Chapter IV: Introduction: Prefatory (2)

To speak plainly, the selection of a vocation so arduous and repulsive, marks off a smallpox nurse as unimpressionable, and little apt to catch anything. Smallpox, too, is like tobacco: custom fortifies the constitution against its immediate effects. If the atmosphere of a smallpox hospital is endured for a fortnight, it is likely to continue endurable. On the other hand, if a volunteer sickens on probation, she is not reckoned among nurses. Lastly, many nurses have entered hospitals as patients, and have accepted service in default of other occupation. On these grounds, the nurse argument breaks down irretrievably. At first sight, it seems something, but on scrutiny it proves nothing.

POCK-MARKED FACES.

V.--Another favourite argument for vaccination is the disappearance of pock-marked faces. People say when they were young such faces were common, whilst now they are rare; and demand, What can have wrought the change if not vaccination?

A medical man at a public meeting tried to dispose of some statistics adverse to vaccination by saying that statistics could be made to prove anything; and presently went on to relate that when his mother was a girl every third person she met was pock-marked. She had told him so repeatedly, and there was no doubt about her accuracy. Thus statistics in general were untrustworthy, but his mother’s statistic was unquestionable.

We need not hesitate to allow that when smallpox was common and cultivated pock-marked faces were more numerous: but we must not forget that whether a patient is marked or not marked is very much a matter of treatment. Many at this day pass through smallpox, and severe smallpox, and escape unmarked, simply because those who have care of them observe certain precautions. It was different in former times. The treatment of smallpox was atrocious. The sick-room was made pestiferous by the exclusion of air and the maintenance of high temperature. The patient sweltered under bed-clothes. He was neither allowed to wash nor change his linen. He was drenched with physic and stimulants. In hospitals, patients were stuck two or three in a bed, and stewed together. If, under such circumstances, the sick were restored to life pock-marked, what wonder! Patients who were fortunate enough to be sufficiently let alone, stood the best chance of recovery.

Besides smallpox was not equally diffused. In some places it was endemic; in others it appeared at intervals; and in others it was hardly known. The smallpox death-rate of Glasgow was double that of London; and we may therefore infer that pock-marked faces were twice as numerous in Glasgow as in London. Hence when recollections are appealed to, they should be localised. What might be true of one population might be grossly untrue of another.

It has been observed that smallpox was falling off toward the close of last century, and the decline accelerated in the present century, irrespective of vaccination. An excellent illustration of this reduction of smallpox is furnished by the reports of the National Vaccine Establishment for 1822, 1825, and 1837, where the disappearance of pock-marked faces from London is triumphantly recorded and claimed as a result of vaccination. In 1831 Dr. Epps, director of the Royal Jennerian Society, made the like observation and the like claim, saying, “Seldom are persons now seen blind from smallpox. Seldom is the pitted and disfigured face now beheld;” adding, “but seldom do mankind inquire for the cause. It is vaccination. It is vaccination which preserves the soft and rounded cheek of innocence, and the still more captivating form of female loveliness.” Inasmuch as not ten per cent. of the population were vaccinated in 1831, the claim made for vaccination was absurd, whilst the disappearance of pock-marked faces was sufficiently explicable by the reduced prevalence of smallpox.

Where then is the argument for vaccination from the disappearance of pock-marked faces? When anyone under seventy proceeds to recite the legend, “There is no use in arguing against vaccination, for when I was young every third or fourth person was pock-marked,” etc., etc., the effect is droll. It shows how prone we are to fancy we have seen what we think we ought to have seen. Droller still it is when striplings of five-and-twenty and thirty profess the same experience--“When I was a lad,” and so forth and so forth. There is matter for reflection as well as for laughter in the hallucination.

Nevertheless, if pock-marked faces are not so common as they must have been a century ago, they are by no means rare; and if the argument for vaccination were valid, the pock-marked would be unvaccinated. But are they? Those who will take pains to inquire will find that almost invariably they have been vaccinated, and some of them repeatedly, the vaccination having as it were induced the smallpox.

