1909: "Immune"

A simple word, used by marketers for over 100 years...but what does it really mean?

“Immune”. This is the title of a 1909 article that caught my attention.

I have been on the search for historical definitions relating to “vaccines”. Its important to understand how words, with public health implications, have been used (and abused) throughout history. Public health authorities today band around the words like “vaccine” and “immune” in the hope (I’m sure) that people don’t question their meaning. It seems this practice is not new!

The Webster’s dictionary, which is mentioned in the article I’m about to share with you below, today includes the word “immune”. It means, an “immune response” which is represented by the production of antibodies. Simply the production of an antibody is is enough for you to be considered “immune”, according to the dictionary. Immune means providing a “high degree of resistance“ or “protection” from a disease. The duration of said “protection” or “resistance” appears to be unimportant in the definition. The “immune” response could be short lived, in the order of weeks, and still fulfil the definition.

So “immune” does not imply life-long immunity. Did you know that? I wonder if the general population knows that. Yes they get their booster shots, but have they stopped to really think about why?

The dictionary definition certainly helps the vaccine manufactures claim to making one “immune”. Jab → antibodies generated → yep, you’re immune! → Thank$$$

It appears vaccine manufacturer ‘immunity from prosecution’ lasts a whole lot longer than the protection provided by the products they manufacture.

Today’s article from the archives:

“Immune”

Full credit: The Homeopathic Recorder, September 1909 from page 385.

“Immune” - source

(Highlights and formatting adjustments are mine)

Webster doesn't give this word, though he gives us "immunity," from the Latin "immunis," meaning "free from a public service."

The Century gives the word, and marks it "rare."'

Dunglison says it comes from the Latin "immunis" which he translates "safe."

Medical journals, and the newspapers now, use the word freely, so the foregoing authorities are "out-of-date" in the matter. Well, we all know what it means, or think we do, which is quite sufficient.

But, after all, what does it mean ?

The common idea in medicine is that if a certain thing has happened you won't "catch" a certain disease. The people have an idea that every one must have measles, whooping cough and the mumps, once, and after that are forever "immune" from those diseases. They once thought that every one must have the small-pox, hence to get it over and done with they had themselves inoculated with that disease. From this proceeding was evolved vaccination in which you have the disease in one spot on the arm (if you are lucky and it doesn't spread) and are then "immune."

This very old idea of making yourself sick, to keep yourself from getting sick of a certain disease, has spread lately, very rapidly among our allopathic brethren who now pronounce the practice "scientific."

The science on which they base it is essentially just the same as that on which our forefathers based their inoculation of small-pox — you must have it, so get it while you are healthy and can bear it. Get the matter over !

1909 is the year before the Carnegie-Flexner Report was released, but 10 years into the Rockefeller Institutes’ vaccine hunting expedition.

The learned say that one attack of typhoid makes you "immune;" so they inoculate, or vaccinate, you for that disease, just as the people once did for small-pox. Not only for typhoid but the cry is for inoculating for all diseases; also the prevailing practice is to inoculate, or vaccinate, in about the same way for the cure of disease. Put the dead matter of disease into the blood to get well and keep well!

Whether there is anything more in this than there was in the old inoculation practice is a question. On the surface they look the same, though the modern instruments are more highly polished and sterilized, to prevent bad things getting into the blood.

What happens when the "pure" stuff alone and undefiled gets in? What does "immune" mean? Is there such a thing as scientifically immunizing a human being?

All very good questions….100 years on, with our “modern” products, we still wonder what “immune” mean, or how such a loose “definition” can be allowed?

The "pure," whatever it is, of typhoid, is put into the blood of a healthy man. We know it does not immediately make him more healthy and thus capable of resisting disease for those who perform the operation warn the patient that he must not be frightened if he feels so and so. Still the operation is said to make him "immune" to typhoid. Does the immunity consist in the departure from normal health caused by this, and other similar, operations? If so, a return to normal health will put him just where he was before. That seems to be inevitable.

Some one sent us a clipping the other day describing the operation of immunization against typhoid. It explained that it was "well known" that one attack of typhoid made one "immune" against further attacks and that the operation took the place of the one attack of typhoid. This is precisely the theory on which the old small-pox inoculation was based. The sender of the clipping penciled on the margin "I have had typhoid three times."

The whole matter really narrows down to the question: Is the old belief that one attack of a certain disease prevents any future attacks, true or false?

If it is true it follows that there must be something inborn in every one that must come out in the form of a certain disease, in which the artificially produced disease may answer the purpose as well as the naturally acquired one does. If it is not true, the artificial disease is a hurtful, useless burden put on humanity.

Taking it all in all it looks as though the homoeopathic was the only scientific physician. He can read the remedy in the signs of the disease. He does not go about making his patients sick in order to keep them well.

You know our modern vaccines are “working” when you feel sick following your jab! If you don’t feel sick does that mean it’s not working?

Why do they call it an “immunization” schedule and not an “inoculation schedule” or a vaccination schedule”, seems more and more like marketing to me.

If you are not sure what homeopathy is there happens to be an article just after “immune”, from page 387

---

Support Jack’s Work

If you find the content at Totality of Evidence useful for yourself or to help awaken your family and friends, please consider becoming a paid subscriber so I can continue to add to this historical record and keep the website live.

From time to time I’ll add a stack here, but most of my work is done on the website, your support here, supports my work there!

Otherwise share the website on social media and subscribe to my substack so you get my next stack in your inbox.