The Facts about
Variolinum
By Charles Woodhull Eaton, MD, Des Moines,
Iowa
Presented by Julian WinstonIt is proper to say that the
presentation of this subject is by request. Iowa, it seems, has become
somewhat conspicuous in this connection. The extensive employment in my
state of internal vaccination by means of Variolinum, the large mass of
experience resulting from that use, and the vigorous defense made in the
courts when the authorities questioned our right to use it, have
combined to produce in many quarters an impression that it is in some
sort an “Iowa Idea,” although Iowa obtained it precisely as it
did belladonna– by homeopathic inheritance.
University of Iowa
Homeopathic Medical Building and Hospital 1895
Located at the corner of Jefferson and Dubuque Streets – Iowa
City.But Iowa is proud of this
splendid piece of homeopathic practice; is proud of the three
independent and distinct decisions of its District Courts in widely
separated localities, amply protecting the right to use this method and
compelling school and municipal authorities to accept it; proud of the
thousands who have thus been rendered immune, and at the same time
spared the scarification danger of acute and chronic septicemias; and
when the request comes that Iowa take this matter up before the
Institute, she is ready to respond.I count myself happy that
the request was for “a paper that would discuss the subject in a
scientific manner.” For no matter what our views may have been when
we entered this room, if we take the matter up in a really scientific
manner, we are sure to reach practical agreement in conclusions.I care not how many of you
have previously been favorable and how many unfavorable. The privilege
of this occasion lies in the fact that all present are life-long workers
in applied science, and are, therefore, always ready to take up anything
or abandon anything, irrespective of preconceived opinion, provided the
demonstration be sufficient.The entire matter of
internal vaccination by means of Variolinum is comprised in the answer
to three simple questions:First. What is Variolinum?
Second. Is its use, as a greatly improved form of
vaccination, reasonable ?
Third. Has the test of actual experience
demonstrated its effectiveness ?First. What is
Variolinum? A pertinent and necessary inquiry it would seem; for the
leading editorial in a recent issue of one of our ablest Journals refers
to it as “a drug.” As a matter of fact, Variolinum is the
contents of the ripened pustule of smallpox. It is not the contents of a
vaccine pustule. It is the virus of variola; not the virus of vaccinia.
It is the virus of smallpox; not the virus of cowpox. There has been
some confusion on this point. Our pharmacies afford both Variolinum and
vaccininum, with the result that the two preparations have been mistaken
for each other.The importance of this
distinction is evident when it is remembered that any immunity conferred
by cowpox virus is indirect; conferred by smallpox virus, it is direct.Second. Is the
use of Variolinum reasonable?It is reasonable–
a) If
an individual may be rendered immune to a given disease by inoculation
with the virus of that disease, in the proper preparation and amount;
and(b) If
the virus of disease is effective when administered by the mouth, as
distinguished from administration hypodermatically or by scarification.These two propositions
demand close attention and exact thinking. For just here is the very
core of the whole matter. No loose and hazy “general
impressions,” and no half-and-half conclusions will do here. We
must advance cautiously; weigh our words; reach definite and clear-cut
conclusions; and then stand by them. In this spirit of unbiased
precision let us take up each in its turn.(a) May
then an individual be rendered immune to a given disease by the
administration of the virus of that disease in the proper preparation
and amount?Behind this question lies an
enormous amount of experimental research which bears upon it as directly
as if instituted for the sole purpose of determining the answer. For you
will not fail to observe that all the work done in the entire field of
serum therapy, rests absolutely upon the proposition that immunity is
obtained by the administration of the virus of the disease. I am
especially anxious not to be misunderstood just here. We have nothing so
do just now with the question of the merits or demerits of serum therapy
as a mode of treatment. We are not concerned with the question what
these serums accomplish, but solely with the question how these serums
are obtained. Stop and think closely for a moment. These serums are all
obtained from animals rendered immune to a disease by the administration
of the virus of that disease. Every animal that ever furnished a serum
is an affirmative answer to this question. Every animal is evidence that
immunity is obtained by the administration of the virus of the disease.It is wonderful to think of
the countless thousands of animal experiments, of clinical experiences,
and of the steadily proceeding manufacture in biological laboratories,
the combined volume of which testifies to this one fact of immunity
conferred by the proper use of the virus.Perhaps I owe you an apology
for taking time to call your attention to a matter so familiar. But it
is for the purpose of asking that it have at this time, your special and
pointed attention, because I want now and here your definite and
specific assent or dissent. Let us come squarely to the scratch. Has
scientific research demonstrated that immunity is obtained by the proper
administration of the virus of disease? If the answer is
“yes,” let us say “yes,” clearly and decisively.(b) Now for the second question; and again I
invite that pointed attention which has in it the decisive quality. Is
the virus of disease effective when administered by the mouth as
distinguished from administration hypodermatically or by scarification?
Must it be by the hypodermic syringe, or may it be by the mouth ‘ Is
disease virus absorbed, actually taken into the system when swallowed?
Are its characteristic reaction and its immunizing impress upon the
system, obtained only when it is injected? Or are they also so obtained
when it is ingested ?
Dr Robert Koch 1843-1910Never mind the theory, what
we want is the fact. And again I avoid trespass on your time by citing
at once an established and conspicuous fact, namely, the danger from
ingestion of tuberculous milk and meat. Why dangerous? Because disease
products do make their impress on the system when ingested. The protest
of the medical world when Koch maintained that bovine tuberculosis was
not transmissible to man, and the quick and earnest demonstration that
he was in error, are still fresh in your minds. In Great Britain this
assertion of Koch caused the appointment of a Royal a Commission to
investigate. I have before me their “Second Intermediary
Report,” an extended and elaborate document published this year.
