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/photoshop/4/7/8/170478.jpg



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

According to Patricia Hall in her biography "Johnny Gruelle, Creator of Raggedy Ann and Andy":

When schools decided to vaccinate, parents were often pressured into giving permission. Reluctantly, Myrtle [Johnny's wife, ddt] gave hers.

Click to expand...

So there was permission for the first shot. There was no visible effect from the shot. Then she continues:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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).

ddt said:

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).

Click to expand...

Clear evidence of precognition.

ddt said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

deleted. wrong thread sorry