Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1885-11-28
What are the Visible Evidences of Pro-
tective Vaccination?

| StotSo ECAdIC 41Oul N1lSSOuIIs
What are the Visible Evidences of Pro-
tective Vaccination?
We publish the following letter from
London on the subject of vaccination for
what it is worth. From our own obser-
vations and reading we are decidedly
and unequivocally of the opinion that
vaccination is wonderful improvement
over no vaccination. We are free to
| admit that we believe that vaccination
has corrupted the blood of thousands
and that corruption has been transmitted
to generation after generation; yet we
guess when the balance sheet is struck
it will be in favor of vaccination:
7ALBERT ROADS, REGENT PARK. J
LONDON, Eng, November 4.
To the Editor of the Daily Commonwealth.
SIR:-I infer from the insertion of DR..
J. L. Furber's important personal testi-
mony in recent issue, just received, of
yonr ably conducted journal that you
think the time has come when q recon-
sideration of the evidences upon which
compulsory vaccination is enioined is
desirable in the interests of the public
health. Nothing is more surprising
to those who have taken the trouble to
look into the medical evidence advanced
to sustain vaccination than the diversity
of opinion that prevails amongst author
tiles on all sides of this ve1ed question
Senner, recognizing the potency of the
circulation of the blood, only punctured
the vaccine veins in one place and main
tanned that single pastule induced ne
COW pox disease with sufficient consti-
tutional disturbance to afford complete
immunity against small pox for life. His
modern disciples maintain, however,
that upon the number of pistules de-
ponds the extent of the protection afford
ed, and that the small pox fatality is in
inverse proportion to the number and
perfection of the marks. The directors
of the various small pox hospitals in Lon
don have published ingeniously con-
trived tables for the purpose of demon
strating this plausible theory. Unfortu-
nately no two of these reports agree, and
some partly contradict others. Mr..
Wheeler, of Darlington, has tabulated
the reports of the metropolitan asylum
hospitals at Stockwell, Homerton,
Hampstead and Fulham, 1876 to 1880,
and finds that while the percentage of
cases Of sm all pox with one mark was
"a IS, and with two marks 27.46,
the pc centage of cases without
marks was only 1875, showing that DR..
seatons much extolied theory is purely
fanciful and illusory. And he further
Oh ~ ont 81 A-n ooooo ~,
the Metropolitan hospitals,no fewer than
4,176 were cases with three or four vac
cine marks, while in the reports for
187C-1-2 there were no fewer than 1866
good marks" small pox cases. Results
equally disappointing are shown in her
countries. DR.. w. W. WEIGH, in the
philadelphia Health Report" for 1882
says: ut is now fully established that a
typical vaccine scar is no proof of the |
immunity of the individual from small
pox. We have admitted to the hospital
I'll cases of small pox exhibiting typical !
cicatries, of which 70 proved fatal" and !
q "public vaccinator" abiding to the
same subject in the British Med
ical Journal for July 10, 1880, says:
"Marson's statistics upon which the
present system is upheld) are obsolete
for our present results. |
Again, in Germany it is not uncommon
to vaccinate with six, eight, ten and more
marks; and there is an accumulation of
evidence showing that these much vacci- |
mated individuals are as susceptible to |
small pox as any other less punctured |
brethren. These facts receive confirma- |
ton by the testimony of Another Public
Vaccinator" in the British Medical Jour
nal for December 8. "The statement"
he says, "that the protection from small
pox depends on the area of the scars,
though supported by statistics, is pure
fall, cy, and has done more to make vac
cinatiop a bugbear than all the outcry Of
the anti-vaccinators. The order to cover |
child's arm with pustules is not
only inhuman, but it is use.
less. I believe an excessive
amount of Inflammation as is caused by
a large area of pustules, does more to
damage the protective quality of the
vaccination than to improveit," and adds
the pertinent but ominous suggestion
IF q prize is given for proficiency in
vaccination, let it be given to the vacci-
majors who have the fewest number of
cases in which secondary mischief has
resulted, such as erysipelas, prolonged
sore arms, ETC." May I venture to eug-
gest that small pox, like other zymotics,
is not the outcome of ineuf6ciency in the
number or quality of vaccine pustules,
but in the lack of cleanliness, wholesome
food, ventilation and general hygiene,