There are many metaphors and descriptions for the experience all of us go through when we first start to question the “mainstream” version of either current or historical events. “Taking the red pill,” “going down the rabbit hole,” “waking up,” etc. The COVID-19 scamdemic is causing a number of people to question official narratives for the first time. That is probably because their lives are being heavily impacted by those narratives—by the contradictions, statistical manipulation, absurd fear-porn propaganda, tyrannical lockdown rules, and rank hypocrisy of politicians and public health officials.
The COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine mandates have been two of the most hotly contested issues (rightly so), and the discoveries being made about them have led many people to make mandatory vaccines their “line in the sand.” I can see why they have done so. Like them, I am opposed to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. And, like them, I very much appreciate the detailed research and analysis of the available data that has been done by Steve Kirsch, Ryan Cristián, and many, many others.
However, I think it is very important that we do not allow Pharma and the Feds attempt to limit our criticism only to vaccine mandates and only to the COVID-19 vaccines. If we complain and contest this vaccine and this mandate alone, we leave the door open for future “better” vaccines and “justifiable” mandates when Bill Gates’ Pandemic 2.0, BioTerrorism Edition, comes around. I believe the entire history of vaccines deserves critical examination. For purposes of this post, though, I will focus on only one: the smallpox vaccine.
In my last post I shared some G.K. Chesterton anti-vax wisdom from 100 years ago. Today I’d like to go back even further, to a speech given on January 25th, 1896, by Dr. Walter Hadwen. A physician in Gloucester, England, Hadwen had run afoul of the city’s mandatory smallpox vaccine policy by refusing to allow his own children to be vaccinated in the midst of the Gloucester Smallpox Epidemic.1 (As you read this, look for parallels between the smallpox vaccine of the 1800’s and the “modern” vaccines of today.)
In his speech, Hadwen presented the Edward Jenner vaccine origin story in a much different light than the version we get in our high school biology textbooks today. According to Hadwen,2
Jenner “never passed a medical examination in his life,” although after 20 years of practicing medicine and conducting research he purchased a medical degree from a Scottish University that he never attended (and you think today’s remote learning is bogus?).
The whole “milk maids don’t get smallpox” claim was a superstition among the milk maids based on an experiment (wrongly credited to Jenner) that had been performed 20 years earlier by a farmer named Benjamin Jesty.
Local doctors did not take Jenner (or the milk maids) seriously; they saw that the milk maids did in fact get smallpox.
The belief that exposure to cowpox protected against smallpox was based in large part on the fact that both words had “pox” in their names. For the record, cowpox has verydifferent symptoms from smallpox.
The “study” Jenner did for his cowpox vaccine against smallpox consisted of a trial “group” of one lone boy named James Phipps. Somehow the lad managed to survive having cow lymph scraped into him by Jenner. Weeks later, he again managed to survive—by not developing smallpox—after Jenner inoculated him with smallpox-infected tissue. Of course, Jenner had no control group. Yet he thought that his “study” of Phipps, combined with anecdotal accounts he had heard of people who had cowpox in the past and had not later developed smallpox, was sufficient evidence for him to write up his findings and present a paper to the Royal Society. It was rejected.
The dilemma Jenner faced was that there were many people who had had both cowpox and smallpox. Based on that fact, Jenner “invented a novel idea . . . [that] there are two kinds of pox. One is the genuine kind and the other spurious, and those who have had cow-pox and yet have had small-pox afterwards, have had the spurious variety. Those who had cow-pox and did not have small-pox afterwards were those who had had the genuine disease.”
Not all participants in Jenner’s other experiments were as fortunate as James Phipps had been. “[Jenner] inoculated a boy named John Baker with horse-grease, direct from the horse’s heels. He intended later to inoculate him with small-pox in order to see whether it would take, but . . . the poor boy died in the workhouse directly afterwards from a contagious fever contracted from the inoculation.”
Far from being discouraged by Baker’s death and abandoning his horse grease theory, Jenner instead “took some of the horse-grease cow-pox and inoculated six children, and without waiting to see the result or to prove whether it would take or not he rushed to London to get his paper printed. And in that paper he had the audacity to assert that it was not necessary to wait to see the result because the proofs he already had were so conclusive, and time experiments had told such an extraordinary tale—although he had completed but one experiment in his life, and that did not prove it at all. That boy James Phipps was hawked about the country as a proof of the value of vaccination, but he had not been inoculated with horse-grease cow-pox at all, but with spontaneous cow-pox, which Jenner now declared in his second paper was absolutely useless and unprotective against the disease!”
There was considerable resistance to the idea of injecting horse grease into children, so Jenner went back to his original hypothesis that inoculation with cowpox would prevent smallpox (even though he already knew this to be false). To help promote his new/old theory, he invented a new name for cowpox, calling “cow-pox small-pox of the cow, or Variolae Vacciae, but you may search in vain for any attempt upon his part to prove it.”
