When it comes to symptoms of disease, fear has been a constant tool used by the medical cartel to sell young impressionable minds on the myths of “viruses” and contagiousness. A great example of this is found in smallpox. From a very young age, we were fed stories of how the pilgrims transferred the deadly “virus” to Native Americans by providing them with infectious blankets in the 18th century. We were told it was a highly infectious and often fatal disease resulting in painful pus-filled scabs covering and eventually scarring the body. According to the CDC:
“Smallpox was a terrible disease. On average, 3 out of every 10 people who got it died. People who survived usually had scars, which were sometimes severe.”
We’ve been told throughout our lives that the fearsome “virus” had claimed the lives of countless innocent victims over centuries and that it was eventually conquered and eradicated by vaccination. According to the WHO:
“Smallpox is an acute contagious disease caused by the variola virus, a member of the orthopoxvirus family. It was one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity and caused millions of deaths before it was eradicated. It is believed to have existed for at least 3000 years.”
“The World Health Organization launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox in 1967. Widespread immunization and surveillance were conducted around the world for several years. The last known natural case was in Somalia in 1977. In 1980 WHO declared smallpox eradicated – the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction. This remains among the most notable and profound public health successes in history.”
If we are to believe the CDC and the WHO, smallpox was a horrifying disease which was the first and only “virus” to have been successfully wiped out of existence due to vaccination. We must fear the re-emergence of not only smallpox but any other potential pathogen which could spark another deadly worldwide pandemic. Tales recounting the horrors of smallpox and the successful defeat of this invisible enemy through vaccination have been used to sell the public on the measures currently implemented to vanquish our latest unseen foe in “SARS-COV-2.” Greater loss of freedom has been given up by the populace for a false sense of security in order to avoid another catastrophic smallpox-like “virus.”
However, are the smallpox talking points supplied by pharmaceutically-controlled criminal organizations such as the CDC/WHO/MSN actually accurate? Was smallpox really eradicated worldwide or were the symptoms commonly associated with this “virus” just relabeled and reclassified under new names?
Smallpox-Related Viruses Are Still a Threat to Humans, Experts Warn
“But after the eradication of smallpox, researchers saw an increase in cases of some other diseases caused by poxviruses. In particular, there has been a rise in cases of monkeypox, which is closely related to smallpox; both belong to the poxvirus family called orthopoxvirus. (The two diseases have similar symptoms, but monkeypox is less deadly than smallpox: The fatality rate for monkeypox is 10 percent, versus 30 percent for smallpox.)”
“Researchers also continue to discover new types of poxviruses in various parts of the world. In the Alaska case, which occurred in 2015, the woman went to the doctor because she had a lesion on her right shoulder, along with fever, fatigue and tender lymph nodes, according to a report of the case, published in June. Her doctors thought she might have chicken pox or shingles, but testing revealed that she had a type of orthopoxvirus that had never been seen before.
It took six months for the lesion to fully disappear, but the woman eventually recovered and did not transmit the infection to anyone else, the report said.
That case shows that there are “previously undiscovered, unrecognized, unknown poxviruses … that are still being discovered to this day,” Petersen said during his talk.”
As can be seen, even today, cases of identical symptoms associated with smallpox are still rampant in the form of monkeypox and whatever other unknown or undiscovered “poxvirus” they want to pull out of thin air as the enemy to blame. These same symptoms of disease were well known to have occured for centuries and were called by various names. In fact, smallpox and measles were discussed interchangeably as the same disease based on similar clinical descriptions. Even chickenpox was regularly “mistaken” as a mild form of smallpox much throughout history. It wasn’t until 1767, when William Heberden decided to classify them as distinct entities, that the idea of two separate diseases was even considered. This idea did not become accepted until well over a century later in the early 1900’s and even then, many doctors and researchers still disagreed.
