prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Is there any evidence of heaven and hell?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: LOL Anonymous I'm here! & I did answer you back there 
kl el kotb el qadema (tawrat + enjel + 9o7f ibrahem) 7orfat w t'3ayarat   law ma 9ar hal shy chan ma 6ala3 ktab yded ye;3y elly gablah l7ad ma 6ala3 lna el quraan b norah elly allah 7f'6ah don ta7ref w tabdel ela yom el dein    shlon tyeeb Joan shy ma5ooth 5erah?!
1- Imagine you have two individuals  One truly believes in God but he is a bad husband and father who cheats on his wife and neglects his children  The other man is a nonbeliever; he accepts religion in theory and doctrine but simply does not have faith no matter how hard he tried  He is a good father and a good husband as well  When they stand before God at the Day of Judgment, would the nonbeliever be condemned to eternal hell only for that one flaw in him? Don't the other good traits in that person matter at all? Does being a nonbeliever equal being evil?
2-God knows everything  However, why would He have created when He knows exactly what each person is going to do and where they will end up? For example, let us suppose that tomorrow I will murder someone  God knows that I will do that  And He knows that I will suffer in hell when the time comes  So why does He purposely inflict that pain on me? To teach me a lesson? He knows the outcome of everything and everyone He has created 
3-Since you brought up science in the previous comments section, I am seriously curious (I am not trying to be glib) about dinosaurs and prehistoric humans  We have seen the evolution of humans and we have fossils and hard evidence of it  The science world has traced back "Eve" to Africa  The concept of Adam and Eve seems too mythological to be 100% factual  It has the same tone of Greek and Ancient Egyptian legends 
-Note: I am not trying to corner you here, I just want to know your response to my queries and thoughts  Thanks 
_ ولماذا نصلى ولمن نصلى    انى لا ارى لصلاتكم هذه اى حكمه ولماذا كل تلك الحركات اما كان يكفى الخشوع  
اعتقد ان المشكلة ليست كما ذكرت  فما ذكرته يعني ان هناك العديد من المسائل الفقهية المتصلة بالعصر الجديد دون حل  على العكس, فالحلال بين والحرام بين  اعتقد المشكلة تكمن بالمسلمين الذين اصابهم الوهن 
You'll be answerd personaly only if; you comment with your blogger's name/nick 
I answered you before & there was no response from your behalf  Why would you think you're worth an answer from me since you can seek answers from good books?
Your questions are very simple, with clean cut answers  Don't use the word corner; it indicates things you don't have the first alphabet for!
Religion was established to calm our fears from the unknown  Freud did write about it in the father figure argument  Try to read it 
I deleted my last comment because in the end of it I inserted some thing that may offend some people (if you read it, I gauss you know what I mean)  Abraham did not believe in God until he saw the birds come to life  So, all what I want is a single prove similar to Abraham 
I indeed busy doing my homework; I have to solve the energy equation and the continuity equation to come with another, hopefully, exact solution to the problem 
Do you work? I mean do you have a job, it seems that you are always on line!!!???? It is amazing how some one would stick to the internet  Try to go out more often, play sport or find any other hobby  If you could not disattach yourself from the internet try and seek a professional help… :-)  Honestly, I’m not making fun of you it is just an advice… sincere advice 
I measure prosperity of a nation by the degree of its civilization in comparison to others of its time  Islamic civilization was at the peak during the Umayyad and Abbasid reigns, at the time when Moslems conquered other nations and dying civilizations, and mixed with them, and the new comers in Islam started researching for the truth  In their quest they translated Greek philosophy books and dug into ancient ones  Their search for truth led them to the emergence of chemistry, Algebra and other sciences And their findings excelled them in innovative inventions  The maps and astrolabes that Columbus used to sail on his quest to discover the West years later were taken from the Arabs  And in contrary to the scribbles of their holy book, Arabic books were the first that brought the roundedness of earth to world attention  Arabic language romanticized the rigid Latin, poetry and verse advanced  At one time, civilization was dubbed as Arabization in Andalusia and that was evident in Andalusia’s Christian and Jewish ancient books  Islamic Architecture and their aggregation systems portrayed marvels of their time  Islamic libraries were huge and rich for the European knowledge seekers 
And history tells us that those were the times when Moslems were the furthest from the dogma of their religion, there societies were open to controlled prostitution in the name of dancimng Jawari, and alcohol was openly consumed  We also notice in these periods that struggle for power among them mounted, yet they were the most tolerant to other nations and beliefs  There was nothing Islamic about them at that time, only a name  After that time, the Islamic civilization collapsed and kept deteriorating as people clung more to the their religious beliefs that were diverted through different interpretations 
And based on that; I believe that it’s not only Moslems who missread their religion, the problem stemmed from the core of the religion (Quran and tradition) for being vague and subject to different interpretations  If Quran was the true word of God, then it should have contained the miracle of not being subject to different interpretations, at least to keep Moslems united, and then, one would believe that Islam is suitable for every location and time 
Nothing can give a solid proof of the existence of heaven and hell, yet, nothing can disprove it either  Same goes to God  So the chance remain fifty-fifty  You either believe in it for the sake of taking a lesser risk if you don’t believe in blind faith, or discard it all together  Yet, the possibility is there until proved or disproved  As for now; these cases can only be understood through logic  So let’s reiterate your question and narrow it down to make it closer to something that can be measured 
Is there any mention of the stories of prophets outside the holy books? Are there any archeological evidences of each prophet’s reign (and I stress prophet’s)? Are there any mention of each prophet in history books outside its holy book, or the books that were based on it’s holy books? Ok, that was too general, let’s narrow it down a bit since your knowledge of your religion, mashallah, especially in reciting Quran is superb 
Is there any mention of the prophet Mohammad reign in non-Moslem history books other than those referenced to Moslem books? And if there were; did those stories mach? Did archeology of Mohammad’s time match those stories? Did ancient books of other nations confirm those stories? After all Mecca was an open, mid trade center for traders of the South and the North, and supposedly was exposed and open to other nations, and an emergence of a new religion would not have gone unnoticed in the ancient books of those nations 
That's why faith is called "FAITH" to believe in the unseen, you see 
keep in mind that every major religion has gone through various phases from emergence to growth to stagnation to depression and reformation  these are cycles that play out across centuries and i suspect islam is not immune to them 
islam is unique in that it is truly the last 'great' religion and it is here to stay  the future should be one of consilience and consolidation between religions and peoples 
at the end of the day - tolerance of thought will be the salvation of mankind 
I've been asking your first question for as long as I can remember and nobody has given me a convincing answer yet  I also asked the second question verbatim when I was in my high school's Tarbiya Islamiya class, and the teacher had no answer  I kept hounding him until the students yelled at me to shut up and then he kicked me out!
