Parents are frightened into having their babies and children "immunized" against a whole series of diseases, having them inoculated with vaccines, serums, anti-toxins and toxoids of all kinds. The constant stream of propaganda carried on by the pharmaceutical houses and commercial medicine to keep this profitable business alive is filled with manufactured and "doctored" statistics, lies, distortions and statements designed to frighten parents. The whole purpose of this propaganda is not to secure the health and welfare of children, but to guarantee the steady inflow of profits to the physicians and manufacturing drug houses.
In Red Book Magazine, Aug. 1952, Edward T. Wilkes, M.D. presents a "New Immunization Schedule for Infants." It is the schedule announced by the Michigan State Health Department and is similar to the one recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Here it is:
"Injections against whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus are to be started at three months instead of six, as formerly prescribed. The reason for this is that more than half the deaths from whooping cough occur in infants under six months of age (I wonder what this death rate under six months in whooping cough has to do wi.th tetanus and diphtheria?)
"Smallpox vaccination should be given at five months.
"Booster shots for protection against whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus are recommended at the age of two or three years.
"Immunization against diphtheria, tetanus and smallpox should be renewed at five or six years of age and again at nine or ten years."
Vaccines and serums are given on the theory that they "act" in the same way as one "attack" of an "infectious" disease in immunizing the patient against a second "attack." Years ago, in my Regeneration of Life I proved this theory, that one "attack" immunizes against a second "attack," to be illogical, unscientific and contrary to the facts. I showed that one may have smallpox, for instance, five times following immediately upon the heels of five successful vaccinations. Cases are on record of patients who had pneumonia as much as fifteen to fifty times. Think this over and answer the question: What kind of serum will ever be found to immunize us against pneumonia? But if not against pneumonia, how about other so-called infectious diseases? Suppose we study diphtheria.
Quains Dictionary of Medicine, (1902 edition) says: "One attack of diphtheria confers no prolonged immunity upon its subject. Even during convalesence the patient has been known to develop the disease afresh, and this may be repeated more than once."
Coodall and Washbourn, in A Manual of Infectious Diseases, state: "It is uncertain how far one attack of this disease (diphtheria) protects against a second. Certainly relapses and second attacks are not very rare."
It is certain from these facts that toxin-antitoxin can no more immunize a child against diphtheria than against burning by fire. In this connection, physicians tell us that babies are immune to diphtheria, inheriting their immunity from the mother, but that they lose their inherited immunity at about six to nine months. The mother must have lost hers at about that same age. Where and how did she reacquire her immunity in order that she might transmit it to her child?
A substance called, "diphtheria toxin" is mixed with antitoxin to make toxin-antitoxin. J. W. Hermetet, M.D., in an address published in the Illinois Medical Journal, Nov. 19, 1929, p. 368 says. of this toxin, which he refers to as a "deadly toxin," that "toxins are the most concentrated forms of poisonous material. ... One ounce of diphtheria toxin will kill 600,000 guinea pigs or 75,000 large dogs."
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, Jan. 1929, C. D. Mercer, M.D., says that "Toxin-antitoxin is not a harmless preparation and should not be given to school children in a haphazard way."
The United States Public Health Service gives the ideal mixture of "antitoxin" and "diphtheria toxin," (forming toxin-antitoxin), as of such a poisonous character that when five doses are inoculated into each of five guinea pigs two shall die acutely in four to ten days and the other three shall die of diphtheria paralysis in from fifteen to thirty-five days. Only a thoroughly dishonest Health Board or school physician can ever represent this poisonous mixture as harmless.
Jesse R. Gersterley, M.D., reported a case of sudden death from nephritis (inflammation of the kidneys) in a child, following inoculation with toxin-antitoxin. This report was published in The Medical Clinics of North America, March 1926. This report caused C. D. Mercer, M.D., F.A.C.P., of West Union, Iowa, to investigate the dangers of this serum.
He reports, Annals of Internal Medicine, Jan. 1929, p. 668 that, out of 125 children, between the ages of six and twenty who were inoculated 27, or 20% of them, showed albuminuria after the third toxin-antitoxin inoculation, compared to only 13, or 10%, presenting this symptom of kidney destruction prior to the inoculation. He says that "a great many apparently healthy ,children have albuminuria" and that "administration of T-A (toxin anti-toxin) doubled that percentage in 120 school children."
E. Gatewood, M.D., and C. C. Baldridge, M.D., say in the Journal of the American Medical Associations April 2, 1927: "A multiplicity of untoward sequelae have been observed in patients treated with immune serum. The common symptomatology includes fever, urticaria, erythema, oedema, lymphadenoma, (malignant tumor of the lymph glands), arthralgia (pain in the joints), smothering sensations, headache, nausea and vomiting. Occasionally there are more serious and lasting manifestations such as peripheral neuritis, epididymitis (inflammation of the epididymis, a small body attached to the testicle), and orchitis." (inflammation of the testicles).
I may add that paralysis, convulsions, inflammation of the heart, heart failure, and sudden death are also more frequent results than the general public is aware of. For a convincing array of such cases, taken from standard literature of the subject, I must refer the reader to my Serum Poisoning a Medical Crime.
