Jones 2021 Jenner Inquiry Causes and Effects of Cowpox A4

Jenner (1798, 1799, 1800) Inquiry. Edits and annotations by John Calvin Jones (last updated April 2021).
I. An Inquiry Into the Causes and Effects of the

Variolæ Vaccinæ, Or Cow-Pox. 17981
THE DEVIATION of man, from [his original state of] nature, [has provided] to him a prolific
source of diseases. ... he has familiarised himself with a great number of animals, which
[might] not originally have been intended for his associates. 1
The wolf ... is now pillowed in the lady’s lap. The cat ... is equally domesticated ....
The cow, the hog, the sheep, and the horse, are all ... brought under his care and dominion. 2
There is a disease [of] the horse .... The farriers [call] it the grease. It is an
inflammation and swelling in the heel ... which seems capable of generating a disease in the
human body ... which [resembles] the smallpox. ... I think it highly probable [that the grease
is] the source of [smallpox]. 3
In [Gloucester, many] cows are kept [and milked] by men and maid servants. One
[milker applied] dressings to the heels of a horse affected with the grease, [then milked] the
cows ....
[It] commonly happens that a disease is communicated to the cows, and from the cows to the
dairymaids .... This disease [is] cow-pox.
It appears on the nipples of the cows [as] irregular pustules. ... These pustules, unless a
timely remedy be applied, frequently degenerate into phagedenic ulcers ....2 [Cows] become
[sick], and [produce less] milk .... Inflamed spots [appear on] the hands of [milkers] and
sometimes on the wrists [and arms, appearing as] small [vesicles] and tumours appear in each
axilla.
The [entire body] becomes affected—the pulse is quickened; and shivering, succeeded by
heat, with general lassitude and pains about the loins and limbs, with vomiting, come on. ...
The patient is, now and then, even affected with delirium.
These symptoms ... generally continue from one day to three or four, leaving ulcerated sores
[that] heal slowly, frequently becoming phagedenic .... The lips, nostrils, eyelids, and other
parts of the body are sometimes affected with sores ...
No eruptions on the skin have followed the decline of the feverish symptoms, [except in one]
case a very few appeared on the arms: they were very minute ... and soon died away without
advancing to maturation .... 4
1 Editor’s note: This text is adapted from The Three Original Publications on Vaccination Against Smallpox.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–1914. Source for part I: http://www.bartleby.com/38/4/1.html
2 Jenner’s End Note 2. They who attend sick cattle ... find a speedy remedy for stopping the progress of [the
disease] in ... applications ... such as the solutions of the vitriolum zinci and the vitriolum cupri, etc.
Editor’s note: Both those treatments had essential minerals; one zinc and the other copper. These elements
work in tandem for a number of vital processes, tissue repair and regeneration, and to boost electron flow.
1
Thus the disease makes its progress from the horse to the nipple of the cow, and from
the cow to the human subject.3 5
Morbid matter of various kinds [might] produce [an illness, but] cow-pox virus4 [sic]
[is unique – relative to other types of matter – in] that the person ... thus affected is, forever
after, secure from ... small-pox;5 neither exposure to the variolous effluvia, nor the insertion
of [variolous] matter into the skin, [produces] this [cowpox illness].6 6
In support [of this claim], I [offer] a great number of instances.7 7
CASE I.—Joseph Merret, [a] gardener to the Earl of Berkeley ... in the year 1770, [he]
assisted in milking [the] cows. Several horses [on] the farm [had] sore heels .... The cows ...
3 From the Harvard Editor, End Note 3, “Jenner’s conclusion that grease and cow-pox were the same disease
has since been proved erroneous; but this error has not invalidated [sic] his main conclusion as to the relation
of cow-pox and smallpox.”
Editor’s note: The Harvard Editor is wrong. Variolators and vaccinators of the 19th century, including Jenner,
admitted that neither type of inoculation assured immunity against smallpox. See White, The Story of a Great
Delusion, 1885 (http://www.whale.to/vaccines/white_b.html); also Baron, The Life of Jenner, volume I, 1827, p.
132. Further, many of Jenner’s experimental subjects suffered from both or either smallpox or cowpox illness
prior to and post vaccination (see Jenner 1798; 1799). As such, Jenner never performed an experiment with any
type of controls in relation to the treatment variable (i.e., inoculation with cowpox matter).
4 Editor’s note: As used here, the word virus means pus (an appositive for his term morbid matter) – as
extracted from a sore of what was called cow pox disease – regardless of whether the source of the pus were
the nipple of a cow or the hands/arms of a person.
5 Editor’s note: By 1805, Jenner would admit that inoculation with cowpox matter, just as inoculation with
smallpox matter, did not guarantee immunity. See Baron (1838), The Life of Jenner, volume II, p. 349, letter
to Dunning. See also Jenner (1800), paragraph 62. Claiming that vaccination were only as efficient as
natural smallpox infection in generating immunity, Jenner and his supporters estimated that 1 in every 1,000
vaccinated cases would have subsequent bouts of natural smallpox illness. See Baron (1827; 1838)
6 Editor’s note: This claim is not supported by the evidence that Jenner produced. In his experiment, of those
14 cases who were previously ill with cow pox naturally, then injected with variola matter, 11 of the 14
(78%), became ill with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of small pox (see Jenner 1798). In his
descriptions, Jenner (1798) explained that post inoculation, each person had fever and blisters, in the usual
manner. See Jenner (1798), paragraphs 20, 40, 51, 56, 57, 59, and 71.
7 Jenner’s End Note 4. “... [the] pustulous sores frequently appear spontaneously on the nipples of cows,
and ... very rarely, on the hands of [those] employed in milking .... These pustules are of a much milder
nature than those which arise from [a] contagion [of] true [sic] cow-pox. ... [Ailments from spurious cow
pox] appear ... most commonly in the spring .... But this disease is ... incapable of producing any specific
effects on the human constitution. ...”
Editor’s note: In his End Note 4, Jenner (1798) alluded to what he would later call spurious cowpox. Jenner
(1798) declared that there were two types of cowpox. See also White (1885: introduction). According to Jenner
(1798; 1799), only the true cowpox provided immunity against small pox, while spurious cowpox never did.
This inane notion, of true versus spurious cowpox, was given credence by Behbehani (1983: 469). Prof.
Behbehani wrote that: “Jenner acquired expertise [sic] in distinguishing [sic] true cowpox from spurious
kinds.” See Abbas Behbehani, “The Smallpox Story: Life and Death of an Old Disease.” Microbiological
Reviews, December 1983, volume 47, number 4: 455-509
2
became affected with the cow-pox, [soon after] sores appeared on his hands.8 Swellings and
stiffness in each axilla followed ...
Previously to the appearance of the distemper among the cows, there [were no other cows]
brought into the farm, nor [was there anyone] affected with the cow-pox.9 8
In April, 1795 ... Merret was inoculated with his family; [25] years had elapsed [since
he had] the cow-pox .... though the variolous matter was repeatedly inserted into his arm, I
[could not] infect [sic] him with it; an efflorescence only, [with] erysipelatous ... appearing ...
near the [punctures]. During the whole time that his family had the smallpox, one of whom
had it very full, [Merret] ... received no injury from exposure to the contagion.10 9
... [none] had ... the smallpox, previous to [my] attempts to produce that disease.11 10
8 Editor’s note: As noted above, Jenner’s theory, that the grease transmuted into cowpox, does not comport
with modern germ theory – which demands that each specific disease, has a single and distinct cause.
Mainstream, allopathic medicine insists that grease is disease caused either by a bacterial infection or
invasive species (see Equestology 2018 and extract below), whereas they hold cowpox is a disease caused by
an invasive virus abbreviated as CPXV (see Bourquain et al. 2013)
From Equestology. 2018. Greasy Heel/Mud Fever – 10 Steps to Effective Treatment. July 30, Equestology
Sport Horse Science. https://equestology.com.au/horsecarescience/2018/7/30/mud-fevergreasy-heel-10-steps-
to-effective-treatment
The most common pathogens implicated in cases of Greasy Heel (aka Mud Fever or Scratches) are: A bacterial
infection of the skin surface (superficial bacterial pyoderma); Staphylococcus; Dermatophilus congolensis;
Chorioptic mange ... caused by a mite, causing itchiness (pruritis).
Less common causes are fungal infection from dermatophytosis (ringworm), Helminth dermatitis, Strongyloides
westeri larvae invading the skin:
Rare causes of Greasy Heel/Mud Fever are: Vasculitis; Liver disease; Pemphigus foliaceous; Coronary band
abnormalities; or Proliferative hyperplastic pastern dermatitis.
Daniel Bourquain et alia. 2013. “Comparison of host cell gene expression in cowpox, monkeypox or vaccinia
virus-infected cells reveals virus-specific regulation of immune response genes.” Virology Journal, 10: 61
http://www.virologyj.com/content/10/1/61.
9 Editor’s note: In 1798, Jenner claimed that, in 1770, no worker at the farm had cowpox. Such a claim was
baseless. He had no falsifiable means to determine whether anyone ever had cowpox disease previously.
10 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) announced that post variolation, everyone in Merret’s family got small pox,
except Joseph. Jenner (1798) did not report if any members of Merret’s family had suffered cowpox disease
prior to the time that he performed the inoculation. Although Jenner wanted to use this case as exemplary
proof of his cowpox-immunity theory, from the information given, the conclusion does not follow.
11 Editor’s note: Here, Jenner (1798) admitted that he was trying to produce smallpox illness in subjects, via
insertion of variolous (smallpox) matter. In this paper, Jenner (1798) defined an inoculation as successful if
the recipient did not show signs of smallpox illness, beyond the normal reaction (e.g., fevers and blisters),
within eight days of inoculation.
Later, Jenner (1799; 1800) declared that post inoculation (with something deemed cowpox matter), if a person
had pustules, or later fell ill with cowpox or even smallpox, but was neither bed-ridden nor dead, then the
vaccination was also successful.
3
Had these experiments been conducted in a large city ... some doubts might have been
entertained; but here ... the smallpox is always faithfully recorded, no risk of inaccuracy in
this particular can arise. 11
CASE II.—Sarah Portlock [was] infected with the cow-pox ... 27 years ago.12 12
In the year 1792, [believing that she were immune to] smallpox, she nursed one of her
own children, who had [smallpox] ... she remained in the infected room, [and] variolous
matter was inserted into both her arms, but without any further effect, than [which occurred
in Mr. Merret’s] case. 13
CASE III.—[In 1744, at age 9] John Phillips [had cow-pox. In 1797, at the] age of
sixty-two, I [variolated him with] matter ... taken from the arm of a boy .... [On the fourth
day an] efflorescence appeared, which ... was rather extensive ... pain and stiffness were felt
about the shoulder .... On the fifth day, these symptoms began to disappear, and in a day or
two after, went entirely off, without producing any [other] effect on the system.13 14
CASE IV.—Mary Barge ... was inoculated with variolous matter, in the year 1791.
An efflorescence ... soon appeared ... where the matter was inserted, and spread ...
extensively, but [stopped] in a few days without [sic] producing any variolous symptoms.14
She has since ... [tended to] smallpox patients, without experiencing any ill consequences.
This woman had the cow-pox ... 31 years before.15 15
CASE V.—Mrs. H ... had the cow-pox when very young. ... Her hands had many of
the cow-pox sores upon them,16 and they were communicated to her nose, which became
inflamed and ... swollen. ... Mrs. H was exposed to the contagion [sic] of the smallpox, ... she
regularly attended a relative, who had the disease [to] a degree that it proved fatal to him. 16
12 Jenner’s End Note 5: “[I] selected several cases in which [subjects had] the [cowpox] disease ... at a very
distant period previous to [inoculation] with variolous matter, [to prove] that [immunity] is not affected by
time.”
13 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) claimed that this evidence, i.e., illness immediately following inoculation (with
something called smallpox matter), proved that one had immunity to smallpox.
14 Jenner’s End Note 6. “ ... variolous matter, when the system is disposed to reject it, [excites] inflammation
[where] it is applied, more speedily than when [variolation] produces the smallpox. Indeed, [the
inflammation] becomes [the] criterion by which we ... determine whether the infection will be received or
not. ...” (emphasis added)
Editor’s note: Hence, Jenner (1798) defined the conjunction of two symptoms: (i) rapid inflammation (in and
around the punctures or injection sites); and (ii) illness as not smallpox. He claimed that such was proof of
immunity to smallpox contagion and infection.
15 Editor’s note: After being variolated, this woman had the standard sickness. Given that in 1791, she had
signs of variolation, are we to conclude, that her previous cowpox illness (from 1760) provided insufficient
or no protection against inoculated smallpox? Hence Mary Barge is another case of proof against the
hypothesis that cowpox conferred immunity against smallpox.
16 Editor’s note: Jenner did not see the illness first-hand. Contemporaries of Jenner, e.g., Herberden, and
others, found a number ailments that created similar symptoms. From writers and commentators in the 18th
and 19th century, we are told that the following diseases were not easily distinguished: chickenpox, swine
pox, Hand, Foot, and Mouth disease, what Jenner called spurious cowpox, measles, red gum (strophulus),
and even syphilis.
4
In the year 1778, the smallpox [came to] Berkeley, and [I inoculated] Mrs. H, [though
she previously having cowpox, and had been exposed to small pox], with active variolous
matter. The same appearance followed as [with Merret, Portlock, and Phillips]—an
efflorescence on the arm, without [sic] any effect on the constitution.17 17
CASE VI.—It is ... well-known [sic] among our dairy farmers that those who have
had the smallpox either escape the cow-pox or … have it slightly,18 ... as soon as [cowpox
shows] itself among the cattle, assistants are procured [who are] less susceptible [to fall ill
with cowpox], otherwise the business of the farm could scarcely go forward. 18
In May 1796, the cow-pox broke out at Mr. Baker’s [farm]. ... The family [of five]
were twice-a-day employed in milking the cattle. [All], except Sarah Wynne, one of the
dairymaids, [previously had] the smallpox.
... the farmer and the servant boy escaped ... the cow-pox entirely, and the servant man and
one of the maid servants had ... nothing more than a sore on one of their fingers.
... The other dairymaid, Sarah Wynne, who never had the smallpox, ... caught [cow pox]
from the cows19, and was affected [to the] degree that she was confined to her bed, and
rendered incapable, for several days, of pursuing her ordinary vocations in the farm. 19
On March 28th, 1797, I inoculated [Sarah Wynne] and ... rubbed variolous matter into
... incisions [on her] arm. ... inflammation appeared in the usual manner ... where the matter
17 Editor’s note: H had natural cowpox, and, in accord with the viral theory, demonstrated resistance to wild
smallpox. However, post inoculation, she had symptoms of a mild smallpox infection. This example should
be a case that disproves the thesis that cowpox illness provides immunity against smallpox.
18 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1798) speculated that smallpox infection generated immunity to, or at least
mitigated, cowpox infection. The modern claim, that ‘vaccination will mitigate future illness’ (cf.
Thompson et al. 2018; Andre et al. 2008; Vazquez, et al. 2004) is thus taken directly from these unfounded
pronouncements of Jenner (1798, paragraph 18). That is, the claim is mere speculation, and not subject to
falsification. It is an anti-empirical, anti-science claim.
To see modern examples of PhDs and MD claiming – with no evidence and no means to prove the declaration –
that vaccination will mitigate future illness, see e.g., Thompson et al. 2018. “Influenza vaccine effectiveness in
preventing influenza-associated intensive care admissions and attenuating severe disease among adults in New
Zealand 2012–2015”, Vaccine, Volume 36, Issue 39, 18 September 2018, Pages 5916-5925,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.028; Andre et al. 2008. “Vaccination greatly reduces disease,
disability, death and inequity worldwide,” WHO Bulletin, volume 86, number 2, February 2008, 81-160
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089/en/, citing Preziosi M-P and Halloran (2003). “Effect of
pertussis vaccination on disease: vaccine efficacy in reducing clinical severity.” Clinical and Infected Disease
2003; volume 37: 772-779 (claiming that children and infants with pertussis had shorter duration of illness than
the unvaccinated with pertussis); Vazquez, et al. (2004). “Effectiveness over time of varicella vaccine.” JAMA
2004; 291: 851-855 (saying that post-vaccination cases, aka varicella breakthroughs, exhibit little fever, fewer
skin lesions and fewer complications).
19 Editor’s note: to the modern reader, to speak of catching a disease that is presumed to be viral in nature,
implies that said virus (e.g., cowpox virus) traveled through the air as to infect a human host. However,
Jenner (1800) would say that cowpox is “not infectious, except by contact” (paragraph 56) – by which he
meant cowpox was not contagious, except via, fluid-to-fluid, transmission. The primary manner of said
contact was pus being inserted into the blood, to wit: inoculuation. Thus, in that Jenner (1798) announced
that Sarah Wynne contracted cowpox from a cow, he was saying that the cow pus or blood, made direct
contact into an open wound of the young lady.
5
was inserted, [by] the fifth day it vanished ... without producing any effect [sic] on the
system. 20
CASE VII.— ... the preceding [cases show] that: [one] is far less susceptible [to]
cow-pox after [having] smallpox [infection]; ... they who have had the smallpox, and [milk]
cows ... either escape [cowpox], or have sores on the hands, without feeling any general
[illness]20: 21
In the summer of ... 1796, the cow-pox appeared at the farm of Mr. Andrews [in]
Berkeley. It was communicated ... by [a] cow, [to a] family [consisting] of the farmer, his
wife, two sons, a man and a maid servant; all of whom, except the farmer, [milked] the cows.
The whole of them, [save] the man servant, [William Rodway], previously had ... the
smallpox; ... no one who milked the cows escaped the [cow pox].21
All of them had sores upon their hands, and some degree of general indisposition ... but there
was no comparison in the severity of the disease as ... felt by [Rodway]. ... While he was
confined to his bed, they were able, without much inconvenience, to follow their ordinary
business.22 22
February the 13th, 1797, I [inoculated] William Rodway .... Variolous matter was
inserted into his arms: in the right, by ... superficial incisions, and the left by slight punctures
into the cutis. Both [arms were] inflamed on the 3rd day. [After] the inflammation [on] the
punctures died away, ... erysipelas was manifest on the edges of the incisions [until] the 8th
day, when a little uneasiness was felt ... in the right axilla. The inflammation then
disappeared, without producing [any] mark of affection of the system. 23
CASE VIII.—Elizabeth Wynne, [age 57, worked on a farm 38] years ago [(1760)].
Then a dairymaid, [Wynne] caught [cowpox], with the rest of the family, [to a] slight degree,
one very small sore ... on the little finger of her left hand .... 24
As the malady [was] so slight ... and [transpired] at so distant a [time, I inserted]
variolous matter upon her constitution, and on the 28 March 1797, I inoculated her by
making two superficial incisions on the left arm .... A little efflorescence soon appeared, and
a tingling sensation was felt about the parts where the matter was inserted, until the third day,
[by] the fifth day, it was evident that no indisposition would follow. 25
20 Editor’s note: This declaration, that ‘smallpox prevents or mitigates cowpox’ is antithetical to popular myth
about Jenner and his experiments / discoveries. The standard claim is that ‘Jenner determined that cowpox
illness prevented or mitigated smallpox.’
21 Editor’s note: There are two important claims here. First, five people had small pox, naturally, and they did
not die. Second, in four of the milkers, natural small pox infection did not provide immunity against cow
pox. Such a finding contradicts Jenner (1798) in his conclusions from paragraph 21.
22 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) argued that suffering smallpox mitigated what now would be called wild
cowpox disease. But like all supposedly viral diseases, the intensity of illness largely depended on one’s age
and general health – the latter, largely a function of nutrition. See chapter 10, White (1885), supra.
6
CASE IX.—though cow-pox shields [one] from the smallpox,23 and the smallpox
proves a protection against its own future poison, ... the human body is again and again
susceptible of the infectious matter of the cow-pox24 .... 26
William Smith ... contracted [cowpox] in the year 1780. ... On one of his hands were
several ulcerated sores ... 27
In the year 1791, the cow-pox broke out ... and [Smith] became affected with it a
second time; and in the year 1794, he [caught] it again. The disease was equally as severe
the second and third time, as it was on the first.25 28
In ... 1795, [Smith] was twice inoculated, but no [infection] could be produced from
the variolous matter; and he has since associated with those who had the smallpox in its most
contagious state .... 29
CASE X.—Simon Nichols [worked on a] farm [in] 1782. [He] assisted in milking the
cows. The cows became affected ... his hands soon [became] affected in the common way,
and he was much indisposed, with the usual symptoms. [Nichols gave] the cow-pox
[infection] to the cows.26 30
Some years afterward, Nichols [worked on] a farm where the smallpox broke out,
when I inoculated him, with several other patients .... His arm inflamed, but neither the
inflammation, nor his associating with the inoculated family, produced the least effect upon
his constitution. 31
23 Editor’s note: Here is Jenner’s first declaration about a relationship between cowpox infection and
immunity to smallpox. He later modified the claim to insist that certain types of cowpox pus (or lymph)
protected one against smallpox (and would be parroted two hundred years later, recall Behbehani 1983).
Initially Jenner (1798) argued for the utility of cow-mediated, horse grease. By the time that Jenner applied
for monies from the British parliament (1802), he allowed that any type of cowpox virus would provide
lifetime immunity against smallpox (see White 1885). Soon thereafter, in 1805, Jenner was reduced to
saying that cowpox infection was no better or worse than smallpox infection, at providing immunity against
smallpox, which was less than 100%. See Baron (1838: 349); White (1885).
24 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) observed that some people, like William Smith, suffered cowpox illness, more
than once. This common observation – so-called reinfection with viral disease – of the 18th century, should
have closed off the ideas – in the 20th century – that: (1) vaccination would provide immunity; and (2)
immunity is the inevitable result of surviving a so-called viral disease.
25 Editor’s note: Jenner’s review of Smith refutes the most fundamental tenet of vaccinology. Smith is a clear
counter-factural to the notion that passing through a viral [sic] illness establishes lifetime immunity against a
supposed infectious virus.
26 Editor’s note: The common understanding of this passage is that a viral contagion [sic] were passed from
human to bovine. But as Kaufman (2021) explains, there is no proof of illness / infection caused by so-
called viral transfer. There are no documented cases of aerosolized transfer of a virus from an animal to a
human. Despite their names (e.g., bird flu or swine flu), there is a paucity of data showing contagion in fact.
See interview of Andrew Kaufman, MD, with Robert Scott Bell, 9 February 2021.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/907570860
7
CASE XI.—William Stinchcomb [worked with] Nichols [when] the cattle27 [sic] had
the cow-pox, and [Stinchcomb] was infected ... His left hand was very severely affected ....
His right hand had only one small tumour upon it .... 32
[In] 1792, Stinchcomb was inoculated with variolous matter, no consequences ensued
[sic], beyond a little inflammation, in the arm, for a few days.
A large party [sic] were inoculated at the same time. Some [got] the disease, in a more
violent degree than is commonly seen from inoculation.28 [Stinchcomb] purposely associated
with them, but [did not get] smallpox. 33 ... 34
CASE XII.—The paupers of the village of Tortworth ... were inoculated [by variolous
matter], by Mr. Henry Jenner, ... in the year 1795. Among them, eight patients ... who
[previously] had ... the cow-pox. One of them, Hester Walkley, I attended with that
disease ... in the year 1782; but neither this woman, nor any other of the patients, who had
gone through the cow-pox, [developed smallpox after inoculation in] the arm or from
[interacting with] other patients who were [variolated] at the same time.
This state of security proved a fortunate circumstance, as many of the poor women were
[pregnant] at the time29 .... 35
CASE XIII.— [I saw] one instance [where a person was ill with grease] and [then
remained immune to smallpox]; another, where small pox appeared obscurely [sic]; and a
third, in which [existence of smallpox was] ascertained.30 36
First, Thomas Pearce, [a farrier], never had the cow-pox [disease]; but [as] a lad, he
had sores on his fingers [which caused] severe indisposition. Six years afterwards, I inserted
