review of Edgar March Crookshank's "History and Pathology of Vaccination - Volume 1"


2116. "review of Dr. Edgar Marsh Crookshank's "History and Pathology of Vaccination - Volume 1""

- the complete version of my review

- credited to: tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE

- published on my "Critic" website on October 11, 2022


review of

Edgar March Crookshank's "History and Pathology of Vaccination - Volume 1"

by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - October 1-10, 2022


As I've explained often enuf in other reviews, I've been what I might call "vaccination-neutral" for most of my life. As a child in the 1950s & '60s I probably rc'vd whatever the standard vaccinations were in my area. I'm sure that included one for polio & one for some sort of pox or another (I still have the scar for that one on my arm). I got them, like most children, b/c my parents had me get them. My parents, like children, did that b/c drs told them too.

The last vaccination I got was probably in 1968 when I was 14. My Junior High School lined the students up like domesticated animals going to the slaughter & injected us w/ a hypodermic that had a large silver cannister, they changed out the needle for each new injection. That one was for a disease that the birds that were temporarily roosting across the street from the school in some woods were supposedly carriers of, avian flu, I suppose. One of the students fainted when injected, the other students made fun of him. At the time, I thought the whole thing was ridiculous, I wasn't afraid of getting a disease from the birds or afraid of birds in general. I went for walks in the woods all the time, I felt at home there, the wildlife were creatures whose presence I enjoyed. I stopped getting vaccinated after that, 54 or 55 yrs ago.

I've gotten the flu, probably usually at times when I'd weakened my body w/ excessive drinking of alcohol. I don't remember even being particularly bothered by it, it's been almost like a vacation from my body's usual state: my nose runs, I cough, I get a mild fever, I lay around.. it's lasted perhaps 4 to 7 days, no big deal. I don't remember when flu shots became such a common thing as they are now, it seems to me that most people just got the flu & rode it out w/ only mild complaining. Now, of course, the flu shots are heavily promoted at drug stores & elsewhere every yr - & w/ this heavy promotion has come an increased fear of the flu - I'm still not afraid of it. If my body ever gets so weak that the flu threatens to kill me off then maybe it's time to go, I'm not expecting to live forever. At any rate, I'm 69 yrs old & the thought of getting a flu doesn't worry me at all.

The extremely Draconian pressure on people to get COVID-19 vaccinations & the apparently never-ending booster shots has never struck me as a positive or necessary public health measure. SO, having, like most people, esp most pro-vaccination people, very limited knowledge of the history of vaccination, I decided to learn more about it & came across mention of this bk & its author in the process.

"Edgar March Crookshank (2 October 1858 ­ 1 July 1928) was an English physician and microbiologist.


"Crookshank studied at King's College London and qualified for medicine in 1881. He served briefly as an assistant to Joseph Lister, a physician noted for his work promoting antiseptics and sterile surgery. In 1882, Crookshank served as a doctor with the British armed forces sent to Egypt as a result of the Urabi Revolt; he was decorated for his service at the Battle of Tel el-Kebir.

"On return from Egypt, Crookshank toured Europe in 1884 for further medical training. In Berlin, he visited the laboratory of Robert Koch and learned methods of isolating bacterial strains to investigate infectious diseases.

"When he returned to London, Crookshank wrote a textbook, An Introduction to Practical Bacteriology Based on the Methods of Koch, which was published in 1886. Subsequent editions were published under differing titles in 1887, 1890 and 1896, and a French translation by H. Bergeaud was published in Paris as soon as 1886.

"In 1885, Crookshank founded one of the world's first bacteriological laboratories for human and veterinary pathology in London.

"Crookshank was also interested in the use of photography to study bacteria and published Photography of Bacteria in 1887, the first text in English devoted solely to the photography of bacteria. In the introduction to this book he wrote that the photographs were "intended to convince scoffers of the essential truth of the new Science, that specific, often morphologically distinct, microorganisms were the cause of particular infectious diseases".

"During this time he became interested in the study of infectious diseases in animals and in 1886 was awarded the chair of Comparative Pathology and Bacteriology at King's College London. In his new role he was asked to investigate an outbreak of cowpox in Lechlade, Gloucestershire.

"His investigations led him to reconsider the use of cowpox-derived vaccines to immunize against smallpox, a treatment developed by Edward Jenner nearly a hundred years earlier. His conclusion was that such vaccines were ineffective in preventing smallpox because the two diseases (cowpox and smallpox) were "totally distinct". Instead of a cowpox-derived vaccine, he advocated the use of a more dangerous vaccination using attenuated smallpox. In 1889, he published a two-volume treatise on the subject, A History and Pathology of Vaccination. Vaccination policies were a divisive topic at the time and in the ensuing controversy that resulted from his publication, Crookshank quit his chair at King's College London in 1891. He continued to speak out on health matters but never worked in a laboratory again."


I quote so much of the above Wikipedia entry in order to show that Crookshank certainly had what wd ordinarily be considered acceptable qualifications for writing a bk on vaccination. He was a physician & microbiologist whose studies were international. he studied infectious diseases in particular. He established one of the 1st bacteriological laboratories. He had multiple bks to his credit before writing the one under review. He was awarded the chair of Comparative Pathology and Bacteriology at King's College London. But there's something in particular about the Wikipedia entry that I want to call attn to - viz: "he advocated the use of a more dangerous vaccination using attenuated smallpox." There's no citation substantiating this claim that this was "a more dangerous vaccination" - this is, quite simply, propaganda. Note that the entry also claims that "Vaccination policies were a divisive topic at the time" - the implication seems to be that they're no longer "a divisive topic" when, in fact, vaccination is still a heavily contested procedure to this day.

This bk is 466pp long & is only the 1st of 2 volumes. As such, very few people are ever likely to read it in its entirety. Even this review will be so long that not many people will even read just this. I devote so much time & energy to writing the review b/c I think it's an important subject. My 'take-away' is that the drs under scrutiny here were an arrogant bunch infatuated w/ their own sense of superiority. I take the following definition of hubris from an investment article but I think it's as applicable to drs as it is to financiers:

"Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that they may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character." -

HUBRIS, an important concept here. For hundreds of yrs vaccination has been heavily promoted by people who're sure they can do no wrong - & when vaccination backfires, as it does over & over again, the severe health problems & deaths caused by it are dismissed as flukes the result of improper vaccinating procedures or collateral damage - there's always an excuse to justify the casualties - always backed by the claim that if it weren't for the vaccinations the situation wd be even worse, the deaths even more numerous. I'm not convinced that that's true. I AM convinced that drs get away w/ murder.

The title page provides these qualifications & the date of publication:


"Professor of Comparative Pathology and Bacteriology in, and Fellow of, King's College, London

"Author of papers on the etiology of scarlet fever; anthrax in swine; tuberculosis and the public milk supply; and the history and pathology of actinmycosis; in reports of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council, etc.

"Author of a Manual of Pathology, etc."



It's worth noting that Crookshank wd've only been 30 when the bk was published. One cd admire the strength & dedication of one so young or write him off as too young or..?

I came to learning about this work thru reading 1st about Dr. Charles Creighton (22 November 1847 ­ 18 July 1927):

"Creighton was an anti-vaccinationist. He has been described by historian Roy Porter as the anti-vaccination movement's "most ardent and distinguished spokesmen." Creighton argued that vaccination was poisoning of the blood with contaminated material, which could provide no protection from disease.

Two articles he wrote for the Encyclopædia Britannica on pathology (1885) and vaccinations (1888) cast doubt on the existence of germs and the efficacy of vaccines. He was widely condemned for these views by leading medical journals. He continued to express his unorthodox and unpopular anti-vaccination views in The Natural History of Cowpox and Vaccinal Syphilis (1887) and Jenner and Vaccination (1889).

Creighton was an active member of the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination."


One story has it that Crookshank was encouraged to write his "History and Pathology of Vaccination" b/c it was expected that he wd counter Creighton's influential publications on the subject. Instead, after careful & prolonged study, he came to agree w/ Creighton.

"My interest in this subject was further stimulated by Sir James Paget, who very kindly examined one of the milkers casually infected from the cows, and while so doing drew my attention to a copy of Dr, Creighton's work on Cow Pox and Vaccinal Syphilis, then just published. The question naturally arose, whether my observations supported or refuted the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Creighton as the result of his historical researches." - p vi

"I gradually became so deeply impressed with the small amount of knowledge possessed by practitioners, concerning Cow Pox and other sources of vaccine lymph, and with the conflicting teachings and opinions of leading authorities, in both the medical and veterinary professions, that I determined to investigate the subject for myself. From antiquarian booksellers in Paris, Berlin, and in this country, I succeeded in a very short time in obtaining a large number of works dealing with the early history of vaccination." - p viii

Note that by the time Crookshank wrote this bk, vaccination had been going on for roughly 100 yrs & yet the author writes about "the small amount of knowledge possessed by practitioners". Note also that Crookshank mentions "the conflicting teachings and opinions of leading authorities". This latter reinforces my observation that there is no such as THE SCIENCE, meaning that there's no such thing as a monolithic opinion about anything, certainly NOT vaccination, upon wch all drs &/or scientists are in agreement. This isn't just a matter of the 19th century, it continues to be the case in the 21st century. If it ever ceases to be the case it won't be b/c of scientifically valid consensus (there is no such thing, it's antithetical to the variety of ways that hypothetical conclusions are reached), it'll be b/c of an absolute enforcement of conformity, an inquisition, essentially.

By p xv we get to a list of plates. Alas, as the back cover of this bk warns:

"As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant."

Indeed, the reproduction is of a library copy of the bk, apparently last taken out in 1988 when the bk was 100 yrs old. Given that I have at least a few bks in my personal library that're older than that & that those bks are in much better shape this one apparently was in its original form I have to wonder whether the poor quality of the reproduction is b/c of inept copying & printing technique. For one thing, the original illustrations were in color &, in some cases, were fold-outs. Both of those aspects are eliminated here, probably to save money. Still, the resultant poor quality of the reproduction is so poor as to be almost incomprehensibly reduced to high contrast. I'm sure they didn't have to be that way & I blame it on the ineptness of the technician who rephotographed the pages. Even worse is the problem of MANY of the right-side pages being so poorly reproduced that they're often unreadable b/c so much of the image is missing. I did my best to read this as thoroughly as I cd but I'd get a better edition if one were available & affordable (wch might not be the case).

Chapter 1 begins:

"The practice of Small Pox inoculation is one of very great antiquity. It had been found by experience that a person was not, as a rule, seized with Small Pox a second time ; but when, and how, the method of artificially inducing the disease was discovered, or where this preventative treatment was first employed, is quite unknown. It has been suggested, not unnaturally, that as the Arabian physicians were acquainted with the nature and treatment of Small Pox, they were probably the first to whom it occurred to produce the disease by inoculation. Avicenna, who is said to have lived at Bokhara, on the east coast of the Caspian Sea, has been credited with this discovery" - p 1

It's my moderate contention that nature inoculates. In other words, by existing in whatever our natural environment is, in my case the temperate northeast of the us@, one becomes inoculated w/o the 'need' for human intervention. However, I think this inoculation is limited by how gentle one is in relation to the rest of the environment. I'd managed to never get poison ivy until I was in my 50s when I started attacking my lawn w/ ferocity. IMO, the lawn defended itself, putting me out of commission for awhile w/ poison.

The point is that, IMO, human inoculation is overkill, an example of hubris in action, something more likely to cause harm than good. The cow milkers who feature heavily in this history shd've just stopped milking the cows when they showed pox on their udders. After all, by continuing to milk them they not only caused the cows unnecessary suffering they risked receiving diseased milk. I've heard it sd that cows need to be milked daily in order to relieve them of their accumulated milk - but it seems likely to me that the milking of them for human consumption is what creates this unnatural problem. Cd exploiting animals for this purpose be done away w/ altogether? Might that then solve the pox transmission problem better than other solutions?

As for Avicenna? My interest always increases when he's mentioned - partially b/c he's credited as being one of the 1st historically noted thought experimenters. See my movie: "Avicenna's Floating Maori": .

Crookshank tries to trace the history of inoculation thru dr's reports. Here's a description from Circassia in 1711:

""She took three needles fastened together, and prick'd first the pit of the stomach ; secondly, directly over the heart ; thirdly the navel ; fourthly, the right wrist ; and fifthly, the ankle of the left foot, till the blood came. At the same time, she took some matter from the pocks of the sick person, and applied it to the bleeding part, which she covered, first, with angelica leaves dri'd, and after with some of the youngest lamb-skins ; and having bound them well on, the mother wrapped her daughter up in one of the skin coverings, which, I have observed, compose the Circassian beds, and carried her thus packed up in her arms to her own home ; where (as they told me) she was to continue to be kept warm, eat only a sort of pap made of cummin flour, with two-thirds water and one-third sheep's milk, without either flesh or fish, and drink a sort of tisan, made with angelica, bugloss roots, and licorish> which are all very common throughout this country ; and they assured me that with this precaution and regimin, the Small Pox generally came out very favourably in five or six days."" - p 3

Crookshank provides positive reports:

"That although at first the more prudent were very cautious in the use of this pratice ; yet the happy success it has been found to have in thousands of subjects for these eight years past has now put it out of all suspicion and doubt ; since the operations having been perform'd on persons of all ages, sexes, and different temperaments, and even in the worst constitution of the air, yet none have been found to die of the Small Pox ; when at the same time it was very mortal when it seized the patient the common way, of which half the affected dy'd. This he attests upon his own observation." - p 6

So far, so good. Judging from these early observations it seems possible enuf that the theory upon wch inoculation rests may've been proven by application. However, there are various complications that arise as the testimonials are accumulated, as distinctions are made, as witnesses are called into question.

One of the many things I found interesting was the expression "buying the Small Pox":

""This method of procuring the disease is termed buying the Small Pox on the following account. The child to be inoculated carries a few raisins, dates, sugarplums, or suchlike ; and showing them to the child from whom that matter is to be taken, asks how many pocks he will give in exchange.["]" - p 9

The child to be inoculated from the diseased pus from another child puts a happy face on the whole deal (under adult guidance) by offering sweets in exchange for the disease. I'm reminded of when I was a child & my mom bought a comic bk for me whenever I was 'well-behaved' in receiving an iron shot at the dr's. On the one hand, I can see how "buying the pox" is a neat psychological trick for turning a bad thing into a good one. On the other hand, there's a capitalist sickness to it all that I find disturbing - paying a sick person to spread their sickness - certainly there's something suspicious about that.

