The smallpox vaccine was not a medical miracle – its history was marred by scandals

• In 1868, Dr. Charles Pearce published a scathing essay condemning the smallpox vaccine as unnecessary, ineffective, and unsafe.
• Pearce’s research revealed alarming mortality rates among vaccinated individuals, suggesting the vaccine increased susceptibility to other diseases.
• Compulsory vaccination led to a surge in infant mortality and diseases like measles and scarlet fever.
• The parallels between the smallpox vaccine controversy and the COVID-19 scandal raise questions about the true motives behind mass vaccination campaigns.

The questionable legacy of the smallpox vaccine

In the annals of medical history, few debates have been as contentious as the one surrounding the smallpox vaccine. In 1868, Dr. Charles T. Pearce, an English physician and early opponent of mandatory vaccination, published a 120-page essay titled “Vaccination: its tested effects on health, mortality, and population.” This essay, available in the Wellcome Collection, offers a damning critique of the smallpox vaccine, questioning its efficacy, safety, and ethical implications. Pearce’s arguments, rooted in meticulous observation and data analysis, resonate with contemporary skepticism towards vaccines, particularly in light of the COVID-19 scandal.

Pearce’s skepticism towards the smallpox vaccine stemmed from his observations of high mortality rates among vaccinated individuals. He noted that “a great number [of vaccinated people] being cut-off in the flower of their age, while those, belonging to the same families, having had small-pox arrived at maturity.” This observation led him to conclude that vaccination, while potentially preventing smallpox, increased the risk of death from other diseases.

Pearce’s concerns were not unfounded. He highlighted the case of Jenner’s own son, who died of tuberculosis (then known as consumption) after being vaccinated. “It is a remarkable fact that Jenner’s first child, his eldest son, on whom he experimented, died subsequently of consumption,” Pearce wrote. He also pointed out that “another of his subjects, the man Phipps, whom Jenner vaccinated, also died of consumption.”

Pearce’s investigations led him to believe that the smallpox vaccine was not only ineffective but also dangerous. He argued that the lymph used in the vaccine, transferred from person to person, was often contaminated. “The puling, sickly infants, the offspring of the debauched, the diseased, of the ill-fed and ill-clad poor of London, who are brought in crowds to the public vaccinator to receive a blessing,” he wrote, “are too often, instead of a blessing, the recipients of the seeds of disease and of premature death.”

Compulsory vaccination was a public health disaster back then, too

Pearce’s critique extended to the compulsory vaccination policies of his time. He argued that these policies were not only ethically questionable but also detrimental to public health. “Since the Compulsory Vaccination Act came into force [in 1853] there has been an excess of 254,000 in infant mortality in seven years,” he wrote. This alarming statistic suggested that compulsory vaccination was doing more harm than good.

Furthermore, Pearce noted a significant increase in deaths from measles and scarlet fever following the introduction of compulsory vaccination. He presented data from the Registrar General’s Report, 1865, showing a rise in annual deaths per million from these diseases. “In the years 1850-1854, annual deaths were 1,296.8 per million, rising to 1,515.6 during 1855-1859 and rising yet again to 1,668.0 for the years 1860-1864,” he wrote.

Pearce’s findings raise important questions about the unintended consequences of mass vaccination campaigns. His work suggests that the focus on eradicating one disease may have inadvertently exacerbated others, a concern that remains relevant today.

History repeating itself

The parallels between the smallpox vaccine controversy and the COVID-19 scandal are striking. Both situations involve widespread vaccination campaigns, government mandates, and significant public resistance. Pearce’s criticisms of the smallpox vaccine echo the concerns of many who question the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Pearce’s observation that “Vaccination as at present practised is a mockery” resonates with those who argue that the COVID-19 vaccines were rushed to market without sufficient long-term safety data. His concerns about the contamination of the vaccine lymph find a parallel in the debate over the ingredients and potential side effects of modern vaccines.

Moreover, Pearce’s emphasis on the ethical implications of compulsory vaccination is relevant to the ongoing debate over vaccine mandates. His argument that “vaccination is a crime against nature, and ought not to be enforced” speaks to the heart of the issue: protecting the balance between individual freedom and the insane demands of public health collectivism, hellbent on repeating medical interventions that do more harm than good.

As we reflect on the history of the smallpox vaccine, it is clear that the debate over vaccination has been going on for over a century. Pearce’s essay, though written over 150 years ago, offers a powerful critique that continues to resonate today. His work challenges us to question the narratives surrounding vaccination and to consider the broader implications of mass vaccination campaigns.

In the end, the question remains: are vaccines the saviors they are often claimed to be, or are they part of a larger, more complex story? Instead of medical professionals putting vaccines on a pedestal, it’s time for medical responsibility and true informed consent on every issue of vaccination. The real history of vaccination needs to be told, and skepticism is needed, not blind worship.

Sources include:

Expose-News.com

WellcomeCollection.org

WP.com

WP.com

WP.com