They say, “Of the total sixty cases (of human tuberculosis)
investigated by us, twenty-eight possessed clinical histories indicating
that in them the bacillus was introduced through the alimentary canal. *
* * These facts indicate that a very
large proportion of tuberculosis contracted by ingestion [italics mine] IS due to tubercle bacilli of
bovine source.”The whole importance of
their investigation, and of our systems of milk and meat inspection,
lies in the fact that disease products do inoculate the system when
taken into the alimentary canal. It is, of course, not held that the
Mount necessary to produce toxic effects is the same when given by the
mouth as it is when given hypodermatically. In the case of our familiar
drugs, the hypodermatic dose is always the smaller. This, however, is
not an invariable rule. While writing these lines, it was my good
fortune to listen to an address by Dr. Fenton B. Turck, whose
experimental researches concerning food, digestion and nutrition have
made him an authority. In the course of this address he had occasion to
refer to the fact that his experiments showed that alcohol, and the
extractives of meat, do not produce their characteristic pathological
changes at all when injected hypodermatically, but only produce them
when ingested. But the comparative amount required by the two methods of
inoculation in order to produce toxic effects, does not now concern us.
The question is not one of size of dose, but simply whether actual
inoculation results from swallowing disease products in any dose. And
the answer furnished by the investigations of the British Royal
Commission, and by the establishment of our own systems of meat and milk
inspection, is so undeniable and so pointed, that it would seem to be a
waste of your time to indulge its further consideration. So again I ask
you to come squarely to the scratch. If your answer is “yes,”
let it be clear and decisive.It may be proper in passing,
to note that for the Homeopathist ample evidence is at hand from the
therapeutic side. The effective action of such a remedy as Psorinum,
long established and undoubted, is of itself conclusive that disease
products profoundly impress the organism when given by the mouth. But,
however interesting and convincing this may be to us as Homeopathists, I
prefer to rest the case solely upon the common ground of that general
biological and pathological knowledge which is familiar to all alike,
irrespective of any knowledge of Homeopathic therapeutics.Reverting now to the
original query, is the use of Variolinum reasonable? there seems to be
no escape from an affirmative answer. We have seen that it is the virus
of small pox; we have seen how complete is the demonstration that an
individual may be rendered immune to a given disease by the proper
administration of its virus; we have seen how experience has so amply
demonstrated inoculation by swallowing, that that fact has compelled the
enactment of food inspection laws. How then can we escape the verdict
that the use of Variolinum is reasonable? In a words we have first the
virus, second the law of immunization, and third the fact of inoculation
by ingestion. Is internal vaccination reasonable? The answer is
inevitable.So much for the scientific
basis. It remains to inquire whether the test of actual experience has
demonstrated its effectiveness.The smallpox epidemic of
five years ago (which, indeed, has not yet wholly disappeared) afforded
a rare opportunity for just such a test. Up to the time of this
epidemic, most physicians had never even see a case of smallpox, much
less had any chance to test its prophylaxis. Rut with its onset, all
this was changed, and experience with both methods of vaccination
accumulated rapidly. What was the verdict of this experience regarding
the internal method? How did Variolinum stand the test in actual
practice?This is a simple question of
fact and should be answered by the actual figures. So I asked some of my
Iowa colleagues who I knew were users of the new vaccination, to
contribute their experience in the following particulars:I. Number whom
you protected by VariolinumII. Number
that you know to have been exposed to smallpox after taking VariolinumIII. Number
who had smallpox after taking Variolinum..In making this request, I
was careful to write, “I trust that reference to your case book,
ledger and other records will enable you to make your figures on these
three points definite and exact. May I ask that in any uncertain cases
such ones be omitted from your report, to the end that the figures may
be conservative, and an understatement rather than an
overstatement.”This suggestion was
cordially received, all those reporting their experience being careful
to have their figures well inside the facts. So much so that the total
number they vaccinated by the internal method was much larger than the
figures given, because their records were not complete enough to enable
them to report the full number. One of the most careful observers wrote
that he presumed he had used Variolinum in twice as many cases as he
reported, but had not the records to verify the figures. Because of this
care on their part to make the report of their experience conservative,
I take pleasure in presenting the following combined experience:Number Protected by
Variolinum: 2806 *Number known to have been
exposed to smallpox after taking Variolinum: 547Number who had smallpox
after taking Variolinum: 14*I am indebted for these reports to
Drs. C. B.Adams, Sac City, E. C. Brown, Madrid; E.
N. Bywater,
Iowa Falls; A. P. Hanchett, Council Bluffs; A. H. Hatch, Des Moines; T. L. Hazard, Iowa City; H. M. Humphrey, Lake City; J. W. Laird, Mt. Pleasant, A. M. Linn, Des Moines, H. E. Messenger, Des Moines, P. J. Montgomery, Council Bluffs; L W. Struble; George Royal, Des Moines, L. W. Struble, West Liberty. It is but just to say that these are
all well known Iowa practitioners of character and standing. Two are
members of the State Board of Health, and a third was also a member of
that body when the smallpox epidemic was at its height.