A few sources help to shed more light on this subject. The first discusses herpes zoster and the confusion between smallpox and chickenpox. The latter was considered a mild disease of no danger and was regarded as the “chicken” form of smallpox:
Zeroing in on zoster: a tale of many disorders produced by one virus
“While herpes zoster infection has been recognized since antiquity, chickenpox (varicella) was confused with smallpox until the 1800s, when both illnesses became better understood.”
“The lesions of varicella were first described by the Persian scientist Rhazes (865-925) and later by Giovanni Filipo (1510-1580) . The name “chickenpox” was used by Richard Morton (1637-1698) who characterized it as a mild form of smallpox. The exact origin of the name “chickenpox” remains unclear. Samuel Johnson suggested that since the disease was “of no great danger,” it was a “chicken” form of smallpox. Other reasons given are that the scars remaining after chickenpox looked as though chickens had pecked at the skin. Furthermore, chickpea seeds are similar in size to the lesions, possibly contributing to the name. Finally, the term may have originated from corruption of the Old English word “giccin” which means “itching.” The term “pox” meant “curse” in medieval times, which is thought to have contributed to the name as well.”
“The fundamental challenge to understanding VZV was the ability to identify disease produced by it. William Heberden is credited with distinguishing the difference between smallpox and chickenpox. In his address to the College of Physicians in London in 1768, Heberden described the clinical distinction between the two disorders , underscoring the importance of recognizing that a history of chickenpox did not confer immunity to smallpox. While today it is understood that chickenpox, as compared to smallpox, has no or mild prodrome, and lesions at different stages of development and generally a more centripetal distribution, Heberden’s insights regarding the distinction between smallpox and chickenpox were not accepted immediately.”
The next source discussed the great difficulty involved in trying to determine distinct diseases throughout history as the clinical descriptions were either inadequate or identical. Smallpox was “mistaken” for many other diseases producing rashes and pustules. While some researchers attempted to claim the Egyptian Ramses V died from smallpox due to lesions on his mummified face, there is no mention of smallpox in Greek and Roman literature. When the term “variola” first appeared, it did not come with any clinical descriptions thus it can not be stated to have been discussed as smallpox. Confusion between smallpox, measles, and chickenpox made retrospective investigations difficult and there is evidence that Indian writers discussed chickenpox as just a mild form of smallpox:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VIRUS CONCEPT AS REFLECTED IN CORPORA OF STUDIES ON INDIVIDUAL PATHOGENS
“In trying to assess the influence wielded by smallpox on social and political history, or just to determine the chronology of the disease, one is hampered by the inability to identify the disease with any degree of certainty from extant descriptions before A.D. 900, and sometimes much later. The virus of smallpox is known to vary in
virulence, and inaccurate or inadequate descriptions of the clinical picture offer rich opportunities for confusion with a number of other fevers accompanied by rashes and pustules. Dixon’ has provided a sober account of the known early history of the disease, and of the difficulties inherent in attempts to identify it in retrospect. He points out that the abundant lesions on the face and body of the mummified Rameses V, who died about 1100 B.C. of an acute infectious disease, are very similar to those of malignant smallpox. It is therefore curious that there is no mention of smallpox in Hippocrates’ otherwise copious volumes of clinical descriptions, nor elsewhere in the Greek and Roman medical literature according to Dixon, although some other authors have attempted to identify destructive epidemics which contributed to the decline of the Roman empire in the third and fourth centuries as outbreaks of smallpox.
Nor does contemporary terminology in any way clarify the issue. Even when the term “variola” first appeared it was not accompanied by a clinical description, and we have no way of knowing whether or not it referred to smallpox. For several hundred years after the introduction of the terms “variola” and “morbilli”, the diseases they refer to can in no certain way be distinguished as smallpox and measles, respectively, on the basis of the inadequate clinical descriptions. In the case of smallpox, the confusion with chicken-pox further clouds retrospective epidemiological considerations.”
