Smallpox : the case for vaccination / by J. Wilson Hamill.

  • Hamill, J. Wilson, 1854-1917.
Date:
1902
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Smallpox : the case for vaccination / by J. Wilson Hamill. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    7/24 (page 5)
    it. All European, countries suffered in the same, way and to an equal degree, and in many cases far more severely than, England, and it is curious to* note in this connection that the first bold method to, deal and cope with the malady was intro- duced into England from Turkey about the year 1722 by Lady Mary Wortley Montague, by the practice of what is known as inoculation. Though there is some evidence that in these kingdoms and other countries some kind or degree of inoculation was practised at a much earlier date, the first clearly recorded case in England is that of the daughter of Lady Mary Wortley Montague. This lady had had her son inoculated some time before a,t Con- stantinople'. This procedure' consisted in producing an attack of smallpox by the introduction of the pus, or matter, from a smallpox pustule into a wound in, the skin made for the purpose. By this means, an artificial attack of the disease was produced, which was, a,s a rule, milder and very much less fatal than the attacks of the natural disease'. If the consequences had ended here, inoculation would have constituted a very efficient security against a, fatal attack. It was found in, practice that this artifi- cially created disease protected those; subjected to it, to a large extent,, from a future attack of smallpox. Although created artificially, and, as a rule, comparatively mild in character, the disease was really and essentially smallpox, highly infectious to those who, came into contact with the inoculated person. Pre- sumably those who, had been, inoculated went, in and out. in their usual way, to their businesses and pleasures, just as those vaccinated do nowadays, and the result wa,s that they spread the disease. Much praised by some and opposed by others, inoculation fell out of favour for a time, but about, 1740 it appears to have, been revived, and in 1746 an Inoculation and Smallpox Hospital was established in London, and during the latter half of the 18th century the practice, became very general. It was very much more common amongst the rich and well-to-do classes than the poor, and if everyone had been inoculated there is no doubt it would have proved a, potent instrument in stamping out smallpox. But it had the fatal defect previously referred to: the person, inoculated became a, focus of infection and spread the disease, a charge which its most, bitter opponents have never been able to urge against, vaccination.. “The general conclusion which may be drawn seems to be that inoculation had a, double influence,—one favourable and the other unfavourable—as regards smallpox, and owing to the conflict between these influences it produced but, little effect upon the prevalence of, and mortality from, smallpox.”—Royal Commission Report.