is said in some sources that they were under threat of execution, some others have questioned this and said that they were under threat of transportation to Australia instead. 5 of the prisoners became infected with smallpox as a result and the other did not. He had concealed a previous smallpox infection. The prisoners survived the process and it was judged a success.

There were critics, one Dr. Wagstaffe stated the disease given from inoculation was nothing like smallpox.

The Bilibid Prison Experiments 1906

A darker prison experiment took place in 1906 in the Philippines. This information is drawn from an article called Knots in the Fabric.

Robert Strong was leader of an organisation called Bureau of Labratories and in this capacity he did medical experiments.

A little bit of context: a scientist called Waldemar Haffkine had created a cholera vaccine. This vaccine had some acceptance among scientists, but it had bad side effects. Strong wanted to get acceptance for his own vaccine, which he claimed was as effective as Haffkine’s, but with lesser side effects.

As such he wanted to run experiments to write up an article demonstrating the superiority of his own vaccine. As part of this process, he lined up 24 prisoners without any form of informed consent and vaccinated them with a vaccine made using Haffkine’s approach. He did this in order to observe the side effects of the Haffkine vaccine to prove his own superior.

This is already unethical, but it gets worse. The vaccine was contaminated with plague and as a result 13 of the prisoners died. While there was an investigation into the contamination, there were no real consequences for Strong and he eventually became a Professor of Tropical Medicine at Harvard.

The Clinton Farms Polio Vaccine Experiments

Alongside Salk and Sabin, there was a third developer of polio vaccines in the 1950s, Hilary Koprowski. He did experiments in many different contexts, including at institutions for disabled children and in colonial Africa. However, he also did experiments at Clinton Farms women’s prison.

In the 1950s, around 60 infants were born a year in this prison. This was a prison with a more liberal regime, including day release.

Like Sabin, Koprowski believed only a live virus vaccine would be effective, and he created multiple different attenuated strains of the 3 different types of poliovirus. Koprowski tested a range of vaccine strains on the children born to the prisoners in the second half of the 1950s. Many of these examples were written up in the scientific literature.

Prisoners had an incentive to comply with Koprowski’s experiments, as vaccinated children were able to stay with their mothers for longer. It may also have been seen as a positive in parole applications. One child did fall ill after the vaccine and was sent to hospital in 1955, but this is not written up in Koprowski’s articles.

Conclusion

Vaccinationists will usually pick the easiest targets to test their vaccine products. This includes prisoners alongside other groups. This history is often ignored as it does not fit the narratives of heroic but ethical vaccination.

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).

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.

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

The ‘Neurodiversity’ Industry Is A Cover for Vaccine Injury – Part II, Two Narratives

Introduction

Since the 1990s, the idea of ‘neurodiversity’ has become a cottage industry. The basic tenet of neurodiversity is that autism is a perfectly normal variation of human development that should not be seen as a negative trait. It seeks to highlight the alleged ‘positive’ traits of autism and believes that the struggles of people with autism are largely caused by society not being accepting rather than the inherent downsides of the condition. This article will seek to discuss three parts of this phenomenon by comparing two theories of autism: the neurodiversity theory of autism and the iatrogenic theory of autism i.e. vaccine injury. The first part will discuss the evidence for each theory, concluding that vaccine injury has a large amount of evidence to support it. The second part of this article will look at the individuals and institutions that promote each theory and how the media portrays each group. The third part will draw it together by explaining how the neurodiversity theory is constructed as an alternative to deflect from the vaccine injury theory and to gaslight people suffering with autistic vaccine-injury and their parents about their experiences.

This is part II of the three part series.

Part II: Two Narratives

Having made the case that vaccine-injury is an extremely plausible theory of autism, I will now examine the contrast between how advocates of the neurodiversity narrative and advocates of the vaccine-injury narrative have been treated by the establishment. Although the neurodiversity narrative claims to be countercultural and in opposition to the ordinary view of autism, in reality it is promoted by mainstream sources. On the other hand, vaccine-injury theorists – including those who have backed their theories up by significant evidence – have faced consequences from being smeared to the loss of their career.

Is Neurodiversity Countercultural?

The neurodiversity narrative claims to be countercultural. As it is a fairly recent narrative, it portrays itself as the up and coming new narrative to ‘reframe’ autism in a positive light. In fact, the article I quoted from in Part I makes this argument, comparing it to different theories of autism:

The mainstream perspective – the perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be cured by targeting the autism gene(s).