Dr George Royal 1853-1931As already
noted, the total number of Variolinum vaccinations was in fact
materially greater than the figures indicate, because of rigid
conservatism in reporting. But to a still greater degree are the
reported number of exposures less than those which actually occurred,
for the terms of the report were severe, namely, “Number that you
know to have been exposed to smallpox.” Necessarily the number
known to have been exposed must have been far less than the number
actually exposed. And here again the scientific caution of the reporting
physicians is conspicuous and commendable. For example, one of them who
reports only eight known exposures expresses the opinion that 100 were
“doubtless exposed.”Many of these reported “Exposures” were of severe
character as for instance the following:“Mrs. A. R. aged 64. Had never been vaccinated. Found
her nursing her son who was in the pustular stage of smallpox. Gave
Variolinum 12X five disks every four hours. On the fifth day had a
severe general headache with a temperature of 102.5. The next day one
vesicle appeared on the face. The temperature subsided on the fifth day.
She had sole care of her convalescing son and herself all the
time.” (Dr. Royal)“I had three different houses where one of the inmates
had smallpox. In one house there were six inmates. One of their number
had smallpox. The other five had never been vaccinated. I used the
Variolinum on three, the other two I scarified. None of them took
smallpox. In the other two houses there were four and five inmates
besides the one stricken. I gave Variolinum to all of them and none of
them took the disease.” (Dr. Laird)“One case began atypically, was taken to the hospital
where he was visited by a number of relatives, was worked over by
interns and nurses by the hour to relieve a severe pain in an old
appendicular scar, thus fully exposing at least twenty people. To every
one of them Variolinum was given and not one of them took the disease.
This was a marked case and was in the pesthouse for about four
weeks.” (Dr. Hazard)“I know positively of eleven that were exposed to
smallpox and were continuously in the room with the sick. Of that
number, two had what I thought to be the initial fever of smallpox but
no eruption appeared, and in three days all the trouble had
subsided.” (Dr. Humphrey)“Family of J. S. Three cases of smallpox developed in
family before I was called in. Four other members of family, two young
men who had never been vaccinated, and the parents who had been
vaccinated. Administered Variolinum to all four and none of them
developed smallpox, though in constant and direct contact with the sick
members of the family.” ( Dr. Adams)“February, I901. V. H. Developed smallpox. His wife
who had been vaccinated, and three children who had not been vaccinated,
were given Variolinum. They lived in the same house, and slept in the
same room with him during all of his sickness, yet none of them
contracted the disease.” (Dr. Adams )“March, 1902. D. L.
Four of family developed smallpox. His wife and five children, none of
whom had been vaccinated, were given Variolinum. Within 48 hours the
oldest son developed symptoms of smallpox, but his attack was very
light. All other members of the family, though living in the same house
and directly exposed through attendance on the sick, escaped all
symptoms of the disease.” (Dr. Adams)March 1902. F. R. Young man aged thirty, developed
smallpox. His mother and an adult sister who lived with him, neither of
whom had been vaccinated, were given Variolinum. They attended him and
nursed him through a virulent attack and neither contracted the
disease.” ( Dr. Adams)March 1902. C. S. A young man aged 24 developed smallpox.
His father and mother were given Variolinum and both escaped the disease
though in constant attendance upon him. (Dr. Adams)“Gave Variolinum 30x for one week. That day her
brother came home with a well developed case of smallpox The girl nor
her mother had neither ever been vaccinated before. I at once gave the
mother Variolinum. They were quarantined 35 days with the case of
smallpox and neither of them contracted the disease.” (Dr. Bywater)“Girl. Given Variolinum in October, I904. Was
quarantined 35 days this spring with three cases of smallpox and did not
contract the disease. Was of that type that takes everything that comes
along, but escaped this time.” (Dr. Bywater).“Ethel Stevens. Then aged 6 was given Variolinum 30x
in January 1902. Have had smallpox in the family three times since the
Variolinum was given, was never vaccinated or protected in any other
way, has been exposed at least each o these three times, and has never
showed a symptom of the disease. Her grandfather died of it, her brother
was very sick with it (the worst case of smallpox I ever attended) in
March 1903, and some cousins had it a year later, and she has been with
them all and never contracted the disease.” (Dr. Brown)“Two children who had never been vaccinated I
protected by Variolinum. An uncle had smallpox some two or three months
after, and they were exposed but did not take the disease. (Dr. Brown)Of the 14 who had smallpox after the use of Variolinum, one
was a mild case of smallpox occurring two years after, three were not
strictly within the limitations of the test, as they “had also been
vaccinated by scarification a short time previous to the attacks of
smallpox. In addition to the fourteen cases reported, there were three
others, but “in each of these cases the symptoms appeared within 72
hours after the first dose, thereby proving that infection had occurred
before the administration of the remedy.”The evident deduction to be drawn from these few cases is
that the protection afforded is not absolute and without a single break;
but that in exceptional instances, smallpox will occur in spite of the
fact that Variolinum had been used. But the same is true of the
scarification method; and experience shows that smallpox occurs after
scarification with much greater frequency than it occurs after the use
of Variolinum. That the old vaccination often fails to protect, has been
the personal observation of all those who have had to do with smallpox
epidemics; while the numerous deaths in the army of the Phillippines, in
spite of the Government’s painstaking vaccination and re-vaccination of
the troops, is fresh in the minds of all. The same fact is indicated in
the reports of the Registrar-General for England and Wales, which show
for the years 1879 to 1884, a total number of deaths from smallpox among
those who had been vaccinated, of 1648 persons.With these few words of comment I have the honor to place
before the Institute the above figures of actual experience with the
internal method of vaccination by the administration of Variolinum. The
2806 cases, the 547 known exposures, and the 14 instances of smallpox,
should constitute a sufficiently extended test to satisfy all scientific
requirements. Further than this, it must be remembered that the figures
submitted represent the experience of only a few of the Iowa physicians
using Variolinum, and constitute but a fraction of the total Iowa
experience. And with striking unanimity the physicians using it have
come to be strong adherents of the Variolinum method, though many began
its use with decided skepticism.My own personal experience is not included in the above
reports. It seems to me so important that this inquiry be scrupulously
judicial in its spirit, that I omit my personal figures, so that this
presentation of the matter sham have in it nothing of the bias of the
advocate.FOOTNOTE (Two letters at end of article)
There are a few related
matters which should not be omitted. The first of these is the fact that
this vaccination by Variolinum is not new. Dr. Jonathan Pettet of
Cleveland, Ohio, read a paper on the subject before this body in 1873;
and Variolinum has its regular place in Hering’sGuiding Symptoms, in Clarke’s Dictionary of Materia Medica, and (more generally accessible) in Boericke’s
Pocket Manual of Materia
Medica.The systemic effects
produced by its administration are definite and decided in those who are
at all sensitive; so that we have a multitude of provings occurring in
the practice of all those who use it. As these provings have not, so far
at least, been utilized in general practice, the use of Variolinum being
confined to the prevention and treatment of smallpox, the present point
is not so much the accurate and extended observations necessary for the
creation of its materia medica, as it is the mere establishing of the
fact that it does produce an active and marked effect upon the organism.