VACCINIA A REAL DISEASE.

Thus far we have chiefly dealt with vaccination as if its fault were limited to failure to prevent smallpox; but vaccination is more than an ineffective incantation. It is the induction of an acute specific disease. The prime note of vaccination is erysipelas. “The cowpox inflammation,” said Jenner, “is always of the erysipelatous kind.” He held that cowpox unattended with erysipelas was “incapable of producing any specific effect on the human constitution.” If it is supposed that Jenner is antiquated, we may refer to a distinguished contemporary. Mr. John Simon replying to the question, “Whether properly performed vaccination is an absolutely inoffensive proceeding?” answers decisively, “Not at all; nor does it pretend to be so.” The rationale of vaccination is that it communicates a mild variety of smallpox, and that with a little of the devil we buy off the entire devil. Dr. Ballard, Medical Officer to the Local Government Board, in his treatise, _Vaccination: its Value and Alleged Dangers_, says, “Vaccination is not a thing to be trifled with, or to be made light of; it is not to be undertaken thoughtlessly, or without due consideration of the patient, his mode of life, and the circumstances of season and of place. Surgeon and patient should both carry in their minds the regulating thought, that the one is engaged in communicating, the other in receiving into his system, a _real_ disease--as truly a disease as smallpox or measles; a disease which, mild and gentle as its progress may usually be, yet, nevertheless, now and then, like every other exanthematous malady, asserts its character by an unusual exhibition of virulence.”

VACCINAL FATALITIES.

Here we have Vaccinia defined as disease with precautions for its safe reception; yet withal it is allowed it may assert itself with virulence. But where do we find any precautions exercised in the vaccination of the poor?--that is to say, of the vast majority. Precautions are not only disregarded, they are unknown, they are impracticable. Infants of all sorts and conditions are operated on as recklessly as sheep are marked. Whether they live or die is matter of official indifference, whilst each is warrant for an official fee. Sir Joseph Pease, speaking in the House of Commons, said, “The President of the Local Government Board cannot deny that children die under the operation of the Vaccination Acts in a wholesale way.” Vaccination conveys an acute specific disease (having a definite course to run like smallpox or other fever) which, whether by careless treatment, or superinduced, or latent disease, is frequently attended with serious and fatal issues. Hence it is that vaccination is dreaded and detested by the poor on whom it is inflicted without parley or mitigation; in itself a bearer of illness, it is likewise a cruel aggravation of weakness and illness. When the poor complain that their children are injured or slain by vaccination, they are officially informed they are mistaken. Dr. Stevens, a well-known familiar of the vaccination office, says he has seen more vaccination than any man, and has yet to witness the least injury from the practice. Variolators used to say the same of their practice until vaccinators arose and convicted them of lying. Coroner Lankester held that vaccination was not a cause of death “recognised by law,” and was therefore an impossible cause. Such prevarication is mockery. True it is that, if a child dies of vaccination, it dies of erysipelas, or pyœmia, or diarrhœa, and it is easy enough to ignore the primary cause and assert the secondary; but I would ask, How else can death ensue from vaccination than by erysipelas, pyœmia, diarrhœa, or similar sequelæ? If vaccination kills a child, how otherwise could it kill? Even should death occur directly from surgical shock, it would be said, the child did not die of vaccination, but from lack of vigour to sustain a trivial operation. The Sangrado of the Stevens pattern is never without a shuffle.

VACCINIA MODIFIED IN ITS RECIPIENTS.