The fringe theory – the theory that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and should be cured through addressing these factors.

This narrative takes aspects of the ‘social justice’ style narrative, where those that are marginalised by society are reframing themselves as positive actors, reframing what is considered as ‘negative’ by society as a positive.

Of course, there is a long history of narratives claiming to be counterculture, when in fact, they are nothing of the sort. A good example, that has some similarities with the neurodiversity ideology, is transgenderism. Transgender ideology claims that opposite sex impersonators are a marginalized group, whereas in reality those who oppose them are censored, sacked, and smeared. Men playacting as women are promoted, celebrated and glorified in the media, with any criticism deemed as bigotry. Pharmaceutical companies support this narrative for profit, and many sinister actors use it is as a means of promoting transhumanism.

So is the neurodiversity narrative really countercultural?

In general, the best way to check if a narrative is against the establishment is to look at what the establishment actually says about it. If the establishment contains a large amount of institutions promoting a particular narrative, and is spending a lot of money on promoting a particular narrative, then there is a reason for that. So let us examine what the interconnected establishment/media/NGO complex actually states about autism and neurodiversity. This will look at several different groups: autism charities, the media, the fiction industry and other significant actors.

Autism Charities and Consultancy

Although some people would like to consider charities to be not ‘establishment’ institutions, in reality large charities are part of the establishment. Their role in society is to advance narratives that benefit establishment interests, but while seeming as if they are independent advocacy groups.

To give an example already alluded to in Part I, the Alzheimer’s Society expresses some scepticism that aluminium accumulation in the brain is the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. To acknowledge this would be bad for the establishment, since it is (elite) human action that unleashed aluminium on the environment and caused high levels of exposure. Questioning aluminium exposure in this case might lead one to come to the conclusion that the establishment does not have a concern for human health. Furthermore, obscuring the reality in this case allows Big Pharma to sell expensive patented drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, rather than reducing exposure or reducing aluminium in the human body. Foreign policy is another area where charities can be demonstrated to serve elite agendas. For example, human rights organisations will focus on violations of, say, freedom of speech by ‘enemy countries’ such as Russia, while ignoring the same or worse by Western countries or allies such as Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the issue is even more explosive when it comes to questioning vaccines, since vaccination is essentially the cult of the modern age:

Vaccinating everyone on earth (the goal of the Gates Foundation, W.H.O., Pharma, and presidents of both political parties) has nothing to do with health; its sole function is to give atheists in the developed world a feeling of heroism that supplies them with a sense of symbolic immortality.
TOBY ROGERS

So what do autism charities – allegedly set up to help people with autism – have to say about autism and neurodiversity?

The National Autistic Society is the main autism charity in the United Kingdom.

On its ’causes of autism’ page, the National Autistic Society says this:

There is no known ‘cure’ for autism. We also believe that autism does not need a ‘cure’ and should be seen as a difference, not a disadvantage. We also warn people about fake cures and potentially harmful interventions here.

This does not mean that autistic people do not face challenges, but with the right support in place, they are more than capable of living fulfilling and happy lives.

This is, of course, the neurodiversity narrative. On the other hand they say that vaccines don’t cause autism, because that idea must be opposed at all costs.

If we look at the National Autistic Society’s funding, they have a turnover of large amounts of money. If we look at their funding for 2023 in their annual accounts, they have a list of companies who they give special thanks. They have funding from some large companies such as Coca Cola and JP Morgan Chase.

It is also worth noting that there is an entire industry of autism ‘consultancy’, which is designed to promote neurodiversity, particularly relating to employment. There are a whole bunch of services available, for example, Aspire Autism Consultancy provides “bespoke neurodiversity training for therapists and healthcare practitioners.”

It is also worth noting that if you do want accommodations at work related to autism as a disability, you are basically obliged to put up with the neurodiversity framing.

The Media

The mainstream media is another crucial plank of the establishment, that serves their interests. The purpose of the media is not to present the news in an objective way, but to be propaganda for the powers that be. The structure of the mainstream media goes through multiple filters and each one excludes any opposition voices to ensure a conformity of thought.

There are plenty of articles in the media promoting the neurodiversity agenda. A survey of the media carried out by pro neurodiversity activists found the following result (abstract only available):

Results showed increased coverage of neurodiversity and neurodivergent individuals from 2016 to 2022. Key findings include an increase in calls for representation, advocacy, and the recognition of neurodiversity as a different neurotype rather than a condition to be cured.

