1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5d11c448e906d454a5e3bd5ac6986e4d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=osodXugnAOcR-jGenEtkBk48quUb60L7SNVRwm49ouZsRc8cWz4W3q7yvzrZd80aVYc41coeVSkQoagWOuZasCFOUmvkccS7gk88X68o3yBmshu4czWa-8RQVGGPtVkG-XhI4Q7GXSxxxBZmveDXctKVw2fH-cIb6nOUv7LexvY4VVpb28ZLhwRJ%7ELyim3pu3VLCRoTRIDhVB3s9KeEvyLN2F8VX3YO8Idx5PH6PyfeTdGMrKfd0u3oW8RWyWXMO2SqaD4ic3ily%7Et-YE9WFYU1S77TRbuMYGpEQZxmvEot%7En0P8YjMehSxDjRS4JjYp-vb30L1BqzKyIQ986LMQWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f2f7e7f63288eb3127604297de7e6edd
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
PAPERS FOR THE PEOPLE, No. 8.
THE TRUTH ABOUT
VACCINATION.
BY
JOHN M. ROBERTSON.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1—“THE P1UEST AND THE CHILD.”
2—“THE PEOPLE AND THETR LEADERS.”
3—“GODISM.”
4—“THE BLOOD TAX.”
5—“ SAVING AND WASTE.”
6—“ HOME RULE AND RULE OF THUMB.”
7—“THE VOTE FOR WOMEN.”
8—“THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATION.”
9—“WHAT HAS CHRISTIANITY DONE.”
in March.
Ready
*
----------------------
PRICE ONE PENNY.
------ —------BRADFORD : TRUTH SEEKER Co., 36, VILLIERS STREET.
LONDON - R. FORDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET.
LONDON: A. & H. BRADLAUGH BONNER, 1 & 2, TOOK’S
COURT, CURSITOR STREET.
MANCHESTER : JOHN HEYWOOD, DEANSGATE. .
This series of Pamphlets has already been boycotted
by a large number of News-agents. The Publishers wish
it to be distinctly understood that any News-agent can
get them to order. Customers please take no such
excuses as out of print or not obtainable.
Bishopsgat® Irnstimtad
�BISHOPSGATE INSTITUTE
REFERENCE LIBRARY
Mo»
Classification ...............
THE
TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATION.
I.
T
he above title is that given by Dr. Ernest Hart, Editor of the
British Medical Journal, to a pamphlet first published in 1880.
It is an out-and-out defence of vaccination as by law established.
I read it with great care, soon after its publication, in the hope of
finding the value of vaccination proved by it, and it had the effect of
converting me to a decided disbelief in the general power of vaccination
to prevent smallpox. It may be well to explain the circumstances.
I was a journalist, and I had had occasion to write on the case of a man
who refused to have his child vaccinated, giving as his reason the fact that
a previous child had been killed by disease set up through vaccination. He
produced medical evidence for his statement, yet the magistrate, without
disputing the evidence, fined him for his refusal to risk the life of the
second child in the same way. The magistrate said the law gave him
no choice.
This struck me as a monstrous tyranny, which could never
have been contemplated by the parliaments which made vaccination
compulsory. I myself then confidently believed in vaccination ; and I
remarked, in discussing the point, that were an epidemic of smallpox to
occur near me, I should get re-vaccinated, taking what precautions I
could against “diseased” lymph. To my surprise, my editor objected
to any comment on the case I have mentioned, urging that we ought to
do nothing to bring vaccination into discredit.
This, to me, unsatisfactory position set me upon fully investigating
the subject, and I spent many weeks upon it, reading all the literature
I could obtain on both sides. Some of the attacks on vaccination, in
particular the pamphlet by Mr. P. A. Taylor, struck me as extremely
weighty. But, as I have said, it was the zealous defence of vaccination
by Dr. Ernest Hart that convinced me that his side was in the wrong.
In an appendix to his pamphlet he gave the figures of the smallpox
cases and resulting deaths in the army and navy during a number of
years. As all the men in the army and navy are vaccinated on entering
the service, whether or not they were vaccinated before, we have in
their case one of the best available tests of the value of vaccination.
Yet not only had there been, on Dr. Hart’s own showing, a large number of
deaths from smallpox in the army and navy; but in the case of the
latter service it came out very clearly that its measure of freedom from
smallpox was due not to vaccination but to the sailors being usually out
of the reach of infection.