On Jan. 27, 1928, in Bundaberg, Australia, 8 children received their second inoculations of toxin-antitoxin and thirteen received their first inoculatinos. The Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiries into Fatalities at Bundaberg, published by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, June 13, 1928 says: "Of these twenty-one children, eighteen became ill with symptoms of significant similarity during the night of the 27th January or the early morning of the 28th January. Eleven died during the 28th January, and one on the 29th January."
"My little darlings; they are all gone" was the heart wringing cry that came from one poor mother as they lowered her 3 sons, victims of this medical slaughter, into their little graves. One father was at the burial where his two daughters were buried, while the mother was at the hospital with her two sons, who, with more than a score of others, were seriously ill. Efforts were made to whitewash this "accident," as it was called, but well-informed people are not blinded by such efforts.
At Baden, near Vienna, Austria, in an infants home, in September 1923, seven children died as a result of toxin-antitoxin inoculations. As a result the Austrian government outlawed the use of this serum: The British Medical Journal, Sept. 26, 1925, page 578, says:
"On the advice of professor Piruqet, active immunization of school children against diptheria with toxin-antitoxin has been forbidden in Austria.
In 1919 a similar thing happened in Dallas, Texas. Forty "severe reactions" with ten deaths from acute myocarditis (heart disease), resulted in the H. K. Mulford.Company paying damages to the extent of $78,000 in 69 suits. This case was also white-washed as an "accident."
In 1924 at Concord and Bridgewater, Mass., other groups in schools suffered severely. The white-wash in these cases was that the serum had been allowed to freeze before using. In 1926 when the famous publicity stunt was pulled off, whereby, a dog team carried serum over land to Nome, Alaska, which did not have an epidemic of diphtheria and which knew nothing of the Herculean efforts to save it, it was explained that freezing the serum does not damage it.
In July 1929, little ten-year-old Anna Voight, New York City, died a few hours after having received an injection of anti-lockjaw serum for a slight wound she had received. In his report, the Assistant Medical Examiner, Benjamin Vance, M.D., gave the cause of death in these words: "Sudden death following administration of antitoxin."
An article in the Daily News (New York), of Aug. 15, 1953, lies about the killing of Pfc. John Moccia, of New York City, when it says in an effort to shield the serum, that "it was a dog bite which got Johnny." This twenty-three year old soldier died on the morning of Aug. 14 of encephalitis caused by anti-rabies shots. It was the medical profession that "got Johnny," as they get thousands of others with their damaging and killing methods of preventing and curing disease."
Bitten on the hand by a dog on Aug. 3 anti-rabies shots were started the following day. These are said to have been followed by a "mild reaction," that is, mild symptoms of poisoning. He was sent home and then "trouble struck hard." He was rushed to the post hospital where he died. The fact that they thought he was out of danger and sent him home reveals how little they know.
The Daily News story says that "an examination showed that Johnny had died of encephalitis. Only one person in 5,000 who takes rabies injections gets encephalitis, and only one victim in 1,000 of encephalitis dies, an Army medical man said, shaking his head at the improbable thing which happened to Johnny."
It was not an improbable thing which had happened to Johnny, although these venders of pus and putridity always offer statistics to show that such killings are rare. John Moccia was killed as certainly as if he had been shot down in Korea. He did not die "of a dog bite" as the Daily News said, but of vaccine poisoning. Had he never had the anti-rabies shots he would still be alive and as sound as the Army permits its men to be. Why the shots? Is there a physician in the U.S. today who does not know that rabies is a myth? Is there a physician in the whole world who does not know that all vaccines and serums are dangerous, frequently very damaging and sometimes fatal? Do they not all know that every vaccine and serum is without value? Do they not all know that the vaccine and serum practice is as great a racket as the blood-transfusing racket that is still being farmed by the Red Cross, "to save a fighting mans life" after the Army has discontinued using blood? Rabies! Hydrophobia! Mad dog! Myths that are kept alive for the money that is to be made out of them. How long will a misinformed and cowed public continue to permit itself to be exploited by soulless scoundrels in this manner?
Did I but have the space, I could give the reader accounts of numerous such cases, since it has become the custom to inoculate everyone with tetanus antitoxin for every pin scratch, nail prick, burn, and to do the same for parturient mothers.
Death and damage comes from all serums. On May 14, (1930) news came from Germany, of the death of 8 babies, in the Luebeck home for infants, and serious illness of 24 others, caused by inoculation with a tuberculosis serum from cows. Deaths continued to occur until on June 4, the news from Luebeck stated that: "Two infants died today, bringing the toll from administration of anti-tubercular serum to twenty-eight persons. Many others are not expected to live." On June 18, news came from Luebeck that "deaths from inoculation with anti-tuberculosis serum here have reached a total of 41, eighty-five infants are ifi." On June 26 the death-toll had reached 44 and eighty-two others were ill.
Killed them to save them! And the process goes on. Parents are indifferent or apathetic. Law makers wink their eyes and grant licenses to more men to carry on the same practices, while aiding in persecuting Christian Scientists, Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Hygienists and others.
