Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum

Here you can watch in real time as some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Internet forum members agree together to engage across the internet in what will likely be their usual formula of personal abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation.

They have been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum about this CHS article posted three days ago:

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies

So having been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum, they are being told it is OK to go onto their own blogs where they will no doubt engage in Google bombing the internet about this.

Here you can see it being discussed on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum, [subject of course to postings being deleted or posting terminated once this CHS article is posted]:

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum Comment Thread: ”Patient Commits Suicide After His Doctor Hounded By..”

The CHS article above is about just one suicide linked to the internet activities of some of the members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum.  It is not the only suicide of an individual subjected to years of relentless internet attacks by some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members.

The article exposes what Dr Ben Goldacre has been allowing on his BadScience internet forum for years – very serious organised orchestrated internet bullying, abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation on an internet wide scale against individuals who have differing perspectives from his members and associates.

Additionally, it is clear from this and other evidence that Dr Ben Goldacre is allowing his BadScience forum to be used in this manner.  He has had previous warnings which are documented.

Harassment whether on the internet or elsewhere is apparently illegal and can attract stiff penalties following laws introduced to the UK to counter serious problems of stalking and harassment of celebrities and private individuals.  And this clearly has the look of the usual orchestrated harassment by agreement which under wholly separate legal provisions CHS understands can also be unlawful and attract stiff penalties.

Or should Dr Goldacre be exempt from acting responsibly or above the law?

The BadScience Forum webpage linked to above keeps changing and some comments have been removed already and some are still being added.

In case of further deletions here is an exchange showing they have been told to shut up:

Post#9 by sTeamTraen » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:46 pm

jdc wrote:

soveda wrote:Moderator note:
Please be very careful in discussing this not to stray into anything that will be problematic, thank you.

Further to this: I was a bit worried we hadn’t been quite careful enough, so I’ve quarantined a couple of posts. I might be being overcautious. I’ll ask the other mods to take a look at teh quarantined posts.

Soz.

I apologise for inadvertently posting about this. I didn’t realise what was going on (but I have since received PMs from three people explaining the situation).

And here is why they are being told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum:

Post#19 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:34 pm

andysnat wrote:It has nothing to do with legal, and plenty to do with keeping the forum.Thanks.

This. Anybody feel free to PM me for discussion of the background to this situation.

Here is a post encouraging Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members to blog about these matters on their own blogs across the internet instead of on Dr Goldacre’s BadScience forum:

Post#14 by duck » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:25 pm

As ever, we thoroughly encourage people to write about this on their own blogs.

And another here:

Post#16 by ThermalTurnip » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:46 pm

Backstep wrote:Dear mods, I love you all dearly, but hows about you don’t encourage us to p.ssy foot around this topic? As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Seconded.

And here:

Post#17 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:04 pm

Backstep wrote:As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Yes, there is. The last time this came up it was almost the end of this forum. Personally, I like it here, and I don’t want it to become more trouble to the curly-haired one than it’s worth.

I think we should take the advice previously given, and repeated by duck, that if we want to address the issues raised we should take it to our own blogs.

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies – Perpetrator’s Mild Two Year Cautionary Sentence Only Just Ended December 2013

[STOP PRESS 4 Jan 2014 @15:02: Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum. This new CHS article is published because since the CHS article below was published CHS has obtained information showing some people will not take notice even when it is spelt out clearly for them.]

A patient committed suicide after an anonymous malicious complaint was made by Stuart Jones to the UK’s General Medical Council about the patient’s treating physician, a disciplinary tribunal was told.  Stuart Jones [Registration Number: CS17316] was at the time a member of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum and was a clinical scientist at the Queens Hospital, Romford, UK. The physician concerned sometimes employed treatment methods which were not those conventionally employed by others but which apparently reaped benefits for patients.

After making the complaint to the GMC about the patient’s doctor, Stuart Jones wrote on May 19th 2010 on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum to other forum members:

Yup, that’s exactly why I complained actually, to give SM a bucket load of administration to wade through and increase anxiety levels in her patients, very pleasurable in deed!”

The patient, who was suffering with chronic fatigue syndrome at the time [also known as ME] killed himself, according to evidence from his doctor, because he mistakenly believed his doctor was no longer allowed to treat him: ‘Deluded quack’ jibe nearly ruined doctor’s career, Daily Telegraph, 21 December 2011.

Members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum are encouraged by Dr Ben Goldacre to take direct action and get involved.  This has included some members launching online attacks on medical professionals who employ treatment modalities others in mainstream medicine do not. BadScience Forum members are also encouraged to make complaints to a large number of regulatory bodies all the time.

In fact Dr Goldacre encourages his BadScience Forum members to get very, very involved:

The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.”

Dr Ben Goldacre has practised as a psychiatrist and is a columnist for the UK’s Guardian newspaper where his column, which appears infrequently now, is devoted to what he calls BadScience.

Stuart Jones’ complaint resulted in the temporary suspension by the GMC of the patient’s doctor.

The GMC prosecution of the deceased patient’s treating doctor was dropped abruptly by the GMC.  By 22nd August 2011 the GMC advised the Doctor all charges had been dropped – [see chonology at end of this article]. 

Stuart Jones was in turn prosecuted by the Health and Care Professions Council.  He was subjected to a very minor punishment of merely a two-year Caution Order.  The two year caution order was imposed in December 2011 but will remain on the register until 18th January this year.

Between 1st March 2009 and 26th October 2010 Stuart Jones, posting anonymously on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum as “Jonas“, made numerous disparaging remarks about the patient’s treating physician.

The career of the patient’s doctor was nearly destroyed in addition to the patient taking his own life in despair at the thought of not getting effective treatment after Stuart Jones described the patient’s doctor as a ‘deluded, pill-peddling quack’ the disciplinary tribunal hearing was told. Stuart Jones also wrote on the BadScience website that the patient’s doctor, who specialises in treating chronic fatigue syndrome, “lulled patients into a dangerous world of make-believe pseudo-science”.  The Health Professions Council heard evidence that Jones’ messages were “defamatory, derogatory and disparaging” and had a detrimental effect on the doctor’s professional and personal life.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum was flooded with 10,000 posts responding to Jones’ initial message in April 2010.

Evidence at the hearing from the patient’s doctor was:

In fact, there was one patient in particular who thought because I had been suspended I could no longer could be consulted. I don’t know if this happened directly as a result of that but the man deteriorated and he actually committed suicide. That’s just one example of how one patient was very seriously affected. I don’t know if that’s directly as part of Mr Jones’ blogging but it resulted.

Causing a patient to commit suicide by vicious bullying of the patient’s treating doctor specifically to “increase anxiety levels” in the victim doctor’s patients is apparently not a sufficiently serious crime to warrant more than a 2 year “caution” for the Health and Care Professions Council.

Although no charges were brought against the patient’s doctor by the GMC and the doctor was never called before the GMC, aborted investigations in 2006/07 cost the GMC £136,692.12 in solicitors’ fees and disbursements and a possible further £500,000 on internal costs – according to a report on a website set up to support the patient’s doctor by patients and wellwishers.

The GMC is funded by a levy paid by all medical doctors registered in the UK.

It appears also no action has been taken by the GMC regarding Dr Goldacre’s BadScience Forum activities.

The GMC is meant to act on patient complaints. The GMC is an unusual organisation as this previous CHS post demonstrates:

UK General Medical Council Told Docs “Commit Fraud for MMR Vaccine Bonuses”

To complain to the GMC you can contact them on:

Email: gmc@gmc-uk.org.