It is usual at coroners’ inquests on vaccination fatalities to produce children vaccinated at the same time from the same vaccinifer, and to assert that inasmuch as they have made good recoveries, it is impossible that the virus was at fault, and that something else than vaccination must have been the cause of death. The argument often impresses a jury, but it is grossly fallacious. Suppose a mad dog bit six men, and that five escaped injury beyond their wounds and fright, and that one died of rabies, would the escape of the five prove that the death of the sixth was unconnected with the dog? Or suppose an equal potion of gin were administered to six infants, one of whom died and five recovered, would the recovery of the five prove that gin did not kill the sixth? Mr. Stoker writes to the newspapers that he vaccinated twelve other persons with the virus he used for Miss Ellen Terry, and that as no untoward symptoms appeared in the twelve, therefore Miss Terry’s whitlow had no connection with her vaccination--and this in spite of the untoward symptoms falling due at the very time that vaccination accounted for them! Any reasons are good for those disposed to be convinced, and who have settled it in their minds that vaccination is invariably harmless.

No doubt there is virus used for vaccination that is virulent beyond other virus, as there is virus that is comparatively innocuous; but, as Dr. Mead observed more than a century ago, “It is more material into what kind of body smallpox is infused than out of what it is taken.” The same virus that one constitution may throw off with little effort, may induce disease and death in another. Dr. Joseph Jones, president of the Louisiana Board of Health, relates that “In many cases occurring in the Confederate Army, the deleterious effects of vaccination were clearly referable to the condition of the forces, and the constitution of the blood of the patients; for it was observed in a number of instances that the same lymph from a healthy infant inoculated upon different individuals produced different result’s corresponding to the state of the system; in those who were well fed and robust, producing no ill-effects, whilst in the soldiers who had been subjected to incessant fatigue, exposure, and poor diet, the gravest results followed.”

Some constitutions are peculiarly liable to injury from vaccine virus, just as some constitutions cannot endure drugs that others receive without inconvenience. Thus it is that fatalities from vaccination are frequent in certain families. Of these, neither the law nor medical men condescend to take account. Parents often plead in vain for exemption from the rite on the ground that they have already had children injured or slain by its performance; the brutal and unscientific argument running, “How can vaccination hurt your children when it does not hurt other people’s children?”

VACCINIA _PLUS_ OTHER DISEASE.

Nor is the case against vaccination yet complete. The virus used is not only Vaccinia, but more than Vaccinia; for it is impossible to propagate virus from child to child without taking up other qualities. This was clearly foreseen by the variolators when vaccination was introduced--_they_ making it a point to take smallpox for inoculation from _known_ and _sound_ subjects. They maintained that cowpox transferred indiscriminately from arm to arm _must_ acquire and convey constitutional taints; and their prognostication was speedily and grievously fulfilled in the item of syphilis. Notwithstanding, the fact was furiously contested. It was said that parents used vaccination as a screen for their own wickedness; and assertion alternated with denial even to our own day. At last the conflict is at an end. The evidence has grown too multitudinous and deadly for evasion. The invaccination of syphilis is admitted, and any question is reserved for the degree of frequency. Some are pleased to describe the risk as infinitesimal, but their pleasure stands for nothing but itself. Deeds are expressive beyond words. The wide resort to animal vaccination on the Continent and in the United States has but one interpretation. Doctors and patients do not abandon what is easy for what is troublesome, nor incur the risk of the communication of bovine disorders unless under the influence of over-mastering terror.

STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF EXTRA DISEASE.

Relations of individual experience may be disregarded as untrustworthy, but the broad evidence of national statistics conveys authoritative lessons. Vaccination in England was made compulsory in 1853, stringently so in 1867, and systematically extended to the entire population. If therefore it were true that vaccination often communicates more than Vaccinia, and that it aggravates existent and excites latent disease, the proof must be manifest in the statistics of the Registrar-General. Thus argued Mr. C. H. Hopwood, and accordingly he moved in the House of Commons successively for three Returns, published as follows--VACCINATION, MORTALITY, No. 433, 1877; MORTALITY (GENERAL AND INFANT), No. 76, 1880; and DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES), No. 392, 1880.

These Returns, charged with curious and authentic information, are little known, and have been treated with significant silence by the press. Obscurantism is not confined to ecclesiastics. Our valiant journalists who mock at the Index Expurgatorius, and abhor the Russian censorship, are in their little way as ready to act the same part in favour of established prejudice. If facts adverse to the public confidence in vaccination are revealed, it is considered no more than decent to keep them out of sight.