The serum employed was that concocted by the notorious Calmette, of France, the B. C. G. vaccine that is said, though falsely, to prevent tuberculosis. This vaccine has left a trail of disaster behind it wherever it has been used. It does not and, of course, cannot protect from tuberculosis. The only prevention of tuberculosis is scrupulous hygiene. Given this and no one need fear the disease. Not even children of tubercular parents, though in constant association with them, will develop tuberculosis, if they are cared for hygienicalily.
In St. Louis, Mo. in the Fall of 1901, eleven children were killed and scores injured, by prophylactic doses of diphtheria anti-toxin. This is the serum that is supposed to cure diphtheria. It has never saved a single case. On the contrary, as I have shown in Serum Poisoning A Medical Crime, it increased the death-rate; and it is only by skillful juggling of statistics that it can be made to appear to have lowered the death-rate.
When wholesale deaths follow an orgy of inoculations, it is customary to blame the deaths on faulty serum. As an example of this, there was the large number of deaths reported in Japan in December, 1949 following inoculation with diphtheria anti-toxin. On Dec. 30, the press reported 64 deaths and 900 ill from the inoculations. The inoculations were halted, while the serum was being investigated. I do not know how many more of the 900 who were ill also died, nor how many of them were left with serious after effects. The press did not find this matter to be "news."
But all deaths from inoculations and all serious disease resulting from these inoculations are not due to "faulty serums." On the contrary, in every orgy of inoculation, as in the army, many serious troubles arise and deaths are often reported. In these instances, "faulty serum" is not blamedonly when several deaths and much serious sickness follow do they find the serum to be "faulty." But all inoculations give rise to troubles ranging all the way from slight, transient trouble to instantaneous death from anaphylaxis. In many instances, serious permanent organic impairment has resulted.
Despite all of this injury and danger, parents might be justified in taking a chance with the health and life of their children, did the inoculations actually prevent the diseases against which they are directed. But there is not a shred of unequivocal evidence that any vaccine or serum will or can prevent any disease or render it milder.
The American Medical Journal, March 16, 1929 tells us that two Chicago physicians sent out a questionnaire to 4,426 picked medical men, asking their opinions on vaccine and serum therapy. Some 1,261 physicians replied. Their replies are described as "exceedingly unfavorable," while over 90% of those replying state that they do not employ vaccines and serums. They say: "Of the 396 physicians in the list who answered as members of the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, not one considered the use of vaccines a superior method of treatment of infectious diseases."
In Oct. 1925 an effort was made to introduce toxin-antitoxin into the public schools of London, England, as it has been introduced over here. The London County Council referred the matter to their "Public Health and Education Committee." This Committee rejected the proposal, saying, among other things, "it is not advisable" because "these lines of investigation (of toxin-anti-toxin) should be thoroughly explored before further consideration is given to the immunization of school children."
That toxin-antitoxin does not immunize against diphtheria is certain from many facts. Sir George Newman, Chief Medical officer of the British Ministry of Health, says in his 1927 Annual Report, page 188: "Owing to the few months which must elapse from the time of inoculation until the child is sufficiently protected to resist an attack of diphtheria, this type of inoculation has no immediate effect in checking an epidemic. How long immunity lasts cannot be determined. Three doses will produce full immunity in 80 or 90 per cent of the children."
Not over 15% of children ever have diphtheria, even during an epidemic. If the inoculation only "immunizes the 85% to 90% who would not have diphtheria anyway, why give it?
Dr. Peters, lecturer on infectious diseases, University of Bristol, says that one of his fever hospital nurses, who was not allowed in the diphtheria ward until six weeks after the last two or three doses of toxin-antitoxin, developed diphtheria, and two other nurses developed diphtheria while being immunized, but who were not in contact with any known case of the disease. His opinion, based on his hospital experience, he states as follows:
"1. You can have diphtheria after you have given a negative Schick test." (Proving the test to be unreliable).
"2. You may not be particularly susceptible even if you give a positive Schick test." (Proving the test to be utterly worthless).
"3. You can have the disease even if you have been immunized." (Proving that the immunization process does not immunize.)
Dr. Joe, of Edinburgh, states that he personally knew of 33 children who had diphtheria after they had been immunizedimmunized! Hundreds of such examples have been reported.
Compare this with the fact that the cities of Lasalle, Peru and Oglesby, Ill., were reported, in The Illinois Medical Journal, Nov. 1929, p. 337, by Arlington Ailes, M.D., Health Director of these three cities, aggregating 30,000 people, not to have had a case of diphtheria in two and one-half years and not a death from this disease in three and one-half years, with the use of toxin-antitoxin practically nil." Their neighboring city, Chicago, where toxin-antitoxin has been lavishly used showed a rise in both the case rate and death rate. "In 1928 it (diphtheria in Chicago) again increased over 60 percent and nearly 100 percent in mortality." Let them find an alibi for these facts if they can. But you save your children from the dangers of all serums and vaccines.
Chapter 3--Commercial Medicine
[Vaccination] [Herbert Shelton]