We're all adults here, so why can't you answer Anon's query? I still find it amazing that you named yourself after Saint Joan  A Christian (gasp!) who will burn in hell according to some of the comments here 
All men are my brothers  I would have liked to have said it then, and I would like to say it now: all men are my brothers  But all men are not my brothers  Why? Because all women are my sisters  And the brother who denies the rights of his sister: that brother is not my brother  At the very best, he is my half-brother - by definition  Osama is not my brother 
Religion is sensitive ground, as well it might be  Here we walk on eggshells  Because religion is itself an eggshell  Today, in the West, there are no good excuses for religious belief - unless we think that ignorance, reaction and sentimentality are good excuses  This is of course not so in the East, where, we acknowledge, almost every living citizen in many huge and populous countries is intimately defined by religious belief  The excuses, here, are very persuasive; and we duly accept that 'faith' - recently and almost endearingly defined as 'the desire for the approval of supernatural beings' - is a world-historical force and a world-historical actor  All religions, unsurprisingly, have their terrorists, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, even Buddhist  But we are not hearing from those religions  We are hearing from Islam 
Let us make the position clear  We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad - a unique and luminous historical being  Judged by the continuities he was able to set in motion, he remains a titanic figure, and, for Muslims, all-answering: a revolutionary, a warrior, and a sovereign, a Christ and a Caesar, 'with a Koran in one hand', as Bagehot imagined him, 'and a sword in the other'  Muhammad has strong claims to being the most extraordinary man who ever lived  And always a man, as he always maintained, and not a god  Naturally we respect Muhammad  But we do not respect Muhammad Atta 
Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with, here, is 'a civil war' within Islam  That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam  Well, the civil war appears to be over  And Islamism won it  The loser, moderate Islam, is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and the public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible  We are not hearing from moderate Islam  Whereas Islamism, as a mover and shaper of world events, is pretty well all there is 
So, to repeat, we respect Islam - the donor of countless benefits to mankind, and the possessor of a thrilling history  But Islamism? No, we can hardly be asked to respect a creedal wave that calls for our own elimination  More, we regard the Great Leap Backwards as a tragic development in Islam's story, and now in ours  Naturally we respect Islam  But we do not respect Islamism, just as we respect Muhammad and do not respect Muhammad Atta 
المؤامرات على الأديان وجميع الانقلابات المخربة والثورات على القيم والمبادئ خرجت من هذا التراث    وان كل معول هدم كان وراءه توجيه يهودي 
•تذكروا أن الشعب الذي لا يهلك غيره يهلك نفسه 
•يجب ان نخلق الجيل الذي لا يخجل من كشف عورته (ألا تفسر لنا هذه الجملة موجة العرى في الافلام والموضات التى تسود العالم الآن) 
 علينا ان نشعل حربا بين الشعوب ونضرب الدول بعضها ببعض فبهذا يصبح جميع المتحاربين في حاجة الى أموالنا فنفرض عليهم شروطنا 
•الجماهير عمياء فاشتروها بالمال وسوقوها كالبهائم الى أهدافكم 
•سيطروا على الانتخابات ووسائل الاعلام والصحافة (وهم قد سيطروا عليها بالمال والجنس والمرأة في الغرب الرأسمالي وبالحزب والسلطة في العالم الاشتراكي) 
•ادفعوا الجماهير العمياء الى الثورة وسلموهم مقاليد الحكم ليحكموا في غوغائية وغباء (وقد فعلوا هذه في الثورة الفرنسية) وحينئذ نأتي نحن ونعدمهم فنكون منقذين للعالم (وقد اعدموهم جميعاً من روبسبير الى ميرابوا) 
•ارفعوا شعار الحرية واهدموا بها الاخلاق والاسرة والقومية والوطنية 
 ارفعوا شعار العلم واهدموا به الدين    وهذا ما فعله كمال أتاتورك (حفيد مزاراحي) حينما اقام الدولة العلمانية في تركيا ووقف يخطب في البرلمان التركي عام 1923 ساخراً من القرآن 
نحن الآن في القرن العشرين لا نستطيع ان نسير وراء كتاب تشريع يبحث عن التين والزيتون 
•الذي يعرقل مؤامراتكم اوقعوه في فضائح ثم هددوه بكشفها (وقد فعلوها في ووترجيت) او في مآزق مالية ثم تقدموا لانقاذه (وقد فعلها دزرائيلي مع الخديو واستولى على القنال)   وإذ تعذر الامر سارعوا الى اغتياله (وقد فعلوها بكنيدي) ثم اقتلوا قاتله لتدفنوا اسرارنا معه الى الأبد (وقد فعلوها بقاتل كنيدي) 
•اقتلوا القوميات والوطنيات بالدعوة الى الاممية والمواطنة العالمية وقد فعلها ماركس في الشيوعية 
•كل ما عدا اليهود حيوانات ناطقة سخرها الله في خدمة اليهود 
واليهودية ترى ان الله واحد ولكنها تحتكره لنفسها فلا عمل لله الا الحفاظ على اسرائيل وتسخير جميع الشعوب لخدمتها 
واللاهوت اليهودي لا يؤمن بآخرة، وقد شطبوا كل ما جاء عن الآخرة في التوراة    والقيامة عندهم هي قيامة دولتهم في فلسطين والبعث بعثها والنشر نشرها    ويوم الحساب هو اليوم الذي يحاسبون فيه كل الأمم يوم يعود المسيح ويباركهم ويختارهم نواباً له في حكم العالم وإقامة ملكوت الله على الأرض    والعجيب انهم كفروا بالمسيح حينما جاء ثم أعلنوا إيمانهم بعودته وشرطوا هذه العودة بانها رجعة من المسيح ليختارهم رؤساء وحكاماً للعالم الى الأبد 
والفكر اليهودي يلقى غلالة من الأسرار والطلاسم والكتمان والغموض على كل شئ    والكبالا والسحر وعلم الأعداد والحروف وتسخير الشياطين من علومهم التى شغفوا بها وروجوها ونشروها 
وكانت وسيلتهم الى هدم الكتب السماوية هى تفسيرها بالتأويل وذلك برفض المعاني الظاهرة واختراع معان باطنة تهدم الغرض الديني وتفسد هدفه 
ونستطيع ان نرى اثر التوجيه الهودي في الفلسفات العبثية والدمية والمادية والفوضية والإباحية    واحيانا نلمح اسماء يهودية خلفها مثل : سارتر – فرويد – ماركس – ماركوز 
واذا فتحنا ملف الديانة البهائية فإننا نجد اثر التوجيه اليهودي واضحا في كتبها 
عبد الهاء تأليف سليم قبعين القاهرة مطبعة العمران 1922 
مفواضات عبد البهاء الطبعة الاولى 1928م  موعود كل الامم 
جورج تاوزنه مطبوع بإذن من المحفل الروحاني لمصر والسودان 
•اكثر فلاسفة اليونان تعلموا الحكمة من بنى اسرائيل 
•رسالة عبد البهاء هي توحيد المسلمين والنصارى واليهود وجمعهم على أصل نواميس موسى 
•عمل موسى لا يس
Context 2: A special tribute to Del Bigtree (pictured) and his team at ICAN for his stunning 88 page letter to the HHS regarding vaccine safety  As Del reported - in the latest edition of Highwire - the letter, in response to an earlier reply from the then acting Director National Vaccine Program Office, Melinda Wharton, took virtually a year to compile, and is a meticulous piece of research  Most sensationally they researched the HHS claim through US government archives that at least some pediatric vaccines had been trialed against genuine placebo, and came to a negative conclusion  Not only that, they established that none of the vaccines those vaccines had been trialed against had ever been trialed against genuine placebo either  At the end of the line the toxic products were only being compared with other toxic products, rather than against saline 
Leave aside the sceptics, for any believer in the vaccine program as a necessary intervention in public health, this should be a devastating finding  Fundamentally, the research into the safety of any of the products before marketing was simply not there  The manufacturers apparently had no faith that their proto-products could withstand this scrutiny, and for the rest they just did not care: under the alleged imperative of protecting the population it seems anything went  So even before all the sham monitoring procedures and reviews which Del and his team dismantle in forensic detail we are left with the proposition that none of the present products being given to US children – and frequently other children across most of the developed world – have any meaningful pre-marketing safety data all  If you are believer in the program you have been let down: if you wanted a program with any pretensions to safety - supposing such a thing to be possible - it looks like you would have to start from scratch  The manufacturers did this: the governments, the politicians and the regulators (internationally) let it happen 
This damning document is published simultaneously with a demand in the UK from the Royal Society for Public Health (which I had never heard of) to shut down comment about vaccines on the web  It echoes calls from Seth Berkley of GAVI, Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project and the European Parliament  The pamphlet airily dismisses concerns that vaccines have side effects or that you could possibly have too many  It is pure public relations, and if the RSPH claims to be "independent" it also admits that the publication was paid for by Merck, a detail which was reported by British Medical Journal and the Guardian, but not true to form by the BBC  We have, in truth, been building to this moment for two decades: as the evidence piles up that every single aspect of the program lacks integrity or is simply rotten to the core all the perpetrators can do is call for the silencing of their critics, and maintain the products are safe because they say so 
Please help give the ICAN letter the widest possible distribution, particularly to politicians 
"The outcome of disease always depends both on the virulence of the pathogen and the health of the individual immune system "
Nope  This makes no sense  Lots of people who seemed vibrant will get a very severe case of the same illness that a vulnerable baby overcomes in a day 
And under the germ theory it doesn't matter how strong your immune system *was*  Once it's been overcome by the pathogen it is every bit as weak as anybody else's with that pathogen 
What you say makes no sense  There's no reason for me to reply to you again 
"Why do you think that within a few years (not many) of the introduction of the vaccines for them, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Hib disease, and chickenpox (and others) almost entirely disappeared?"