What then is the evidence of Mr. Hopwood’s Returns? Briefly this: they clearly illustrate that vaccination does produce, intensify, excite and inoculate disease whose issue is death. The record of infant mortality from fifteen specified diseases related to vaccination stands thus--

Prior to Vaccination Act--1847-53--
Infants died, 1847, 62,619
Out of a population of 17,927,609.

Vaccination Obligatory--1854-67--
Infants died, 1854, 73,000
Do. 1867, 92,827
Out of a population of 20,066,224.

Vaccination Enforced--1868-75--
Infants died, 1868, 96,282
Do. 1875, 106,173
Out of a population of 22,712,266.

Thus, while the population of England and Wales had increased from 18 to 23 millions, the deaths of infants from fifteen diseases had risen from 63,000 to 106,000. Had the mortality kept pace with the population, the deaths in 1875 would only have been 80,000; that is to say, in 1875 there perished in England 26,000 infants who would have lived had vaccination remained as little in vogue as in 1847! The result though startling in the gross is precisely what might have been predicted. The infancy of a country cannot be systematically diseased, that is vaccinated, without exciting and aggravating other maladies, and thereby enlarging the harvest of death.

VACCINIA AGGRAVATES DISEASE.

The asserted connection of vaccination with other ailments, such as bronchitis, sometimes gives occasion to ignorant ridicule. “Bronchitis,” says Sir Lyon Playfair, “has about the same relation to vaccination as the Goodwin Sands have to Tenterden Steeple.” The answer is that the debility produced by vaccination predisposes to affections of the respiratory organs. The human body does not consist of isolated compartments, but is an organised whole, sympathetic in all its parts and functions. Erysipelas, as we have seen, is the primary symptom of inoculated Vaccinia, and diarrhœa is its commonest sequence; and given erysipelas and diarrhœa, what vigour may remain to assist and throw off other ailments? It is not said that certain maladies are communicated by vaccination, but that vaccination contributes to their fatality. An infant that would have survived bronchitis dies of bronchitis _and_ vaccination; dies of teething _and_ vaccination; dies of convulsions _and_ vaccination; dies of whooping-cough _and_ vaccination; and so on. Again disease kindles disease, and many a child might outgrow congenital scrofula or phthisis if the latent disorder were not roused by vaccination. For these reasons no doubt need be entertained that were vaccination abolished, the event would be immediately signalised by an extraordinary fall in infant mortality.

ORIGIN OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION.

If vaccination were a voluntary superstition, its prevalence would be sufficiently deplorable; but when we think of it as inflicted on the nation, and pressed on those who know it for an injurious imposture, language is apt to arise which it is expedient to repress. It may be asked how it came to pass that legislation was ever compromised with a medical prescription, and the answer is not a reassuring one. The initial error was the endowment in 1808 of the National Vaccine Establishment, and the provision of vaccination fees in 1840 out of the poor rate. For the enforcement of vaccination, there never was any popular demand--never the slightest. The public had, however, learnt from sanitarians that a large part of the sickness from which they suffered did not come of fate, but was preventible; and under this novel persuasion the vast expenditure on sanitary works during the past fifty years has been cheerfully incurred. Availing themselves of this favourable disposition in the public mind toward projects in the name of health, certain medical place-hunters operating as the Epidemiological Society contrived to gain the ear of Government and to pass a compulsory Vaccination Act in 1853. The politicians who lent themselves to this transaction disowned any knowledge of vaccination. They acted, they said, under medical advice, and ran the bill through Parliament with little resistance. The Act did not personally concern M.P.’s. If they happened to believe in vaccination, their children received the rite with all recognised precautions. Its enforced application by contract at 1s. or 1s. 6d. per head was reserved for the unenfranchised and unconsulted multitude; whilst the administration of the Act provided place and pay for its ingenious promoters.

