PDA

View Full Version : "Bodily Matters" by Nadja Burbach



Momtezuma Tuatara
30-08-09, 04:34 PM
"Bodily Matters” by Nadja Burbach. (http://www.amazon.com/Bodily-Matters-Anti-Vaccination-Movement-Perspectives/dp/0822334232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251615572&sr=1-1)

First, a background to my review:

20 years ago, my then GP, whose thesis was on smallpox, expressed surprise that I could have accepted without investigation, the medical dogma which stated that the smallpox vaccine saved the world from much misery, and vanquished Smallpox. Like most people today, I’d absorbed the “stories” from school and thought no further about it. I asked to see his thesis. He refused, saying that something learned first hand is much more valuable.

Periodically over the next eight years I went through all the early issues of BMJ and Lancets, looking at the smallpox issues, including those surrounding the UK Royal Commission on smallpox vaccination. The medical journals kept a very tight rein and primarily published pro vaccine articles, and diatribes against their esteemed peers who had defected to the “dark side”. My frustration grew, as it became obvious that the many doctors who had become anti-vaccine were refused the right to publish their arguments in the medical journals of the 1800’s.

I looked far and wide for information privately published by these doctors. Very little was to be found in libraries in this country. With the assistance of many friends overseas, I then built up a considerable library, which includes some of the documents Burbach has used in her books.

After spent decades reading copious quantities of “heretical” material on smallpox, at first I didn’t feel the need to read someone else’s ideas on the anti-vaccination movement in England.

What changed that feeling was the increasingly strident view expressed by current vaccine defenders, that the anti-vaccination brigade of today, are “just like the superstitious idiots of the UK anti vaccination movement in the later half of the 19th century”. I knew this was untrue. When a book review suggested that “Bodily Matters” was “radical” and attempts to set the record straight on the polical and social aspects of the anti vaccination movement in England between 1850 – 1907, I decided to read it.

______________________

This book is an extension of Burbach’s thesis. The marks you get for a thesis, are often determined by the world view and opinions of the person marking your thesis. A thesis determines not only the “quality” of your degree, but the quality of your subsequent academic appointment. Anyone writing a thesis takes those factors into consideration before even outlining what their thesis will be. While this book has a tendency, at times, to wander unfocussed and duplicate information, the research done before writing this book is outstanding. The application of the research is selective, concentrating mainly on social and political issues. Within these limitations, “Bodily Matters” is an excellent book with a wide sweep, giving much to think about.


In the beginning of her book we read descriptions more usually penned by pro vaccine doctors, extensively describing the various anti-vaccine groups as “sects”; their information as “propaganda”, and holding that they “preached” their message. The first part of the book feels slightly incredulous, as if distasteful of retrospectively perceived “stupidity”, and holding them at a distance, like a very dirty handkerchief. She discusses the diverse ideas of the time which appear ludicrous today, as to where smallpox came from, and the differing medical attitudes towards the disease.

Then Burbach describes the impact of compulsory vaccination laws; the fact that they mainly affected the poor, and what it meant to have been a pro vaccine parent and to watch one’s newborn baby die in such horrible ways, though she limits and sanitises her descriptions of these. She described the communities; how people lived cheek by jowl, knowing other parents who also watched their babies die. She details why parents would rather pay fines and go to jail than vaccinate subsequent babies.

She details the social classes involved in the anti vaccination movements; the various organisations and what motivated them. With these descriptions, the tenor of this book changes, as she starts to feel their lives and experiences. She describes the fact that most of the parents in front of the judge or thrown into jail were exemplary parents, whom doctors and others admitted were not your average criminal. One doctor and judge testified to the Royal Commission that anti-vaccinators were “sober and industrious, good citizens” and that it was “among the people who never object to vaccination that you will find the drunken and dissolute classes.” (page 105)

You get to feel some of what gave these good, thinking, conscientious parents, their backbone, to the point where vast communities across England supported one another financially, actively, day to day, year by year, across classes with a mix of medical and lay people, for decades.

You start to understand why politicians, the police, auctioneers and pro vaccine doctors feared them greatly.

Previously “loaded” words disappear, and distaste for the movement dissolves as she describes the parents’ “reality show” for what it really was. A telling sentence is at the end of her “Acknowledgements” is where Burbach says that all those parents ever wanted, was to have happy, healthy children.

Remember how at high school we learned about prison reform and Elizabeth Fry? This book talks about the prison reform later forced on the British government, by the Quakers. An action which stemmed directly from the experiences of the many Christians who landed up in horrendously abusive jails for refusing to vaccinate their babies!

Just as I felt that she might have “got it”, the tenor changed. As if frightened by relating to real people, the language changes, and the lunatic fringe element of society is given another dusting off.