Why do you keep asking this question when I've already provided the answer hundreds of times? Why are you so desperate to believe the people who you already recognize are harming our children?
Why would Walter Reed be any more trustworthy than Paul Offit or Senator Pan? Why would Jenner or Pasteur?
And you went no way to explaining my arguments against germ theory  If we are attacked by billions of viruses every day then if even a tiny fraction of them are pathogenic then we couldn't possibly survive  And even if we could, we would already be immune rendering every vaccine pointless  Once we had survived our first few days on earth, then we could never get sick again 
If that's wrong then we must conclude that precisely 0% of germs are pathogenic 
Plus your comment about the immune system completely misunderstood my point  The immune system does not allow us to overcome our math problem  In fact, it makes it worse 
You did provide one solitary example of a patient with what are presumably yellow fever symptoms but you didn't say whether they had been given any toxic medical treatments 
And like I said before, the whole "incubation period" is more than a little suspicious  Clearly they never found what they thought they would and just rigged the results to tell them what they want to hear 
Like every other germ theorist/vaccine promoter in history 
Many kinds of bacteria are constantly evolving and changing, like flu viruses  Others are more stable over time, like the yellow fever virus  Those that change develop new ways of infiltrating the cells of the organism being attacked (from our point of view, from its unconscious point of view, it's just carrying out its need to replicate, which it can only do inside the cells of its host)  The changes which allow it to better infiltrate are more successful and result in more viruses with those traits 
Our immune system is designed to detect and destroy potentially dangerous invading pathogens  Many bacteria are usually harmless and absolutely necessary  The minority are dangerous, and most people's immune systems do a good job of analyzing them and killing them, often with no signs of disease  Others experience a clinical infection, and the immune system usually mounts a successful attack on them 
The outcome of disease always depends both on the virulence of the pathogen and the health of the individual immune system  Vaccines are usually effective in giving immunity to the targeted diseases  They also have many dangers which everyone should be aware of, and vaccines should be avoided whenever possible  But in the case of the most dangerous diseases, everyone should learn about them and think about what he wants to do to protect himself and his children from them, considering all the factors involved  And no one can have 100% certainty that he has made the right decision, but that's life  But if you live in the Congo and many people around you are currently dying of yellow fever, then that means that you yourself are at risk of being bitten by a loaded mosquito and getting, often dying, of yellow fever  The yellow fever vaccine is very effective at preventing yellow fever  From there, each person must make a choice 
At the end of this stage there is a remission of two or three days  About 80% of those with clinical disease recover at this point, with permanent immunity  The other 20% enter the toxic stage, with a return of the fever, black vomit (coffee-ground emesis), diarrhea, a slowing of the pulse (Faget's sign), jaundice, yellow eyes, yellow skin, and failure of the kidneys, liver, and heart  The patient gets a strange hiccup (like with Ebola, a related disease), falls into a coma, and dies  About half of those patients who enter the toxic stage dies, even now, even with the best of hospital care  The Faget's sign can also occur at the end of the first stage 
You asked specifically about the symptoms of the Americans on Dr  Reed's team who got yellow fever in Cuba in 1900  I'll give the passage from The American Plague (162-5), which describes the course of Jesse Lazear's illness  "In his logbook, Lazear wrote an unusual entry on September 13  In all cases before those, page after page of records, Lazear had used the soldier's name and simply the date he was bitten, with no other attention to the mosquito  A one-line entry with a name and a date  On that day, however, in his elegant hand, Lazear did not write the soldier's name, but instead wrote 'Guinea Pig No  1 ' He went on to write that this guinea pig had been bitten by a mosquito that developed from an egg laid by a mosquito that developed from an egg laid by a mosquito that fed on a number of yellow fever cases: Suarez, Hernández, De Long, Ferández  It was a precise, detailed history that proved beyond doubt that the mosquito was loaded with the virus when it bit a healthy soldier   (If he had entered his name, then his death would have been considered medical suicide by the insurance company, and his wife and two children would not have gotten any payment ) For the next few days, Lazear's life continued much as it had over the last few months in Cuba  He fed and cared for the mosquitoes in the lab    Then he began to lose his appetite  He skipped a few meals in the mess hall  He didn't mention it to anyone, nor did he ask to see one of the yellow fever doctors; instead, he worked hard in the lab trying to ignore the oncoming headache 
"On September 18, he complained of feeling 'out of sorts,' and stayed in his officer's quarters  His head pounded and L  decided to write a letter  
Context 3: A Brief History of Benjamin Franklin's Residences on Craven Street, London: 1757 - 1775 - Journal of the American Revolution
Benjamin Franklin House, 36 Craven St, London  (Photo by Elliott Brown | Wikimedia Commons)
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might initially believe he lived at 36 Craven Street the entirety of his two stays in London based on the plethora of articles on the internet that say so  If they dug a little deeper they might read that he lived at No  27 Craven Street, previously numbered 7, but now numbered 36; or that he lived exclusively at No  7 Craven Street; or that he lived in multiple residences on Craven Street; or that he moved out of No  36 to another house on Craven Street and then moved back into No  36 the last year of his residence  What is one to believe with all of the conflicting accounts? What does the historical record have to say about Franklin’s time on Craven Street?
