Memorial to the Minister of Health
1928-11-30 1928 1920s 8 pages Obviously, therefore, as long as a living self-multiplying virus is used, it matters little how small a quantity is injected. One bite of some snakes is fatal. In the United States many cases of tetanus have been caused by the one mark vaccination that prevails there. P...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
London : National Anti-Vaccination League
30 November 1928
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/9D09AC09-226A-44B3-A420-E94C311A720E http://hdl.handle.net/10796/DECCCD28-3AF8-44B7-B414-E7AC9A8449DE |
| _version_ | 1771659909677449216 |
|---|---|
| author | Loat, Lily |
| author_facet | Loat, Lily |
| description | 1928-11-30
1928
1920s
8 pages
Obviously, therefore, as long as a living self-multiplying virus is used, it matters little how small a quantity is injected. One bite of some snakes is fatal. In the United States many cases of tetanus have been caused by the one mark vaccination that prevails there. Professor McIntosh, who was a member of the Andrewes Committee, has admitted in a public address “that from every point of view the injection of virus capable of multiplying in the body of the individual is bad.” (c) If, as both these Committees considered, the vaccination process may excite latent neurotropic germs harboured by a vaccinee, it is surely again obvious that the mere reduction in the quantity of the vaccine introduced is not likely to remove that danger, particularly when a living virus is used. (d) The limitation of the re-vaccinations to two in childhood only is, if possible, the most illogical feature of all. Why stop at childhood? Why not go on and offer revaccination at 20, 30, 40, 50, etc., years of age? The only honest answer is that children are ready victims, voiceless and voteless, and can be conveniently reached in the schools. And yet, in view of the larger risk of smallpox infection incurred by adults, it is certain that if they may be left unprotected there is no need for protection at any age. THE GENERAL QUESTION. Although the Rolleston Committee concerned themselves mainly with the question of post-vaccinal encephalitis, they also dealt with, or glanced at, other aspects of the question. They had much to say about the preparation of “vaccine lymph” into which we will not enter except so far as to challenge the assumption, common to this and to all pro-vaccinist pronouncements, that “vaccine lymph” is the product of a disease called “vaccinia,” supposed to be allied to smallpox. In view of the menagerie of animals used for its cultivation, all that can be truthfully said of the final product is that it is an indefinable pathological mixture capable of forming vesicles which are characteristic of nothing more specific than common pus-forming agents. We suggest that this is virtually admitted by the Rolleston Committee themselves when they state on p. 86 of their Report that:— “The Therapeutic Substances Regulations, 1927, ensure that the vaccine lymph used in this country is as sterile as is compatible with the existence of the virus in a state of potency.” Apparently, therefore, the “potency” of the "lymph” (i.e., its power to produce vesicles) is the product of the extraneous organisms in the “lymph.” It would also appear that the "lymph” cannot be made free from dangerous risks because it cannot be made completely sterile without being made useless for its postulated purpose. The Committee seek to assure you, however, that the Therapeutic Substances Regulations are perfectly adapted to secure the manufacture of a satisfactory “vaccine lymph” and yet on the same page (199) on which they give you this assurance they also tell you that experiments are going on all over the world with a view to finding an improved variety. When that variety has been found, it will then be proclaimed that it is much safer and far more effective than the variety which it will displace. Such has been the history of the many “lymphs” and methods of vaccination which have been used in the past. Passing from the question of “lymph,” we wish to call your special attention to the scanty character of the proofs offered by the Rolleston Committee in regard to the value of vaccination as a prophylactic against smallpox. They make numerous bald assertions, e.g., that the proof of the immunising action of vaccination rests primarily on experiments carried out by Jenner, and also on subsequent experiments carried out on animals. They also assert that :— "Further proof of the protection afforded by vaccination against smallpox consists of mass observations on human beings, which show that people vaccinated antecedently within a reasonable time escape smallpox whereas others not so protected and with the same exposure do not. This observation has been so general throughout the 5
292/840/1/13 |
| geographic | UK |
| id | HEA-1721_ab259fc7d65a403b9b86d20fa7598b20 |
| institution | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
| is_hierarchy_title | Memorial to the Minister of Health |
| language | English English |
| physical | TEXT |
| publishDate | 30 November 1928 |
| publisher | London : National Anti-Vaccination League |
| spellingShingle | Loat, Lily Trades Union Congress Health, 1920-1960 Health care Vaccination Memorial to the Minister of Health |
| title | Memorial to the Minister of Health |
| topic | Trades Union Congress Health, 1920-1960 Health care Vaccination |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/9D09AC09-226A-44B3-A420-E94C311A720E http://hdl.handle.net/10796/DECCCD28-3AF8-44B7-B414-E7AC9A8449DE |