"In other parts of Africa a similar custom existed. Here also it was called buying the Small Pox, and there was a superstition that inoculation would be of no avail, unless the person from whom the variolous matter was taken, received a piece of money or some article in exchange." - p 10

Interesting. Is the idea that the sick person's 'evil spirit' will be appeased by a present & ameliorate its potency in appreciation?! Whatever the case, more positive accounts accrue:

"["]Otherwise this practice is so innocent and so sure that out of a hundred persons inoculated not two die ; whereas, on the contrary, out of a hundred persons that are infected with the Small Pox the natural way, there die commonly about thirty.["]" - p 11

However, ultimately, there wasn't any more unanimity than there is today:

"Dr. Hecquet published a thesis entitled Raisons de doute contre l'inoculation [Reasons for doubt against inoculation], and this, together with the reports of failures in Boston, U.S.A., and the great mortality of the natural Small Pox in London, which was attributed to the new practice, soon brought inoculation into disrepute in France, and the proposed experiments were abandoned." - p 16

"In Berlin, the practice was soon discountenanced, for Meckel inoculated his children, and on repeating the experiment on others had three deaths, two being in the family of a baron. Dr. Muzell inoculated six children, of whom three died, and the three who were recovered were much disfigured. In 1774, Dr. Baylies inoculated seventeen persons : one death occurred, which, in order to silence an unfavorable report, was attributed to a "putrid fever, of which the eruption was only symptomatic."" - p 18

This isn't the only bk I've read that references such cover-ups:

"According to Thomas Morgan in his Medical Delusions (p. 48-49) "Jenner soon discovered that vaccination did not give immunity from smallpox, including some who had been vaccinated by himself and had died from it. Not wishing to bring vaccination into disrepute, he endeavored to suppress reports, and in writing to a friend said, 'I wish my professional brethren to be slow to publish fatal reports after vaccination.' and in 1810 he wrote: 'When I found Dr. Woodworth about to publish his pamphlet relative to the eruption (smallpox) cases at the Smallpox Hospital, I entreated him in the strongest terms, both by letter and conversation, not to do a thing that would so disturb the progress of vaccination.' (Barron's Life of Jenner).

""The foregoing plainly proves that Jenner himself was aware of the utter uselessness of vaccination; but, having received the bounty from the government . . . he preferred to resort to all kinds of schemes rather than acknowledge its failure.

""From its inception until the present day, the vaccination scheme has been an endless record of lies, deception, fraud, juggling statistics, and falsifying death certificates in order to preserve vaccination from reproach and to secure its continuation . . . and all this after more than a century of terrible experience, which has demonstrated that vaccination has killed more than smallpox, besides crippling and disfiguring millions more."" - p 35, Eleanor McBean's "The Poisoned Needle - Sup[p]ressed Facts about Vaccination" [ISBN 9780787305949 edition]

But back to Crookshank's "History and Pathology of Vaccination":

"In America.-In 1721, Small Pox visited this country after an absence of nineteen years. The Rev. Cotton Mather copied the accounts of inoculation given by Timoni and Pylarini in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society> and sent them to the practioners of Boston. Dr. Zabdiel Boylston was induced to inoculate his child, and two of his negro servants, and in six months he had inoculated 244 persons.

"It may be interesting to note that out of these 244 cases, in six there was no effect at all, and six died in consequence of the inoculation, but the deaths were attributed to other causes." - p 20

"Boylston's experiments, and particularly his fatal cases, excited a great deal of opposition to inoculation, and many pamphlets were published in defence of, and against, the practice. But the following manifesto gave a severe check to his operations :-

""At a meeting by Public Authority in the Town-house of Boston before His Majesty's Justice of the Peace and the Select-Men ; the Practioners of Physick and Surgery being called before them concerning Inoculation, agreed to the following conclusion :-

" A Resolve upon a Debate held by the Physicians of Boston, concerning Inoculating the Small Pox, on the twenty first day of July, 1721. It appears by numerous Instances, That it has prov'd the Death of many Persons soon after the Operation, and brought Distempers upon many others, which have in the End prov'd fatal to 'em." - p 21

"Boylston expressed his disapproval of this report upon the cases of natural Small Pox.

""It is a thousand pities our Select-Men made so slight and trifling a Representation of the Small Pox, that had always prov'd so fatal in New England, as they seem to have done in this Advertisement."

"It would appear from this, that in order to make converts to inoculation, it was necessary to keep alarming accounts of the natural Small Pox, before the eyes of the public." - p 22

&, IMO, the same exaggerated fear-mongering exists to this day in relation to COVID-19 wch, regardless of how many fatalities are actually occurring, is constantly presented as a likely bringer of mass death.

"In Ireland.-Inoculation was first performed at Dublin in 1723. In this and in the three following years, twenty-five subjects were inoculated, and as three out of this number died, the results were not very encouraging. Two of these deaths occurred in one family, in which five children had been inoculated." - p 28

Imagine having 2 of yr 5 children die after having a dr perform a procedure purported to protect them from sickness - do you think you'd trust the dr after that? From my POV these drs are arrogant sadistic murderous maniacs who deserve the death penalty much more than, say, a poor person who cdn't pay the fine for having murdered someone (the practice of early Irish law).

"Maitland performed a second inoculation, in the following May, upon the son of Dr. Keith, with a favorable result. This was soon generally known in London, for the news spread rapidly, and excited the greatest interest among people of all ranks. Nevertheless, inoculation made very little progress, for it was regarded with so much fear and suspicion, that several months elapsed before a third trial took place in London. In fact, inoculation was regarded as of such a dangerous nature, that an attempt was not again made until there was an opportunity of inoculating some criminals in Newgate, who were promised a full pardon if they submitted to the experiment. They accepted the offer, and were accordingly inoculated by Maitland on the 9th of August, 1721. None of them had the disease severely ; in fact there were only sixty pustules on the one in whom the operation produced the most effect. A seventh criminal was experimented upon by the Chinese method." - p 36

The word "experiment" is one that recurs frequently throughout this bk, over & over the drs are experimenting, NOT treating. It seems to me that this is correct & accurate. However, it has to also be acknowledged that these experiments are not only carried out on prisoners & orphans but also on the aristocracy & on the children of the drs as well - in at least one case w/ a fatal result. As for "only sixty pustules"?! That seems extremely unpleasant to me.

"In the account given by Maitland of these cases, we have the first intimation of a danger arising from this practice, which a century later was the strongest argument for not only abandoning it, but also for suppressive legislation. The first of these patients was Mary Batt, two years old, the daughter of a Quaker, inoculated October 2nd, 1721. This child, having only twenty pustules, soon recovered."


"["]The case was in short this: Six of Mr. Batt's domestic servants, who all in turn were wont to hug and caress this child whilst under the operation, and whilst the pustules were out upon her, never suspecting them to be catching (nor indeed did I), were all seized at once with the right natural Small Pox of several and very different kinds."" - p 37

That's interesting, one source resulting in several kinds of Small Pox. One might think that instead of there being different KINDS that there might instead be different REACTIONS depending on the specific physiology of the afflicted. At any rate, it demonstrates that inoculated people are contagious.

"In 1772, inoculation was more generally adopted. The Princess of Wales ordered it to be practiced upon some charity children, and the successful result induced her Royal Highness to have the two young princesses inoculated." - p 38

Oh, well.. that's a clear instance of the poor being used as guinea pigs for the safety of the rich.

"In spite of the fatal cases, an advantage was claimed for inoculation, in that it had been calculated, that of all those affected with Small Pox in the ordinary way, about one in six died, whereas the deaths from inoculation contended for by the anti-inoculators amounted to not more than one in fifty. In 1731, a pamphlet was published exposing the fallacies in Dr. Jurin's and Dr. Scheuchzer's statistics, and claiming that the advantage of the inoculated Small Pox over the natural disease was fictitious. The writer maintained that by inoculation the variolous infection was spread far and wide, and a considerable increase of mortality by Small Pox occasioned ; thus the lives saved to the persons themselves inoculated fell short of the lives lost from the increased infection." - pp 42-43

&, thus, the debate continues to this day - but, as w/ all history, history belongs to the victor: i.e.: to the people who make the most money & control the most media reporting on the subject. These days, pharmaceutical companies seem to me to be the victors - but let's not forget those age-old tools of mind-control, the clergy:

"Mr. Sutton also employed a clergyman, who preached sermons, and wrote exaggerated accounts of his results. The Rev. Robert Houlton, the advocating clergyman, attributed the success to Mr. Sutton's treatment. He said "that not one person out of a thousand inoculated by Mr. Sutton had more variolous pustules than he could wish["]" - pp 47-48

How many pustules wd you wish for? Personally, I'd wish for none. I'm reminded of the 20th century's war-mongering preacher, Billy Graham - the point isn't whether the practice being preached is actually backed by the religion used to back the preaching but whether there's money to be made for the preacher.

"But the writers who first described the custom which prevailed in different parts of the world, of "buying" or "ingrafting" the Small Pox, were unacquainted with the details which were essential for the performance of the operation with comparative safety"


"Practice of the Brahmins.-In Hindostan, the operation was performed only at certain seasons of the year, and a preparatory regimen was enforced. Probably, the Brahmins selected the subjects for inoculation, as well as the subjects from whom they took the variolous matter." - p 52

There're so many nuances & cultural variants to the inoculation process - failures can be blamed by proponents of one system on the deviations of another - but what if they all fail at some point or another? That's when a basic flaw in the practice in general seems likely.

"Practice of Burgess.-In spite of the precautions which had been recommended by Jurin, inoculation still continued to be followed occassionally by bad results. It was by no means a safe operation, and in order to diminish the risks, Mr. James Burgess published, in 1766, an account of the necessary preparations and management, with additions and improvements." - p 56

"In fact, the course of preparation could be summed up in three words-"temperance, quiet, and cheerfulness." The patient, being in a proper state of body and mind, would then pass safely through the distemper" - p 57

Perhaps abstaining from things that have demonstrably caused harm to oneself ("temperance"), not inducing stress ("quiet"), & being positive in general ("cheerfulness") might be healthy on their own.

"The following is a short account of the progress of inoculation of the Empress :-

"Previous to inoculation she abstained from "animal food at supper, and at dinner ate only as was easy of digestion." The day before inoculation "she took 5 grains of mercurial powder." Sunday, 12th, late in the evening, she was inoculated with fluid matter by one puncture in each arm, and "on the succeeding night was very restless, and complained of pains in different parts of her body." . . . On the 14th, "she passed a tolerable night, certain signs of infection appeared on the places of incision ; a little pain was felt under the arm." . . . On October 15th, "the giddiness and the pain under her arm ceased. The places of incision became more red." On the 16th, she "complained of heaviness in her head at intervals; . . . four grains of the mercurial powder were given" - p 74

"mercurial powder": another complex issue in wch there is not monolithic THE SCIENCE but, instead, a variety of opinions. I've written about the use of mercury for medicinal purposes in other reviews of medical bks. Here's a sample:

"Now, do I think that thimerosal (mercury) is safe as something to be ingested? Offit has this to say:

""Before they put thimerosal in vaccines, Lilly scientists first studied it."


""Although thimerosal didn't treat meningitis, doctors found that it was safe." - p 63

"Let's not forget that Offit was quoted above as having written: "Opren had already been withdrawn from the United States, where it had been linked to more than seventy deaths and 1,000 cases of kidney and liver failure, The drug's manufacturer, Eli Lilly, eventually settled cases in Britain for $6 million." In other words, Offit is honest enuf to admit that pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, can make serious mistakes that damage people's health. In other other words, it's reasonable for people such as myself to take the safety conclusions of pharmaceutical companies w/ some suspicion.

""Mercury is a naturally-occurring chemical element found in rock in the earth's crust, including in deposits of coal."


""Elemental or metallic mercury is a shiny, silver-white metal, historically referred to as quicksilver, and is liquid at room temperature. It is used in older thermometers, fluorescent light bulbs and some electrical switches. When dropped, elemental mercury breaks into smaller droplets which can go through small cracks or become strongly attached to certain materials. At room temperature, exposed elemental mercury can evaporate to become an invisible, odorless toxic vapor. If heated, it is a colorless, odorless gas. Learn about how people are most often exposed to elemental mercury and about the adverse health effects that exposures to elemental mercury can produce."" -

"In short, mercury is generally considered toxic but there're variations. Even tho Offit makes the case that thimerosal has been proven safe & has justified its use as a preservative in vaccines that might deteriorate & become poisonous on their own otherwise, I have to wonder why take the risk?"

- review of Paul A. Offit, M.D.'s "Autism's False Prophets - Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure" by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - July 1-20, 2022 -

Back to Crookshank's "History and Pathology of Vaccination":

"However, instances sometimes occurred of accidents and even death ; but these were attributed to other causes, in order to save the new method from reproach, a fact which was many years afterwards commented upon by Moore(1) in the following words :-

"An empiric never hesitates at making positive declarations, and is never at a loss for pretexts to cover failures. Should an infant at the accession of the variolous fever be carried off by convulsion, he denies with effrontery that the Small Pox was the cause, and invents another upon the spot. Should the confluent Small Pox and death ensue, he soon detects that his instructions were not strictly complied with, but some important error was committed in regimen ; or, that the patient was too much or too little exposed to the air. In fine, the fault may be in the parents, in the nurse, or in the inoculated, but is never allowed fairly to fall upon the inoculator."


"(1) Moore. The History of the Small Pox, p. 209. 1815." - p 80

Now this is where what my experience wd call "reality" enters the picture. The dr, the inoculator, knowing that he's more articulate than his subject (& less affected by any emotion other than whatever's condusive to self-preservation), can always fall back on deniability. I'm w/ Moore, I don't buy it - the proof is in the pudding & the pudding's dead. When any kind of con-man speaks be sure to have yr Bullshit Detector turned on. Drs & lawyers are just as often con-men as used car salesmen.

