Life, 1912-02-22 · page 30 of 44
Life — February 22, 1912 — page 30: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page from *Life* magazine (January 1912) contains reader letters debating three contentious issues of the era: **Anti-vaccination letter**: A chemist attacks mandatory vaccination as a doctor-profit scheme, claiming it causes disease rather than preventing it. This reflects the anti-vax sentiment that existed even then, though the specific medical arguments (cowpox inoculation causing tetanus) are now known to be false. **Anti-suffrage letter**: A woman opposes women's voting rights, arguing women should avoid "politics" and instead serve through other means. This represents the "silent majority" opposition to the suffragette movement that was intensifying in 1912. **Socialist critique**: A brief letter begins criticizing the "Man and Religion Forward Movement" as patronizing to working-class men. The accompanying illustration shows an awkward elderly man meeting a young woman—likely satirizing the discomfort of courtship across age differences, though the caption's relevance to the letters is unclear. These letters showcase *Life's* role as a forum for competing ideologies on medicine, women's rights, and labor.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
We Are Constantly in Receipt of Important Letters Which Are Too Long for Our Limited Space. Brevity is Absolutely Essential to Publication From a Chemist Epitor Livi Dear Sir.—As a constant reader of your paper it has been a source of de- light to me to observe your fearless at- titude on the popular superstitions of the day. Consequently, I congratulate you upon your good work in attacking the modern Moloch of compulsory vac- cination, which is costing the lives and health of thousands of sound little bod- ies, and is doing more to spread disease throughout the community than almost any other agency. It seems that some doctors can’t get enough practice by treating sick people, so they must needs resort to making well people sick, in order to swell the fees. It isn’t the vaccination fee that they want—bless you! no! It’s the after treatment of the disease they in- oculate with the vile pus from artificial- ly diseased heifers erroneously called “ pure calf lymph,” that yields the graft! To illustrate by an actual concrete case which occurred in this city about a year ago, and which the writer personally in- vestigated: Carl W- was a sound and hearty lad of six, perfectly well up to the time of his vaccination. He was sent home from school one, two and then three times, because he had no vaccination certificate, his parents very properly refusing to have him cow- poxed. He came home crying the third time, and said he wanted to go to school. His parents then weakened, and had the filthy operation performed. Two weeks afterward he was rigid with tetanus, re- sulting from the virus, with frequent agonizing convulsions. It required the services of five doctors at this stage, and the wonder is that he recovered in spite of them. It cost his father $200 in doc- tor’s fees, and nobody knows yet what seeds of slow incubating disease may have been introduced into his little sys- tem to slowly develop with the years. This case is being constantly duplicated all over this and other countries daily —all for what purpose—to “ protect” the public from the imaginary danger of a filth disease from which there are now fewer deaths (thanks to our prog- ress in sanitation) than from any other on the calendar! When will doctors, school-boards and the public learn that the best prophylactic against any disease is a normal manner of living, combined with personal and municipal cleanliness, and not the introduction of “serums,” “vaccines,” and other products of dis- ease into healthy bodies? Yours sincerely, Russert. Extiort, B.Se., Analytical Consulting Chemist. Dayton, Onto, January 26, 1912. Against It Dear Lire: As one of the many quiet women who love their country and their homes, I want to thank you for your champion- ship of “our rights” against our noisy sisters, the suffragettes. Please con- tinue to insist “that we should not be dragged by the ears" into suffrage. We feel there are many avenues of service without forcing ourselves into politics, and we beg the protection of all the present voters to shield us from the unfortunate conditions the suffragettes wish to bring about. Admiringly your constant reader, Mrs. Auice W. WiLuIaMs. The Saving of Souls? Epitor oF Lire: Dear Sir—In commenting on “ Man and Religion Forward Movement,” you bring forth certain remarks made by New York Call as unnecessary. Socialist Call has a right to ring the alarm, because “Man and Religion Movement ” is nothing else but some in- fernal bribe offered to workingmen, for whose interests the Call is published. If the women of the nation were en- franchised, why, of course, they would try to save the souls of women, too; but as long as the women don’t have ballot their souls are not worth saving at all. Will they be able to practice it? Oh, no. Promoters and floaters of “ for- ward” piety are a well-known crowd by their own deeds. “ By their deeds ye shall know them.’ Their dollar Bible has ‘a strong for- bearing upon the ironical commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” The comment was made in your issue of December 28, 1911. I don’t understand why such a hypo- critical movement shall not be con- demned to death while its vote catching character is intensely evident. Besides, don’t you think we have too much piety in the United States, more than we can practice? Very respectfully, Samurt H. Oxapgian, Curcaco, Itt, January 1, 1912. SO AWKWARD JO FIND THE NEW NURSE IS AN OLD SWEETHEART comicbooks.com