Or telephone:

  • Inside the UK: 0161 923 6602
  • Outside the UK: +44 161 923 6602

Monday to Friday – 8am to 6pm – Saturday – 9am to 5pm – UK Time.

Details of the outcome of the 2011 HCPC hearing against Stuart Jones can be read here on the HCPC’s website:

Stuart Jones

Profession: Clinical scientist
Registration Number: CS17316
Hearing type: Final Hearing
Date & Time of hearing: 20/12/2011 – 10:00 End: 20/12/2011 – 18:00
Location: HPC, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Caution

Registration Number: CS17316

CHRONOLOGY [6 Jan 2014]: This is a chronology of some of what the poor doctor has had to face at the hands of the General Medical Council.

Compare what follows with the case of Dr Jane Barton.

With Barton the police investigated 92 deaths over 12 years [no criminal charges were brought].  An inquest found ten of 12 deaths followed excessive doses of morphine. Dr Barton was neither struck off nor suspended but simply had restrictions to prescribe certain drugs imposed on her.  This GMC decision came on January 29th 2010.

What The GMC Did To This Doctor

Remember at all times that no patient was harmed.  Patients benefited and praised the Doctor and none were put at risk.

Nov 2002: five day GMC fitness to practice hearing scheduled to take place. Five complaints only from doctors, none from patients. No patient harmed, put at risk, nor any malpractice.  Complaints objected to doctor’s style of practice and the allergy, environmental, nutritional approach to medicine.

Oct 2002: hearing postponed to Feb 2003 and extended 8 days for eight complaints.

Jan 2003: Feb hearing cancelled – no proper explanation.  Hearing was cancelled because at least one allegation was fabricated, one based on untrue facts and patients had refused to co-operate.

April 2007:  new set of allegations & new hearing proposed.  Again, includes complaints only from doctors and who do not like the style of practice. No patient harmed or put at risk. Now extended also to complaints about website.

July 2007: 10 day General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearing scheduled to take place Sept 2007.

That hearing later postponed and proposed as a thirteen day hearing in February 2008.

Oct 2007: GMC drop all charges.

Aug 2009: Aug 12th GMC had been found out removing documentary evidence supporting the accused Doctor.

Apr 2010: Apr 2nd anonymous complaint received from GMC by Doctor [complaint from Stuart Jones].

April 2010: Thurs 8th April GMC orders Doctor to attend “Interim Orders Panel” for following Monday 12th April.  IOP is to make no decision about validity of complaint – an “interim” hearing only.

April 2010: April 9th – hearing postponed to April 29th.

April 2010: April 29th IOP hearing of unsubstantiated anonymous complaint [from Stuart Jones].  IOP hearing is not concerned if allegations are true but with whether to impose an order to protect public if the allegations were found to be true.  GMC interim panel decided there was a “potential risk to public safety” so imposed an interim order.  [Compare the Barton case above where Barton’s patients died after morphine overdoses, inquests & police investigations with this one where patients benefitted from Dr’s treatments & supported Doc.  Barton’s patients were in no condition to complain.]

Dec 2011: Over 1 1/2 years later yet another IOP hearing.

Jan 2011: Temporary suspension lifted.

Aug 2011: 1st Aug all sanctions lifted.

Aug 2011: 22nd Aug all charges dropped.  GMC cancels Fitness to Practice Hearing [scheduled for November 2011] and advises there is no case to answer.  Dr reinstated on the General Medical Council Register.

Dec 2011:  20th Dec Stuart Jones found guilty by HCPC.

Oct 2012: Despite serious charges of professional misconduct against the doctor being dropped the GMC continued its long victimisation of this courageous Dr.  But this time regarding charges concerning the content of her website.  The first expert witness the GMC picked to give evidence did not give them the answer they wanted.  His evidence was:

Dr Hr stated that he did not consider that you were acting inappropriately although he considered that your reference to ‘dangerous medicine’ was inappropriate. He added the caveat that you should ensure that the information given should be accurate and not alarmist. Overall, he considered that your actions were appropriate and of a reasonable competent standard.

So the GMC commissioned two more experts to address the website content and they decided it was not appropriate.

Instead of being struck from the medical register the Dr was given a “warning”.

— THE END — [for the moment]

Smallpox Eradication – One of History’s Biggest Lies & How Vaccination Did Not Eradicate Smallpox

You know about how individuals gain control of the power of the State and then abuse that power like former US President George “Dubya” Bush?  “Dubya” started a war in Iraq which was highly profitable for some US businesses.  He achieved this by claiming Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme which was a serious world security threat when Iraq did not and when it had already been bombed into oblivion by the war his Dad George Bush Snr waged on Iraq in 1992: Valerie Plame Wilson: the housewife CIA spy who was ‘fair game’ for Bush UK The Telegraph By Chrissy Iley 15 Feb 2011. 

Remember how Bush was supported by UK Premier Tony Blair who helped by persuading the British Parliament to join the US with faked “intelligence” of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which did not exist but which Blair claimed could be deployed within 40 minutes and posed a serious security threat?

If you remember that then you will know how these kinds of people manipulate the media.  Notice how they persuade us we are in imminent danger of some threat or other and that they can save us all if we trust them?

This trickery is not new.  It had been used for well over a century with smallpox.  The myth continues to this day.

On CHS we wrote previously about how unscientific the claim is that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination when that frankly is nonsense scientifically.  The demise of the disease came about as a result of the interaction of three completely different factors: isolation, attenuation and improved living conditions, particularly nutrition and sanitation. The effect cannot be attributable to the smallpox vaccine – any vaccine which takes over 100 years to work ipso facto proves itself not to have:

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication

There was a nasty disease called smallpox and it did kill people long ago.

This was especially the case when the poor moved to the cities during the industrial revolution looking for work and choked them in overcrowded unsanitary slums ripe for breeding and spreading disease: London’s first park built after rich feared disease spread from slums UK The Independent By Andy McSmith Friday 07 November 2008;  Hygiene History in the Industrialized World.

The middle and upper classes needed to be reassured the State would keep them safe from the threat of disease.  The majority of the population of entire countries were persuaded their States could achieve this by ensuring the then truly “great unwashed” masses would be vaccinated and the disease controlled.  The trouble was this was a myth but the people wanted to believe and were persuaded. 

Smallpox vaccination did not work and sometimes killed as many or more than the disease itself whilst many of the “vaccinated” still contracted the disease: Smallpox Mortality, UK, USA, Sweden.

Now you can read a relatively short but well-referenced history of the myth of vaccination and the myth of its role in the eradication of smallpox:

Online Version – Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD – August 27, 2013

SMALLPOX MORTALITY-UK, USA & SWEDEN

In the graphs below notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself.  By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself.  The severity of the disease dimished with improved living standards and was not vanquished by vaccination, as the medical “consensus” view tells us. Any vaccine which takes 100 years to “work” did not.  On any scientific analysis of the history and data, crediting smallpox vaccine for the decline in smallpox appears misplaced.

When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummeted [see table below].  Leicester’s approach also cost far less.

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

 uk-vacc-deaths-1875-1922

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

uk-vacc-deaths-1906-1922

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

[Download Entire Book as .pdf 43 Mb  – Or Read Online]

TABLE 21

SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.

Name. Period. Small-Pox.  Cases Small-Pox. Deaths. Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases
Japan 1886-1908 288,779 77,415 26.8
British Army (United Kingdom) 1860-1908 1,355 96 7.1
British Army (India) 1860-1908 2,753 307 11.1
British Army (Colonies) 1860-1908 934 82 8.8
Royal Navy 1860-1908 2,909 234 8.0
Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all 296,730 78,134 26.3
Leicester (since giving up vaccination) 1880-1908 1,206 61 5.1

Biggs saidIn this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.