This is so thoroughly established by many observations in the practice
of a large number of physicians, that it seems unnecessary to go into
detail. Yet for the sake of scientific thoroughness, the following
illustrative provings are put on record:“On January 5, I903,
Mr. J. C. aged 52, who had been exposed, applied for some Variolinum for
internal vaccination. He was given the 12X to be taken five disks before
each meal and at bedtime. After taking seven doses he complained that
the medicine caused nausea after each dose and that he had vomited his
supper of the night before. The medicine was discontinued for two days
and then resumed with same result except that he vomited his meal after
the fourth dose. The medicine was then discontinued for six days, during
the last four days there being no nausea or vomiting. He was then
induced to take the medicine again with a repetition of the two former
experiences.” (Dr. Royal)“Grace L. Aged 15. Was
always sickly, light complexion, scrofulous build, glandular
temperament. Gave Variolinum 30x for one week. Was called to see her and
found her with high fever which had been preceded by chill, rapid pulse,
backache, headache, malaise, loss of appetite, loose stools and
restlessness. Called again next day and found an eruption very similar
to chickenpox which had already begun to disappear. Called in one
Allopathist and one Eclectic to confirm the action of Variolinum. Girl
had had chicken pox when a child so it was not that. Since that time the
girl has been stronger and particularly free from sickness. (Dr.
Bywater)“Girl six years old.
Good health to all appearances. Gave Variolinum 30x. At the end of five
days was called to see the child. They threatened to sue me for making
their child sick. Chill, temperature I03.2, general aching, backache,
headache very pronounced, loss of appetite, looseness of bowels,
restlessness and vomiting. Stopped remedy and in few days all right.
(Dr. Bywater)“Boy and girl. Gave
Variolinum 30x. Chill, fever, headache, backache, general aching, loss
of appetite, diarrhea and restlessness. Eruption on boy’s hand very much
resembling smallpox. After a few days disappeared. Eruption was on the
palm of the hand. Girl had similar eruption except not so marked, on
sole of one foot. Very sore.” (Dr. Bywater)“Dentist,–who had no
use for Homeopathy. Aged 47. Came to me because he thought he had been
exposed by a patient of his own, and had heard that I gave an internal
vaccination, saying that he could not possibly be off work with a sore
arm, so chanced it on Homeopathy. In April, 1907, I gave a three dram
vial full of sugar disks moistened with the 12X. After taking it for
about four days he complained of chills, headache, aching all over, and
especially in the back. He discontinued it for two days. Then began
again. After three days he came to my office saying that he was so sick
that if it was not for press of work he would be home in bed. All of the
above mentioned symptoms were much intensified and an indescribable
sickness all over him in addition.” (Dr. A. H. Barker, Brooklyn,
IA.)At the 1904 meeting of the
Institute, one of our Professors of Materia Medica very properly
expressed the wish that some one who was in charge of an asylum
“would demonstrate this Variolinum say on 25, 30 or 40 of the
children who have not been vaccinated and report whether there were
manifested the direct results of febrile disturbances.”- While not
aware of this suggestion, Dr. Messenger of my own city, in the ordinary
course of service at the Home for Friendless Children, administered it
to forty– not for experimental but for vaccination purposes. The 200th
was used; with the result that ten of the forty developed the usual
symptoms, including fever and a rash.One test of the
effectiveness of internal vaccination has been suggested which is
erroneous, and the error involved should be pointed out. This suggestion
is that if one has used Variolinum a subsequent scarification should
fail to “take.” This is a mistake because in the majority of
scarification cases the resulting infection is of a mixed type. It is
the exception when the characteristic small, pearly vaccine pustule
results. Of course a preceding use of Variolinum would have no possible
relation to a mixed infection and therefore any such test would
necessarily be fallacious.As to the advantages of this
internal vaccination, they will readily suggest themselves to all. Chief
among them is the fact that by this method the septicemias, acute and
chronic, following the scarification method, are avoided altogether. How
deplorable these septicemias are, is witnessed by the great efforts made
by manufacturers of vaccine to contrive some way by which these mixed
infections may be eliminated. One standard and reputable house
advertised “antiseptic vaccine” (!); while one concern during
the height of the epidemic, far out-stripped its competitors by
advertising “sterilized vaccine!!”Without entering a long
discussion, suffice it to say that we all recognize that the substances,
whatever they may be, which set up what we know as septicemia when taken
directly into the circulation, are inoperative -when introduced into the
stomach. This is well illustrated in the case of the septic products
from an ulcerating tooth, or a discharging quinsy. They would be highly
dangerous introduced into the circulation, but are harmless when finding
their way, as they do, into the stomach.In the use of Variolinum,
extensive experience has shown that we reap the advantage of this
provision. The essential smallpox virus makes its full impress upon the
system, while any accompanying substances which might light up a
septicemia if introduced direct into the circulation, are inert in the
alimentary canal.Again, the internal method
eliminates all uncertainty as to whether the vaccination will
“take.” For with a preparation once proved to be active, there
can be no question that it will “take” whenever administered,
just as there is no question that a dose of strychnine will
“take” whenever it may be swallowed.As to the number of years
during which the immunity conferred by Variolinum will remain in force,
nothing can be said, because there have been no experimental researches
which have settled this question regarding either form of vaccination.
