The Douglass Report May 2003

May 2003 PDF

Could the cure for smallpox be smallpox?
Homeopathy makes a splash in bioterrorism defense

We have all this hoopla about the smallpox immunization program: Will it work? Is it dangerous? Can we afford it? Must we force people to take it "for the good of all"? Do the doctors administering it even know what they're doing?

Smallpox is extremely deadly. In a virgin territory, which would include all of Western civilization, the death toll could be astonishingly high. It's a terrible way to die--fever, hideous vesicles (blisters filled with pus) that not only disfigure but blind many of the victims. Everything falls apart--bloody bowels, bloody exudates from the lungs, and a lot of pain from the maddening blisters of smallpox. You will pray for a quick and merciful death.

Yet, there is a cure that is so simple, easy, cheap, and reliable it's almost laughable. And here's the real kicker: It's been around for over 100 years.

I know homeopathy sounds preposterous in its basic concept--the smaller the dose, the more powerful the treatment. Yet, according to the information I've been reading, it is a safe, effective, and cheap method of preventing smallpox.

Even our enemies, the conventional practitioners, admit that homeopathy is making serious inroads in the practice of medicine.

The basic principle behind homeotherapy is that super dilution of certain bacteria creates an energy field in the substance. And that energy field can have powerful effects, namely protecting you from or curing you of an illness of some sort.

This is a very brief and very oversimplified explanation that doesn't really give justice to the homeopathic way of treatment and prevention --but it will help you understand the story I'm about to relate. Your future health, in this new age of pestilence and biological warfare, may depend on a little knowledge and some faith (based on science) in the homeopathic method.

I'd venture to say that the following account is one of the most important reports of the 20th century. Yet, up until now, only a few homeopathic doctors knew about it. Read it carefully and then read it again. It may save your life.

Time for doctors to realize humans aren't cows

In 1900, a smallpox epidemic was in full bloom. All doctors were intimately associated with the disease and its prevention and relied upon the cowpox vaccine. In the previous century, a Welsh farmer by the name of Benjamin Jesty discovered that his milkmaids did not contract smallpox no matter how severe the epidemic. He told his doctor about his observation and his doctor thus went from being Doctor William Jenner to the famous Doctor William Jenner, "discoverer" of smallpox immunization by the use of cowpox. (Ben, the real discoverer, died in obscurity --like most inventors and discoverers.)

But there was (and still is) a big problem with the cowpox vaccine: The substance was derived from cows, not humans. As I'm sure you're well aware (though many doctors don't seem to be), humans aren't cows, so treating them for cowpox--however similar it might be to smallpox--just won't be as effective as treating them with a substance based on human disease.

One doctor, Charles Eaton, understood that fact and took it upon himself to attempt to convince his peers in an address before the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1907.

He had been using a vaccine called variolinum in his patients and had found it a very successful method of treating and preventing smallpox outbreaks. I'm sure that you already have some questions about this treatment--Dr. Eaton anticipated as much and addressed the three biggest ones right in his speech, as follows:

"First, what is variolinum?

"Second, is its use as greatly improved form of vaccination reasonable?

"Third, has the test of actual experience demonstrated its effectiveness?"

To answer the first question, variolinum is the contents of the ripened pustule of human smallpox. (Sorry, I should have warned you not to read this right after dinner.) As I mentioned earlier, the "accepted" vaccine is made from a strain of the virus found in cows. As Dr. Eaton put it: "The importance of this distinction [cowpox versus smallpox immunization] is evident when it is remembered that any immunity conferred by cowpox virus is indirect; conferred by smallpox virus, it is direct."

Basically, Dr. Eaton was telling his colleagues that he believed it was much better to treat human patients for human smallpox and not cowpox.

Now, as for the other two questions, I tend to think that they go together and that the answer to the third makes the answer to the second obvious.

In his speech, Dr. Eaton cited five specific testimonials from other physicians who had used variolinum successfully on patients in their practices. In all, he stated that he had records of "2,806 vaccinations with variolinum including 547 exposures and 14 cases of smallpox. Shown thus by clinical test to be remarkably effective in actual practice, as well as scientifically correct in principle the use of variolinum is sound in theory and conspicuously successful in practice. It therefore does not ask our acceptance. It demands it."