Chapter IV begins w/ this heading: "HAYGARTH'S SYSTEM FOR PREVENTING SMALL POX.":

"The history of Small Pox inoculation has been given in the preceding pages, from its first employment in England to the time of the general adoption of the Suttonian method. This practice, though so long continued, had not only failed to exterminate Small Pox, but, on the contrary, there can be little doubt that it actually assisted in spreading the disease. Instances occurred in which Small Pox was introduced by inoculation into towns which were and had been for many years perfectly free from the natural disease, and an epidemic followed." - p 81

Now, is there any reason to suppose that the continued use of viral matter hasn't also continued the same problems? SO, now there's the relatively new territory of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) being used in 'vaccines' to hypothetically stimulate an antibody response. Perhaps the GMOs are less likely to produce the disease hypothetically protected against, I can imagine a solid case being made for that. Nonetheless, what we have, once again, is experimentation w/ a large number of serious & fatal side-effects. Haygarth (1784):

"["]Let us reflect how widely and fatally this poison is dispersed among all ranks of people. It may be conveyed into any house unobserved from a great variety of families, adhering to clothes, food, furniture["]"


""The clothes of a patient generally contain the largest quantity of variolous poison. However, all the enumerated articles and many more that come out of an infectious house or from an infectious person find their way unsuspected into all families of a certain rank. The poison is quickly and universally dispersed among the lowest class of people whose poverty renders them dirty."" - p 85

"" ' About 1718, a ship from the East Indies arrived at the Cape of Good Hope. In the voyage, three children had been sick of Small Pox ; the foul linen about them was put into a trunk and locked up. At the ship's landing, this was taken out and given to some natives to be washed. Upon handling the linen, they were seized with the Small Pox, which spread into the country for many miles, and made such a desolation that it was almost depopulated.' "" - pp 85-86

"SO, onto A People's History..: This book, of course, is reknowned as a major work refuting the History of the Victor that constitutes most history as 'learned' by most people - if only because the Victor has more resources available for the dissemination of their worldview (thanks to the thieving of their 'victory'). Even before I'd read the book, stories from it had disseminated into my life somehow. Take, for example, the story of the smallpox blankets:

"When the war ended in 1763, the French, ignoring their old allies, ceded to the British lands west of the Appalachians. The Indians therefore united to make war on the British western forts; this is called 'Pontiac's Conspiracy' by the British, but 'a liberation war for independence' in the words used by Francis Jennings. Under orders from British General Jeffrey Amherst, the commander of Fort Pitts gave the attacking Indian chiefs, with whom he was negotiating, blankets from a smallpox hospital. It was a pioneering effort at what is now called biological warfare. An epidemic soon spread among the Indians.""

- my review of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" as published in Street Ratbag #5

The point is that for any of you who might naysay the opinion that the British deliberately used Small Pox as a weapon against the tribes they were negotiating w/ in 1763 one can at least use Crookshank as a source that spreading Small Pox thru linen was something known as early as 1718. It's also referenced a bit more specifically in this bk in a quote from 1830:

"In 1830, Dr. Sonderland, of Barmen, claimed to have produced vaccine in cows by infection from human Small Pox. An account of these experiments was published in the Medical Repository" - p 293

"" 'The simplest and surest mode of producing Cow Pox in the cow, and this proving indisputably the identity between the contagion of Cow Pox and that of human Small Pox, is to follow the procedure here laid down. Take a woolen bedcover which has lain on the bed of a Small Pox patient who has died during the suppurating stage, or is sufering from the disease in a considerable degree"


"And afterwards hang in such manner in their stall that its exhalation may rise upward and be inhaled by them. In a few days the animal will fall sick and be seized with fever[' "]" - p 294

In case you haven't already noticed, an unacknowledged subtext running thru this bk is that the drs are deliberately spreading diseases. Even when they're not successful it's what they're trying to do.

"Although attempts to confirm Dr. Sonderland's experiments failed in the hands of Ceely in England, and Macpherson and Lamb in India, and at Alfort, Berlin, Weimar, Bergen, Dresden, Kasan, Utrecht, and Stockholm on the Continent ; nevertheless, his aphorisms were accepted in support of the theory, the popular doctrine of the present day, that Cow Pox is Small Pox, modified by transmission through the cow. Had Dr. Sonderland and his followers been acquainted with the characters of the <natural> Cow Pox, and had they appreciated the fact that a vesicle with the physical characters of the vaccine vesicle, could be produced on the human subject, by management of variolous lymph without the intervention of the cow, they could hardly have come to such a conclusion." - p 296

"Attempts to infect cows by enveloping them with the sheets and blankets of Small Pox patients were without result. Ceely nevertheless persevered" - p 297

Haygarth continued:

""Mankind are not necessarily subject to the Small Pox ; it is always caught by infection from a patient in the distemper, or the poisonous matter, or scabs that come from a patient, and may be avoided by observing these


""I. Suffer no person who has not had the Small Pox to come into the infectious house. No visitor who has had any communication with persons liable to the distemper, should touch ot sit down on anything infectious.

""II. No patient, after the pocks have appeared, must be suffered to go into the street, or other frequented place." - p 91

Many people who are against vaccination stress sanitation & hygiene as the main thing necessary for the prevention of epidemics. Haygarth is making a case for this. This, obviously, is the logic involved w/ quarantine. According to the CDC:

"The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days." -

In the above case, quarantine seems sensible. I think, however, that what I prefer to call the QUARANTYRANNY that we've been subjected to for the last 2.5 yrs is complete overkill. Using a potentially valid precaution as an excuse for imposing a medical police state is insidious.

""IV. The patient must not be allowed to approach any person liable to the distemper till every scab is dropt off, till all the clothes, furniture, food, and all other things touched by the patient during the distemper, till the floor of the sick chamber, and till his hair, face, and hands have been carefully washed. After everything has been made perfectly clean, the doors, windows, drawers, boxes, and all oter places that can retain infectious air should be kept open till it be cleared out of the house."

"As every restriction is attended with inconvenience, Haygarth proposed that a reward should be given for attention to the rules, and this was to be secured by annexing to them a

""PROMISSORY NOTE["]" - p 92

That seems like another variation on "Buying the Small Pox" - in another words an attempt to both lessen an epidemic & provide a reward in otherwise miserable circumstances.

"The practice of inoculation was to be altogether subsidiary to the plan of stamping out the disease by isolation, the latter system however was regarded by many as visionary, it was not generally adopted, and when the promise of perfect and everlasting security was made by the promoters of Cow Pox inoculation, Haygarth's system was ignored and lost sight of." - p 97

Here we reach another crux: offer a seemingly simple way out & people will almost inevitably choose it over something that takes discipline - the obvious problem being that the promise of the vaccinators of lifetime immunity had no basis in reality whatsoever. Hence, this promise set actual healthy practices back.

Chapter V is headed: "THE TRADITIONS OF THE DAIRYMAIDS" & provides a key history that I'd already read about elsewhere but that I was glad to re-encounter in Crookshank.

"Adams in his work on Morbid Poisons writes : "Shall we forget that to the barbers we owe the bold use of mercury, to the Jesuits, of the Peruvian bark, which they learned of the Indians" [meaning a source of quinine used as a remedy for malaria] ", that an African showed us the value of quassia, that a Greek slave taught a woman the art of inoculation, the blessings of which were for a time almost lost by our fancied improvements and ill-directed cautions? Lastly, shall we contrast all this with the manner in which a Jenner has availed himself of the neglected traditions of cowherds and dairymaids?"" - p 98

Point taken, it's wise to pay attn to the 'folk remedies' of the people most directly experienced w/ the diseases under study.

"In some parts of the country, a belief existed among those who had the care of cattle, that a disease of cows, which they called Cow Pox, when communicated to the milkers, afforded them protection from Small Pox.

"It is not without importance to consider when, and how, this belief arose. Pearson and Jenner were both of opinion that it originated simultaneously with the introduction of Small Pox inoculation." - pp 98-99

"But, although Cow Pox and natural Small Pox have been known from time immemorial, there is no evidence to show this belief originated simultaneously with the early experience of these diseases. How was it, we may ask, that the tradition arose as a result of Small Pox inoculation? It was evidently failure in attempting to inoculate Small Pox on the arms of those who had recently contracted Cow Pox, which gave rise to gossip among the dairymaids, and laid the foundation of the popular tradition." - p 99

Once again, various conflicting opinions refute the notion of a monolithic THE SCIENCE. For one thing, there're multiple types of Pox categorized by various sources that aren't in agreement w/ each other. Pox, or Pocks, are eruptions on the skin that occur in a large variety on humans & other animals. Observations of these pocks are made to distinguish between them. According to ScienceDirect:

"Ten poxviruses infect humans (Table 159.1).2 Except for the 'extinct' variola virus and the increasingly important molluscum contagiosum virus, the poxvirus diseases are zoonoses. With rare exception these zoonotic poxviruses fail to establish a human chain of transmission. Most human poxvirus infections occur through minor abrasions in the skin. Orf, molluscum contagiosum and monkeypox viruses cause the most frequent poxvirus infections worldwide; the incidence of molluscum contagiosum and monkeypox virus infections is on the rise, the former as an opportunistic infection in late-stage AIDS and the latter as a zoonotic infection in central Africa. Individuals with atopic dermatitis may be predisposed to poxvirus infections such as molluscum contagiosum, orf or cowpox."


However, according to Wikipedia:

"Four genera of poxviruses may infect humans: Orthopoxvirus, Parapoxvirus, Yatapoxvirus, Molluscipoxvirus. Orthopoxvirus: smallpox virus (variola), vaccinia virus, cowpox virus, monkeypox virus; Parapoxvirus: orf virus, pseudocowpox, bovine papular stomatitis virus; Yatapoxvirus: tanapox virus, yaba monkey tumor virus; Molluscipoxvirus: molluscum contagiosum virus (MCV). The most common are vaccinia (seen on the Indian subcontinent) and molluscum contagiosum, but monkeypox infections are rising (seen in west and central African rainforest countries). The similarly named disease chickenpox is not a true poxvirus and is caused by the herpesvirus varicella zoster." -

Is that a disagreement or just a different way of expressing the same thing? In other words, are there 10 poxviruses but only 4 genera? & do you find "chickenpox" not being a pox somewhat confusing? & how does syphilis fit in? Is it or is it not a poxvirus in the sense that the above listed are?

"The 'Great Pox', syphilis, is a systemic disease with many clinical manifestations caused by the spirochaete Treponema pallidum. It is usually transmitted sexually but congenital infections can occur and, in certain parts of the world, endemic nonvenereal disease due to T. pallidum exists. Controversy exists as to the historical origins of venereal syphilis.The most common theory, the 'Columbian Theory', is that Columbus brought it back from the New World in 1493. The second theory, or pre Columbian theory, is based on the fact that European medical literature in the 1200­1300s describes certain forms of 'leprosy' which were highly contagious, could be transmitted sexually and from mother to child in utero and were said to respond to mercury. This form of 'leprosy' may, in fact, have been syphilis. The least known theory, the Evolutionary Theory, postulates that the different Treponema spp. evolved from a single organism responding to changes in the environment. The first use of Salvarsan in 1909 was a breakthrough in the therapy of syphilis." -

This issue of whether there's even such a thing as "Cow Pox" & whether it can be used to vaccinate against Small Pox is a central one to this bk.

Putting that issue aside, there's the question of whether the dairymaids & cowherds actually had a folk tradition stating that handling cow pox inoculated the handler against small pox & whether this tradition even held true in practice - OR did, as speculated above, did this 'tradition' come into existence as prompted by the justification for inoculation provided by drs?

If you're looking for evidence of Mad Scientism (in the popular negative sense) look no further than the history of inoculation & vaccination in wch experimenters became frustrated when they cdn't make healthy people sick:

""Although some people cannot, from the peculiar nature of their constitutions, take the Small Pox ; but that cannot be the reason of so many persons in one part of the country, and no other, being incapable of taking the Small Pox.["]" - p 101

Drs forbid (as opposed to "Heaven forbid") that people simply be healthy. It appears that not much attn has been pd to what makes "the peculiar nature" of constitutions "incapable of taking the Small Pox"! Instead, they're treated like suspect abberations. So-called "Asymptomatic" people are similarly demonized today.

As for the Cow Pox?:

"One cow having it will communicate it to a whole dairy." - p 102

It's not initially even noted that Cow Pox doesn't spread from cow-to-cow as much as it does from cow-to-milker-to-cow. The pox on the teats come into contact w/ the milker's hands who then moves onto another cow's teats. It hurts the cow to have its teats handled when they have sores on them but the milkers do it anyway. If they simply didn't milk cows w/ sores the likelihood of the disease spreading wd greatly decrease. Duh.

"When a number of Cows on a farm are at the same time affected, the infection seems generally to have originated in the constitution of some one Cow, and before the milker is aware of the existence of the disease, the infectious matter is probably conveyed by the hands to the teats and udders of other Cows. Hence they are infected. For if the disease in the Cow first affected are to be perceived in a certain state, and obvious precautions be taken, the infection does not spread, but is confined to a single beast." - p 103

Ah, I spoke too soon.

""Mr. Moore's candour begins to show itself about the ninth page, where he admits this Cow Pox to be erroneously attributed to that gentle Animal. ' No Cow that is allowed to suckle her own Calf, untouched by the Milker, ever had this complaint.' He concludes therefore, that the Vaccine Disease is some pollution, imposed upon the harmless Animal by contact of the Milker. This I can readily believe to be the case.["]" - p 210

That commentator takes things a step further: not only is the Cow Pox inappropriately named it's not a matter of the cow transmitting it to the human but vice-versa! The udders get abraded from excessive milking by hand & these abrasions receive infections from the milkers.

"Not only was the tradition well known to inoculators, but we are also informed that there were many who did not believe it ; for it was equally well known that many who had contracted Cow Pox had subsequently suffered from Small Pox. It was owing to this that when Jenner mentioned to his professional neighbors the subject of the prophylactic power of Cow Pox, their reply was not very encouraging.

