IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cracked , Johnny Gruelle , Raggedy Ann , vaccination incidents

Reply
Old 9th November 2014, 06:20 PM   #1
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Anti-Vaccination claim in Cracked article

So a friend of mine on my Facebook wall posted a picture and asked if there was any truth to what it was saying. This is the photo:

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/ph...7/8/170478.jpg

Edited by LashL:  Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.


I did some checking, and while there is apparently a grain of truth to at least part of the claim (Marcella Gruelle did in fact die from complications from an infected vaccination), I cannot find anything anywhere about the supposed lack of consent by her parents to her receiving the vaccination, nor can I find anything about Raggedy Ann becoming some sort of symbol for the anti-vaccination movement as a result. So I turn to you, my fellow skeptics, for aid; can you help me find ANYTHING that might point to either of those two currently unsubstantiated claims having a grain of truth?

Thing that makes me confused; I know this is from a Photoplasty article on Cracked.com. I know that it's entirely possible the claim was made up. This is the article it came from: 24 Facts That Will Ruin Your Childhood. I know at least some of the claims made in that article by the photoshoppers are factual, because I've read about them in other locations. I'm finding myself curious to know if this particular one, aside from the part I've already confirmed, is at all factual, or if the person made it up in order to possibly get the money. Any help would be appreciated; thanks.

Last edited by LashL; 10th November 2014 at 12:02 PM.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 06:28 PM   #2
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Here, on Snopes: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=44960
And a link from that thread: http://www.dollkind.com/raggedy-ann-doll.shtml
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 06:41 PM   #3
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
Yeah, I've seen the second link; but it doesn't have anything on whether she was vaccinated without his permission. Also, apparently its only been recently that the Raggedy Ann dolls have been associated with the anti-vaccination movement, again according to that second link.

I just wish I could find the evidence for her being vaccinated without her parents' permission; thus far it's all been unsubstantiated claims.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 07:28 PM   #4
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Wiki tells it a bit differently: a second shot, of unknown content, without permission - implying the smallpox was authorized (no cite however). It also says she died of diphtheria.

This is going to be very hard to track down a hundred years after the fact, unless there was a lawsuit or something in the papers at the time. That's where I'd check - local papers.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 07:45 PM   #5
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
I tend to think that, while some of it is partially true, that particular part was a supposition on the part of that author in the thread you cited on Snopes. Or a flat-out lie so he could sell more books to gullible anti-vaxxers.

On second thought, I'm going with the second option.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2014, 06:09 AM   #6
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
According to Patricia Hall in her biography "Johnny Gruelle, Creator of Raggedy Ann and Andy":
Quote:
When schools decided to vaccinate, parents were often pressured into giving permission. Reluctantly, Myrtle [Johnny's wife, ddt] gave hers.
So there was permission for the first shot. There was no visible effect from the shot. Then she continues:
Quote:
So, they were horrified to when Marcella came home several days later, claiming that the school nurse had given her a second vaccination - this time, with neither of the Gruelles' permission.
Ten days later, she began to feel pain in the legs, and her condition deteriorated and months later, after the family had also moved from NYC to the countryside, Marcella died on November 8, 1915.

Ms. Hall adds that the death certificate cited "valvular heart disease" as the cause of death, and mentions that that condition can turn fatal with a bacterial infection.
Quote:
Though difficult to prove, a dirty vaccination needle or contaminated serum was the most likely cause of the infectious illness that had proven fatal for the Gruelles' little daughter.
Another tall tale that I've come across while googling is that Raggedy Ann was designed by Johnny Gruelle in response to his daughter's illness. This is absurd when you consider that the patent was granted on September 7, 1915, i.e., two months before Marcella died, and must have been submitted many months before that (I've seen comments that it was submitted in May).
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2014, 06:33 AM   #7
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Another tall tale that I've come across while googling is that Raggedy Ann was designed by Johnny Gruelle in response to his daughter's illness. This is absurd when you consider that the patent was granted on September 7, 1915, i.e., two months before Marcella died, and must have been submitted many months before that (I've seen comments that it was submitted in May).
Clear evidence of precognition.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 03:20 PM   #8
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,359
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Another tall tale that I've come across while googling is that Raggedy Ann was designed by Johnny Gruelle in response to his daughter's illness. This is absurd when you consider that the patent was granted on September 7, 1915, i.e., two months before Marcella died, and must have been submitted many months before that (I've seen comments that it was submitted in May).
US Design Patent D47,789 was filed May 28, 1915.

Today you could talk to a patent attorney and get a design patent application on file the same day, but typically it will take two weeks. Pre-2000 it would typically take a few months. I would assume that he talked to his patent attorney at least a month or two prior to the filing date. Three to six months prior to the filing date would not be unheard of.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2014, 08:03 PM   #9
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,662
deleted. wrong thread sorry
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.