The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-01
AN ANSWER TOL. S.

Editor of the Farmer, Sir
 l noticed in your issue of the 27th inst, a communication in favor of vaccination by one L. $. and trust you will grant me the necessary space for reply.
 The article in question is intended to show that vaccination is "philoso- phically" correct and that it's action as a protection against smallpox can be readily seen and easily understood by anyone. after l.. s. has explained 1t all. l venture to say, however, that L. s. has offered nothing new by way of explanation, and, if I remember correctly. I had occasion a few years ago to show that the explana tions of our friend l.. $. do not explain, and that his theories were entirely er- roneous
 His defence of vaccination is not based on known facts, either as re- gards the nature of so-called vaccine virus or what it will do or not do.
 As near as I can judge from the article in question our friend L. s. still maintains the notion, or theory if you please, that one attack of cer- tain diseases. protects against a re- currence of attack in the same person; but, this notion has been shown re- peatedly to be unfounded and not bas- ed on facts.
 Webster's definition of the meaning of the word immunity is no doubt correct, but that immunity is obtain ed in the way defined, or by produc- ing a diseased condition artiffcially, IS in vaccination is certainly not cor rect
 If, as l.. s. maintains, a person is rendered immune in future by an at- tack of a disease like smallpox, and, that this immunity can be obtained artifically by vaccination, he is evil l4 -.xx can be relied or depended upon. for he advocates a resort to vaccination yearly. This, I take it. is far the purpose of testing the immunity; but, this means that a person must be maintained in a diseased condition continually, which is an absurd pro- position to say the least.
 The fact is that no disease protects against itself, for second and more at- tacks of the same disease in the same person occur more frequently than is generally supposed, and it is a we'll known fact that an artifically inoculated disease, as vaccination, does not protect against itself.
 There is not only an abundance of cases on record where so-called "suc- cessful' vaccinations have been ob tained repeatedly in the same subject. but also records of persons who have been successfully vaccinated after having passed through an attack of smallpox
 From the evidence in these cases it is obvious that vaccination can afford no immunity against smallpox. Neith- CT has vaccination any power to mi tigate the severity of the disease, for thousands of persons, pronounced successfully" vaccinated have died from smallpox.
 These are facts, not theories, and should not ! be overlooked by our friend l.. s.
 The best safeguard against any dis ease is perfect health, a condition to be obtained and maintained through right living only; but, unfortunately, this is not the teaching of the medi- cal profession of the present day. In- stead, the intent of the present day medical practice seems to be devoted chiefly. toe disease everybody, and to keep them diseased, thus insuring a constant revenue to the profession.
 It sis high time to call a halt, and to insist that the healthy be allowed to remain healthy. Let us say: Hands off, to those who would rob the healthy of their health even if they are sanctioned in their nefariouS work by an infamous law.
 Respectfully yours.
 L.. N. ANDERSON, Secretary The Conn Vaccination
 League.
 Waterbury, Conn.,, May 30, 1911.