At the end of the main inquiry, as to the effect of vaccination on small-pox (pp. 98, 99) the Commissioners adopt a very hesitating tone. They say that—“where vaccination has been most thorough the protection appears to have been greatest,” and that “the revaccination of adults appears to place them in so favourable a condition as compared with the unvaccinated.” But why say “appears” in both these cases? It is a question of fact, founded on ample statistics, which show us clearly and unmistakably—as in comparing Leicester with other towns—that vaccination gives _no protection whatever_, and that the best and most thorough revaccination, as in the Army and Navy, does _not protect at all_! It is no question of “appearing” to protect. As a fact, it does _not_ protect, and does not _appear_ to do so. The only explanation of the use of this word “appears” is that the Commissioners have founded their conclusions, not upon the statistical evidence at all, but upon the _impressions_ and _beliefs_ of the various medical officials they examined, who almost all _assumed_ the protection as an already established fact. Such was the case of the army-surgeon who declared that the deaths were much fewer than they would have been without revaccination; and who, on being asked why he believed so, answered that it was from reading of the small-pox mortality in pre-vaccination times! He had made no comparisons, and had no figures to adduce. It was his _opinion_, and that of the other medical officers, that it was so. And the Commissioners apparently had always held the same _opinions_, which, being confirmed by the opinions of other official witnesses, they concluded that comparisons of the revaccinated Army and Navy with ordinary death-rates were as unnecessary as they would certainly have been puzzling to them. Hence “appears” in place of “is” or “does”; and their seven conclusions as to the value and protectiveness of vaccination all under the heading—“We think,” _not_ “We are convinced,” or “It has been proved to us,” or “The statistics of the Army and Navy, of Ireland, of Leicester and of many other places, _demonstrate_ the (”protectiveness” or “inutility”—as the case may be) of vaccination.” I trust that I have now convinced my readers that the best evidence—the evidence to which Sir John Simon and Dr. Guy have appealed—DEMONSTRATES complete INUTILITY, as against what “appears” to the Commissioners and what they “think.”