""We have all heard" (they would observe) "Of what you mention, and we have even seen examples which certainly do give some sort of countenance to the notion to which you allude ; but we have also known cases of a perfectly different nature,-many who were reported to have had the Cow Pox having subsequently caught the Small Pox. The supposed prophylactic powers probably, therefore, depend upon some peculiarity in the constitution who has escaped the Small Pox, and not on any efficacy of that disorder which they may have received from the cow. In short, the evidence is altogether so inconclusive and unsatisfactory that we put no value on it, and cannot think that it will lead to anything but uncertainty and disappointment."" - pp 105-106

Note the reference to "some peculiarity in the constitution who has escaped the Small Pox" reiterating the earlier passage's "peculiar nature" of constitutions "incapable of taking the Small Pox". That seems like an important idea to me: what if every body is different enuf for these generalized prophylactic treatments to be specifically unviable? There're certainly varieties of what foods we eat, wdn't there then be varieties of constitution based on that & other factors?

"Dr. Pulteney had heard of an instance in which Cow Pox had been contracted intentionally by contact.

""A very respectable practitioner informed me that of seven children whom he had inoculated for the Small Pox, five had been previously infected with the Cow Pox purposely, by being made to handle the teats and udders of infected Cows ; in consequence of which they suffered the distemper. These five, after inoculation for the Small Pox, did not sicken ; the other two took the distemper."" - p 107

There are so many variations. It seems to me that this one is a bit more natural & a bit more gentle. Instead of pricking the experimental subject's skin & then injecting diseased matter into the wound the children simply handle the cow's affected parts. There's still also the recurring issue of whether the "Cow Pox" is simply the appearance of pocks on a cow that may not be ultimately that different from any other pox in terms of primary origin - this gets further explored later. After all, these pocks are simply expulsions of unwanted material by the body thru the skin - how these pocks appear on the cow are certainly going to be different than how they appear on a human child - but one can't necessarily conclude from that that it is or isn't the same disease.

A dr named Edward Jenner features prominently in the history of vaccination (as differentiated from inoculation). There're many who glorify him & many who excoriate him. The reasons for this are important to the narrative of this bk.

"Instances had occurred of persons having had the Cow Pox about 1750, and one woman, eighty years of age, asserted that as long as she could remember, the opinion prevailed that people who had the Cow Pox cannot take the Small Pox; and that people purposely exposed themselves to it to protect themselves from the Small Pox." - pp 109-110

SO, here we have testimony that supports the idea that 1. Cow Pox is a different disease than Small Pox, 2. That exposure to Cow Pox acts as a vaccination against Small Pox, 3. That this practice is a folk remedy that predated Jenner's advocacy of it. This, however, isn't THE SCIENCE any more than other conflicting opinions that're enumerated elsewhere. One thing that emerges is the position that Jenner got entirely too much credit for this particular vaccination procedure.

"I shall give in full all the evidence which I have been able to collect from different sources, with a view of establishing Jesty's experiment as an historical fact, for Jenner regarded the account of it as an invention to deprive him of the merit of discovering Cow Pox inoculation. Baron, the biographer of Jenner, turned a deaf ear to anything which he considered might detract from Jenner's credit, and only referred in his biography to Jesty's alleged vaccinations" - pp 110-111

Human nature. Why do people assume that any particular acct is uninflected by bias & ulterior motive? Usually, IMO, b/c it's easier to do so than it is to factor in a large variety of conflicting opinions & then relate those to one's own personal experience. People are generally too busy w/ other more personal things to care that much, ultimately, whether a subject they're only superficially paying attn to has resistence to oversimplication if studied honestly. Hence, we have the day & age where people unquestioningly accept & regurgitate the dogmatic opinions fed them thru their subculturally approved 'news'-feeds. I'm trying to provide a deeper more nuanced take on things in this review but, like anyone else, I have my limits.

I can't say I agree w/ the following logic but I do find it interesting:

"["]there appeared to him little risk in introducing into the human constitution matter from the cow, as we already without danger eat the flesh and blood, drink the milk, and cover ourselves with the skin of this innocuous animal."" - p 114

I noted earlier that I seriously doubt that the reproduction quality of this bk needed to be so bad. A case in point is an image of Elizabeth Jesty who appears in an oval frame & who's shown consisting mainly as a white blob w/ 2 tiny black pinpoints for eyes.

The Jenner section is long, from page 125 to 249. Since he's generally credited w/ establishing vaccination in England he's singled out for particular scrutiny.

"'["]I cannot take that disease, for I have had Cow Pox.' This incident riveted the attention of Jenner."

"That such an event occurred is extremly probable, for the famous tradition was part of the stock gossip of the dairymaids, and was well known to many practioners in dairy districts." - p 127

That's contradicted by something quoted earlier: "it was equally well known that many who had contracted Cow Pox had subsequently suffered from Small Pox." So what's the truth? Maybe it's true in some cases & not in others. That, apparently, is most accurate. People who want to believe one thing do so & explain away contradictory evidence.

Jenner's initial acclaim was based on observations of the cuckoo bird. Perhaps this appreciation of his talents led him to overzealously seek further fame.

""It proved the very singular fact that the infant cuckoo reared from the egg in the sparrow's nest expelled the young of that bird by placing them upon its shoulder, on a depression, which Nature gives for the purpose, on the back of the unfledged cuckoo, and throwing them out of the nest.["]" - p 129

Jenner goes on to make assertions about Cow Pox & the relation between humans & domesticated animals & the transmission of disease.

"["]He went over the natural history of Cow Pox ; stated his opinion as to the origin of this affliction from the heel of the horse["]" - p 132

"["]Domestication of animals has certainly proved a prolific source of disease among men.["]" - p 133

What about the reverse? What about humans as a source of disease among domesticated animals? Jenner's opinion that Cow Pox originated w/ 'horse grease' proved to be, once more, a topic of hotly contested disagreement. No THE SCIENCE here. Jenner's contention was that substituting Cow Pox for Small Pox in inoculation-turned-vaccination was safer than administering Small Pox. Alas, his proofs of this were shakey & exaggerated. Nonetheless, he attracted adherents to the dogma.

""I think the substituting of Cow Pox poison for the Small Pox promises to be one of the greatest improvements that has ever been made in medicine : for it is not only so safe in itself, but also does not endanger others by contagion, in which way the Small Pox has done infinite mischief.["]" - p 140

Here the assertion is that a person contaminated w/ Cow Pox can't transmit it to another person. Does that seem logical or likely to you?

"Another friend endeavored to persuade him to seize this an an opportunity of acquiring fame and fortune. But Jenner declined, and in a letter in answer to his friend the reason is made apparent. Jenner preferred retirement in the country, because he knew that his theory would be rigidly tested in London, and he was not prepared to face failures." - p 142

In "The Poisoned Needle" Jenner is depicted as wreckless w/ other people's lives & greedy:

"Edward Jenner inoculated his 18 months old son with swine-pox, on November 1791, and again in April, 1798 with cow-pox. The boy was never well after that and died of tuberculosis at the age of 21.

"In Baron's Life of Jenner, (Vol. II, p. 304) we learn that, "On the 14th of May, 1796 . . . Jenner vaccinated James Phipps, a boy about eight years old, with the matter taken from the hand of a dairymaid infected with casual cowpox."


"The inoculation didn't "take" so on the strength of this one experiment and its questionable interpretation, Jenner based his claim that one vaccination would "forever secure a person from smallpox." No time had elapsed to prove whether it would last a lifetime or a month or not at all; but without any proof or any scientific basis or evidence for its practice, the doctors and the government adopted it and made it compulsory, no doubt, seeing the gold mine in profit it would yield.

"James Phipps was declared immune to smallpox but he too, died of tuberculosis at the age of 20." - p 29, Eleanor McBean's "The Poisoned Needle - Sup[p]ressed Facts about Vaccination" [ISBN 9780787305949 edition]

McBean's acct of Jenner's behavior makes it seem as if his motive was to get rich & as if he wasn't likely to stand much opposition from the London-based government b/c they knew the financial gains that were at stake. Neither acct of Jenner are very flattering. Regardless, Jenner had defensive stances in place:

"Jenner had previously been confronted with the statement that there were undoubted instances of Small Pox occurring after Cow Pox, and he had met this argument by the assertion that there are two kinds of Cow Pox" - p 145

"Dr. Woodville, as well as Dr. Pearson, were very curious to try the new inoculation ; and after patiently waiting their wish was gratified, for the welcome news was received that Cow Pox existed in London dairies." - p 152

"["]On Wednesday, I called again at the cowhouse to make further inquiries, which I was very much pleased to find two or three of the milkers were infected with the disease, one of whom exhibited a more beautiful specimen of the disease than that which you have represented in the first plate.["]" - p 153

One thing that became impressed upon me by reading these various drs' accts is an 'objective' state-of-mind that seems more immersed in the experiments they conducted than the more health-minded values they might be expected to hypothetically represent. As such, they cd be happy that Cow Pox, a disease, cd be active & consider the manifestation of the disease on the hands of a milker to be "beautiful". Wdn't it have been preferable for the cows & the milkers to not be diseased?

"On March 12th, 1799, Pearson sent a letter enclosing an infected thread to two hundred practitioners, requesting them to try its effects and report the results.

"Pearson also sent the virus to Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Geneva, and to Hanover, Portugal, America, and supplied the army." - p 157

Now, while the ostensible reason for disseminating this disease so widely was to enable vaccination it seems to me that what was more clearly accomplished was simply the spread of the disease itself.

"But more trouble was in store for him. George Jenner happened to be in London, and became greatly alarmed at the part played by Pearson and Woodville, particularly the former. He wrote off post-haste to his uncle, warning him that Pearson would become the chief person known in the business, and that, if he did not go at once to London, his chance of obtaining fame and fortune would be lost for ever." - p 159

These statements of Crookshank's don't go unsubstantiated, they're all supported by primary source materials such as, in this case, the letter that G. Jenner wrote to Dr. Jenner. My not providing every citation isn't b/c they're not there it's b/c I'm already quoting the bk to an extreme. Interested parties can get a copy of it for themselves for confirmation.

I imagine that it's self-evident by now why I wd quote the above passage: the promotion of vaccination is a competitive "business" perhaps more than it is a selfless enterprise in the pursuit of public health. Jenner wanted to be the man dominating the vaccination industry.

"In the same month, Woodville published his Reports, in which he concluded that Cow Pox manifested sometimes as an eruptive disease of great severity, for three or four cases out of five hundred had been in considerable danger, and one died. Baron says that these results proved well-nigh fatal to the cause of vaccination." - p 161

Hence providing at least some contradiction to an earlier claim that Cow Pox was safe as a vaccination matter. Nonetheless, competition between Pearson & Jenner continued to be fierce as they each vied to be vaccination's head honcho.

"In London, in the meantime, Dr. Pearson had determined to organize an Institution for inoculation of Cow Pox. He appointed a vaccine board, of which the chief place was occupied by himself, and the Duke of York consented to become a patron." - p 164

"Ultimately, Jenner succeeded in inducing the Duke of York and Lord Egremont to withdraw from the Vaccine Institution, formed by Pearson, and thus, according to Baron, Jenner defeated the ambitious designs of those who sought for high patronage." - p 167

Was that in the best interests of public health or in Jenner's best interests alone?

""We, whose names are undersigned, are fully satisfied upon the conviction of our own observation, that the Cow Pox is not only an infinitely milder disease than the Small Pox, but has the advantage of not being contagious, and is an effectual remedy against the Small Pox."" - p 168

While the Cow Pox is reputed to be able to go 1st, from one cow to another & then, 2nd, from a cow to a milker to another cow it's somehow "not contagious". Additionally, it's an "infinitely milder disease than the Small Pox" &, yet, people still die from being vaccinated w/ it. Now, doesn't that reassure you? Isn't it better to die from a mild disease that's not contagious than from a vicious one that is?

& just how money-hungry was Jenner's promotion of vaccination?

"The following were the discoveries alleged :-

"Firstly. That Cow Pox was inoculable from cow to man.

"Secondly. That persons so inoculated were for life perfectly secure from Small Pox.

"Jenner added that he had not made a secret of his discoveries, that the progress of Small Pox had already been checked, and that he had been put to so much expense and anxiety : therefore he prayed for remuneration." - p 173

"Admiral Berkeley moved for a grant of £10,000 whch was duly seconded by Sir Henry Mildmay and carried by a majority of three." - p 175

£10,000 in 1802 is the equivalent of £1,073,495.67 in 2022. That's nothing to sneeze at (unless sneezing is somehow profitable). Then again, "today's prices are 108.35 times higher than average prices since 1802, according to the Office for National Statistics composite price index. A pound today only buys 0.923% of what it could buy back then." ( )

""When the Committee of the House of Commons recommended Dr. Jenner to the munificence of Parliament, it was for a discovery in practice which was never to prove fatal ; which was to excite no new humours, or disorders of the constitution ; and which was to be, not only a perfect security against the Small Pox, but would, if universally adopted, prevent its recurrence for ever.["]" - p 221

""But yet further. In cases where Vaccination did not produce fatal consequences, it gave rise to new, and painful disorders. It was followed sometimes by itchy eruptions ; sometimes by singular ulcerations, and sometimes by glandular swellings of a nature wholly distinct from Scrophula, or any other known glandular disease. Here, again, was a failure in the second point stipulated : and finally,

""It was ascertained that even when Vaccination was performed, from what was called the genuine matter, it would not always prove a preservative against the Small Pox : as several patients, who had been pronounced by the most experienced Vaccinators to have passed regularly through the Cow Pox, were nevertheless attacked with the genuine Small Pox.["]" - pp 222-223

"the question of a further grant was put to the House, and £20,000 was agreed to by a majority of thirteen." - p 227

Jenner must've been a very persuasive fellow, capable of glossing over the numerous observations of his detractors in a manner appealing to the aristocrats in power. In retrospect, Crookshank is certainly among the unconvinced.

"In the year 1804, failures of the new inoculation had multiplied to an alarming degree, and even some of his friends began to lose confidence." - p 178

Nonetheless, Jenner's inventiveness always provided an excuse.

"Jenner had constantly to resort to the theory that if Small Pox occurred after Cow Pox, the vaccination could not have been properly performed."


"["]Never mind ; you will hear enough of Small Pox after Cow Pox. It must be so. Every bungling vaccinist who excites a pustule on the arm, will swear like G. it was correct, without knowing the nicety of distinction which every man ought to know, before he presumes to take up the vaccine lancet."" - p 181

"But even after perfect vaccination, it was well known that after a little time, patients could be infected by inoculation. To meet this, Jenner urged that the inoculation test should be abandoned." - p 182

"Dunning was now ready to assert that the occurrence of Small Pox after Cow Pox, actually strengthened the theory. Even Jenner was puzzled and wrote :-

""Pray indulge me with a line or two very speedily, to put an end to a little perplexity. You tell me that you know Small Pox will sometimes follow Cow Pox, and nevertheless assert that a case of this sort, which has happened under your immediate observation, places vaccination on higher ground than it has yet stood on.

