VACCINATION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11589, 21 May 1903, Page 3

VACCINATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —At present the air is sensational with the pros and coc3 of smallpox and vaccination. A very unnecessary scare has been created, and it will do much to •encourage this, or some other disease. Nothing is worse than to rush this into t-ho public mind like the point of a needle—for, as we think, so are we—and, surely, the. doctors dV>, or ought to know this. I wish to call attention to your leader of to-day, Tuesday. Without- for a moment wishing to impute any improper motives to th_ writer, I must call attention to his treatment, of the Royal Commission, appointed by the British Government. I know the writer recognises this Commission fis the latest scientific information on tho subject, and ljccommieuds the adoption of their pro-osabs, as -u-e evidence taken was from all shade- of opinions, and oocupyirig about fix years. Th* first decision was that, as given by the writer, to reduce the virulence of the disease, but in order to do the Fecond, the patients must b.i often acted upon, and on this point no settled tim-s is agreed upon. Some say one year, snaio seven, some ten, and Jennings, the founder of vaccination, once in a lifetime. On this point. Dr. Leverson ha 3 proved by statistics that there i« in it no protection, and that those who have had tho smallpox are the most liable ■to have it again by 60.4 per cent. Thirdly, the article then quotes the admission by the Com mission, that not an inconsiderable, amount, of danger was run by fb* use of tha vaccination. This admission is honest, as far as it goes, but when one of tho greatest scientists in England, has shown that at least 1000 are killed every year in England alone, the item is not lightly io be passed over. This is also confirmed by another able writer, who

collecte the best information available,, and whose work was dedicated to the English Premier, Mr Balfour. Fourth. Nov-, sir, tno point which the writer of the article in question omitted to give weight to. or even to mention, is that this Royal Commission, which waa composed largely of gentlemen biased in favour of vaccination. did this —they strongly recommended the Government to withdraw the compulsory clause in the English Act passed in the fifties. This, after nearly fifty years of violent persecution of the parents by repeated imprisonments. And now", sir, even the 'London attack of two years ago did not bring that, I would like to say abominable clause into force again." And, as strange es it. may =eem, the attack left London without bring scared away by legislation of any kind, and without vaccinating five millions of people, while the doctors here are fairly mad to force this iniquity upon us, although it is both futile and injurious. The Royal Commission getting tlve law repealed is the. strongest proof possible of their estimate, of the superstitious nature of tha law, and its worthlessness. Allow me to quote somo of the greatest of doctors and scientists a.gainst it, so that the reading public may know:—Drs. Collins. Crooksbank. Creighton, Tebb. Richardson, Frobs. Watson, Simon, leading medical men in England. Amongst many others, are professors Ricord, Herbert Spencer, Albert. Miles. W. E, Gladstone. Lord Salisbury, John Bright, Sir E- Chadwirk, Mire Florence Nightingale, and tbo H. P. Hughes. M.A., who said:—''The facts produced before, the Royal Commission have finally convinced me that vaccination is a. great mistake, an,} tnat compulsory vaccination i.s ono of the most fearful outrages of sacred human rights that selfishness and cowardice have ever vlevisr.<!."' —Youis, J. L. WILSONChrischurch, May 12th. TO TUB EDITOR OF TUT. TRESS. Sir. —As one opposed, on practical and patholocical grounds, to vaccination and on political and philosophical grounds to it« compulsory enforcement I am well pleased with the temperat-9 treatment of the- subject by both the Press and the profession. Of course there is naturally a tendency to 'take sides" on the question nnd you yourself have dene so, whilst the attitude of your contemporary, like- that of Mr Laurenson, is slightly ambiguous; but there bos been none of the ''going' it blind" for vaccination, and none of the "slangwhanging" of all who differ, that so often characterise the attitude of tho "potential piess" in some countries. The medical profession, too, have set an example of good taste, keeping within their rights; the health officers, quite appropriately, urging vaccination, but not by means, overt and covert, seeking to enforce it.

The opinion has been expressed that no-w----in so-called "epidemic" visitation—it is nothing of the sort— is the time- to "vaccinate, vaccinate, and re-vaccinate." This is not tho judgment of th, "thoutrhtful and experienced. Panic -work is bad work, inefficient, risky, dangerous!

I have no intention to traverse your leading article of yesterday. Personally I do not think the people of Christchurch are likely to lose their heads, and rush to the public vaccinator; on the whole, they wi'A none, of his woik. But I do ask leave, to affirm, in opposition to some of your statement?, and I am prepared to sustain my propositions, (1) that ths risk of introducing horrible disease* is not obviated by (substituting calf lymph for humanised lymph; (2) that tho addition of glycerin? to vaccino lymph not only doea not eliminate all injurious "germ?,." but intensiftas tha danger-possibilities of ordinary- lymph.—Yours, etc.,

w. w. [Our authority for the statement as to the. safety ot using calf lymph, is ]»r. S. Monckton Copemau, medical inspector to the Loc.il Government Board. The l'oya" Commission reported that even un,d?r tha arm to arm sj-.stem, during the years 1881-89, only one death in 14.159 primary vaccination? was associated with vaccination.—Ed. "The Pre re."]