variolous matter into his arm repeatedly, without being able to produce any thing more than
slight inflammation ... afterwards, I exposed him to ... the smallpox, with little effect.31 37
CASE XIV.—Secondly, Mr. James Cole ... had a disease from [a horse], and some
years after was inoculated with variolous matter. He had a little pain in the axilla and felt a
slight indisposition for three or four hours. A few eruptions showed ... on the forehead, but ...
soon disappeared without advancing to maturation.32 38
27 Editor’s note: Recall, cowpox pustules are found only on female bovines that are in milk.
28 Editor’s note: This is just one example, which is often repeated in these papers, where Jenner (1798; 1799;
1800) described instances of inoculation (either variolation or vaccination) causing an illness or disease.
29 Editor’s note: What should be understood here is that the pregnant women were not inoculated; and thus as
a matter of practice, it was protocol not to inoculate pregnant women.
30 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1798) alluded to what he would call spurious cow pox. See Jenner 1798,
paragraph 93; Jenner 1799, paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 48.
31 Jenner’s End Note 9. “... we are frequently foiled [sic] in our endeavors to [spread] smallpox, by
inoculation, to blacksmiths, [who] are farriers. [Farriers] either resist the contagion entirely, or have the
disease anomalously.”
32 Editor’s note: Cole’s case disproves the theory of vaccinology. Grease is neither cowpox, nor smallpox.
Modern vaccinology refutes that the idea that an injection of horse-grease pus into a human stimulates
immunity against smallpox.
8
CASE XV.— though in the former instances [people seemed immune] from variolous
infection, [due to illness cause by either the grease or cox pox], the following case [proves]
that [immunity] cannot be [assured unless the] disease [is from the cow] .... 39
Mr. Abraham Riddiford, [dressed] a mare [and] was affected with very painful sores
in both hands, tumours in each axilla, and severe and general indisposition. A surgeon
[assured Riddiford] that he [would be immune to] smallpox; but this assertion proved
fallacious ... [20 years later], he caught [smallpox] which took its regular course, in a very
mild way.33
... I inoculated some of his family from [his] pustules, [they developed] the smallpox, with its
usual appearances, in consequence.34 40
CASE XVI.—Sarah Nelmes, a dairymaid ... was infected with the cow-pox ... in May,
1796. She received the infection on a part of her hand .... A large pustulous sore and the
usual symptoms accompanying the disease were produced in consequence. ... 41
CASE XVII ... to observe the progress of the infection, I selected a healthy boy, about
eight years old, for the purpose of [vaccination with] cow-pox [sic]. The matter was taken
from a sore on the hand of [Sarah Nelmes] and it was inserted, on [14 May] 1796, into the
[boy’s] arm [by] two ... incisions, barely penetrating the cutis, each about half an inch long.35
42
On the seventh day, [the boy] complained of uneasiness in the axilla .... On the ninth,
he became ... chilly, lost his appetite, and had a slight headache ... he was perceptibly
indisposed. [The] following [day] he was perfectly well. 43
The appearance of the incisions, in their progress to a state of maturation were much
the same as when produced ... by variolous matter [but] had more of an erysipelatous look
than [when] variolous matter [is used. The sores] died away (leaving on the inoculated parts
scabs and subsequent eschars) without giving me [sic] or my patient the least trouble. 44
33 Editor’s note: This case is remarkable. The implication is that Riddiford had the grease. Jenner (1798)
argued that such an ailment did not provide Riddiford immunity to smallpox. But later, Jenner (1802), and
his defenders, Sacco of Milan (1802), and John Ring (1803) argued that equination would provide security
against smallpox. See letter of Edward Jenner to Benjamin Waterhouse of 26 May 1802, declaring that:
“the source of the vaccine virus is as perfect ... in its Equine as in its Vaccine state”, from page 116 of John
Redman Coxe, Practical Observations on Vaccination or Inoculation for the Cow-Pock (1802); see also the
Medical and Physical Journal (London 1803) Bradley et al., editors, volume 10, number 53: 93; John Ring, A
Treatise on the Cow-Pox, volume II (1803) at 1013.
34 Editor’s note: Another significant point for the case of Riddiford and family is that Jenner (1798) found
smallpox to be a mild infection – and even came on post inoculation. No treatments were offered or needed.
In recent history, Sweden in 1963, six of the 27 cases had literally no symptoms. While four died, one with
haemorrhagic smallpox, 17 needed nothing more than bed rest and hydration. See CDC. 1999. MMWR:
Supplements, March 3 1999 / 48(LMRK); 33-44
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/lmrk033.htm
35 Editor’s note: Jenner insisted that a sore (vesicle) on a human (Sarah Nelmes) was a distinct disease, which
he called cowpox, and to which he alleged a single cause. But the symptom of a vesicle and pus was not
unique to cowpox. Why not call the disease of Sarah Nelmes Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease; smallpox;
chickenpox; syphilis; swine pox; measles, red gum, or horse pox?
9
... To ascertain whether the boy, [after receiving the inoculation of] cow-pox virus
[sic], [were immune] from ... smallpox, he was inoculated the 1st of July [1796] with
variolous matter .... Several slight punctures and incisions were made on both his arms, and
the matter was inserted, but no disease followed.
The same appearances ... on the arms ... we commonly see when a patient has had variolous
matter applied [if that person previously had] either the cow-pox or smallpox.36 Several
months afterwards, he was again inoculated with variolous matter, but no sensible [sic] effect
produced on the constitution.37 45
... my researches were interrupted till the spring of the year 1798 [when] cow-pox
broke out among several of our dairies ... 46
A mare ... began to have sore heels [in] February, 1798, which were occasionally
washed by the servant men ... Thomas Virgoe, William Wherret, and William Haynes, who ...
became affected with sores in their hands, followed by inflamed lymphatic glands in the arms
and axillæ, shivering succeeded by heat, lassitude, and general pains in the limbs. ... within
24 hours, they were free from general indisposition, nothing remaining [sic] but the sores on
their hands.
Haynes and Virgoe, who had ... smallpox from inoculation, described [this illness] as very
similar to [that] malady.38 Wherret never had had the smallpox.
... the disease began to show itself among the cows, [their] nipples became sore, in the usual
way ... remedies were early applied, [and sores] did not ulcerate to any extent. 47
CASE XVIII.—John Baker, a child of five ... was inoculated March 16, 1798, with
matter from a pustule on ... Thomas Virgoe .... [Baker] became ill on the 6th day with
36 Editor’s note: Note Case XVII. The boy became ill after receiving the cowpox inoculation. Then, after
variolation, Jenner (1798) claimed that “no disease followed.” Yet, Jenner (1798) reported that on the boy’s
arms there were the “same appearances” commonly seen in those who are inoculated. That is, for Jenner and
other variolators, inoculation was designed to bring on smallpox illness. Any common appearances would
thus be evidence that a disease followed the procedure.
37 Editor’s note: the boy was vaccinated [sic] with matter removed from another person’s cowpox [sic] sore.
Jenner (1798) claimed that later, on two separate occasions, the boy was variolated. After the first
variolation, Jenner (1798) relayed that the boy had the same reaction (meaning that the boy had
inflammation, pustules, scabs, and eschars) as those who first fall ill from either natural smallpox or
cowpox, and then are later inoculated with smallpox. Thus, here is another case that proved, on Jenner’s
own terms, that his vaccination did not guarantee immunity against smallpox.
38 Editor’s note: These cases should have negated all arguments about inoculation and immunity. Jenner
reported that two men were variolated – and were sickened as a result. The variolous offered no “immunity”
against an infection called horse-grease. Jenner (1798) argued though both diseases (smallpox and horse
grease) originated from the same source – the horse, and that smallpox was a more virulent version of
cowpox. See paragraph 72. As late as 1808, Jenner insisted that cowpox and horse-grease were the same
disease, derived from the horse. Thus it were logical that Jenner concluded that equination (inoculation with
pus from the sore of horse) was equivalent to vaccination. See Baron (1827); White (1885).
10
symptoms similar to those excited by cow-pox [sic] matter.39 On the 8th day, he was free
from indisposition. 48
... the pustule on the arm ... resembled a smallpox pustule ... 49
... the virus [sic] from the horse, [if] infectious to [a] human subject, [does not] secure
[immunity against smallpox], but the matter [sic] produced by [grease], upon the nipple of
the cow, [does so] perfectly ....40 (emphasis added)
... the boy was rendered unfit41 [sic] for [variolous] inoculation [due to] a contagious fever in
a workhouse [sic] soon after this experiment was made. 50
39 Editor’s note: In this case, Jenner (1798) insisted that Thomas Virgoe was infected with disease from a
horse. Then Jenner (1798) claimed that he took matter from a sore on Virgoe, and inoculated that into John
Baker (then age five). Jenner then conveyed that Baker had symptoms of cowpox disease, and a pustule that
resembled smallpox. Jenner (1798) used this case to bolster his claim that smallpox, grease, and cowpox
were the same disease. Such a theory has been flatly refuted since the 1930s.
40 Editor’s note: Here is where Jenner offered his “cow-mediated, horse-grease, virus” theory. In his critique,
White (1885) emphasized the flippant manner in which Jenner pushed the idea of true versus spurious
cowpox, and challenged the theory that health (in the form of immunity) could come via inoculation.
For those who would advocate for the logic and efficacy of vaccination – and that Jenner and other inoculators
could have possibly improved the health of anyone, we must remember that in the year 1800: (a) there was no
exactitude in the definition of the matter used for inoculation; and (b) there was no formal production of vaccine
matter and no means to ensure quality control of said matter. The opposite were true, there was a de facto
disregard for the constituents of said matter.
There is a parallel today. Board certified medical doctors claim that all vaccines have been tested and proven to
be safe and effective. (See for example, comments by a licensed MD on The Doctors, Episode 154, aired 6 May
2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oEtF8FdqpA). The Institute of Medicine report of 2013 concedes
that there has never been a study comparing unvaccinated to children and adults receiving the full vaccine
schedule, and there has never been a systematic evaluation of the interaction effects of the vaccines (and their
component antigens, adjuvants, surfactants, etc.), on the CDC schedule – in part or as a whole. By 2021, the
CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conceded that they had no studies demonstrating or
proving that vaccines caused neither harm nor autism.
41 Editor’s note: of John Baker, Jenner (1799), in his End Note 6, wrote this:
“The boy, unfortunately, died of a fever at a parish workhouse, before I had an opportunity of
observing the effects [of inoculating Baker with] smallpox.”
Thus, Jenner killed the boy, but in 1798, Jenner announced to his peers, and hence the world, that he could not
observe the effects of variolation on the five year-old. And what was a workhouse? Little more than an
extension of a slave-serfdom system which housed the poor, and extracted their labour.
In his 1797 work, The State of the Poor, Sir Frederick Eden, wrote:
“The workhouse is an inconvenient building, with small windows, low rooms and dark staircases. It is
surrounded by a high wall, that gives it the appearance of a prison, and prevents free circulation of air.
There are [eight] or 10 beds in each room ... and consequently retentive of all scents and very
productive of vermin. The passages are in great want of whitewashing. No regular account is kept of
births and deaths, but when smallpox, measles or malignant fevers make their appearance in the house,
the mortality is very great. Of 131 inmates in the house, 60 are children.”
See Eric Hopkins. 1994. Childhood Transformed. Manchester University Press, ISBN 978-0-7190-3867-9
11
CASE XIX.—William Summers, a child of five [and a half], was [vaccinated] the
same day with Baker, with matter taken from the nipples of [an] infected cow. [Summers]
became indisposed on the sixth day, vomited once, and felt the usual slight [sic] symptoms
till the eighth day, when he appeared perfectly well. ... 51
CASE XX.—From William Summers, the disease [sic] was transferred to William
Pead, a boy of eight years old, who was inoculated March 28th.42 On the sixth day he
complained of pain in the axilla, and on the seventh [showed] the common symptoms of a
patient sickening with the smallpox from inoculation, which [lasted for three days].43 Pead’s
illness was perfectly similar to that of smallpox.44 ... 52
CASE XXI.—April 5th, 1798: Several children and adults were [vaccinated with
matter taken] from the arm of William Pead. [Most] of them sickened on the sixth day, and
were well on the seventh. [Three suffered] a secondary indisposition [of] extensive
erysipelatous inflammation ... on the [vaccinated] arms. ... One of these patients was an
infant of half a year old. By the application of mercurial ointment45 ... (a treatment
recommended [for those] inoculated with smallpox) the complaint subsided .... 53
Hannah Excell, an healthy girl of seven years old, [one of the several, mentioned
above], received the infection from the insertion of the virus [sic] under the cuticle of the arm
.... The pustules [appearing on the 12th day, resembled] those [generated by] variolous
matter ... an experienced inoculator would scarcely have [noticed the] difference ...46 54
42 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) held that Pead was vaccinated. His logic was this: matter was taken from a
cow, then transferred into the arm of a boy, then pus from the boy was inserted into another boy.
If the disease went from horse to person to cow, Jenner called it horse-cow pox or true cowpox However, if
Jenner claimed that a particular and unique disease passed through a person, he never called that disease human-
cow pox, or cow-human pox.
Such epistemological problems are the types of which neither Jenner nor modern vaccinologists address. There
is similar lack of precision at present (circa March 2021). Though public health officials and media speak of
SARS-CoV-2, variants and mutant forms of the virus, nothing has ever been isolated, replicated, or proven to be
contagious and the cause of infection and illness.
43 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) offered this case to claim that cowpox illness was identical to smallpox illness.
Recall, Jenner claimed that the inoculated cowpox [sic] manifested a disease, as did inoculated smallpox.
44 Editor’s note: Pead became ill, post insertion of human sourced pus and lymph. Jenner (1798) presented
such cases as evidence of successful vaccination (i.e., inoculation with matter from a cowpox pustule) – even
though the matter used for the inoculation came from a person.
45 Editor’s note: Mercury-based ointments were and are highly toxic. Such was known in Jenner’s time.
Oliver et al. (1801) held that mercury-laden ointment: “in the eruptive fever of small-pox, instead of
suspending, increases the fever and multiplies the pustules.” Hardy (2012) finds “Long-term effects [of
mercury ungüent] include renal damage, brain damage, teeth and gum lesions.”
See Oliver, B. L; Currie, William; and Woodward, William W. 1801. Letters on the kine pox and a variety of
other subjects. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward. Online at: https://dlcs.io/pdf/wellcome/pdf-
item/b21144369/0; John Hardy (2012), Mercurius: a remedy with unique characteristics. Posted at:
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/hh_article_bank/medicines_k_to_z/mercurius.html .
46 Editor’s note: As Jenner (1798) explained it, 12 days after inoculation, with a third-generation cowpox
infection, people were sick – in a manner consistent with smallpox. See paragraph 36.
12
CASE XXII.—[On 12 April], from the arm of [Hannah Excell] matter was taken and
inserted [to] John Marklove, one year and a half old, Robert F. Jenner, eleven months old,
Mary Pead, five years old, and Mary James, six years old. 55
Among these, Robert F. Jenner did not receive the infection.47 The arms of the other
three inflamed properly and [the infection] began to affect the system in the usual manner; ...
after the patients had felt an indisposition of about 12 hours.
I applied, in two of [the three cases], on the vesicle formed by the virus, a little mild caustic,
composed of equal parts of quick-lime and soap, and suffered it to remain [for] six hours.48
[The salve prevented] the appearance of [blistering and swelling].49 These precautions were
perhaps unnecessary, as the arm of the third child, Mary Pead, which was suffered to take its
common course, scabbed quickly, without any erysipelas. 56
CASE XXIII.—From [Mary Pead’s] arm, matter was taken and transferred to that of
J. Barge, a boy of seven years old. He sickened on the eighth day, went through the disease
with the usual slight symptoms, and without any inflammation on the arm [sic], beyond the
common efflorescence surrounding the pustule, an appearance so often seen in inoculated
smallpox.50 57
After the many fruitless attempts to give the smallpox to those who had had the cow-
51
pox, it did not appear necessary ... to inoculate [all] subjects [with smallpox]; yet I [desired]
to see the effects of variolous matter on them, particularly William Summers ....
[William Summers, was first vaccinated, then] inoculated with variolous matter ... did not
feel the effects of [variolous] in the smallest degree. [J. Barge] and William Pead, [were]
inoculated by my nephew, Mr. Henry Jenner, [who reports]:
“I have inoculated, [with variolous matter], Pead and Barge, two of the boys whom
you [recently] infected with the cow-pox52 [sic]. On the second day, the incisions
were inflamed and there was a pale inflammatory stain around them. On the third
day, these appearances were still increasing, and their arms itched considerably. On
47 Editor’s note: there are various explanations as to why the infant, Robert Jenner, did not “receive the
infection.” I offer two possibilities: (a) he was being breast-fed which down-regulated his inflammatory
response; (b) his immune system was too immature to produce the regular response.
48 Jenner’s End Note 11. “Perhaps a few touches with the lapis septicus would have proved equally
efficacious.” Lapis septicus is potassium hydroxide (KOH)
49 Jenner’s End Note 12. “What effect would a similar [anti-inflammatory] treatment produce [for those
inoculated with] the smallpox?”
50 Editor’s note: Again, Jenner (1798) alluded to the idea that smallpox and cowpox were the same ailment –
with the same cause, and that inoculation caused the same illness – with fever, blistering, and pustules.
51 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) claimed that amongst his subjects, no one who had cowpox previously, suffered
smallpox, post variolation. However, each person, in his experience, had a host of symptoms and were
sickened by variolation. Jenner (1798) repeatedly argued that these signs of illness were not general
indisposition. Yet, most commentators of that era held that smallpox was a mild infection. Similarly at
present, children in the Netherlands with chickenpox go to school. That is, they do not suffer general
indisposition.
52 Editor’s note: Again, we have no idea as to the chemical make-up of the material and compounds which
Jenner inserted into others.
13
the fourth day, the inflammation was ... subsiding, and on the sixth day, it was
scarcely perceptible. No symptom of indisposition followed. 58
“To convince myself that the variolous matter made use of, was in a perfect state, at
the same time, [I] inoculated a patient ... who never had gone through the cow-pox,
and it produced the smallpox, in the usual regular manner.”53 59
These experiments afforded me much satisfaction; they proved that the matter, in
passing ... through five gradations, lost none of its original [sic] properties54 .... 60
I, [Edward Jenner], now conclude this inquiry with some general observations ... 61
... it [is unnecessary] to produce further testimony in support of my assertion “that the
cow-pox protects the human constitution from the infection of the smallpox,”
... Lord Somerville, the President of the Board of Agriculture, [finds confirmation of my
theory in the] testimony of Mr. Dolland, a surgeon ...
“the source of the infection is a peculiar morbid matter, arising in the horse,”
although I have not been able to prove it from actual experiments ... the evidence I have
adduced appears sufficient to establish it. 62
... it never appears among the cows ... unless they have been milked by some one who,
[attends to] a horse affected with diseased heels. ... 63
The spring of the year 1797 ... proved, from its dryness, remarkably adverse to my
[experiments], no cow-pox appeared in the neighbourhood. 64
... rarely a milkmaid escapes the infection, when she milks infected cows. It is most
active at the commencement of the disease, even before it has acquired a pus-like appearance;
indeed, [the infectious period of the disease might] entirely cease as soon [pus appears].55
53 Editor’s note: According to Henry Jenner, he intentionally infected a patient with smallpox. That person,
who had never suffered cow pox illness, got sick – having smallpox in the usual manner.
54 Editor’s note: The practice of infecting a single person as to incubate and create pustules, and repeat said
process in others, had long-been carried out. Written records, in English, and available to Jenner, dated back
to 1714 and 1716. What is most relevant to history is that via their honorarium, the UK Parliament declared
that Jenner had invented a method to transport, what he called cow-pox, from arm to arm. But he did not.
Furthermore Jenner had no quality control, and never conducted placebo-controlled, double-blind studies.
See White (1885), Section II, Chapter 10.
See also Philosophical Transactions, No. 338 (1714); Nova et Tata Variolas Excitandi per Transplantationem
Methodus. Jacob Pylarinum. Venice. 1715. Reprinted in Philosophical Transactions, No. 347 (1716).
55 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1798) claimed that once a cowpox sore develops pus, the disease is no longer
contagious. See his End Note 13, wherein Jenner explained that he attempted to transfer the grease by
taking pus from a horse and inserting in the skin of a cow udder, but was unsuccessful if he produced little
more than inflammation. Yet, Jenner (1798) would contradict such a pronouncement when he described
such an inflammation as evidence that a person was exposed to the disease agent (the contagion).
14
The appearance of [cow pox occurs most often] in the spring and the early part of the summer
.... [Once] the cow-pox virus is generated ... cows cannot resist the contagion ... if they are
milked with an infected hand. 65
Whether the matter, either from the cow or the horse, will affect the sound skin of the
human body, I cannot ... determine .... The hands of the farmers’ servants ... are constantly
exposed to those injuries which occasion abrasions of the cuticle, to punctures from thorns ...
so that they are always in a state to feel the consequence of exposure to infectious matter. 66
... cow-pox virus [sic], although it [creates immunity against smallpox, provides no
immunity against future exposure to cow pox]. I have already produced an instance [(see
Case IX, William Smith)], and shall now corroborate it with another. 67
Elizabeth Wynne, [see Case VIII, above], who had the cow-pox [disease] in the year
1759, was inoculated with variolous matter, without effect, in the year 1797, and again
caught the cow-pox in the year 1798. ... on the eighth day [of] the infection, I found her
affected with general lassitude, shivering, alternating with heat [and] coldness of the
extremities .... These symptoms were preceded by a pain in the axilla. On her hand was one
large pustulous sore ... 68
... the virus [sic], [after] passing from the horse through the medium of the cow ...
invariably [induces] symptoms similar to those of the variolous fever, [and] forever renders
[one immune to] variolous contagion.56 69
... [perhaps] many contagious diseases,57 now prevalent, [have a single] origin. [I
speculate] that measles, scarlet fever, and the ulcerous sore throat with a spotted skin [are]
from the same source58 ... 70
56 Editor’s note: This is Jenner’s theory. In 1798, Jenner hypothesized that only cow mediated horse-grease
stimulated immunity against smallpox – and said immunity were life-long. But in his 1802 petition to
Parliament, Jenner disavowed any essentiality of horse-grease. See White (1885). Further, by 1805, Jenner
conceded that immunity was not life-long. See Baron (1838), p. 349; see also White (1885).
57 Editor’s note: This idea that a disease is contagious is wrong. A better explanation of contagion is morphic
resonance (Sheldrake 1981). If a person has fever, their cells signal the need to generate fever, as part of a
cleansing process. Once the pustules have matured, a person is no longer messaging the need to detoxify or
expel cellular debris. Hence, in this end stage of detoxification, one is not contagious.
58 Editor’s note: These diseases do not have the same source. Allopaths claim that measles is from
paramyxovirus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles), and scarlet fever from a bacteria, streptococcus A
(http://www.cdc.gov/features/scarletfever/). An “ulcerous sore throat, with a spotted skin,” is probably
mononucleosis (see http://www.livestrong.com/article/365069-red-spotty-skin-with-muscle-pain-weakness-
headaches/).
Jenner’s perspective only supports “Law of the Terrain” of Bechamp (http://letstalknutrition.com/the-terrain-