RESISTANCE, INFLEXIBLE RESISTANCE.

When an oppressive law is enacted, by whatever strategy or however corruptly, its repeal is no easy matter. The oppressors have won the nine points of possession. The antagonists of the Vaccination Acts nevertheless possess a certain advantage. Some bad laws can only be denounced as it were from a distance; but vaccination touches every household, and can be fought wherever a child is claimed as a victim for the rite.

We abhor the rite. We detest it as an imposture. We dread it as a danger. We refuse it on any terms. We encourage, we justify, we insist on the duty of rejection. Our contention extends and prospers. In various parts of the country resistance has been rewarded with success. The evil law has been broken down. Freedom has been recovered and freedom is enjoyed. In other parts the struggle for liberty proceeds, and as it proceeds, light is diffused and courage evoked for enlarged resistance. Elsewhere there are vindictive and cruel prosecutions, chiefly of humble folk. “Respected ratepayers,” to whom the law is objectionable and its penalties trivial annoyances, are discreetly passed over. Hard, however, is the lot of poor men, who for love of their children affront the dull animosity and ignorance of English Philistines whether as guardians or as magistrates on the bench of injustice. Shortly co-operation for defence and insurance against fines will enable the feeblest and most fearful to maintain his integrity and encounter his pursuers with undaunted front. Parliament, as our statesmen allow, is deaf to the aggrieved until they make themselves intolerable, and to raise ourselves to that pitch must be our end and aim.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION AND VACCINATION.

Many good people are distressed over the operation of this extraordinary law, and sometimes in their perplexity adventure for excuse, “Surely since we compel parents to educate their children, it cannot be wrong to compel them to have their children vaccinated.”

We answer, education is compulsory so far as it is outside conscience. Compulsion is designed to overcome parental indifference and selfishness: where it confronts serious convictions it is arrested. By general consent the most important part of education is religion; and religion is precisely that part of education which is exempted from compulsion. The law does not even enforce _some_ form of religion, so that parents who regard religion as superfluous may not be aggrieved.

What therefore the opponents of vaccination demand is, that the respect thus accorded to the religious conscience be extended to the scientific conscience--to those who are convinced that vaccination does not prevent smallpox or is an injurious practice. Even allowing it to be a harmless ceremony, resistance would be justifiable. It would be in vain to console a Baptist, forced to convey his child to the parish font, with the assurance that a few drops of water could do no harm. It is not in human nature to submit to the indignity of imposture; and to thousands of Englishmen vaccination is a cruel and degrading imposture, and to punish them for their loyalty to what they think right is every whit as tyrannical as it was for Catholics to persecute Protestants, and Protestants Catholics, and Catholics and Protestants Jews. There is no difference in the terms of intolerance; and there is no difference in the spirit with which this latter-day tyranny is confronted, and that spirit with which religious liberty was vindicated and won.

CONDITIONS OF THE CONFLICT.

To some eyes the conflict is not only arduous; it is hopeless; but we are of a different mind. The conflict may prove even less arduous than it appears; and for these reasons. The law as it stands is perfunctorily defended. No politician answers for it without reluctance. Many allow that a serious mistake was made when legislation was enacted for medical advantage at medical dictation. The Gladstone government proposed to abolish repeated penalties. The central authorities at the Local Government Board make no secret of the insuperable difficulties which attend the administration of the law. They advise concession to its resolute adversaries. They do not reinstate the law where it has broken down. Legislation thus discredited is sure to collapse under broader pressure. The medical support is still weaker; and is chiefly confined to those who represent the trade element of the profession--men who would defend any abuse however flagrant if established and lucrative. It is the custom to laud the immortal Jenner and the salvation he wrought, but these are words of an old song. Those who have penetrated to the inception of the Jennerian rite; who know the absolute promise by which it prevailed and its absolute failure; who have followed its successive transformations and varieties with their respective injuries and fatalities; who are aware of the Babel of confusion and contradiction in which its venal practitioners are involved--these we say recognise how impossible it is for vaccination to be brought under discussion and survive. It is this consciousness which accounts for the reserve of the more prudent order of medical men. They excuse their acquiescence in the delusion (after the manner of ecclesiastics) by the exigencies of professional loyalty; and by the supposition that the harm of the practice is exaggerated, whilst it serves for the consolation of the vulgar. It is for such reasons that we consider the conflict less arduous than it appears. The fortifications are undermined; the bulwarks are rotten through and through. Over all, we place our confidence in the omnipotent favour of the truth. Goliath, mighty and vaunting, is evermore laid low by a smooth stone shapen in the waters of verity.