""Do pray explain, as soon as you can, your meaning. . . .["]" - p 186

"["]In your postscript, why not ask for cases of Small Pox inoculation, as well as cases of Small Pox after vaccination."" - p 187

Here I was, 187pp into this bk, & I was still confused about the distinction, if any, between inoculation & vaccination, wch seemed to be used sometimes interchangably, sometimes not. I eventually decided that inoculation means the use of the disease that's intended to be protected against as the material used for that protection & that vaccination means using a different disease than that meant to be protected against as the material used as protection for that protection. Hence, Small Pox inoculation meant giving the patient Small Pox under conditions more protected than those under wch they'd naturally get the disease & vaccination meant giving the patient Cow Pox (& other experiments were also tried) to hypothetically protect against Small Pox but under milder conditions. One cd say that there were 3 main camps: One that sd that only inoculation worked, a 2nd that sd that vaccination was safer, & a 3rd that sd that they were both dangerous & ineffectual.

"Birch condemned vaccination as an unnatural experiment, unphilosophical, and unsafe." - p 190

""When therefore it was proposed to me, to introduce a new Disease into the human system, I hesitated; but on the assurance given to me, that it was still milder than the Inoculated Small Pox, was productive of no ill consequences, and would equally arrest the progress of variolous Infection, I consented that Abraham Howard, the first Child mentioned at my Examination, should be vaccinated.["]" - p 190

""Two other Caes however were followed by dinstinct and unequivocal Small Pox after Vaccination, and then it was admitted that the Cow Pox would not arrest the progress of variolous Infection ; although it is well known, Inoculation of the Small Pox within a limited period will supercede and subdue it.["]" - p 191

"["]I shall continue firm in my opinion I gave to the Committee of the House of Commons, That what has been called the Cow Pox is not a preservative against the Natural Small Pox."" - p 192

"John Birch, Surgeon Extraordinary to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and Surgeon of St. Thomas's Hospital." - footnote, p 189

"Clergymen warmly advocated the practice of vaccination." - p 192

""Soon after this, I heard with great surprise that an application had been made to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, persuading his Grace to direct the Clergy of the Church of England to recommend Vaccination from their pulpits.["]" - p 205

It's interesting to me that in the 19th century the clergy, admittedly pd or instructed to do so as previously mentioned, were pro-vaccination whereas by the 21st century author Paul A. Offit, M.D., a pro-vaccination researcher, presents religious people as against vaccination, with the implied position that they're backwards & anti-science:

"In his "PROLOGUE" Offit states that:

""I get a lot of hate mail.

""Every week people send letters and e-mails calling me "stupid," "callous," an "SOB," or "a prostitute." People ask, "How in the world can you put money before the health of someone's baby?" or "How can you sleep at night?" or "Why did you sell your soul to the devil?" They say "I don't have a conscience," am "directly responsible for the death and damage of hundreds of children," and "have blood on [my] hands." They "pray that the love of Christ will one day flood [my] darkened heart." They warn that my "day of reckoning is coming."" - p xi"

- tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's review of "Autism's False Prophets - Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure" -

"The practice was still strongly opposed by an influential section of the medical profession" - p 193

"in 1806, Birch published his reasons for objecting to the practice of vaccination. It was by far the most temperate of the arguments against the new practice, and deserves to be quoted in extenso." - p 193

"["]The bitterness of invective, and the unhandsome sneers, with which the partisans of Vaccination have assailed their opponents, as they offer no argument, merit no reply.["]" - p 195

""The Committee, being at last compelled to acknowledge that cases have been brought before them, in which it was incontestibly proved that persons having passed through the Cow Pox in a regular way, had afterwards received the Small Pox, contrive to destroy the effect of the concession, by the following ambiguous expressions.

""It is admitted that a few cases have been brought before them, of persons who had apparently passed through the Cow Pox in a regular way, etc.["]" - p 196

""They say, ' In many of the cases in which Small Pox has occurred after Inoculation ! ' Many of the cases ! This expression I presume is to contrast with the few cases of failure admitted in Vaccination, and the reader is left to infer that cases of failure in Inoculation are of frequent recurrence ; than which inference nothing can be more unfounded, more contrary to truth.["]"


""But, in the second place, the fact itself has been uniformly denied by the best and most able practioners. They have always maintained that the Small Pox never has been known to recur after Inoculation ; and however the contrary may be assumed by those who have systems of their own to advance, it is considered as one of the invariable laws of nature, that (and if an exception can be proved, I should be justified in saying, exceptio probat regulam) a patient can suffer the Small Pox but once.["]" - p 198

"For granting (what never can be granted) that only one-third of the cases adduced were substantiated, there would remain above one hundred and fifty instances of acknowledged failure : and surely these would be sufficient to convince any dispassionate person, that Vaccination is not, and cannot be, a preservative against the Small Pox. What shall we say then, when, in addition to this, it is proved, that several patients have died of the immediate consequences resulting from the puncture of Vaccination ; while on the other hand it never was, or could be with any truth, asserted that similar fatal consequences had in a single instance resulted from the puncture of Small Pox Inoculation ?["]" - p 199

"["]But they forget that the principle evidence they themselves adduced to support their cause before the House of Commons was that of a Clergyman ; they forget too, that several of the Fanatical Preachers among the Sectaries, have been ever since the most zealous and approved champions of their system, both in their preachings, and practice ; together with some Ladies, who have received their instructions from Dr. Jenner himself.["] - pp 199-200

""The assertion of the Committee in the XXth article, that the Diseases which are said to originate from Cow Pox are scrophulous, and cutaneous, and similar to those which arise from Inoculation, is according to my observation quite incorrect. Many of the eruptions are perfectly novel. As far as my experience and my information go, I will venture to affirm they are eruptions of a nature unknown before the introduction of Vaccination ; and peculiar to those who have been Vaccinated.["]" - p 201

""It is not my intention to pursue further the Report of the Jennerian Committee. I have answered whatever applies materially to my argument : to expose all the errors and fallacies it contains, would be a painful task : I should however be unjust to the Public and myself, did I not state, that besides those I have already noticed, there are assertions so unfounded, and expressions so ambiguous, that these alone would have deterred me from subscribing it.

""This in Article XVI. it is said, that by means of Vaccination, the Small Pox has in some populous Cities been wholly exterminated.

""In Article XVIII, that the prejudice raised against Vaccination has been, in great measure, the cause of the death of near 2,000 persons this present year, in London alone.

""In Article III, that the cases published to prove the failure of Vaccination, have been for the most part refuted ; and

""In Article IV, those Medical Men who dissent from the Jennerian Committee, are stated generally, as acting perversely and disingenuously ; persisting in bringing forward unfounded, and refuted reports ; and even misrepresentation, after they have been proved to be such.

""Of these Articles I am compelled to say, and am ready to prove, that the three first are absolutely unfounded. Of the last I must declare, that it seems to me conceived in a spirit of illiberality and ungenerous censure, such as I should have a Committee formed of Gentlemen never would have used ; and which certainly no circumstances can justify.["]" - p 202

""The Royal Patronage, the authority of Parliament, would be made use of, beyond what the sanction given warranted : the command of the Army and Navy would be adduced, not merely as the mean of facilitating the experiment, but as proof of the triumph of the cause : and above all, the monopoly of the press, and the freedom of the Post Office would be employed to circulate the assertions of the friends of Vaccination, and to suppress the arguments of their opponents.

""What I foresaw happened : and such was the influence of the Jennerian Society, that many publishers and booksellers refused to print, or sell such works as might be deemed adverse to Vaccine Inoculation : in consequence of which it was hardly possible, at the first moment, to contradict any thing the Society chose to assert.["]" - p 206

If only people living in 2022 were capable of reading these descriptions of the machinations of the pro-vaccine people in 19th century England. Unfortunately, I know of few, or NO, people w/ the requisite curiosity or attn spans. It's my opinion that if such a reader were to exist they'd quickly recognize the same patterns of manipulation in today's world.

To give an example from personal experience: For decades I've frequented a bkstore in Pittsburgh that has an excellent selection, primarily thanks to its owner, who's also the bk-buyer. B/c of legal troubles, the owner has had to leave the store primarily under the control of the manager. The manager's certainly dedicated to small presses.. but they're also a hypochondriac - something that even their dr told them long before the so-called pandemic started. Once the quarantine started, the manager jumped on the fear-wagon big-time, asserting Draconian measures far beyond even the other businesses in the area, all of wch, except for the bkstore, have long since dropped. In 80°F weather, the manager wd wear a long-sleeve sweater, gloves, 2 masks, probably a plexiglass face shield, & wd shelter behind a plexiglass shield between the cashier area & the customer area. Customers were required to wear masks, hand-sanitizer was provided, & gloves were also required.

Under the name of Amir-ul Kafirs & fellow HERETICS I wrote a meticulously researched 1,186pp bk entitled "Unconscious Suffocation - A Personal Journey through the PANDEMIC PANIC" ( ) wch the manager was kind enuf to purchase one copy of for the store. At 1st, the bk was displayed in the area for local authors. However, as the manager got more uncomfortable w/ its heretical position re the so-called pandemic they shifted it to a basement paperback rm wch otherwise houses only fiction. Undoubtedly, the manager never read the bk - such an intellectual exercise wd be beyond their usual fare of writing about boyfriends & working in a bkstore in NYC. Nonetheless, they felt compelled to recontextualize the bk as fiction. This is censorship & an excellent example of a lackey of the propaganda machine making sure that no contradictory opinions are easily available.

""It is allowed on all hands, that Cow Pox is generated by some disorder imparted by the milker. Now if that disorder should happen to be the Small Pox, then the Pustule so occasioned, and the matter coming from it, may inoculate Small Pox, and the patient thus inoculated, may be for ever secure from that disease, for in fact he will have received Small Pox Inoculation. But if the disorder generated on the Cow's teats, have for its base, Itch, as I apprehend has sometimes happened, then the patient will be inoculated with a disorder, which, though it may suspend the capacity for Small Pox for a season in the constitution, will ultimately prove no security.["]" - pp 213-214

I have the highest respect for surgeon Birch's throughly articulated rebuttal of the vaccinists. Still, as I think we will continue to see, nowhere is there any universal agreement, even around "that Cow Pox is generated by some disorder imparted by the milker" & that, therefore, there is no THE SCIENCE.

Otherwise, imagine this, if only as a thought experiment: every case is different &, therefore, generalities are of limited use.

""But arguments may be fallacious-let us come to facts. Can anyone disprove the following:

""That Vaccination has too often been fatal :

""That Vaccination has introduced new disorders into the human system :

""That Vaccination is not a perfect security against the Small Pox.

""These facts I maintain can never be disproved.["]" - p 224

While I'm at least temporarily sticking to my distinction between inoculation & vaccination, this bk continues to show the confusion of these terms in the 19th century. On p 226 the term "vaccine inoculation" is used 3 times. There's even a time when "vaccine" seems to be used as a different part of speech: ""IV. Thomas Dyson. His arm was perfectly vaccine in all its stages.["]" (p 290).

"The subject which then occupied Jenner's attention was the prohibition of Small Pox inoculation, for Baron says,

""He knew that vaccination would be comparatively powerless while its virulent and contagious antogonist was permitted to walk abroad uncontrolled."" - p 227

"the Government was now called upon to found an establishment, in place of the Royal Jennerian Institution, which had almost collapsed, from want of funds and from bad management." - p 228

For those of you who consider all medical practice to be sensible, I ask you to consider the merits of "dipping" & to then imagine whether there might not be practices in the 21st century that might be similarly open to question.

"Jenner was also much interested in the treatment of hydrophobia. He corresponded with the Rev. Dr. Worthington on this subject :-"


"["]I once asked a long-experienced professor what length of time he kept his patients under water ? His reply was, 'As to that I can't tell, but I keep them under till they have done kicking, when I bring them up to recover their senses, and get a little breath, and then down with them again, and so on to a third time, observing the same rule, not to take them up till their struggle is over.'

""You see what a shock the vital principle receives from this process. The modus operandi let us not trouble our heads about, if the fact can be established that it deadens the action of the inserted virus. I have wished to see how far it can be supported by analogy, by getting some vaccinated patient dipped within a few days after the insertion of the vaccine lymph. At all events an inquiry so highly important should be taken up, and it cannot be in better hands than yours."" - p 232

Great idea! Poison a patient & then while the poison's taking effect drown them too! That'll fix 'em right up! NOT.

"["]We touched on hydrophobia. He stated an ingenious idea, that of counteracting the effects of one morbid poison with another. What think you of a viper ? Not its broth, but its fang, as soon as the first symptom of disease appears from canination. If this should succeed, we must domiciliate vipers as we have leeches. But from this hint I should be disposed to try, under such an event, Vaccination["]" - p 233

These guys are just FULL of good ideas. NOT.

"Jenner had been summoned to London in the first week in June ; for on the 26th of May, the Hon. Robert Grosvenor was seized with a violent attack of Small Pox. In four days, he became delirious, and an eruption appeared on his face ; but the Small Pox was not expected, because he had been vaccinated by Jenner only ten years previously." - p 238

So much for lifetime guarantees, so much for Jenner's blaming failures on bad practitioners.

"The outbreaks of Small Pox in various parts of the country, and the failures of vaccination, led Jenner to send a circular letter, early in 1821, to the profession, endeavoring to arouse attention to those points of vaccination which he considered essential to afford protection. Even the most ardent supporters of vaccination would now only claim that vaccination modified an attack of Small Pox in future, but Jenner's original opinion remained unchanged. Nothing would shake his belief that persons vaccinated were for ever after secure from the infection of Small Pox." - p 248

"This presented a difficulty. Jenner believed that Cow Pox arose from "grease," and that it protected against Small Pox, yet persons direcly infected with "grease" enjoyed no such immunity. Jenner is ready with an explanation. These cases, in his opinion, decisively proved that the grease could not be relied upon until it had been passed through the cow." - pp 254-255

Jenner devleops this idea that animals are responsible for diseases in humans.

