ON DISEASE IN GENERAL, AND ON PATHOLOGY IN PARTICULAR
Authors: I. Harrinson
Journal: BMJ (1855)

DURING the winter of 1849-UO we had, in Reading and its neighbourhood, an epidemic of small-pox, and at the samre time scarlatina and measles extensively prevailed.It is not the hurthen of my paper to show that there was anything peculiar in the cases of small-pox in themselves, but to mention certain preceding, accompanying, or succeeding, appearances, which previously had escaped my observation, if not my notice.The contemplation of these appearances led on, may I say inductively, to a long series of reflectionis on disease and it3 causes, and also to a critical examination of the opinions of others on the same subject.My own opinions, which to some may appear extraordi- nary, will rather be comprehended in those of others, than obtrusively atdvanced, and very possibly those opinions of others may be applied in a wvay somewhat different from what they, the authors, expected in their delivery.The whole is intended to support, perhaps to demonstrate, the truth of that doctrine which was once believed and taught, and is now beginning to be taught, because known to be true, viz., that of humoral pathology; and to shew, also, that there is a greater unity in diseases, their causes, and their treatment, than is generally suspected.Without further preface, I will read the short notes of some cases taken during the before-named epidemic of the winter of 1849-50.Small-pox was very prevalent, attacking many after vaccination; measles were also prevalent, and scarlatina less so.In Mr. F., 45 years of age, vaccinated, it was impossible to distinguish the rash on the body from measles, and the face only shewed pustules.In Mrs. C., her body was covered with a rash like measles; and she had not half a dozen pustules over her whole body.Miss M.'s man ser- vant, 30 years of age, had the same appearances exactly.Mrs. W.'s child, 2 years of age, had been vaccinated; it took well.The sister-in-law, in the same house, had smallpox severely after vaccination.The child had a rash over the whole body, precisely similar to scarlatina in all its signs and symptoms.The father had small-pox, secondary.The mother had pains in her limbs, head, etc, but no rash.Mrs. i's children had measles, and after nursing them, the mother had scarlatina.Two of Mrs. C.'s children had scar- latina, and then measles immediately after.The others had the measles only.One of Mrs. W.'s children had, after vaccination, chicken-pox very severely.When the rash was fully out, I vaccinated the infant.The vaccination took well; but on the fourteenth day, the child was covered with the eruption of chicken pox, with six or eioght well marked pustules of small-pox.I vaccinated Mrs. 6.'s child, 2 years of age.On the tenth day, it was attacked with measles.I re-vaccinated Mrs. A.'s child, 2 years of age: it took well.On the tenth day, it was attacked with scarlatina.These occurrences must be familiar to all practitioners.I will adduce, however, a few authorities.Diemerbroeck says, " On the seventh day, contrary to all expectation, the measles come out over the whole body, between the small-pox."He adds, " I do not remember I ever saw this accident above twice or thrice in all my prac- tice.However, by this observation it appears, that although both these diseases, in respect of infection, have somewhat in common, yet respect of the subject to which that infec- tion adheres, there is something of difference and distinc- tion between them." (SmalZ-Pox, p. 39.) Dr. F. Churchill in speaking of the remarkable events of mall-pox, says, " But what is more remarkable, measles and scarlatina may occur, either along with small-.pox,just previously, or immnediately after."Dr. Empis describes " An epidemic of small-pox, which prevailed in Paris during January 1852, as having been preceded in some cases by an eruption, sometimes resem- bling measles, sometimes scarlatina.The two eruptions, he believes, are due to the samie specific cause."(London