The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 40
Appendices
Appendices.
Since writing the foregoing I have been completely over-whelmed with literature and evidence hearing against vaccination, but the mass of matter is so great that I find it impossible to reduce it to anything like manageable shape, especially as the type is standing in waiting for a second edition, for which there is a considerable demand. I have therefore for the present contented myself with picking out a few points which have appeared in recent contemporary press.
Dr. Cameron, M.P., in an article in the May number of the Fortnightly Review, says, "Of 2677 deaths from small-pox re-corded in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums' Board during the years 76-79, 1008, or 37¾ per cent, occurred in vaccinated persons." Dr. Cameron it will be understood is not an anti-vaccinator.
Mr. Thomas Baker, an English barrister, shows that the Parliamentary return, No. 433, session 1877, demonstrates that out of 80,000 deaths from small-pox, 43,000 were of children under five years of age, up to which time vaccination is held by the medical profession to afford absolute protection.
Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S., the celebrated author of the "Origin of Species," and "The Descent of Man," says, in his "Animals and Plants under Domestication," "It has recently been ascertained that a minute portion of the mucous discharge from an animal affected with rinderpest, if placed in the body of a healthy ox, increases so fast that in a short time the whole mass of blood, weighing many pounds, is infected, and every small particle of that blood contains enough poison to give, within forty-eight hours, the disease to another animal." This of course bears on the use of cow-lymph, for I know from experience in Africa that diseases of this character are in latent existence in the vital organs of cattle long before they are externally apparent.
"In the midst of an epidemic of small-pox in a population 'protected,' according to Dr. Carpenter, in the proportion of 300 to 1—a fact surely sufficient in itself to warrant some doubt as to the efficiency of vaccination—it seems that our medical experts have nothing to propose but a repetition of the process which has so signally failed.
"In regard to this question of vaccination we seem to be suffering under a judicial blindness which disenables us from profiting by the result of our own experience. Is it possible that we can gain something from the experience of others? There is a very striking similarity between the condition of London now and that of Paris ten years ago. I quote from a very interesting work by Dr. C. Spinzig on variola. He states that in the spring of 1870 much alarm existed in Paris in regard to an outbreak of small-pox. It appears that the faith in the efficacy of 'humanised' vaccine matter had been greatly shaken. It was supposed to have degenerated, as is now maintained here by Dr. Cameron, M.P., and the use of lymph direct from the heifer was strongly recommended. The Municipal Council of Paris voted 10,000f. for the purpose. The inhabitants of Paris availed themselves of the opportunity to a great extent, and one morning as many as 2000 persons were vaccinated at one mairie alone. As early as February, 1870, vaccination and re-vaccination directly from the heifer was put in operation in Paris, so that at the month of October six to seven months had elapsed, and consequently the protective power of vaccination ought to have been at the very height of its potency; but, alas! instead thereof, the table exhibits an alarming increase from October to the end of December. The conseil d' hygiène et de salubrité discontinued the system in December. The reason for this action may satisfactorily be learnt from the following deaths from small-pox in Paris in 1870 :—January, 174; February, 293; March, 406; April, 561; May, 786; June, 914; July, 1072; August, 713; September, 700; October, 1361; November, 1722; December, 1837. Deaths in 1871 :—January, 1503; February, 763; March, 230. The entire number of deaths during these 15 months is 13,035, being more than 20 times the average of the previous ten years.' I leave these facts to speak for themselves."
Vaccination.—"The Lancet paper startled its readers a short time since by asserting that it never approved of public vaccination as now practised, and it appears from some remarks in the same journal on the recently-published report of the medical officer that the Privy Council inspectors justify this condemnation, for out of 1749 vaccination districts inspected, the authorised first-class gratuity of 1s. per case has been awarded to 129 only, and the second-class gratuity of 8d. to 219 more. In England and Wales there are about 3000 medical men performing operations, which are wholly disapproved by the highest authorities. Another point worthy of attention is that a distinction is drawn between one vaccination and another. Can anybody explain to the public what constitutes a first or second-class vaccination. I venture to say no such distinction ever entered the head of Jenner."
The London society for the abolition of compulsory vaccination has issued a circular, containing the following results of an international anti-vaccination congress held at the Salle de Conferences, Paris, in December last. Eighteen delegates attended, representing Belgium, Holland, Prussia, Wirtemburg, Switzerland, Prance, England, and the United States, and including five M.D.'s and three university professors. Amongst the names of those who being unable to attend personally, sent letters of sympathy with the movement, we observe those of Herbert Spencer and F. W. Newman. The conclusions come to by the conference, and the statements made therein, will startle many who without examination, have believed in the efficacy of innoculation for small-pox.
First—That small-pox epidemics did not increase the general death-rate; that when small-pox was rife there was less typhoid fever, scarlet fever, measles, whooping cough, and other zymotic diseases; and that, generally speaking, the total mortality increased as small-pox mortality diminished.
