"My little darlings; they are all gone" was the heart wringing cry that came from one poor mother as they lowered her 3 sons, victims of this medical slaughter, into their little graves. One father was at the burial where his two daughters were buried, while the mother was at the hospital with her two sons, who, with more than a score of others, were seriously ill.

Efforts were made to white-wash this "accident," as it is called, but well-informed people are not blinded by such efforts.

At Baden, near Vienna, Austria, in an infants home, in September 1923, seven children died as a result of toxin-antitoxin inoculations. As a result the Austrian government outlawed the use of this serum.

The British Medical Journal, Sept. 26, 1925, page 587, says: "On the advice of professor Pirquet, active immunization of school children against diphtheria with toxin-anti-toxin has been forbidden in Austria."

In 1919 a similar thing happened in Dallas, Texas. Forty "severe reactions" with ten deaths from acute myocarditis (heart disease), resulted in the H. K. Mulford Company paying damages to the extent of $78,000 in 69 suits. This case was also white-washed as an "accident."

In 1924 at Concord and Bridgewater, Mass., other groups in schools suffered severly. The white wash in these cases was that the serum had been allowed to freeze before using. In 1926 when the famous publicity stunt was pulled off, whereby, a dog team carried serum over land to Nome, Alaska, which did not have an epidemic of diphtheria and which knew nothing of the Herculean efforts to save it, it was explained that freezing the serum does not damage it.

In July 1929, little ten-year-old Anna Voight, New York City, died a few hours after having received an injection of anti-lockjaw serum for a slight wound she had received. In his report, the Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Benjamin Vance, gave the cause of death in these words: "Sudden death following administration of antitoxin."

Did I but have the space, I could give the reader accounts of numerous such cases, since it has become the custom to inoculate everyone with tetanus antitoxin for every pin scratch, nail prick, burn, and to do the same for parturient mothers.

Death and damage comes from all serums. On May 14, (1930) news came from Germany, of the death of 8 babies, in the Luebeck home for infants, and serious illness of 24 others, caused by inoculation with a tuberculosis serum from cows. Deaths Continued to occur until on June 4, the news from Luebeck stated that: "Two infants died today, bringing the toll from administration of anti-tubercular serum to twenty- eight persons. Many others are not expected to live." On June 10, news came from Luebeck that "deaths from inoculation with anti-tuberculosis serum here have reached a total of 41, eighty-five infants are ill." On June 26 the death-toll had reached 44 and eighty- two others are ill.

Killed them to save them! And the process goes on. Parents are indifferent or apathetic. Law makers wink their eyes and grant licenses to more men to carry on the same practices, while aiding in persecuting Christian Scientists, Chiropractors, Naturopaths and others.

The serum employed was that concocted by the notorious Calmette, of France. This serum has left a trail of disaster behind it wherever it has been used. It does not and, of course, cannot protect from tuberculosis.

The only prevention of tuberculosis is scrupulous hygiene. Given this and no one need fear the disease. Not even children of tubercular parents, though in constant association with them, will develop tuberculosis, if they are cared for hygienically.

In St. Louis, Mo. in the fall of 1901, eleven children were killed and scores injured by prophylactic doses of diphtheria antitoxin. This is the serum that is supposed to cure diphtheria. It has never saved a single case. On the contrary, as I have shown in Serum Poisoning a Medical Crime, it increased the death-rate; and it is only by skillful juggling of statistics that it can be made to appear to have lowered the death-rate.

The American Medical Journal, March 16, 1929 tells us that two Chicago physicians sent out a questionnaire to 4,426 picked medical men, asking their opinions on vaccine and serum therapy. Some 1,261 physicians replied. Their replies are described as "exceedingly unfavorable," while over 90% of those replying state that they do not employ vaccines and serums. They say: "Of the 396 physicians in the list who answered as members of the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, not one considered the use of vaccines a superior method of treatment of infectious diseases."

In Oct., 1925 an effort was made to introduce toxin- antitoxin into the public schools of London, England, as it has bee introduced over here. The London County Council referred the matter to their "Public Health and Education Committee." The Committee rejected the proposal, saying, among other things, "it is not advisable" because "these lines of investigation (of toxin-antitoxin) should be thoroughly explored before further consideration is given to the immunization of school children."

That toxin-antitoxin does not immunize against diphtheria is certain from many facts. Sir George Newman, Chief Medical officer of the British Ministry of Health, says in his 1927 Annual Report, Page 188: "Owing to the few months which must elapse fram the time of inoculation until the child is sufficiently protected to resist an attack of diphtheria, this type of inoculation has no immediate effect in checking an epidemic.### How long immunity lasts cannot be determined #### Three doses will produce full immunity in 80 or 90 per cent of the children."

Not over 15% of children ever have diphtheria, even during an epidemic. If the inoculation only "immunizes the 85% to 90% who would not have diphtheria anyway, why give it?

Dr. Peters, lecturer on infectious diseases, University of Bristol, says that one of his fever hospital nurses, who was not allowed in the diphtheria ward until six weeks after the last two or three doses of toxin-antitoxin, developed diphtheria, and two other nurses developed diphtheria while being immunized, but who were not in contact with any known case of the disease. His opinion, based on his hospital experience, he states as follows:

"1. You can have diphtheria after you have given a negative Schick test." (Proving the test to be unreliable).

"2. You may not be particularly susceptible even if you give a positive Schick test." (Proving the test to be utterly worthless).

"3. You can have the disease even if you have been immunized." (Proving that the immunization process does not immunize.)

Dr. Joe, of Edinburgh, states that he personally knew of 33 children who had diphtheria after they had been immunized--Immunized! Hundreds of such examples have been reported.

Compare this with the fact that the cities of Lasalle, Peru and Oglesby, Ill., were reported, in The Illinois Medical Journal, Nov. 1929, P. 337, by Arlington Ailes, M. D., Health Director or these three cities, aggregating 30,000 people, not to have had a case of diphtheria in two and one-half years and not a death from this disease in three and one-half years, with the use of toxin-antitoxin "practically nil." Their neighboring city, Chicago, where toxin-antitoxin has been lavishly used showed a rise in both the case rate and the death rate. "In 1920 it (diphtheria in Chicago) again increased over 60 per cent and nearly 100 per cent in mortality." Let them find and alibi for these facts if they can. But you save your children from the dangers of all serums and vaccines.