WCP3065

[1]¹

4 North Parade

Bacup.

July 10 1907

Dear Sir

I received your letter of June 8^th re vaccination in which you say you are pleased to receive my "very cocksure letter"[.] You say it gave you an opportunity of putting an intelligent man like me "who yet sits in darkness an opportunity of getting some light" if I wished to do so.

Now, seeing that I am only a working man with less than 26/- per week with a social position harmonising with the income, I feel it a great honour [2] [p. 2] to receive a reply of any kind from you.

There is nothing so painful to some people as being ignored, but it would not have been painful to me if you had ignored my letter, seeing the vast intellectual, scientific & social difference there is between us. I repeat, I am grateful indeed that you have replied and am exceedingly astonished that my letter has in some way so interested you as to ask me to write again after reading your book.

Nevertheless, with all my poverty — financial and educational, I have the [3] [p. 3] pleasure of knowing that I have a reputation of doing my own thinking — an exercise my acquaintances tell me is a great element in the limiting of my friendships. I generally reply that I dont quarrel with people of brains.

I may here point out that my hobbies in^clude Phrenology[,] Bimetallism, Medicine, (Homeoopathy[sic]) and Art as far as my slender means will allow & with shorthand writing as a form of recreation.

You describe me as an intelligent man sitting in darkness. It seems paradoxical to be ⁱⁿ such a state.

I have bought your book [4] [p. 4] and am reading it & shall say something on it after my remarks on your letter[.]

The first point in your letter is that you have come to be an antivaccinator after 20 years study of official documents. Now I am much surprised at the remark seeing that later in your letter you say that official statements are either ignorantly compiled or deliberately "faked" as bird fanciers say.

Your second point is that you ^then quote 4 medical men (antivaccinators) as "authorities" and speak of their errors and misstatements.

Dont you think that [5] [p. 5] the 4 medical antivaccinators are similarly afflicted with respect to reliability as to statistics?

It would be a singular coincidence if those 4 doctors should happen to be more conscientious than their opponents. At the close of your letter you say that when I have read your book I shall see the irrelevance as well as the errors in the facts which I so confidently state as proofs.

Now as a matter of fact I neither quoted medical nor official statistics in my first letter. I quoted nothing but what had come under my own personal observation in this country [6] [p. 6] town of 25000 people and the evidence of a friend who has been connected with a hospital in Hull. My knowledge of this matter is neither remote as to date or place nor is that of the evidence of my friend in Hull. I have given you nothing but ^{the result of} our combined personal observations while at the same time I cannot close my eyes to the fact that both in your letter and your book the "evidence" is of the "official" & medical type which you condemn as being doctored to the advantage of the vaccinators. But why so I cannot imagine! [7] [p. 7] ² I am also rather astonished at your charging me with being "cocksure" about my facts. My statements are not — statements only but facts gathered by myself no second or third party in the matter.

I could understand a person being "cocksure" about what he "thinks", but about things that he has experienced he has no alternative but to be positive.

As to the irrelevance of my facts I can't see there is such a thing. A fact stated is always relavant & important in any discussion. An [8] [p. 8] opinion should be based on a fact or it is questionable. I care nothing what doctors say on this subject as it is mainly the fee they are interested in.

If I had the ability to write a book on this question nothing would please me better.

There is one thing lacking in your letter & book & that is the absence of actual cases noticed by you personally. That is, you dont seem to have taken 100 cases from amongst your acquaintances &c & noted the percentage of bad results from vaccinations. A good deal of your evidence is not only second or third hand & official but dates back 80 or 100 years. In your long life you must have come across a number of people vaccinated & unvaccinated & information from such a source is infinitely of more value than shady figures compiled by well paid [1 word illeg crossed out] officials who have no further interest in the matter than the salary it brings them. Apologising for the long letter.

I am | Yours obediently & respectfully | Joseph Taylor[signature]