First, as to the simple fact of the failure of vaccination. In the
year 1860, as Dr. Hart shows in his appendix E, there were 2,749
deaths from smallpox in England and Wales. But of these only 638
occurred among adults of 20 years of age and upwards, being at the rate
of 59 deaths per million persons of that age. In the same year there
occurred in the home force of the British navy 84' cases of smallpox,
�3
with 12 deaths. But as the number of men and boys in the home force
was only 23,500, these 12 deaths represented a rate of 5T0 deaths per
10,000 of strength, that is, a death rate of over 500 per million. That
is to say, there was more than eight times as much disease and death, in
proportion to numbers, in the navy, where everybody was officially
vaccinated, as in the ordinary grown-up population on land, where a
number were unvaccinated. Of course the proportion was different in
different years ; and in some years there were no deaths from smallpox
in the navy, though in twenty years there was only one year without a
case of the disease; but in several years, as in 1860, the proportion of
deaths was.higher in the navy than in the general adult population.
And as showing in particular the futility of vaccination, we have
this fact. In the year 1864, with a home strength of only 19,630 men,
there were 199 cases of smallpox in the navy, with nine deaths, or at
the rate of 458 deaths per million persons. And on this year’s figures
Dr. Hart has the following note :—
“ This remarkable return, being so greatly heavier than any other year ” fwhich it
was not, as regards deaths] “ needs a word of explanation. No fewer than threequarters of the cases (151), and two-thirds of the deaths (6), were from infection at
Portsmouth, where the very large number of 228 deaths from smallpox occurred in
1864. Nor was this all. From infection traced to Portsmouth, the disease manifested
itself on board the Duncan, when on its voyage for the North American station ; 38
men were temporarily disabled by it, and one died.”
This note served to satisfy me, and will probably satisfy many
others, that Dr. Ernest Hart is not very well qualified to form a sound
opinion on a question of statistical evidence. Vaccination, in the terms
of the argument, is claimed to be a safeguard against smallpox infection.
Dr. Hart here admits, apparently without knowing it, that when
vaccinated and re-vaccinated sailors, living on normally healthy ships
of war, happen to meet with infection, they catch smallpox wholesale;
and that if the whole of the royal navy had been at Portsmouth, at the
same time, there would probably have been thousands of cases, and
hundreds of deaths. By offering such an “ explanation ” to save the
credit of vaccination, Dr. Hart showed that, in the case of ships that
do not touch at an infected port, and in which, accordingly, the men
could not catch smallpox if they wanted to, he would give the credit
of their immunity to vaccination. To any intelligent reader, these facts
will suffice to show that Dr. Hart’s defence of vaccination, at least, is
childishly fallacious. And the point is one which any intelligent person
can reason out for himself, as well as any doctor. It is purely a
question of figures and logic.
But further, if the figures given by Dr. Hart be accurate, vaccfnitself is an utter fallacy. The case of the navy is what is called, in
a phrase of Bacon, an experimentum crucis, it is a “ crucial test.” Every
man in the navy being vaccinated, we only need, in order to test the
value of vaccination, to bring a few crews within the range of infection:
when we then find them going down like ninepins—38 catching the
disease on one ship while at sea, from one original infection—-we have a
conclusive proof that vaccination does not prevent smallpox.
I wrote a letter pointing out ail this to my old friend Dr. Andrew
Wilson, the editor of Health ; but he, being a champion of vaccination,
declined to insert my communication. Other people, however, must
have shown Dr. Hart what a mess he had made, for in' the second
edition of his pamphlet the note which I have copied above was dropped,
�4
and there was inserted, in its place, one to the effect (I cannot now
procure that edition and am citing it from memory) that there was
supposed to be something wrong with the vaccinations in that particular
year or in the particular ships affected.
Now, I leave it to sensible and practical men to say what they
would have thought of this attempt to save the case if it had been made in
any other dispute. Would they not have said that it was an absurd
subterfuge? Would they not decide that Dr. Hart just caught at any
possible pretence to retrieve himself? If therS had been any doubt
about the vaccinations in question, why was it not heard of before the
second edition of the pamphlet ? It is ludicrously clear that the doubt
was invented only when the significance of the facts was seen. And
that Dr. Hart did not see it when he first published his pamphlet, is a
startling proof of the possibilities of incompetence in men who pretend
to special knowledge and special wisdom in these matters.
II.
One such refutation as the foregoing is logically as good as a
thousand. No statistics whatever can unsay what is proved by those
above cited from Dr. Hart. But let us give vaccination another chance,
and assume that in the year 1864 the 199 sailors who caught smallpox
had all, by a miraculous coincidence, been badly vaccinated. In that
case, we learn that when vaccination is performed even by surgeons in
the employment of the Crown, there is an enormous risk of its being so
badly done as to be of no value whatever. So that people are bullied
by law into submitting their children to an operation which not only
carries a risk of loathsome and fatal disease, but is very likely to be
otherwise badly performed. So be it.