Left out of “Bodily Matters”, are examples from the vast historical medical data-base (which both sides manipulated mercilessly); descriptions of the legions of doctors who WERE anti vaccine. Little is mentioned from the testimony of doctors from all over the world to the Royal Commission on Vaccinations, who gave evidence from their own practices, as to the very real dangers of the smallpox vaccine, and just how much disease and death, arm-to-arm vaccination caused. (Only covered is society’s allegations and florid language of this.)

Also missing is the fact that the increasingly large numbers of doctors and surgeons giving evidence, or speaking out, so distressed the British Medical Association, that they established the GMC (General Medical Council) whose function since then has been to judge the acceptableness or otherwise of a doctors professional standing and practice, dependant on toeing the party line.

Only briefly does Burbach touch on the fact that a lot of the anti vaccine material was provided by doctors, or that doctors were involved in the anti vaccine movement. While the anti-vaccine movement didn’t “need” those doctors in the sense that, just like today, nothing negates experiences seared into a pro vaccine parent’s brain, or the reasons why they speak out, doctors were part of the movement. Apart from two pages of descriptions (116-117); a photo of a baby in a coffin with not a sign of a problem, and another of a somewhat blurry disfigured arm-pit, Burbach concentrates primarily on unwisely worded sentiments of various groups; their emotional outrage, in various different florid styles of writing. What remains, is a rather sanitised, unreal, distanced view of what really did matter to parents, when it came to their babies’ bodies.

Nowhere though, did I see in the book, the many testimonies from these parents and movements, that children subsequently NOT vaccinated, didn’t die like their first vaccinated children did.

This book is part of a "radical perspective" series, though there is debate over what "radical history" is. Unlike current pro vaccine propaganda on the anti vaccine movement of the past, this book tells a small part of the truth for a change. Therefore, this book could only be considered “radical” if you consider truth a radical concept.

"Bodily Matters" stays silent on the many other truths which might disturb current medical projects as to how to condition people's views on "the late, great smallpox vaccination, which saved everyone from a fate worse than perdition".

This book cries out for a companion volume describing what was missed out, but that would never be tolerated by “acceptable” academia.

MinorityView
30-08-09, 10:55 PM
She has already gone far enough to get into trouble, I suspect. Showing that people opposed vaccination with good cause is extremely radical. Even if she fudges a bit on what constituted the good cause.

The party line is that the anti-vaxers were nuts and idiots then and they are nuts and idiots today. End of discussion.

ema-adama
30-08-09, 11:53 PM
I am reading this book now. I have not read about the history of the anti vaccination 'movement' and knew very little about the facts of smallpox and it's vaccine - other than that there was successful use of quarentine in Leicester.

I find the whole thing so very distressing to be honest. I am enjoying reading the anti vaccination concerns couched in political language. I had no idea what a rich history there is in refusing vaccination. I really did just want what is best for my child, and did not know what a huge can of worms I opened when I chose to try and understand why I did not feel comfortable with the practice of vaccination.

Momtezuma Tuatara
31-08-09, 08:59 AM
She has already gone far enough to get into trouble, I suspect. Showing that people opposed vaccination with good cause is extremely radical.

the problem is that she leaves the "good cause" bit up in the air. That is "fudged" because she surrounds that, and buries it amongst the words of those considered to be idiots.

The actual "good cause" is the bit that is not spelled out in a plain, clear picture. We are left in no doubt that good upstanding public citizens once vaccinated their children, then chose not to, because they "alleged" their children were painfully killed by the process.. We are left in no doubt as to what happened to those people. All that is carefully hedged with distancing language at the beginning...

Nowhere are we shown clearly what that good cause was, and why; what the REAL crux of the issue was, and the evidence for it that all these people who battled for 50 years (which for some was their whole life) knew.

Therefore people can still be left scratching their heads, and thinking that for all that, they were still stupid people.

Therefore, where a fundamental truth is skirted or left ambigious, and where the result is also ambiguous, that is not radical.


The party line is that the anti-vaxers were nuts and idiots then and they are nuts and idiots today. End of discussion.

But she has actually done very little to disturb the party line. That's the beauty of her thesis/book. It doesn't shift demarcation lines much at all. It's sort of a bit like watching "Survivor". You never quite know what the real issues are, because most of the background stuff that's important to know, isn't told.

To me, while it's an excellent book in it's own right, it's the ultimate in politically correct win/journalism. After all, she gets to do something "innovative" which is discuss something in terms that no-one else has done, but it's not "radical" because no-one finishes the book, really understanding what the "spine" of the issue was all about.

In that, she's done very well. Achieved the aims of a thesis, and gained a professorship of history by showing that she can think a little bit differently from anyone else.

That's not radical in my dictionary.

Momtezuma Tuatara
31-08-09, 09:04 AM
Or to put it in a nutshell, she has successfully run with the hares and hunted with the hounds.

Mr. Beyondtheory
06-09-09, 11:40 AM
That's a good saying, and there is truth in it. I know of a prominent human rights lawyer in Auckland who speaks out for minority rights ie new immigrants, and then slowly ripped off a friend of mine from Fiji who was trying to gain his help to get permanent residency.