“Interest in the eruptive fevers during this period also produced, in 1767, the first clinical description of chicken-pox as a separate entity distinct from smallpox.
Written by the elder Heberden it is a lucid and definitive account. Its appearance was prompted, Heberden points out, by the danger of this relatively mild complaint being confused with smallpox, and thus lulling its victims into a false sense of security in the belief that they would henceforth be immune to smallpox. In fact, there can be little doubt that varicella had been known for centuries, and it may have been described as a mild form of smallpox not only by Rhazes and Avicenna, but also by Indian writers.”
This final source claims that it took well over 200 years to figure out that chickenpox and smallpox are not the same thing. It reiterates much of the information on Heberden’s “proof” and the general confusion between the two diseases. It is also pointed out that many professionals did not agree with this separation and that distinguished physicians and doctors could not tell the difference between the two:
Thinking outside the pox
Chickenpox and smallpox aren’t the same thing, but it took over 200 years to figure that out
“Since the early symptoms of smallpox and chickenpox are quite similar, and smallpox itself is not universally fatal, it’s not surprising that the viruses were easily confused. Plus, there were so many poxes to contend with in centuries past — from the Great Pox (syphilis) to the more benign cowpox — that without the dubious diagnostic blessings of Google Images and resources like the Canadian Pediatric Society’s Caring for Kids website, the mere sight of a pustule, mosquito bite or runny nose sent some medieval mothers into a full-blown panic.”
“The first mention of the term chickenpox came towards the end of the 17th century courtesy of English doctor Richard Morton (1637-1698). It’s unknown whether or not he knew of Giovanni’s work when he described chickenpox as a milder version of smallpox in 1684. It was another Englishman, physician William Heberden (1710-1801), who undertook the first independent study of the disease in 1767, in which he proved that varicella and variola were completely unrelated viruses. His paper, “On the Chickenpox” appeared in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and was also notable for its assertion that those who had chickenpox were granted immunity from ever contracting the disease again. Heberden’s work surely influenced Edward Jenner (1749-1823) in his momentous development of the smallpox vaccine in 1796.”
“But the likeliest source is actually not a corruption of the “itching pox” or even of “child pox.” Samuel Johnson believed that the reason the disease had been coined “chicken” pox by some unknown source was that, quite simply, it was a cowardly, less fearsome incarnation of the somewhat ironically termed smallpox. He wrote in his 1755 dictionary that it was so called “from its being of no very great danger.” Chickenpox, by that point, was well on its way to becoming more of a nuisance and less of a nightmare.
YOU SAY VARICELLA, I SAY VARIOLA
Despite the fact that Heberden had shown that the varicella and variola viruses were unrelated, people continued to believe otherwise. This led not only to fear of chickenpox, but also prevented some from being inoculated for smallpox believing that they had immunity conferred from chickenpox. It was our very own William Osler (1849-1919) who, decades after Heberden’s proof, helped change this impression once and for all stating that “There can be no question that varicella is an affection quite distinct from and without at present any relation whatsoever to it.”
At the time, however, even physicians, had trouble telling the difference. In one famous account of Osler’s skills as a diagnostician, he was called in to show his students what had been pronounced by several distinguished physicians at Johns Hopkins to be a severe case of chickenpox in an adult male. Interested, he gathered 30 or 40 students and doctors, and went to take a look. When the hapless resident pulled back the sheets to reveal the patient’s symptoms, a horrified Dr Osler exclaimed, “My God, Futcher, don’t you know smallpox when you see it?” Isolation measures were immediately put into place, the necessary vaccinations administered and a potentially disastrous situation was averted.”