While Jenner deserves much blame for his role in developing the scourge of vaccination, we can’t ignore the parts both the government and the news media played in promoting Jenner and the smallpox vaccine. Jenner may not have been a real doctor, but he was persuasive enough to convince politicians (including the King and Queen of England) that his research was worth funding. Once Jenner had political support, the country’s “real” doctors quickly lost their previous (well-founded) skepticism and jumped on board.
Does Hadwen’s description of the way the smallpox vaccine was promoted—and argued against—remind you of any current events? He said:
[In 1808] the whole of the London doctors signed a testimonial and declared that this discovery was such that persons once vaccinated were for ever protected against small-pox. . . . They very soon began to talk about compulsion. . . . [I]n 1853 they managed to pass that Compulsory Vaccination Act which we are here to protest against to-night.
I think one of the most serious complaints against the whole system is this: They dare not trust it to its own merits. Do people want small-pox? If the System is any good it will speak for itself; if it is bad they have no right to enforce it. You may ask, “Why was compulsion necessary?” The reason was simply this—the people were beginning to find out it was no good; they were beginning to clamour again for inoculation, and the working classes, who reason more by the hard facts of experience than by medical dogmas, found that it was not the slightest use for protecting People against small-pox. In 1811 there had occurred a notable instance of failure. Lord Robert Grosvenor, ten years of age, who had been vaccinated by Jenner himself, was now taken with small-pox, and lay hovering between life and death. Jenner sat by the bedside of his illustrious patient, and when at last the boy began to turn and get better Jenner turned to the father with “What a lucky job he was vaccinated. If he had not been, he would surely have died.” Thus Jenner started the glorious doctrine of mitigation, which has been handed down as the heirloom of the medical vaccinists ever since.
There is no record of whether or not Lord Robert Grosvenor took to social media to thank Jenner and the vaccine for his survival of smallpox and to encourage his followers to “take smallpox seriously” and to “get vaccinated.” For those of you keeping track at home, bear in mind that the smallpox vaccine at first promised lifetime immunity from smallpox. But when people kept getting smallpox anyway, the narrative shifted to the vaccine mitigating symptoms. Later it again shifted to a new claim: the vaccine protected against death from smallpox.
“But,” we are told, “the children don’t die.” Well, that may be all very well; we will see whether they die or not. Turn to Germany, for instance. During that epidemic I spoke of just now there were 2,140 cases of children under ten who had small-pox, and 736 of them died; there were 1,503 cases vaccinated under five, and there were 573 deaths. You may say,
“Then why is it they don’t die in this country?” Turn to the Muller’s Orphanage in Bristol. In 1872 there were 740 children, all vaccinated, and 292 cases of small-pox amongst them, and there were 17 deaths. But I can give you the reason, perhaps, why the children don’t die—why vaccinated children don’t die from small-pox so much as we should expect. In 1886, for instance, there were 275 cases of small-pox deaths altogether throughout England and Wales; there was only one vaccinated child that died from small-pox under ten years of age, but there were 93 children who died from “chicken-pox.” And the Registrar-General, in commenting upon the fact, declared that nearly, if not all. those cases should have been registered as small-pox, because chicken-pox ‘never kills ‘; and Dr. Ogle, the chief in the Registrar-General’s Department, told the Royal Commission as a witness before it, that he had never known chicken-pox kill a child in his life. Why were not they registered as small-pox? In 1893, the last published returns we have, there were 127 children who were reported to have died from “chicken-pox”; so perhaps that will explain why “the children don’t die.”
As the failure of the smallpox vaccine became more and more apparent, did governments and doctors admit they were wrong? Of course not! On the contrary, they declared it was time for boosters—or re-vaccination, as they called repeat inoculations in the 1800s. Hadwen gives the example of the British Army:
Then look at our re-vaccinated Army. From 1860 to 1888 we had no less than 3,953 cases of small-pox in the British Army, and 391 of them died. If re-vaccination won’t protect the soldier, how is it going to protect the nurse? In Egypt in 1889 they died at the rate of 1,750 per million from small-pox. But, as a matter of fact, the Government do not believe in re-vaccination. The other day, when the epidemic broke out in London, a regiment of soldiers was stationed at St. John’s Wood, near, and so terrified were the Government with regard to the matter that an urgent order came down from the Horse Guards sending the regiment right away to the other end of England, lest the re-vaccinated soldiers should catch small-pox. I heard an amusing incident the other day about a magistrate who had some of those “ignorant fanatics” like some of you before him. He told the defendants that they ought to be ashamed of themselves letting their children go unvaccinated, and added, “Why, I would not let my children go unprotected from this dire disease on any account.” A short time afterwards illness came into his house, and the doctor told him that a servant had the small-pox; and no sooner did the old gentleman hear that than his courage oozed out at his finger-tips,and he sent for the nearest fire-escape in order that the children might be taken away through the window, so as to avoid passing the door of the infected chamber. Then there are those doctors who tell us that not only have they been re-vaccinated, but that if a small-pox epidemic occurred they would be done again, which shows that they have not much faith in re-vaccination. At Berkhampstead, Sir Astley Cooper, who has been sitting on the Bench, declared in a speech on the subject that he had been vaccinated no less than seven times, and such was his wonderful faith in the operation that he declared, with all the courage of a Roman gladiator, “If an epidemic occurred, I would go and be vaccinated again.” Why, if they had tattooed the old gentleman from head to foot he would still be crying, “Do, pray give me more vaccination.”