Second—That the diminution of small-pox mortality at the beginning of the present century could not have been due to vaccination, as Jenner's discovery was but very little practised. When the result was claimed for it not more than per cent, of the entire population in England were vaccinated, and in 1812, less than 1 per cent, of the population on the Continent. The diminution of small-pox was due to the cessation of smallpox innoculation, and small-pox mortality diminished when it ceased to be propagated.
Third—That the official returns show that in proportion as vaccination has been rigorously enforced, small-pox has increased.
Fourth—That the small-pox hospital returns both in Europe and America, prove that vaccination has neither prevented nor mitigated the severity of the disorder. The fatality amongst the hospital patients in the last century averaged 18 per cent., whereas the fatality during the epidemic of 1870-2 was 1866—about 18 2/3 per cent, of the patients attacked.
Fifth—That since vaccination had been rendered obligatory, infantile syphilis (under one year old) had been increased in England, according to a Parliamentary return, dated February 25th, 1880, from 472 per million of births in 1847 to 1746 per million in 1877, or four-fold; and that all other inoculable diseases, such as pyæmia, scrofula, erysipelas, and bronchitis, were augmented in these infants in like proportion. In England the increase of inoculable diseases was 20 per cent., notwithstanding an expenditure of 200 millions sterling since 1850 in sanitary works. Another Parliamentary return (No. 433 Session 1877) demonstrated that 25,000 babies were yearly sacrificed by diseases excited by the vaccination lancet.
Sixth—That from the exceeding difficulty of finding a case of spontaneous cow-pox the vaccinating profession cannot possess a standard of purity in lymph; and that no analysis, or microscopic examination, or medical experience, can enable a vaccinator to distinguish pure from impure lymph, nor can the apearance of the vesicle of the vaccinifer be relied upon to indicate freedom from taint of syphilitic and other disease. A subject highly syphilised can show vaccine vesicles, according to Dr. Warlomont, "perfectly irreproachable" in appearance.
Seventh—That many diseases to which animals are liable, and particularly tubercle, are transmissable by means of so-called Animal Vaccination to man, according to Veterinary Surgeons, and that the great increase in Consumption in Europe was owing to this cause.
Eight—Dr. H. Oidtmann of Aix la Chapelle demonstrated by official returns from the towns of Cologne, Dusseldorf, Duren, Elbeefield, Liegnitz, Treves, Wesel and other places, that Vaccination does not afford even a temporary protection against Small-pox, but on the contrary on the outbreak of Variola there is large and constant priority amongst those attacked, of the vaccinated and re-vaccinated, over those who have escaped Vaccination.
Lastly—That in view of the confusion of opinion which prevails in every medical assembly amongst the so-called authori- ties, whenever the subject of Vaccination is discussed, it is unwise, impolitic, unjust and tyrannical to enforce it: that such enforcement retards all improvement in the treatment and all discoveries for the prevention of Small-Pox: and that all Compulsory Legislation with regard to Vaccination ought to be repealed.
The Paris correspondent of the London Daily News cabled the following on May 5:—The fifth and last debate on obligatory vaccination and re-vaccination took place yesterday at the Academy of Medicine, whose advice the Chamber asked when Dr. Liouville presented his Bill in the earlier sittings. The Liouville Bill was severely handled, and the final sitting was animated. Dr. Legouest, of the Val de Grace, presided. When he was putting to the vote the report of a Committee, Dr. Guerin proposed that the academy, while admitting its belief in the powers of vaccination, regrets not being able to recommend that it be made obligatory because firstly, to do so would be anti-scientific, inasmuch as it would fix bounds to science; and secondly, it would be contrary to the prerogatives of the medical profession and individual liberty; consequently the academy should recommend the chambers to vote sufficient funds to multiply and perfect vaccine institutions. Baron Larrey declared himself in principle for amendment. Nevertheless the amendment was rejected. Dr. Depaul then proposed that from the beginning of January next the practice of vaccination and re-vaccination be placed upon a new basis in all the territory of the Republic, and that an administrative rule should be promulgated to assure the execution of the law. Dr. Hardy, when Dr. Depaul was beaten, opposed obligatory vaccination. What the Chamber should do was to facilitate its practice under safe conditions. Baron Larrey proposed the institution of a central vaccine establishment in every department. The first clause of the Committee's report, favourable to obligatory vaccination, was carried by 46 against 21. In the minority were some of the most eminent lights of science, who were not all prepared to admit that Dr. Jenner stood on a basis of absolute scientific truth, or that his opponents' arguments were to be lightly treated. The Academy would not entertain Dr. Lefort's amendment, which was to render it obligatory for the concierges or for the landlords of houses in which there are variolic patients to stick up at the entrance a warning placard as in Prussia. Dr. Lefort is a professor of the faculty, Head Surgeon at the Beaujon Hospital, and has much studied the small-pox question in Prance and abroad. He opposed ardently a report favourable to the Liouville Bill. The Academy had not sufficient belief in Dr. Jenner to report in favour of obligatory re-vaccination.