 TABLE 29.

Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared

Vaccinal Condition Small-Pox Cases Small-Pox Deaths Fatality-rate Per Cent Cost of Epidemic
London 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 9,659 1,594 16.50 £492,000
Glasgow 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 3,417 377 11.03 £ 150,000
Sheffield 1887-88 Well Vaccinated 7,066 688 9.73 £32,257
Leicester 1892-94 Practically Unvaccinated 393 21 5.34 £2,888
Leicester 1902-04 Practically Unvaccinated 731 30 4.10 £1,602

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

 

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

uk-smallpox-1838-1890

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

sweden-smallpox-1821-1852

__________________________________________

Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD

August 27, 2013

With the approaching flu season and the enthusiastic calls to use the flu vaccine, you might be wondering where the idea of vaccination got its start. Where did the idea of injecting whole or bits of microbes and other substances into people in an attempt to provide protection against contagious disease begin?

Many medical and history books present a simple tale of the origin of vaccination. Most present the same basic tale of the brilliant observation of a simple country doctor and his courage in attempting to thwart a deadly and frightening disease of that time – smallpox, or as it was often called the speckled monster. In a recent and popular book, The Panic Virus, the author reiterates this classic tale.

In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing. [1]

Edward Jenner’s idea eventually became known as vaccination, which is derived from the Latin word for cow – vacca. It was originally referred to as cowpoxing, but eventually the term vaccination was adopted. As the story goes, with this invention in place, smallpox would be tamed and the world would be freed from the terror of the disease.

Such is the stuff of legends. The story is not unlike the classic Greek legends of Theseus defeating the child-devouring Minotaur, or Perseus beheading the deadly snake-headed Medusa, or many other classic stories of the brave hero defeating a deadly enemy. The Jenner legend has been reduced to a simple and memorable story of a hero defeating the deadly enemy, smallpox. Authors claim that with vaccination in place, “billions of lives” have been saved.[2]

But legendary heroes, particularly those that are used to support a belief, achieve an iconic status while any unsavory aspects about the hero and the story are ignored or forgotten. Mythical tales are designed to evoke a positive emotional response to influence societal thinking.

The tale of defeating smallpox begins well before the story of our hero. It begins with the concept of using small amounts of smallpox pus and scratching it into the arms of healthy people. This idea was introduced to the Western world by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1717. She had returned from the Ottoman Empire with knowledge of the practice of inoculation against smallpox, known as variolation. This type of inoculation was simply a matter of infecting a person with smallpox at a time and in a setting of his choosing. The idea behind inoculation was that, in a controlled setting, people would do better against the disease than if they contracted it at some possibly less desirable time and place in the future.

The idea was embraced by the medical profession and enthusiastically practiced. But because of the complexity and danger involved, inoculation remained an operation that could only be afforded by the wealthy.[3] The procedure did often help protect the individual that was inoculated, but there was still an estimated 2-5% that died as a result.[4,5] Still, this was an improvement compared to a 20-25% mortality rate in those that had naturally contracted smallpox during an epidemic.[6] But, was the difference in mortality due to inoculation alone? Or could it have had something to do with the fact that the wealthy had better access to more nutritious food and a cleaner environment than the majority of society?

There was one major and generally unacknowledged drawback to variolation – those inoculated could and did spread smallpox creating more deaths than there would have been naturally. In a 1764 article the author recognized that smallpox was a contagious disease and that the practice of variolation would create new vectors to spread it. He compared the smallpox deaths in the 38 years before the introduction of variolation to the 38 years after, and found that smallpox deaths had increased⎯not decreased. He was forced to conclude that variolation on the whole, led to worse problems, because it caused more deaths than lives saved.

It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread the contagion, for a contagious disease is produced by Inoculation where it would not otherwise have been produced; the place where it is thus produced becomes a center of contagion, whence it spreads not less fatally or widely than it would spread from a center where the disease should happen in a natural way; these centers of contagion are manifestly multiplied very greatly by Inoculation . . .[7]

However, while the popularity of variolation varied, the problem of it spreading smallpox, was largely unrecognized. Because variolation had become a very lucrative procedure it was enthusiastically continued by most of the medical profession through the 1700s and into the early 1800s. Smallpox continued to be spread by this medically-sanctioned procedure.

Now enters the hero of our legend. It was rumored among milkmaids that infection with cowpox would protect one from smallpox. In 1796, believing these stories, Edward Jenner performed an experiment on an 8-year-old boy named James Phipps. He took disease matter that he believed to be cowpox from lesions on a dairymaid, Sarah Nelmes, and vaccinated James Phipps with it. He later deliberately exposed the child to smallpox as a test to see if he was protected by the cowpox inoculation. When the boy did not contract clinical smallpox, it was assumed that the technique of vaccination was successful.

In 1798 Jenner published his results claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using his discovery with only rumors to support his contention. While he promoted the use of his technique based on the tale that someone infected with cowpox would be immune to smallpox, there were doctors of the time who challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox. At a meeting of the Medico-Convivial Society, Jenner was ridiculed over his practice.

But he [Jenner] no sooner mentioned it than they laughed at it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where small-pox had followed cow-pox . . . [8]

From the beginning there were problems with Jenner’s procedure. In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated a number of children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox to see if the cowpox procedure had been effective. All of them developed smallpox, and vaccination failed to protect any of them. Jenner received the report but decided to ignore the results because they were not in support of his theory.[9]

Vaccination was quickly embraced by many in the medical profession as the answer to combating smallpox. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that the procedure would produce lifelong protection. The medical community continued to embrace Jenner’s ideas amidst numerous accounts that refuted the theory of vaccination. Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who had cowpox, or were vaccinated, and were still dying of smallpox. Specific cases of cowpox and vaccine failure were reported in the 1809 Medical Observer.

A Child was vaccinated by Mr. Robinson, surgeon and apothecary, at Rotherham, towards the end of the year 1799. A month later it was inoculated with small-pox matter without effect, and a few months subsequently took confluent small-pox and died. 2. A woman-servant to Mr. Gamble, of Bungay, in Suffolk, had cow-pox in the casual way from milking. Seven years afterwards she became nurse to Yarmouth Hospital, where she caught small-pox, and died. 3 and 4. Elizabeth and John Nicholson, three years of age, were vaccinated at Battersea in the summer of 1804. Both contracted small-pox in May, 1805 and died . . . 13. The child of Mr. R died of small-pox in October 1805. The patient had been vaccinated, and the parents were assured of its security. The vaccinator’s name was concealed. 14. The child of Mr. Hindsley at Mr. Adam’s office . . . died of small-pox a year after vaccination.[10]

Reports through the early 1800s began to accumulate showing vaccination was not living up to its promise to protect from smallpox. A report in 1810 from the Medical Observer noted 535 cases of small-pox after vaccination, 97 fatal cases, and 150 cases of vaccine injuries.[11] Note that 97 deaths out of 535 cases is an 18% fatality rate and is essentially the same fatality rate as smallpox before vaccination was introduced. This high fatality rate along with 150 vaccine-related injuries was a direct challenge to this new and highly lauded medical procedure.

Another article in 1817 reflected the reality of vaccination failure.