""May we not then reasonably infer that the source of the Small Pox is the matter generated in the diseased foot of the horse, and that accidental circumstances may have again and again arisen, still working new changes upon it, until it has acquired the contagious and malignant form under which we now see it making its devastations among us ? And from a consideration of the change which the infectious matter from the horse has undergone after it has produced a disease on the cow, may we not conceive that many contagious diseases now prevalent among us, may owe their present appearance not to a simple, but a compound origin ?" - p 260

One thing that seems to escape Jenner's notice is that domesticated horses, possibly the only ones w/ "grease" on their heels, are provided w/ horse-shoes imposed on them by humans. Horseshoes were invented by humans to protect the horse hooves from the harsh labor imposed on them. These metal shoes are generally nailed into the hoof. Gee, I wonder if this practice might sometimes cause disease in the horse's foot.

While Jenner seems to consistently overlook over-milking of injured cow teats & the possible negative effects of nailing something into the horse's hoof he's quick to provide endless excuses & cautions against observations that might go contrary to his own claims.

"In other words, any one disposed to apply the variolous test after Cow Pox, was cautioned to employ the Suttonian method, and if an eruption followed, it was not to be hastily concluded that genuine Small Pox had resulted." - p 262

There shd be a Jenner Car, the seller can guarantee that it's absolutely indestructible & that anyone driving one cannot be injured in any way in an accident. That way, when the driver does get into an accident & gets, say, incinerated, the car manufacturer can simply claim that they spontaneously combusted & that that death is either not a death at all or, at the very least, was in no way caused by destruction of the car - esp given that any claims of the latter are obviously made by people inclined to be delusional.

Children continue to be excellent subjects for experimenting on given that they're more or less defenseless &, besides, it's 'for their own good'.

"Jenner's mind was occupied with the opportunity of making a double experiment ; inoculation of one child with humanised horse-grease, and of another child with matter from the cow's teats." - p 268

"For his experimental purposes, Jenner selected a child five years old, John Baker by name, and on March 16th, 1798, to took matter from a pustule on the hand of Thomas Virgoe, one of the servants who had been infected from the mare's heels.

""He became ill on the sixth day, with symptoms similar to those excited by the Cow Pox matter. On the eight day, he was free from indisposition.["]" - p 269

"It is not until we read Jenner's Further Observations that our attention is again drawn to this matter. In a reference to this case, Jenner insists upon the "similarity to the Cow Pox of the general constituional symptoms which followed," and in a footnote we read :-

""The boy unfortunately died of a fever at a parish workhouse, before I had an opportunity of observing what effects would have been produced by the matter of Small Pox."

"The fact, then, of the boy's death was omitted in the first account, and this is the full meaning of the boy being "rendered unfit for inoculation."" - p 271

Are you getting the idea yet?! IMO, Jenner & his fellow travelers were completely criminally insane. They routinely conducted experiments on children that the victims died from & then covered over the deaths w/ lies & euphemistic language. This tendency continues to this day. Again, hubris.

"It is evident that in the published account of the boy's case, Jenner had suppressed all details of the progress of the vesicle, the ulceration, and the crysipela, as well as the fatal termination of the case, and he inserted instead that "on the eight day he was free from indisposition," but "was rendered unfit for inoculation from having felt the effects of a contagious fever."" - p 273

Jenner continues to obfuscate clear thinking about his failures by inventing new explanations. He resorts to claiming that there are 2 types of Cow Pox.

"I wish to insist upon the gradual assumption of the existence of a spurious Cow Pox. The farmers and cow doctors knew nothing of this spurious Cow Pox. They distinguished, from other eruptions such as blistered teats, a disease which produced troublesome ulcerations on the cow's teats, and ulcerations on the hands, enlarged glands, and constitutional symptoms in milkers, and this disease they called the Cow Pox. Jenner was alone responsible for assuming the existence of two kinds of Cow Pox, a true and a spurious." - p 278

"The cases are carelessly jumbled together ; important details are often missing ; dates are omitted ; facts unfavorable to the project are suppressed ; and excuses for failures are ingeniously incorporated. All that the Inquiry contained was known to dairymaids and farriers, with the exception of the doctrine of spurious Cow Pox, and certain speculative comments." - p 284

Ceely recounts an accident w/ his assistant. Accidents will happen, eh?!

""My assistant, Mr. Taylor, to whom I had entrusted the lancet used in opening the variolous vesicle in the first experiment, on the tenth day, while I was engaged in the tedious process of changing points therefrom, punctured the skin of his own hand, between the thumb and forefinger, with the instrument while moist with lymph, a circumstance with which at the time I was unacquainted. On the fourth day afterwards, he directed my attention to a hard, deep red, papular elevation on the spot, stating the cause, and at the same time assuring me he had been vaccinated in infancy" - p 298

"In the month of December 1840, he inoculated a fine young cow, on the teats and on the external labium, with Small Pox virus."


"There was one well-developed vesicle on the external labium, and the lymph from it was employed by Badcock for "vaccinating" his son." - p 300


"It is quite a mistake to speak of this operation as vaccination. The method was simply a modification of the Suttonian system of Small Pox inoculation in which, in the first remove, the cow was substituted for the human subject." - pp 300-301


"In 1836, Dr. Martin, of Attleborough, Mass., inoculated the cow's udder with variolous lymph, and by inoculating children from the variolated cow, produced an epidemic of Small Pox with fatal cases."


"In 1847, variolation of the cow was successfully performed at Berlin, but the products inoculated in the human subject resulted in retro-variolisation, and one of the experimental children died of confluent Small Pox." - p 301

Are you getting the idea yet? These pompous egomaniacs experiment on giving diseases to both non-humans & humans & then people die &, somehow, they still apparently maintain their reputation (&, presumably, their considerable income) as healers. Go figger.

""It seems certain that there are, at least, four animals-the horse, the cow, the sheep, and the goat-which are affected with a disorder communicable to man, and capable of securing him from a malignant form of the same disease."

"The disease which Baron was describing was not Cow Pox but cattle-plague, and the totally erroneous views into which he had drifted arose from that initial nosological error committed by Jenner, who branded Cow Pox as Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Small Pox of the Cow. That cattle-plague has a close affinity with human Small Pox is perfectly true, but it has no relation or connection whatever with Cow Pox. I shall give a brief history of the disease referred to by Baron, and then I shall pass on to describe the disastrous results which followed the reception of the variolæ vaccinæ theory in India." - p 312

So, AGAIN, people looking for & expecting THE SCIENCE, meaning some sort of agreement among drs & scientists about what's what exactly will be sorely confused. What is Small Pox? What is Cow Pox? What is Cattle Plague? What is Variolæ Vaccinæ? If one dr thinks that something's one thing & another thinks that it's another &/or if one is right & the other is wrong, what're the potentials for disaster?!

"Ceely, however, like Baron, maintained that cattle-plague was simply malignant Cow Pox ; and he did so principally from the fact that in the accidental transmission of rinderpest to the human subject, a vesicle was produced presenting the appearances, and running the ordinary course, of inoculated Cow Pox. The following is the case as reported by Ceely :-

""On the 3rd December, 1865, Mr. Henry Hancock, veterinary inspector, Uxbridge, was engaged in superintending the autopsy of a bullock, recently dead of cattle plague. His assistant, who was performing the operation, while occupied in removing the skin from the scrotum, accidentally punctured the back of Mr. Hancock's hand with the point of the knife. The puncture, being slight, was disregarded at the time, but was washed as soon as practicable, and thought of no more. On the 8th, five days afterwards, a small, slightly elevated, hard pimple was felt and seen on the site of the puncture." - pp 314-315

I remember that in the early days of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic there was much fear-mongering being broadcast about the danger of getting sick from contact w/ animals. I witnessed a woman go berserk b/c a man's dog in a park ran close to her when it was fetching a thrown ball. The berserker ran towards the man, an old man wearing a mask, & was barely prevented from beating him by someone she was w/. The emphasis on animals as carriers seemed to die off. Out of curiosity I just went to the CDC website to see what they have to say about human-animal covid transmission.

"Animals infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been documented around the world. Most of these animals became infected after contact with people with COVID-19, including owners, caretakers, or others who were in close contact. We don't yet know all of the animals that can get infected. Animals reported infected worldwide include

· Companion animals, including pet cats, dogs, hamsters, and ferrets.

· Animals in zoos and sanctuaries, including several types of big cats (e.g., lions, tigers, snow leopards), otters, non-human primates, a binturong, a coatimundi, a fishing cat, hyenas, hippopotamuses, and manatees.

· Mink on mink farms.

· Wildlife, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, a black-tailed marmoset, a giant anteater, and wild mink near mink farms."


So, you see, now the official story is that humans are a threat to the animals, not vice-versa. I find that to be more believable.

& what about the milk from diseased cows in England?

"and it must be inferred from Dr. Jenner's and other medical writings on the subject that the animal not only continued to secrete milk, but that the milk was used ; while in this country the little that is secreted is never made use of, and perhaps owing to this very circumstance the Guallahs or milkers in India are not affected with Cow Pox, as is the case with this description of persons in Gloucestershire and other counties In England where the disease is most prevalent." - p 320

No doubt, the sanitation conditions in England's dairies have since improved. Still, to those of us born in the mid-20th century, the 19th century wasn't really that long ago. It seems likely that people who will find my position on drs outrageous will resort to acting as if the 19th century were so historically distant that it's almost like the stone age. I, however, think that the next story to be quoted is possible in the 21st century as well.

"On the seventh day, from the commencement of the eruption her mouth and throat became so sore that she was unable to take the breast or any other food : it was necessary to try to support her by a nourishing injection, notwithstanding which she sank on the 20th. The above report, it is hardly necessary to say, is given with great pain ; but I feel that it is right to do it, and to warn my brethren of the danger that sometimes occurs after taking the virus from the cow in this climate. Mhata in the cow of this country is decidedly a much more serious disease than the vaccine diseases in the animal in Europe." - p 324

That was an account of the course of a vaccination made by a Mr. Furnell, in Assam, in 1834. The young girl who died was his own daughter. His attribution of the death to the supposedly greater seriousness of the disease in India seems to me to be his way of making excuses for his having taken his own healthy child & injected a disease into her wch killed her. Sorry (NOT), but from my own POV Furnell was, at best, a complete idiot.

""From these many other native children were inoculated, and no doubts of the genuineness of the lymph were excited until two English children were punctured from one of them, and it was then found that Small Pox supervened in both of these cases, and this was more than suspected to have happened in many of the native children, who had generally dispersed a few days after the operation, and were not afterwards heard of. One of the English children unhappily died."" - p 326

It's all in the interest of science, right? No doubt the vaccinators learned something important from the poor victim's death. NOT.

"From all these independent observations, if we accept them as correct, there would seem to be no doubt that cattle-plague virus inoculated in the human subject will produce a vesicle with the physical characters of the vaccine vesicle, and succeeded occasionally by an eruption which appears to have the characters of the eruption of cattle-plague. That cattle-plague is not infectious to man in the ordinary sense affords no proof that the disease may not be cultivated in the human subject by inoculation.

"But these occurences had to be explained away, for such circumstances were incompatible with the Small Pox theory of Cow Pox. We have only to turn again to Dr. Seaton's Handbook of Vaccination to find that more ingenious explanations were forthcoming." - pp 326-327

"["]the fact, that Small Pox of sheep might be substituted for Cow Pox ; but as he had then made only a very few experiments, with a view of ascertaining if it were efficacious or harmful when transmitted to man, he undertook to continue his researches, and then to publish the results. However, as he has recently informed me, he has not been able to do so in consequence of a long and severe illness from which he has been suffering ; it is this which has retarded the publication of these valuable observations" - p 330

Yes, why stop w/ spreading disease between cows & human children when you can throw sheep into the mix?

"["]I only succeeded in meeting with it in the State of Naples, at Capua. Passing through it in 1804, I saw a peasant who was driving a flock of seven sheep to the butcher's ; as I was obliged to stop in this town, I endeavored to profit by the opportunity and to gain information on the subject.

""Having noticed the miserable and dejected appearance of these sheep I stopped ; and after putting various questions to the peasant, and examining the nature and character of the eruption and of the symptoms which accompanied it, I felt sure that the malady was the true Small Pox of sheep. The peasant told me that the malady was common in the neighborhood, that fifty-four sheep had already been slaughtered, and that they would continue this method if the malady should develop in others" - p 330

Yes, you understand aright, the diseased sheep are being butchered for resale as meat before they lose their 'value' altogether.

"["]Dr. Legni. I informed him of my design, and my desire to make experiments with the matter obtained from the sheep, at Capua ; he kindly seconded my project. He procured me six children, who were all inoculated with the matter, which was still fluid ; I also inoculated two other infants with true vaccine, in order to institute a comparison." - p 331

'Hi, I'm a fellow psychopath & I need children to give a disease to, I've never tried this particular experiment before, can you get me some kids?' 'Why, of course!, beloved colleague.' It's practically straight out of de Sade. & the vaccinator in question proceeds to spread disease everywhere he goes.

""Proceeding to Lucca, I used the same virus to inoculate various people, and continued to vaccinate also in other places, always renewing the matter which had been originally taken from Sheep Pox, its course being always very regular, and its effect constant, as if it had been derived from a genuine Cow Pox."" - pp 333-334

Keep in mind that this was an experiment, he'd never tried this Sheep Pox before, he had no assurance that he knew what wd happen to his victims & he didn't even necessarily stick around to find out. Is that irresponsible or what?!

The term "virus" doesn't occur that often in this bk so I started wondering when it originated:

"virus (n.)

"late 14c., "poisonous substance" (a sense now archaic), from Latin virus "poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice," from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) "poison," which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning "to melt away, to flow," used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to "poisonous fluid" (source also of Sanskrit visam "venom, poison," visah "poisonous;" Avestan vish- "poison;" Latin viscum "sticky substance, birdlime;" Greek ios "poison," ixos "mistletoe, birdlime;" Old Church Slavonic visnja "cherry;" Old Irish fi "poison;" Welsh gwy "poison").

"The meaning "agent that causes infectious disease" emerged by 1790s gradually out of the earlier use in reference to venereal disease (by 1728); the modern scientific use dates to the 1880s. The computer sense is from 1972."


