Is the efficacy of cow-pox in preventing small-pox the same now as thirty years ago?.

  • Elliot, William, of Carlisle.
Date:
1836
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Is the efficacy of cow-pox in preventing small-pox the same now as thirty years ago?. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/20 (page 13)
    him for the first few years. Dr. G's words are, in one pi ace, ‘■'the early experiments of Tenner and Woodville suf¬ ficiently proved, that for two or three years at least, after vaccination, the human body is unsusceptible of small- pox by inoculation”: in another, he shews “how much more frequent small-pox after vaccination is among adults than children”: and says, in a third, “ we are strongly disposed to believe that the susceptibility of small-pox does return in many cases, more especially when favoured by certain concurrent circumstances. Of these, the most energetic hitherto ascertained are, change of climate, and the period of puberty.” It appears highly probable from all that has been ad¬ vanced, that the present tendency of small-pox to increase its inroads, might be materially lessened by the adoption of two measures: — I. Having recourse, after a certain limited interval, again and again to the original source of cow-pox, aided by the sanction and authority of government, and its in¬ terdiction of the use of old virus, where recent could be procured. II. The re-vaccination of individuals even under these circumstances, more particularly when approaching matu¬ rity, or about to change their climate. In conclusion, I beg to state, that had not the opinion respecting the gradually decreasing efficacy of cow-pock matter, on which I ventured a few remarks at a meeting before alluded to, been so summarily dealt with in their Report by the Dispensary Committee, bespattered with illogical and therefore “ unphilosophical” attempts at argu¬ ment—not indeed original, but culled from various kindred sources—and a copy of its condemnation, thus sealed without evidence or pleading being heard in its favour, sent to the public press as well as handed to the supporters of that useful Institution, very few considerations indeed, should have induced me thus to trespass on your columns, and on the patience of your readers. And although I regret that the Dispensary Committee have been so ill-ad¬ vised as to frame two-thirds of their Report of “shreds and patches ” of medical controversy, to the exclusion of the usual notice of accidents and other surgical cases, I sha1!