A WORD FOR THE AUTHOR.

The Story of this Great Delusion, I have tried to tell concisely, keeping close to matter-of-fact, and with some exceptions adhering to English experience. When we venture abroad, we are apt to fall into inaccuracies and draw unwarrantable conclusions. I am told my animus is too pronounced, and that I should have done better had I adopted a more judicial tone. Ah well! we should always have done differently had we done differently. It seems to me a man does best when he is most truly himself; and I question whether I should have improved my case had I tried to conceal my real mind in order to make a more startling show of it at the close.

L’ENVOI.

Lastly, a word to those who are accustomed to dismiss opponents of vaccination as fools and fanatics. It is related of Sydney Smith that calling on Lord Melbourne one morning, he found his lordship in an evil temper and cursing at large. Smith, urgent about his own affairs, at last observed that they should take everything for damned and proceed to business. For like reason I would suggest that the familiar tirade of fool and fanatic be taken as spoken, and that we proceed to discuss vaccination and compulsory vaccination on their merits.

* * * * *

DR. GARTH WILKINSON’S CATECHISM.

_Q._ When Whooping-Cough is not rife, what is that due to?

_A._ Nature.

_Q._ When Scarlatina is not rife, what is that due to?

_A._ Nature.

_Q._ When Cholera is not rife, what is that due to?

_A._ Nature.

_Q._ When Smallpox is not rife, what is that due to?

_A._ Vaccination.

_Q._ When other diseases in the course of time have become mild or
died out, what is that due to?

_A._ Nature.

_Q._ And when Smallpox has become mild or died out, what is that
due to?

_A._ Vaccination.

* * * * *

SANCHO PANZA.-I beg of your Worship that you would let your wound
be dressed, for a great deal of blood comes from that ear: and I
have some lint, and a little white ointment, here in my wallet.

DON QUIXOTE.--All this would have been needless had I recollected
to make a vial of the balsam of Fierebras; for with one single
drop of that, we might have saved both time and medicine.

SANCHO PANZA.--What vial, and what balsam is that?

DON QUIXOTE.--It is a balsam, the receipt of which I hold in
memory; and having it, there is no fear of death, nor that any
wound will be fatal: therefore, when I shall have made it, and
given it to thee, all thou wilt have to do, when thou seest me
in some battle cleft asunder (as it frequently happens) is, to
take up fair and softly that part of my body which shall fall
to the ground, and with the greatest nicety, before the blood
is congealed, place it upon the other half that shall remain in
the saddle, taking especial care to make them tally exactly and
justly. Then shalt thou give me two draughts only of the balsam
aforesaid, and instantly wilt thou see me become sounder than an
apple.

SANCHO PANZA.--If this be so, I renounce from henceforward the
government of the promised island; and only desire, in payment
of my many and good services, that your Worship will give me
the receipt of this extraordinary liquor; for I daresay it will
anywhere fetch more than two reals an ounce; and I want no more
to pass this life with credit and comfort. But first, I should be
glad to know whether the making of it will cost much?

DON QUIXOTE.--For less than three reals thou mayest make nine
pints.

SANCHO PANZA.--Sinner that I am! Why does your Worship delay
making and showing it to me?

DON QUIXOTE.--Peace, friend, for I intend to teach thee greater
secrets, and to do thee greater kindnesses: but at present, let
us set about the cure; for my ear pains me more than I could wish.