Recently in the UK, there has been a programme hosted by Chris Packham, and autistic man and advocate for neurodiversity about autism and ADHD (ADHD is also considered to be an example of neurodiversity by advocates, and is also possibly vaccination injury although, unlike autism there is not as much evidence to prove this). I haven’t watched the programme because I don’t want to waste the energy getting angry about the obvious misrepresentation of autism that will exist within the program. It is worth noting that the programme about autism was nominated for a television award, meaning that it must have been viewed as in line with what the media and establishment wish to promote. Articles in the media have also promoted this programme, and called it moving (even the more right leaning Telegraph, which is, say, more sceptical of similar ideologies like transgenderism).

The Fiction Industry

Fiction may seem as if it is separate from the establishment, but in reality the establishment has a significant influence here as well, particularly when it comes to television. For example, it is a well-known fact that a large number of American movies are produced with the help of the intelligence agencies.

If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DOD doesn’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts, called Production Assistance Agreements, which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script. [emphasis in original text]
MINT PRESS NEWS

So how are autistic people portrayed in the media? There is but one model of the autistic film or TV character and that is the ‘autistic savant’. That is, someone who is socially inept but a genius at doing some weird obscure thing which wins the character the things that they want in life. In some portrayals a biting satirical wit might be added, particularly in comedy programs, with an edge of intellectual superiority played for laughs. Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory is the best example of this.

This is basically the neurodiversity model in action. Look at those special characters that think differently that have all these wonderful things like a PhD and an amazing job! No-one puts low functioning children who have to use a diaper and are non-verbal on the TV. No-one puts the 6′ 2″ 30-year-old man with a mental age of 5 who flies into incandescent, violent rages over sensory triggers on the TV. Why would they? So fiction gives an extremely misleading picture of autism to the public that bolsters the neurodiversity model.

Although neurodiversity advocates might also complain about the portrayal of autism in the media, the reality is that it is only their own ideology being reflected back at them. The special, unique one who ‘thinks differently’: that is their argument of what autism is, not mine, and that is their portrayal of what autism is, not mine.

Conclusion

As we can see from the above collection of evidence, the establishment has expressed a significant amount of support for neurodiversity.

The Vaccine Injury Approach to Autism and Its Critics

Vaccine-injury advocates have been treated rather differently by the establishment. This section will discuss a few different advocates of the autism-vaccination link: Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Christopher Exley, and Jenny McCarthy.

Dr. Wakefield Redux

The most obvious place to start on this topic is the demonisation of the British gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield is infamous among the vaccine pushers, and his name is invoked like that of the devil himself. Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of a thousand lies by the mainstream media and medical establishment. Eventually, he was struck off the medical register in 2010. His career was destroyed. So what was his ‘crime’? Simply to take parents seriously when they observed their children regressing into autistic behavior after the MMR vaccination.

So let’s look at how Dr. Wakefield got interested in the issue of the MMR vaccine and autism. After Dr. Wakefield performed studies on measles and gut issues, specifically Crohn’s disease, he was contacted by parents who saw their child regress into autistic vaccine-injury after their MMR vaccination. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK produced a case series of 12 of these children called, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” published in the Lancet in 1998. Contra claims made by the mainstream media, which is to this day constitutionally incapable of representing this paper accurately, it was not designed to ‘prove’ that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The people who made the initial link between the MMR and autism were the parents of those children, not Dr. Wakefield.

Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media [ear infection] in another.

WAKEFIELD’S 1998 STUDY

This eventually led to him being relentlessly attacked by Brian Deer, a Telegraph ‘journalist’ who was obsessed with destroying his career. Deer made multiple false claims about Dr. Wakefield and his study. These false claims included the claim that Wakefield and his colleagues did not have ethical approval for the medical testing that they ran on the ‘Lancet 12’ children and that Dr. Wakefield misrepresented the case histories of those children to push a narrative blaming the MMR vaccine. Deer also claimed that Wakefield had unethical conflicts of interest. As a result of these claims, Dr. Wakefield was eventually struck off the medical register in 2010. There is much more detail to this story not able to be discussed here for space considerations, so I suggest reading this article by Iain Davis if you would like a refresher on the full picture.

The mainstream media continues to promote false narratives about Dr. Wakefield to this day. Wikipedia, a so called ‘neutral’ encyclopedia, but that actually serves to promote establishment narratives, refers to him as being ‘discredited’ and ‘disgraced’ which means that you know the target is somewhere in the vicinity.

