Part 5

After careful study of this subject for years I firmly believe that, with the excellent sanitary and hygienic conditions now used in our Army, the dangerous system of disease inoculations, whereby the blood of every man is impregnated with multiple and repeated vaccinations of several diseases, such as smallpox, typhoid, paratyphoid, etc., is a system, to say the least, that is neither necessary nor ultimately useful for army health. And it is probable that this system produces far more disease than it prevents. For example: For one death which naturally occurs in the whole population from smallpox or typhoid fever, ten to one hundred deaths occur from the far more frequent and fatal diseases of tuberculosis, measles, pneumonia and meningitis. And let us here ask, what is the use of having soldiers forced to submit to a whole series of disease infections, if these infections, at best, give immunity only for a little while from such diseases as smallpox and typhoid and make the system more susceptible to the far worse diseases of measles, pneumonia and meningitis, which actually seems to be the possible effects of vaccination from the recurring epidemics of these dangerous diseases in our heavily vaccinated camps?

As a matter of fact, my studies of deaths from vaccination for many years past show that meningitis and pneumonia are some of the most frequent complications; and these two diseases seem to have a certain relation to vaccination and seem to be very fatal where vaccination precedes them, and thus acts in what is called a “double” or “mixed infection,” which is known to be very dangerous to health and life. See Osler’s “Modern Medicine,” 1913, Vol. I, pages 32 and 33. See also Osler’s “Principles and Practice of Medicine,” 8th edition, 1918, page 330, on the “Influence of Vaccination on Other Diseases.” See also pages 135 and 139 in the Supplement.

Another most significant fact in this connection is the high death-rate from disease in the Army, as compared with the civil population, which I will now consider.

On page 18 in the Report of the Secretary of War for 1918 the death rate of the Army in the United States from disease for the year ending August 30, 1918, is given as 6.4; that is, about 6½ deaths for every thousand men in the Army. The age-groups composing the Army are, of course, on the general average, between twenty and forty, inclusive. In the same Report it is admitted that the male civilian death-rate for the same ages as in the Army (twenty to forty) was about 4.7, which is a difference of 1.7 or nearly 2 per 1000 in favor of the civil population or civilian males! This civil death-rate is thus, actually and relatively, much lower than the army death-rate, and this fact is very significant as positively indicating some serious cause at work to lower greatly the vitality and resistance and increase the death-rate in the army! Now what is that cause?

The figures 6.4 per thousand for the Army and 4.7 per thousand for the civil population of the same ages is a great _actual_ difference, but, of course, means, _relatively_, a much greater total difference against the Army because the army population is made up of “hand-picked” men selected for their nearly perfect health and physique and the absence of all serious constitutional diseases such as tuberculosis and others, which are all excluded from the army group. On the other hand, the civil population of the same age group of twenty to forty includes the healthy and diseased, and particularly those afflicted with tuberculosis, which constitute a big fraction, and which disease is most prevalent and fatal in this very age group of twenty to forty! Yet this civil population, containing all the diseased at the most fatal adult ages, has a much lower death-rate than the “hand-picked” physically perfect army group! Now what is the cause of this much higher death-rate in men of the most physically perfect class, and who are now treated with the best sanitary and hygienic living conditions, and where the death-rate should be the lowest? What is the cause of this difference if it is not that extraordinary medical practice, or malpractice, which deliberately impregnates the bodies of these exceptionally healthy and “hand-picked” men with a whole series of the worst type of disease infections known--that is, septicemic infections, like the typhoids and the variolas, etc.? And should anyone wonder, therefore, if the death lists of the army should show plainly in the blood poisoning diseases of pneumonia, meningitis, etc., which are known to follow frequently after vaccination? See pages 139 to 142 for a convincing proof of this point. Surely no person of ordinary sense--not even an extreme vaccinator--can presume to seriously tell us that impregnating the human body and blood with several disease cultures and infections is a purely healthy practice _per se_. And surely no person of ordinary sense can come to any other conclusion except this: that such operations must be dangerous and unhealthy _per se_.

In all this contention, Mr. President, there is, surely, something which is very important, which should be most carefully considered and fully investigated by the Commander-in-Chief, by Congress and the Departments, at an early day.