But smallpox continued to occur in the navy after 1864 ; and I
learn from the work of. another champion of vaccination, the Vaccination
Vindicated of Dr. John C. McVail, of Kilmarnock (1887), that after the
law of 1871 (passed in the panic of a bad epidemic), vaccination was
much more carefully enforced. Let us then take the home navy figures
for 1871 and 1872. They are : for 1871, with a strength of 22,100
persons, 67 cases with four deaths, being at the rate of 181 deaths per
million living; for 1872, with a strength of 23,000 men, 62 cases, with
nine deaths, being at the rate of 391 deaths per million living. So that
after the most strenuous measures had been taken to perfect vaccination,
there were more deaths and hardly fewer smallpox cases them before.
After 1872, of course, there were very few cases, but that was clearly
not because of vaccination, but simply because the epidemic had run out.
There was in general no chance of infection. Even in 1871-72, by
simply keeping ships as much as possible away from infected ports, the
disease was kept under much better in the navy than in the general
population. But it is very plain from the above figures that if another
equally bad epidemic came round, there would be just as many cases
and deaths as before, unless some better preventive than vaccination be
found.
III.
The case for vaccination, then, breaks down on the official
statistics themselves. I have used no others. And if it be asked why the
case is not equally clear on the face of other statistics, the answer is this,
�5
that it is a very easy thing to “cook” statistics, by choosing those which
best suit you, and by grouping sets of years in particular ways. Thus
Dr. Hart takes the figures for the years from 1838 (an extremely bad
year) to 1842 (after which for four years the statistics are lacking), and
from 1847 to 1853, when compulsory vaccination was established; then
he takes all the years from 1854 to 1879, a much longer period, with a
number of good years in it : then he divides the total deaths in the two
periods by the number'of years in each, and shows that in the twelve
years 1838-42 and 1847-53 the rate of smallpox mortality was 420 per
million living, while in the twenty-six years 1854-1879 it was only
208’5 per million living. Even by Dr. Hart’s own account, vaccination
would only be a half cure ; but when we go into details we find that
in 1842, without compulsory vaccination, the deaths from smallpox were
only 168 per million living, while in 1871 they were 1,024, almost as
high a rate as that of 1838 ; and even in 1877 they were 175 per million.
Any unprejudiced person can see that it is all a matter of epidemics, and
that vaccination makes no general difference.
But doctors constantly tell you that in epidemics the proportion of
un-vaccinated cases and deaths is much greater than that of the vaccinated.
Observe, the original pretence of Jenner, on which he got his money
reward, was that no one would take smallpox after vaccination; and if
it be admitted that a number of vaccinated people can die of smallpox
the whole theory is put in hopeless doubt. But, passing over that, we
find that it is left to the doctors to decide whether or not the sick and
the dead had been vaccinated, and they often refuse to take the word either
of the patient or of his family. If they cannot see proper marks on a
corpse (through a smallpox eruption!) they will return it as unvaccinated.
What is the value of such evidence as this? For my own part, I believe
that many conscientious doctors get an erroneous idea as to vaccination
in general from the fact (as I believe it to be) that during the few weeks
of the vaccination fever itself patients are inapt to take smallpox. One
fever may in this way exclude another; hence a belief in the special
efficacy of re-vaccination during epidemics. But the naval statistics above
given suffice to show how brief is the protection in adult vaccination as
in that of infancy.
Let us ask, again, who are the unvaccinated? They may be classed
under three heads : (1) children of anti-vaccinators, (2) children who
were too sickly in infancy to stand even vaccination, (3) children of
vagrant parents, or street arabs, who escape the vaccination officer. If
then it can be shown that the children of anti-vaccinators suffer more from
smallpox than other people, there will so far be something of a case for
vaccination. But who has ever pretended to prove this? Who can
pretend to prove it? For many years there were very few anti-vaccinators,
but plenty of smallpox and of vaccinated people, and in those days the
officials said what they say now; if on the other hand the deaths of un
vaccinated persons, young and old, (they are mostly young) be mainly
those of people who had been very sickly in infancy, and of those whose
childhood was one of poverty and bad feeding, there would be nothing
strange in their succumbing rather easily to smallpox. But Dr. Me Vail
tells us there are very few children too sickly to be vaccinated, and he
tries to make out that there are few street arabs. Then, as he cannot
show that the unvaccinated are mostly children of anti-vaccinators, he
does but throw doubt, once more, on the official figures. In all likelihood
�6
many patients described by medical officials as unvaccinated were really
vaccinated.
