The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-10-10
ANTI-vACCINATION.
Plea for a More Modern View of the
Facts i'm Relation Thereto.

To the Editor OF the Indianapolis Journal:
Now that you have removed the scab
from the closed vaccination question by
this morning publishing a lengthy ''scien-
tific'' communication favoring vaccination,
and based upon my previous articles
against that procedure, Il is but fair that
a short reply should be made by me. To-
days author speaks of lymph and vac
cine lymph in most familiar and non
chalant way, but would have been much
more scientific and technically correct II
he had called the foul stuff "pus." which
1t is, just as he would IL speaking OF the
matter running from a chancroidal exca-
walton. foul ulcer or any other chronic
sore.
Your correspondent this morning SOL
EMMY assures us that he Is only looking
Tor the truth and has no dogma or theory
to uphold; but grayely quotes from Dun,
gliSon'S Medical Dictionary, just revised,
to the effect that vaccination is now prac-
ticed everywhere by those guided by rea-
son. That statement is probably In all
the editions of Dunglson-for 1 know it
is In mine, the next to the last, written
twenty years ago-and it is Immediately
followed and the article closed with this.
which your essayist evidently did not need
In his business: There is ground, how
ever, for the belief that for full protection
sary." This is just the point made in my
first article, that the health and school
boards shoe the little colts by force but
let the old mares go bare. Not even the
most rabid vaccinationist, nowadays, will
claim that vaccination protects, but in
sists that 1t is frequently necessary. Ii
our policing authorities really believe In
vaccination, then why do they not intel
Igently enforce it?
One ought to be ahlc in four columns OF
newspaper. illustrated in the baking powder
leaVening-pow graphic style, TO have
room to show something favorable to vac
cination-or. rather. revaccination. since
vaccination &c ValnalpSS-bV
cleaning from ancient literature made up by
friendly statisticians. But such letter is
too long to be here replied to in extenso
Nor is it necessary, as all the theories and
admirable bookworm work therein dis
played are at once brushed away by the re-
cent and really scientific report quoted be-
low. AS he so truly says:
Local authorities with limited expert
ence and knowledge must give way to those
ularly in science and scientific medicine,
old authorities must give place to more re-
cent and exact writer's New facts are
discovered almost daily. The more facts
theory includes the more likely is it apt to
be true theory.
The undersigned also thinks he has no
but does think that he has found the truth,
as displayed in the latest reports. AS Mr..
Huxley tells us, lit is better to have
wrong theory than none at all, for If there
is a theory, facts, supposed facts, Will
be collected and built around the theory.
and after while the truth Is found out
the nearest the truth of anything yet pro-
duced on the vaccination subject. 1t Ger,
s sy rv not tn91g has s0y Te
jected the compulsory vaccination law be-
cause of injury wrought upon her soldiers
by vaccination, and reports are that the
law will probably soon be removed from
the statute books of England, as cumula-
tive fines for its infraction have recently
been. The Observation-Disclosures howled so
long and earnestly for a thorough scientific
investigation of the vaccination question
that Queen Victoria, in 1889. appointed a
royal commission of competent men to do
the work. This commission has reported
every year for three years tand perhaps
this year also), and those reports are
l. The history of vaccination demon
strates that the practice is founded on an
empirical and not scientific basis.
2. The leading advocates of the practice,
from the beginning to the present time, nave
not been agreed to the best methods of
application either as to the age of the pa
tient number of times or manner of APP
plication in performing the operation.
3. There is not nor has not been any gem
eral agreement as to what virus is the best
4. There is no way to distinguish pure
or good virus from spurious" or danger
5. The evidence in support of vaccination
is practically Of negative and indirect
6. The evidence of ineff1cacy Of vaccina-
ton to protect against smallpox is positive
and direct
z. The mortality percentage In smallpox
is almost identical with the mortality per-
centage long before vaccination was intro
duced.
g. Vaccination Is liable to give rise to
many severe and even fatal forms Of dis
ease.
g. Hundreds of people have been manned,
crippled and made lifelong invalids from
the direct and remote effects of vaccination.
10. The mortality records show that large
numbers of young children die annually
from the direct and immediate effects Of
vaccination.
In conclusion, In the light of this report,
especially that part in Nos. 8, 6, s, and 10,
am / not justified in again asking, all I
claim, that those Who do not want vac
letting it alone? ". B. CLARKE, Nj. d.