A HISTORY OF VACCINATION SCIENCE AND THE LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE IT
Part Two: the Changing Language of Vaccination Science
Buckle up your helmets, Moonbats! We are dealing with word wizardry weirdness here!
This is not a timeline of the changes to the language in strict chronological order, rather this is an attempt to order my thoughts around the knowledge which I have gained through years of reading on the subject.
So, how has the language used to describe vaccines changed over the years?
Well, most recently the very definition of "vaccine" itself has been modified to include gene therapy. Now anyone who is opposed to mandatory experimental gene therapy is decried as an "anti-vaxxer" and "Science denier."
According to the corporate media, the "anti-vaxxer" movement began with Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy. However, this is an obvious myth to anyone who has done even the slightest bit of research into the history of vaccination. The fact is that there has been strong opposition against the practice of inoculation for centuries, long before the term "vaccination" was ever coined.
"Inoculate" is a good starting point for correct terminology. Live virus vaccination is a form of inoculation.
Inoculation is the introduction of a microorganism into a medium conducive to its growth.
According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, the term inoculation was first used in 1714.
Usage of the term inoculation makes more clear that a pathogen is introduced into the body of the recipient as "an immune challenge" in the hope that the recipient will have an adequately robust immune response and overcome the intentional infection through the production of antibodies.
However, the term vaccination, I have noticed, seems to imply that the recipient is somehow, as if by magic, instantly imbued with invulnerability against the target antigen. At least that is how many of the true believers have declared their trust in The Science, though they phrased it differently. And, many times I have heard the television box heads saying "the vaccine gives you antibodies." That's not how it works.
Let's be clear, vaccines do not "give" you antibodies. Vaccines give you "an immune challenge" and you make your own antibodies. Vaccines do not give you immunity to anything; your own immune system gives you immunity. Herd immunity is a myth, because all immunity is individual.
Speaking of the herd...
You may have noticed that the corporate media often prefers to use the term "immunization" rather than vaccination, or tends to use them interchangeably. Not only is this done to cause the casual consumer of media to equate vaccination with immunity, it is likely also done so that you don't examine the etymology of the word vaccine.
The root word of vaccine is vacca, which is Latin for cow. This comes from the first foundational myth of the success story of vaccination; the smallpox vaccine.
How does one get a word for cow from the smallpox vaccine? From the cowpox virus which was substituted for smallpox virus to make some of the first vaccines. Therefore the root word of vaccination is cow. (Kind of makes you wonder about "herd immunity", doesn't it?)
This was all based on a false belief that infection with cowpox conferred perfect immunity to smallpox. That belief was based on an anecdote about milkmaids being immune to smallpox due to occupational exposure to cowpox. It wasn't true, as many milkmaids who had acquired and survived a cowpox infection through occupational exposure subsequently died during outbreaks of smallpox in their communities. However, the myth persisted due to its promotion in the broadsides and newspapers of the time in which doctors and drug peddlers advertised their products and services.
So, the smallpox vaccine is technically called the vaccinia virus vaccine and the vaccinia virus ostensibly gets its name from the Latin word for cow which is the animal it was thought to have evolved to infect. However, subsequent research has shown that the vaccinia virus is different from both the smallpox and cowpox viruses. It's not only possible, but, it's likely that this genetic deviation has resulted from the serial passage of the original virus through different tissue cultures in the process of attenuation used to make the vaccines. This mutation may even have occurred due to attenuation through serial passage before the term vaccination came into usage. Bear with me a while longer and I will explain.
In order to get a better grasp on the history of vaccination and the language used to describe it, we have to go even farther back to before the coinage of the word vaccine.
What was it called before it was called vaccination? Variolation.
Variolation derives its name from the variola virus which is the scientific name for smallpox. Variolation is defined as "the deliberate inoculation of an uninfected person with the smallpox virus (as by contact with pustular matter) that was widely practiced before the era of vaccination as prophylaxis against the severe form of smallpox."
The first known usage of the term variola dates to the year 570 CE. The first known usage of the term variolation dates to ... unknown?