WONDERFUL WORK OF THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED

Before closing I must here express to you, as Commander-in-Chief, my full appreciation of the wonderful work done by the War and Navy Departments and by the officers of the Army and Navy in raising, encamping, training and equipping our great Army and Navy and putting them into the fighting field so quickly and so potently, with the result of immediately turning the tide of warfare against the brutal enemy, for which majestic result these Departments, and the officers of the Army and Navy, most fully deserve, as they undoubtedly have, the unstinted thanks and congratulations of our whole citizenry, civil and military, man and woman.

No army or navy in field, camp or ship has ever been taken better care of in a general sanitary, hygienic and medical sense than our Army and Navy in this gruelling war. The able and liberal way in which the physical, moral, mental, religious and recreational needs of the men have been covered by various bodies, military, medical, civic, and religious, has been the wonder of all our citizens who have visited our camps. And to this was undoubtedly due the cheerful and high spirits, the wonderful morale and fighting power which made themselves instantly felt on the battle-fields of Europe and so quickly brought the barbarous enemy to his knees in the glorious climax of Victory and Peace which we are now enjoying, and which we all firmly hope and believe will soon be followed by a Permanent and International Peace coextensive with the civilized world, for which great end, Mr. President, you have been working so ably, energetically and devotedly. And I feel sure that your master efforts with our own people and with our victorious Allies will soon bring about that League of Nations for the government of the world based on the eternal principles of reciprocal right and justice and the basic principles of American Institutions--Equality, Consent of the Governed, and Rational Liberty--for all persons in their inherent natural rights.

I, therefore, regret that I have had any criticism to make on this glorious record of our Army and Navy, but this criticism really concerns only a part of the medical profession in the Army and Navy, and one of its medical dogmas, and does not reflect on the rank and file of the military and naval forces of our country, a majority of which does not, I believe, approve this dangerous medical practice, or malpractice, of compulsory vaccination which has been forced by medical dogmatism on the Army and Navy, and which, I believe, clearly violates fundamental American principles and also stultifies our proud claim that this is a government of “Liberty and Justice for all.”

COMPULSORY VACCINATION CONDEMNED AS UN-AMERICAN

In compulsory vaccination there is obviously neither “liberty” nor “justice” and it is utterly opposed to the fundamental American principle of inherent human right to medical liberty and choice, and to sanctity of body, and it therefore fits properly only with some code of Prussianism--from which it has been in fact copied.

I would, therefore, now like to show by appeal to our great basic American Documents of Rights and Liberties that all forms of medical compulsion and dictation and compulsory vaccination are illegal and unconstitutional and also violate all true civic and medical ethics.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OUR BASIC CHARTER OF AMERICAN RIGHTS, CONDEMNS ALL VIOLATIONS OF INHERENT NATURAL RIGHTS

The Declaration of Independence is, I believe, the greatest ethical and political document ever penned by human hand or human wisdom--the greatest document of Human Rights and Liberties, Basic Ethics, Civic Religion and Democratic Government ever written--and all expressed in its one essential paragraph, as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

We have been accustomed to call this great document a “Declaration of Independence,” but it should more properly be called a “Declaration of Rights” because “Independence,” or self-government, is only one of the several “unalienable” rights declared in this great charter. It is in fact our great “Bill of Rights,” being our first Charter and Declaration of those essential, natural, inherent and ineffaceable rights of mankind, which all governments must respect, defend and enforce, and which cannot be ignored or invaded by any authority, organization or government whatever. It is indeed our American “Magna Charta” of fundamental rights and our first or _Pre-Constitution_ preceding our formal Constitution, and, of course, equal to it as a basis for all law and government, and particularly expressing what may be termed our _Pre-Constitutional Rights_--that is, those rights which always existed by “Natural” and “Divine” endowment before any human laws, charters or constitutions were ever written; and it, of course, antedates, and therefore takes precedence even over our State and National laws and Constitutions, which, to be valid, must be based on the _fundamental_ principles of _inherent human and natural rights_ which are _naturally and divinely_ and equally conferred upon all mankind. It must be remembered at this point that the official title of this great document is “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,” which shows that it is the official statement or code of the foundation governing principles of the New Nation issued by its first Congress and has, therefore, the full effect of a “Constitution,” “Pre-Constitution” or “Bill of Rights.”