I will conclude by quoting Davis:

[Wakefield] is the sacrificial lamb and a stark warning to any scientist, medical practitioner or researcher who dares to challenge the corporate dictatorship. The MSM’s annihilation of Dr. Wakefield served two purposes. Firstly to convince a misinformed public that any who suggest vaccines may not all be wonder drugs are ‘evil’ and also to put the fear of God into the scientific community.

IAIN DAVIS – ‘THE EVISCERATION OF DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD’

Dr. Christopher Exley

Dr. Christopher Exley is former Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University in the UK. He did his Ph.D. on aluminium exposure among fish and the harm that this can cause and is an extremely credible expert on the interaction of the neurotoxin aluminium with human and animal life. As shown above, he has studied the link between aluminium and autism (and other diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis). He led the Aluminium Research Group and published around 200 papers on aluminium.

So what happened to Dr. Exley after he published his group’s paper on ‘Aluminium in Brain Tissue in Autism’?

The first thing to note is that the media has attacked Dr. Exley. The Guardian accused him of pushing ‘anti-vaccine misinformation’:

A British academic who has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation has raised more than £150,000 through a university donations portal to support his research during the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

They quote a vaccine promoter stating that Dr. Exley’s paper is ‘bad science’ but of course do not elucidate the audience about why it is bad science (the reader doesn’t need to know that, they just need to know which hate figure ‘anti-vaxxer’ of the week they need to condemn).

An even earlier hit piece from 2019 states:

Prof Chris Exley angered health experts for claiming that tiny amounts of aluminium in inactivated vaccines, such as the HPV and whooping cough inoculations, may cause “the more severe and disabling form of autism”.

They, of course, did this in order to try to make sure that the funding portals were shut down so the research could not continue (not that Keele needed any encouragement on this front – see below).

The case of Dr. Exley also reveals something else important about our media – the principle that experts are only experts until they question vaccination, then they become ‘misinformation’. Dr. Exley was an acceptable expert for the Guardian to cite when it came to the Camelford poisoning. This case involved aluminium was accidentally dunked into residents’ drinking water in Camelford in Cornwall. One woman, Carole Cross, died from a rare form of Alzheimer’s after this poisoning, with extremely high levels of aluminium in her brain. Dr. Exley is acting within his expertise by commenting on both cases, but only one is considered to be acceptable.

Keele University basically made Dr. Exley’s position at the university untenable for questioning the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccination.

Since that time [about 2015], the university has progressed from spiking Exley’s press releases and downplaying or ignoring major scientific contributions by Exley’s research group to — perhaps most concerningly — sabotaging the research donations that are the “lifeblood” of independent-minded scientists.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE.

The University messed with his donations portal which he was using to crowdfund his research.

On the 11th of April 2019, following receipt of a number of emails from potential donors unable to make a donation using the online link, I was told by someone called Lee Bestwick in Finance that he had been instructed to disable the donations portal set up by Finance on my behalf. He was not aware that there had been no prior discussion with me about this.

In 2020, Keele University also rejected a cheque from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for $15,000 towards Dr. Exley’s research.

We appreciate your interest in the University and in our research staff who are undertaking such a wide range of interesting and pioneering work, but hope you understand the delicate balance we must maintain to ensure our public and private reputation.

Kennedy wrote in response:

I must consider that your decision to return my personal check is likely the product of the pharmaceutical industry’s open, aggressive, and rather sinister campaign to defund Professor Exley. Vaccine makers view Dr. Exley’s efforts to accurately characterize, for the first time, the health impacts of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, as a threat to their profit-taking. Terminating Professor Exley’s research has been a central objective of the $50 billion vaccine industry. This cartel wants the world to believe that aluminum in vaccines is safe despite the lack of any safety studies to indicate that is possible, and plenty of peer-reviewed literature that suggests that it is not.

Another Children’s Health Defense article states:

[A] recent letter to Exley from Keele University’s dean of natural sciences explained that “the university will no longer provide facilities to solicit or enable restricted charitable donations” to support the Exley group’s research on “the bioinorganic chemistry of aluminium and its links to neurodegenerative disease.”

The dean clarified that this would include “donations from individuals, groups, charities and foundations” — amounting to the entirety of the group’s research income.

Eventually due to this disruption of funding the research group was shut down despite having around 200 peer reviewed publications.