Variolation is alleged to be an ancient practice dating as far back as 1000 BCE in China, although some sources claim it can only be traced back to the tenth or fifteenth century CE. It's alleged that the practice had spread to the Ottoman Empire by around 1700 CE and was introduced to European society by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu who is said to have learned of the practice while in Constantinople in 1717. She is credited for having brought the concept back to England, and in 1721 at her insistence several prisoners and children were subject in an experiment to demonstrate the effectiveness of the procedure. When none of these experimental subjects perished either from the subsequent infection or further exposure to the virus, the practice was adopted and the first "vaccine" (inoculation) mandate was declared in 1725.
1725 is also the first year on record for what the corporate media likes to call the "anti-vaxxer" movement as there were mass protests for several years against the intentional infection with such a deadly virus. Just how old do you suppose Dr Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy are?
The Wikipedia entry for variolation simply states that the practice was introduced some time in the 1720s "in the face of some opposition."
LOL!
According to the Wikipedia editors variolation became common practice, "despite opposition." However, other than this mention that it existed, the nature of the opposition and the persons involved are not explained, which just goes to reinforce the common warning that Wikipedia should never be used as a primary reference.
Here is a quote from a history of smallpox published in 1815:
This example had some effect, and the practice spread; when it soon appeared that the favourable reports from Constantinople were exaggerations: for it was found, upon trial, that the inoculated Small Pox was occasionally severe, and sometimes fatal. In the first eight years, only 845 persons were inoculated in England, seventeen of whom died, among others one of the sons of the Earl of Sunderland. This amounted to one death in fifty inoculations. But in Boston in New England, the incipient trials were even less successful: for one case, out of forty-five of the inoculated, proved fatal. The deaths which occurred, together with some misrepresentations which were published in that city, raised such a clamour against inoculation, that it was for some time prohibited there by the civil power.
Although these failures were partly attributed to causes independent of Small Pox, they were a great disappointment: yet as they were still much fewer than the deaths from causal Small Pox, the practice was persevered in, though not without a very furious opposition.
- James Moore, The History of the Small Pox, pages 235-236 [pages 248-249 of the pdf] (1815)
The practice is alleged to have been introduced to the American colonies, coincidentally, in 1721 by African slaves. Apparently, no one in the colonies was up on the news from old Mother England. However, it is alleged that Cotton Mather was keen to gain medical education from African slaves. So the legend goes.
Here is a quote from a history of inoculation published in 1754:
It is very probable that in the experiments made in America, on a multitude of negro-slaves, less precautions were used in preparing the subjects, than in the operations made in Europe on free-men, whose lives were more precious. Besides, the generality of the negroes are originally infected with a veneral virus, which they bring from their country, and therefore the choice of fit subjects for inoculation is thereby rendered more difficult.
- M. De La Condamine, The History of Inoculation, page 8 [page 12 of the pdf] (1754)
Whereas in the ancient practice of variolation was accomplished by insufflation (dried scabs and/or pus was powdered and sniffed up the nose), variolation in the Western world involved using a needle but not a syringe. The use of a syringe is what makes vaccination different from variolation.
The variolation needle was dipped into a container of a mixture made from either the dried scabs or the fresh pus ("lymph") taken from a person infected with smallpox but expected to survive. The tainted needle was then used to inoculate by means of a scratch or puncture of the skin of a non-infected individual in the hope that the subsequent infection would be mild and confer lifetime immunity against smallpox, if they survived.
Many did not survive this procedure. Exactly how many is not known as most of the numbers were recorded by the doctors and authorities who had a vested interest in the promotion of the practice. It would not be conducive to the spread of the practice to openly admit its drawbacks and failures.
Variolation involved risk of death and transmission of the virus to others resulting in epidemics of smallpox within the community. Others who underwent variolation became infected with other diseases such as tuberculosis and syphilis as a result. The practice was allegedly successful for 97-98% of those who were treated, with 2-3% subsequently dying from the infection produced by the procedure. This was considered a great success rate as natural infection was said to result in a fatality rate around 30%. Of course, we should keep in mind that these numbers come down to us from the records of those who had a vested interest in the promotion of the practice of variolation.
The first "vaccines" against smallpox were made from cowpox by Edward Jenner who coined the term in his first published writing on the subject in 1798. Jenner had conducted his first smallpox vaccine experiment in 1796 and attempted publication in 1797 using the term "vaccinae" but his paper was rejected by the Royal Society. He subsequently published a booklet the following year.