As you may have guessed, the smallpox vaccine was quite unsafe in addition to being totally ineffective. As with SIDS or MIS-C today, the deaths were often blamed on something other than the vaccine.
What about syphilis? It is a very strange thing that up to 1853, when the Compulsory Vaccination Act was passed, the annual deaths from syphilis of children under one year old did not, exceed 380; the very next year the number had jumped up nearly double, to 591 ; and syphilis in infants under one year of age has gone on increasing every year since until 1883, when the number of deaths reached 1,813. It has increased four-fold in infants since the passing of the Compulsory Vaccination Act, and yet in adults it has remained almost stationary. Surely this speaks for itself. These deaths have only begun to decline since, in proportion as the number of vaccinations to births have declined. Therefore we have not merely children dying primarily from vaccination, but from a concurrent disease.
Even the despicable practice of blaming vaccine-induced brain swelling on parents for shaking their baby is not entirely new. Hadwen recounts a similar type of event in which government officials blamed the parents for something caused by a government-mandated vaccine:
I must mention to you . . . the case of Emily Maud Child, of Leeds. That child who was vaccinated, died, and a coroner’s jury having held an inquest, it was brought in conclusively that she died from syphilis, as the result of vaccination. A certificate to that effect went up to the Government, who sent an inspector down to investigate the case; he took photographs of the teeth of the other children, declared they were syphilitic, and reported that it was not vaccine lymph which produced the syphilis, but that the fault lay with the mother herself. At last the Royal Commission heard of the case and sent down independent investigators, who found that there was not a vestige of syphilis in the remaining children, and that the charge against the mother was false. It is a terrible thing, I say, that not only have you to stand the chance of losing the child who is dear to you, but you have to stand the chance of the powerful machinery of Government being turned on in order to take away the character of your wife.
Almost everyone has heard of Edward Jenner, yet virtually no one has heard of Walter Hadwen. Many have heard of James Phipps, the “successful” Jenner test subject. Virtually none of us, however, have heard of John Baker or Lord Robert Grosvenor, much less the more indirect Jenner victims like Emily Maud Child.
Will we likewise allow the victims of Fauci and Pfizer to be forgotten? I pray we don’t. We must never forget Maddie de Garay, Ernesto Ramirez, Jr. , Ámbar Suárez, and many other innocent people around the world who have already been grievously injured or killed by the COVID-19 vaccines. (I say “already” because there are many more sacrificial lambs still to come.)
Yes, the COVID-19 scamdemic and the COVID-19 vaccine propaganda are absurd and blatantly false. However, is the entire narrative really more bogus than the “science” of the smallpox vaccine? Will we allow COVID-19 vaccines and boosters to be administered (and sometimes mandated) for the next 100+ years? Will we allow the history books to remember Fauci and Gates as fondly as they remember Edward Jenner? Will we allow the mRNA vaccine platform discovery to be as celebrated and off-limits to criticism as the cow lymph scrapers and jabbers? I will give Dr. Hadwen the last word.
Then, when you go before the Bench, the magistrates tell you they are “only administrators of the law,” which has been the plea of the greatest persecutors of every age. Remember that the Vaccination Act does not deal with the drunkard; it is the best classes of the country, the earnest, honest people, the Sunday school teachers, who love their children and their homes. The Scotch Covenantors, Ann Askew, John Wyecliffe, and the apostles of old were told that their persecutors were “only the administrators of the law,” but they defied the law, and the proudest privileges and blessings we possess have been won for us by the law-breakers of this country. It is not a question merely of the health but of the very lives of the children which are at stake in this matter; and I believe that the present century shall not close until we have placed our foot upon the dragon’s neck, and plunged the sword of liberty through its heart. They tell us we are trying to rouse the country with a “crazy cry”—the cry of liberty of conscience—and, we are not ashamed of that cry. It is that “crazy cry” which snapped the shackles of despotism in the past. That “crazy cry” is spreading at the present time throughout the length and breadth of the country. We are told that the intelligent portion of the population is against us; it’s false. That “crazy cry” is ascending higher and higher, into a raging and tremendous storm; that liberty which has been won by the blood of our forefathers for the theological conscience, is the liberty we demand for the scientific conscience. Already it is thundering at the door of the House of Commons, and it shall be heard. Yes, we are going forward with the “crazy cry” of liberty of conscience upon our unfurled banner, and we never intend to rest until we get it.