. . . the number of all ranks suffering under Small Pox, who have previously undergone Vaccination by the most skillful practitioners, is at present alarmingly great.[12]

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Musselburgh, Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that he was originally extremely positive in promoting vaccination and that no one in the medical profession “could outstrip me in zeal for promoting vaccine practice.” But after vaccinating 1,200 persons, he became disappointed in the promise of vaccination. His experience was that, after vaccination, people still could contract and even die from smallpox, and that he could no longer support the practice.[13]

Like today, surgeons and doctors of the time were handsomely compensated for performing vaccination and thus had a tendency to embrace it as a new form of income. It is therefore quite significant for a doctor to have spoken out against it as Dr. Brown did.

Continued observations showed that smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and that those who were vaccinated could also be infected.

. . . during the years 1820, 1, and, 2 [1820-1822] there was a great hubbub about the small-pox. It broke out with the great epidemic to the north . . . It pressed close to home to Dr. Jenner himself . . . It attacked many who had had small-pox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.[14]

William Cobbett was a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer. In 1829 he wrote about the failure of vaccination to protect people from smallpox. Cobbett considered vaccination to be an unproven and fraudulent medical practice. He noted that:

. . . hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF, have taken the real small-pox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives![15]

During this time vaccine material was the “humanized” form, which meant that material was taken from the arm of a previously vaccinated person to vaccinate the next person. Arm-to-arm vaccination continued for decades, but as failures increased there was a belief that the vaccine had lost its original supposed potency, and there were calls to obtain fresh material directly from cows.[16]

While the legend maintained that the vaccine material came from cows, Jenner actually believed the material originated from an infectious condition of horses called the “grease.” From this and other beliefs, there were many attempts to recreate an original cow-based vaccine. All these attempts failed.[17] Some believed that cowpox was simply smallpox that was passed through cows and somehow made into a new disease.[18] This faulty belief would result in the creation of more smallpox epidemics.

In 1836 in Attenborough, Massachusetts, Dr. John C. Martin took fluid from the pock of a man who died from smallpox and inoculated it onto a cow’s udder. He then took pus from that cow and used it to vaccinate people. A large smallpox epidemic ensued causing panic and sickness in many people over the subsequent months.[19] A later inquiry determined that this was nothing more than the old practice of smallpox inoculation.[20]

Not only was vaccination failing and causing smallpox epidemics, but there were also reports of deaths from other causes shortly after vaccination. For example, a skin condition called erysipelas was a particularly prolonged and painful way to die.

. . . a boy from Somers-town, aged 5 years, “small-pox confluent, unmodified (9 days).” He had been vaccinated at the age of 4 months; one cicatrix . . . the wife of a labourer, from Lambeth, aged 22 years, “small-pox confluent, unmodified (8 days).” Vaccinated in infancy in Suffolk; two good cicatrices . . . the son of a mariner, aged 10 weeks, and the son of a sugar baker, aged 13 weeks, died of “general erysipelas after vaccination, effusion of the brain.”[21]

Because arm-to-arm vaccination was being used, other diseases could be spread causing various epidemics. Infectious diseases attributed to vaccination included tuberculosis and syphilis. In 1863 Dr. Ricord spoke before the Academy at Paris.

First I rejected the idea that syphilis could be transplanted by vaccination. But facts accumulated more and more, and now I must concede the possibility of the transfer of syphilis by means of the vaccine. I do this very reluctantly. At present I do not hesitate longer to acknowledge and proclaim the reality of the fact.[22]

As it became increasingly clear throughout the 1800s to more doctors and citizens that vaccination was not what it was promised to be, refusals increased. In order to deal with this, the judicial system intervened. In 1855, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive laws providing for widespread vaccination.[23]

These laws and compulsory vaccination did nothing to curb the problem of smallpox. Data from Boston that begins in 1811 shows that, starting around 1837, there were periodic smallpox epidemics that culminated in the great 1872 epidemic. After 1855, there were further smallpox epidemics in 1859-60, 1864-65, and 1867 and the infamous epidemic in 1872-73. This was the most severe smallpox epidemic since the introduction of vaccination.[24] These repeat smallpox epidemics showed that the strict vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts in 1855 had no effect at all (Graph 1). In fact, more people died in the 20 years after the strict Massachusetts vaccination compulsory laws than in the 20 years before.

Graph 1: Boston smallpox mortality rate from 1841 to 1880.

Graph 1: Boston smallpox mortality rate from 1841 to 1880.

By this point, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, claims were made that vaccination made smallpox less likely to kill or that smallpox would be milder. Calls were then made for revaccination. Claims were made that revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.[25]

While the majority of the medical profession supported vaccination, there were those that spoke out against the procedure. Dr. Longstaffe, a prominent physician of Edinburgh England noted that huge profits were being made by vaccinators. Immense financial gain combined with the force of law created the perfect environment that would impose vaccination upon the citizens of the Western world.

The public vaccinators have received immense sums from Parliament . . . In 1850 alone they amounted to £54,727, and in the present year they will get nearly a quarter million. Other sums, also, which I cannot name, have been granted for the purpose of sustaining this monstrous fraud. Has ever a quack remedy produced so much gain?

    [26]

In England, governmental control strengthened over the years, with progressively stricter laws designed to enforce vaccination. Laws previously passed in 1840 and 1853 were consolidated into oppressive compulsory laws in 1867 that included fines for parents who did not vaccinate their children. However, through the 1800s, periodic smallpox epidemics continued to occur. A great pandemic struck in 1872 and took the lives of thousands, even those who were vaccinated.

Every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there were twenty-three thousand four hundred and sixty-nine cases of small-pox in that army. The London Lancet of July 15, 1871 said:

Of nine thousand three hundred and ninety-two small-pox patients in London hospitals, six thousand eight hundred and fifty-four had been vaccinated. Seventeen and one-half per cent of those attacked died. In the whole country more than one hundred and twenty-two thousand vaccinated persons have suffered from small-pox . . . Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.[27]

Concerns over vaccine safety, effectiveness, and governmental infringement on personal liberty and freedom through compulsory vaccination stoked the fires of the anti-vaccine movement. People began to resist the government and chose to pay fines. Some even accepted imprisonment rather than allowing vaccination for themselves or their children. The public backlash culminated in the great demonstration in Leicester England, in 1885. That same year Leicester’s government, which had pushed for vaccination through the use of fines and jail time, was replaced with a new government that was opposed to compulsory vaccination. By 1887, the vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%.[28]

Instead of relying on vaccination, people began to rely on proper sanitation, quarantine of smallpox patients and thorough disinfection of their homes. They believed this technique was a cheap and effective means that eliminated the need for vaccination. However, there were dire predictions from the majority of the medical community that strongly endorsed vaccination and believed the low vaccination rate would result in a terrible “massacre,” especially in the “unprotected” children.[29]

Despite such prophesies of doom from the medical profession, the majority of the town’s residents were steadfast in their belief that vaccination was not necessary to control smallpox. The prophecy that the Leicester residents would eventually be plagued with disaster never did come to pass. Low vaccination rates resulted in lower smallpox rates and deaths, than in well-vaccinated towns.[30] In fact, the lower vaccination rates correlated to an overall decrease in smallpox deaths (Graph 2). Leicester showed that by abandoning vaccination in favor of what became termed as the “Leicester Method,” deaths from smallpox were far lower than when vaccination rates were high.

