Variola, vaccination, varicella, cholera, erysipelas, whooping cough, hay fever / by H. Immermann [and others] ; edited with additions by John W. Moore ; authorized translation from the German, under the editorial supervision of Alfred Stengel.

  • Immermann, H.
Date:
1902
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Variola, vaccination, varicella, cholera, erysipelas, whooping cough, hay fever / by H. Immermann [and others] ; edited with additions by John W. Moore ; authorized translation from the German, under the editorial supervision of Alfred Stengel. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    201/730 (page 191)
    certain supposed and actual disadvantages to be considered. It has been claimed that the cultivation of vaccinia exclusively in the human species causes the vaccine material to degenerate in time, so that the disease commences to run an abortive course and becomes more and more impotent. This is no reproach to humanized vaccinia, since the same condition of affairs is observed in vaccinia cultivated ex- clusively in animals of the same species. Experiments have frequently been made in which vaccinia has been continuously inoculated from one individual of the bovine species to another, and it usually hap- pened sooner or later that the disease deteriorated and could be restored to its original condition only by inoculating it into an indi- vidual of some other species. There is consequently no reason for saying that the gradual deterioration of the genitures is peculiar to humanized vaccinia. At the present day it is no longer believed that humanized vaccmia is inferior to animalized vaccinia in this respect. The reason for this loss of strength of the genitures (animal or human) has not yet been sufficiently explained; the fact itself is, however, frankly admitted by all experienced vaccine physicians. A further and much more weighty objection to the employment of human lymph is the possibility of transmitting contagious dis- eases, particularly syphihs, by the act of vaccination. The pos- sibility of this occurrence must be unquestionably admitted, since the history of vaccination has furnished a series of concrete facts which amount to the most positive proof. It is equally true, upon the other hand, that syphilis is not capable of transmission by bovine material, since it is impossible to infect cattle with syphilis. This is the most important advantage Avhich animal vaccination possesses over the humanized virus, and, in the eyes of many, it is sufficient to ])rove the absolute superiority of bovine vaccine material. It should nevertheless be particularly noted that every case of vaccine syphilis naturally excites a great deal of attention, and that, on the whole,, they are nevertheless very rare in comparison to the many million human vaccinations that have been made in the past. It may also be added that every outbreak of syphilis after vaccination does not deserve the name of vaccine syphilis, since in some of these cases it is either certain or highly probable that the individual was previously infected with syphilis (especially children with hereditary syphilis) and the disease simply manifested itself at the site of the vaccination. It is clear that cases of this character should not be looked upon as the result of vaccination, and they consequently