reply to post by illusionincarnate
Europeans of this time utilized a primitive "vaccine" to combat the smallpox, that was frequently mandatory (for example, England required
in 1752 that all children be inoculated prior to entry into school). Inoculation consisted of administering mercury to a fasting subject for weeks
at a time.
Inoculation with matter taken from smallpox scabs was first introduced to Europe in the early 1700s but the practice did not begin to spread beyond a
handful of early adopters until the 1760s, and even then against considerable (and understandable) resistance. Inoculation was rare and had little
official support--never mind its being made mandatory for school admission!--until 1796, when Jenner began his successful campaign for its widespread
adoption.
The material used in the vaccine was serum from cow-pox blisters, not mercury. It was not contemporary medical practice to administer mercury as a
prophylaxis against smallpox.
You are posting false information.
The condition of Victorian 'vaccine farms' bears no relation whatsoever to the prevalence of tuberculosis throughout human history, nor does the
widespread adoption of vaccination have anything to do with European death-rates from TB in the nineteenth century. Your attempts to connect the two
are typical conspiracy-theorist operating procedure--'there's no smoke without fire,' you say, having set off the smoke-pots yourself in the first
place.
You are attempting to influence our views by creating false connections between mutually irrelevant data, a typical disinformationist's
technique.
The rest of your post doesn't even bear commenting upon. The points you make are anachronistic, tendentious distortions of history. The connection
you try to draw between the practice of vaccination and the prevalence of epidemics is futile; the most cursory glance at history shows us this.
It is clear you have no historical insight, and are simply mapping the customs, institutions and attitudes of today onto eras to which they are
utterly inappropriate. This betrays a want of education.
I will offer just one example of the violence your arguments do to history: highly-developed, integrated and bureauctratized nation-states that could
conceive of, plan and execute an effective campaign of vaccination didn't exist until the nineteenth century. The nearest equivalent to such a thing
in the eighteenth was Louis XIV's France, but no order for a campaign of universal immunization ever emerged from within the urine-soaked,
sewage-redolent halls of Versailles.
To you, who were so quick to deride my English comprehension skills, I say: acquire some real learning. And, if you can, a little integrity at the
same time.
* * *
Now, for those interested, here is some truth:
Real dates and historical data for the introduction and acceptance of vaccination.
Details of the UK
Vaccination Act of 1853, which
illusionincarnate has
conveniently moved back 101 years to support his propagandizing.
Information about variolation, the practice of inoculation against smallpox by more primitive
methods before vaccination became widely adopted.
All about
smallpox vaccine and its historical development. Not one mention of the word
mercury on the entire page.
And here are
the facts about smallpox and its eradication through vaccination.
In the early 1950s--150 years after the introduction of vaccination--an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each
year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.
In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the "ancient scourge" threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every
fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.
Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case,
which occurred in Somalia in 1977. A fatal laboratory-acquired case occurred in the United Kingdom in 1978. The global eradication of smallpox was
certified, based on intense verification activities in countries, by a commission of eminent scientists in December 1979 and subsequently endorsed by
the World Health Assembly in 1980.
* * *
Despite the huge volume of verbiage you have posted on this thread,
illusionincarnate, you have yet to show even one piece of evidence to
indicate, nay, even to hint at, let alone prove, an eugenics conspiracy associated with Gardasil, or with vaccination programmes in general. Your
facts are false to dubious, your arguments anachronistic and selective, and you demonstrate little or no understanding of the scientific material you
quote.
All in all, your effort to terrify us back into the Dark Ages has been a sorry failure.
[edit on 23/11/09 by Astyanax]
