A letter in reply to the report of the surgeons of the Vaccine Institution, Edinburgh : with an appendix, containing a variety of interesting letters on the subject of vaccination, and including a correspondence with Dr. Duncan, Dr. Lee, and Mr. Bryce : from which also the public will be able to appreciate the authority of the surgeons of the Vaccine Institution, and to form a correct opinion of the whole subject / by Thomas Brown.

Date:: 1809

Credit: A letter in reply to the report of the surgeons of the Vaccine Institution, Edinburgh : with an appendix, containing a variety of interesting letters on the subject of vaccination, and including a correspondence with Dr. Duncan, Dr. Lee, and Mr. Bryce : from which also the public will be able to appreciate the authority of the surgeons of the Vaccine Institution, and to form a correct opinion of the whole subject / by Thomas Brown. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

42/132 page 36

3t6 '•11. T]iey show distinctlyj that the pretence of the disease of vaccination, being so little understood at its commencement i» wholly destitute of foundation, and cannot be admitted as an ex. cuse for the occurrence of small-pox. 12. They prove distinctly, that, by increasing the number of vesicles, you give no additional secui ity to your patient; and that, although you may thereby increase the apjjearancc of'con. Stitutional symptoms^ you do not render tlie antivariolous inllu- ence of vaccination complete. 13. Thatthecasesofreinoculation, exactly correspond in their effects with the inllucnce of the epidemic disease, always makin-r a nearer approach, both to the external characters of an inocu- lated pustule, and to the constitutional aflection, exactly in pro- portion to the distance they are removed from vaccination. 14. They alsodistinctlyshow, that there is a material dilierence betwixt the powers of the small-pox contagion, exerted in its epi- demic form, and when imparted by inoculation. 15. i hese cases, and the whole phenomena and circumstances of vaccination, shew, that there are just grounds for concluding, that a specific action may exist, minus, or nef(uiivclij, in the con! stitution ; that therefore it would be improper, in the event of vaccination being iound inadeqate to maintain its antivariolous character, to re-inoculate those cases which have previously un- dergone vaccination, before it w as capable of producing a dis- tinct constitutional effect. . That they afford strong grounds for concluding, that this distinct constitutional influence cannot be depended upon to take place, sooner than about six years from vaccination. See Inquiry, p. 244 to . We have also seen, that this period of security seen;s, in ^e- iicral, only to extend to the distance of three or four years after vaccitmtioii, if the individual is exposed to the epidemic conta- gion-j but if the infection is introduced in the form o( inoculatioji, it in general requires a distance, at least, oifive years from vac- cination, before you can jiroduce either an «/-eo//i, ov constitu- Honul sj-mptoms.—See page LiiO Inquiry. After these quotations, I apprehend, Gentlemen, you will be perfectly satisfied, that if you have read my book with much attention, you have either not under- stood, what will appear I trust to every one quite dis- tinct, and evident, or you have been guilty of the gros- sest inattention, and the most uncandid and incorrect statement. It is impossible you can here plead the smallest excuse; for the manner I have adopted to con-

Licence and re-use

Contents