THE CODE AND BASIS OF AMERICANISM

This great primary Code of Rights, which is adapted for the just and beneficent rule of mankind in all their relations, has not been half well enough understood or appreciated by our American people heretofore, and it has been usually looked upon as chiefly a political document, whereas, it is essentially much more than that, being in fact a great code of basic ethics and civic religion, in addition to a code of democratic government, with a wide scope and character, which fits it equally to individual, national, or international relations; and this makes it truly our American Bible and Creed and our basis for a great American and Universal “Religion” both ethical and political, which can and should be now adopted by the “League of Nations” as a standard code or basis for the moral and political government of mankind the world over, and should be taught in all our schools as the basis of Americanism.

It is time, therefore, that Americans clearly understood and appreciated the full ethical, legal and political scope and sense of this wonderful code of one paragraph, and it is time also that this great and simple _Code of Essential Americanism_ was plainly emblazoned on our public walls, spaces and monuments like the inscription “Holiness to the Lord” displayed on the forefront of the high priests, as directed in Exodus, Chapter 28, so that all our people can get fully acquainted and inspired with the broad and simple principles of Right and Justice in this sublime Code of Americanism.

This great paragraph of basic Americanism should, therefore, be conspicuously posted on every public building, school, and church in the land, over the Judge’s bench in every Court, over the rostrum in every Legislature and over the desk of every public officer, and particularly over the desk of every public doctor, Medical Board and Board of Health in the land, which have been heretofore some of the worst violators of this code of unalienable human rights in their various barbarous practices of medical domination, dictation and compulsion, and forced infliction of disease.

Now I do not intend, in this article, to show just how the Declaration of Independence can be seriously considered as a clear and sure basis for rational ethics and civic religion for the legal and moral government of mankind, in all relations, having reserved that important subject for full treatment in a separate article, but I do intend to show here how the evil of compulsory vaccination and all other forms of compulsory medicine are gross violations of the Declaration and its principles of basic Americanism and inherent human rights so clearly defined therein.

THE FIVE ARTICLES OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, JULY 4, 1776

FIRST: All men are created equal.

SECOND: All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

THIRD: Governments are instituted among men to secure these unalienable rights.

FOURTH: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

FIFTH: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

Let us now take up the first article of the Declaration--“_All men are created equal_”--and see what it means, and what it does not mean. It surely does not mean that all men are created equal in worldly possessions or natural advantages, in physical strength, personal beauty, moral sense or mental power, as it is notorious that mankind differ unavoidably and universally in all these conditions. But it clearly does mean that all men are created equal in a moral, legal and governmental sense, equal as members of society or citizens of the State, no matter how much they may differ in inherent or acquired advantages. It means that one man shall count no more than any other man before the law or in the State by reason of worldly possessions or personal advantages, but that each man shall count alike and equal, no matter how rich or poor, strong or weak, smart or dull, handsome or plain he may be. It means also that the “Creator” has not arbitrarily picked out any particular person, group, family, or race, as His special favorites, to rule or lord it over any other person or mass of persons; and, particularly, that the Creator has not specially “ordained” any favorite person to rule over any part of mankind without their selection and consent. It does mean that the Creator has no “favorites,” but that all men are “equal” before Him, and, hence, that barbarous and oppressive fallacy of “Divine-Right-Monarchism” is emphatically repudiated in this first Article. It means that all “one-man-rule” or “one-race-rule,” and all vile Germanism of the “Gott-Mit-Uns” or “Germans-Over-All” type, is flatly condemned. But, per contra, this Article does plainly mean that the Creator has divinely ordained each and every human individual to be an equal “sovereign” in his own right and that all government depends on the selection and consent of these individual and equal sovereigns who are “endowed” with the “divine right” of collectively forming their own government and selecting their own rulers, instead of having a rule and a ruler forced on them by alleged “divine” command, and without their selection or consent. In other words, this Article obviously means, pure and simple, “_government of the people, by the people, for the people_.”