The experience of unvaccinated Leicester is an eye-opener to the people and an eye-sore to the pro-vaccinists the world over. Here is a great manufacturing town having a population of nearly a quarter of a million, which has demonstrated by a crucial test of an experience extending over a period of more than a quarter of a century, that an unvaccinated population has been far less susceptible to small-pox and far less afflicted by that disease since it abandoned vaccination than it was at a time when ninety-five per cent of its births were vaccinated and its adult population well re-vaccinated.[31]

While vaccination was often promoted as a safe procedure, it often caused sickness or even death. From 1859 to 1922 official deaths related to vaccination were more than 1,600 in England (Graph 3). In fact, from 1906 to 1922 the number of deaths recorded from smallpox vaccination and smallpox were approximately the same (Graph 4).

Graph 2: Leicester England smallpox mortality rate vs. vaccination coverage from 1838 to 1910.

Graph 2: Leicester England smallpox mortality rate vs. vaccination coverage from 1838 to 1910.

Graph 3: England and Wales total deaths from cowpox and other effects of vaccination from 1859 to 1922.

Graph 3: England and Wales total deaths from cowpox and other effects of vaccination from 1859 to 1922.

 

Graph 4: England and Wales smallpox deaths vs. vaccination deaths from 1906 to 1922

Graph 4: England and Wales smallpox deaths vs. vaccination deaths from 1906 to 1922

At the end of the 1800s, smallpox changed its character. After the summer of 1897, the severe type of smallpox with its high death rate, with rare exception, had entirely disappeared from the United States. Smallpox turned from a disease that killed 1 in 5 of its victims to one that only killed anywhere from 1 in 50 and later to as low as 1 in 380. The disease could still kill, but having become so much milder, it was frequently mistaken for various other pox infections or skin eruptions.

During 1896 a very mild type of smallpox began to prevail in the South and later gradually spread over the country. The mortality was very low and it [smallpox] was usually at first mistaken for chicken pox. . .[32]

The author of a 1913 article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases presented a table showing that in 1895 and 1896 the smallpox death rate was around 20%, as it had been historically. The table also showed that after 1896 the death rate fell off rapidly, starting with 6% in 1897 to as low as 0.26% by 1908. As the mild form of smallpox replaced the classic type, smallpox could be difficult to tell from chickenpox, which was, by this time, considered a mild disease of childhood.

. . . chickenpox, is a minor communicable disease of childhood, and is chiefly important because it frequently gives rise to difficulty in diagnosis in cases of mild smallpox. Smallpox and chickenpox are sometimes very difficult to differentiate clinically.[33]

By the 1920s it was recognized that the new form of smallpox produced little in the way of symptoms, even though few had been vaccinated.

Individual cases, or even epidemics, occur in which, although there has been no protection by vaccination, the course of the disease is extremely mild. The lesions are few in number or entirely absent, and the constitutional symptoms mild or insignificant.[34]

Despite this extremely low vaccine coverage rate, there was never a resurgence of smallpox. Even though smallpox was not a major issue, the practice of smallpox vaccination continued from the time of the last smallpox death in the United States in 1948 up until 1963. This resulted in an estimated 5,000 unnecessary vaccine-related hospitalizations from generalized rash, secondary infections, and encephalitis.

A 1958 study detailed the cases of 9 children in which 2 died of a skin condition due to vaccination, now being termed eczema vaccinatum. The occurrence of this disease was estimated by the authors to be between 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 100,000 with a fatality rate of 4 to 40%.[35] However, they acknowledged that most cases were not reported and there was no accurate accounting on this consequence of vaccination. There were also an estimated 200 to 300 deaths as the result of smallpox vaccination, while during the same time there had only been 1 smallpox death in 1948.[36]

The last smallpox death in the United States following an importation occurred in 1948, but since that time there have been probably 200 to 300 deaths from smallpox vaccination.[37]

Eczema vaccinatum is still occurring today, as recently noted in the news. A toddler was infected by his military father after the father was vaccinated. After a prolonged admission, and a week of experimental treatments including immune globulin from donor blood and antiviral medication, the toddler recovered. The mother also required treatment and virus was found all over the house.[38]

Because of poor surveillance and vaccine reaction underreporting, the authors of a 1970 study thought that the number of smallpox vaccine-related deaths could actually have been even higher. This study only examined deaths from 1959 to 1968 in the United States. If the deaths were this high in a country with a modern health-care system, what was the total number of deaths from smallpox vaccination from 1800 to the present across the entire world?

There were those in the medical community who were relieved that the failure of compulsory vaccination never gained much public scrutiny. Instead, the focus was shifted to new types of vaccinations.

Compulsory vaccination which once had the suffrage of the nation has now hardly a serious supporter. We are ashamed to jettison the idea completely and perhaps afraid that if we did the accident of some future epidemic might put us in the wrong. We prefer to let compulsory vaccination die a natural death and are relieved that the general public is not curious enough to demand an inquest. In the meantime our attention is diverted to other and newer forms of immunisation.[39]

During this time with vaccination as virtually the only medically promoted way to deal with disease, there were doctors finding amazing successes with smallpox using other methods. Vinegar is a common food product that is made through fermentation of a variety of sources. An 1877 article described the success that Dr. Roth had using vinegar for smallpox prophylaxis.

D. G. Oliphant, M.D., of Toronto, Canada, having read the article on the use of Acetic acid in scarlet fever, writes of a “vinegar cure” as applied to small pox. Dr. Roth first claimed wonderful success in treatment regarding vinegar more reliable as a prophylactic in small-pox than Belladonna in scarlet fever. Dr. Roth gave both to the sick and to the exposed two table-spoonfuls of vinegar, after breakfast and at evening, for fourteen days. Few persons thus treated took the disease at all. None who adopted the prophylactic treatment died, while among those under ordinary treatment the mortality was as usual.[40]

In 1899 Dr. Howe also demonstrated vinegar’s ability to protect a person from acquiring smallpox. Those who used the vinegar protocol were able to take care of other people with smallpox without fear of contracting the disease. The author notes that despite several hundred exposures, vinegar was protective against smallpox and was considered an “established fact.”[41]

Again, in 1901 professor MacLean promoted the idea of vinegar as a real preventative of smallpox. Dr. MacLean claimed that apple cider vinegar and no other type of vinegar should be used three or four times a day to protect a person from contracting smallpox.

J.P. MacLean Ph. D., the renowned “anti” Secretary of the Western Reserve Historical Society, having readily overthrown the conclusions of all the great men who for a century past have been convinced of the efficacy of vaccination for the prevention of smallpox, now comes to the front in the newspapers with the real preventative. “Any person who has been exposed need have no fear of smallpox if he will take two or three tablespoonfuls of pure cider vinegar three or four times a day.” The discussion may now be regarded as closed, and smallpox at last is conquered![42]

Apple cider vinegar might seem silly, but only because most people have been conditioned to accept the age-old prophylaxis for smallpox: raw, disease-laden, contaminated pus scrapings from an infected animal’s (usually a cow) belly, diluted in glycerin, and scratched into the human arm with a metal prong until the arm was raw and bleeding. What seems sillier now?

Scurvy is a disease that results from a deficiency of vitamin C due to starvation or just an extremely poor or unbalanced diet. Vitamin C is essential for the formation of healthy collagen. Collagen is the protein that forms connective tissue in skin, bones, and blood vessels and also gives support to internal organs. In scurvy, the body is not able to generate adequate collagen or extracellular matrix proteins that serve as mortar holding cells together and, as a result, literally comes unglued and falls apart.

William A. Guy, dean of the Medical Department of King’s College, described the poor diet of gold miners in California in the 1850s. Thousands of miners subsisted on meat, fat, coffee, and alcohol while working long, hard days under the unrelenting California sun. The vitamin C-deficient diet led many to develop scurvy.

