[Letters to the Water Cure Journal, and other papers, by John Gibbs : being the sequel to "Letters from Graefenberg" / by the same author].

  • Gibbs, John, of Camberwell.
Date:
1847-1856
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: [Letters to the Water Cure Journal, and other papers, by John Gibbs : being the sequel to "Letters from Graefenberg" / by the same author]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    164/250 page 152
    breaks out upon the region of the , precluded from ob- | servation by the apparel, but the face and arms appear quite healthy. The district vaccinator is deceived by the appear- ances of these children ; they are vaccinated, fine pustules are produced, and this vitiated, virus is transmitted to scores of others, who shortly after suffer from fulsome eruptions, or the foundation is laid for scrofula or tuberculous consumption. These children have been born of parents who were either suffering from primary or secondary s s [It is a curious fact that ‘ half the deaths registered from this disease were in children under one year’ (Lancet, March 17, 1855); and it is worthy of note that in many cases the disease was de- rived solely from the father, the mother never having been afflicted with it.—J. G.] during utero-gestation ; and this frightful disease, after the birth of the child, either lies dor- mant, or slightly shows itself about the third month, the time for vaccination. Such diseases are likely to be known by the medical attendant of the family, and I humbly submit it as a strong reason for the remunerating fee to be suffi- ciently large to induce him to vaccinate those he attends, so that such diseases may have less chance of being propagated. “Thanking you, my lord, for the fulfilment of your pro- mise in extending the operation to -all qualified surgeons, and hoping I may not be too late for you to give an increased fee your favourable consideration, “ I am, my lord, your obedient humble servant, “To Lord Lyttelton.” “ W. H. Borham. “ 10, Great George street, July 19, 1854. “Sir,—The House of Commons have rejected the proposed fee of Is., and I must now let the matter alone, having done what I could ; but you have misunderstood the object of it. Union surgeons are paid 2s. 6d. and Is. 8d. for operation, certificate and all. Private practitioners complained that they had to furnish certificates for nothing ; I therefore pro- posed that they should be paid Is. for the certificate alone, which, compared with the other, seems about in proportion for the operation. Of course they are paid by their employers, unless they choose to do it gratis. “ The object was not to throw contracts open to all, which, though I should be glad if it could be done, 1 did not venture to do, because I found doubts expressed in high au- thority whether it might not interfere with the due supply of lymph.* “ Your obedient servant, “ To W. H. Borham, Esq.” “ Lyttelton. The foregoing correspondence speaks so clearly and forci- bly for itself as to need but few words of comment. Why the “ district vaccinator” should be liable to be de- ceived any more than “ the medical attendant of the family” is not very apparent. The fact is that no surgeon or phy- sician can be sure that, any given lymph is unmixed with the seeds of some other disease besides those of cowpox. There is no known medical test by which any one human being can be pronounced free from the taint of some transmitted malady. It is impossible for a medical man to pronounce with certainty what child is perfectly healthy. It is asserted that, from children apparently the most healthy, diseases the most horrible have been propagated in and by the vaccine virus. A gentleman, well known in the philanthropic world, informs me that, with lymph taken from a child supposed to be perfectly healthy, his grandchild, a healthy child, of healthy parents, was vaccinated ; from this child the virus was transferred to his cousin, another healthy child, the off- spring also of healthy parents. Subsequently both children became afflicted with a loathsome disease, prior to the out- ward manifestation of which, some twenty other children were vaccinated from them. Dr. Laurie, of Dunstable, who kindly allows me to men- tion his name, thus writes to me :—“ I vaccinated a child with pure lymph (reputed to be) from the Royal Vaccine Institution. The child, though previously apparently healthy, has ever since been nearly blind ; opacities of the cornea developing themselves immediately after the opera- tion. This case, and several others from other vaccinators, at Edlesborough, where it was performed, have militated very much against the practice of vaccination amongst the poor.” It would lengthen this paper too much to give other sim- ilar testimonies ; but the phrases “ most likely” and “ less chance,” in Mr. Borham's letter, sufficiently confess the existence of the danger and the absence of immunity. * “ How, if the contract were open to all, it could interfere with the due supply of lymph, I should like the ‘ high authority’ to explain. This high authority must have hoodwinked his lordship.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3