Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1894-09-08
ON REyACCINATION.
Why IT IS NECESSARY AND TIE
VALUE IT POSSESSES.


Only Limited rmmunity From smaiipox.
French Sentiment In Favor of Compulsory
Vaccination Iscreasinx.
M. Schrevens OF Tournay, in a recent
Belgique. insists on the government max
ing up its mind 10 bring before the legis-
iature a law ON obligatory vaccination.
He shows that in spite OF the creation by
the state of an institute OF vaccination
the death rate Of smallpox, after having
decreased for q certain time, rose again |
Ia 1892 through carelessness and imrru- |
dence Children not vaccinated contin- |
ned TO be received In the schools, he says;
the rag trade Is not watched In any way;
the isolation Of contagious diseases In the
hospitals Ia not enforced; while work
men, boatmen, travelling showmen and
country letter carriers scatter the germs
of the disease right and left after being
Ill by resuming their occupations prema-
turely.
Il Is In vain, adds nj. Schrevens, that
the Belgium government POUNDS its
hopes on the regulations which the pro-
vincial councils are celebrating concern
ing the general organization Of vaccina-
ton. The law is the only radical and cer-
tain measure In such questions.
| have taken a good deal Of trouble TO
defend the idea advanced by this writer,
and in paper addressed to the Academic
de Medicine de Paris l showed that .
law making vaccination obligatory IL
impatiently awaited in France also, and
would have very direct relation TO the
national defense.
| While 1t Is to be hoped that In case OF
another war we should not again see, as
In 1870, %, 900 Of our own people succumb
to smallpox. as against 500 ON the German
side, still there Is In the scheme for
mobilization an important category of
soldiers placed In the auxiliary services
who. having never served before. may
not have been vaccinated. and run In
this way the risk Of becoming danger
OF contagion.
| The more one thinks ON this question
the less COMPREHENSIVE becomes the hes
itancy shown TO give the strength OF
law to an obligation demanded by public
| opinion. known quite we'll that there
are more or less earnest adversaries of
vaccination, aud that various antivacci-
nation leagues serve as a rallying point
to those who loudly claim the title of de-
tenders Of our liberties. But liberty is n
term that must always be taken In rel
atiye manner, and the liberty to do one
thing implies that something else Is for
hidden and imposes ON society the duty
of preventing one of its members from
becoming danger TO the rest. What
ever NAV be said or done, 1t is inadmis-
sible thiS any one should have the free
dom TO damage neighbor.
The efficacy Of vaccination can no
longer be doubted. Its value has been
tested and consecrated by time and ex-
perience, and Ii should be known every
where that II Is by inoculating vaccina
that we protect ourselves from smallpox
. and are rendered refractory to its action.
am quite aware that the following
objection Is often made, and that II il
said that Ii is not true that vaccination
prevents smallpox, and that cases are
cited in which person properly vacci-
mated has taken smallpox. In spite OF
this maintain my affirmation and shall
/ explain clearly, hope, how vaccinated
person may take smallpox and even how
smallpox and vaccina can be seen going
through their evolution together ON the
same person.
Take q child who has never been vac
cinated and inoculate him in six places
three ON each arm. These will be fol.
! lowed by the appearance Of six fine pus-
= tules, and IL is quite possible that il q
seventh and eighth inoculation had beer
: made they would have been followed by
; seventh or eighth pustule.
What does this proven That satura
|, tion has possibly not been reached ant
n that certain amount of receptivity Il
o the virus still remains. The immnnit,
, may be complete, but il may also be onl,
n partial. II man vaccinated six. seven
y eight or ten years ago be inoculated witt
= the same vaccine matter used for TIN
y child and with the same care In 81,
places, instead Of sin pustules, as in tn
a former case. only one, two or three ma.
d form. Saturation Is manifest in this in
g stance, and his immunity Is complete.
With another patient revaccinated sue
cessfully three months. six months or
year ago, and with whom thu number o
!, pustulea was less than the number Of IN
& ocnlations made, however much care
a may take In inoculating him again.
. shall fail altogether. In this case satu
s ration Is complete and immunity agains
smallpox absolute.
+ Observation has proved the legitimac'
: OF the comparison between the virus o
! vaccina and the virus OF smallpox. which
. acting al two reagents Of the same fam
/. lily. may replace or complete each other
, II l represent by 10 the maximum re
u ceptive power Of q person for smallpox
o am able by inoculating vaccina to com
J. pIetely annihilate itspower by conferrinI
I an immunity of 10. or can do so incom
pletely by an immunity Of nine, eight
!, seven, ETC., by making an insufiicien
, number Of inoculations
ol II Is easy 10 understand that rscer
; tive power of 10 defended by an immuni
. ty Of seven, for instance. leaves . receI
. tive power of three for smallpox. Thi
= Is how smallpox may break out on q vas
!. ciuated person. and this 10 also why smal
pox and vaccina may go through the
evolution together, but In such cases Ii
smallpox viii be always light and mild.
d The question Of quantity rnust ther
y fore be taken into account in conferrin
y y immunity against smallpox. especially
!. this immunity lessons with time In a rel
4 - -. -.