A review of Mr. Brown's work on vaccination / extracted from the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, and re-published by order of the gentlemen who super-intend the Cow-Pock Institution, in Sackville Street, Dublin. [Anon].

Date:
1809
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A review of Mr. Brown's work on vaccination / extracted from the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, and re-published by order of the gentlemen who super-intend the Cow-Pock Institution, in Sackville Street, Dublin. [Anon]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    10/18 (page 10)
    their fears, may be worked upon. Way, we will even go one step farther ; Mr. Brown himself seems conscious that their reports* as he has stated them, weic not generally accurate. For what other reason could he have <c carefully avoided any communication with the different practitioners by wiiom the children were vaccinat¬ ed ?” Had these gentlemen corroborated the evidence of the pa¬ rents, Mr. Brown’s opinion would have derived such an additio¬ nal support, that we cannot suppose him to have acted so absurdly as to neglect it1; but he well knew, that their evidence would have been adverse to his views, and the motive which he has not blushed to avow for neglecting or withholding it, is an aggravation of the indel icacy and improprieiy of his conduct. <c It is perhaps proper to notice, that I carefully avoided having any communication with the different practitioners by whom the children were vaccinated, being aware of the strong hold that sys¬ tem has upon the human mind, more especially in this very im¬ portant subject; thinking it best for the attainment of truth, to state with the greatest possible accuracy, the parents account of the cir¬ cumstances that attended the vaccination of their children; notice the appearance of the arm ; and give the names of the families, ■whereby an opportunity is afforded to any of the practitioners to sa¬ tisfy themselves.” Such is the line of conduct best calculated, in Mr Brown’s opinion, for the attainment of truth; and does this gentlman complain of the vac- cinists stifling inquiry, and being averse to facts ? does this gentleman expect his uncorroborated evidence to be believed; this gentleman, who acts so disingenuously towards his professional brethren ; who goes about influencing the minds of their patients, taking advan¬ tage of their fears, and their weakness, and their ignorance; who, in a pretended investigation of truth, insults his readers by wilfully suppressing or neglecting to procure the best information in his pow¬ er ; this gentleman who, in the very act of supporting a darling hy¬ pothesis, does not scruple to insinuate that his professional brethren are not to be believed, because, forsooth, system has a strong hold on the human mind. — 7 But not only does Mr. Browns rage for multiplying cases of small¬ pox after cow-pox lead him to the disingenuous practice of stating many on the authority of ignorant parents, without consulting the practitioner concerned, but even some (Case VI.) in direct contradic¬ tion to the phenomena, and to the opinion of the practitioner express¬ ed at the time. . How many of the individuals, the subjects of these pretended cases of small-pox after vaccination, were not duly vaccinated, we have no means of estimating; but that the number was considerable, we are convinced, both by the Suspicious nature of the evidence with regard to thirty of them, and by the doubts suggested with regard to the whole of them, by Mr Brown’s misapprehension or misrepresen¬ tation of the phenomena both of vaccination and of variolation. 1 With his usual inconsistency, Mr Brown contends, that experience