Figure 1  Spur Alley 1685  “A map of the parish of St Martins in the Fields, taken from ye last survey, with additions (1685)”  (© The British Library Board, Shelfmark: Maps Crace Port  13 2, Item number: 2)
Before Craven Street existed there was Spur Alley, a narrow passageway sandwiched between the Hungerford Market to the north (now Charing Cross Station) and Scotland Yard and the Northumberland House and Garden to the south  It was flanked on both ends by major thoroughfares, the Strand on the west, connecting Westminster to London by road, and the River Thames on the east, not only connecting the two cities to each other and to Southwark on the south side of the Thames, but connecting the entire metropolis to the rest of the world  Being located in the City of Westminster, Spur Alley had escaped the devastation of the Great Fire of London in 1666 leaving its wooden structures, built in the early part of seventeenth century, intact, but also in dire need of restoration or demolition  “The ratebooks show that during the last thirty years or so of their existence the houses in Spur Alley were in a very bad condition  Few of them were rated at more than a few shillings and many of them were unoccupied ”[1] The landowner, William, 5th Baron Craven, desiring to increase the profitability of his assets, tore down the derelict structures on Spur Alley around 1730 and leased the newly established lots to builders  By 1735, twenty brick houses in the Georgian style had been built on the west side and sixteen on the east side of the way now called Craven Street [2]
Figure 2  Craven Street 1746  (John Rocque London, Westminster and Southwark, First Edition 1746, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
Letters to Franklin during his residence with Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, his landlady on Craven Street, were addressed rather vaguely; “Craven Street/Strand”, “Mrs  Stevensons in Craven Street”, or “Benjamin Franklin Esqr ” are but a few examples  Letters from Franklin referenced “London,” or sometimes “Cravenstreet,” but never included a number  Despite the absence of numbered addresses in Franklin’s correspondence, there was a sense of one’s place in the neighborhood based on entries in the Westminster Rate Books (tax assessments)  The Rate Books did not list house numbers during Franklin’s time there, but they did list the residents of Craven Street in a particular order that became the default numbering system for the street  Number one was associated with the first resident listed under “Craven Street” in the Rate Books and was the northernmost house on the west side of the street  The numbers increased counter-clockwise down the west side and up the east side in accordance with the list of residents  In 1748, the first year of Margaret Stevenson’s (Stevens in the Rate Books for that year) residence on Craven Street, she is listed as the twenty-seventh resident, the second house north of Court Street (later Craven Court, now Craven Passage) on the east side of the street [3]
In 1766, Parliament passed the London Paving and Lighting Act (6 Geo  3 c  26), “An act for the better paving, cleansing, and enlightening, the city of London, and the liberties thereof; and for preventing obstructions and annoyances within the same; and for other purposes therein mentioned ”[4] One of the other purposes therein mentioned was the numbering of houses  With an aim to bring order to the chaotic numbering systems or lack thereof on London streets the Act provided that “… the said commissioners … may also cause every house, shop, or warehouse, in each of the said streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts, alleys, passages, and places, to be marked or numbered, in such manner as they shall judge most proper for distinguishing the same ”[5] This was quite an undertaking that took years to accomplish  It was a decade later before numbered addresses on Craven Street in the City of Westminster appeared in The London Directory (1776)  The London Directory and its competitors were published primarily by booksellers or printers to supplement their income and were highly profitable  To say they were competitive is an understatement  “Some of the most hotly disputed struggles over copyright in the century concerned guidebooks  Many were optimistically emblazoned with a royal license and a notice that the work had been entered at Stationers’ Hall  Various struggles between rival guides intensified as the potential for profits became clear ”[6] The London Directory boldly proclaimed to contain “An ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES and PLACES of ABODE of the MERCHANTS and PRINCIPAL TRADERS of the Cities of LONDON and WESTMINSTER, the Borough of SOUTHWARK, and their Environs, with the Number affixed to each House ”[7] Kent’s Directory made a similar proclamation: “An Alphabetical LIST OF THE Names and Places of Abode OF THE DIRECTORS of COMPANIES, Persons in Public Business, MERCHANTS, and other eminent TRADERS in the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark WITH THE NUMBERS as they are affixed to their Houses agreeable to the late Acts of Parliament ”[8] Mrs  Stevenson wasn’t included in the directories because she didn’t meet the criteria of being a merchant or trader, not because she was a woman  Although it is rare to see women listed in the directories, some examples do exist [9] If Mrs  Stevenson had appeared in the directories in 1776 it would not have been on Craven Street as she had moved to Northumberland Court, a stone’s throw away, the previous year [10] A comparison of Craven Street residents whose names and addresses do appear in the directories with the same residents as they appear in the Westminster Rate Books determines if the numbering systems were congruent  For the most part they were  For example, Joseph Bond at No  30, William Rowles at No  31, Samuel Sneyd at No  32, and Jonathan Michie at No  35 in The London Directory coincide with their places of residence in the Westminster Rate Books; however, errors did occur  The 1776 edition of The London Directory lists Brown & Whiteford, wine merchants, at No  9 Craven Street while the Westminster Rate Books list them as the twenty-ninth residents  Obviously, it makes no sense to have Brown & Whiteford at No  9 in The London Directory and their next-door neighbor, Joseph Bond, at No  30  The same error appears in Baldwin’s The New Complete Guide for 1783  The New Complete Guide may have “borrowed” the error from The London Directory  It was not uncommon for the owner of one directory to copy entries from another to save both time and money  Beginning in 1778 and contrary to The London Directory, Kent’s Directory faithfully followed the numbering system of the Westminster Rate Books in all of its editions and listed Brown & Whiteford at No  29 as did Bailey’s Northern Directory in 1781  Perhaps realizing their error, The London Directory changed their listing of Brown & Whiteford from No  9 to No  29 in their 1783 edition and maintained that listing thereafter 
Sometime prior to 1792, the embankment on the Thames at the south end of Craven Street had been sufficiently extended allowing for the construction of ten new houses below the original houses: “ … four houses, Nos  21–24, were built on the west side, and six houses, Nos  25–30, on the east side of the way ”[11] In a note in the same report, the new numbering system is explained  “The houses in the street, which had previously been numbered consecutively down the west side and up the east side, were then renumbered on the same system to include the additional houses ”[12] Because the new houses (21-24) on the west side were built below the existing houses (1-20), houses 1-20 retained their original numbering 
Figure 4  Craven Street 1799  (Richard Horwood’s Map of London, Westminster and the Borough of Southwark 1799, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
One would think that the numbers of the sixteen original houses on the east side, Nos  21 – 36, would simply increase by ten with the addition of the ten new houses, but such was not the case; they increased by nine  How could that be? The only possible explanation is that No  21 of the original houses was demolished to make way for the construction of the northernmost of the six new houses on the east side (No  30)  Evidence of No  21’s demolition appears in the lease granted to Charles Owen by William, 7th Baron Craven, in 1792, which describes No  22 as: “All that messuage in Craven Street late in the occupation of Francis Deschamps undertaker … being the Southernmost house in the Old Buildings on the East Side of the said Street numbered with the No  22 ”[13] The lease describes No  22 as being the southernmost house in the old buildings on the east side of Craven Street  Clearly the house previously at No  21 did not exist when the lease granted to Charles Owen was written in 1792 as it used to be the southernmost house  It is also worth noting that in 1790, The London Directory listed Jacob Life at No  21 (original numbering)  In 1791-2, it listed him at No  6  With No  21 vacated, it would allow for its demolition and the construction of the tenth new house  By utilizing lot No  21 for the new construction, only nine additional lots were needed to build the ten houses, hence, Margaret Stevenson’s former residence at 27 became 36 (27 + 9) in the renumbering and not 37 
For nearly a century and a half after Franklin departed London for America in March of 1775 the scales were tipped heavily in favor of his residence having been No  7 Craven Street  As early as 1807 in London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighborhood, Volume 4, one would have read: “In Craven Street is a house, No  7, remarkable for having been the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin [14] In 1815, the identical phrase appeared in The Beauties of England and Wales [15] After 23 editions of not mentioning Franklin, his name finally appeared in the 24th edition of The Picture of London in 1826: “The house, No  7, Craven Street, in the Strand, was once the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin ”[16] In 1840, Jared Sparks referred to Franklin’s Craven Street residence appearing in London guide books in his voluminous The Works of Benjamin Franklin: “In the London Guide Books, ‘No  7, Craven Street,’ is still indicated as the house in which Dr  Franklin resided ”[17] In 1846, George Gulliver F R S , in his book, The Works of William Hewson, wrote: “She [Polly] had been upon terms of the warmest friendship with Dr  Franklin
Figure 5  No  7 Craven Street with Memorial Tablet  (Photo courtesy of British History Online, and the Survey of London)