Furthermore, Dr. Exley was suggesting methods by which to detox from aluminium and remove it from the body in order to reduce autistic symptoms. The method Dr. Exley suggested was drinking mineral waters with a high silicic acid content, as silicic acid binds to aluminium and then it is expelled from the body via urine. Again Dr. Exley demonstrated this through science, showing increased excretion of aluminium after consuming a litre of silica water. When done on a consistent basis (daily) this reduces the body burden of aluminium including in the brain and improvements in symptoms are observed (Dr. Exley witnessed this in Alzheimer’s disease). Not only was he showing what had harmed us, he was helping us with his protocol, and I can vouch that it works personally because I have tried it.

So now we can see that Dr. Wakefield is not the only person to lose his career for questioning the links between vaccines and autism.

Jenny McCarthy: Demonised Mothers

Jenny McCarthy is a media figure who spoke out about the safety of vaccination after her son, Evan, regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine. McCarthy is different from the cases I have highlighted above in that she is the mother of a vaccine injured child. Her role as a mother affects her portrayal by the vaccine industry.

Generally speaking, mothers are considered less competent observers of their children than doctors, despite the fact that the doctor only sees the child for brief appointments and the mother is around the child 24/7. This is justified by the medical establishment, because they consider themselves to be the ‘experts’.

There is a significant amount of misogyny in the portrayal of McCarthy in the media. For example, news articles often introduce her as ‘former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy’ or other similar framing when talking about her scepticism of vaccination. The fact that McCarthy was involved in the pornography industry has no obvious relevant connection to her scepticism of vaccines. Except, in the mind of the vaccinationist, it is clearly related, since they always mention it.

The purpose of this framing is to invoke the Madonna-Whore complex, a misogynistic trope in which women are always the idealised, perfect mother, or the debased whore. Because McCarthy posed for Playboy, the implication is that she is inherently an unfit mother, unqualified to observe her son’s regression into autism. The other implication is that she is inherently stupid (women who have worked in pornography are perceived in society as ‘dumb bimbos’). Thus she is unable to correctly observe the behaviours of her own child in the mind of the vaccinationist.

Conclusion

Neurodiversity cannot be seen as an anti-establishment narrative. Like transgenderism, it is an ideology promoted by the establishment that pretends not to be promoted as such. In part III, we will discuss the target of the neurodiversity narrative – high functioning autistic people and parents of autistic children – and how this precludes vaccination criticism.

G. B. H.

You feel sure that you must scream

Must have screamed when confronted with that needle

Must have known what it meant

Deep in the bones

Deep in the soul

When they smile over your tomb

Praise you for doing well

When they buried you in

The type that

Can’t be scrubbed out from your pores

Can’t be scratched out through your blood

Can’t be pissed out on the floor

Can’t be emptied out

But must empty you out

A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism – Part 2, Jenner’s Critics

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. This section forms part 2 looking at Jenner and his critics.

The ‘Discovery’ of Edward Jenner

In 1796, Edward Jenner performed his first vaccination. This was on an 8 year old boy called James Phipps. In this experiment, Jenner inserted into the arm of the boy matter from the teat of a cow with cowpox using a lancet. Cowpox was a disease of the cow’s udder, which caused pustules to appear on that area. It was transmitted to humans via the action of milking a diseased udder.

Jenner’s justification for doing this was that cowpox allegedly prevented smallpox. There had long been a rumour among dairy maids that they could not contract smallpox, if they had contracted cowpox. In fact, the official story or mythology of Edward Jenner states that he overheard this idea from a dairy maid when he was a teenager and was taken with testing it (this is narrated by Jenner’s sycophantic biographer, John Baron).

Jenner became a country doctor in Berkeley, Gloucestershire. He became a member of the Royal Society after writing a paper about cuckoos that was accepted. In 1796, when Jenner performed his first inoculation with vaccine virus (later known as vaccination) he wrote a paper outlining his theory of the origins of cowpox (he believed that it originally came from the horse, and was transferred to the cow via those who dressed diseased horse heels). He then outlined the theory that the cowpox infection prevented the smallpox infection. He used some examples of those he met in his practice who had had a cowpox infection, on whom inoculation (deliberate infection with smallpox) would not ‘take’. The failure of inoculation to take was interpreted as immunity to smallpox. He also outlined his test on James Phipps, first inserting cowpox matter and several weeks later performing inoculation on the boy. As the inoculation did not take Jenner interpreted this as proof of immunity.