Now if each individual American is divinely ordained as an equalized sovereign in his own right--and this is surely a grand distinction of the American Institution and the American citizen--he obviously has a sovereign right to his own body and all his natural possessions; and the most sacred and essential of these rights and possessions is, obviously, the right to his own physical body, the sanctity of his own person, and the right to decide how it shall be treated or taken care of in health or disease; and if he has not this sacred and sovereign right to his own body he has practically no right at all and might as well be wiped out and would be better dead. Therefore, if any doctor or other person claims the right to possess the body of any man, to experiment or operate upon it, to medicate, cut, inoculate, or treat his body as he might see fit, without the free choice, consent or approval of that man, it is obvious that the man is no longer a sovereign or the owner of his own body, but is a mere “slave” or domestic animal and that the doctor really owns his body and is his “master” as much as if he were a pig or dog; so that, therefore, all “equality” and “sovereignty” of the individual is destroyed by this medical “hoggery” and we have not a “_government of the people, by the people, for the people_,” but a government of the doctors, by the doctors, for the doctors,--which in fact we now have to a very dangerous extent. And, indeed, medical organization, compulsion, dictation and domination have now got to such a stage that it is one of the most dangerous powers in our body politic and must be curbed, as I will show later on.

It therefore follows that all compulsory or dictatorial medicine is an absolute violation of the first or basic principle of Americanism as expressed in our great Declaration of Rights, and our first or Pre-Constitution, and therefore must be abolished if we would be true to basic human right and fundamental American principles.

We will now take up the second Article of the Declaration and study its meaning. This Article, with a slight variation of the official words, is as follows:

“All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Now the great keynote-words in this clause, “_unalienable rights_,” mean “inseparable rights,” rights which the citizen cannot be separated from, rights which cannot be removed or taken away from the people or denied or invaded by any government or power whatever, but which all governments must respect and defend.

This second article from the Declaration of Rights is, I think, the wisest, most important and significant statement in a political, legal and moral sense that was ever written by human hand or human mind, because it is the essence of the essential paragraph of the Declaration and clearly expresses the basis of Democratic Government, Rational Ethics, and Civic Religion, in one simple clause or sentence! This basis is simply the inherent and “unalienable” rights of our fellow men necessary for human life, liberty and happiness, which are naturally or divinely conferred upon all men, equally, and cannot be ignored or violated by individuals or governments. And it is obvious that the honest and general recognition of these rights will at once establish true justice and righteousness among men and nations, and the disregard and violation of these rights is now, and ever has been, the cause of all wrongdoing, war, and other evils between men and nations the world over.

This simple and potent statement of basic human rights is therefore equal in ethical and legal force to the bulk of the Decalogue itself and to the Golden Rule of Humanity, Honesty and Justice in its three best versions from the world’s greatest moral teachers, Confucius, Plato and Christ; so that in this simple sentence from the essential paragraph of our first great national document we have a code of Democratic Government and of Human Ethics in one sentence, which, as before suggested, should be taught in all our schools as the basis of Americanism.

THE GOLDEN RULE AND THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS COMPARED

It may be worth while to consider here for a moment what is perhaps the best version of the “Golden Rule,” viz., the version of Plato in Plato’s Laws, Book XI, Prof. Jowett’s translation, which is in these words, dated about 360 B.C.:

“Thou shalt not touch that which is mine, if thou canst help, or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent: and may I, being of sound mind, do to others as I would that they should do to me.”

This is surely a most righteous ethical code, clear, broad and simple, and in moral and logical effect it is nearer like our American Declaration of Rights than any other formula, particularly as regards the recognition of the sacred personal rights of the individual which is equivalent to the principle of “unalienable rights” in the Declaration. The phrase, “Thou shalt not touch that which is mine or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent,” is certainly a most righteous rule of human honesty, sanctity, justice and security which surely condemns everything like compulsory medicine which touches and violates the body with inflicted disease, without consent of the patient, and removes and destroys the most sacred possession of the individual, viz., bodily sanctity, health and life.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ANALYZED AND DEFINED

It will be noted that the significant words of the second article of the Declaration state that “all men” are endowed by their Creator with _“certain” “unalienable rights,” among which are “life,” “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness.”_ By the word “certain” is, therefore, clearly meant _various_, _many_ or _several_ rights, most of which are left unspecified or not categorically stated except where it refers to the chief or general rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And it is obvious that by these expressions are clearly meant all essential natural or “unalienable” rights which are necessary to life, safety, liberty and happiness of the individual and which do not interfere with, invade or endanger the life, liberty or happiness of any other individual. The right to “life” of course stands first, and is stated first, because without life we have nothing; and the right to “liberty” is stated second, because without reasonable liberty life itself would be useless, and without ample liberty to pursue our ideas of happiness in our own ways, without infringing on the liberty or happiness of others, the right to nominal liberty might itself be useless and meaningless.