since she was eighteen years of age  That eminent philosopher resided with her mother, Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, at No  7, Craven Street, Strand, during the fifteen years of his abode in London ”[18] Guide books mentioning Franklin at No  7 continued to proliferate throughout the century: Handbook for London; Past and Present, Volume I (1849);”[19] Handbook for Modern London (1851);”[20] The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events (1859);”[21] London and Its Environs (1879) [22] There was an anomaly when London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition (1880) placed Franklin at 27 Craven street [23] The anomaly lasted for six years until his place of residence was changed to No  7 in the revised edition, London  Illustrated by Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets (1886) [24] London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Volume 1 (1891), copied the 1849 Handbook for London almost word-for-word and included, “The house is on the right from the Strand ”[25] In October of 1867, The Society of Arts in London declared that: “In order to show how rich the metropolis is in the memory of important personages and events, which it would be desirable to mark by means of tablets on houses, the Council have caused an alphabetical list to be prepared, … ”[26] Franklin had been elected a corresponding member to the Society in 1756 and was a popular choice among Council members deciding who they were to memorialize [27] By January of 1870, a tablet honoring him was affixed to the house they believed to have been his residence while in London, No  7 Craven Street in the Strand on the west side of the street [28] A majority of historians writing about Franklin in the nineteenth and early twentieth century placed him at No  7: O  L  Holley, The Life of Benjamin Franklin (1848); E  M  Tomkinson, Benjamin Franklin (1885); John Torrey Morse, Benjamin Franklin (1891); Paul Elmer More, Benjamin Franklin (1900); John S  C  Abbot, Benjamin Franklin (1903); Sydney George Fisher, The True Benjamin Franklin (1903)  A notable exception is D  H  Montgomery’s His Life Written by Himself published in 1896  He has Franklin at No  27 Craven Street  It seems then that depending upon the source, Franklin was thought to have lived at either No  7 or No  27, but not both, the overwhelming majority favoring No  7  As late as 2011, Franklin is still mentioned as living at No  7 [29]
In 1913, No  7 was scheduled to be torn down  An article in the March 1914 edition of The Book News Monthly, describes the situation:
As is well known to informed American pilgrims, it has been possible for all admirers of the famous philosopher and statesman to pay their respects to his memory before that house, No  7 Craven Street, just off the Strand, which was his chief home during his two sojourns in the British capital, but even as these lines are being written the London newspapers are recording that that interesting shrine is soon to be pulled down to make room for a restaurant  It is some mitigation of this misfortune to remember that at the most the Craven Street house was nothing more than a reproduction of the one in which Franklin had his suite of four rooms, for the structure has been rebuilt since Franklin’s time  When, then, some one makes a piteous plea that at least the philosopher’s bedroom shall be preserved, the soothing answer is that the apartment in question is only a replica of that in which the illustrious American enjoyed his well-earned slumbers in 1757-62 and 1764-75  The restaurant-builder, however, with an eye doubtless to possible American patronage, has assured the world that every effort will be made to preserve as much as possible of the entire structure [30]
Concerned with the possible demolition of Franklin’s residence, the Royal Society of Arts (formerly the Society of Arts[31]) initiated an inquiry into the matter [32] The London County Council, having taken over the responsibility of placing memorial tablets on notable houses from the Royal Society, was charged with the investigation  It ultimately fell to Sir George Laurence Gomme, a clerk to the Council, to come up with a response  A few years earlier Sir George had discovered Margaret Stevenson residing at No  27 Craven Street in the Westminster Rate Books  He must have wondered why No  7 on the west side of Craven Street was being celebrated as Franklin’s residence when the evidence clearly showed otherwise 
Sir George and his staff examined the various London directories discussed earlier and came up with a novel explanation for the discrepancy  They concluded that there had been two numbering systems on Craven Street  An anonymous author echoes Sir George’s conclusion about the two numbering systems in an article in The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
…an inspection of the directories of that time proves that there were at least two systems of numbering in Craven Street before the erection of the additional houses  According to one of these the numbers started from the top (Strand end) on the west side of the street, and ran down to the bottom to No  20, then crossed over and went back to the Strand along the east side – 21 to 36  According to the other system, the east side of the street was numbered from the bottom upwards, starting at No 1  This was not apparently in general use, but there is evidence that this numbering was at all events occasionally used 
The evidence of these two systems of numbering, and for believing that Mrs  Stevenson’s house was first No  7 under the oldest system, next No  27 under the second system, and finally No  36 under the latest and existing system, is to be found in the various directories and the Westminster rate-books [33]
The “evidence” mentioned above consisted of The London Directory’s listing of Brown & Whiteford at No



ground_truth: Unknown.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Who compiled the 88-page letter to the HHS regarding vaccine safety?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2:  (he wrote to his mother, and referred to his one-year old son Houston and the baby his wife Mabel was about to have: they were staying with his mother in the US)    That night, L  started to feel chilled as the fever came on  He never went to sleep but worked at his desk all through the night, trying to get all the information about the mosquitoes organized  By morning, he showed all the signs of a severe attack of yellow fever  The camp doctors made the diagnosis, and L  agreed to go to the yellow fever ward    L  was carried by litter out of the two-room, white pine board house in which he had lived since he and Mabel first arrived in Cuba    (In the yellow fever ward, in a separate one-room building), Lena Warner (the immune nurse who had survived the yellow fever in 1878, when she was nine, and was found in her boarded-up house by a former slave who first thought she was dead, and carried her to safety) nursed J L , recording his vitals  (I put up a link to his case record and vital signs last week  The surgeon general required that this record be made for every yellow fever patient )    (On September 25,) Lena Warner braced L's arms with all of her weight, shouting for help  Still he bolted from the bed, darting around the small frame-wood room as wildly as a trapped insect beating against glass  Two soldiers ran into the ward, pinning L to his bed, tying restraints around his wrists and elbows    Warner sponged his body with iced whiskey and water  She recorded his temperature, which had held at 104 degrees for days, on the chart beside his bed    (Warner watched him sleep ) But the quiet did not last  L's body began to lurch, and black vomit rolled from his mouth; through the bar hanging above his hospital cot  He writhed in the bed, and his skin grew deep yellow  His 104 temperature slowly fell, leveling out 99 degrees, and JL died at 8:45 p m  at the age of thirty-four "
As is obvious, there are many problems with vaccines  But, that being said, most of them usually work for a period of time to prevent the targeted diseases  The basic science behind vaccines is correct  Why do you think that within a few years (not many) of the introduction of the vaccines for them, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Hib disease, and chickenpox (and others) almost entirely disappeared? In the case of the routine childhood diseases, this was a bad thing, but it is a true thing 
Vaccines usually don't cause any obvious reactions  While they usually prevent the diseases, and that's why people continue to get them  With the increasing vaccination schedule, more and more are severely and permanently damaged, and it is immoral to mandate any vaccine for anyone for this reason  But it would also be immoral to prohibit vaccines for those who want them enough to take the risk 
Your article said as though it had any probative value that 90% of those who get pertussis had been vaxxed  The old DPT vaccine was MUCH more effective at preventing pertussis, but it was so dangerous (again, not to most, but to many), that developed countries replaced it with the acellular version, DTaP  From the beginning about twenty years ago, it was clear that it was not very effective and that huge numbers of vaxxed people got pertussis anyway, including my daughter who got pertussis at eight month old after having gotten three DTaPs  The pertussis vaccine continues to be very dangerous, and I do not recommend that anyone get it  It used to be a killer disease, but evolved to become much milder, to the extent that the disease is very rarely dangerous (usually only to newborns under three months old), while the vaccine is very dangerous  And they're trying to see how they can go back to the old DPT  This does not show that vaccine science has collapsed, but rather that the vaccine they developed to replace the DPT turned out to be much less effective than they first thought, while continuing to be much more dangerous than they first thought 
Your article extrapolated from that that modern medical science in general has collapsed, but that, again, is going too far  A older woman in Mexico City who is like my mother to me had a pacemaker inserted about two months ago to aid her failing heart, and it has restored her to optimism and energy, when she was despondent, weak, and close to death  I took my daughter to the dentist yesterday, who said she has three wisdom teeth coming in and that she said that the lower right one was sore  So, although I am cautious about X-rays, I made an appointment for a panoramic X-ray in a month to assess the wisdom teeth, and, if it seems appropriate, I'll take her to an oral surgeon to have one or more extracted under IV sedation, in his office, if possible (the dentist thought that it would be)  And I am confident that there will be no serious problems, but this is thanks to technology and training in modern medicine that haven't been available for that long 
I think that everyone should inform himself on all medical procedures before agreeing to anything, but I also think that he should have access to any medical procedure which is reasonable (and opinions can differ as to that) 
One problem is that you have not said how you think people should protect themselves against tetanus, bacterial meningitis, and yellow fever in the relevant cases, for example  These are diseases which healthy, well-nourished people used to die from very readily 
If most people stopped vaxxing and the mortality from these diseases rose to something like pre-vaccine levels, do you think they should just accept dying from them?
