American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1824-01-20
1. The original vaccination may have been spuri-

+ been merely local disease, without impressng the
system generally
n 8. lis protecting influence may have disappeared
y by the lapse of years
: AS to the first ground, II must be decided oy tne
| evidence Of person capable OF discriminating me
true from the spurious vesice, the distinct recol-
, lection Of the decision of such person. II the
least doubt was originally expressed or it the yaccl-
nation had oeen done by an individual not OF the
medical profession, it ought to be assayed again.
As 10 the second reason, it must be admitted
that some physicians have supposed this case some
times TO occur where no indispositon has been per-
lleeptble during the progress OF the vaccine yeslce
Admitting the possibility of its occurrence, It must
be very rare and il would be refinement OF eau
lion to re-yaccinate all subjects, in whom no symp
tom Of general ndisposton had been noticed, the
vaccine vescle itself having progressed through all
its stages with perfect regularity.
The third ground for repeating vaccination, that
it constitutes security against small pox for from
FIVE TO seven years only, appears completely unen-
able and unsupported by any facts or anaogies.
From what has been already said, in dsproof Of
the idea, that the genuneness oil vaccination is I'M
peached by the subsequent occurrence OF yar1oloid
it must be evident, that as the cases Tor second
vaccination are those only in which the first was Of
doubtful regularity, the motive for the trial is pro-
lection from ordinary small pox and not from vari-
oloid
Parents singularly misapprehend the nature of
the question here for observing an eruptiye dis
lease admitted 10 be like small pox. and by some
physicians called small pox, to occur amongst the
yaccinaed in some families, they immediately con
cuded that vaccination, in all such instances, has
been inefficientlv performed; and, without advert
ing TO the very improbable Supposition, which they
make, that IN so many persons inferred to have
been unproec ted and therefore under like circum.
with thnsA who have meyer hean vaccinatsd
there should occur mild disease called vsroloid,
and not genuine small pox, they insist upon having
vaccination indiscrlminalely repeated. Is II not
much more probable, that the very occurrence ofI
variooid in yaccinaed subjects proves the genuine
ness Of the vacc,n ttion For had i, not been
genuine the same causes would probably have pro
duced true small poS.
This remark leads to the question Of the identity |
Of small pox and variolod and this subject here
appears TO be large portion, il not majority OF
the physicians Of this city, who hold that the two
diseases are produced by the same specific conta |
gion, which affecting unprotected persons produces
genuine small pox. aid operating on he vaccinagd
or yarolated is modified and controlled so as 10 pro
duce varioloid or a modified small pox.
This view is supper ed BY many obvious facts, as
the prevalence Of the two diseases at the same /
time, the nder disease occurring amongst the 4
vaccnated and yario!aed, while the ordinary small
have not been wanting observations, which make il
probable that the yaccinated and yariolsed have
taken varoloie from exposure 10 genuine small pox
and vice versa, the unprotected true small pox from
cases.
Admitting for moment the supposition Of iden.
tlty it must be acknowledged as difficulty, that
vaccination and varioation should have fur shed
protection for so many years, against all forms Of
d small PoN, and that dnrins the prevalence ofsma
ooS as az epidemic within The few last years. it has
4iiel % preserve from modified affection, having
resemblance 10 thi. formidable disease. II may be
stated however, probable explanation, that the
small Pox IN such yeats possesses pecularforcc and
Nruience which eus3!e i to attack protected per-
sons, ~ modified form When in ordinary Yeas il
would Pass such persons untouched
The next questions Of importance which arise n
tbs examination, are has The public reason TO allow
IT'S Confidence IN vaccination 10 be shaken Is there
reason for resor'ing again 10 sario4tion, or nocua
ton for the small pox
70 both these questions the answer Isl unequiso-
caly, no. i vaccination has not done all that lis
Trends expected fromit still It's comparative merits
are such as 10 deserve confidence. Comparing the
merits OF the Two methods oil securing the system
- the hrst step vaccination has decided advantage
Whie Il IS supposed that one individual in hun.
dred dies Of inoculated small pox vaccination is new
er fatal After Causing waste cf life equal to one
Pc Neh'' faolaloh IS not CONSIDERED 10 protect IN
more cases against varoloid or modified small pox,
than vaccination does. It requires careful obser-
Walton Of lacts TO determine this fact correctly but
the writer can state from the best authority that a.
bout as many cases Of varioloid after yarolaion as
alter vaccination, have been Admitted into the Small
Fox hospital connected with the Aims House. FL
nally, in making comparative estimate of the adj
vanages Of the two preventive, this striking obser.
vatlon OF Dr.ThomPson must be borne in mind that
while this physician lost only one case in 225 Of var-
olold after vaccination, the proportion of deaths &C.
curing from the same disease after variolaton, is
stated BY him TO be as great as one in Is.
The facts stated and the particular views taken in
the foregoing ks, may be summed up in the