The Royal Society rejected Jenner’s paper. They believed it did not have enough evidence to support it and that it might tarnish Jenner’s reputation. Jenner was still determined to publish, so he added more evidence – increasing the number of cases of vaccination. (A detailed discussion of the differences between Jenner’s first and second versions of the paper can be found in Crookshank’s book). He published it in 1798.

Pearson and Woodville

Two important figures took up Jenner’s vaccination idea, George Pearson and William Woodville. Both these doctors were vital in spreading the practise of vaccination and backing it ideologically.

William Woodville was the lead doctor at the Smallpox Hospital in London, so it can be imagined that he had significant influence over the treatment and prevention of smallpox. He took to the idea of vaccination and ran a significant number of tests. Woodville’s tests had many flaws, in particular that he sometimes attempted cowpox and smallpox inoculation very close together. However his testing was more extensive and better documented than Jenner’s.

Pearson sought to set up an institute for vaccination. This annoyed Jenner, as he was not consulted in advance regarding the project. Pearson also distributed vaccine lymph early on in the process to allow other doctors to perform vaccination, which was important as Jenner did not have vaccine lymph to give out on many occasions.

Jenner had a significant number of supporters in the medical profession. When he was put forward for a government reward in 1802, a large number of doctors spoke in his favour. The profession adopted Jenner’s theory very quickly, and it spread widely. This included across Europe, the United States, as well as many colonised countries.

Jenner’s Critics

Jenner had three main critics of his theory when it was first published. These three men were Benjamin Moseley, John Birch, and William Rowley. None of these men were antivaccination in the sense that we would understand this term today, i.e. they were not opposed to all artificial inculcating of disease. They were supporters of the old method of inoculation and sceptical of Jenner’s attempt to replace it. At this time, there were no high profile critics of both inoculation and vaccination (this tendency would only develop post vaccination mandate, from 1853).

These three men opposed the award to Jenner by the British government during the hearing on this issue in 1802.

Benjamin Moseley

Moseley was a doctor who was well known for other writings prior to his involvement in the vaccination controversy, in particular writings relating to the Caribbean.

He opposed Jenner’s method early on, and published more than one book relating to the issue. He considered that a ‘cowpox mania’ had taken over the medical profession. In his book, A Treatise on the Luis Bovilla, Or Cow Po x, he made several arguments. He stated there was no affinity between cowpox and smallpox, so there was no specific property of cowpox which meant it could prevent smallpox. He also argued that cowpox was not necessarily a mild disease. He pointed to the ulceration that often accompanied the practise.

John Birch

John Birch was a surgeon who was opposed to vaccination. In his text, Serious Reasons for objecting to the Practice of Vaccinatio n he discusses the Royal Commitee on Vaccination. He argued that there was a large number of vaccine failures but that most of these were not admitted, and that the Committee tried to soften the language by stating that these cases only apparently had cowpox.

William Rowley

William Rowley was an active practitioner of inoculation. As such it could be said that he had a degree of vested interest in defending the practise against the new threat of vaccination. He considered inoculation to be a very safe practise that rarely led to death when performed competently. Vaccination, on the other hand, he considered both dangerous and ineffective.

Rowley authored a work called ‘Cow Pox No Security Against Smallpox Infection‘. This book has been considered a target of mockery by vaccinationists due to a couple of the images included in the book. These images claimed to show vaccination injuries, but as Rowley had titled one of them ‘The Ox Faced Boy’ he was mocked for making a linkage between vaccination and people becoming bovine.

Rowley actually collected a large number of cases, including with address details so at the time they could be checked, of vaccination injury, death, and cases of smallpox after vaccination.

He also provides an extensive list of excuses used by vaccinationists to defend their theory. These included the theory of ‘spurious cowpox’, which was outlined by Jenner in his second essay on cowpox. The idea of a ‘real’ and a ‘spurious’ cowpox allowed any cases of failure to be assigned to a spurious vaccination. He also accused vaccinationists of misdiagnosis of cases of smallpox in vaccinated people. He also states that vaccinationists formulated the excuse that even if cowpox failed to prevent the disease, it made it milder.

Conclusion

Vaccination had some significant opposition. However, it is fair to say that it had very little ideological opposition at this time. Its opponents thought it was unsafe and ineffective but advocated the earlier practise of inoculation instead rather than rejecting both. Well founded ideological opposition to vaccination would have to wait until after 1853 – the year of the UK’s smallpox vaccine mandate.