America

[Shadow Wolf]

You have become a parrot. You repeat "been produced", "been produced", squawk! But you don't and can't simply post it. Whatever.

It's already been posted so why should I do it again, especially when now you're just looking lazy? It's not my fault if you put on some blinders and not my responsibility to make you see.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The first smallpox vaccinations did not occur until the 1790s under Dr. Edward Jenner. During the 1760s there were no vaccinations for it. Furthermore the native Americans had access to a similar level of medical expertise via their French supporters.

Umm...innoculation, not vaccination.
As I further outlined in the post immediately after the one you've quoted here.

As to Native Americans, I am unsure why that matters. My point was simply around the knowledge held regarding smallpox through the 18th century.

 

[Shaul]

Umm...innoculation, not vaccination.
As I further outlined in the post immediately after the one you've quoted here.

As to Native Americans, I am unsure why that matters. My point was simply around the knowledge held regarding smallpox through the 18th century.

Umm, NO, vaccination. According to the CDC "The basis for vaccination began in 1796 when the English doctor Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were protected from smallpox. Jenner also knew about variolation and guessed that exposure to cowpox could be used to protect against smallpox. To test his theory, Dr. Jenner took material from a cowpox sore on milkmaid Sarah Nelmes’ hand and inoculated it into the arm of James Phipps, the 9-year-old son of Jenner’s gardener. Months later, Jenner exposed Phipps several times to variola virus, but Phipps never developed smallpox. More experiments followed, and, in 1801, Jenner published his treatise “On the Origin of the Vaccine Inoculation.” In this work, he summarized his discoveries and expressed hope that “the annihilation of the smallpox, the most dreadful scourge of the human species, must be the final result of this practice.”

The CDC refers to it as vaccination. They have authority.

Regarding the general knowledge of smallpox in the 1760s, it is wrong (and borderline racist) to think the native Americans were less informed about smallpox than the British. Don't hold bigoted stereotypes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Umm, NO, vaccination. According to the CDC "The basis for vaccination began in 1796 when the English doctor Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were protected from smallpox. Jenner also knew about variolation and guessed that exposure to cowpox could be used to protect against smallpox. To test his theory, Dr. Jenner took material from a cowpox sore on milkmaid Sarah Nelmes’ hand and inoculated it into the arm of James Phipps, the 9-year-old son of Jenner’s gardener. Months later, Jenner exposed Phipps several times to variola virus, but Phipps never developed smallpox. More experiments followed, and, in 1801, Jenner published his treatise “On the Origin of the Vaccine Inoculation.” In this work, he summarized his discoveries and expressed hope that “the annihilation of the smallpox, the most dreadful scourge of the human species, must be the final result of this practice.”

The CDC refers to it as vaccination. They have authority.

Regarding the general knowledge of smallpox in the 1760s, it is wrong (and borderline racist) to think the native Americans were less informed about smallpox than the British. Don't hold bigoted stereotypes.

What the heck are you talking about?
Are you so keen to be 'right' that you don't consider what you're reading?

The point has been made to you multiple times, and by more than one poster. First of all, the vagaries of 18th century English notwithstanding, innoculation is not vaccination. I never once mentioned vaccination as being a thing during the 1700's (apart from the few years at the end). So whatever your point about the CDC is, just take a breath for a moment.

What was being done throughout the 1700s (indeed earlier, but whatever) is innoculation. This literally consisted of deliberate infection of people via exposure to the smallpox disease via the combination of dirty linen or bandages, alongside an open wound. This has nothing to do with the use of cowpox as a vaccine. To go further, the word 'vaccine' comes from the scientific name of cowpox (vaccinia).

As for this...

Regarding the general knowledge of smallpox in the 1760s, it is wrong (and borderline racist) to think the native Americans were less informed about smallpox than the British. Don't hold bigoted stereotypes.

This might be the biggest pile of tripe I've seen from you. Feel free to point out where I suggested anything about native American knowledge of smallpox. I'll wait.

 

[Shaul]

What the heck are you talking about?
Are you so keen to be 'right' that you don't consider what you're reading?

The point has been made to you multiple times, and by more than one poster. First of all, the vagaries of 18th century English notwithstanding, innoculation is not vaccination. I never once mentioned vaccination as being a thing during the 1700's (apart from the few years at the end). So whatever your point about the CDC is, just take a breath for a moment.