It seems very clear from these few sources that chickenpox was very much considered a mild form of smallpox. They were seen as different stages of the same disease. It wasn’t until Heberden provided his “proof” that chickenpox and smallpox became separate illnesses caused by separate “viruses.” This being the case, it must be asked: did Heberden supply actual proof of two distinct diseases? Keep in mind that at this point in time, “viruses” could not be seen and both their presence as well as their role of infectiousness were based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. If it can be shown that the requisite “proof” is faulty and that smallpox and chickenpox are just varying stages of the same disease, what does that say about the information supplied by the CDC/WHO/MSM who all claim otherwise? Let’s take a look and see what evidence Heberden provided:
On the Chicken-Pox
“The chicken-pox and swine-pox differ, I believe, only in name; they occasion to little danger or trouble to the patients, that physicians are seldom sent for to them, and have therefore very few opportunities of seeing this distemper. Hence it happens that the name of it is met with in very few books, and hardly any pretend to say a word of it’s history.
But though it be so insignificant an illness, that an acquaintance with it is not of much use for it’s own sake, yet it is of importance on account of the small-pox, with which it may otherwise be confounded, and to deceive the persons who have had it, into a false security, which may prevent them either from keeping out of the way of the small-pox, or from being inoculated. For this reason I have judged it might be useful to contribute, what I have learned from experience, towards it’s defcription.
These pocks break out in many without any illness or previous slgn; in others they are preceded by a little degree of chillness, lassitude, cough, broken sleep, wandering pains, loss of appetite, and feverishness for three days.
In some patients, I have observed them to make their first appearance on the back, but this perhaps is not constant. Most of them are of the common size of the smal!-pox, but some are less. I never saw them confluent, nor very numerous. The greatest number, which I ever observed, was about twelve in the face, and two hundred over the rest of the body.
On the first day of the eruption they are reddish. On the second day there is at the top of most of them a very small bladder, about the size of a millet feed. This is sometimes full of a watery and colorless, sometimes of a yellowish liquor, contained between the cuticle and skin. On the second, or, at the farthest, on the third day from the beginning of the eruption, as many of these pocks, as are not broken, seem arrived at their full maturity; and those, which are fullest of that yellow liquor, very much referable what the genuine small-pox are on the fifth or sixth day, especially where there happens to be a larger space, than ordinary, occupied by the extravasated serum. It happens to most of them, either on the first day that this little bladder arises, or on the day after, that it’s tender cuticle is burst by the accidental rubbing of the cloaths, or by the patient’s hands to allay the itching, which attends this eruption. A thin scab is then formed at the top of the pock, and the swelling of the other part abates, without it’s ever being turned into pus, as it is in the small-pox. Some few escape being burst; and the little drop of liquor contained in the vesicle at the top of them, grows yellow and thick, and dries into a scab. On the fifth day of the eruption they are almost all dried and covered with a slight crust. The inflammation of these pocks is very small, and the contents of them do not seem to be owing to suppuration, as in the small-pox, but rather to what is extravasated immediately under the cuticle by the ferous vessels of the skin, as in a common blister. No wonder therefore that this liquor appears so soon as on the second day and that upon the cuticle being broken it is presently succeeded by a slight scab: hence too, as the true skin is so little affected, no mark or fear is likely to be left, unless in one or two pocks, where, either by being accidentally much fretted, or by some extraordinary sharpness of the contents, a little ulcer is formed in the skin.
The patients scarce suffer any thing throughout the whole progress of this illness, except some languidness of strength, and spirits, and appetite, all which is probably owing to the confining of themselves to their chamber.
I saw two children ill of the chicken-pox, whose mother chose to be with them, though she had never had this illness. Upon the eighth or ninth day after the pocks were at their height in the children, the mother fell ill of this distemper then beginning to show itself. In this instance the infection lay in the body much about the same time that it is known to do in the small-pox.
Remedies are not likely to be much wanted in a disease attended with hardly any inconvenience, and which in so short a time is certainly cured of itself.
The principal marks by which the chicken-pox may be distinguished from the small-pox are:
- The appearance on the second or third day from the eruption of that vesicle full of serum upon the top of the pock.
- The crust, which covers the pocks on the fifth day; at which time those of the small-pox are not at the height of their suppuration.
