JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
They gave the wool blankets to the tribes.
Yes they did but not loaded with smallpox.....that was an Idea from the English in the French and Indian War ( 1754-1763 )...not at all connected to Lewis and Clark.
Andy
Edit to add :
Jefferson wanted to cultivate friendly relations with the various tribes that Lewis and Clark would come into contact with...
Can't do that with smallpox infected blankets...
 
They gave the wool blankets to the tribes.

August 3 Lewis spent those early hours finishing his draft of a long speech proclaiming American sovereignty and the coming of new traders. Clark may well have spent the same time supervising the preparation of gifts. Opening bale number thirty, the men took out red leggings, fancy dress coats, and blue blankets. Setting aside flags and medals, they carefully packed the trade goods in individual bundles whose size and quality was determined by the rank of each chief. A special package was made up for the absent chief Little Thief.


I ain't saying that they knew the blankets carried the pox, but the natives got it nonetheless. They may have had no clue that their goods had the pox, and their motivations may have only been to expand trade, but the end result was the same.

In this, i am drawing a parallel between the vaccines and the gift blankets.


The proponents of the vaccine may indeed be successful at eradicating the target pathogen, but there may be other exposures to pathogenic/toxic agents used in the manufacture of the vaccine, or through the metabolism of the vaccine may contribute to a host of other illnesses or conditions.

That's all I'm saying.
 
They gave the wool blankets to the tribes.

August 3 Lewis spent those early hours finishing his draft of a long speech proclaiming American sovereignty and the coming of new traders. Clark may well have spent the same time supervising the preparation of gifts. Opening bale number thirty, the men took out red leggings, fancy dress coats, and blue blankets. Setting aside flags and medals, they carefully packed the trade goods in individual bundles whose size and quality was determined by the rank of each chief. A special package was made up for the absent chief Little Thief.


I ain't saying that they knew the blankets carried the pox, but the natives got it nonetheless.
Smallpox was introduced to many of the Plains Indian tribes in a big way during the outbreak of 1837...not during the Lewis and Clark trip of 1804-1806.
Smallpox can be traced to the Spanish in a much earlier time frame....but again not connected to Lewis and Clark.
Andy
Edit to add :
I am not saying that disease was not introduced to the tribes by actions or contact with non tribal folks...nor am I saying that intentional infection was not done or at least considered...
I am saying that there is no evidence that Lewis and Clark did such things as had been posted here.
Andy
 
Wouldn't the evidence be the extirpation of the coastal tribes from Smallpox?
Coastal tribes had more contact earlier with traders and sailors...long before Lewis and Clark came along.
Again I say there is no evidence that Lewis and Clark spread smallpox...

You have a better case for the men of Lewis and Clark contracting VD from the Mandan's
( who got it from French and maybe some English traders ) and then in turn infecting tribes further west....
Andy
 
10 years in healthcare. More people die from the flu than getting the shot. That should be good enough to motivate people. It often takes about 2 weeks for it to start working. Meaning its possible to get the flu before your vaccine kicks in. This does happen. It also doesn't prevent other illness. The Flu is a virus. Its not going to stop a COLD, bacterial infections, Pneumonia, Upper respiratory infections, ect.
 
Andy, I stand corrected. I looked into it, and it looks like the Smallpox epidemic did most of its damage between 1770 and 1850, so somebody else must have exposed the nates to it.
Sorry Andy, I was mistaken
 
Don't get the flu shot, won't ever get the flu shot. Goverment or "health care professionals" say I should do something its a pretty safe bet I SHOULD NOT do it!

They also say the single most effective way to prevent the spread of many/most communicable diseases is by washing your hands. Do you not do that? How about maintaining a healthy weight and diet to reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes? How about the avoiding smoking to prevent lung cancer? The dangers of asbestos or lead exposure?

I'm not saying anyone should have blind trust in everything "the man" says, but if it's evidence-based, seems odd to go opposite reflexively.
 
Maybe, you should hear a different take from a fairly reputable source of historical events (Smithsonian) about the real cause of the death in the Flu epidemic.