There has, however, been a great reduction in the assumed length of time
during which protection-continues after scarification. Originally it was
said to continue as long as there was “a good scar,” a
manifestly ridiculous and puerile standard. This assumed length of
immunity has gradually been decreased, until the United States
Government re-vaccinates its soldiers every three years. It would seem
that there would be no special difference in this respect between the
scarification and the internal methods; but the whole matter is one of
assumption and not of demonstrated fact.Mention of the value of
Variolinum in the treatment of smallpox itself should not be omitted,
although aside from the direct purpose of this report. In the lower
potencies it has proved itself a strikingly effective and satisfactory
remedy.At the risk of wearying you,
I have tried to present for your consideration a report of the facts
about Variolinum which should be thorough and exact. A review of the
facts established by experimental research has shown that an individual
may be rendered immune by inoculation with the virus of disease, and
that such virus IS effective when administered by the mouth; it follows,
therefore that the use of Variolinum is in exact line with modern
physiological and pathological research, and is scientifically correct.Proceeding then to the test
of actual experience, we have passed in review a series of 2806
vaccinations with Variolinum including 547 exposures and 14 cases of
smallpox. Shown thus by clinical test to be remarkably effective in
actual practice, as well as scientifically correct in principle, the
demonstration stands complete. The use of Variolinum is sound in theory
and conspicuously successful in practice. It therefore does not ask our
acceptance It demands it. As scientific men, we are not at liberty to
indulge our whim about the matter. It is not something that asks our
support. The demonstration is placed squarely before us, and a
demonstration never requests, it demands. We must not do Homeopathy the
injustice of giving this, one of its most successful and useful
outgrowths, a partial and equivocal recognition, just because it happens
to be strange to us. This splendid piece of practice is not new, it has
its roots in the past, though we may not have known it. And we must not
injure the cause by refusing to recognize its value, Just because we
happen not to have been conversant with it We cannot afford to play with
the question, and temporize with it and half way repudiate it, until in
the course of time some one of our opponents shall make a wonderful
discovery, and cultivating the smallpox virus through old horses or
prolific guinea pigs, produce an uncertain and inferior product combined
with some secret antiseptic to preserve it, which yet shall retain
sufficient activity to make possible the announcement of another great
advance, to be used for the good of humanity,– and the discomfiture of
Homeopathy.Variolinum is distinctively
our own, as distinctively as is Aconite or Lachesis or Lycopodium, and
its immense value should be gladly recognized and vigorously claimed. It
is a high honor to Homeopathy, and we cannot, we must not, let our
individual lack of familiarity with it bar it out from its proper place.
An unfamiliarity that costs Homeopathy so much, is a heavy
responsibility. When so much is at stake, it is not optional with us
whether we will know or remain uninformed. In such circumstances, we are
under the highest obligations to know; and failure to inform ourselves
is, in the words of theOrganon, “a crime.”
Let us take to ourselves the
earnest admonition which a shrewd old Sioux Indian woman impressed upon
her grandson,– “When you see a new trail, or a footprint that you
do not know, follow it to the point of knowing.”
DISCUSSION
Dr. Joseph Hensley:
I first practiced vaccination I used to give 50 cents or $1.00 for
a scab from a patient who had been vaccinated, but now things are very
different, and with modern methods of asepsis now in vogue, I must say
that I would rather have vaccination by scarification than by
Variolinum. One is prepared from the smallpox pustule, and one from the
cowpox. It all practically comes from the same source.Dr. H. H. Baker of
Chicago:I most thoroughly disagree with what the last speaker has said.
One of our most prominent surgeons lost a son from methods due to
vaccination. I do not see why Dr. Hensley should object to the internal
administration of Variolinum any more than to that of lachesis,
mephitis, etc.One more point. Much stress has been laid on the fact that out of
the 2600 cases there were 14 who had smallpox, but that is no sign that
Variolinum is not preventative. Probably if the Variolinum had been
given a little further, immunization would have been complete in those
14 cases. Probably there was not enough given.I recently had a case of scarlet fever where I gave a few doses of
scarlatina to other children in the family, and ordered them taken away.
The baby, however, was kept at home, and was further exposed. About a
week later she came down with a very mild attack of scarlet fever. A few
more doses of the prophylactic, I believe would have entirely prevented.Dr. Joseph Hensley:
There were about 5000 vaccinated in our schools in Oklahoma City.