Keeping the above etymology in mind, it seems to me that "virus" in this bk is used mainly in the older sense of "agent that causes infectious disease" even though the bk dates from 1889 during the time of its "modern scientific use". Here's an example:

""4. On inspection of the cow which you inoculated at several points with the same matter, I found on the udder a single vesicle, from which I took matter, which was yellowish in colour and not limpid, and used it to inoculate two other boys ; the first had two vesicles on each arm, and on the second I found only one, on the left arm ; in other respects the virus contained in the two vesicles was exactly similar to that of true Cow Pox."

""AULLA, January 29th, 1807." - footnote, p 334

Now, here's the beginning of a contemporary definition:

"A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses infect all life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea. Since Dmitri Ivanovsky's 1892 article describing a non-bacterial pathogen infecting tobacco plants and the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by Martinus Beijerinck in 1898, more than 9,000 virus species have been described in detail of the millions of types of viruses in the environment. Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and are the most numerous type of biological entity. The study of viruses is known as virology, a subspeciality of microbiology.

"When infected, a host cell is often forced to rapidly produce thousands of copies of the original virus. When not inside an infected cell or in the process of infecting a cell, viruses exist in the form of independent particles, or virions, consisting of (i) the genetic material, i.e., long molecules of DNA or RNA that encode the structure of the proteins by which the virus acts; (ii) a protein coat, the capsid, which surrounds and protects the genetic material; and in some cases (iii) an outside envelope of lipids. The shapes of these virus particles range from simple helical and icosahedral forms to more complex structures. Most virus species have virions too small to be seen with an optical microscope and are one-hundredth the size of most bacteria."


According to that entry, the "modern", non-computer, definition didn't start until 1892 & is, therefore, from after the time of the writing of this bk. The concept of the virus interests me for various reasons. For one, I wonder what the next development of its definition will be. It's come a long way from a plant poison to a self-replicating computer program. For another, ever since the beginning of the so-called pandemic I've been researching the use of the "virus" as the ultimate scary thing in pop culture. Here's an excerpt from an email sent to the HERETICS group by me on June 5, 2022:

"I watched the 3rd movie in the "Maze Runner" series tonight. They were made from 2014-2018. A virus results from a solar flare (I think, I didn't watch the 1st 2 movies). It infects most of the people on Earth & turns them into violent homicidal zombies. A few people are immune. They're tormented in order to try to scientifically figure out a way to exploit them to produce a vaccine. Eventually, the main character's blood proves to be the answer.

"Anyway, you can see where this is going. It's mind-boggling how many movies there are that promote the scariest possible version of what viruses can & will do to humanity - they're all doomsday scenarios. In the end, vaccines save the day. Even if this preponderance of such melodramatic nonsense isn't conspiratorial it still supports the idea that vaccines are the hope for saving humanity. Needless to say, I think that's complete nonsense. If viruses even exist at all I don't think they're that big of a threat."

Viruses, in the many SciFi movies I've watched, are almost always depicted as causing a state of homicidal zombieism. I don't know of anything medically described as a virus in non-fiction to have that effect. Here's another short email to the HERETICS from me from March 21, 2022:

"I watched "World War Z" last night, starring Brad Pitt. Generally, I think Pitt's a good actor but this one was generic. It was made in 2013. It's about a virally-spread zombieism. The zombies are very fast, they spread the condition by biting, & they're practically indestructible except for head shots. They can take over an entire city w/in hrs. Once they bite someone that person becomes a zombie too w/in 12 seconds. Then they're very spastic but they can jump from high places & land on metal & just get right back up again & continue their spree. They don't need to eat & they're basically immortal. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much else to recommend their condition. At any rate, as yet-another-pop-movie-promoting-extreme-fear-of-viruses this doesn't have much going for it. At the beginning, a virologist is explaining the 'Spanish Flu', a few people are show[n] wearing face masks, nature is referred to as a "serial killer"."

Note that in none of the pop culture that I've so far encountered are viruses anything but extremely destructive, there's no virus, e.g., that increases the intelligence of the person infected by it or makes them gentler (or, if there is, I've either missed it or forgotten about it). SO, what I'm wondering is: will there ever come a time in the evolution of the definition of "virus" where it includes something like: 'an agent that can move from body to body that's capable of changing how certain functions in the body work, either negatively or positively'? I'm not saying that viruses actually have any positive function for anything other than the viruses itself, I'm just wondering if all this fear-based perception of them is skewing unbiased investigation.

Lest you think that it's only humans getting killed, here's a report from a veterinary surgeon in Gloucester named Clayton about Cow Pox, as published by a Mr. Cooke in 1799:

"["]he cannot explain :-that this disease has not a regular process of commencing and terminating without a remedy, because, if not attended to, it would end in a mortification of the teats, and probably death of the animal["]" - pp 340-341

& this is the disease Jenner picked to make a Small Pox vaccine from as something milder than Small Pox itself, a disease that's in this description depicted as fatal to the cow. An early observer of Cow Pox was a "Mr. Lawrence, author of A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on Horses and on the Moral Duties of Man towards the Brute Creation." (p 343) In one of the few instances of Crookshank talking about himself he refers, 1st, to Lawrence:

"Lawrence was almost a century before his time. Cow Pox was not again brought forward in this light until 1887-88, when I reported the "filth and nastiness" at a Wiltshire Farm, and advocated the advisability of placing this disease under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act." - p 344

Once again, it strikes me as important when human responsibility is brought to the fore. Vaccinators seem to be wearing blinders to the torment domesticated animals were put to, to the low ethical standards of the uses to wch both humans & animals were put to in their experiments, & to the conditions of "filth and nastiness" on farms that represented low standards of sanitation in the use of animals as food producers. I, at least, wonder: how much were the vaccinators guilty of spreading disease rather than ameliorating it?

"["]In some animals, under some circumstances, this state continues little altered till the third or fourth week, rendering the process of milking painful to the animal, and difficult and dangerous to the milker."" - p 349

Once again, it doesn't seem to occur to these people to simply stop milking the cow when it's got an outbreak on its teats - thusly allowing the cow to recover & reducing the likelihood of the cow trying to kick the milker. Despite Jenner's emphasis on Cow Pox as something to be used as a safe vaccine against Small Pox, he nonetheless describes cases of Cow Pox infection that seem severe:

""Mrs. H had sores upon her hands, which were communicated to her nose, which became inflamed and very much swollen.

""Sarah Wynne has Cow Pox in such a violent degree that she was confined to her bed, and unable to do any work for ten days.["]" - p 352

Pearson, also, describes such cases:

""Thomas Edinburgh was so lame from the eruption of Cow Pox on the palm of his hand, as to necessitate his being for some time in hospital. For three days he suffered from pain in the armpits, which were swollen and sore to the touch. He described the disease as uncommonly painful, and of long continuance.["]" - pp 352-353

""Annie Francis had pustules on her hands from milking cows. These pustules soon became scabs, which, falling off, discovered ulerating and very painful sores, which were still in healing. Some milk from one of the diseased cows, having squirted on the cheek of her sister and on the breast of her mistress, produced, on those parts of both persons, pustules and sores similar to her own, on her hands."" - p 353

& yet this same milk was presumably being produced for sale?

If this Cow Pox used for vaccination of Small Pox actually worked in producing an ameliorated disease then, of course, its proponents wd have a case for advocating it. However, even Jenner, the lead advocate, witnessed instances where the vaccination sickness was by no means mild.

"Severe symptoms are not limited to milkers casually infected from the cow. Occasionally, intentional inoculation of fresh virus from the cow reproduces the disease without mitigation." - p 364

"Estlin's lymph was employed on sixty-eight children by Messrs. Michell and Prankard, of Langport in Somersetshire, and the results which they reported to Estlin were :-

"In 52 the disease was regular.

1 Severe erysipelas.

4 Erythmatous eruptions of a violent character.

2 Highly inflamed ulcerated arms.

1 No effect after twice vaccinating.

8 Result unknown ; supposed to have been favorable.

"In one of the patients, two months old, erythema appeared on the back, and gradually extended to the feet. The child had much dyspna, with croupy cough, and died on the 21st. Mr. Estlin's correspondent wrote :-

""I do not attribute its death to vaccination, nor does the mother wholly, as she lost an infant previously with a similar affection of the air passages, but her neighbors set it down to vaccination entirely."" - pp 368-369

The matter-of-fact way in wch these experiments on children are described by the perpetrators chooses to ignore the trauma that the children must've experienced in the process.

"Mr. Loy, being curious to ascertain whether this disease could be communicated by inoculation, took a quantity of matter from the pustules of this patient and inserted it into the arm of his brother, with the following results :-

""In a few days, some degree of inflammation appeared, and on the eighth day, a vesicle formed ; my patient had now some slight feverish symptoms, which continued a day or two.

""This disease had exactly the appearances of the genuine Cow Pox, and I intended to have tried the effect of the Small Pox virus, had not the fears of the boy's parents prevented me."" - p 381

It's nice to know that the parents intervened on behalf of their children every rare once in a while. Unfortunately, these experimenters never seemed to run out of subjects.

"Dr. John Loy then inoculated a child direct from a horse suffering from grease.

""On the third day, a small degree of inflammation surrounded the wound. On the fourth, the inoculated place was much elevated, and a vesicle, of a purple colour, was formed on the fifth day : on the sixth and seventh, the vesicle increased, and the inflammation extended, and became of a deeper colour ; on the same day, a chilliness came on, attended with nausea and some vomiting. These were soon succeeded by increased heat, pain in the head, and a frequency of breathing ; the pulse was very frequent, and the tongue was covered with a white crust. When in bed, the child was much disposed to sweat.["]" - p 382

Wow! It was sure was a good thing for medical science that Dr. Loy conducted this experiment! NOT.

"With regard to the application of the variolous test, all Loy's experiments were deprived of any value. No conclusions could be drawn when the inoculation was performed at or near the height of the disease, which had been produced by insertion of the virus of the grease."


"["]This discovery is the more curious and interesting as it places in a new point of view the traditionary account handed down to us by the Arabian physicians that the Small Pox was originally derived from the camel.["]" - p 384

Might as well throw the camel in there. I'm just glad no-one to my knowledge decided to take a disease from a camel & give it to a sheep & go from there to a goat, then to a horse, & next to a cow so that this new, improved!, disease cd be given to a child.. for their own good, of course. NOT.

"In Paris, according to Baron, equination was practised in 1812.

""A coachman who had not had Small Pox, and who dressed a horse affected with the grease, had a crop of pustules on his hands, which resembled the vaccine. Two children were inoculated from these pustules, and the genuine vaccine was excited in both : from this stock many successive inoculations were effected, all possessing the proper character. A similar series of inoculations took place from another infant who was infected from one of the scabs taken from the pustules on the hand of the coachman."" - pp 389-390

Lest you've managed to make it this far thru my review & somehow gotten the impression that in the chaos of all these experiments that opinions were unchanging & uniform, consider this:

"In an appendix to the second volume of Jenner's Biography, published in 1837, Baron made the following remark :-

""I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that I have employed the word grease in alluding to the disease in the horse. L'ariolæ Equinæ is the proper designation. It has no necessary connexion with the grease, though the disorders frequently co-exist. This circumstance at first misled Dr. Jenner, and it has caused much misapprehension and confusion."

"In 1840, Ceely remarked that there were farmers and others who had good reason for believing in the origin of Cow Pox from the equine vesicle, which he regarded as eczema impetiginodes." - pp 393-394

One of my main take-aways from reading this seemingly thorough look at the history of vaccination is that it's quite possible that it's the very people who're historicized as the heroes of disease prevention that're actually responsible for the spreading of disease in ways it wdn't ordinarily have w/o foolish & delusional human intervention.

"A student named Amyot dressed a horse on which an operation had been performed. The leg which had been operated on (right hind leg) became the seat of a very confluent eruption of Horse Pox"


"Amyot had a wound on the dorsal aspect of the first interphalangeal joint of the little finger of his right hand ; in spite of this, he continued to dress the horse entrusted to his care. The sore on his finger was the seat of an accidental inoculation with the virus which flowed in such great abundance from the horse's leg. The wound was made on the 3rd of August, and the next day it was swollen and rather painful. On the 5th, Amyot suffered from malaise and great weakness, on the 6th, 7th, and 8th, vesicles appeared successively on the fingers of his left hand, on his forehead, on a level with the root of his nose, and between the two eyebrows." - p 398

Now, of course, such sanitary precautions as rubber gloves are long-since basic - but what are we missing NOW that'll seem to be solved w/ something else basic in 150 yrs?

""On the 20th of May, 1880, a heifer six and a half months old, in excellent condition, belonging to M. Givelet, was inoculated with this vaccine. A great number of punctures were made around the vulva, and between the thighs, and on the right side of the udder, and on the teats. Several students revaccinated themselves, and on two of them vesicles formed. The inoculation of the heifer took perfectly, so that on the 26th of May each puncture was transformed into a flattened discoid vesicle, umbilicated in the centre, of a yellow-grey colour with an inflammatory areola, presenting, in one word, all the characters of the vesicles of Cow Pox. With the liquid contained in these vesicles I successfully vaccinated several children, and revaccinated some students, some of whom showed vaccinal vesicles. On the 26th of May, Dr. Salamon vaccinated children who had very fine vesicles.["]" - p 408

1st, they made a heifer sick; 2nd, they took the disease from the heifer & gave it to children & students. If you believe that this is somehow healthy then you overlook what, to me, is the obvious sickness of it.

"["]The time has come to apply the data acquired by science respecting the etiology of dourine or maladie du coït. I cannot do better here than reproduce a passage from a clinical lecture of Professor St. Cyr of the School of Lyons.["]"


"" ' That the true cause of the maladie du coït, when we know how to look for it, will be found in the importation of a foreign stallion.'

"" ' That dourine has only one known cause, contagion ; that all the others to which it has been thought possible to attribute it, are more than problematical" - p 410


""And M. St Cyr adds 'dourine is not an autochthonous malady born from local influences, but is, on the contrary, an exotic illness which has been imported, and the origin of which it will always be possible to trace if the practitioner exercises in his etiological investigation the attention and the perspicacity which it requires.' ["]" - p 411

Once again, I feel that vaccinators, & humans in general, are left out of the explanation of contagion's origins. It was humans that were infecting some of these animals & it was humans who were moving the animals around outside of their normal migratory patterns.