within-a-naturalistic-way-to-think/). Such explains why one research team argued that measles mortality is
solely a function of nutrition. See Perry, Robert and Neal Halsey, May 1, 2004. “The Clinical Significance of
Measles: A Review.” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, volume 189, Supplement 1: S4–16.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S4/823958
15
There [is] certainly [more than one form of] smallpox .... About seven years ago a
species of smallpox spread through many of the towns and villages of this part of
Gloucestershire: it was of so mild a nature that a fatal instance was scarcely [seen], and ...
little dreaded by the lower orders of the community [who interacted] with each other as if no
infectious disease had been present among them.
[It was never] confluent. ... had fifty individuals been ... infected ... they would have had as
mild and light a disease as if they had been inoculated with variolous matter in the usual
way.59 ... 71
In some of the preceding cases, I [emphasized] the state of the variolous matter
previous to the experiment of inserting it into the arms of those [persons] who had gone
through the cow-pox. [I must now] point out some unpleasant facts relative to
mismanagement [of this experiment] .... 72
A medical gentleman ... who for many years inoculated [people here], frequently
preserved the variolous matter ... on a piece of lint or cotton ... in its fluid state [in] a vial,
corked, and conveyed into a warm pocket, [which speeds] putrefaction .... In this state ... it
was inserted into the arms of his patients, and brought on inflammation of the incised parts,
swellings of the axillary glands, fever, and sometimes eruptions.
But what was this disease? Certainly not the smallpox, for the [putrefied] matter ... was no
longer capable of producing that malady .... [Many people] inoculated in this manner ...
unfortunately fell victims to [smallpox infection].60 .... 73
[I do not know whether] the quantity of variolous matter inserted into the skin makes
any difference ... but I [believe] that if ... punctures or incisions ... wound the adipose
membrane, that the risk of bringing on a violent disease is greatly increased.
I [know] an inoculator, whose practice was to cut deep enough ... “to see a bit of fat,” and
there to lodge the matter. [There are a] great number of bad cases, independent of
Similarly, Viera Scheibner claims that European rates of smallpox, measles, pertussis, mumps, etc., all declined
with the advent of more nutritious diets (primarily due to the addition / increaseed consumption of cabbage).
White (1885) noted that 18th and 19th century England saw a direct correlation between smallpox and others
illnesses in the poor, as their diet lacked vegetables. White (1885) argued that as consumption of the potato
became more widespread, reductions in smallpox morbidity and mortality followed.
59 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1798) said that a mild form of smallpox illness is caused by the less lethal strain
of the virus, which is equivalent to usual [sic] variolous inoculation. Ironically, Jenner (1798) held that
variolous inoculation, was harmless. But the practice was deemed so dangerous that by 1840, the British
banned variolation via criminal law. Secondarily, as explained by Jenner (1798) inoculation caused illness.
Soon others, including Barthez and Rilliet (1838), recognized that inoculation did not guarantee immunity,
but increased rates of tuberculosis, cancer (especially in children), encephalitis, and death.
60 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) claimed that if he inoculated someone, he did it properly. Conversely, Jenner
(1798) posited that every other person who got smallpox, post inoculation, was either not inoculated with the
true matter or not inoculated correctly. According to Jenner (1798), all cases where a person was inoculated
and subsequently contracted smallpox were to be discounted and not used as evidence that vaccination
failed! Within a few years, Jenner, and other vaccinators, would concede that his process of vaccination was
not full-proof and could result in death. See Arthur Boylston. 2013. “The origins of vaccination: no
inoculation, no vaccination.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 106(10) 395–398
16
inflammations and abscesses on the arms, and fatality, which attended this practice .... I
cannot [explain these severe reactions and deaths, other than the fact that] the matter [was]
placed [under] the skin. 74
It was the practice of another [inoculator] to pinch up a small portion of the skin on
the arms of his patients and to pass through it a needle, with a thread attached to it previously
dipped in variolous matter. The thread was lodged in the perforated part, and ... left in
contact with the [skin]. This practice was attended with the same [harms as the deep cut
method]. ... these observations [should raise awareness] when infants ... fall under the care of
the inoculator. 75
A ... friend of mine, Dr. Hardwicke, of Sodbury ... inoculated [many] patients [in a
manner] previous to the introduction [Sutton’s] method. [Hardwicke was successful in] that a
fatal instance occurred rarely since that method has been adopted.
[Hardwick made] an incision ... upon the skin, and [lodged] a thread, saturated with the
variolous matter. When his patients [fell ill, as expected], they were directed to go to bed and
were kept moderately warm.
... the success of the modern practice [depends] more upon the method of ... depositing the
virus [sic] than on the subsequent treatment of the disease.61 76
... I cannot account for the uninterrupted success, or nearly so, of one practitioner,
and the wretched state of the patients under the care of another, where ... the general
treatment did not differ essentially, without conceiving [that the difference arose] from the
different modes of inserting the matter for the purpose of producing the disease.
As it is not the identical matter inserted ... into the constitution, but [is] peculiar [to] the
animal ... different parts of the human body [respond to] the virus62 [sic] differently. ... What
else [accounts for] the difference between the smallpox when communicated [naturally] or
when brought on artificially through [inoculation]? 77
[We cannot] communicate the disease by inserting [infected blood] under the [skin of
another], or by spreading [diseased blood] on the surface of an ulcer. Yet ... variolous matter,
when ... applied to the skin in the usual manner, will produce the disease. 78 ... 79
... cows [are] exposed to the contagious63 [sic] matter brought by the men servants
from the heels of horses.64 Indeed, a knowledge of the source of the infection is [newly
61 Editor’s note: White (1885) cited a fair number of medical writers in the 18th and 19th century who
declared than smallpox was a mild ailment – when attended with proper treatment: hydration; nutrition;
fresh air; clean clothes; and adequate nursing care. Jenner (1798) had no cause to insist that method of
inoculation was the predominate factor of the course of the disease and or alleged success of inoculation.
62 Editor’s note: As used here, virus means pus, material extracted from a vesicle/pustule.
63 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) could not prove contagion. Furthermore, there is no way to effect any skin
lesions in a cow without breaking the skin. Given the practices of hand washing and sanitation in the 1790s
and early 1800s, it is likely that dairy cows suffered from a lack of hygiene. The phenomena of bovine cow
pox were hardly spontaneous eruptions due to an exogenous viral contagion.
17
discovered by] most of the farmers [here. As farmers have adopted precautions], the
appearance of the cow-pox may either be entirely extinguished or become extremely rare. 80
... notwithstanding the happy effects of inoculation, [variolation frequently] produces

deformity of the skin, and sometimes, [even] under the best management, proves fatal. 81
... I have never known fatal effects arise from the cow-pox, even when [vaccination
produces] extensive inflammations and suppurations on the hands; ... [cow pox disease]
leaves the constitution in a state of perfect security from ... smallpox,65 ...
It is an excess in the number of pustules which we chiefly dread in the smallpox; but in the
cow-pox, no pustules appear,66 nor does ... contagious matter [produce] the disease from
effluvia, ... so that a single individual in a family might ... receive [vaccination] without the
risk of infecting the rest or of spreading a distemper .... 82
[Cow pox infection] cannot be propagated by effluvia. The first boy whom I
[vaccinated] with ... cow-pox [matter], slept in a bed ... with two children, who never had
[cow pox] or the smallpox, without infecting either of them. 83
A young woman, who had the cow-pox [with] several sores [on] the hands and wrists,
slept in the same bed with a fellow-dairymaid, [and that woman] never had been infected
with either the cow-pox or the smallpox. [The second woman did not contract cow pox].67
84
64 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) insisted that cowpox was derived solely from the grease – transferred by
farriers to cows. See Jenner’s End Note 16: “... in Ireland, although dairies abound in many parts of the
island, the disease is entirely unknown. The reason seems obvious. The business of the dairy is conducted
by women only. ...”
65 Editor’s note: Here Jenner claimed that his vaccination provided 100% immunity against smallpox disease.
However, Jenner (1799) conceded that some persons receiving vaccination, later had smallpox. See
paragraphs 15; 31; 36; 92; see also White (1885), Part II, Chapters 1, 3. Even vaccinators conceded the
point. See annual reports of the National Vaccine Establishment of London for 1811; 1816; 1825; 1827; and
1836; see also Baron (1838).
66 Editor’s note: As defined at the present (circa 2020), in humans, cowpox illness is attended with pustules.
Either Jenner (1798) redefined his “inoculated cow-pox disease” as a type of cow pox without pustules, or
what is presently defined as cowpox, in 1800 would have been called some other ailment; e.g., smallpox;
swinepox; Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease; typhus; etc.
67 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) offered such cases a proof that cow pox inoculation did not create contagion. I
have an alternative explanation. Rashes, like cow pox and smallpox were mere detoxification processes. In
that his vaccination did not stimulate oxidative stress of such a degree as to necessitate a person to develop
pustules, no one interacting with the vaccinated patient would suffer said cleansing due to morphic
resonance. Arguably, inoculating any healthy person never leads to contagion.
18
Another instance has occurred of a young woman on whose hands were several large
suppurations from the cow-pox68 [sic], who was at the same time a daily nurse to an infant,
but the complaint was not communicated to the child.69 85
In some other points of view, [vaccination with cow pox] appears preferable to the
variolous inoculation. 86
In [people] predisposed [sic] to scrofula (tuberculosis in the lymph glands of the neck)
... frequently we see [that] the inoculated smallpox [stimulates scrofula]!70 ... 87
There are many who ... resist the common effects of variolous matter inserted into the
skin,71 [so they worry about] subsequent infection. [Because vaccination always generates a]
febrile attack of cow-pox, might it not ... be [administered] with the probability of affording
[immunity to smallpox]?72 88
... I have only a single instance ... where the virus [failed to induce a fever]. But it is
not ... probable that the same person would resist ... both cow-pox virus and [smallpox]. 89
68 Editor’s note: Recall, Jenner claimed that he could distinguish a number of diseases (in his works he
discusses true cowpox, spurious cowpox, smallpox, swinepox, chickenpox, grease, measles, and syphilis).
However, Jenner had no falsifiable means to evaluate his claims. Further, at that time (circa 1798-1805),
Jenner insisted that what he called true cowpox, grease, and smallpox all originated from the same
exogenous cause.
69 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) offers this case to claim that cowpox was distinguishable from smallpox, and
one property of the former was that it were less contagious than smallpox. However, in this case, despite the
illness of the nurse, the infant did not “catch” the disease. Modern virus theory would explain the lack of
illness in the infant by claiming that the period of contagion had passed. The theory of the Law of the
Terrain, holds that an infant should not fall ill, merely via interacting with a sick person.
70 Editor’s note: Copland (1858) found that both the practice of variolation and its counterpart vaccination
were associated with an increase the number of cases of tuberculosis (740). See James Copland, A
Dictionary of Practical Medicine, volume III, Longman: London.
Copland (1858), confirmed the findings of two French authors who wrote that “since the use of vaccination,
tubercular diseases [are] more frequent; children who [are vaccinated, yet] die without having had smallpox, are
more frequently tubercular ... of those who are vaccinated, a greater number are disposed to tubercles than of
those not vaccinated”; and “a greater number of vaccinated children die with than without tubercles.” See
Frédéric Rilliet and Antoine de Barthez (1838), Maladies Des Enfants: affections de poitrine, page 149.
For more about the connection between vaccination and tuberculosis, see also The Lesser Writings of C.M.F.
von Boenninghausen (1908), by Clemens Maria Franz von Bönninghausen, and Thomas Lindsey Bradford,
translated by Louis Hermann Tafel, Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel.
Von Bönninghausen (1908) wrote about the curative effects of Thuja for smallpox, and the harms of
vaccination.
“Whether the [beneficial] results [of Thuja for] small-pox must be found out by later experience. If this
should be the case, vaccine matter ... which has doubtlessly caused an enormous infection with the
scrofula-poison, might find a most valuable substitute” (4).
71 Editor’s note: To resist the effects of inoculation meant that no pustules developed, after one received
inoculation with the pus/serum.
72 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) argued that inoculation with horse grease-cowpox would induce a fever, and
though not necessarily causing pustules, might provide immunity against wild smallpox.
19
Elizabeth Sarfenet [was] a dairymaid at Newpark farm .... All the cows and the
[milkers] had the cow-pox; but this woman, though she had several sores upon her fingers,
felt no tumours in the axillæ, nor any general indisposition. [Sarfenet was] casually exposed
to variolous infection, [and then] had the smallpox in a mild way.73
Hannah Pick, [who worked] with Sarfenet ... was at the same time, infected; [Pick] had ...
sores upon her hands, [and was] indisposed for a day or two. After this, I made several
attempts to give her the smallpox, by inoculation, but it proved fruitless. ... 90
The following case [shows that] not only the heels ... but other parts of the [horse], are
capable of generating the virus [sic] which produces [sic] the cow-pox [disease].74 91
An extensive [erysipelatous] inflammation ... appeared, without any apparent cause,

