From: john on
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
documents on smallpox vaccination.

"In conclusion, I have thus shown, I hope, beyond the possibility of
dispute, that all the claims made in favour of vaccination are unfounded in
fact; that it is a dangerous practice, and that it is a useless practice ;
and the sooner the Government of the country dissociates itself absolutely
from such a piece of eighteenth century quackery, the better it will be, not
only for the health of the nation, but for the progress of true science, and
for the honour and dignity of Parliament and the executive authority."



From: Rich on

"john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:VaKdnSEk5_WYB8XZRVnyhQ(a)bt.com...
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
> Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
> documents on smallpox vaccination.
>
> "In conclusion, I have thus shown, I hope, beyond the possibility of
> dispute, that all the claims made in favour of vaccination are unfounded
> in fact; that it is a dangerous practice, and that it is a useless
> practice ; and the sooner the Government of the country dissociates itself
> absolutely from such a piece of eighteenth century quackery, the better it
> will be, not only for the health of the nation, but for the progress of
> true science, and for the honour and dignity of Parliament and the
> executive authority."

One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has passed
since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words. Mr. Lupton
has been proven wrong.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


From: marcia on

Rich wrote:
> "john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:VaKdnSEk5_WYB8XZRVnyhQ(a)bt.com...
> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
> > Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
> > documents on smallpox vaccination.

> One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has passed
> since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
> application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words. Mr. Lupton
> has been proven wrong.

LOL. Interesting article from a historical perspective, but posting the
link with the claim that it's one of the best documents on smallpox
vaccination only lowers the credibility of the anti-vaccination squad.
Or was this a joke?

From: David Wright on
In article <1146681773.893630.113790(a)e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
marcia <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Rich wrote:
>> "john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:VaKdnSEk5_WYB8XZRVnyhQ(a)bt.com...
>> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
>> > Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
>> > documents on smallpox vaccination.
>
>> One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has passed
>> since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
>> application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words. Mr. Lupton
>> has been proven wrong.
>
>LOL. Interesting article from a historical perspective, but posting the
>link with the claim that it's one of the best documents on smallpox
>vaccination only lowers the credibility of the anti-vaccination squad.
>Or was this a joke?

Lordy, no. john reveres sources in direct proportion to how old they
are.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth



From: PeterB on

Rich wrote:
> "john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:VaKdnSEk5_WYB8XZRVnyhQ(a)bt.com...
> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
> > Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
> > documents on smallpox vaccination.
> >
> > "In conclusion, I have thus shown, I hope, beyond the possibility of
> > dispute, that all the claims made in favour of vaccination are unfounded
> > in fact; that it is a dangerous practice, and that it is a useless
> > practice ; and the sooner the Government of the country dissociates itself
> > absolutely from such a piece of eighteenth century quackery, the better it
> > will be, not only for the health of the nation, but for the progress of
> > true science, and for the honour and dignity of Parliament and the
> > executive authority."
>
> One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has passed
> since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
> application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words. Mr. Lupton
> has been proven wrong.

Your ipso facto is purely associative. Where are your RCTs proving
that vaccine is both effective and safe? We already know the impact of
vaccine on mortality has been quite small(1), that response to
infectious disease falls on a continuum of mild to severe morbidity,
whereas severe morbidity is linked causally with mortality, and that
declines were substantial before most vaccines were introduced. At
most, vaccines may have impacted 3.5% of the decline in infectious
diseases, while other factors played a far greater role.

(1) McFarlane, S., Racelis, M., Muli-Musiime, F. Public Health in
Developing Countries. Lancet 2000; 356: 841-6.