However, more recent study suggests that the virus itself, though more lethal than other strains, was not fundamentally different from those that caused epidemics in other years.

Much of the high death rate can be attributed to crowding in military camps and urban environments, as well as poor nutrition and sanitation, which suffered during wartime. It's now thought that many of the deaths were due to the development of bacterial pneumonias in lungs weakened by influenza.



A good amount of the deaths were caused by pneumonia, as a result of the squalor and overcrowded living conditions because of hardships of WWI. Coupled with poor nutrition and hygiene it was an epidemic waiting to happen. It really should b called the Pneumonia epidemic, rather than the Flu epidemic. You put too many malnourished people in any overcrowded situation than diseases are bound to proliferate, even in modern times.

Simplistic viewpoint. I wonder what their purpose is in saying such things.

#1. They admit that it was more lethal than other strains
#2. It wasn't FUNDAMENTALLY different.... Well heck yeah, a cow is a cow, a boy is a boy, a knife is a knife, the flu is the flu. And that is the entire point of my posting about the Spanish Flu Pandemic. :rolleyes:
#3. Flu causes deaths by pneumonia, especially in vulnerable populations.... uh yeah, we knew that. It was also in the report I cited. What is the point? People still died, and still do. Pneumonia is the biggest risk of flu to people like me, elderly, immuno-compromised.
#4. What, you think overcrowding, malnutrition, and poor hygiene no longer exist? Really? What world do you live in? Look around.
#5. Call it the Pneumonia epidemic if you want, people are good at renaming things to obscure reality. The reality is that the pneumonia to the extent that it happened would not have happened w/o the flu. It was flu caused. The proof is that the incidence of pneumonia in those populations was historically minor w/o the flu.
#6. We also had crowded troop ships in WWII, but no flu epidemic. In the 1940s, the US military developed the first approved inactivated vaccines for influenza, which were used in the Second World War. Well, duh!!! :rolleyes:

You might as well give it up... an honest view of history and science is not on your side. You have been refuted at every turn.
 
Last Edited:
When you hit 65, it's a good idea to get the pneumonia inoculation series (2) and perhaps the shingles shot.

Many geezers croak from pneumonia...

I have dual risk of pneumonia... I'm old, and I have diabetes. The first time I ever got pneumonia in my life was during a URV episode after I turned diabetic in my mid 40s.

So I've also gotten both the flu shot and the pneumonia shot since then. However, we also need to be aware that the pneumonia shot only confers resistance to "bacterial" pneumonia... one can still contract viral pneumonia. I have to wonder how likely viral pneumonia can be with flu. I'm not willing to take the chance... it's deadly to my segment of population!!!

Shingles, I'm fortunate that the VA provided me with the two-dose shingles vaccine. I felt like crap shortly after that one too. But I've had the pox, I've had shingles, one case of it being in my eyes, have had friends with shingles and post-herpetic pain syndrome, and I really don't want to have a horrible episode of that infection.
 
Last Edited:
The proponents of the vaccine may indeed be successful at eradicating the target pathogen, but there may be other exposures to pathogenic/toxic agents used in the manufacture of the vaccine, or through the metabolism of the vaccine may contribute to a host of other illnesses or conditions.

Please refer back to posts #46 and #52, where all additives are listed. These additives have all been determined to be at safe levels. You can either believe that or believe the hype put out by the pearl clutching :eek::eek: crowd. The remaining risks are: Anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that can be mitigated by only getting shots where trained staff and epi pens are on hand, and poorly manufactured vaccine that has unexpected contaminants... this is usually caught before it becomes a problem, the history of such occurence is AFAIK very low.
 
Last Edited:
I did not go for one reason or the other, feet dragging, lazy, whatever. But I did call Walgreens who will give the shot without a Rx, no appointment, some free pay options (VA will pay mine)or low pay. they have the lower power under 65 shot and the Hi-Po over 65 shot, usually determined by age, I'll keep that age a secret so the commies can't break the code, but the numeric score for the age has a six and a five in descending order. If you figure it out please do not write it on a bathroom wall, especially at home. Spouse's frown on that.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top