So notorious is it, indeed, that vaccination does not prevent small
pox, that doctors constantly result to what J must call a very sorry
subterfuge, telling patients that the vaccination has prevented their dying
(though many vaccinated people die of smallpox, and many un vaccinated
patients recovery, or that at least it has prevented their being pitted.
A few years ago I met a hospital nurse who had been so persuaded She
happened to mention that, there being an epidemic at the time, all the
nurses in her hospital had just been vaccinated. “But” I remarked, “you
only entered a few months ago; were you not vaccinated on entering?”
“ Yes, ” she answered, “ but we were all re-vaccinated last week.” I
observed that the doctors did not seem to have much faith in their own
specific, and she assented, adding, “ I have now been vaccinated five
times.” I remarked, laughing, that she ought to be pretty safe. “ Oh,”
she answered, “ but I have had smallpox too !” That would be, I suggested,
before she had been vaccinated ? “ No,” was the answer, “it was after my
third vaccination ; but they told me that but for vaccination I should have
died or been very badly marked!” Thus do men defend error by untruth.
Her own experience as a nurse might have taught her that whether a
patient is pitted or not pitted is a matter either of the virulence of the
attack or of the nature of the treatment. With care, pitting can nearly
always be prevented, whether the cured patient be vaccinated or not.
At this moment, however, there are still a good many pock-pitted people,
though vaccinators tell you that you “ never see them now.” And when
it is admitted that a vaccinated and re-vaccinated man may die of small
pox, it is a little too impudently absurd to say that if he lives and is not
pitted, vaccination has been the cause.
IV.
*
If all this holds good, it may be asked, how is it that the great
majority of the medical profession continue to believe in vaccination?
This is a very important question, going to the heart of the matter, and
I will here answer it. The majority of doctors stand by vaccination,
either passively or actively, for one or more of three reasons :—(1) They
were taught to believe in vaccination as in other current medicine, and
they stand to what they were taught, the great majority never making any
independent investigation of the subject. (2) Even when a medical man
does investigate the subject, if he be young he knows he will be to a
large extent boycotted if he condemns vaccination ; and if he be elderly
his prejudices and his self-esteem are enlisted in favor of what he has
been doing for many years, making him loth to admit that he has all
along been under a gross delusion. (3) Vaccination is a considerable source
of easy income to the majority of medical men ; and among doctors as
among other men, a pecuniary interest sets men against even listening to
arguments which, if accepted, would involve a heavy loss. I may be told
that this last is an unworthy argument to use against an honorable pro
fession. But I am arguing in the case of doctors just as I would in the
case of any other body of men, lawyers, priests, soldiers, policemen, or
authors ; and, what is more, I am meeting professional vaccinators with a
kind of argument which many of them have used against anti-vaccinators.
I think as highly of the medical profession as most men; and I have the
highest esteem for many of its members, knowing as I do their devotion,
�7
their benevolence, and their public spirit. But the question is one of
averages and of average human nature. On the other hand, I find a
medical man, Dr. Howard Barrett, writing in a work on The Manage
ment of Infancy and Childhood in Health and Disease (p. 233) that
“from time to time ignorant people, from a love of notoriety or for their
own selfish ends, try and stir up the prejudices of the uneducated ” against
vaccination. Here is a man who earns money by vaccination, charging
low ends on all anti-vaccinators. Clearly then we are free to retort the
charge, as well as to deny his right to make it. Not one anti-vaccinator
in ten thousand can possibly make a farthing by his propaganda ; and the
rest risk money loss,' persecution, and boycotting by it. On the other
hand, I repeat, ninety-nine doctors out of a hundred know nothing of the
history of the theory and practice of vaccination ; nothing of the facts as
to the changes made in lymph; nothing but the myth about Jenner;
nothing of the statistics but what is officially served out to them. And
it is the strict truth that nearly all we know about the history of vaccination
is due to the anti-vaccinators. If any careful reader doubts this, let him
spend a few weeks in mastering the works of Dr. Creighton, Professor
Crookshank, and the late William White : then let him question all the
doctors he knows and see how much they know on the subject. How
should they be well informed on it ? They are mostly hard-worked men ;
and in their student days they were taught what passes for scientific
truth on the subject. The most thorough research in it has been made
within the last ten years, and the two standard scientific authorities on
the history and nature of vaccination are Creighton and Crookshank,
both of whom were originally orthodox, and both of whom were led by
their studies to give up their belief. And many other competent medical
men have at different times declared against vaccination.