There were really no bad results at all. The only case we heard of,
which was not due to the vaccination at all, was a little girl who got a
pin scratch on her toe, and died of septicemia, but this was not due to
vaccination.Dr. Z. T. Miller of
Pittsburg:I have been warned by the
chairman not to say anything except about Variolinum, and I have been
admonished to say nothing about compulsory vaccination. Now that is just
what I want to fight. I am a born uncompromising enemy to that thing and
expect to be until I die. I have had very few experiences with
Variolinum, but have had with Malandrinum. I have never been vaccinated.
I have never given anything but Malandrinum as a prophylaxis, my little
girl has taken it. I use Malandrinum and am not afraid of smallpox. My
wife had varioloid when she was young. That word “varioloid”
should never be used. It is smallpox not like smallpox. I attended a
family where one of the children had been vaccinated by the Board of
Health and allowed to go to school. She contracted smallpox had a good
development of pustules all over the body. There were several children
in the house and they were given Malandrinum about the 32nd dilution,
and they were exposed as much as people are who take smallpox, but they
never took it. I have given this remedy to hundreds of people, and have
never yet known of a case to occur where it had been given.In regard to this paper on
Variolinum to which we have had the pleasure of listening. I should call
it a classic, and the Institute cannot give Dr. Eaton enough credit for
preparing a paper of such vast importance. We owe him a debt of
gratitude. The only suggestion I have to make is that possibly the 14
cases would have escaped the disease had the Variolinum been given in a
little higher potency. If we vaccinate a person and he breaks out with
an eruption, we can reasonably expect that if the internal remedy has
any effect at all it is capable of causing these symptoms. There are
plenty of people exposed to smallpox who do not take it. Some years ago
at Cleveland I presented three letters from all the three vaccine firms
of the country, and the principal firm confessed to me that there was
never such a thing as cowpox, that it was variolus virus from the
beginning that had run through five heifers. Now that shows if there
never was such a thing as vaccine, then we had mixed infection that did
not prevent smallpox. We have no right whatever to give statistics of
vaccination prior to 1903. The combined committee in the Legislature
three weeks ago said that they proposed to throw out all statistics
previous to three years ago since the aseptic methods had been
introduced. Now aseptic vaccination is an impossibility. If it is not
septic material which you put into the arm you get no effect. If you put
anything into the arm which produces a vesicle, and later produces pus,
it certainly is septic, and if the product of vaccination is not pus, I
do not know what it is.Dr. C. E. Lane:
In our state the School
Board interferes at times and vaccination is required, and from my
experience with it as a preventative, I must say I have never seen a
case of smallpox after vaccination, but if we can get as good results
from Variolinum, we shall be glad. I remember about 25 years ago as good
an authority as Dr. Deschere said he had treated about 50 cases of
smallpox and everybody he saw in the family who did not have it he gave
Variolinum which prevented any spread of the disease. I just want to
call attention to the fact that septic vaccine does not take.
Dr Augustus Korndoerfer 1843-1923Dr. Augustus
Korndoerfer, Philadelphia:Having had considerable
experience in the treatment of smallpox, notably in the serious epidemic
of 1871 and 1872, and later in the epidemics of 1881 and 1885, I feel a
deep interest in the subject under discussion.Prior to 1871, I was
strongly opposed to vaccination. During that epidemic, however, my views
changed. The facts gleaned from practice led me to become an earnest
advocate of this means of protection; for I had learned to know it as a
great and beneficial modifier of this dread disease.
Dr Constantine Hering 1800-1880I have not had a single
fatal issue in smallpox among patients who, even in infancy, had a
successful vaccination: but, among the unvaccinated, I regret to say,
the disease invariably ran a more violent course, and the fatalities
numbered about twenty-five per cent. During the early days of the
epidemic of 1871 and 1872, Dr. Hering called my attention to an
accidental observation which he made while chemically testing the saliva
of a patient suffering from a chronic gastric disorder. He noted a
marked diminution in the reaction for the sulphocyanogen elements of the
saliva: the following day the patient developed an eruption which proved
to be smallpox. A question naturally arose as to the relation between
these two conditions.At Dr. Hering’s suggestion I
made an examination of the saliva lymph and pus of every smallpox
patient coming under my care. Briefly, the results of these examinations
were as follows: There was a marked diminution in the reaction for the
sulphocyanogen element of the saliva, especially of the unvaccinated
patients; the more severe the case the more positive the loss of
reaction.In cases that had-been
vaccinated, even though years before the decrease of the sulphocyanides
was much less marked and of much shorter duration than in the
unvaccinated.Again, while the lymph gave
nothing positive, the pus promptly showed the reaction for cyanogen.The normal reaction was
restored to the saliva, from a single day in very mild cases, to from
eight to twelve days in strongly marked confluent unvaccinated cases. If
the saliva failed to give the normal reaction on the twelfth day death
occurred within forty-eight hours.
These facts led to the query: What effects would the cyanides have upon
the susceptibility of patients to this disease: Knowing that silver
platers and some other workers in metals were exposed to the vapors
arising from the potassium cyanide solutions employed in their work, I
made inquiry and found an apparent immunity among such workmen; the
foreman of one of our largest plating establishments remarking that he
“had never known of a silver plater taking smallpox.”