The only thing we have to fear is 'fraidy-cat' physicians

He summed up his case with a speech that's as true now as it was back then, so I'll let Dr. Eaton speak for himself (and for all of us today) with the following quote:

"As scientific men, we are not at liberty to indulge our whim about the matter. It is not something that asks our support. The demonstration is placed squarely before us, and a demonstration never requests, it demands. We must not do homeopathy the injustice of giving this, one of its most successful and useful outgrowths, a partial and equivocal recognition, just because it happens to be strange to us."

"We must not be misled into the notion that advocacy of variolinum is an attack upon vaccination. It is just the reverse. It helps to promote vaccination by improving its method; just as the appearance of the steamship was not antagonistic to navigation, it promoted it."

Doctors still haven't learned their "cowpox lesson"

There you have it--the incredible, suppressed story of a completely safe and effective treatment and prevention for smallpox. And you can see that the battle between doctors and public health bureaucrats as to who should control medicine has been going on for over a hundred years.

Dr. Eaton was living in difficult times. How frustrating it must have been for him to see the suffering from smallpox and to know that the treatment and prevention was readily available but that most doctors would refuse to see the obvious.

Not much has changed since then.

Let's look at the grim present--a government gone mad with power, fumbling around with a highly dangerous vaccine and seriously considering forced immunization with this potentially lethal injection while the answer is right there in their nearest medical library: an effective treatment and preventive internal vaccine with no risk to the patient and a minimal cost.

You might think I'm exaggerating, calling the government "fumbling" and "mad with power," but before you reach a final conclusion on that one, let's go down to Baylor University in Texas and see what they are up to.

Even the healthiest Americans get sick from the current vaccine

A recent multi-center U.S. government clinical smallpox vaccine trial on 200 healthy young adults has been completed, and the results, downplayed by the sycophantic press, are shocking and ominous.

Kathy Edwards, the researcher who headed up the study at Baylor, was shocked at what happened when she gave the smallpox vaccinations to very healthy volunteers. "Arms swelled, temperatures spiked, and panic spread," she reported to MSNBC. After the shot, one-third of the volunteers missed at least a day of work or school and 75 out of 200 experienced high fever. That's almost 40 percent in healthy individuals, described as "the crme de la crme" in health by Edwards.

I emphasize the volunteers' health because you don't have to be a neuro-phrenologic epidemiologist to imagine what would happen if you gave this scabrous mess from cows to patients with compromised immune systems.

The MSNBC report stated that when researchers saw the drastic results "several [volunteers] were put on antibiotics because physicians worried that their blisters signaled a bacterial infection."

Let's analyze this tidbit from MSNBC, because it is more significant than they realize. Remember, these experiments were done at top medical centers, not in country clinics. These patients were put on antibiotics because the doctors had clear laboratory evidence that a severe infection was imminent, which means that the vaccine caused extremely healthy people to deteriorate to the point of not being able to fight off infection without antibiotics. So, essentially, the "crme de la crme" were crashing immunity-wise thanks to a shot that's "supposed" to protect us all.

Dr. Edwards commented: "I can read all day about [the adverse effects of the vaccine], but seeing it is quite impressive. The reactions we saw were really quite remarkable."

My apologies to Dr. Edwards for putting words in her mouth, but when a medical professional says something was "quite remarkable," that's doctoreze for what they're really saying in private among colleagues, which is "Man, that was a hell of a mess!"

Action to take:

I don't know how widely available variolinum is these days. There are a couple of websites (such as selling it and other homeopathic treatments for biological warfare toxins, but I have no information as to how reputable these companies are.

But before you take anything, you should consider talking with a trained homeopathic practitioner to find out what your options are in terms of these types of treatments. To locate one in your area, contact the National Center for Homeopathy at (703) 548-7790 or visit their website at RH


"Smallpox shots cause worry," MSNBC News (, 12/5/02

"Smallpox Compensation Proposed," Washington Post, 3/6/03, page A01

"Smallpox vaccine results are in," StratiaWire (, 12/9/02

"The Facts about Variolinum," Transactions of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1907: 547-567