What was being done throughout the 1700s (indeed earlier, but whatever) is innoculation. This literally consisted of deliberate infection of people via exposure to the smallpox disease via the combination of dirty linen or bandages, alongside an open wound. This has nothing to do with the use of cowpox as a vaccine. To go further, the word 'vaccine' comes from the scientific name of cowpox (vaccinia).

As for this...


This might be the biggest pile of tripe I've seen from you. Feel free to point out where I suggested anything about native American knowledge of smallpox. I'll wait.

1) I never said that inoculation and vaccination were the same thing.
2) I wrote in a post "The first smallpox vaccinations did not occur until the 1790s under Dr. Edward Jenner. During the 1760s there were no vaccinations for it. Furthermore the native Americans had access to a similar level of medical expertise via their French supporters." I purposefully and specifically used vaccination and not inoculation. Then in your post number #82 you wrote "Umm...innoculation[sic], not vaccination." Which means that you were trying to correct my post. But you were wrong to do so. I was speaking of myself and decidedly used vaccination. I was not referring to anything you had written at all.
3) Therefore in my post #83 I corrected you. You being in error for lack of comprehension of what had been written.
4) Since I never accused you personally of having made the error of underestimating the knowledge of native Americans about smallpox. I wrote in general. If you took that personally that speaks more of your own self doubts than anything else. Some, yeah, so much for your faux umbrage about "tripe".

 

[Augustus]

1) I never said that inoculation and vaccination were the same thing.
2) I wrote in a post "The first smallpox vaccinations did not occur until the 1790s under Dr. Edward Jenner. During the 1760s there were no vaccinations for it. Furthermore the native Americans had access to a similar level of medical expertise via their French supporters." I purposefully and specifically used vaccination and not inoculation. Then in your post number #82 you wrote "Umm...innoculation[sic], not vaccination." Which means that you were trying to correct my post. But you were wrong to do so. I was speaking of myself and decidedly used vaccination. I was not referring to anything you had written at all.
3) Therefore in my post #83 I corrected you. You being in error for lack of comprehension of what had been written.
4) Since I never accused you personally of having made the error of underestimating the knowledge of native Americans about smallpox. I wrote in general. If you took that personally that speaks more of your own self doubts than anything else. Some, yeah, so much for your faux umbrage about "tripe".

Given the relevant point for this thread would seem to be “people’s general knowledge of diseases spreading”, what do you see as the relevance of vaccination specifically?

A person can a) try to spread a disease to others deliberately while b) not understanding vaccination.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1) I never said that inoculation and vaccination were the same thing.
2) I wrote in a post "The first smallpox vaccinations did not occur until the 1790s under Dr. Edward Jenner. During the 1760s there were no vaccinations for it. Furthermore the native Americans had access to a similar level of medical expertise via their French supporters." I purposefully and specifically used vaccination and not inoculation. Then in your post number #82 you wrote "Umm...innoculation[sic], not vaccination." Which means that you were trying to correct my post. But you were wrong to do so. I was speaking of myself and decidedly used vaccination. I was not referring to anything you had written at all.
3) Therefore in my post #83 I corrected you. You being in error for lack of comprehension of what had been written.
4) Since I never accused you personally of having made the error of underestimating the knowledge of native Americans about smallpox. I wrote in general. If you took that personally that speaks more of your own self doubts than anything else. Some, yeah, so much for your faux umbrage about "tripe".

My first post in this thread...emphasis mine

Whilst I think it unlikely small pox was used as an intentional weapon against Native American populations on anything like a regular basis, it's also not true that people in the 1700s lacked the knowledge of spreading it.
Quarantine processes were in place throughout the centuries, as was street cleaning. Innoculation was being practised from the 1720s, and vaccinations were introduced late in the century.

To this, you responded as follows;

The first smallpox vaccinations did not occur until the 1790s under Dr. Edward Jenner. During the 1760s there were no vaccinations for it. Furthermore the native Americans had access to a similar level of medical expertise via their French supporters.

This confused me. I had literally spelt out that inoculations occurred in the early 1700's and vaccinations not until the 1790's.
You then 'corrected' me, except that nothing you said contradicted anything I'd said. Given that you'd spoken about there being no vaccines in the 1760s...something I had already specifically noted...I thought it possible you were conflating vaccines and innoculations, given that they were originally referred to as vaccine innoculations by Jenner. And I couldn't work out what else would possibly make any sense. You had similarly told @Augustus that vaccines didn't exist in the 1760s when he'd mentioned innoculations. So I went with;

Umm...innoculation, not vaccination.
As I further outlined in the post immediately after the one you've quoted here.