According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, the first known usage of the terms vaccine and vaccination were in 1882 and 1891 respectively. This is odd and calls into question the credibility of the Merriam Webster online dictionary as Jenner is said to have published a treatise titled “On the Origin of the Vaccine Inoculation" in either 1800 or 1801, depending on the source.
Additionally, as previously stated above, the Merriam Webster online dictionary has added mRNA gene therapy injection to its definition of vaccine, so it's not the best source of knowledge regarding the language used to describe things.
Although Edward Jenner gets credited as the inventor of vaccination, this was not his original idea. Jenner himself had been inoculated with smallpox through variolation as a child aged 8 in 1757. However, that fact is not convenient to the telling of the corporate media narrative.
Inoculation was the original term used before vaccination and immunization. Inoculation is defined as "the introduction of a pathogen or antigen into a living organism to stimulate the production of antibodies." The root word inoculate is defined as "to introduce a microorganism into/to introduce (something, such as a microorganism) into a suitable situation for growth." Does that sound safe to you?
According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, the first known usage of inoculation was recorded in 1714. That's 35 years before Edward Jenner was born.
The term inoculation has fallen out of favor in the corporate media because you might look up the definition and wonder why the intentional infection with a virus is considered good for your health. Then, you might begin to wonder how injection of a virus or viral particles (never mind recombination) along with a soup of carcinogenic chemicals into your muscle tissue is beneficial to your immune system.
With the wide adoption of Jenner's vaccine, the practice of variolation fell out of favor and was eventually banned by law in several European countries, beginning with Russia in 1805.
England didn't ban variolation until 1840, despite an incident in Donegal, Ireland, occurring in 1781, where 51 of a group of 52 children died after "an unqualified practitioner supposedly inoculated the group."
Who could have qualified this allegedly unqualified practitioner and vouched for their inoculations when there was no regulatory agency or even regulations in place at that time?
Despite the switch from the variolation needle to the vaccination syringe, many of the same problems persisted. This partly due to the practice of vaccination following the pattern of variolation and passing the pox from arm to arm.
Indeed, the early smallpox/cowpox/vaccinia vaccines caused outbreaks of the pox when the recipients' Immune systems weren't up to the challenge. Additionally, as the early vaccination practice prepared scabs and pus from a recovered vaccine recipient to make another batch of vaccine, other viruses would be spread with the contaminated vaccines.
Speaking of other viruses, genetic testing has revealed that the "smallpox" vaccine does not contain the variola virus. Yes, of course, it's already been established that the cowpox virus was substituted, right? Well, vaccinia turns out to be a related but completely separate third virus which does not exist in the wild.
Due to the numerous instances of smallpox vaccines being contaminated and co-mingled with other similar viruses, such as syphilis, it's possible that the vaccinia virus is the result of recombination. As viruses mutate during passage through humans, especially if the virus is sourced from another species, it's also possible that the vaccinia virus developed through repeated mutation during serial passage through the process of chain variolation/vaccination.
There is a lot of controversy around the origins of the practice of vaccination, but this is mostly hidden from public view, obscured by language modified to confuse the uninitiated.
There are many other examples of how the language used to describe vaccine science has been changed to confuse the casual reader. It's impossible to learn the true history of vaccination science if you don't understand that the language has been changed multiple times. You can't learn about certain things if you don't know what specific terms for which to search.
Personally, I am old enough to remember when "breakthrough cases" were called vaccine failures. The phrase "vaccine failure" has been banned from the corporate media discussion over the last two plus years, even as we witness thousands of vaccine failures and injuries.
Failure to study history and failure to understand how the language has changed can be extremely hazardous to your health and financial well being.
Part three is coming soon, so stay tuned for my next dispatch. Until next time, Moonbats, may your mind expand farther and faster than your belly!
PART 3: BREAKTHROUGH CASES AND THE BENEFITS OF VACCINE FAILURE
RESOURCES:
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inoculation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inoculation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine#etymology
https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/variolation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407399/
https://www.britannica.com/science/inoculation
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/smallpox/sp_variolation.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html
https://ia600504.us.archive.org/29/items/historysmallpox00moorgoog/historysmallpox00moorgoog.pdf
https;//ia600309.us.archive.org/32/items/2561001R.nlm.nih.gov/2551001R.pdf
