The political side of the vaccination system; an essay read at the Birmingham Anti-Vaccination conference, October 26th, 1874 / by F.W. Newman.

  • Newman, F. W. (Francis William), 1805-1897.
Date:
[1874?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The political side of the vaccination system; an essay read at the Birmingham Anti-Vaccination conference, October 26th, 1874 / by F.W. Newman. 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.

    12/16 (page 10)
    to admit that their informants were right. Who now are the quacks ? Of course I refer to the cases brought forward by Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson. Not to encroach on the medical side of the question, it suffices here to state that Mr. Simon, medical adviser of the Privy Council, the man whose energies eminently support vaccination, was forced, in a debate of the Eoyal Medical and Chirurgical Society (April 25th, 1871), to confess that Mr. Hut- chinson's diagnosis must be provisionally accepted as correct; and that several undoubted instances (of the same kind) had occurred in Italy, France, and Germany. He laid down the law dogmatic- ally,— The blood of syphilitic persons conveys syphilis ; hence, it is bad practice to take blood in vaccinating : it is quite cer- tain that [in Mr. Hutchinson's cases] blood became mixed witli the lymph. This is in the usual rash style of men who seem incapable of distinguishing their own theories from facts. Mr. Simon had not seen the operator dip his lancet into the blood : he only hears of disease resulting—he infers that the lancet went too deep, and then asserts this as a fact. Mr. De Meric, and Mr. R. B. Carter (two surgeons who spoke in this debate), were flatly of an opposite opinion to Mr. Simon, and avowed that tlie lymph, without the blood, would equally communicate the dreaded disease. This differ- ence of surgeons does not immediately concern me now. It suffices to press, that if Mr. Simon be right, still Parliament cannot guar- antee a child from syphilis, scrofula, consumption, ulcerations, mutilations, and a long train of other diseases, transmissible in arm- to-arm vaccination by the momentary unsteadiness of a surgeon's hand. Mr. Simon knows this, yet still endeavours to bolster up vaccination, on which his greatness, his patronage, and the salaries of many surgeons largely depend. Now, allow me to read to you \\o\y this matter appears from a surgeon's point of view. ]\Ir. Henry Lee spoke first on the ad- journed debate, INIay 9th, 1871. After mentioning various cases, known to himself, where vaccination had certainly communicati'd formidable diseases, other than cow-pox, he proceeded to speak of the surgeon, who, without giving to the public his own name, luul communicated to Mr. Hutchinson, for publication, his cases of evil vaccination. Mr. Hemy Lee did not, as some others, this anonymous surgeon, but extolled his courage in revealing the facts and believed it would be hereafter admitted that he had done much to make vaccination safe. He added, that, in order to make vacci- nation SAFE, souie rales must he laid down to guide the profession at large. Until this was done, and until it was fairly and fxilly