Foreign medical writers hardly ever mention the name of this distemper; and the writers of our own country scarce mention any thing more of it, than its name. Morton speaks of it as if he supported it to be a very mild genuine small-pox. But these two distempers are surely totally different from one another, not only on account of their different appearances above mentioned, but because those, who have had the small-pox, are capable of being infected with the chicken-pox; but those, who have once had the chicken-pox, are not capable of having it again, though to such, as have never had this distemper, it seems as infectious as the small-pox. I wetted a thread in the most concocted, pus-like liquor of the chicken-pox, which I could find; and after making a slight incision, it was confined upon the arm of one who had formerly had it; the little wound healed up immediately, and showed no signs of any infection.
From the great similitude between the two distempers, it is probable, that, instead of the small-pox, some persons have been inoculated from the chicken-pox, and that the distemper, which has succeeded, has been mistaken for the small-pox by hasty or unexperienced observers.
There is sometimes seen an eruption, concerning which I have been in doubt, whether it be one of the many unnoticed cutaneous diseases, or only, as I am rather inclined to believe, a more malignant form of chicken-pox.
This disorder is preceded for three or four days by all the symptoms, which forerun the chicken-pox, but in a much higher degree. On the fourth or fifth day the eruption appears, with very little abatement of the fever; the pains likewise of the limbs and back still continue, to which are joined pains of the gums. The pocks are redder than the chicken-pocks, and spread wider, and hardly rise so high, at least not in proportion to their size. Instead of one little head or vesicle of a ferous matter, there have from four to ten or twelve. They go off juft like the chicken-pox, and are distinguishable from the small-pox by the same marks; besides which the continuance of the pains and fever after the eruption, and the degree of both these, though there be not above twenty pocks, are, as far as I have seen, what never happen in the small-pox.
Many foreigners seem so little to have attended to the peculiar characteriftics of the small-pox, particularly the length of time, which it requires to its full maturation, that we may the less wonder at the prevailing opinion among them, that the same person is liable to have it several times. Petrus Borellus (hift. & obf. rar. med. phyf. centur. iii. obf. 10.) records the case of a woman, who had this distemper seven times, and catching it again died of it the eighth time. It would be no extravagant assertion to say, that here in England not above one among ten thousand patients is pretended to have had it twice; and wherever it is pretended, it will always be as likely that the persons about the patient were mistaken, and supposed that to be the small-pox, which was an eruption of a different nature, as that there was such an extraordinary exception to what we are sure is so general a law.”
- According to the CDC, smallpox was a terrible disease
- On average, 3 out of every 10 people who got it died
- People who survived usually had scars, which were sometimes severe
- According to the WHO, It was one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity and caused millions of deaths before it was eradicated
- It is believed to have existed for at least 3000 years
- The last known natural case was in Somalia in 1977
- In 1980 WHO declared smallpox eradicated – the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction
- Since the “eradication” of smallpox, researchers saw an increase in cases of some other diseases caused by “poxviruses”
- In particular, there has been a rise in cases of monkeypox, which is closely related to smallpox; both belong to the “poxvirus” family called orthopoxvirus
- The two diseases have similar symptoms, but monkeypox is less deadly than smallpox: The fatality rate for monkeypox is 10 percent, versus 30 percent for smallpox.