Dr von Grauvogl 1811-1877Without entering into my
line of reasoning, which probably was influenced by Grauvogl’s views of
the nutritive remedies, I was led to employ a solution of this salt as a
disinfectant,– sprinkling small quantities about the rooms and hallways
of each infected house, with the result that no second case occurred in
any house after its use.The extremely poisonous
character of the potassium cyanide led me to personally disinfect each
house on my visits, employing for this purpose a solution containing
five grains of the salt to two ounces of distilled water. Of this I
sprinkled about three or four drams in the patient’s room, preferably in
the corners and under the bed. I used also a few drams along the halls,
from the entrance on the stairs, and when allowed in other rooms of the
house, using from one to two ounces in each house once or twice daily.As to the prophylactic use
of Variolinum, I must counsel against dependence upon this or other
internal means, for, until the utility of such method is proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, we surely would be doing a serious injustice to our
patients by depriving them of the great benefit to be derived from true
vaccination.Dr. A. E. Austin:
I would like to ask Dr. Korndoerfer if when he tried these
experiments, he vaccinated any of the other children?Dr. Korndoerfer:
I was making experiments,
and did not vaccinate the exposed cases.Dr. Z. T. Miller of
Pittsburg:We have reports from the
health officer of the city of New York who says that the results
following, and the deaths that have occurred from vaccination have made
it necessary to reconsider the question of vaccination as a preventive
of smallpox.Dr Joseph Hensley:
North American
Journal
of HomoeopathyI think that the homeopathic
fraternity cannot discourage any development in therapeutics. I
appreciate Dr. Eaton’s paper very much. I have been vaccinated something
like a dozen times, and it has never taken. I want to make a motion that
the Doctor be requested to turn the paper over to the North American
Journal of Homeopathy for publication, and that we extend a vote of
thanks to Dr. Eaton for his careful work on this paper.Dr. Hills Cole of
New York City:One reason why I asked Dr.
Eaton to write this paper was because a request came to the NY State
Dept. of Health to state whether it would accept internal vaccination.
The matter was referred to me and I had to say that the homeopathic
school could not be considered as having decided that prophylaxis by
Variolinum was sufficiently substantiated to take the place of the
ordinary means of vaccination, and until the homeopathic school had
settled for itself the question as to whether this was a sufficient
prophylactic method, we could not accept that method as efficient. I
feel that I am perfectly safe in saying that fully 70% of homeopathic
physicians stand by vaccination. I took the trouble to look up
statistics as to the reported cases of smallpox and I found that during
1906 there were special reports filed at the New York State Department
of Health concerning 353 cases of smallpox, and the data concerning
vaccination could be classified as follows:Cases vaccinated but no statement made as to date
of vaccination: 6
Vaccinated within 15 years: 26
Vaccinated but not within 15 years 40
Vaccinated within six months: 5
Vaccinated within 15 days: 13
Vaccinated unsuccessfully: 14
Unvaccinated: 233
No statement made as to vaccination: 16Thus at least 66 per cent of the smallpox cases
occurred in unvaccinated persons.Dr. Charles W.
Eaton:The figures given us by Dr.
Cole are specially pertinent and specially valuable because both recent
and authoritative; and they are of service in that they set clearly
before us the fact that there is no such thing as absolute protection by
any method whatever. Smallpox will occur in exceptional cases after
vaccination by either method. Dr. Cole’s statistics show that ten per
cent of the scarified were not protected thereby; and the experience
with Variolinum just cited shows but fourteen cases where this internal
vaccination failed to protect, which is a record of success far in
advance of the old method. It is not a question of absolute protection;
no method affords that. There will always be exceptional cases of
smallpox occurring after any method; but the percentage of cases
occurring after the use of Variolinum is strikingly less than the number
occurring after the use of scarification.We must not be misled into
the notion that advocacy of Variolinum is an attack upon vaccination. It
is just the reverse. It helps to promote vaccination by improving its
method; just as the appearance of the steamship was not antagonistic to
navigation, it promoted it.
But though the percentage of success is so largely in favor of the
Variolinum method, the one conspicuous and over-shadowing fact before
which all lesser considerations are dwarfed into insignificance is that
by this method we escape both the acute and the chronic sepsis which so
frequently follow the infection inflicted by scarification. These two
forms of post-scarification sepsis differ widely, but both are
lamentable. They are so familiar to all present that I should not be
justified in taking your time for their consideration. It is beyond my
comprehension how any partisan of scarification, no matter how
prejudiced he may be, can assert that no bad symptoms occur after
scarification under modern antiseptic precautions Such an one simply
refuses to recognize what is right before his eyes.During the height of the
smallpox epidemic in Des Moines, an able young physician who was the
junior partner in perhaps the largest Allopathic practice in my city,
took occasion to call me aside privately, and after detailing the
thorough and painstaking antiseptic precautions he used in making his
vaccinations, said, “And yet I see arms that make me shudder, and I
want to know what you can tell me about this internal method.”As to the suggestion that
the Institute endorse Variolinum, I confess that I am not in favor of
such endorsement. It would seem that it is the Institute’s province to
endorse Homeopathy in its entirety rather than its individual details.
But I am emphatically in favor of its taking action demanding that
physicians shall have the right to use such method of prophylaxis in
smallpox as seems to them best. In other words, make prophylaxis
compulsory, if you please, but leave the method of prophylaxis to the
physician. Mandatory vaccination may possible find excuse under the plea
of protection of the public, but when the law is invoked to say to the
physician ‘ You shall do it by this method” and “You shall not
do it by that,” it is simply a return to stark, absolute despotism.Iowa Homeopathy has been
reasonable and broadminded in this matter. The Iowa Homeopathic State
Society adopted a definition of vaccination which recognized both the
scarification method and the Variolinum method, so that every
practitioner is at liberty to follow his own judgment and conscience.** Vaccination is
the introduction of a virus into the system for the prevention of
smallpox, and is accomplished either by the administration of a proper
preparation of the virus of smallpox through the mouth, or by
introducing into the circulation the virus of cowpox by applying it to
a freshly made scarification of the skin.”Though it is long past the
hour of adjournment, I should fail of my duty if I did not again call
your attention to one other use of Variolinum, namely, as a remedy in
the treatment of smallpox itself. Its curative power in the lower
potencies (I use the 6th) is remarkable. Under its use the disease will
go to the vesicular stage and then abort. This use of Variolinum is so
valuable that it is a duty to call attention to it.Dr. Hills Cole:
The point which you make,
Dr. Eaton, is that there should be some general method of prophylaxis,
two or three ways, one man had had a small experience with one method,
another with another, but there would be a great many people exposed to
danger that way. We want to establish prophylaxis which shall be of
merit. I do not believe that it is safe to leave it to the individual
judgment of the physician. I do not think that is safe. There should be
some established, authoritative system which has been proven to be the
most widely effective.Dr. Charles W.