I put that in a separate paragraph because it is the crucial issue 
balinaheuchter Air Traffic Control You Tube - Colin Campbell example of - How to "Fudge a Nudge" -"Deal" or "No Deal" "Not in a month of Sundays" "No exceptions/no compromise?" -make a trade off -do an exception- everyone get's a good deal /good outcome!
Hans, you are right that we are looking at one of the biggest crimes in all history  When I read the story of that poor girl who was so healthy and is now confined to a wheelchair after getting her third Gardasil shot I could not believe that Merck could produce such a toxic vaccine and give it out to girls like it was something they absolutely had to have only to be mislead and made into cripples  Merck should be prosecuted for the damage they have done to so many girls who got the Gardasil vaccine and were physically debilitated for life  There is a place for the people who perpetrated this crime on young girls and women and it is called hell  They have destroyed people's lives and gotten away with it  My heart goes out to those who have suffered this damage for no damn good reason except to help make huge profits for Merck!
Here is the reason that the germ theory is nonsense 
1) Everyday we are bombarded with billions of germs  Presumably at least some of them are of the kind that germ theorists believe are dangerous (otherwise we would have to conclude that none of them are dangerous)  So how do we survive?
2) Let's just say that we ignore 1 and imagine that, by way of magic, none of the billions of viruses we get bombarded with are pathogenic but all those that are are tucked away somewhere  Ok  But presumably they reside in sick people right? So where are there lots of sick people? Doctor offices and hospitals! So everybody must be dying the moment they enter these places right?
3) I love this one because I have never seen anybody else ever raise it  Under the germ theory there are no negative feedbacks  This makes a stable biological system by definition impossible  The immune system is *not* a negative feedback it is the opposite  It actually reinforces our math problem because the immune system will weaken as the number of pathogens increase 
There is no way of resolving this problem without a discontinuity  A Deus ex Machina as The Almighty Pill so beautifully put it  So the germ theory is quite literally, mathematically impossible 
There is as much chance of it being true as 2+2 = 5 
There are plenty of other massive problems with germ theory such as why did things like SARS and bird flu magically disappear? Why do we have the symptoms that we do? Is our body controlling the symptoms to help fight the germs and if so, why would suppressing the symptoms with antibiotics or Tamiflu be considered a good idea? If the virus is causing the symptoms then why would it cause these kinds of things?
Context 3:  9: “The rate-books for 1781 and 1786 show the house next but one to the north of Mrs  Stevenson’s house as in the occupation of Brown and ‘Whiteford,’ while the old directories mention the business of the firm as wine merchants, and give their address as 9, Craven Street – then a little later, down to 1791, as 29, Craven Street  Curiously enough, in the years 1778 to 1780, or 1781, Lowndes gives it as No  9, and Kent as 29 ”[34] Ignoring Kent’s Directory having Brown and Whiteford as 29 and The London Directory (Lowndes) having Brown and Whiteford “a little later” as 29, and knowing that Mrs  Stevenson lived two doors south of them, Sir George concluded that her house must have been numbered 7, even though there is no listing in any of the directories of her residence ever being No  7  He surmised that the No  7 on the west side of Craven Street with the memorial tablet thought to have been Franklin’s residence had simply been confused with number 7 (27) on the east side  Again from The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
Taking all the evidence together, there cannot be any doubt whatever that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court, first numbered 7, afterwards 27, and finally 36, and consequently that the house in which Franklin lived was that now numbered 36, not the one now numbered 7, on which the tablet is placed [35]
A response to The Royal Society of Arts was issued: “… the London County Council … informed the Society that it had made a mistake and that No  36 Craven street was the building that deserved commemoration ”[36] The Society accepted the Council’s conclusion, and despite assurances of preservation by the restaurant builder, No  7 was torn down the following year 
Sir George’s assertion “that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court” was correct, however, his assertion that it was “first numbered 7, afterwards 27”, was not  It was only by association with the errant entry of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 from 1776-1782 in The London Directory that Mrs  Stevenson’s address was conjured to be No  7  The problem with associating her address exclusively with that of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 during those years is that, as previously demonstrated, The London Directory also listed four other Craven Street residents, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie, who’s addresses did conform to the numbering system in The Westminster Rate Books  If Brown & Whiteford at No  9 was indicative of a numbering system different from The Westminster Rate Books, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie would have been listed as Nos  10, 11, 12, and 15, respectively  So on one hand Sir George was relying on the Westminster Rate Books to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27 and on the other hand he was dismissing the Westminster Rate Books to establish her at No  7  Instead of using the anomalous listing of Brown & Whiteford at No  9, he could have just as easily, and more logically, used the Bond et al  listings, or the post-1782 Brown & Whiteford listing in the London Directory at No  29 to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27  Even if there had been two numbering systems, his assertion that No  27 was first numbered 7 would still be false  The earliest numbering system was the Westminster Rate Books dating from the early 1730s when the houses were constructed  Brown & Whiteford at No  9 didn’t appear until 46 years later and then only for a brief period 
There is ample evidence in Franklin’s correspondence and in a memoir by Polly Hewson (Mrs  Stevenson’s daughter) that Benjamin and Mrs  Stevenson lived in not one, but two houses on Craven Street  On July 6, 1772, Polly wrote to Benjamin from her house at Broad Street North in London: “My Mother I must tell you went off last friday week, took our little Boy with her and left Mr  Hewson [Polly’s husband, William] the care of her House [27 Craven Street]  The first thing he did was pulling down a part of it in order to turn it to his own purpose, and advantage we hope  This Demolition cannot affect you, who at present are not even a Lodger [Benjamin was traveling at the time], your litterary apartment remains untouch’d, the Door is lock’d …”[37] In a memoir about her husband written after his death Polly writes: “He [William Hewson] began his Lectures Sept  30, 1772, in Craven-street, where he had built a Theatre adjoining a house which he intended for the future residence of his family ”[38] On October 7, 1772, Benjamin wrote to his son William: “I am very well  But we [Mrs  Stevenson and I] are moving to another House in the same street; and I go down tomorrow to Lord LeDespencer’s to [stay a] Week till things are settled ”[39] To his son-in-law, Richard Bache, on the same day he wrote: “We are moving to another House in the [street] leaving this to Mr  Hewson ”[40] Writing to a friend on October 30, 1772 he explained: “I should sooner have answered your Questions but that in the Confusion of my Papers, occasioned by removing to another House, I could not readily find the Memorandums …”[41] On November 4, 1772 Benjamin informed his wife Deborah of the move  “We are removed to a more convenient House in the same street, Mrs  Stevenson having accommodated her Son-in-Law with that we lived in  The Removing has been a troublesome Affair, but is now over ”[42]