"["]I examined these animals, I found on only two of them-the asses Aramis and Mexico-the characteristic eruption of Horse Pox. However, in the first place, Mare No. 3, which had been served by the ass Mistigry, on which I did not observe any eruption of Horse Pox, exhibited a splendid vaccinal eruption which had been developed on the under surface of the tail, where I collected crusts, inoculation from which proved, as we have seen, an excellent source of vaccine["]" - p 412

""Must we in this connection, admit with M. Lafosse, that the infectious agent does not exist before the coitus, that it is formed during the accomplishment of the act of copulation, doubtless at the expense of the male or female secretions, perhaps of both, and under the nervous influx or force which is accumulated in the genital organs by the friction of copulation?

""But I do not see on what principle or on what scientific ground this theory rests, and therefore it is quite useless to pause longer over it.["]" - pp 412-413

It's odd, in my reviewers's note to self I wrote "Maybe there's something to this" but rereading it I don't know what I was thinking or even if I understand what's written. Does it mean that copulation creates the infectious agent? I can imagine that the friction might lacerate the skin & that biological components of both animals might combine to make something harmful but I'm not quite sure that that's what's being gotten at here.

"["]the Veterinary School of Toulouse where, in conjunction with M. Cadeac, teacher of the Clinique, I vaccinated two fine Dutch heifers vigorous and in good health, one aged fourteen months, the other seven months. Five days later there were as many vesicles as there had been punctures, and Drs. Armieux, Jougla, Caubet, an Parant, invited by the Director of the Veterinary School to visit the vaccinated heifers, proved the perfect genuineness of the vaccinal eruptions, which had been produced on the perinæum and on the teats.

""This eruption has been the starting point of cultures of vaccine on heifers and calves up to the end of last May, and the vaccine thus kept up, has been used for vaccination of about fifteen hundred persons."" - p 418

How many pro-vaccination people understand that the practice originates w/ drs deliberately infecting domestic animals w/ disease & then taking the disease from those animals & transferring it to humans? If you accept the basic premise as valid then it might seem ok, if you don't, as I don't, it might seem insane & dangerous & causing an increase & strengthening of disease instead of its subjugation.

"From Vienna, lymph was conveyed by Dr. Peschier to Geneva ; but there the new method received a temporary check, for all the persons who were vaccinated, afterwards contracted Small Pox, some by infection, and others by inoculation. These untoward results were explained as the result of "spurious vaccination," and the practice was not therefore abandoned." - p 420

There's always an excuse & a cover story but the bottom line is that Dr. Peschier caused a Small Pox epidemic in Geneva.

"In India, the new method was opposed by the natives, but their objections were overcome by an ingenious device.

""In order to overcome their prejudices, the late Mr. Ellsped Madras, who was well versed in Sanskrit literature, actually composed a short poem in that language on the subject of vaccination. This poem was inscribed on old paper, and said to have been found, that the impression of antiquity might assist the effect intended to be produced on the minds of the Brahmins, while tracing the preventative to their sacred cows."" - p 423

In other words, they used lies & trickery. Keep in mind that it was the people of India who had enuf sense to not use the contaminated milk - unlike the dairies of England. Keep also in mind that this was not long before the Opium Wars & that such an imposition of vaccination can be seen as an indicator of a similar lack of ethics.

"The Opium Wars" [..] "were two wars waged between China and European powers in the mid-19th century. The First Opium War, was fought in 1839­1842 between China and Great Britain. Opium was illegal in China but a profitable trade good for Britain which initiated war to keep the trade flowing. The Second Opium War was fought between the China and Britain and France, 1856­1860. In each war, the European force's modern military technology led to easy victory over the Chinese forces, with the consequence that its government was compelled to sign unequal treaties to grant favourable tariffs, trade concessions, reparations and territory to the Europeans." -

"The principle embodied in the practice of Small Pox inoculation was, the widespread belief that in certain diseases, a mild attack would, as a rule, ward off, or modify, a second attack. Now in the case of Cow Pox there was this initial difficulty, that it was a disease totally distinct from Small Pox. As was soon pointed out, Cow Pox and Small Pox are radically dissimilar. That Jenner foresaw this difficulty, and endeavored to meet it by the invention of the term variolæ vaccinæ, or Small Pox of the cow, is not at all unlikely ; but whether there was motive or not, the designation of Cow Pox as variolæ vaccinæ had, without doubt, a very great effect in rendering the new inoculation acceptable on the Continent." - p 424

"Cow Pox inoculation was introduced into America on the strength of one doubtul experiment, and as on the Continent, under the impression that it was variolæ vaccinæ or Small Pox of the Cow.

"Thus were the scientists in Europe and America deceived. They were led to believe that this English disease was commonly known as Cow Small Pox, whereas it was Jenner who first named it Cow Small Pox. It was really known in England as "the Pox among Cows," or the "Cow Pox."" - p 429

"The new inoculation was shortly afterwards tested on a large scale. A Dr. S. obtained lymph from a sailor, who had arrived at Marblehead from London, and was supposed to be suffering from Cow Pox, but in reality had Small Pox. Dr. S. began to use it, and produced an epidemic of Small Pox. Previous to this accident Dr. D. had inoculated about forty persons from the arm of Dr. Waterhouses's son, and all who had been vaccinated took the Small Pox, either casually or by inoculation, one excepted." - p 427

My ongoing point is that the practice of vaccination was established thru trickery, double-talk, lies, etc, & motivated by a desire for fame & wealth. As such, as far as I can tell, nothing substantial has changed to this day & there's still a strong possibility that the medical industry has had a hand, very disguised by faked history, in creating large-scale health problems.

Near the end of "History and Pathology of Vaccination - Volume 1", Crookshank recapitulates his criticisms of Jenner who many people consider to be the main culprit in connection w/ establishing vaccination's undeserved good reputation.

"In the first place, the statement which has been recently made, that Jenner believed that Cow Pox was derived from human Small Pox, and hence the term variolæ vaccinæ was justifiable, is entirely without foundation. The facts of the case are that Jenner believed that the Cow Pox was derived from the diseased heels of the horse ; he also believed that Small Pox and some other diseases arose from the same source. When the boy Phipps was inoculated with Cow Pox, Jenner was struck with the similarity to some cases of inoculated Small Pox, and he felt convinced that, at least, Cow Pox and Small Pox were derived from the same source. The idea that Cow Pox arose through the agency of milkers suffering from human Small Pox never occurred to Jenner." - p 431

At any rate, vaccination's promise of effectiveness has been disproved over & over again. In this day & age that just means that more & more booster shots are encouraged. Imagine buying a car that you expect to work & then being told that you have to buy a new motor for it once a yr, then once every 6 mnths, then once every 3 mnths in order for it to actually work - only to not have it work no matter how many new motors you buy for it.

"["]At length, about nine years ago, all doubt from my mind was removed, in consequence of my having had ocular and very distinct evidence of perfect vaccination having failed to produce the promised security.""

"Dr. Monro not only made his own observations, but he corresponded with other members of the profession. Mr. Cooper informed him that "cases of Small Pox after Cow Pox are now daily occurrences."

"The statements made by Dr. Alexander Ramsay, of Dundee, were still more striking."


"["]to invalidate the evidence of Small Pox in its perfect form having succeeded to vaccination in its perfect form."" - p 436

"Dr. Smith of Dunse, 2nd June, 1818. Dr. Smith wrote :-

""I had, indeed, seen several cases of Small Pox supervening upon vaccination, which I meantioned at the time to Dr. Farquharson ; but as he seemed to think lightly of them, I judged it prudent to take no further notice of the circumstance. Even now, though I have seen a multitude of cases in which Small Pox has, in every possible shape, taken place after vaccination, I feel myself placed in the painful situation of bringing forth many facts to which gentlemen of the first eminence in the profession will probably give little or no credit. . . ." - p 444

"In fact an alteration in the quality of the lymph had now become one of the stock apologetics for Cow Pox failures, and the profession was still persuaded to believe in "that most precious boon of Jenner to a suffering world." According to Badcock, similar experiences were met with abroad. Out of 547,646 vaccinated, 11,773 were attacked with Small Pox. 1,294 became disfigured or infirm, and 1,379 died in consequence of the disease." - p 450

"Creighton has pointed out how closely the inoculated syphilis runs parallel with the natural Cow Pox" - p 462

Of course, who cd forget the infamous Tuskagee experiment:

"The Tuskegee experiment began in 1932, at a time when there was no known treatment for syphilis, a contagious venereal disease. After being recruited by the promise of free medical care, 600 African American men in Macon County, Alabama were enrolled in the project, which aimed to study the full progression of the disease.

"The participants were primarily sharecroppers, and many had never before visited a doctor. Doctors from the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), which was running the study, informed the participants-399 men with latent syphilis and a control group of 201 others who were free of the disease-they were being treated for bad blood, a term commonly used in the area at the time to refer to a variety of ailments.

"The men were monitored by health workers but only given placebos such as aspirin and mineral supplements, despite the fact that penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947, some 15 years into the study. PHS researchers convinced local physicians in Macon County not to treat the participants, and instead research was done at the Tuskegee Institute. (Now called Tuskegee University, the school was founded in 1881 with Booker T. Washington at its first teacher.)

"In order to track the disease's full progression, researchers provided no effective care as the men died, went blind or insane or experienced other severe health problems due to their untreated syphilis.

"In the mid-1960s, a PHS venereal disease investigator in San Francisco named Peter Buxton found out about the Tuskegee study and expressed his concerns to his superiors that it was unethical. In response, PHS officials formed a committee to review the study but ultimately opted to continue it-with the goal of tracking the participants until all had died, autopsies were performed and the project data could be analyzed.

"Buxton then leaked the story to a reporter friend, who passed it on to a fellow reporter, Jean Heller of the Associated Press. Heller broke the story in July 1972, prompting public outrage and forcing the study to finally shut down.

"By that time, 28 participants had perished from syphilis, 100 more had passed away from related complications, at least 40 spouses had been diagnosed with it and the disease had been passed to 19 children at birth."


That 'study' went on for 40 yrs & the drs were from the Public Health Service. They, too, were ostensibly working for the public good, just as vaccinators continue to claim to do.

"As a result of an investigation into the history and especially the pathology, of "vaccination," I feel convinced that the profession has been misled by Jenner, Baron, the Reports of the National Vaccine Establishment, and by a want of knowledge concerning the nature of Cow Pox, Horse Pox, and other sources of "vaccine lymph." Though in this country, vaccine lymph is generally taken to mean the virus of Cow Pox, yet the pathology of this disease, and its nature and affinities, have not been made the subject of practical study for nearly half a century. We have submitted instead to purely theoretical teaching, and have been led to regard vaccination as inoculation of the human subject with the virus of a benign disease of the cow, whereas the viruses in use have been derived from several distinct and severe diseases in different animals." - p 463

"Variolation, though a dangerous practice, can at least lay claim to be based upon scientific grounds, viz., the prevention or modification of a disease by artificially inducing a mild attack of that disease. Jenner's substitution of Cow Pox inoculation was a purely empirical treatment based upon folklore, and involved a totally different pathological principle-the protection from one disease by the artificial induction of a totally distinct disease-a principle which was not, and has not been since, supported by either clinical experience or pathological experiments."


"Inoculation of Cow Pox does not have the least effect in affording immunity from the analogous disease in man, syphilis, and neither do Cow Pox, Horse Pox, Sheep Pox, Cattle Plague, or any other radically dissimilar disease, exercise any specific protective power against Human Small Pox. Inoculation of Cow Pox, Horse Pox, and Cattle Plague have totally failed to exterminate Small Pox" - p 464

Crookshank is ultimately in favor of what he calls "Variolation" & in quarantine. I'm not particularly in favor of either but might under very limited circumstances find quarantine reasonable. Nonetheless, I found this bk to collate together a remarkable body of compelling evidence against much of what the medical industry forces upon the public.

"There can be no doubt that ere long a system of COMPULSORY NOTIFICATION and ISOLATION will replace vaccination. Indeed, I maintain that where isolation and vaccination have been carried out in the face of an epidemic, it is isolation which has been instrumental in staying the outbreak, though vaccinating has received the credit." - p 465

"It is more probable that when, by means of notification and isolation, Small Pox is kept under control, vaccination will disappear from practice, and will retain only an historical interest." - p 466

Unfortunately, despite all of Crookshank's perspicacity & scholarliness, he was unprepared to anticipate an era in wch all forces wd be brought to bear against a PLANDEMIC in order to NOT control the disease but to control, enslave, & further profit from the public.




idioideo at gmail dot com


to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Anti-Neoism page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Audiography page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Bibliography page

to my "Blaster" Al Ackerman index

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Books page


to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Censored or Rejected page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Collaborations page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Critic page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE (d) compositions page

to Amir-ul Kafirs' Facebook page

to the "FLICKER" home-page for the alternative cinematic experience

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's GoodReads profile

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Haircuts page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Home Tapers page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE index page

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE Instagram Poetry page

to a listing of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's manifestations on the Internet Archive

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE as Interviewee index

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE as Interviewer index

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE'S Linked-In profile

for A Mere Outline for One Aspect of a Book on Mystery Catalysts, Guerrilla Playfare, booed usic, Mad Scientist Didactions, Acts of As-Beenism, So-Called Whatevers, Psychopathfinding, Uncerts, Air Dressing, Practicing Promotextuality, Imp Activism, etc..

to the mm index

to see an underdeveloped site re the N.A.A.M.C.P. (National Association for the Advancement of Multi-Colored Peoples)

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Neoism page

to the DEFINITIVE Neoism/Anti-Neoism website

to the Philosopher's Union website

to the tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE movie-making "Press: Criticism, Interviews, Reviews" home-page

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE as Reviewer page(s)

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Score Movies


to find out more about why the S.P.C.S.M.E.F. (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Sea Monkeys by Experimental Filmmakers) is so important

to the "tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - Sprocket Scientist" home-page

to Psychic Weed's Twitter page

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Vimeo index

to Vine movies relevant to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE made by Ryan Broughman

to tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's presence in the Visual Music Village

for info on tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's tape/CD publishing label: WIdémoUTH

to a very small selection of tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE's Writing

to the onesownthoughts YouTube channel