Sabotaging Forced Vaccination?
Can forced vaccination be sabotaged?
Or, at the very least, can their harmful effects be limited to a greater or lesser degree?
You be the judge.
According to “Red Light and Vaccination,” Public Opinion, Apr. 15, 1905 …
“The celebrated Danish physician [Niels Ryberg] Finsen was the first man to use light in the treatment of certain diseases [not true by a long shot!], but even before he showed the use which could be made of electric light in the treatment of lupus, Finsen demonstrated that red light exercised a very favorable action on certain fevers. The Danish physician recommended that a person afflicted with smallpox, for example, be put in a room papered in red, with red window-panes, etc., and the results of the treatment were excellent. There was less suppuration, the eruption was not so extensive, and the general symptoms were much alleviated.
“With these facts as a starting point a Viennese physician, Dr. Goldman, recently performed a series of very interesting experiments, which Dr. A. Cartaz describes in La Nature, of Paris. A certain number of children were vaccinated and divided into two groups. In one group were placed the children who had been vaccinated in the usual manner, that is, by daylight, while in the other group were placed children who had been vaccinated in a black room lighted by a feeble red ray. In the second case the wound was covered with a red band which formed a hermetical seal and at the same time prevented white light from reaching the sore. The results were remarkable. The inoculations which had been made by daylight and which had not been covered with the red band, all followed the usual evolution; more or less pronounced swelling of the dermic tissues at the periphery of the pustule, inflammation of the neighboring ganglia, suppuration, etc. The inoculations, however, which were made in the dark room showed no sign of inflammation, the pustules, instead of developing, remained flat, and in one or two cases Dr. Goldman was accused of using poor vaccine. Another group of inoculations which were made by daylight and covered with a red band the second or third day, followed the same course as those made in the dark room. It is, therefore, evident that red light exercises on vaccinal eruption the same effect as on that of smallpox, that is, it prevents the development of the pustules, lessens the virulence of the vaccine, etc. Dr. Goldman does not believe that the red light in any way diminishes the prophylactic power of the vaccination.”
Yes, No, Maybe, regarding Dr. Goldman’s last statement.
According to “Red Light Vaccination Won’t Do, You Know,” The Pacific Coast Journal of Homeopathy, Dec. 1904 …
“By these experiments, then, it was learned that red light, or the absence of light of other colors, modifies the vaccination process with its well-known formation of pustules, surrounded by an inflamed area, and that the constitutional changes are less. That red light exerts an influence on the vaccine virus or the vaccination process, seems to be established as a matter of fact by these experiments, so an influence of red light on the course of small-pox is to be assumed. It was natural, therefore, for many voices to be raised condemning this method and declaring that vaccination by red light would have little or no value; that the round pustules raised on a normal skin as little warts are such as the vaccinating physicians look upon as useless results. The flat, scarcely perceptible scar, which is even less plain after six weeks, gives the impression that here was a vaccination the value of which against exposure to small-pox will extend at best over only a short time. Upon the duration of the immunity depends the value of vaccination, and the ten years’ immunity which is now expected from a successful vaccination is conditional upon the full development of the characteristic pustule, with its umbilication, surrounding inflammatory area, and constitutional reaction of short duration. The characteristics of a scar from a successful vaccination are that it is not flat, involving only the epidermis, but deep, branched, and uneven, and remaining clearly visible. The discussion of this subject is not yet ended, but the majority of physicians abide by the old method.”