upon the upper part of the thigh of a sucking colt [in] a village near Berkeley. The
inflammation continued several weeks, and ... terminated in the formation of three or four
small abscesses. The [injury had dressings] applied by some [people] who were employed in
milking the cows. The number of cows milked was [24, and all] of them had the cow-pox.
The milkers, consisting of the farmer’s wife, a man and a maid servant, were infected
by the cows.75 The man-servant had previously gone through the small-pox, and felt but little
of the cow-pox.76 The servant maid had some years before been infected with the cow-pox,
and she also felt it now in a slight degree;77 but the farmer’s wife, who never had gone
through either of the diseases, felt its effects very severely. 92
That the disease produced upon the cows by the colt [sic], and from thence conveyed
to those who milked them, was the true and not the spurious cow-pox, there can be scarcely
any room for [doubt]; yet it would have been more ... satisfactory had the effects of variolous
matter been ascertained on the farmer’s wife, but there was a peculiarity (?) in her situation
which prevented my making the experiment.78 93 ... 94
73 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) presented the case of Sarfenet to posit that she did not have the true cowpox
infection, and hence was not immune to smallpox. That is, he ruled out the possibility of her case as a
counterfactual to his general theory of cowpox illness-immunity to smallpox.
74 Editor’s note: Again, as used here, the word virus means pustule matter and or lymph.
75 Editor’s note: This is remarkable. Previously, Jenner (1798) held that humans transferred the horse-grease
sickness to the cow. But here he implied that the disease jumped directly from the horse to the bovine,
without any human intermediary.
76 Editor’s note: Once again, Jenner (1798) claimed that previous smallpox illness created immunity or
protection against subsequent exposure to or illness from what he called cowpox. Such is the opposite of the
modern-day understanding of Jenner’s theory and discovery.
77 Editor’s note: Once again, in this case, Jenner (1798) offered another testament to bolster his theory that
cowpox illness generated no future immunity against subsequent exposure to (or inoculation with) cowpox.
Such an idea is counter to the mantras of mainstream medicine on viral disease and immunity.
78 Editor’s note: Appreciate, Jenner (1798) said that the Farmer’s wife was not inoculated with smallpox.
Prior to this cow pox outbreak, she had neither smallpox, nor cow pox. Previously Jenner (1798) claimed
that: (a) natural cow pox illness prevents smallpox infection; and (b) the smallpox infection (natural or
variolated) does not provide immunity against cowpox. Why did he want to variolate the wife prior to the
outbreak of cowpox disease? By his own theory, such a smallpox inoculation would have provided her with
no protection.
20
II. Further Observations on the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow-Pox. 179979
[THOUGH it is not] in my power to extend the inquiry into the causes and effects of
the variolæ vaccinæ ... I think it [important] to communicate [facts] and to point out the
fallacious sources from whence a disease, imitative of the true [sic] variolæ vaccinæ, might
arise, [that I might prevent inoculators] from producing a spurious disease; and, further, to
enforce the precaution, suggested in [my first] treatise, ... of subduing the inoculated pustule
[sic] as soon as it [sic] has sufficiently [affected the host].80
From a want of due discrimination of the real existence of the disease ... and also [a
discrimination] of that stage [when the disease] is capable of producing [immunity against]
smallpox, unpleasant consequences [of inoculation] might ensue, [which] might not be
suspected by one inexperienced in conducting such experiments. 1
Since my ... publication [in 1798], Dr. G. Pearson has [tested] the validity of my
assertions .... [Pearson has not found] a single case which [contradicts my hypothesis] that
the cow-pox protects the human body from the smallpox.
[Yet I] have ... a letter from ... Dr. Ingenhousz, informing me that ... a farmer near Calne had
been infected with the smallpox after having had the cow-pox .... 2
Some other instances have likewise been represented to me of the appearance of cow
[pox, nevertheless, afterwards] patients had the smallpox. On these cases, [these] general
observations ... will prove [that such were] cases of spurious cow-pox81 .... 3
Ere I proceed, let me [state] that truth ... has ever been the object of my pursuit, and
should it appear ... that I have been led into error ... I had rather see [my work] perish at once,
than exist, and do a public injury. 4
I shall ... enumerate the sources ... of a spurious cow-pox. 5
Firstly: That arising from pustules on the nipples or udder of the cow; in which
pustules contain no specific virus.82 6
79 Source: This work was published in June of 1799. https://books.google.co.uk/books?

id=5Q9sGErMiIMC&pg=PA15&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
80 Editor’s note: Jenner (1799) said two things here. Again, what he called “inoculated cowpox” created a
disease, that he said looked like smallpox. Further, arguably some medical practitioners sought to prevent
the development of the pustules. Logically, preventing said symptom – of a phase of illness or
detoxification – would not aid the life process.
81 Editor’s note: First, as used here, the word virus means a substance that causes disease once inserted into the
human bloodstream. The modifier specific pertains to Jenners idea about immunity against smallpox. Thus
Jenner offers a non-falsifiable argument. Jenner was confronted by evidence that falsified his claim about
cowpox–smallpox immunity. Thus he changed the parameters of his theory and also recast the claims of his
doubters and detractors.
82 Editor’s note: As used here, the term virus means disease-causing agent. In other places, Jenner would
claim that virus (i.e., pus or disease matter) had lost its potency. That is, at times, Jenner equates the term
virus with a catalyst of disease, but usually defines virus as the result of an illness.
21
Secondly: From matter (though originally possessing the specific virus) which has
suffered a decomposition, either from putrefaction or [other cause]. 7
Thirdly: From matter taken from an ulcer in an advanced stage, in which the ulcer
arose from a true cow-pock. 8
Fourthly: From matter produced on the human skin from contact with some peculiar
[sic] morbid matter, generated by a horse. 9
... pustulous diseases of the udder and nipples of the cow ... are subject to [a] variety
of [cow pox] maladies ...; and [cow pox eruptions] are capable of giving a disease to the
human body, [so my critics should suspend comments] until they can ascertain, with
precision, what is, and what is not, the genuine cow-pox. 10
For example: A farmer [believes that there is an outbreak] of the cow-pox .... The
surgeon [takes the] matter, inoculates [a person], produces a sore, uneasiness in the axilla,
and perhaps [general malaise]. This [hypothetical example] is one way in which a fallacious
idea of security in the mind of both the inoculator and the patient may arise; for a disease
[might] have been propagated from a simple eruption only – not the inoculation. 11
[We must] learn how to distinguish ... between that peculiar pustule which is the true
cow-pock, and that which is spurious. ... [If] smallpox and the chicken-pox [simultaneously]
spread among the inhabitants of a country, which had never [seen] these distempers, ... what
confusion would arise!
The resemblance [of] symptoms ... would be so striking that a patient who had ... the chicken-
pox ... would [wrongly believe that they had cowpox and were thus immune] from the
smallpox, [but only time] and future observation would [prove the] distinction.83 12
83 Editor’s note: Here is the first instance where Jenner (1799) claims that: (a) some people cannot distinguish
between chicken-pox and what he calls true cowpox; and (b) the only way to know if a disease process (i.e.,
a bout of cowpox) made one immune to smallpox would be to wait for an indeterminate amount of time!
The second admission exposes the tautology of vaccinology. When a vaccinated [sic] person later fell ill
with smallpox, Jennerians claimed that: (i) the inoculated matter was not in an active state, and hence could
not confer immunity; or (ii) it was the wrong type of matter (e.g., spurious cowpox pus, chicken pox) instead
of the true cowpox matter; or (iii) the inoculator did not insert the matter correctly; or (iv) prior to the
inoculation, the patient had contracted smallpox infection, or had dormant smallpox – hence the procedure
was not timely, or in fact stimulated the latent smallpox illness; or (v) the patient never had vaccinated
cowpox (the inoculation did not take). Between 1804-1805, Jenner would insist that active herpes infection
negated the beneficial effects of vaccination; and the prophylaxis of vaccination was equivalent to that of
smallpox illness (see Baron 1838: 26, 28).
22
[There is such confusion between chicken pox and] the cow-pox .... [Therefore, any
reports that a person had cow pox, yet latter suffered] the smallpox, should be suspended.84
To illustrate this I ... give the following history: 13
Sarah Merlin, of Eastington ... when about [age] 13, [served on a dairy farm with]
about eighteen cows .... The nipples and udders of three of the cows [had] large white
blisters.
... It soon appeared that the disease was communicated to the girl. ... The two others
who were engaged in milking, milked the cows indiscriminately, but received no
injury.
[On fingers of both hands], Sarah had several large white blisters. ... Her hands and
arms inflamed and swelled, but no constitutional indisposition followed. The sores ...
got well without ulcerating. 14
... this malady was [recorded as] cow-pox ... but [when she were] exposed to
smallpox, some years afterwards, [Sarah Merlin] was infected, and had a full burthen.85 15
[Due to the surrounding circumstances, I claim that Merlin had] spurious cow-pox ...
the numerous blisters ... on [her] hands [terminated] without ulceration; [she felt no general
indisposition; and the malady was not] more ... contagious at the farm .... 16
[Spurious cowpox produces] white blisters [on a cow’s nipples that] never eat into the
fleshy parts [of the udder, only affects the skin, quickly] scabs, and are not so infectious. 17
... one cause of spurious eruptions [is] the transition that the cow makes, in the spring,
from a poor to a nutritious diet .... But there is another source of inflammation and
pustules .... A cow intended ... for sale ... is neither milked artificially nor [does] her calf ...
have access to her. Thus the milk is ... accumulated, and the udder and nipples become
greatly distended. The frequent consequences are inflammation and eruptions86 .... 18
84 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1799) used a tautology. If a person fell ill with cow pox, yet later suffered small
pox disease, then Jenner (1799) declared that the first disease was not true cow pox, but what he called
spurious cow pox. Arguably, if the inoculated person later had smallpox illness, the Jennerites offered an
explanation that the person had been first inoculated with: (a) chicken pox (see Heberden 1767); or (b) pus
related to some malady other than either cowpox or smallpox.
The other logical reason to explain why a person could display some pox-like illness, post inoculation, was that
said inoculation was not (and is not) correlated with health or general immunity, but caused an inflammatory
response.
85 Editor’s note: Despite Jenner’s assertion that Sarah Merlin had spurious cowpox, we can draw at least two
alternative conclusions: (a) Merlin had regular cowpox, which conferred no immunity against smallpox; or
(b) Merlin had deficiencies in vitamins A, C, E, B-complex, and D3, which manifest as smallpox.
86 Editor’s note: Thus, Jenner (1798; 1799; 1800) hypothesized three causes for cowpox in female bovines:
(1) a highly nutritious diet; (2) insufficient milking; and (3) transfer of horse-grease infection – from a
human to the udder of the cow. The second option is so implausible as to be inane – and warrants no
comment. I will address the third and first.
23
... I have known milkers affected by [spurious cowpox, and] [I have] always found
that an affliction, thus induced, left the [milkers just] as susceptible of the smallpox as before
[the spurious cowpox illness presented].87 19
What is advanced in my second position, I consider [of] great importance ... (as the
similarity between the action [sic] of the smallpox and the cow-pox matter is so obvious) [we
must] consider what [occurs after] inoculation ... with imperfect variolous matter. [A] history
on this subject ... respecting what I [wrote in 1798]88 [is corroborated] by Mr. Kite.89
To this copious evidence, I [add] communications from Mr. Earle, surgeon, of Frampton-
upon-Severn ... : 20 ... 21
“I have read [your] publication on the Variolæ Vaccinæ, and [I was] struck with [the
topic of] the inefficacy of smallpox matter in a particular state, [please note] the
following facts which ... tend to strengthen the opinions ... of your treatise. 22
“In March, 1784, a general inoculation took place at Arlingham .... I inoculated
several patients with active variolous matter, all of whom had the disease in a
favourable way [sic]; but [as] the matter [was] all used, [in order to inoculate the rest,
I obtained matter] from [an advanced] pustule ....
“Of five persons inoculated ... four took the smallpox ... in the natural way, one of
whom died, three recovered, and the other ... died of another disorder, about two years
ago (circa 1788). 23
“Although one of these cases ended unfortunately [sic], [I was not] careless or
inattentive in their management; [their symptoms were common to those who are
inoculated and then immune] from future infection. [In each case, inflammation
occurred] in the arm, and fever came on with ... pain in the axilla. In some ... the
According to germ theory, because the horse grease is caused [sic] by a bacteria and what they call cowpox is a
viral [sic] infection, modern veterinary medicine, mainstream virology, and the science we might call
vaccinology must reject Jenner’s the third option.
The first – nutrition – is interesting per the Law of the Terrain (see Bechamp). If the eruptions are manifestation
of detoxification, then it stands to reason that the body can only detox when sufficiently health and well-
nourished. See parallel discussions of cyclical detoxification in vaccinated infants by Viera Scheibner (1993) on
crib death; and Forrest Maready (2018) on sequestration and release of vaccinated aluminum. Viera Scheibner,
Ph.D. 1993. Vaccination: One Hundred Years of Orthodox Research Shows That Vaccines Represent a
Medical Assault on the Immune System. New Atlantean Press, pp 264; Maready, Forrest. 2018. Crooked:
Man-made disease explained. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp 393.
87 Editor’s note: So here Jenner (1799) argued that milkers suffered something that seemed like cow pox. He
then decided to call their malady spurious cow pox, because the milkers later fell ill with small pox. In this
way, Jenner (1799) changed the facts to match his theory that natural cow pox, and hence vaccination,
provided a 100% immunity against small pox infection.
88 Jenner’s End Note 1. Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ, p. 56 of the original
article.
89 Jenner’s End Note 2. See an account of some anomalous appearances subsequent to [variolation], by
Charles Kite, Surgeon, of Gravesend, Memoirs of the Medical Society of London (1790), volume iv, page
114.
24
inflammation and suppuration were more violent than is commonly observed when
perfect matter is [used]; in one, there was an ulcer which cast off several large
sloughs.
“About the ninth day eruptions appeared, which died away earlier than common ....
No medical practitioner would [doubt] that these patients had been infected with a
true smallpox; yet I [had doubt due to] the speedy disappearance of the eruptions; [but
another] practitioner ... pronounced the patient perfectly secure from future [smallpox]
infection. 24
“The following facts are also ... proof of ... your observations on this subject: 25
“In the year 1789, I inoculated three children of Mr. Coaley .... The arms
inflamed properly [sic], fever and pain in the axillæ came on ... and [as
commonly seen] in ten days, eruptions appeared, which disappeared in the
course of two days.
“[But because the variolous] matter [was] in an improper state; [I doubted the
efficacy of the process] and desired to inoculate them again: ... I [did with
variolous] matter in its most perfect state.
“All the children took [sic] the smallpox, from this second inoculation, and all
had a very full burden. These facts ... corroborate [Jenner’s hypothesis about]
the different states of [variolous] matter; in both instances [it produced]
something strongly resembling the true smallpox, [but] afterwards it proved
not to be so.90
[page 14]
26 ... 27
“John Earle. 28
“FRAMPTON-UPON SEVERN, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, November 10, 1798. 29
“P.S. ... the matter with which the Arlingham patients were inoculated [was] from a
true smallpox pustule. I took it [from a patient who had a] full burthen.” 30
[Thus] variolous matter [can] change ... as [to] render it incapable of giving the
smallpox [in a way that secures] the human constitution from future infection,91 ... it is
90 Editor’s note: In his first paper, Jenner (1798) never claimed that inoculation with smallpox matter might
not confer immunity against smallpox. Jenner (1798) made distinction between true and spurious cowpox.
In this passage, we see that Dr. John Earle insisted that there are two types of smallpox: true and spurious –
a most convenient invention. Given the rhetorical move, Earle claimed that one could distinguish true and
spurious smallpox by noting that post variolation, the latter fails to confer protection (immunity).
91 Editor’s note: Jenner (1798) claimed that smallpox and cowpox were the same disease, merely of different
intensities. Jenner also believed that cowpox matter [sic] came in two forms: (a) one created spurious
cowpox illness; and (b) the other true cowpox (which conferred immunity against smallpox). Building on
this idea, Jenner (1799) would offer that smallpox matter also manifested in two forms: true and spurious.
25
capable of [producing] a disease [with] inflammation and [variolous] matter in the incised
skin (frequently, indeed, more violent than when it produces [true smallpox])92 ... 31
[page 15]
[Thus there are] a great number of individuals who ... had [cowpox] so imperfectly, as
not to render them secure from [future] variolous attacks. ...
[page 16]
[We should consider that all cases of cow pox] whether communicated by [inoculation or
nature, are a type of inoculation. Consider] the case of the farmer, communicated to me by
Dr. Ingenhousz. [Paragraph 2, above]. That [the farmer were] exposed to the matter, when it
had undergone the putrefactive change, is highly probable [sic] .... 32
... It has been conceived [that cow pox is] contagious without contact; but this idea
cannot be well-founded93 ...
[page 17]
... Among the human species ... the disease [of cowpox] is produced by contact only. All my
attempts ... to communicate it by effluvia have hitherto proved ineffectual.
As well ... variolous matter is capable of [either] producing full and decisive effects on the
constitution, [or] undergoing a variety of intermediate changes.
The following ... occurrences in ten cases of inoculation ... communicated to me by Mr. Trye,
Senior Surgeon ... at Gloucester, ... indicate that the variolous matter ... suffered a partial
decomposition.
Mr. Trye says:
“I inoculated ten children, with [variolous] matter taken ... from the same subject. ...
[nothing] remarkable [appeared] in their arms till after the decline of the disease. Two
infants of three months old had erysipelas about the incisions, in one of them
extending
[page 18]
from the shoulders to the fingers’ ends. Another infant had abscesses [near] the
incisions, and ... the rest had axillary abscesses. ... All the children had pustules
92 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1799) repeated the idea that even though one has a severe disease (be it from
cowpox or smallpox), they might not have life-long immunity against smallpox. Such a claim contradicts
the notion that immunity was ensured only if the inoculation took (i.e., manifested fever, blistering and
pustules).
93 Editor’s note: This passage offers reason to doubt the idea of exogenous viral contagion theory. Jenner
(1799) found no evidence of infection without physical contact, i.e., no air-borne transmission.
26
which maturated, so [I supposed them] secure from future [smallpox]; at least as
secure as any others whom I have ever inoculated ....” 33
[Previously, I have written] on the improper and dangerous [sic] mode of preserving
variolous matter. ... When the matter is taken from a ... pustule, and properly prepared ... it
[can be kept for] great length of time, [and] secured in a small vial.
[page 19]
But when kept several days, in a state of moisture ... it [might not] be ... capable of giving a
perfect disease [yet] the symptoms arising from ... imperfect [variolous] matter bear so strong
a resemblance to the [true] smallpox ... 34 (italics in the original)
Thirdly. ... the true cow-pox pustule, invariably possesses the power [to affect] the
constitution with a specific disease .... [But when] this pustule has degenerated into an ulcer,
[then used for vaccination], it would [only] imitate the genuine cow-pox. 35
[page 20]
... it must ... be admitted that cow-pox matter [can] produce a disease ... yet that
disease [might] not [provide immunity against] the future effects of variolous contagion.94
In the case of Mary Miller ... the inflammation and suppuration of the inoculated arm were
more than usually severe ... seven weeks afterwards [she fell ill] with the natural smallpox,
which went through its course.95
[Other] cases, [noted] by Mr. Earle, tend further to confirm this fact [that cowpox matter
might not provide lifetime immunity against smallpox]96 ... 36-40 ...97
[page 21 – 22]
Fourthly: From having observed that morbid matter, generated by the horse [aka
horse-grease] frequently communicates ... a disease, to the human subject, [via broken skin]
so like the cow-pox that, in many cases, it would be difficult to make the distinction between
one and the other. 41
Fifthly: ... some [people] who [were] affected from the horse resisted smallpox. 42
94 Editor’s note: Once again, Jenner (1799) reaffirmed that inoculation with cowpox matter (pus) could not
ensure immunity against smallpox.
95 Editor’s note: Jenner (1799) conveyed that Mary Miller had natural smallpox, without complications.
96 Editor’s note: In both of his first two papers (1798; 1799), Jenner asserted that what he called spurious
cowpox existed – and that spurious cowpox infection did not confer smallpox immunity. Thus, Jenner
(1799) had a rhetorical tool to explain away cases where a person had cowpox (either from inoculation or
naturally) and later had smallpox.
97 Editor’s note: Over the next four paragraphs (37-40), Jenner (1799) declared that he would provide evidence
to support his theory that cowpox originated from horses.
27
Sixthly: From the progress and general appearance of the pustule on the arm of the
boy (John Baker, then age 5), whom I inoculated, with matter taken from the hand of a man
(Thomas Virgoe), [who was] infected by a horse;98 and from the similarity,
[page 23]
to the cow-pox, of general constitutional symptoms which [thereafter developed in the boy].99
43
... I beg leave to introduce an extract of a letter on [the subject of cow pox as
originated from the grease] from the Rev. Mr. Moore, of Chalford Hill, in this county: 44
“In ... November, 1797, my horse had diseased heels ... the grease; [shortly thereafter]
my cow was [affected with] the cow-pox, [and] at the same time ... my servant [boy]
had eruptions on his hands, face, and many parts of [his] body, the pustules appearing
large, and not much like the smallpox, [against which the boy] had been inoculated,
[page 24]
a year and a half before, and had then a very heavy burthen [with] pustules on the
face ... the largest and the thickest.100 45
“[during the continuance of [his cowpox] disease], the [sick] boy associated with the
farmer’s sons ... neither of whom [previously] had the smallpox [and] they felt no ill
98 Editor’s note: In 1798, Jenner wrote that after inoculating [sic] Baker with ‘matter from a pustule on the
hand of Thomas Virgoe .... Baker became ill on the 6th day, with symptoms similar to those caused by
variolation. On the 8th day, Baker was free from indisposition.’ See paragraph 48.
99 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1799) referred to John Baker, a five year-old boy, Case XVIII (Jenner 1798). In
End Note 6 (Jenner 1799), speaking of Baker, Jenner wrote: “The boy, unfortunately, died of a fever at a
parish workhouse, before I had an opportunity of observing the effects [of inoculating Baker with]
smallpox.”
Thus, after inoculating the boy, the boy fell ill – in the usual way. The boy died soon thereafter! Do medical
historians consider Baker’s ordeal an example of iatrogenic medicine or successful vaccination?
100 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1799) relayed a case where a boy was inoculated – with smallpox – which gave
him the full burthen. So smallpox inoculation generated an illness, as was intended. Further, 18 months
later, the boy was covered in pustules due to grease?! Was it cowpox or some other pustulary ailment?
28
effects whatever.101 [Despite his pustules, my servant] was not much indisposed,102 as
the disease did not prevent him from following his occupations as usual. ....” 46
But to return to the more immediate object of this proposition. 47
From the similarity of symptoms, both constitutional and local, between the cow-pox
and the [grease], the common people ... frequently call it the cow-pox.103
[page 25]
... it is clear that an individual thus infected from the horse would neither be [immune to
smallpox], nor would he impart [immunity] to others, [if] they [were] inoculated [with
spurious cowpox virus that had originated from a horse].
... By way of further example, I [share] intelligence, received from Mr. Fewster, Surgeon, of
Thornbury ...
101 Editor’s note: Here Jenner argued that variolated smallpox did not prevent future cowpox infection. Also
Jenner (1799, page 61, paragraph 141) referenced this case to claim that cowpox is not an air-borne
contagion. Both claims should have been fatal to the vaccination project.
Jenner (1798) insisted that smallpox was a more virulent type of cowpox, and that inoculation with lymph, of
the pustules of the latter, generated immunity against the former. But if smallpox infection did not ward of
future cowpox, how did inoculation prevent any illness? Further if the diseases were not contagious – except
though contact of broken skin – simple quarantine should have prevented its spread.
102 Editor’s note: Here is another reference implying that the boy did not suffer true cowpox. Was it simply
inoculation-created illness? Today (circa 2020), vaccines for flu, mumps, measles, shingles, etc., create
symptoms of the very ailment that they are claimed to prevent. See the manufacturer package inserts for any
vaccine by companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer, etc.
103 Editor’s note: Jenner (1799) argued that the grease was different than cow pox, though the symptoms in
humans were indistinguishable. To explain how people were not immune to smallpox, though the patient
previously had cow pox, Jenner insisted that they fell ill because they had the grease, not true cow pox (for
Jenner, true cowpox would be bovine-mediated grease).
Oddly, modern day vaccinology holds that equine variola [sic] (not truly a virus, but pus from sores, aka
horsepox matter) was injected as a “vaccine” to prevent [sic] smallpox as late as 1902. See Galambos and
Sewell. 1995. Networks of Innovation: vaccine development at Merck, Sharp and Dohme, and Mulford, 1895–
1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Other writers claim that horsepox comes in two forms: one is grease (also called, viral papular dermatitis,
manifesting on the lower limbs of the horse) and the other is pustular stomatitis (found in the mouth and lips).
See chapter 45, “The Poxviridae” in Hagan and Bruner’s Microbiology and Infectious Diseases of Domestic
Animals 1988, at 571. Thus, while modern virology claims that grease (horsepox) is not the source of cowpox,
scientists also claim that horsepox matter was an effective immunization tool against smallpox. In this way,
modern virology and vaccinology refute and confound two of Jenner’s more foundational claims.
For Jenner, if horse-grease was not the origin of cowpox, and if smallpox were unrelated to cowpox, then
inoculation with cow-mediated, horse-grease could not provide any means for immunity (security) against
smallpox. Further, if Jenner determined that bovine pus was the only agent to confer immunity against
smallpox, yet others used horsepox matter for vaccination; assuming arguendo that the horsepox injections
works, though cowpox and horsepox are unrelated, and both certainly are not human smallpox (or monkeypox),
how can modern vaccinology account for the efficacy of such injections as to create the same antibodies? Why
does biological distinction and variance as such, not carry over in other areas of vaccinology?
29
[page 26]
well acquainted with the appearances of the cow-pox on the human subject: 48
“William Morris, aged 32, servant to Mr. Cox of Almondsbury ... [came] to me [on 2]
April, 1798. He told me that, four days before, he found a stiffness and swelling in
both his hands [making it] painful [to] work; that he had ... pain in his head, small of
the back, and limbs, and with [chills and] fever.
... He complained of excessive pain, which extended up his arm into the axilla. These
symptoms and appearances of the sores were so exactly like the cow-pox, that I
pronounced [that] he had taken the distemper from milking cows.
[page 27]
[But] he had not milked a cow for more than half a year, [and] his master’s cows
[were not ill. Yet] his master had a greasy horse ... and further, [Morris] had
constantly dressed [the horse] twice a day for the last three weeks or more ...
On [5 April 1798, I] applied escharotics to the ulcers, and [bandaged] his hands ....
The next day he was much relieved, and in something more than a fortnight got well.
He lost his nails from the thumb and fingers that were ulcerated.” 49
[From this case], the sudden disappearance of [the sores], after the application of the
escharotics, is worthy of observation .... 50
[page 28]
The general symptoms, [I] described [as] cow-pox, when communicated [casually];
[but the] slight indisposition, which ensues, in cases of inoculation, where the pustule ...
quickly [scabs over] or is ... suppressed by some [topical] application, [is only] felt, in a very
trifling degree.104 This mild affection ... has uniformly happened among those who have been
inoculated ....
The following cases will strengthen this opinion. 51
Cow-pox appeared at a farm in ... Stonehouse [in September] and continued gradually
...
[page 29]
from one cow to another, [through] November. On [26 November] some ichorous matter
was taken from a cow, and dried upon a quill. On [2] December [cowpox matter] was
inserted into a scratch, made so [superficially] that no blood appeared,105 on the arms of
104 Editor’s note: Thus Jenner (1799) declared that his cowpox inoculation produced an illness.
105 Editor’s note: Recall Jenner (1798) complained that inoculators who punctured the skin down to the layer
of adipose fat, caused death! See paragraphs 73 and 74.
30
Susan Phipps, [age seven]. The common inflammatory appearances took place in
consequence, and advanced till the fifth day, when they had so much subsided ... 52; ... 53
... [on the] 7th: The inflammation began to advance. 54
[on the] 8th: A vesication, perceptible on the edges, forming, as in the inoculated
smallpox, an appearance [like] a grain of wheat, with the cleft ... in the centre. 55
[on the] 9th: Pain in the axilla. ... 56 ... 57
[on the] 12th: No perceptible illness; pulse about 100. ... 58
13th: The pustule was now surrounded by an efflorescence, interspersed with [a

