The history of small-pox in Australia, 1788-1908 / compiled from various sources by J.H.L. Cumpston.

  • Cumpston, J. H. L. (John Howard Lidgett), 1880-1954.
Date:
1914
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The history of small-pox in Australia, 1788-1908 / compiled from various sources by J.H.L. Cumpston. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University.

    14/208 (page 6)
    thought a correct diagnosis could always be made by referring to the history of the case and the sequence of symptoms, small-pox being always an acute eruptive disorder running a definite course, whereas native-pox was more chronic, there being successive crops of pustules during the progress of the disease. Dr. Macintosh had never seen what is called ''native-pox among the natives. He said it was totally distinct from small-pox: it was more like impetigo. Dr. Verco said he could not recognise native-pox as a distinct disease from impetigo or varicella. Dr. Gosse differed from Dr. Verco in thinking that patients had a difficulty in distinguishing between chicken-pox and native-pox : it was rather that they called all scabby eruptions in children by the name of native-pox. In his own mind he had no difficulty in recognising the disease as i?npetigo contagiosa. He thought it would be a good thing if the profession took more pains to eradicate the name of native-pox. In the discussion that took place in the columns of The Argus of Mel- bourne, in 1877, and which is reprinted in full on pages 154-161, as itappeared in the Australian Medical Journal of January, 1877, appear the following references to native-pox :— In reply to M.D.'s letter in this morning's Argus, permit me to say that I have seen scores of natives pitted with what was called in the bush 'native-pock, and have known its effects to be mistaken even by experts for those of small-pox. I cannot remember any disease such as native-pock having affected them in this manner (viz., blindness), or even deeply pitting them to an}' extent so as to disfigure them. As regards native-pock, unless a sort of pustular itch from which both the blacks and their dogs used to suffer lie indicated by the term. I may frankly confess that I never saw during my 35 years' experience anything among them to which I can supposo it to refer. An interesting reference to this condition appears in the Australian Medical Journal (1816, p. 53) as follows :— Hitherto this colony lias been rxrmpt fru;n small-pux. We arc aware that a disease which has appeared, and proved very destructive among the aboriginal tribes at various times, is supposed to be small-pox, but there is no distinct evidence on that point. If it were, it would be a curious question to ascertain how it came among them, and how it happened not to have extended to the white population, a large proportion of which must, from the want of vaccination, have been so favourably situated for its reception. The condition known by the name of native pock is doubtless a varioloid disease, but resembles more a severe form of varicella than true variola.