Scurvy has been very prevalent among the gold miners of California . . . the emigrants upon the overland journeys and at the mines, as living almost entirely upon fried bacon or fat pork and flour made into batter-cakes, and fried in the fat, which completely saturates it. This is washed down with copious librations of strong coffee, and large quantities of brandy or whiskey are taken in the intervals of the meals . . . this has been the diet of thousands for months, under a scorching sun, when the temperature was over a hundred in the shade, the men being at the same time subjected to the most intense labour.[43]

Although many died of cholera during the California Gold Rush of the mid-1800s, an estimated 10,000 men died from scurvy.

During the American Civil War twice as many died from nutritional deficiency related diseases as those killed in battle.[44] For instance, the causes of death listed for Indiana soldiers buried at the National Cemetery in Andersonville, Georgia, shows that diarrhea and scurvy directly accounted for at least two-thirds.[45] Dysentery was the next common cause of death, with the infamous diseases such as smallpox, typhus, pneumonia, and gangrene responsible for only a small fraction. Those who were killed in actual battle or who died as a result of their wounds accounted only for 1 percent of the total deaths.

Other big infectious killers such as scarlet fever, measles, diphtheria, and whooping cough (also known as pertussis) all greatly declined during this time to where they were either completely eliminated or considered mild childhood illnesses by the mid-1900s. This massive decline of 99% of deaths in whooping cough and measles occurred before vaccines or antibiotics were available (Graph 5 & 6).

Graph 5: England and Wales whooping cough mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 5: England and Wales whooping cough mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 6: England and Wales measles mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 6: England and Wales measles mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

The fairytale legend of a country doctor making a discovery that saved the world from the devastation of smallpox is a fundamental medical belief that continues to be echoed by indoctrinated and naïve doctors whenever vaccines are challenged. Smallpox vaccine, in the minds of medical professionals remains a pillar of their vaccine faith. But the true history shows us a different reality.

The brand name of vaccination was indoctrinated into the world psyche as something to protect someone from an illness. This belief spawned off numerous other ideas using the same notion of injecting whole or parts of disease matter into living beings in attempts to protect them from a specific disease. The reality of vaccination is nothing close to the myth.

Other extremely effective alternative methods of sanitation, nutrition, apple cider vinegar, and other solutions were ignored and have since vanished from societal collective memory. Instead we were left with the mythical history of Jenner’s great discovery and the continued onslaught of dangerous vaccines to newborn infants. Vaccines are now a regular thing from cradle to grave, all in the name of supposedly healthier people. Now that the curtain has been pulled back on the origins of vaccination, do more and more vaccines seem like a good idea to you?

More information on the history of vaccination including polio, measles, whooping cough, and lost remedies can be found in Dr Humphries’ and Roman Bystrianyk’s book “Dissolving Illusions” which can be found on amazon.com

Bibliography:
1.Seth Mnookin, The Panic Virus, Simon & Schuster, 2011, p. 31.
2.Science the Definitive Visual Guide, DK Publishing, 2009, p. 156.
3.Victor C. Vaughan, MD, Epidemiology and Public Health, St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Company, 1922, p. 189.
4.Frederick F. Cartwright, Disease and History, Rupert-Hart-Davis, London, 1972, p. 124.
5.William Douglass, MA, A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British Settlements of North-America, London, 1760, p. 398.
6.Ann Jannetta, The Vaccinators: Smallpox Medical Knowledge and the ‘Opening’ of Japan, Stanford University Press, 2007, p.179.
7.“The Practice of Inoculation Truly Stated,” The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, vol. 34, 1764, p. 333.
8.Dr. Walter Hadwen, The Case Against Vaccination, Goddard’s Rooms, Gloucester, January 25, 1896, p. 12.
9.Charles Creighton, Jenner and Vaccination, 1889, pp. 95-96.
10.William Scott Tebb, MD, A Century of Vaccination and What it Teaches, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., London, 1898, p. 126.
11.“Vaccination by Act of Parliament,” Westminster Review, vol. 131, 1889, p. 101.
12.“Observations on Prevailing Diseases,” The London Medical Repository Monthly Journal and Review, vol. VIII, July-December, 1817, p. 95.
13.Mr. Thomas Brown, Surgeon Musselburgh, “On the Present State of Vaccination,” The Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, Volume Fifteenth, 1819, p. 67.
14.“Observations by Mr. Fosbroke,” The Lancet, vol. II, 1829, p. 583.
15.William Cobbett, Advice to Young Men and (Incidentally) to Young Women, 1829, London, pp. 224-225.
16.Dr. Delagrange of Paris, “On the Present State of Vaccination in France,” The Lancet, vol. II, 1829, p. 582.
17.“Cowpox Origin of,” The Medico-chirurgical review and journal of practical medicine, vol. 20, 1834, p. 504.
18.Dr. Fiard, “Experiments upon the Communication and Origin of Vaccine Virus,” London medical and surgical journal, vol. 4, 1834, p. 796.
19.Ephraim Cutter, MD, “Partial Report on the Production of Vaccine Virus in the United States,” Transactions of the American Medical Association, vol. XXIII, 1872, p. 200.
20.Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 24, Philadelphia, 1890, p. 25.
21.The Morning Chronicle, Wednesday, April 12, 1854.
22.“Vaccination,” New York Times, September 26, 1869.
23.Susan Wade Peabody, “Historical Study of Legislation Regarding Public Health in the State of New York and Massachusetts,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Supplement no. 4, February 1909, p. 50-51.
24.“Small-pox and Revaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. CIV, no. 6, February 10, 1881, p. 137.
25.Dr. Olesen, “Vaccination in the Philippine Islands,” Medical Sentinel, April 1911, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 255.
26.“Vaccination,” New York Times, September 26, 1869.
27.G. W. Harman, MD, “A Physician’s Argument Against the Efficacy of Virus Inoculation,” Medical Brief: A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine and Surgery: vol. 28, no. 1, 1900, p. 84.
28.The Parliamentary Debates, vol. CCCXXVI, June 1, 1888, p. 933.
29.“A Demonstration Against Vaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, April 16, 1885, p. 380.
30.J. W. Hodge, MD, “Prophylaxis to be Realized Through the Attainment of Health, Not by the Propagation of Disease,” The St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. LXXXIII, July 1902, p. 15.
31.J. W. Hodge, MD, “How Small-Pox was Banished from Leicester,” Twentieth Century Magazine, vol. III, no. 16, January, 1911, p. 342.
32.Charles V. Chapin, “Variation in Type of Infectious Disease as Shown by the History of Smallpox in the United States,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 2, September 1913, p. 173.
33.John Gerald Fitzgerald, Peter Gillespie, Harry Mill Lancaster, An introduction to the practice of preventive medicine, C.V. Mosby Company, 1922, p. 197.
34.John Price Crozer Griffith, The diseases of infants and children, Volume 1, W.B. Saunders Company, 1921, p. 370.
35.Audrey H. Reynolds MD and Howard A. Joos MD, Exczema Vaccinatum, Pediatrics, August 1958, pp. 259-267
36.David Koplow, Smallpox: The Right to Eradicate a Global Scourge, 2004, University of California Press, p.21.
37.The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 1968, vol. 41, p. 10.
38.Maggie Fox, 2007, Toddler Survives Smallpox Vaccine Reaction, Reuters.
39.Dr. Charles Cyril Okell, “From a bacteriological back-number,” Lancet, January 1, 1938, pp. 48-49.
40.“Acetic Acid in Scarlet Fever,” American homoeopathist—A Monthly Journal of Medical Surgical and Sanitary Science, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1877, p. 73.
41.“Vinegar to Prevent Smallpox,” The Critique, January 15, 1899, p. 289.
42.Cleveland Journal of Medicine, vol. VI, no. 1, 1901, p. 58.
43.William A. Guy, “Lectures on Public Health. Addressed to the Students of the Theological Department of King’s College,” Medical Times, vol. 23, January 4 to June 28, 1851, p. 283.
44.Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, Harper Collins, New York, 1997, p. 399.
45.Report of the Unveiling And Dedication of Indiana Monument at Andersonville, Georgia (National Cemetery), November 26 1908, pp. 73-102.