confluence of pustules] ... about an inch [long]. Some of these pustules advanced in size and
maturated.
[page 30]
So exact was the resemblance of the arm [to] inoculated smallpox that Mr. D., a neighbouring
surgeon ... who had never seen the cow-pox before, declared [that] he could not perceive any
difference [between the infections generated by inoculated smallpox and cowpox].106
The child’s arm now [scabbed], and remained stationary for two or three days, when it
[ulcerate], and then commenced a febrile indisposition ... with an ... axillary tumor. The ulcer
continued spreading near a week, during which time the child continued ill, when it increased
to a size [of 2.5 mm in diameter]. It began now to discharge pus ... and it healed. This child
had before been [sickly], but is now in very high health.107 59
[page 31]
Mary Hearn, age 12, was [vaccinated] with matter ... from the arm of Susan Phipps.
60
[on the] 6th day: A pustule beginning to appear, slight pain in the axilla. 61
[on the] 7th: A distinct vesicle formed. 62
[on the] 8th: The vesicle increasing; [similar to action after variolation]. 63
[on the] 9th: No indisposition; pustule advancing. 64 ... 67
106 Jenner’s End Note 7. “That the cow-pox [prevents infections from] smallpox has been a prevalent idea for
a long time .... [Cowpox inoculation caused] the rise and progress of the pustule [which has a] striking
resemblance to the pustule formed from the inoculated smallpox.”
107 Editor’s note: Jenner (1799) claimed that Susan Phipps was inoculated with cowpox, then developed
pustules and scars, and fell ill, just like those inoculated with smallpox. Phipps was seriously ill for nearly
two weeks. Jenner (1799) implied that such was another case of successful vaccination.
31
[on the] 14th: An efflorescence of a faint red colour extending several inches round
the arm. The pustule ... was dressed with an ointment composed of hydrarg. nit. rub. and
ung. ceræ.108 The efflorescence itself was covered with a plaster of ung. hydr. fort.109 In six
hours it was examined ... the efflorescence had totally disappeared. 68
The application of the ointment with the hydr. nit. rub. was made use of for three
days, when, the state of the pustule remaining stationary, it was exchanged for the ung. hydr.
nit. ... in two or three days the virus seemed to be subdued ...
[page 32]
but the sore again shewing a disposition to inflame, the ung. hydr. nit. was again applied ....110
The girl, after the tenth day ... became a little ill, shewed not the least symptom of
indisposition. She was afterwards exposed to the action of variolous matter, and completely
resisted it. Susan Phipps also went through a similar trial.
[Based on] these cases, [I] urge the precaution of using [any] means [to] stop the progress of
the pustule; and ... to point out ... that the [greater] material indisposition ... does not arise
primarily from the first action [of the virus, but] comes on ... as a secondary disease.111
[Previously I hypothesized that persons] who have had the smallpox, are not ... susceptible
[to] cow-pox virus
[page 33]
... I [was] mistaken in my former observation, on this subject. 69
... a parallel may be drawn between this disease and the smallpox. In the latter, the
patient first feels ... the absorption of the virus. The symptoms then often nearly retire, when
a fresh attack commences ... and the illness keeps pace with the progress of the pustules,
through their different stages of maturation, ulceration, etc. 70
Although the application ... in the case of Mary Hearn, proved sufficient to check the
progress of ulceration and prevent any secondary symptoms, [I prefer to destroy the ulcer]
quickly and effectually, to any other mode [of treatment]. ... 71
[page 34]
108 Editor’s note: Hydrargyrum nitricum rubrum (oxydatum or oxydulatum) was a mixture of red mercury
powder and nitric acid (or nitrate, NO3) and lard; apparently that was mixed with bees wax (unguentum
cerae).
109 Editor’s note: unguentum hydrargyri fortius means a strong salve of mercury, mixed with animal fat, suet.
110 Editor’s note: Jenner applied more mercury to the girl’s skin.
111 Editor’s note: This observation is profound. Jenner (1799) noted that the debilitating effects of vaccination
(inoculation) occurred up to 14 days after the application. Scheibner (2004) found something similar for
infants who received the DTP-OPV combination. She found that infant deaths occurred episodically up to
60 days after vaccination. See Viera Scheibner (2004) “Vaccination and the Dynamics of Critical Days,”
Nexus Magazine (volume 12, number 6, Oct-Nov 2005). Online at: http://www.whale.to/v/scheibner.html
32
As a proof of the efficacy of this practice, even before the virus has fully exerted itself
on the system, I shall lay before my reader the following history: 72
[From my] treatise on the Variolæ Vaccinæ, [recall that in April] 1798, four children
were [vaccinated]112 and that in two of these cases, the virus [sic] on the arm was destroyed113
soon after, [the vaccinia], produced a perceptible sickening.
Mary James, aged seven years ... was inoculated in ... December [1798] with fresh variolous
matter and ... exposed to ... a patient, affected with the smallpox. The appearance and
progress of [her] infected arm was ... similar to
[page 35]
... when variolous matter has been inserted into the skin of a person who has not previously
undergone either the cow-pox or the smallpox.114
... On [the ninth day] there was the faint appearance of a rash about her wrists. ... Not a
single eruption appeared .... The inoculated arm continued to make the usual progress ...
through all the stages of inflammation, maturation, and scabbing. 73
On the eighth day, matter was taken from the arm of [Mary James] and inserted into
the arms of her mother and brother (neither of whom had had either the smallpox or the cow-
pox), the former about fifty years of age, the latter six. 74
[page 36]
On the eighth day, after the insertion, the boy felt indisposed, and continued unwell
[for] two days, when a measles-like rash115 [sic] appeared on his hands, wrists, and ... arms.
The [following day], his body was marbled [with a similar appearance], but he did not
112 Editor’s note: See Case XXII, at paragraph 55. Jenner (1798) argued that Mary James had been vaccinated
with the true cowpox, via the following chain: William Summers (via matter, pus from the udder of a cow),
William Pead (from pus from a post vaccination vesicle on Summers), Hannah Excell from pus from a post
vaccination vesicle on Pead), to Mary James, via pus from a post vaccination vesicle on Excell. See cases
XIX through XXII.
Jenner (1798) used this example to prove how the transferred virus did not lose potency. But these cases should
have undermined Jenner (1798) completely. Inasmuch as Jenner (1798) initially claimed that the true pox had
to come from the horse, through a person and then to a cow, what was the basis for declaring that filtering what
he called virus, through so many people, would result in the identical disease-creating matter that came directly
from the nipple of a cow?
Moreover, Jenner (1798) constructed the phenomena of an outbreak of blisters and illness (fever, chills,
myalgia) as evidence of lifetime immunity. Yet within in less than 10 years, Jenner disavowed the idea that
perfect vaccination, with perfect matter, conferred immunity at a rate any higher than natural smallpox illness.
See Baron (1830; see also White (1885).
113 Editor’s note: Notice, Jenner (1799) defined the pus as virus, and claimed that as the pus dried, the virus
(the thing that could generate disease) was destroyed. Such ideas are relevant to, if not at the core of,
vaccinology today.
114 Editor’s note: Recall, Jenner (1798; 1799) declared that Mary James had been vaccinated. Nevertheless
she fell ill in a manner that Jenner (1799) identified as an illness identical to smallpox.
33
complain, nor ... appear indisposed. A few pustules ... appeared, [most of them] went away,
without maturating. 75
On the ninth day, the mother ... was a little chilly and had a headache for two days,
but no pustule appeared on the skin, nor had she any appearance of a rash. 76
The family was attended by an elderly woman as a nurse, who, in her infancy, had
been exposed to the contagion of the smallpox, but had resisted [sic] it. This woman was
now infected [with variolous], but had the disease in the slightest manner, [with] few
eruptions appearing, two or three of which only maturated. 77
From a solitary instance, like that adduced of Mary James, whose constitution appears
to have resisted [sic] the variolous virus, after the influence of the cow-pox virus had been so
soon arrested in its progress, no positive conclusion can be
[page 37]
fairly drawn; nor from the history of the three other patients who were subsequently
infected116 ... 78
That one mild variety of the smallpox [exists], I have already plainly shown; ... we
probably have it in our power to produce another [strain] ... 79
... in cases of cow-pox inoculation, I would not recommend any [topical] application
to subdue the action of the pustule, until ... the patient [has] felt its effects [for] at least twelve
hours. ... In short, it should be suffered to have [its full effects on] the arm. 80
[page 38]
As the cases of inoculation multiply, I am [convinced that vaccinia initially creates

