Quick Links
Search Website
Have A Question?
Wallace News
About This Site

Misinformation Alert!
Wallace Bio & Accomplishments
Wallace Chronology
Frequently Asked Questions
Wallace Quotes
Wallace Archives
Miscellaneous Facts

Bibliography / Texts
Wallace Writings Bibliography
Texts of Wallace Writings
Texts of Wallace Interviews
Wallace Writings: Names Index
Wallace Writings: Subject Index
Writings on Wallace
Wallace Obituaries
Wallace's Most Cited Works

Taxonomic / Systematic Works
Wallace on Conservation
Smith on Wallace
Research Threads
Wallace Images
Just for Fun
Frequently Cited Colleagues
Wallace-Related Maps & Figures

Alfred Russel Wallace : Alfred Wallace : A. R. Wallace :
Russel Wallace : Alfred Russell Wallace (sic)

A Message from Dr. A. R. Wallace (S621: 1905)

Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: Comments solicited by the Editor of The Vaccination Inquirer, and printed on page 49 of the magazine's 1 June 1905 issue. To link directly to this page, connect with: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S621.htm

     Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, in response to our request, favours us with the following communication for this, our school number, on "The Inconsistency of the Government on Vaccination":--

     1. It is alleged that Infant Vaccination gives protection against smallpox till 12 or 14, and Revaccination at that age for another equal period, at least.

     2. Parents who believe in Vaccination can, therefore, obtain this protection (whatever it amounts to) for their children.

     3. The law allows children to remain unvaccinated whose parents are "Conscientious Objectors." These children are (I presume) not refused admittance to schools.

     4. But the same children when, a few years later, they are qualified to be teachers, are refused admittance on the ground of their being a danger to the children who are vaccinated, and can be revaccinated, and, therefore, as alleged, be well-protected!

     5. This INCONSISTENCY is so gross, so absurd, so cruel, so utterly senseless and illogical, that it ought to be brought before Parliament again and again on every possible occasion when vaccination can be referred to, and by every member who disbelieves in vaccination, till all these wholly uncalled for and useless interferences of Departments and Employers are declared to be ILLEGAL. Surely, among the men chosen to legislate for us there must be a majority whose intellects are capable of seeing the ridiculous and unjust INCONSISTENCY of compelling those who do not believe in vaccination to be vaccinated, in order to protect those who can (it is alleged) be protected by revaccination, but who will not be so!

Alfred R. Wallace.

*                 *                 *                 *                 *

Return to Home