- In other words, they are the exact same disease other than the estimated fatality rate
- Researchers continue to discover new types of “poxviruses” in various parts of the world
- In 2015, an Alaskan woman was thought to have chicken pox or shingles, but testing revealed that she had a type of “orthopoxvirus” that had never been seen before
- It took six months for the lesion to fully disappear, but the woman eventually recovered and did not transmit the infection to anyone else
- That case supposedly showed that there are previously undiscovered, unrecognized, unknown “poxviruses” that are still being discovered to this day
- Chickenpox (varicella) was confused with smallpox until the 1800s
- The name “chickenpox” was used by Richard Morton (1637-1698) who characterized it as a mild form of smallpox
- The exact origin of the name “chickenpox” remains unclear
- Samuel Johnson suggested that since the disease was “of no great danger,” it was a “chicken” form of smallpox
- William Heberden is credited with distinguishing the difference between smallpox and chickenpox
- Heberden’s insights regarding the distinction between smallpox and chickenpox were not accepted immediately
- Researchers are hampered by the inability to identify the disease with any degree of certainty from extant descriptions before A.D. 900, and sometimes much later
- The “virus” of smallpox is known to vary in virulence, and inaccurate or inadequate descriptions of the clinical picture offer rich opportunities for confusion with a number of other fevers accompanied by rashes and pustules
- Dixon provided a sober account of the known early history of the disease, and of the difficulties inherent in attempts to identify it in retrospect
- There is no mention of smallpox in Hippocrates’ otherwise copious volumes of clinical descriptions, nor elsewhere in the Greek and Roman medical literature according to Dixon
- Even when the term “variola” first appeared it was not accompanied by a clinical description, and we have no way of knowing whether or not it referred to smallpox
- For several hundred years after the introduction of the terms “variola” and “morbilli”, the diseases they refer to can in no certain way be distinguished as smallpox and measles
- In the case of smallpox, the confusion with chickenpox further clouds retrospective epidemiological considerations
- Heberden’s paper in 1767 was the first clinical description of chickenpox as a separate entity distinct from smallpox
- He was compelled by the danger of this relatively mild complaint being confused with smallpox
- There can be little doubt that varicella had been known for centuries, and it may have been described as a mild form of smallpox not only by Rhazes and Avicenna, but also by Indian writers
- It took over 200 years to “figure out” that chickenpox and smallpox were not the same
- Since the early symptoms of smallpox and chickenpox are quite similar, and smallpox itself is not universally fatal, it’s not surprising that the “viruses” were easily confused
- Despite the “fact” that Heberden had shown that the varicella and variola “viruses” were unrelated, people continued to believe otherwise
- William Osler, decades after Heberden’s “proof,” helped change the impression they were the same disease once and for all stating that “There can be no question that varicella is an affection quite distinct from and without at present any relation whatsoever to it.”
- At the time, however, even physicians, had trouble telling the difference
- In one instance, Osler was called in to show his students what had been pronounced by several distinguished physicians at Johns Hopkins to be a severe case of chickenpox in an adult male
- Interested, he gathered 30 or 40 students and doctors, and went to take a look
- When the hapless resident pulled back the sheets to reveal the patient’s symptoms, a horrified Dr Osler exclaimed, “My God, Futcher, don’t you know smallpox when you see it?”
- In other words, from amongst all of the professionals, only Osler was able to claim a case of severe chickenpox was “actually” smallpox
- Heberden believed that the chickenpox and swinepox were the same disease as they were of little danger to patients and Dr.’s were rarely needed
- Even though he felt chickenpox was an insignificant illness, it was of importance due to its confusion with smallpox, which Heberden worried may keep people from being inoculated or staying away from those with smallpox
- These pocks break out in many without any illness or previous slgn
- In others they are preceded by a little degree of:
- Broken sleep
- Wandering pains
- Loss of appetite
- Feverishness for three days
- Most of the pustules are of the common size of the smal!pox, but some are less
- At their maturity, there is a yellowish liquor that very much resembles smallpox
- Heberden attempted to distinguish chickenpox from smallpox by claiming that the eruptions do not leave scars, however he admits that if they are scratched too much or the pustule is more severe, then a little ulcer is formed in the skin just as in the case with smallpox