In the face of these facts, it matters little whether the majority of
a Commission who set out on an inquiry with full faith in vaccination
end in the same faith. We are told that almost no physician who was
over forty when Harvey published his discovery of the circulation of the
blood could be got to believe in it. Conversion in these matters is a
question of time. But although nearly all the doctors twenty years ago
insisted that vaccination could not possibly convey other diseases, and
that “ sanitation ” was of no avail against smallpox, it is now proved past
all question that vaccination can and does convey other diseases ; and
many vaccinators now admit that sanitation counts for a very great deal
in checking smallpox epidemics. Year by year the superstition loses
hold. Men see that; other contagious diseases, against which there is no
vaccination (though on the current theory there ought to be), are being
kept in check by sanitation; and that the supposed special results of
vaccination are thus illusions. Were it not for the vested interests,
official and professional, the majority would have seen it ere now.
Nothing else could keep ordinarily intelligent men wedded to the principle
of compulsion when, if they really had faith in the nostrum insisted on,
they would feel that no compulsion is needed, since each man, in the terms
of the doctrine, can protect himself if he will. Compulsory vaccination
is at once an assertion and a denial that vaccination protects from small
pox. The theory is as contradictory as the practice.
Printed and Published by the “ Truth Seeker ” Co., 36, Villiers Street, Bradford.
�Ready February, 1897.
Price 10s. nett.
PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY
AT THE END OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
By HUGH MORTIMER CECIL.
An Irrationalist Trio: Kidd—Drummond—Balfour.
A VIGOROUS REFUTATION of the well-known psendo-philosophical works •
“ Social Evolution ” (Kidd); “The Ascent of Man” (Drummond); “The
Foundations of Belief ” (Balfour) ; showing the absurdity of the methods adopted
by these would-be philosophers and their fallacies on the’ one hand, and their
insincerity on the other.
Prospectus and “ Contents ” of this important Rationalist Work will he forwarded
post free to applicants.
Ready February, 1897.
Price 2s. 6d. nett.
THE BLIGHT OF RESPECTABILITY:
An Anatomy of the Disease and a Theory of Curative Treatment.
By GEOFFREY MORTIMER.
CONTENTS:
I. What is Respectability ?
VI. Cultured Gentility.
II. The Pathology of the Disease.
VII. Plutocracy.
III. Ladies and Gentlemen.
VIII. Villadom.'
IV. Specific Sy mptons of the Malady in Women.
IX. The Tyranny of Respectability
V. Respectability and Morals.
X. RespectableCivilisation andAfter
The University Press Ltd., 16, John Street, Bedford Row,
5
London, W.C.
WORKS BY JOHN M. ROBERTSON.
Buckle and HiS Critics: a Study in Sociology. Price 10s. fid. nett.
The Saxon and the Celt: a Study in Sociology. Price 8s. nett.
Modern Humanists: Sociological Studies of Carlyle, Mill,
Emerson, Arnold, Ruskin, and Spencer. With an Epilogue on
Social Reconstruction. Second Edition, 2s. fid.
The Fallacy Of Saving-: a Study ill Economics. 2s. fid.
The Eight Hours Question. 2s. fid.
Christ and Krishna. A Study in Mythology. 2s. paper covers.
2s. fid., cloth.
The Perversion Of Scotland. (Scottish Church History). 9d.
Hume’S Natural History Of ReJigion, with an Introduction
by John M. Robertson.
Is.
Rovalism, id.
Toryism and Barbarism, 2d.
Over
Population, 2d. Walt Whitman, Poet and Democrat, fid.
IN COLLABORATION.
Charles Bradlaugh : a Record of his Life and work, by his
daughter, Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner. With an account of his Par
liamentary Struggle, Politics and Teachings, by John M. Robertson.
The “ Truth Seeker ” Co., 36, Villiers Street, Bradford.
Bishopagate Institute;
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The truth about vaccination
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon) [1856-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Bradford; London; Manchester
Collation: 7 p. ; 22 cm.
Series title: Papers for the people
Series number: No. 8
Notes: Stamp on p.[2]: Bishopsgate Institute. Reference Library, 17 NOV 1987. Written in reply to a pamphlet of the same title by Ernest Hart, editor of the British Medical Journal, first published in 1880. Publisher's advertisements on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Truth Seeker Co.; R. Forder; A. & H. Bradlaugh Bonner; Joihn Heywood
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1897]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N563
Subject
The topic of the resource
Vaccination
Health
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The truth about vaccination), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Smallpox
Vaccination