mild symptoms, but], as [is the case with natural] cow-pox [infection] ... secondary,
[symptoms are] excited by the irritating processes of inflammation and ulceration.
It appears to me ... a single cow-pox pustule is all that is necessary to render the variolous
virus ineffectual, and as we possess the means of allaying the irritation [caused by cowpox
inoculation, the medical procedure is] of little or no consequence. 81
... cow-pox inoculation, [is so safe] that [only] an accidental circumstance ... can
render this a violent disease ...
115 Editor’s note: Here we see that inoculated smallpox generated a measles-like rash. So we have reason to
believe that at least seven diseases were similar: smallpox; cow pox; chicken pox; Hand, Foot, and Mouth
disease; syphilis; measles; and strophulus (red gum).
116 Editor’s note: Jenner (1799) offered another contradiction. These people received an inoculation with what
he called true cowpox virus. Then he variolated them. They all got sick. Nevertheless Jenner (1799)
declared that Mary James resisted cow pox. Yet he added, “no positive conclusion can be fairly drawn.” To
the contrary, I can conclude that his vaccination did nothing beneficial to stimulate immunity against a so-
called viral disease.
34
[When the disease is communicated] from cows ... the degree of violence in the
[page 39]
[constitution is] proportional to the number and to the state of [pustules]. ... 82
Seeing that we possess the means [to reduce the effects] of the [cowpox] sores ...
which [can produce] violent effects; and [as] these [vaccinia] sores [resemble] smallpox ... it
[is] encouraging [to know] that some topical application117 [can prevent] the fatal tendency of
[confluent smallpox].
At what stage, or stages, of the disease [a salve promises] success, I will not pretend now to
determine. I only throw out this idea [for future] experiment. 83
I have often [failed] to communicate the cow-pox by [vaccination]. An inflammation

will sometimes succeed the scratch or puncture, and in a few days disappear without
producing any further effect. Sometimes it will even produce
[page 40]
an ichorous fluid, and yet the system will not be affected. The same thing, we know, happens
with the smallpox virus.118 84
Four or five servants were [vaccinated] last summer, with matter just taken from an
infected cow. A little inflammation appeared on all their arms, but died away without
producing a pustule; yet all these servants caught the [cowpox] disease within a month [after]
milking the infected cows, and some of them had it severely.
At present, no other mode, than that commonly practiced for inoculating the smallpox, has
been used for giving [people] cow-pox; ...
We should imitate the [natural infection] by making the smallest superficial incision or
puncture on the skin, to produce a little scab, and then, removing it, to touch the abraded part
with the virus. A small portion of a thread, imbrued in the virus ... and laid upon the slightly
incised skin, might [succeed to transfer] the disease ....
117 Editor’s note: Recall, in other cases, Jenner used a topical ointment, which contained mercury. See Jenner
(1799), paragraph 68.
118 Editor’s note: Again, Jenner (1799) held that unless the patient developed pustules, vaccination (just as
with variolation) was unsuccessful as the person did not receive a disease, via the inoculation. I cannot
emphasize this point enough. In the 18th and 19th centuries, to be inoculated meant to be made ill. British
statutes reflected this sentiment. (See the 1840 Act prohibiting inoculation with variolous matter, aka
smallpox). Despite punctures and insertion of matter, without a subsequent illness in the form of fever and
pustules, the medical professional declared that a person was not vaccinated. Since the late 20th century
onwards, the standards have shifted. The definition of a successful vaccination (injection) is a measure of
so-called antibodies. Yet their number (measured in ppm or proteins per mL of a medium, or nanomoles per
liter of blood) and rate of antibody production has no correlation with: (a) immunity from the illness
associated with a specific vaccine; or (b) disease-specific death rate. To the contrary, higher levels of
antibodies are associated with auto-immune disease and cancer.
35
In the cases
[page 41]
... where I did not succeed in giving the disease, [I used] matter, taken in a purulent state,
from a pustule on the nipple of a cow. 85
Is pure pus, though contained in a smallpox pustule, ever capable of producing the
smallpox perfectly? I suspect it is not. (Italics in the original)
[Small pox disease] is always preceded by the limpid fluid, which, in constitutions
susceptible of variolous contagion, is always infectious119 ...
[Presence] of this fluid, or its ... diffusion through pus, [makes it] active .... [Absence of the
limpid fluid, as with] in stale pustules, [generates] the imperfect effects we have seen.120 86 ...
87
[page 42]
... it would be prudent [sic] for those who
[page 43]
have been [vaccinated] to submit to variolous inoculation. No injury or inconvenience can

accrue from this;121 and were the same method practiced among those who, from
[variolation], felt the smallpox in an unsatisfactory [sic] manner ..., [I recommend] a second
inoculation with matter in its most perfect state. 88
And here let me suppose, for argument’s sake (not from conviction), that one person
in an hundred, after having had the cow-pox, should be found susceptible of the smallpox,
would this invalidate the utility of the practice? [After all], inoculated smallpox ... does not
involve ... something that, in numberless instances, proves baneful to the human frame. 89
That in delicate constitutions [variolous inoculation] sometimes excites scrofula is a

fact ... obvious to common observation. ... 90
119 Editor’s note: This is a descriptive statement – filled with tautologies. It is not a predictive statement.
Modern practitioners would claim that an infected persons generates the following symptoms: fever, rash –
filled with limpid fluid / lymph, development of pustules, fever break and suppuration.
Jenner claimed that limpid fluid (rash and blisters) preceed smallpox contagion (aka illness) in those who are
susceptible to manifesting pustules. He concludes that the limpid fluid creates the infection (pus). In no way is
Jenner defining a contagious agent or an infectious one.
120 Editor’s note: I must agree with Jenner on this point. Given that lymph is connected to the circulatory
system, it makes sense that certain elements of the lymph could stimulate fever and spark the body to
undergo a detoxification process in ways that introduction of mere white blood cells would not.
121 Editor’s note: Here is the first time that Jenner claimed that vaccination was never associated with any
harm or injury. However, in his first paper, Jenner (1798) conceded that some vaccinators killed patients –
due to improper administration. See paragraphs 73 and 74.
36
[page 44]
As the effects of the smallpox inoculation on those who have had the cow-pox will be
[investigated by others], it may be proper to [recall] some facts [about] smallpox .... 91
... [a person] cannot, by previous [smallpox] infection, be rendered totally

unsusceptible of the variolous poison; neither the casual nor the inoculated smallpox, whether
it produces the disease in a mild or in a violent way, can [ensure immunity].122
The skin [always exhibits] the effects of [variolous] poison when inserted there; [frequently]
we see nurses, when much exposed to the contagion, [with] eruptions, and these sometimes
preceded by [visible] illness! Yet [when] anything like an eruption appear, or the smallest
degree of [illness, after inoculation with] the variolous matter, on those who [previously had]
cow-pox, my assertions [are] unjustly discredited. 92
[page 45]
I know a gentleman who, many years ago, was inoculated ... but having no pustules,
or scarcely any [illness], he was dissatisfied, and has since been repeatedly inoculated. A
vesicle has always been produced in the arm ... with axillary swelling and a slight
indisposition; this is by no means a rare occurrence. It is probable that fluid, thus excited
upon the skin, would always produce the smallpox. 93
On the arm of a person, who had [wild] cow-pox many years before, I once produced
a vesication by [inserting] variolous matter, and [then extracted his] fluid, [and] inoculated a
young woman, who had a mild, but efficacious [case of] smallpox, in consequence,
although ... the patient from whom the matter was taken [had no constitutional effects from
the variolation].
The following ... from Mr. Fewster affords a clearer elucidation .... Mr. Fewster says:
“On the 3d of April, 1797, I inoculated Master H—, aged fourteen months, for the
smallpox. At the usual time, he sickened, had a plentiful eruption, particularly on his
face, and got well. His nursemaid, aged twenty-four, had many years before gone
through the smallpox, in the natural way ....
[page 46]
The child [slept] on her left arm, with her left cheek in contact with his face .... About
a week after the child got well, [he nurse had pain due to] a plentiful eruption on the
left cheek ... which went on to maturation.123 94
122 Editor’s note: This pronouncement defeats the very logic of vaccination. Jenner (1799) wrote that natural
smallpox infection did not provide life-time immunity. Why did he proclaim that his horse-grease cowpox
inoculation guaranteed perfect security against smallpox? See Jenner (1798).
123 Editor’s note: Evidence of a woman having smallpox after smallpox – as contracted from one who was
inoculated with smallpox matter.
37
“... three days before the appearance of the eruption, [this nurse had chills], pain in her
head and limbs, and some fever. On the appearance of the eruption these pains
[stopped. In] the second day of the eruption, she complains of a little sore throat.
Whether the above symptoms are [from] smallpox, or a recent cold, I do not know.
“On the fifth day of the eruption I [lanced] two of the pustules, and ... I inoculated two
children, [ages two years, the other four months], with the matter. At the same time I
inoculated the mother and eldest sister with variolous matter taken from Master H—.
On the fifth day of their inoculation all their arms were inflamed alike; and on the
eighth day, the eldest of those inoculated
[page 47]
from the nurse sickened, and the youngest on the eleventh. They had both a plentiful
eruption, from which I inoculated several others, who had the disease [too]. The
mother and the other child sickened [at] the same time, and likewise had a plentiful
eruption. 95
“Soon after, a man in the village sickened with the smallpox .... To be convinced that
the children had had the disease effectually [sic], I ... inoculated them in both arms,
with matter taken from him, but without effect.” 96
These are not ... uncommon occurrences, but [show] the human system’s
susceptibility of the variolous contagion, [though] previously [endured].124 97
[Fortunately] the appearance of the smallpox, a second time, on the same person,
beyond a trivial extent [sic], is ... extremely rare .... since the publication of Dr. Heberden’s
paper [of 1767] on the Varicellæ ... the idea of [a second attack of smallpox]
[page 48]
has been generally relinquished.125 This [is] without just reason. [Consider the many cases,
like that] recorded by Mr. Edward Withers, Surgeon, of Newbury, Berks, in the fourth
124 Editor’s note: Through the account of Fewster, Jenner (1799) stated plainly that natural smallpox infection
did not confer immunity. Paragraphs 94-97.
125 Editor’s note: Heberden’s lecture was printed by the College of Physicians of London in 1785. In his
lecture of 1767, Heberden offered: “those, who have once had the chicken-pox, are not capable of having it
again” (433). Heberden (1767) justified the claim with the following:
“I wetted a thread in ... pus-like [liquid] of the chicken-pox ...; and after making a slight incision, it was
confined upon the arm of one who had formerly had [chickenpox]; the little wound healed up
immediately, and shewed [sic] no signs of any infection.” (433).
Heberden (1767) also insisted that because varicella was never suffered twice in the same person, any diagnosis
of repeated smallpox was likely to be in error. Heberden (1767) implied that in such a person, one of their bouts
of illness were due to chicken-pox.
38
volume of the Memoirs of the Medical Society of London (from which I take the following
extracts)126 ...: 98
“Mr. Richard Langford, a farmer of West Shefford [of Berks], now about 50 years of
age, when about a month old (circa 1725), had the smallpox, at a time when three
others of the family had the same disease, one of whom, a servant man, died of it. Mr.
Langford’s ... face [is] remarkably pitted ....”127 99
[According to Withers, in 1775] Mr. Langford was seized a second time, [this being]
confluent smallpox and died [21 days later]; 100; ... 101
... in most cases of this kind, [when] the disease [is] confluent; [such] ulceration on
the skin ... is not the process in nature which [conveys life-time immunity]128 .... 102
... smallpox ... must be considered as a distemper not well understood. [My] inquiry
[on] cow-pox [should] promote [a] more perfect investigation [of smallpox]. 103
The inquiry of Dr. Pearson, into ... cow-pox, having produced so great a number of
attestations in favour [sic] of my assertion, [namely] that [what is termed cow pox
inoculation protects] the human body from the smallpox,129 I have not been assiduous in
seeking for more; but [some] friends ... communicate the following: ... 104
Extract of a letter from Mr. Drake, Surgeon, at Stroud, and late Surgeon to the North
Gloucester Regiment of Militia: 105
“In the spring of the year 1796, I inoculated men, women, and children to the amount
of about 70. Many of the men did not receive the infection, although inoculated at
least three times and kept in the same room with those who actually underwent the
disease (during the whole time occupied by them in passing through it).
“[Wondering if these men would], in future, be secure against [smallpox], I was

[keen] to find out whether they ever had previously had it, or [were exposed to]
people labouring under it. [I was told] that they had had the cow-pox.
126 Editor’s note: Surgeon Withers submitted his account on 20 March 1791. It was read into the minutes of
the Society meetings on 6 February 1792. See Memoirs of the Medical Society of London (1795), Article
XIII, pages 186-190.
127 Editor’s note: As evidence that Langford had smallpox as an infant, Withers (1791) added: “it was usual
for [Langford], whenever the smallpox happened among the poor ... to attend and assist ... them with all
necessities.”
128 Editor’s note: To support his claim that illness does not guarantee immunity, Jenner (1799) asserted that
confluent smallpox did not confer immunity. Jenner offered no theory or evidence to support this claim.
Regardless, Jenner’s general argument, about the lack of immunity, defeats the fundamental idea that
supports vaccination per se.
129 Editor’s note: Pearson and Woodville conducted experiments in the first three months of 1799, which were
later published in the House of Commons in 1802. In the report, Pearson did not support Jenner in three key
areas: smallpox as a preventive for cowpox; cowpox as creating immunity against cowpox; and the origin of
cowpox. Regardless, White (1885) demonstrated that given the observations of vaccinators and the common
practice of re-vaccination, neither Jenner nor Pearson proved that vaccination made one immune to either
smallpox or cowpox. See Chapter 11, Pearson’s Examination.
39
“As I was then ignorant of such a disease affecting the human subject, I ... imagined
[that] cow-pox was in reality the smallpox in a very slight degree. ... from the
information I have since received, both from [Jenner’s 1798] publication and from
conversation with medical men ... I am fully convinced that [these men had] cow-
pox ... and I can safely affirm that they effectually resisted the smallpox.” 106
Mr. Fry, Surgeon, at Dursley ... [offers] the following communication: 107
“During the spring of ... 1797, I inoculated 1,475 patients, of all ages, from a fortnight
old to seventy years; amongst whom there were many who had previously gone
through the cow-pox. The exact number I cannot state; [I believe] nearly 30 ....
“There was not a single instance of the variolous matter producing any constitutional
effect on these people, nor any greater degree of local inflammation (in the arm) [than
expected in] a person who had ... gone through the smallpox,
“... [the variolous matter was] inserted four, five, and sometimes six different times, to
satisfy the minds of the patients.
“... the number of people I have seen [variolated], who [previously] had ... cow-pox, is
not less than 40; and [never] have I known [that] a patient received the smallpox,
[even though] they [interacted] with other inoculated patients during the progress of
the disease, and many of them purposely exposed themselves to ... smallpox; ... a
person who [had] cow-pox is no longer [susceptible to] the variolous matter.130 108
“I also inoculated [many] who had had a disease ... called, by the common people, the
Swine Pox,131 not one of whom received the smallpox, [via inoculation]. 109
“There were about half a dozen instances of people who never had either the cow- or
swine-pox, yet did not receive the smallpox ... although they were repeatedly
inoculated, and associated with others who [were ill with smallpox];132 one of them
was the son of a farrier.” 110
130 Editor’s note: After more cases refuted the claim that neither cowpox illness nor vaccination generated
immunity against smallpox, Jenner (1800) explained that those who had cowpox [sic] yet later suffered
smallpox either had: (a) grease; or (b) spurious cow pox; or (c) varicella; or (d) suffered imperfect
vaccination.
131 According to Jenner’s End Note 12, this Swine Pox was “that mild variety of the smallpox which I have
noticed in the late Treatise on the Cow-Pox, page 54.”
Editor’s note: According to Baron (1827: 130), Jenner inoculated his son, then aged 18 months, with pus
referred to as swine pox. (See also White (1885), part 2, chapter 1). However, from the plain language of the
text, and changing meanings of the terms, we have no idea if Jenner used pus from a pig or human. If from a
human, we cannot determine if the ailment were chicken-pox or another sort of illness with pustules.
132 Editor’s note: this report stands for the proposition that sometimes, vaccination created no visible signs of
infection or illness; and hence for the vaccinators of the 19th century, if the inoculation did not take, there
was no way for them to determine the efficacy of the process.
40
Mr. Tierny, Assistant Surgeon of the South Gloucester Regiment of Militia, has
[given] me the following information: 111
“ ... in the summer of [1798, Tierny] inoculated a great number of the men belonging
to the regiment, and ... among them, [he] found [10] who ... had gone through [wild]
cow-pox. [Those 10 all] resisted the smallpox ....” 112
Mr. Tierny remarks that the arms of many who were inoculated, after having had the
cow-pox, inflamed quickly, and that in several [people], ichorous fluid was formed. 113
Mr. Cline, who in July [1798] ... at my request [tested] the efficacy of the cow-pox
virus [and] give me a letter on [his results], the following is an extract: 114 ... 115
“The Cow Pox experiment has succeeded admirably. The child sickened on the
seventh day, and the fever, which was moderate, subsided on the eleventh. The
inflammation, arising from the [inserted] virus, extended to about four inches in
diameter, and gradually subsided, without ... pain or other inconvenience. There were
no eruptions. 116
“I have since inoculated him with Small Pox matter in three places, which were
slightly inflamed on the third day, and then subsided. 117
“Dr. Lister, who was formerly Physician to the Small Pox Hospital, attended the child
with me, and he is convinced that it is not possible to give him the Small Pox. I think
the substituting the Cow Pox poison for the Small Pox, promises to be one of the
greatest improvements that has ever been made in medicine .... 118
[page 56]
... Dr. Pearson ... has occasionally reported to me the result of his private practice with
the vaccine virus in London; ... Dr. Woodville [reports] his more extensive [practice] at the
Small Pox Hospital, it appears that many ... patients [had] eruptions, and ... these eruptions
have maturated in a manner very similar to the variolous. 119
The matter they [used] was taken, in the first instance, from a cow ... in London.
Having never seen maturated pustules ... among [my patients] who were casually infected by
Cows, or those to whom the disease had been communicated by inoculation, I [tested] the
effect of the matter generated in London, on subjects [in Gloucestershire]. A thread imbued
[with] this matter [inoculated] two children ... whose cases I ... transcribe .... 120
STEPHEN JENNER, three years and-a-half old.
3d. Day. The arm shewed a proper and decisive inflammation. 122
[Page 57]
6th. A vesicle arising. 123
41
7th. The pustule of a cherry colour. 124
8th. Increasing in elevation. A few spots ... on each arm near the insertion of the
inferior tendons of the biceps muscles. They are very small [and] vivid red colour.
The pulse natural; tongue of its natural hue; no loss of appetite, or any symptom of
indisposition. 125
9th. The inoculated pustule on the arm ... began to inflame, and gave the child
uneasiness: he cried [and] immediately afterwards [had] febrile symptoms.
... two hours after the seizure, a plaster of ung. hydrarg. fort, was applied, and its
effect was ... perceptible; in ten minutes, he resumed his usual looks and
playfulness. ... about three hours after the application of the plaster ... the
inflammation [subsided]. 126
10th. The spots on the arms have disappeared, but there are three visible in the face.
l1th. Two spots on the face are gone; the other barely perceptible. 128
13th. The pustule delineated in the 2d Plate in the Treatise on the Variolæ Vaccinæ, is
a correct representation of that on the child’s arm, as it appears at this time. 129
[Page 58]
14th. Two fresh spots appear on the face. The pustule on the arm nearly converted
into a scab. As long as any fluid remained in it, it was limpid. 130
JAMES HILL, four years old,was inoculated on the same day, and with ... the same matter
which infected Stephen Jenner. It did [not take] effect till the fifth day. 131
7th. A perceptible vesicle: this evening the patient became a little chilly; no pain or
tumor discoverable in the axilla. 132
8th. Perfectly well. 133 ... 134
10th. The vesicle more elevated than [usual], and assuming more perfectly the
variolous character than is common with the Cow Pox at this stage. 135
11th. Surrounded by an inflammatory redness, about the size of a shilling, studded