An agreement had been struck between the parties  Margaret and Benjamin would move to another house on Craven Street and allow Polly and William to move into No  27, the large yard behind the house being spacious enough to accommodate the anatomy school William wished to build [43] Perhaps the idea was inspired by Margaret’s next-door neighbor at No  26, Dr  John Leake, a man-midwife and founder of the Westminster Lying-in Hospital, who had built a theater adjoining his residence in which he practiced anatomy and taught midwifery [44]
After Margaret and Benjamin vacated No  27, Polly, William, their son William Jr , and William’s younger sister, Dorothy Hewson, took up residence there [45] In the 1773 Westminster Rate Books for Craven Street, Mrs  Stevenson’s (Stephenson in the Rate Books) name has been crossed out and replaced with “William Hewson ”[46] Further proof that the Hewsons had indeed moved into 27 Craven Street has been confirmed by the discovery of human and animal remains buried in the basement of No  36 (formerly No  27 and now the Benjamin Franklin House), a by-product of the dissections that took place at William’s anatomy school [47]
So what house on Craven Street did Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin move into after vacating No  27? An examination of the Westminster Rate Books for the years 1774 and 1775 reveal them living not at No  7 on the west side of Craven Street as one might expect from the overwhelming consensus of nineteenth century guidebooks and biographies, but surprisingly at No  1 [48] The controversy of No  7 being torn down was all for naught as it had never been Franklin’s residence  Sir George was correct on that point  Unfortunately, No  1 was torn down as well in the early part of the twentieth century  The first time No  1 is mentioned as Franklin’s second residence is in the Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-The-Fields II: the Strand published by the London County Council in 1937, ironically the same County Council that had declared No  36 as Franklin’s only residence twenty-four years earlier 
From 1748 until 1772 Margaret ‘Stephenson’ occupied this house [No  27 (36)], and it was there that Benjamin Franklin settled after his arrival in London in 1757 as Agent to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania … In October, 1772, Mrs  Stevenson and Franklin removed to No  1, Craven Street (now demolished), and No  36 was for the next two years occupied by William Hewson, surgeon, who had married Mary Stevenson [49]
In the spring of 1774, William Hewson died unexpectedly of septicemia two weeks after cutting himself while dissecting a cadaver  Polly was left to care for their two young sons and was pregnant with a daughter she would give birth to in August of the same year  Is it possible that Margaret and Benjamin moved back into No  27 to assist Polly after the death of her husband as suggested in The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin?[50]
If the Westminster Rate Books are to be believed, the answer is no  For the year 1774, the Rate Books list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and William Hewson at No  27  For the year 1775, they list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and Magnus Falkner (Falconer/Falconar) at No  27  Magnus was William’s assistant at the anatomy school and fiancé to William’s sister, Dorothy  On his death bed, William instructed Polly, “let Mr  Falconar be my successor ”[51] Magnus would immediately take over the running of the anatomy school and continue William’s unfinished research  Four months later, he and Dorothy would marry [52] Essentially only two things changed at 27 Craven Street after William’s death: Polly gave birth to her daughter, and Magnus replaced William as the lease holder, so even if Margaret and Benjamin had wished to move back into No  27, there would have been no room for them  It is also interesting to note that considering the multiple times Benjamin wrote of his move out of No  27 (and complained of it), he never once mentioned moving back into No  27 in any of his correspondence after Mr  Hewson’s death 
Figure 6  No  36 Craven Street  (Photo courtesy of David Ross, britainexpress com)
In sum, based on the Westminster Rate Books[53] and Franklin’s correspondence, Mrs  Stevenson is known to have resided at No  27 (36) Craven Street from 1748 to 1772  It follows that, aside from the two years Franklin spent in Philadelphia from 1762 to 1764, he resided there from 1757 to 1772  Franklin’s correspondence also reveals that in the autumn of 1772, he and Mrs  Stevenson moved to another house on Craven Street  The 1773 Westminster Rate Books show her name crossed off at No  27 and William Hewson’s inserted  The following year the Rate Books list her at No  1 Craven Street  Evidence for Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin remaining at No  1 after William’s death appears in the Westminster Rate Books for 1775 which have Mrs  Stevenson still residing at No  1 and Magnus Falkner residing at No  27  Further evidence can be construed from the lack of any mention of a move back into No  27 in Franklin’s correspondence  Despite the many theories one could devise as to why Franklin was thought to have lived at No  7 Craven Street by so many guide books and Franklin biographers of the nineteenth century, one thing is certain; at some point after Franklin’s departure to America in March of 1775, and no later than 1807, someone mistakenly associated him with No  7 on the west side of Craven Street, and it soon became his de facto residence  Credit must go to D  H  Montgomery in 1896 and Sir George in 1913 for setting the record partially straight by placing Franklin at No  27(36)  In 1937, the London County Council gave us the first accurate account of Franklin’s residences on Craven Street in the Survey of London at No  27(36) and No  1  It has been shown conclusively that No  27 was never previously numbered 7  It was, however, renumbered 36 in 1792 after ten additional houses were built at the southern end of the street and remains No  36 to this day 
[1] “Craven Street and Hungerford Lane”, in Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-the-Fields II: the Strand, ed  G H Gater and E P Wheeler (London, 1937), 27-39, Early History of the Site 
http://www british-history ac uk/survey-london/vol18/pt2/pp27-39
[2] “England, Westminster Rate Books, 1634-1900,” from database with images, Craven Street – 1735, FamilySearch from database by FindMyPast and images digitized by FamilySearch; citing Westminster City Archives, London 
[3] Ibid , Craven Street – 1748 
[4] The Statutes at Large, From Magna Charta to the End of the Eleventh Parliament of Great Britain  Anno 1761 Continued, Vol  XXVII, ed  Danby Pickering, (Cambridge, John Archdeacon, 1767), 96 
[6] James Raven, Publishing Business in Eighteenth-Century England, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014), 201 
[7] The London Directory For the Year 1776, Ninth Edition, (London: T  Lowndes, 1776), title page 
[8] Kent’s Directory For the Year 1778, Forty-Sixth Edition, (London: Richard and Henry Causton, 1778), title page 
[9] A listing in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1882 on p  28 reveals, “Brown Sarah, Leather-seller, 1, Westmoreland-buildings, Aldersgate-street”, and in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1883 on p  175, “Whiteland Mary, Wine & Brandy Mercht  Jermyn-str  St  James ”
[10] “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin,” Sponsored by The American Philosophical Society and Yale University, Digital Edition by The Packard Humanities Institute, 22:263a 
http://franklinpapers org/franklin
Mrs  Stevenson wrote to Benjamin Franklin a letter from her new home at 75 Northumberland Court on November 16, 1775: “In this Court I have a kind friend, Mr  Lechmoen he comes and seats with me and talks of you with a hiy regard and friendship ”
[11] Survey of London, Early History of the Site 
[12] Survey of London, Footnotes/n 10 
[13] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  31 
[14] David Hughson, LL D



ground_truth: Del Bigtree and his team at ICAN.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When did the London Paving and Lighting Act pass, which mandated the numbering of houses?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: , London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighbourhood, To Thirty Miles Extent, From An Actual Perambulation, Vol  IV, (London: W  Stratford, 1807), 227 