Eaton:Dr. Cole says that it is not
safe to leave the method of vaccination to any one man’s judgment. He is
undoubtedly right in that statement. But such a proposition was never
advanced by any one. The Variolinum method is not a one man method, it
is a minority method. And that minority is thoroughly respectable in
numbers, while in quality it includes not a few of the best names in our
ranks.The notion that minorities
have no rights which the majority are bound to respect, is a piece of
stupid bigotry that progress long ago left far behind; and it is
mortifying to see Boards of Health still clinging to this obsolete and
oppressive relic of an outgrown past. It seems strangely difficult for
these bodies to remember that they were created by the profession, of
the profession, and for the profession. And they seem constantly to
gravitate toward the conception that they are ordained superiors, and
that the medical profession are wayward and ignorant underlings who must
be disciplined by their strong and omniscient hand.FOOTNOTE:
While this is properly an
Iowa Report, yet it should not for a moment be forgotten that there are
a multitude of physicians all over the country who are using this
method, most of whom are keen and competent observers.In illustration of this
fact, the following interesting letters from Dr. Fahnestock in the East,
and Dr. Bishop in the far West, are here subjoined.
Piqua, Ohio, May 25, 1907.
Your letter received and
in reply will say that as to the exact number of cases I have given
Variolinum, I cannot tell. but to more than 100 cases.Have not seen or heard of
a case contracting smallpox in any form since giving the prophylactic.I went to see a case of
smallpox with our Health Officer (a genuine case) gave Variolinum to
mother and son who did not have the disease All lived together,
exposed all the time, mother and son never contracted the disease.Three years ago had an
epidemic. The first man having it came from Cincinnati, Ohio. The case
was diagnosed “hives,” then chicken pox. When the eruption
was coming out he went to the barber shop and was there fully an hour
waiting his turn. He had fever, back-ache, eruption, etc. On each side
of him was two of my patients. They in turn looked at him, felt the
shotty eruption, etc., and both made the remark, “You have the
smallpox.” Sure enough the next day another MD pronounced it a
genuine case of smallpox. I gave these men Variolinum 30x. Neither one
contracted the disease. One of them was exposed the second time. More
than 15 cases were exposed after using Variolinum and none were taken
sick. Just a month ago the family washing was just being ironed,
–finished, when the washwoman was breaking out with smallpox, also
the husband at the same time. Washing stood there several days.
Parties called for washing, also exposed at same time. Took washing
home. Next day house was carded smallpox.In this family I gave
Variolinum 30X, had washing put in boiling water, etc. No trouble as
yet, and no indications of any. I only give you a few cases and only
add a mite to your own experiences. ***Yours truly,
J. C. FAHNESTOCK.
Los Angeles, California, May 27, 1907.
My dear Dr. Eaton:
Yours of the 22nd is at
hand and after carefully perusing it I am doubtful of satisfying your
needs concerning my experience with Variolinum for I never have kept
tally of the exact number of cases in which it has been used by me as
a prophylactic. Speaking generally, however, will say that for over a
quarter of a century I have used the Variolinum in lieu of other
vaccinations, in hundreds of cases, and with a single exception not
one of them had an attack of smallpox afterwards. The exception was in
the case of the father of an infant of two and a half years. Said
infant had confluent smallpox and had been sleeping with its mother
until the fifth day of the disease when I was called and found the
disease just verging from the vesicular to the pustular stage.
Furthermore, the mother was in the seventh month of pregnancy, and
none of the family had ever been vaccinated. The Variolinum saved the
infant, who was tabulated by the health officials as a necessarily
fatal case; the mother in due time was delivered of a healthy
daughter; the father alone contacted the disease which assumed the
confluent and congestive form, but was speedily cured with Variolinum.
He admitted to me that he had neglected to take the powders which were
left for the family (the Variolinum) and was careless in taking up the
floor coverings where is son had been confined; that he breathed into
his lungs clouds of dust mingled with dessicated scales that had
fallen from the patient. This experience was in the epidemic of
smallpox here in Los Angeles seven years ago.Before coming to
California, fourteen years ago, while practicing in Connecticut for
twenty-four years, I also had ample opportunity to prove the efficacy
of Variolinum both as a curative and preventative of variola without a
single disappointment.To sum up then, the number
whom I have protected with Variolinum is all whom have come to me in a
continuous and extensive general practice in the past thirty years,
with one exception, the circumstances of which were doubtful. The
number I have known to be exposed to smallpox after taking Variolinum,
are the members of many households in which I have treated cases of
smallpox of every degree of severity as well as others outside of the
family who were exposed, including myself.Very truly yours
HERBERT MARTIN BISHOP
Source: Transactions
of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1907. pages 547-567.Copyright
© Julian Winston 2001