- The patients rarely suffer anything throughout the whole progress of this illness, except some languidness of strength, spirits, and appetite, all of which he believed was probably owing to being confined to their rooms
- Heberden claimed that a mother of two children with chickenpox fell ill after caring for them 8 or 9 days and the “infection” laid in her body much about the same time that it was known to do in smallpox
- Remedies were not wanted or needed as the disease was hardly any inconvenience, and was so short it cured itself
- Heberden claimed chickenpox differed from smallpox in two main ways:
- The appearance on the second or third day from the eruption of that vesicle full of serum upon the top of the pock
- The crust, which covers the pocks on the fifth day; at which time those of the smallpox are not at the height of their suppuration
- In other words, the appearance of the scabs on the pustules was his main difference
- Heberden states that foreign medical writers hardly ever mention the name chickenpox and the writers of his own country scarcely mention anything more of it than its name
- Morton spoke of it as if it was a very mild genuine smallpox
- Heberden believed chickenpox was not smallpox based on his two reasons given above as well as because those who have had the smallpox are capable of being infected with the chickenpox; but those who have once had the chickenpox, are not capable of having it again
- In other words, the more aggressive form of disease (smallpox) can come back in a milder form (chickenpox) but once the mild form is cleared, it does not come back
- To those who have never had chickenpox, it seemed as infectious as the smallpox
- Heberden stated that due to the great similarity between the two diseases, it was probable that instead of the smallpox, some persons had been inoculated from the chickenpox, and that the disease which succeeded had been mistaken for smallpox by hasty or unexperienced observers
- He claimed many foreigners seemed not to have attended to the peculiar characteriftics of the smallpox, particularly the length of time which it requires to its full maturation, so he felt their judgment on distinguishing the two diseases could be questioned
- Heberden stated that there was a more aggressive form of chickenpox that he believed was mistaken to be smallpox
Did Heberden meet the burden of proof required to claim chickenpox was a distinct disease separate from smallpox? If the slight differences in the appearance of the pustules is enough to convince you, then I guess he did. However, if like myself, you desire more concrete proof such as an actual difference in symptoms other than slight variations, you may find this “proof” lacking.
Heberden believed that chickenpox was just a mild illness and he wanted fo distinguish it from smallpox as he feared people would believe themselves immune from smallpox and avoid inoculation after having had chickenpox. Why Heberden believed they were two separate diseases is not explained very well. The best evidence Heberden could provide were his claims about a difference in the appearance of the pustules on the 2nd or 3rd day from eruption and how high the crust was by the 5th day.
However, what Heberden admitted to in his paper is more telling than his so-called proof. He admitted the pustules were the same size as smallpox and contained a yellow liquor which also resembled that found in smallpox. He tried to state that the chickenpox pustules would not scar like smallpox but then admitted that they could if the pustules were scratched regularly or were severe enough. Heberden also spoke of a mother who had cared for her ill children who he said had come down with chickenpox herself much in the same way as it would occur with smallpox. He spoke of many in his field who stated that chickenpox and smallpox were just different stages of the same disease. He also felt that due to the great similarities, many cases of chickenpox were misdiagnosed as smallpox. By all intents and purposes, Heberden made a better argument that the chickenpox and smallpox were the same rather than distinct diseases. Perhaps his unconvincing “proof” is the very reason many were unwilling to make a distinction between these nearly identical symptoms of disease for over a century after he presented it.
If the appearance of the crusting pustules after eruption is the main evidence that separates chickenpox from smallpox, it should be apparent that smallpox was never eradicated as claimed by the CDC and WHO. There are 3 to 4 million cases of chickenpox every year. Monkeypox and other pox “viruses” are causing cases of the exact same symptoms of disease around the world. Heberden did not find evidence that these were separate diseases. He created the recipe for these criminal organizations to relabel and reclassify the same symptoms of disease as a new terrifying “virus” over and over again to sell to the unsuspecting public. He provided the tools for the WHO/CDC to claim success in fighting diseases by changing case definitions and symptom orders to trick the gullible into believing their toxic injections actually work. Heberden’s claim to fame is that he invented the virological sleight of hand used very effectively to date to generate a perpetual state of fear.