[15] The Reverend Joseph Nightingale, The Beauties of England and Wales: Or, Original Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of Each County, Vol  X, Part III, Vol  II (London: J  Harris; Longman and Co ; J  Walker; R  Baldwin; Sherwood and Co ; J  and J  Cundee; B  and R  Crosby and Co ; J Cuthell; J  and J  Richardson; Cadell and Davies; C  and J  Rivington; and G  Cowie and Co , 1815), 245 
[16] John Britton, F S A  & Co , ed , The Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved: Being A Correct Guide For The Stranger, As Well As For the Inhabitant, To The Metropolis Of The British Empire Together With A Description Of The Environs, The Twenty-Fourth Edition (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826), 479 
[17] Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol  VII, (Philadelphia: Childs & Peterson, 1840), 151 
[18] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xx 
[19] Peter Cunningham, Handbook for London; Past and Present, Vol  I, (London: John Murray, 1849), 245 
[20] F  Saunders, Memories of the Great Metropolis: or, London, from the Tower to the Crystal Palace, (New York: G P  Putnam, MDCCCLII), 138 
[21] Leigh Hunt, The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events, (London: Smith, Elder and Co , 1859), 185 
[22] K  Baedeker, London and Its Environs, Including Excursions To Brighton, The Isle of Wight, Etc : Handbook For Travelers, Second Edition, (London: Dulau and Co , 1879), 133 
[23] Herbert Fry, London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition, (New York: Scribner, Welford, & Co , 1880), 50 
[24] Herbert Fry, London  Illustrated By Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, (London: W  H  Allen and Co , 1886), 40 
[25] Henry B  Wheatley, F S A , London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Vol  1, (London: John Murray, New York: Scribner & Welford, 1891), 473 
[26] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XV, No  778, (October 18, 1867): 717 
[27] D  G  C  Allen, “Dear and Serviceable to Each Other: Benjamin Franklin and the Royal Society of Arts,” American Philosophical Society, Vol  144, No  3, (September 2000): 248-249 
Franklin was a corresponding member in 1756 because he was still residing in Philadelphia  He became an active member the following year when he moved to London 
[28] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XVIII, No  894, (Jan  7, 1870): 137 
“Since the last announcement, the following tablets have been affixed on houses formerly occupied by – Benjamin Franklin, 7 Craven-street, Strand, W C ”
[29] Franklin in His Own Time, eds  Kevin J  Haytes and Isabelle Bour, (Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 2011), xxxvii 
“Takes lodgings with Margaret Stevenson at No  7 Craven Street ” It is unknown if the editors are referring to No  7 on the west side of Craven Street or No  36 on the east side using Sir George’s explanation of No  36 being previously numbered 7 
[30] Henry C  Shelly, “American Shrines on English Soil, III  In the Footprints of Benjamin Franklin,” in The Book News Monthly, September, 1913 to August, 1914, (Philadelphia: John Wanamaker, 1914), 325 
[31] The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol  LVI, No  2,880, (Jan  31, 1908): 245 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058423073;view=1up;seq=251
“His Majesty the King, who is Patron of the Society, has granted permission to the Society to prefix to its title the term ‘Royal,’ and the Society will consequently be known in future as the ‘Royal Society of Arts ’”
[32] Nineteenth Annual Report, 1914, of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, (Albany: J  B  Lyon Company, 1914), 293 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=wu 89072985302;view=1up;seq=4;size=150
[33] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  LXII, No  3,183, (Nov  21, 1913): 18 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058422968;view=1up;seq=26
[36] Allen, “Dear and Serviceable,” 263-264 
[37] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:20 
[38] Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, F  L  S , Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Late John Coakley Lettsom With a Selection From His Correspondence, Vol  I, (London: Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1817), 144 of Correspondence 
[39] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:321b 
[40] Ibid , 19:314 
[41] Ibid , 19:353a 
[43] Simon David John Chaplin, John Hunter and the ‘museum oeconomy’, 1750-1800, Department of History, King’s College London  Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London , 202 
“Following Falconar’s death [1778] the lease [27 Craven Street] was advertised, and the buildings were described as:
A genteel and commodious house, in good Repair, with Coach-house and Stabling for two Horses…consisting of two rooms and light closets on each floor, with outbuildings in the Yard, a Museum, a Compleat Theatre, and other conveniences  (Daily Advertiser, 27 August 1778)”
[44] Simon Chaplin, “Dissection and Display in Eighteenth-Century London,” in Anatomical Dissection in Enlightenment England and Beyond: Autopsy, Pathology and Display, ed  Dr  Piers Mitchell, (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012), 108 
“Given that a nearby building at 35 [ No  26 in Franklin’s time] was occupied by the man-midwife John Leake, who advertised lectures – including lessons in the art of making preparations – at his ‘theatre’ between 1764 and 1788, it is possible that some facilities were shared  In both cases, however, the buildings [Leake’s residence at No  26 and Hewson’s residence next door at 27] served a dual function as domestic accommodation and as sites for lecturing and dissection ”
[45] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xviii 
[46] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1773, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[47] S W  Hillson et al , “Benjamin Franklin, William Hewson, and the Craven Street Bones,” Archaeology International, Vol  2, (Nov  22, 1998): 14-16 
http://dx doi org/10 5334/ai 0206
[48] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1774, 1775, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[49] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  36, Craven Street (not sourced) 
[50] Gordon S  Wood, The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), 261 
[51] Pettigrew, Memoirs, 146 of Correspondence 
[52] http://founders archives gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0178, note 7  “Falconar married Hewson’s sister five months after the Doctor’s death; most of the Craven Street circle attended the wedding, and BF gave away the bride: Polly to Barbara Hewson, Oct  4, 1774, APS” (American Philosophical Society); “England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch org/ark:/61903/1:1:V52W-TGS : accessed September 15, 2015), Magnus Falconar and Dorothy Hewson, September 12, 1774; citing Saint Martin In The Fields, Westminster, London, England, reference ; FHL microfilm 561156, 561157, 561158, 942 B4HA V  25, 942 B4HA V  66 
[53] I chose to rely on the Westminster Rate Books for the numbering system on Craven Street  The books were consistent throughout the eighteenth century in the ordering of residents on the street and were used as the basis for the 1792 re-numbering  For the most part, commercial directories aligned with them as well  If by chance a directory didn’t initially align, it would inevitably produce future editions that did 
Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin House, London
More from David Turnquist
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might   
I think it’s very ironic that on the street maps included in your excellent article, Craven Street is so close to Scotland Yard  Because following the back and forth juxtapositions of numbers 7, 27 and 36 Craven Street (throw in 75 Northumberland Court and 1 Craven Street, too) was a case that could confound Sherlock Holmes 
Excellent job of deciphering street renumbering material spanning sixty years, including that of a wrong house number (# 7) being erroneously identified and then perpetuated in subsequent street map printings  It’s gratifying at least to know that the present day #36 Craven Street is the correct house for Ben Franklin tourists to visit  Except for #1 Craven Street for the last three years Franklin was in London, but we won’t get into that 
Again, excellent article, David!



ground_truth: 1766.