Australia – Health Freedom Outlawed – Health Fascism Winning – A Taste of the Future for Citizens of Other Nations

How low is the standard of politics, political life and journalism in Australia?  And why should that concern anyone who supports Health Freedom? What has it to do with Health Freedom ?

The Australian Vaccination Network [AVN] is a health freedom network in Australia which provides information about vaccinations which is not to the liking of Australian government health officials.

Meryl Dorey of AVN reports [see full post reproduced below] that not long after the AVN won a legal case against the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in the State Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia, the NSW state government passed legislation giving the HCCC power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose [and they started out choosing AVN]. The NSW state Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is considering now passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions just for discussing publicly issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking.

The committee are seeking submissions about this. The closing date has been extended to February 7th, 2014. Ms Dorey states that whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference and that it would be helpful to submit a short 2-3 paragraphs.  Consult the terms of reference first set out in full below [and downloadable as a pdf file here].

And of course, if you don’t make submissions, there will be plenty of others who are happy to see health fascism and dumbing down succeed, who will make submissions.

Ms Dorey also reports that these recent developments in Australia were foreshadowed by the New South Wales state government in Australia permitting and encouraging hate tactics against AVN which include bullying, threats and intimidation.  Those tactics revealed the intent to suppress freedom of speech, inhibit the dissemination of information and thereby to disempower individual Australian citizens from considering issues for themselves to make up their own minds – a basic right in any democratic society.

That the quality of politics and standards in public life in Australia are low was highlighted a number of times this year.  Australia’s first woman Prime Minister Julia Gillard was told by a radio DJ her long-time male hairdresser partner “must be gay” for being male and a hairdresser. This was in the week after it was reported that a DJ behind last year’s prank call on the hospital of the UK’s mother-to-be Duchess of Cambridge that lead to a nurse’s suicide not only kept his job but won a top award for his stunt as well:  DJ is sacked for asking Australian PM Julia Gillard if her boyfriend is gay live on air… because he’s a hairdresser Matt Blake UK’s Daily Mail

Stephanie Banister 27 had to withdraw her candidacy for election to the Queensland Australia state Parliament after a TV interview went viral on the internet in August this year.  Aside from not knowing names of the candidates she was running against, Ms Banister thought believers in the Jewish religion followed Jesus, that she did not “oppose Islam as a country … “ but felt “their laws should not be welcome here in Australia“, confused the term “haram” [forbidden] with the Islamic religion’s holy book the Qur’an [Koran], and all whilst facing Court charges for allegedly taking part in an anti-Muslim vandalism campaign, in which it was alleged she stuck a sticker reading “Beware! Halal food funds terrorism” on Nestle products at her local Woolworths: ‘I don’t oppose Islam as a country’ – Australian politician withdraws from election after TV immigration gaffe interview goes viral Rob Williams The Independent Saturday 10 August 2013.

The case of Stephanie Banister shows how inured the Australian media are to such low standards of politics that the story was not particularly big news until after it was picked up on the internet and went viral.  With this kind of international reinforcement of the cliched stereotypical Australian, other Australians who want to shake that image of being descendents of convicts, cultural philistines and animal lovers [ie. sheep] have their work well and truly cut out for them.

The “must be gay” interview with Julia Gillard can be heard on YouTube:

Here in full are the Terms of Reference of the Parliament of New South Wales Committee on the Healthcare Complaints Commission Inquiry into the Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

That the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission inquire into and report on possible measures to address the promotion of unscientific health-related information or practice s which may be detrimental to individual or public health.

The Inquiry will focus on individuals who are not recognised health practitioners, and organisations that are not recognised health service providers.

The Committee will have particular regard to :

(a) The publication and/or dissemination of false or misleading health-related information that may cause general community mistrust of, or anxiety toward, accepted medical practice;

(b) The publication and/or dissemination of information that encourages individuals or the public to unsafely ref use preventative health measures, medical treatments, or cures;

c) the promotion of health-related activities and/or provision of treatment that departs from accepted medical practice which may be harmful to individual or public health ;

(d) the adequacy of the powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission to investigate such organisations or individuals;

(e) the capacity, appropriateness, and effectiveness of the Health Care Complaints Commission to take enforcement action against such organisations or individuals ;

(f) any other related matter.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Here is Meryl Dorey’s article about this posted on AVN’s blog:

The HCCC, the Law and Morality

This entry was posted on December 23, 2013, in Vaccination. Bookmark the permalink.

by Meryl Dorey, AVN Public Officer

As many of you would know, both the AVN and I were under investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in 2009/2010. This investigation was brought about due to two complaints. One was filed by Mr Ken McLeod, a founding member of the hate group Stop the AVN (SAVN). The other complaint was filed by Toni and David McCaffery, parents of Dana McCaffery, a baby who tragically died in 2009.

The entire investigation process was most irregular (to say the least – you can read the complaints and the AVN’s responses by clicking this link) and it was clear from the start that the HCCC was acting outside of their jurisdiction. This was confirmed when our tiny, unfunded organisation prevailed against this government body with the deepest of deep pockets in the Supreme Court in 2011.

The decision of the court was that the HCCC did not have jurisdiction to either cite or warn against our group – a common-sense outcome which most people in the community who believe in freedom of speech applauded because, no matter what your opinion on the vaccination issue, the majority of thinking Australians would never want to silence debate or discussion on any matter of science.

Does the HCCC have the right to stifle political speech?

Recently, one of our members sent me an article from a scholarly publication called the Journal of Law and Medicine. In 2012, this journal published an article entitled, Civil Liberties and the Critics of Safe Vaccination: Australian Vaccination Network, Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission (2012) NSWSC 110. 

This was an article written by someone who wore his strongly pro-vaccination opinion on his sleeve for all to see. Despite this, his conclusion was very interesting and, in retrospect, ironic. What he advised the government not to do is exactly what they ended up doing. The government of NSW went ahead and introduced changes to legislation which specifically target the AVN and anyone who wishes to freely access or discuss both sides of scientific and medical issues.

Here is a quote from this article which I wanted to share with you. In my opinion, it speaks to the heart of the matter and why the actions of the current NSW government are dangerous and in direct opposition to the welfare and needs of the people of this State.

… Alternatively, Parliament could amend the Act to broaden the definition of “clinical” or “care” or to allow the HCCC to investigate complaints under s 7(1)(b) where there is a mere tendency for the conduct to affect a client. The court even suggested language for such a reform.

However, the current authors do not support legislative reform of the HCCC in the manner proposed above or by the court. In a free society, the views and opinions expressed by Ms Dorey and the AVN should be protected against government interference. Arguments against public immunisation programs are not simply debates over health policy; they are also political discussion. As such, the AVN’s website, and Ms Dorey’s statements, are to be protected from interference by Parliament or the Executive by the implied constitutional right of political communication.