As to Native Americans, I am unsure why that matters. My point was simply around the knowledge held regarding smallpox through the 18th century.

Simply, a clarification, in case you'd misunderstood. To which you replied;

Umm, NO, vaccination. According to the CDC "The basis for vaccination began in 1796 when the English doctor Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were protected from smallpox. Jenner also knew about variolation and guessed that exposure to cowpox could be used to protect against smallpox. To test his theory, Dr. Jenner took material from a cowpox sore on milkmaid Sarah Nelmes’ hand and inoculated it into the arm of James Phipps, the 9-year-old son of Jenner’s gardener. Months later, Jenner exposed Phipps several times to variola virus, but Phipps never developed smallpox. More experiments followed, and, in 1801, Jenner published his treatise “On the Origin of the Vaccine Inoculation.” In this work, he summarized his discoveries and expressed hope that “the annihilation of the smallpox, the most dreadful scourge of the human species, must be the final result of this practice.”

The CDC refers to it as vaccination. They have authority.

Regarding the general knowledge of smallpox in the 1760s, it is wrong (and borderline racist) to think the native Americans were less informed about smallpox than the British. Don't hold bigoted stereotypes.

Erm. What now? I have at no stage suggested vaccines existed in the 1760s. I explicitly said they didn't. I said nothing about native American knowledge of disease, although I can if you want. Basically, you are responding to things I never said, and more than that things I explicitly said did not occur (vaccines in the 1760s). As for my 'faux umbrage' about the racism comment, you might recall having said 'Don't hold bigoted stereotypes.' as a standalone sentence, written after quoting one of my posts (which...again...didn't refer to Native Americans at all, nor did my other posts). But sure...I should have understood that was a general comment and not related or directed in any way towards me.

Sheesh.

 

[Shaul]

My first post in this thread...emphasis mine


To this, you responded as follows;


This confused me. I had literally spelt out that inoculations occurred in the early 1700's and vaccinations not until the 1790's.
You then 'corrected' me, except that nothing you said contradicted anything I'd said. Given that you'd spoken about there being no vaccines in the 1760s...something I had already specifically noted...I thought it possible you were conflating vaccines and innoculations, given that they were originally referred to as vaccine innoculations by Jenner. And I couldn't work out what else would possibly make any sense. You had similarly told @Augustus that vaccines didn't exist in the 1760s when he'd mentioned innoculations. So I went with;



Simply, a clarification, in case you'd misunderstood. To which you replied;



Erm. What now? I have at no stage suggested vaccines existed in the 1760s. I explicitly said they didn't. I said nothing about native American knowledge of disease, although I can if you want. Basically, you are responding to things I never said, and more than that things I explicitly said did not occur (vaccines in the 1760s). As for my 'faux umbrage' about the racism comment, you might recall having said 'Don't hold bigoted stereotypes.' as a standalone sentence, written after quoting one of my posts (which...again...didn't refer to Native Americans at all, nor did my other posts). But sure...I should have understood that was a general comment and not related or directed in any way towards me.

Sheesh.

I see the main problem here. You assumed that I was responding to you. But I wasn't. I was commenting separately. It is your hubris that created the confusion for you. It isn't all about you, you, you.

 

[Shaul]

Given the relevant point for this thread would seem to be “people’s general knowledge of diseases spreading”, what do you see as the relevance of vaccination specifically?

A person can a) try to spread a disease to others deliberately while b) not understanding vaccination.

Actually the point is that it had been suggested that the British used their greater knowledge of medicine and smallpox as a weapon against the native Americans. But this is wrong on two counts. One is that the British had greater knowledge than the native Americans. That is a false assumption. The native Americans fighting the British in the Northwest territories had access to, and knowledge of both the British medicine and the French (who were supporting them against the British). The second is that the state of medical knowledge at that time could have permitted the British to weaponize smallpox. It wasn't. Not even close.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I see the main problem here. You assumed that I was responding to you. But I wasn't. I was commenting separately. It is your hubris that created the confusion for you. It isn't all about you, you, you.

You might understand my confusion given that you quoted my post and didn't specify who you were responding to, and responded in similar fashion to @Augustus, talking about vaccination when the point raised was about innoculation.

You can crap on about hubris and ignore that all you like.