over with minute vesicles. The pustule contained a limpid fluid till the fourteenth
day, after which it was encrusted over in the usual manner; but this ... scab being
accidentally rubbed off, it was slow in healing. 136
These children were afterwards fully exposed to the Small Pox contagion [sic] without effect.
137
[Page 59]
42
Having been requested by my friend, Mr. Henry Hicks, of Eastington ... to inoculate
two of his children, and ... some of his servants, and [employees], matter was taken from the
arm of this boy ....
The numbers inoculated were eighteen. They all took [sic] the infection, and either on the
fifth or sixth day a vesicle was perceptible on the punctured part. Some of them began to feel
a little unwell on the eighth day, but the greater number on the ninth. Their illness ... was of
short duration, and not sufficient to interrupt, but at very short intervals, the children from
their amusements, or the servants and manufacturers from ... their ordinary business. 138
Three of the children, whose employment in the manufactory was in some degree
laborious, had an inflammation on their arms beyond the common boundary about the
eleventh or twelfth day, when the feverish symptoms ... again returned, accompanied with
increase of axillary tumour. In these Cases ... I applied on the inoculated pustules, and
renewed the application three or four times
[page 60]
within an hour, a pledget of lint, previously soaked in aqua lithargyri acetati,133 and covered
the hot efflorescence surrounding them, with cloths dipped in cold water. 139
The next day, I found this ... treatment had succeeded perfectly. The inflammation
was nearly gone .... Some of these patients have since been inoculated with variolous matter,
without any effect, beyond a little inflammation on the part where it was inserted. 140
Why the arms of those inoculated with the vaccine matter in the country should be
more disposed to inflame than those inoculated in London, it [is] difficult to determine. From
comparing my own cases with [those of] Dr. Pearson and Dr. Woodville ... what strikes me as
still more extraordinary, with respect to those inoculated in London, is the appearance of
maturating eruptions. In the two instances only, which I have mentioned (the one from the
inoculated, the other from the
[page 61]
casual Cow Pox) a few red spots appeared, which quickly went off, without maturating. The
Case of the Rev. Mr. Moore’s servant [is] a deviation from the common appearances in the
country, but the nature of these eruptions was not ascertained beyond their not possessing the
property of communicating the disease by their effluvia. ... That the erysipelas assumes a
different form in London from what we see ... in the country, is [readily] acknowledged. 141
133 Editor’s note: lithargyri acetati is oxidized lead, dissolved in distilled vinegar. Related substances and
applications were Goulard’s cerate. Goulard’s was eight parts camphor cerate and two parts lead subacetate.
According to Felter, and Lloyd (1898), Goulard’s cerate rapidly assumes a yellow color, and shortly becomes so
rancid as to render it unfit for medicinal purposes. The cerate “should be cautiously used on large raw surfaces,
lest lead poisoning ensue from absorption.” See King’s American Dispensatory.
43
[I call] the inflammation, that is excited by the Cow Pox virus [sic], erysipelatous ...
The diseased action ... in the part [of the body] infected with the virus [sic], may undergo
different modifications, according to the peculiarities of the constitution ... has been
observed. 142
To this, it may ... be objected, that some of the patients inoculated, and who had
pustules in consequence, were newly come from the country; but I conceive that the changes
[page 62]
wrought in the human body, through the medium of the lungs, may be extremely rapid. ...
further experiments [might explain] what now certainly appears obscure and mysterious. 143
The principal variation perceptible to me in the action of the vaccine virus generated
in London from that produced in the country, was its proving certainly more infectious and
giving a less disposition [to inflame] in the arm ....
In my former cases, the pustule produced by the insertion of the virus was more like one of
those which are so thickly spread over the body, in a bad kind of confluent Small Pox. This
was more like a pustule of the distinct Small Pox, except that I saw no instance of pus being
formed in it, the matter remaining limpid till the period of scabbing. 144
Wishing to see the effects of the disease on an infant newly born, my nephew, Mr.
Henry Jenner, at my request, inserted the vaccine virus into the arm of a child, about twenty
hours old. His report to me is, that the child went through the disease with
[page 63]
action of variolous matter, with which it was subsequently inoculated. 145
I have had an opportunity of trying the effects of the Cow Pox matter on a boy, who,
the day preceding its insertion, sickened with the measles. The eruption of the measles,
attended with cough, a little pain in the chest, and the usual symptoms accompanying that
disease, appeared on the third day, and spread all over him. The disease went through its
course without any deviation from its usual habits; and, notwithstanding this, the Cow Pox
virus [sic] excited its common appearances, both on the arm and on the constitution, without
any sensible interruption; on the sixth day there was a vesicle. 146
8th. Pain in the axilla, chilly, and affected with head-ache.
9th. Nearly well.
12th. The pustule spread to the size of a large split pea, but without any ... efflorescence. It
soon afterwards scabbed, and the boy recovered his general health rapidly. 149
Here we see a deviation from the ordinary habits of the Small Pox, as it has been observed
that the presence of the measles suspends the action of variolous matter. 150
44
[page 64]
The very general investigation that is now taking place, chiefly through inoculation ...
must soon place the vaccine disease in its just point of view. The result of all my trials with
the virus on the human subject, has been uniform [sic]. In every instance, the patient who has
felt its influence, has completely lost [sic] the susceptibility for the variolous contagion; and
as these instances are now become numerous ... they sufficiently preclude me from the
necessity of entering into controversies with those who have circulated reports adverse to my
assertions, on no other evidence than what has been casually collected. 151
45
III. A Continuation of Facts and Observations Relative
to the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow-Pox. 1800134
SINCE my former publications on [vaccination] I have had the satisfaction of seeing

[the practice] extend very widely. Not only in this country ... but from my correspondence
with ... medical gentlemen on the Continent (among whom are Dr. De Carro, of Vienna,135
and Dr. Ballhorn, of Hanover), I find it is as warmly adopted abroad, where it has afforded
the greatest satisfaction.
I have the pleasure, too, of seeing that the feeble [sic] efforts, of a few individuals, to
depreciate the new practice, are sinking fast into contempt, beneath the immense mass of
evidence [sic] which [supports vaccination]. 1
Upwards of 6,000 persons have been inoculated with the virus [sic] of cow-pox, and
the far greater part of them have since been inoculated with that of smallpox, and exposed to
its infection ... without effect. 2
It was [improbable] that [my] investigation ... should go forward without engaging the
attention of the physician of the Smallpox Hospital in London. 3
... Dr. Woodville [instituted] an inquiry into ... cow-pox. This inquiry [began early in
1800], and by May, Woodville published the result, which differs ... from mine in a point of
much importance. It appears that three-fifths of the patients [vaccinated] were affected with
eruptions, ... so perfectly resembling the smallpox as not to be distinguished from them. [I
find it] necessary [to] make some comments. 4
... out of the great number of cases of [natural cow pox infection] which [I observed],
and the many [instances] communicated to me by medical gentlemen ... the matter with
which my [vaccinations] were conducted in the years 1797, 1798, and 1799, was taken from
different cows .... In no instance [did] anything like a variolous pustule appear ....
I cannot [believe] that eruptions, similar to those described by Dr. Woodville, [could be]
produced by the pure, uncontaminated [sic] cow-pox virus136 [sic]; ... I suppose that [in
Woodville’s cases] ... variolous matter crept into his vaccine.137
134 Source: http://www.bartleby.com/38/4/3.html

135 Editor’s note: Writing as late as 1803, De Carro inoculated patients with pus from horsepox sores and
matter from so-called horse grease-cowpox pustules. And De Carro claimed that smallpox and cowpox
were the same disease and originated in the horse. (See White (1885), Section II: Vaccination, Chapter 18,
Horsegrease as a source of Vaccine). As De Carro was wrong about the origin of smallpox, and no type of
inoculation, not even variolation, ensured immunity against smallpox, he neither proved nor substantiated
any claims of Jenner.
136 Editor’s note: Again, what Jenner called virus here means pus from a cowpox pustule.
137 Editor’s note: In a series of virology lectures, professor Vincent Racaniello (2019) insists that one not
anthropomorphize viruses. (See Lecture #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svlKm4S1M3Y). In this
passage, Jenner (1800) claimed that a virus moved – through its own volition. But that which is a mere
inanimate piece (or partial sequence) of protein, has neither will nor ability to move.
46
[I suspect that this] happened from the inoculation of a great number of the patients with
variolous matter ... after the vaccine had been applied; and ... the matter, thus propagated,
became the source of [vaccine material for] future [vaccinations by] many medical
gentlemen, who [were] unacquainted with the nature of the cow-pox.138 5
Another circumstance strongly ... supporting my supposition is the following: The

cow-pox has been [at] our dairies time immemorial. If pustules, then, like the variolous, were
to [go] from the cow to the milker, [it] would ... have been known and recorded at our farms.
Yet neither our farmers nor the medical people [here] have noticed [that]. 6
A few scattered pimples I have ... very rarely, seen, [most] of which ... disappeared
quickly, but some have ... suppurated at their apex. ... the inoculated cow-pox pustule [can]
in very irritable constitutions, produce this affection.
The eruption ... has commonly appeared ... in the third week after inoculation. But this
appearance is too trivial to excite the least regard. 7
The change which took place, in the general appearance, during the progress of the
[vaccination], at the Smallpox Hospital [with Woodville’s cases], should [also] be
considered. 8
Though [the vaccine] took on so much of the variolous character, as to produce

pustules in three cases out of five, in Dr. Woodville’s last report, [published in June 1799], he
says:
“Since the publication of my reports of [vaccinations] for the cow-pox, [of about 310]
cases ... only 39 had pustules that suppurated; viz., out of the first 100, 19 had
pustules; out of the second 100, 13; and out of the last 110, only seven had pustules.
Thus it appears that [with vaccination], the disease has become considerably milder;
which I am inclined to attribute to [the source of the vaccine] matter, [we extract
matter] only from those patients in whom the cow-pox proved very mild ....” 139 9
138 Editor’s note: Here, Jenner presaged the idea of vaccine contamination, a la SV-40 (simian virus). See
Paul Offit (2005) on the Cutter Incident, NEJM 352(14), 1411-1412. https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1056/NEJMp048180. Throughout the 19th century, critics of vaccination insisted that vaccinifers
were sources of syphilis and other diseases. In his critique of Woodville, Jenner insisted that contaminated
[sic] matter would spread disease rather than provide immunity.
Worse yet, Jenner’s theory – as applied to patients of Woodville – completely refutes Jenner’s own thesis of
vaccination and immunity against smallpox. Namely, Jenner (1798; 1799) claimed that he could insert
variolous matter into anyone, after they had been vaccinated, and the patient would have no reaction to the
smallpox matter. In relation to Woodville, Jenner (1800) argued that the variolous agent became or remained
active within the vaccine per se – and would generate disease in others, via subsequent use of the tainted
material in inoculations.
139 Jenner’s End Note 1: “... a few weeks after the cow-pox [vaccine] was introduced at the Smallpox Hospital,
I [received some of Woodville’s vaccine] stock. [Initially] it produced a few pustules, which did not
[mature]; [in] subsequent cases none appeared.”
47
The inference I [draw] ... is different. The decline, and [near] total extinction, of these
pustules, [is] attributable to the cowpox virus, assimilating [sic] the variolous,140 the former,
probably being the original, the latter [being] the same disease under [an] inexplicable
modification.141 10
[I completed one] experiment tending to elucidate [this] point .... [It is] possible that
the cow ... of Gloucester might generate a virus differing [than] that produced by the animal
[in London]. I procured ... cow-pox virus from a cow [in] London .... It was [given] to Dr.
Marshall, who [used it for cow-pox vaccine]. The general result [is conveyed] in the
following communication from [Marshall]: 11
“DEAR SIR: 12
“... having two children who had not had the smallpox, I [inoculated] them for the
cow-pox .... I [procured] matter from [persons] whom you had inoculated.
“[At] first ... I had no intention of extending the disease further than my own family,
but the ... influence ... of its efficacy, in resisting the smallpox [changed my mind.]
Since the 22d of March 1799, I have inoculated 107 persons ...
“[In determining the efficacy of the vaccinia serum, we must consider] the peculiar
mildness of the disease, the known safety of [the cow pox virus that generated the
illness in the donor of the vaccinia matter], and [whether the cow pox illness]
prevented the patient from following his ordinary business.
“In all the cases under my care, there have only occurred two or three who [fell ill
after] erysipelatous inflammation on the arm .... In the remainder, the constitutional
illness has been ... considerably less than ... in [people] inoculated with the
smallpox.142
“In only one or two of the cases have any other eruptions appeared, than those around
the spot where the matter was inserted, and those near the infected part. Neither
[does] cow-pox [excite] any other disease,143 which has been frequently observed
[post variolation], the [patient remains] in full health and vigour after the termination
of the disease.144 ... 13
140 Jenner’s End Note 2. “In [1798] I expressed ... that the smallpox and the cow-pox were the same
diseases ... Dr. Woodville [concurred]. The axiom of ... Hunter, that ‘two [diseases] cannot take place at the
same time in one and the same part,’ [fits with my] theory [about smallpox and cow-pox].”
141 Editor’s note: Jenner explained smallpox as an “inexplicable modification” of cow pox.
142 Editor’s note: Here we see the first claim that inoculation with vaccinia matter was safe, based on the
argument that it caused no injury worse than inoculation with another agent, i.e., variolous matter. The same
argument is given by pharmaceutical companies today. They usually present safety and efficacy tests where
they compare their new formula to an older vaccine – not a true control or placebo. See the justifications for
lack of double-blind, placebo studies from the World Health Organization (2013) Expert consultation on the
use of placebos in vaccine trials.
143 Editor’s note: The reference is to scrofula, aka tuberculosis, in the lymph nodes of the neck.
144 Editor’s note: Once again, another medical practitioner, Joseph Marshall, explained that every inoculated
and vaccinated person got sick – with blisters and all.
48
“... cow-pox is a pleasanter, shorter, and infinitely more safe disease than [that caused
by] the inoculated smallpox, when [administered] in the most careful ... manner ....
“I [have observed the effects of vaccinia inoculation] upon a [number of patients]

from [age] three months old to 60 years ... removal [of the vaccinia matter] from the
original source [made no change] in the nature or appearance of the disease, [so
samples for serum can be extracted] ad infinitum from one person to another .... 14
“JOSEPH H. MARSHALL. 15
“EASTINGTON, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, April 26, 1799.” 16
[Marshall] has communicated [more information below]. 17
Dr. Marshall’s second letter: 18
“Since [April 1799] I have continued to inoculate with the cow-pox virus. ... the
number now [is] 423. ... I noticed no deviation in any respect [for each person].
“The general appearances of the arm exactly corresponded with the account given [by
Jenner (1798)]. When [the sores had] erysipelatous inflammation ... a drop [of vitrolic
acid] applied ... upon the pustule [would] stop [the festering sore] and expedite the
formation of a scab. 20
“I have ... subjected 211 of my patients [to] variolous matter, but every one resisted it.
21
“The result of my experiments ... has fully convinced me that the true cow-pox ... is a
safe and infallible preventive from the smallpox; that in no case ... has it [caused] any
considerable degree troublesome ... danger; in no instance were the patients prevented
from following their ordinary employments. 22
“In Dr. Woodville’s publication on the cow-pox ... he says that generally his patients
had pustules. ... in all my cases there [was only] one pustule, ... on a patient’s elbow
on the inoculated arm ... 23
“... [I conclude] that those cases which [argue] against the preventive powers of the
cow-pox [did not use] the true [cow-pox virus] ...
“... the inoculated cow-pox must quickly supersede that of the smallpox. .... 24
“... [thank you for enabling me to view] the progress of [this] most curious experiment
... ever ... recorded in the history of physiology. ...
“JOSEPH H. MARSHALL.” 25
49
“P.S. ... of the patients I [vaccinated], 127 were infected with the matter you sent me
from the London cow. I discovered no dissimilarity of symptoms in these cases from
those which I inoculated [with matter from Gloucestershire]. No pustules ... occurred,
except in one or two cases, where a single one appeared on the inoculated arm. ...
There was no suspension of ordinary employment ... nor was any medicine required.
26 ... 27
“A curious fact has [occurred] which I leave you to comment. 28
“I visited a patient with the confluent smallpox and [extracted] some ... matter. Two
days [later], I [inoculated] a woman and four children with cow-pox, and
inadvertently took the vaccine matter on the same lancet [used before] with [the]
smallpox.
“In three days I ... expected that my five patients would be infected with smallpox, but
I [determined that] the disease [in the first patient was] genuine cow-pox, which
proceeded without deviating in any [way] from my [previous] cases. I afterwards
inoculated these patients with variolous matter, but all of them resisted its action. 29
“[Another] advantage [of inoculating with] cow-pox [is] the safety with which
pregnant women may have the disease communicated to them. I have inoculated a
great number of [pregnant] females ... and never observed their cases to differ in any
respect from ... other patients. ... the disease is so mild [it can be] communicated with
... perfect safety.” 30
I [thank] Dr. Marshall and [others] who [shared] the result of their inoculations ... they
all agree [on] the security [from] smallpox after the cow-pox [vaccine] ....
[Though] some of my correspondents have mentioned the appearance of smallpox-like