Moreover, freedom of expression is an essential human right, protected under international and domestic human rights instruments, and should not be abridged except in the most limited of circumstances, such as a major pandemic. It would be inappropriate for a government agency to be given a standing mandate to censor debate or force an individual to include a statement on their website with which they do not agree. If the misleading information of the AVN is to be challenged, then it should be through the better dissemination of accurate information and the proper management of rare adverse events following immunisation.”

This is a common sense approach and one that the AVN has been suggesting for years. We have asked for an open and transparent debate in plain view of the public on the relative risks and benefits of vaccination. We have asked the government to remove the hate rhetoric and pressure currently being applied to this issue and bring the conversation back to the realm of scientific evidence and proof. We believe strongly that if the pro-vaccine lobby actually had the evidence on their side, they would be using it to do this. The fact is that both they and the government have permitted and, in some instances, encouraged the same tactics as the hate group, Stop the AVN – of name calling, threats and intimidation. This might indicate that they might be more concerned with suppressing information then they are with enabling the public to examine this issue and make up their own minds – such a basic right in any democratic society!

HCCC power-grab and your obligation to speak out

Not long after the AVN won their case in the highest court in the State, the government did exactly what this paper – written by legal experts who believe strongly in the benefits of vaccination and disagree with the information provided by the AVN – advised against. They passed legislation giving the HCCC an obscene amount of power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose. And of course, they chose us.

These powers were not enough for the HCCC however and the Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is now considering passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions for merely DISCUSSING any issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking publicly.

The committee are seeking submissions from the public about this. The AVN has made a submission on behalf of our membership, but it would be incredibly helpful if everyone reading this would also write a short (2-3 paragraphs is enough and you can read the terms of reference at the Commission link above) submission of your own. The original closing date for this Inquiry was November 30th, 2013 but that has now been extended until February 7th, 2014. This is a rare opportunity to have your say on this vital issue and whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference.

What’s it got to do with you?

Why should you care about this issue? Why should even those who are opposed to the AVN give a damn about laws that are proposed to target our organisation?

Imagine the joy of some politicians or anyone else with an axe to grind who, in passing restrictive or unpopular legislation, can point to this precedent and say – nobody is allowed to criticise X-Y-Z policy because it is against the public interest and therefore, you will be gagged if you speak out against it.

This is the power the government has given to the HCCC. And you should be aware of this. And you should be afraid of allowing it to stand.

It is time for the silent majority – those Australians who support freedom and oppose invasive and oppressive government policies, to speak up by writing a submission – it need only be short – to the HCCC Committee.

Today, vaccination sceptics are the target. Tomorrow it may be the government targeting families that home school; or those who feed their children organic food.

We must all stand together for freedom and for our inalienable human rights. No government should ever be allowed to take them away for us.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Major Scientific “Breakthrough” – Autism Linked to Inflammation And The Bowel

Fox News in the US is breaking the “news” that autism, inflammation and children’s guts are linked: How parasitic worms and hot tubs may treat autism symptoms By Loren Grush Published December 12, 2013 Fox News.

And Pasadena News reports Autism may be linked to gastrointestinal issues, Caltech study says By Adam Poulisse, Pasadena Star-News 12/06/13.

This is apparently a “breakthrough”.  Really?  Is this a surprise? Hasn’t anyone else thought of that before?  Oh, Deer.  When Andrew Wakefield and a team of 12 other professional medical experts at the Royal Free Hospital in London, England published this news the establishment picked on Andrew Wakefield, pilloried him and destroyed his career. But:

Could these new studies reflect legitimate science? They consider the reports of parents about their own children. Is that legitimate?  Oh, Deer, Deer, Deer.

Next they will be telling us its all caused by vaccines. ……. What’s that you say?  They already have?  Where?  Here?

Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

All Studies Claiming No MMR Vaccine-Autism Link Invalid – According to Merck’s Vaccine Director, former US CDC Director & the US HRSA

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

Controversial Doctor and Autism Media Channel Director proven right – MMR Vaccine Causes Autism & Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Autism Caused by MMR Vaccine – Italian Government Tries To Avoid Paying Up – Just Like the UK

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV – Now Reported in English National Press

And what is the US Government and its Centers for Disease Control doing about this?

Yep.  Nothing.

Whooping Cough Vaccine Does Not Work – Says US FDA’s Research

CHS reports here on new research from the US Federal Drug Administration which the researchers claim confirms their hypothesis that whooping cough vaccine does not provide herd immunity and that the disease continues to be easily transmitted and flourishes.  CHS has previously reported that whooping cough [pertussis] vaccine does not work:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

Vaccine Programmes Failing Worldwide – Homer Simpson and The World of Vaccines

A newly published paper of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America makes the claim that the vaccine fails to prevent individuals getting the bacterial infection and fails also to prevent the disease being transmitted to other individuals:  Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model  doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314688110 PNAS November 25, 2013.

The authors suggest the previous “whole cell” vaccine did work and that the acellular vaccine does not.  However, the “whole cell” vaccine caused large numbers of serious adverse reactions in children and had to be abandoned.

What is notable about this is no claim is being made that the failure to achieve herd immunity and prevent the circulation of the disease is because of under-vaccination – as is claimed in the UK with measles cases in South Wales this year.  Here it is being admitted that use of a vaccine does not create herd immunity.  

Despite these findings what is particularly bizarre is that instead of the authors suggesting research is needed into developing effective treatments for whooping cough, a basic childhood disease, and despite this new paper demonstrating 40 years of failure of vaccines in addressing whooping cough, they say we need improved vaccines.  Well, the US FDA and the drug industry have had 40 years to prove themselves and this paper, if it can be believed, suggests they have failed.  It is clearly time for a new improved and safer approach and especially one which does not kill or injure some children as vaccines do. 

The paper is by authors from the Division of Bacterial, Parasitic and Allergenic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration [“FDA”], Bethesda, MD, 20892.  However, it also states “Edited by Rino Rappuoli, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Srl, Siena, Italy, and approved October 22, 2013 (received for review August 5, 2013)”.  This illustrates the close relationship the US drug safety regulator, the FDA, has with the drug industry when as the safety regulator responsible for approving [or supposedly not approving] drug industry products it should have an “arms length” relationship to help maintain its independence.

The abstract of the paper states:

Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. Vaccination with wP induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP-vaccinated animals. By comparison, previously infected animals were not colonized upon secondary infection. Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity. Previously infected animals and wP-vaccinated animals possess strong B. pertussis-specific T helper 17 (Th17) memory and Th1 memory, whereas aP vaccination induced a Th1/Th2 response instead. The observation that aP, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.”

Help Fight Oppressive Health Laws and Censorship of Public Debate in Australia – Sign Petition

Please help fight for freedom of health information in Australia by signing this petition

On Wednesday morning I signed an Avaaz petition Do not give the NSW HCCC powers of censorship over public and individuals opposing moves to silence criticism of the New South Wales health department. New South Wales is the most populace state of Australia. Within minutes my moderate and reasoned political statement which I had reposted to Facebook was being blocked, deemed “offensive or unsuitable”. It read:

It is simply the end of liberal democracy when government bureaucrats decide what the truth is and enforce a policy based on it. If people think their health is (a) marginal issue – that there are other matters of more political substance – they are in error. You will find there are not only bigger and bigger areas on which you cannot decide for yourself there are bigger and bigger areas in which the state is no longer accountable and can do anything it wants.”

Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network tells me that her Facebook posts are often disrupted in this way or with the enigmatic message “It looks like you were misusing this feature by going to fast. You’ve been blocked from using it.”

It is quite obvious that if anyone was spreading false information about health matters in New South Wales there would already be legal sanction: the problem is saying things the government does not like…(continue reading)