 

[Augustus]

Actually the point is that it had been suggested that the British used their greater knowledge of medicine and smallpox as a weapon against the native Americans. But this is wrong on two counts. One is that the British had greater knowledge than the native Americans. That is a false assumption. The native Americans fighting the British in the Northwest territories had access to, and knowledge of both the British medicine and the French (who were supporting them against the British). The second is that the state of medical knowledge at that time could have permitted the British to weaponize smallpox. It wasn't. Not even close.

On these points, the first is questionable as ther is no reason to assume the British and French would share all their collective knowledge. I have no real opinion on that though.

On the 2nd, you are just wrong as I showed in the journal article I linked to and you ignored earlier.

People understood the concept of infection even if they didn’t understand the precise science underlying it. Cause and effect can be observed pretty easily along with historic Native American susceptibility to smallpox.

People, such as the Mongols, had tried to spread infection in warfare half a millennium earlier.

That such tactics may have been used to little to no effect by a small number of people 500 years later is perfectly plausible. There is no evidence it actually worked in any way.

Not sure why you have so much trouble grasping this.

To keep pretending it’s impossible is silly, as are attempts to conflate it with the natural smallpox and disease epidemics that killed over 99.99% of those who died from outbreaks.

 

[Shaul]

On these points, the first is questionable as ther is no reason to assume the British and French would share all their collective knowledge. I have no real opinion on that though.

On the 2nd, you are just wrong as I showed in the journal article I linked to and you ignored earlier.

People understood the concept of infection even if they didn’t understand the precise science underlying it. Cause and effect can be observed pretty easily along with historic Native American susceptibility to smallpox.

People, such as the Mongols, had tried to spread infection in warfare half a millennium earlier.

That such tactics may have been used to little to no effect by a small number of people 500 years later is perfectly plausible. There is no evidence it actually worked in any way.

Not sure why you have so much trouble grasping this.

To keep pretending it’s impossible is silly, as are attempts to conflate it with the natural smallpox and disease epidemics that killed over 99.99% of those who died from outbreaks.

You keep maintaining that there was some great understanding of smallpox during the 1700s. As evidence you point to use of experiments done in the 1700s. But these were very, very limited. A few crude experiment done doesn't cut it. Both the native Americans and the British, of course, knew that smallpox was contagious. But that knowledge alone doesn't support one side, the British, being able to use it was a weapon any more than that the native Americans could. The one single event that is supposed evidence for this is very dubious. There is no other evidence for this myth. And that is the bottom line. It is a myth that the British used smallpox as a weapon against the native Americans. All your sophistry about the extent of smallpox knowledge then doesn't change the bottom line.

 

[Augustus]

You keep maintaining that there was some great understanding of smallpox during the 1700s.

No I don’t, you just don’t read too well.

As evidence you point to use of experiments done in the 1700s. But these were very, very limited.

Hence me talking about rudimentary knowledge.

Both the native Americans and the British, of course, knew that smallpox was contagious. But that knowledge alone doesn't support one side, the British, being able to use it was a weapon any more than that the native Americans could.

I’ve not suggested Native Americans couldn’t have used it in theory.

I pointed out that it could theoretically be used by anyone who can recognise rudimentary cause and effect, and there is some evidence that some people tried it to minimal effect.

No idea why you are so insistent that this is not possible.

There is no other evidence for this myth. And that is the bottom line. It is a myth that the British used smallpox as a weapon against the native Americans.

Just saying it is a myth doesn’t make it so.

The correct position is that there is some evidence of it being used, although it is not definitive and it is unlikely it was particularly effective.

All your sophistry about the extent of smallpox knowledge then doesn't change the bottom line.

The bottom line that you struggle to read words in context and reply in a manner that reflects this?

 

[metis]

No I don’t, you just don’t read too well.


Hence me talking about rudimentary knowledge.



I’ve not suggested Native Americans couldn’t have used it in theory.

I pointed out that it could theoretically be used by anyone who can recognise rudimentary cause and effect, and there is some evidence that some people tried it to minimal effect.

No idea why you are so insistent that this is not possible.


Just saying it is a myth doesn’t make it so.

The correct position is that there is some evidence of it being used, although it is not definitive and it is unlikely it was particularly effective.


The bottom line that you struggle to read words in context and reply in a manner that reflects this?

Consider the source as he also made the claim that smallpox started here with the Amerindians whereas the earliest case found was in Egypt. The Europeans had to deal with smallpox long before the NA got it, which is why the latter had almost no immunity to it.