eruptions at the commencement of their inoculations; but in these cases, the matter was
derived from the ... stock at the Smallpox Hospital.145 31
I have inoculated a considerable number from the matter produced by Dr. Marshall’s
patients, originating in the London cow, without observing pustules of any kind, and have
dispersed [this matter and serum to other practitioners] who have used it with a similar effect.
... Mr. H. Jenner informs me [that] he has inoculated above an 100 patients without observing
eruptions. Whether the nature of the virus will undergo any change from being farther
removed from its original source in passing ... from one person to another, time alone can
determine. [The virus] which I now employ has been in use near eight months, and no ...
change is perceptible in its mode of action, locally or constitutionally. .... 32
145 Editor’s note: Here Jenner (1800) argued that the only reason that anyone would have smallpox-like
eruptions, post vaccination, is that the serum was defective. Yet, Jenner (1800) identified no means of
determining what particular factors that would change the efficacy of his sera – be it vaccinia and or
variolous matter.
50
The following observations were obligingly sent me by Mr. Tierny, Assistant Surgeon
to the South Gloucester Regiment of Militia ...: 33
“[From] the 11th to the latter part of April, I inoculated [25 people] including women
and children, with the cow-pox matter. Some on the 11th were inoculated with the
matter Mr. Shrapnell (surgeon to the regiment) [obtained] from you, the others with
matter taken from [those persons so vaccinated]. The progress of the puncture was
accurately observed, and its appearance [differed] from the smallpox in having less
inflammation ... on the first days—[from day 3 to 7]; but after this the inflammation
increased, extending on the 10th or 11th day to a circle of an inch and a half from its
centre, and threatening very sore arms; but [I applied] mercurial ointment to the
inflamed part, which was repeated daily until the inflammation went off, the arm got
well without any further application or trouble.
“The constitutional symptoms which appeared on the 8th or 9th day after inoculation
scarcely deserved the name of disease ... were so slight as to be scarcely
perceptible .... In no case did I observe the smallest pustule ... except ... where the
virus has been applied. 34
“After all these symptoms had subsided and the arms were well, I inoculated four of
this number with variolous matter .... In each of these, it was inserted several times ...
producing slight inflammation on the second or third day, and always disappearing
before the fifth or sixth, except in one who had the cow-pox in Gloucestershire before
he joined us, and who also received it at this time by inoculation. In this man, the
puncture inflamed and his arm was much sorer than from the insertion of the cow-pox
virus; but there was no pain in the axilla, nor could any constitutional affection be
observed. 35
“... I am now fully satisfied of the efficacy of the cow-pox in preventing the
appearance of the smallpox .... 36 ... 37
“M. J. TIERNY.” 38
Although the susceptibility [to] the cow-pox [disease] is, for the most part, lost in
those who have had the smallpox, yet in some constitutions it is only partially destroyed, and
in others it does not appear to be in the least diminished.146 39
By far, the greater number, on whom trials were made, resisted [cow pox] entirely; yet
I found some, on whose arm the pustule, from inoculation, was formed completely, but
without producing the common efflorescent blush around it, or any constitutional illness,
while others have had the disease in the most perfect manner. A case of the latter kind
having been presented to me by Mr. Fewster, Surgeon, of Thornbury, I insert it [here]: 40
“Three children were inoculated with the vaccine matter you ... sent me. ... three days
after, I was told that John Hodges, one of the three, had been inoculated with ...
146 Editor’s note: This type of language is common in Jenner’s writings. He hedged. In this instance, he
conceded that smallpox infection will not guarantee immunity against future cow pox illness.
51
smallpox when a year old [and at that time] had a full burthen, of which his face
produced plentiful marks ....
On the sixth day the arm of the boy appeared as if inoculated with variolous matter ...
On the ninth day he complained of violent pain in his head and back, accompanied
with vomiting and much fever. The next day he was very well and went to work as
usual. The punctured part began to spread, and there was the areola around the
inoculated part to a considerable extent. 41
“As this is contrary to an assertion made in the Medical and Physical Journal, No. 8, I
thought it right to give you this information ... 42 ... 43
“J. FEWSTER.” 44 ... 45
Some striking instances of the power of the cow-pox, in suspending the progress of
the smallpox, after the patients had been ... casually exposed to the infection, have been
[relayed] by Mr. Lyford, Surgeon, of Winchester, and my nephew, the Rev. G. C. Jenner.
Mr. Lyford, [gives] an account of his extensive [vaccination practice] in Hampshire as

follows: 46
“... I was sent to a patient with the smallpox ... five days previous to my seeing him,
the eruption began to appear. During the whole of this time, two children who had
not had the smallpox, were constantly in the room with their father, and frequently on
the bed with him. The mother consulted me on the propriety of inoculating them, but
objected to my taking the matter from their father, as he was subject to erysipelas.
“I advised her ... to have them inoculated ... as I could not procure any variolous
matter .... [The children] were inoculated with vaccine matter, but I cannot say [it
were] successful, as they had previously been so long ... exposed to the variolous
infection. ... I was agreeably surprised to find that the vaccine disease advance ...
through its regular course ... to the total extinction [sic] of the smallpox.”147 47
Mr. G. C. Jenner ... writes as follows: 48
“A son of Thomas Stinchcomb ... was infected with the natural smallpox at Bristol,
and came home to his father’s cottage. Four days after the eruptions had appeared
upon the boy, the family (none of which had ever had the smallpox), consisting of the
father, mother, and five children, was inoculated with vaccine virus [sic].
147 Editor’s note: I have no idea what this case proves. If smallpox were contagious, given that the two
children were exposed: (a) either they were infected, yet did not suffer smallpox; or (b) were infected and
did manifest smallpox illness, which was defined as vaccination sickness. Or the cowpox inoculation
exacerbated the effects of smallpox illness in the children, or as was commonly found at the time, successful
vaccination [sic] resulted in a bout of cowpox disease. The claim of “total extinction” of smallpox was
premature and unsupported, to say the least.
52
“On the arm of the mother, [the inoculation] failed to produce the least effect, and
she, of course, [contracted] the smallpox, but the rest of the family, had the
[inoculated] cow-pox in the usual way, and were not affected with the smallpox [of
Thomas Stinchcomb], although they were in the same room, and the children slept in
the same bed, with their [sick] brother .... 49 ... 50
“The following cases are of too singular a nature to remain unnoticed. 51
“Miss R—, a young lady about five years-old, was seized on the evening of the eighth
day after inoculation with vaccine virus, with such symptoms as commonly denote
the accession of violent fever. Her throat was [sore], and [had] uneasy sensations
about the muscles of the neck. The day following a rash was perceptible on her face
and neck ... resembling the efflorescence of scarlatina anginosa ....148
“I [asked] whether Miss R— had been exposed to [streptococcus A]. [She had]. ...
the malady ... went through its course in the ordinary [manner].
“There was no ... deviation in the ordinary progress of the [vaccinia] pustule to a state
of maturity ...; yet there was a total suspension of the areola discolouration ... until the
scarlatina149 had retired from the constitution. As soon as the patient was freed from
[scarlatina, the pustule] advanced in the usual way.”150 52
The case of Miss H— R— is not less interesting than that of her sister [noted above].
She was exposed to ... scarlatina at the same time, and sickened, almost at the same hour.
The symptoms continued severe about 12 hours .... After ... two or three hours [the rash]
suddenly disappeared, and she [was] free from complaint.
My surprise at this sudden transition from extreme sickness to health ... ceased when I
observed that the inoculated pustule [had] the common efflorescent appearance around it, and
[its] centre was nearly in an erysipelatous state. ... on the fourth day afterwards, so soon as
the efflorescence began to die away upon the arm and the pustule to dry up, the scarlatina
again appeared, her throat became sore, the rash spread all over her.151 She went fairly
through the [scarlatina] disease with its common symptoms. 53 ... 54
148 Editor’s note: an otherwise healthy girl, fell ill, 8-9 days after vaccination – with scarlatina.
149 Editor’s note: Recall, scarlatina, is now defined as infection due to presence of the bacteria, streptococcus
A. But, as Bechamp demonstrated, any and all bacteria grow in response to the limitations and inadequacies
of the terrain. It is likely that the bacteria is always present, but only certain times does it manifest in
conjunction with general malaise or acute pain.
150 Jenner’s End Note 6: “I witnessed a similar fact in a case of measles. The pustule from the cow-pox virus
advanced to maturity, while the measles existed in the constitution, but no efflorescence appeared around
[the pustule] until the measles had ceased to exert its influence.”
Editor’s note: These two reports interest me. The argument would be that certain detoxification processes, like
fever, like blisters – associated with smallpox or cowpox, can be retarded by viral load. Thus, some levels of
illness are only present with the host who is healthy enough to complete the detoxification cycle.
151 Editor’s note: This is another example of vaccination being associated with illness, and inhibiting the body
from eliminating a pathogen or toxin.
53
Some ... suppose the security from the smallpox, obtained through the cow-pox, will
be of a temporary nature only. This supposition is refuted ... by incontrovertible facts ....
Those [cases] already adduced in ... my first treatise [were sufficient], but [I add] a person
(John Phillips) who had the cow-pox [naturally], 53 years before the effect [sic] of the
smallpox was tried upon him.152
As [Phillips] completely resisted [smallpox, post variolous inoculation in 1797], the

intervening period ... must [dispel] any reasonable [doubts]. Should further evidence be
thought necessary ... among the cases presented to me, by Mr. Fry, Mr. Darke, Mr. Tierny,
Mr. H. Jenner and others, there were many whom they inoculated ineffectually with variolous
matter, who had gone through the cow-pox, many years before this trial was made. 55
It has been imagined that the cow-pox [can be] communicated from [person to person]
by effluvia, without the intervention of inoculation. My experiments [answer this question.
Cowpox] is not infectious, except by contact.
[I encouraged many patients] on whose arms there were pustules exhaling the effluvia [to
associate or even sleep] with others who never had experienced either the cow-pox or the
smallpox. ... I have repeatedly, among children, caused the uninfected to breathe over the
inoculated vaccine pustules ... without the least effect.153
[I asked] Mr. H. Jenner to make [further experiments] to establish or refute ... this subject.
He ... informed me that he inoculated children at the breast, whose mothers had not gone
through either smallpox or cow-pox; that he had inoculated mothers whose sucking infants
[never had] these diseases; that the effluvia from the inoculated pustules ... had been
inhaled ... during the whole progress of their maturation, and that there was not the least
perceptible effect from these exposures.154
... it [is] impossible for the cow-pox [to] produce itself by effluvia. 56
[I relate another case]. The punctured part on a boy’s arm (who was [vaccinated] with
fresh limpid virus [sic]) on the sixth day, instead of shewing a ... vesicle, which is usual ...
was encrusted over with a rugged, amber-coloured scab. The scab continued to spread and
152 Editor’s note: The reference is to John Phillips, case III (Jenner 1798, paragraph 14). In this paragraph,
Jenner conflated two things: (a) the effects of natural cow-pox [sic] illness versus the effects of vaccination;
and (b) the low rate of natural smallpox transmission (if such is ever possible). From Jenner’s account, we
can conclude that most people who interacted with a person who was sick with smallpox never developed
the disease.
153 Editor’s note: The claim of Jenner (1800), that cowpox, like smallpox, was only transferred via direct
physical contact – from sore or pus against open skin or an abrasion – was ignored or dismissed by
mainstream vaccinology. There would never be cause for vaccination (i.e. a device to prevent causal or
airborne contagion), if the only means of infection were direct contact with a contagion. I am reminded
about the incoherent advocacy for infants to receive a vaccine against Hepatitis B virus. If direct contact
were the only means of transmission, then mere quarantine would suffice to halt the spread of a myriad of
supposed viral infections.
154 Editor’s note: H. Jenner vaccinated women and children. They took the cow pox and had pustules. In
numerous cases, Edward Jenner, Sr. declared that he vaccinated patients, who, in turn, developed no
pustules. Note, Jenner Sr. announced, emphatically that the key distinction between successful vaccination
and that with spurious cowpox or smallpox inoculation was that the former did not result in erysipelas.
54
increase in thickness for some days, when, at its edges, a vesicated ring appeared, and the
disease went through its ordinary course, the boy ... had soreness in the axilla and some slight
indisposition.
With the fluid matter taken from his arm, five persons were inoculated. In one, it took no
effect. In another it produced a perfect pustule without any deviation from the common
appearance; but in the other three, the progress of the inflammation was exactly similar to the
[boy]; there was a creeping scab of a loose texture, and subsequently the formation of limpid
fluid at its edges. As these people [worked at vigorous labor], it is possible that these
anomalous [sic] appearances [are due] to the friction of the clothes .... I have not yet
[exposed] them to the smallpox. 57
[After vaccination], the inflammation of the inoculated arm ... will go on to a greater
extent than [is] expected. [Because the inflammation] can be entirely subdued, by
[application of a topical salve], I see no reason why the patient should feel an uneasy hour ...
About the tenth or eleventh day, if the pustule has proceeded regularly ... nothing more need
be done than to apply a single drop of the aqua lythargyri acetati upon the pustule, and,
having suffered it to remain two or three minutes, to cover the efflorescence surrounding the
pustule with a piece of linen dipped in the aqua lythargyri compos. ... 58
[If] the scab is prematurely rubbed off ... application of a little aqua lythargyri acet. to
the part immediately coagulates the surface ... and prevents a sore. 59
In my former treatises, [I noted] that the human constitution frequently retains its
susceptibility to the smallpox contagion (both from effluvia and contact) after previously
feeling its influence.155 [To corroborate] this declaration, [I share a communication]. 60
“DEAR SIR: 61
“Society at large must ... feel much indebted [for your] Inquiries [on] Variolæ
Vaccinæ .... [My findings] corroborate your assertion of the susceptibility of the
human system of the variolous contagion, although it has previously [felt] its action.
“In November, 1793, I [inoculated] a person with the smallpox. I took the variolous
matter from a child ... who had [many] pustules, [and put it in the back] of my hand ...
“On the fourth [day] there were all the appearances common to inoculation, [I did not]
feel [uneasy as] the inflammation continued to increase to the sixth and seventh day,
accompanied with a very small quantity of fluid, ... on the eighth day I was seized
with all the symptoms ... in a much more violent degree than when I was before
inoculated, ... about 18 years previous ... when I had a considerable number of
pustules.
155 Editor’s note: This observation, should have defeated any and all claims alleging the efficacy of
inoculations. If smallpox illness per se would not lead to life-time immunity, why would vaccination ever
produce immunity?
55
“... I was now greatly alarmed, although I had ... at different times inoculated not less
than 2,000 persons. [My] indisposition [was] from the insertion of the variolous
matter, and [I] looked for an eruption. On the 10th day I felt a very unpleasant
sensation ... and heat on each side of my face .... The affection in my face soon
terminated in three or four pustules attended with inflammation” .... 62 ... 63
“THOMAS ILES.” 64
[I now review] the important point of scrofula as connected with the smallpox. 65
Every practitioner in medicine who has extensively inoculated with the smallpox, or
has attended [patients with] the distemper in the natural way, ... has frequently seen
scrofulous affections ... sometimes rather quickly ... after the recovery of the patients. [By
contrast], I am happy ... to declare that [vaccinia] does not ... have the least tendency to
produce [scrofula].156 66
... once [a person] has felt the influence of the genuine cow-pox [they are] never
afterwards, at any period, [at risk for] the smallpox157 ....
... the mild form of the cow-pox, [is] an antidote ... capable of extirpating ... a disease that has
ever been considered as the severest scourge of the human race! 67
156 Editor’s note: We have other commentators who witnessed tuberculosis after vaccination. See James
Copland (1858), A Dictionary of Practical Medicine, volume III, Longman: London; see also Frédéric
Rilliet and Antoine Charles Ernest de Barthez (1838), Maladies Des Enfants: affections de poitrine, page
149.
157 Editor’s note: In the 1807 Report of the Royal College of Physicians of London on Vaccination, the authors
concede that patients have suffered smallpox after vaccination. See page 98. But, like Jenner, they
fantasized that any such infections were mitigated by the vaccination. See page 102.
56

Jones 2021 Jenner Inquiry Causes and Effects of Cowpox A4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones 2021 Jenner Inquiry Causes and Effects of Cowpox A4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jenner (1798, 1799, 1800) Inquiry. Edits and annotations by John Calvin Jones (last updated April 2021).

I. An Inquiry Into the Causes and Effects of the

In support [of this claim], I [offer] a great number of instances.7 7

Jenner’s perspective only supports “Law of the Terrain” of Bechamp (http://letstalknutrition.com/the-terrain-

... notwithstanding the happy effects of inoculation, [variolation frequently] produces

An extensive [erysipelatous] inflammation ... appeared, without any apparent cause,

I shall ... enumerate the sources ... of a spurious cow-pox. 5

79 Source: This work was published in June of 1799. https://books.google.co.uk/books?

“FRAMPTON-UPON SEVERN, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, November 10, 1798. 29

Mr. Trye says:

But to return to the more immediate object of this proposition. 47

The following cases will strengthen this opinion. 51

... [on the] 7th: The inflammation began to advance. 54

[on the] 9th: Pain in the axilla. ... 56 ... 57

[on the] 12th: No perceptible illness; pulse about 100. ... 58

13th: The pustule was now surrounded by an efflorescence, interspersed with [a

[on the] 7th: A distinct vesicle formed. 62

[on the] 9th: No indisposition; pustule advancing. 64 ... 67

... I [was] mistaken in my former observation, on this subject. 69

As the cases of inoculation multiply, I am [convinced that vaccinia initially creates

I have often [failed] to communicate the cow-pox by [vaccination]. An inflammation

... it would be prudent [sic] for those who

have been [vaccinated] to submit to variolous inoculation. No injury or inconvenience can

That in delicate constitutions [variolous inoculation] sometimes excites scrofula is a

... [a person] cannot, by previous [smallpox] infection, be rendered totally

“[Wondering if these men would], in future, be secure against [smallpox], I was

STEPHEN JENNER, three years and-a-half old.

6th. A vesicle arising. 123

8th. Perfectly well. 133 ... 134

11th. Surrounded by an inflammatory redness, about the size of a shilling, studded

action of variolous matter, with which it was subsequently inoculated. 145

8th. Pain in the axilla, chilly, and affected with head-ache.

9th. Nearly well.

SINCE my former publications on [vaccination] I have had the satisfaction of seeing

134 Source: http://www.bartleby.com/38/4/3.html

Another circumstance strongly ... supporting my supposition is the following: The

Though [the vaccine] took on so much of the variolous character, as to produce

“I [have observed the effects of vaccinia inoculation] upon a [number of patients]

“EASTINGTON, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, April 26, 1799.” 16

[Marshall] has communicated [more information below]. 17

Dr. Marshall’s second letter: 18

“A curious fact has [occurred] which I leave you to comment. 28

[Though] some of my correspondents have mentioned the appearance of smallpox-like

“J. FEWSTER.” 44 ... 45

Mr. Lyford, [gives] an account of his extensive [vaccination practice] in Hampshire as

Mr. G. C. Jenner ... writes as follows: 48

“The following cases are of too singular a nature to remain unnoticed. 51

As [Phillips] completely resisted [smallpox, post variolous inoculation in 1797], the

You might also like