Smallpox prophylaxis references: Vaccininum, Variolinum

[Charlotte Gilruth]

SMALLPOX PROPHYLAXIS REFERENCES

VARIOLINUM

(Fear/dread of smallpox seems to be the characteristic symptom)

Hahnemannian Monthly, November, 1870, page 172. "Vaccinine as a
Prophylactic Against Small ‹ Pox," by Samuel Swan, M.D.
Case 1. ‹ Lucy, age 35, waiting-maid, "had great fear of the small-pox;
heard there was a great deal of it in the city; feared to go out of doors
lest she should catch it; felt very well; had no pain or unpleasant
sensation; had never felt the same fear of the disease before; had been near
the disease previously, but had not fear of it." Gave Vaccin. 30, a powder
night and morning. The following night she felt chilly, followed by fever,
dull headache, and severe pain in small of the back as if broken; the second
day after, was quite well, and all the fear of the small-pox had vanished.
Case 2. ‹ Ellen, age 25, a hearty, healthy, rosy-cheeked chambermaid;
was afraid to go out for fear she should take the small-pox; saw a great
deal about in the papers (the usual five-line paragraph); knew she should
catch it if she went in the street; felt perfectly well. Gave Vaccin. 200,
Jenichen, a powder night and morning. Next day she had dull headache in
occiput, creeping chills, with very bad pain in back; fever at night. The
third day quite well; all fear of the small-pox was gone.
Case 3. ‹ In a subsequent case, there was the same dread of the
disease, and fear of taking it, which disappeared after one dose of Vaccin.
1M, Jenichen, without the symptoms that followed the exhibition of the lower
potencies in the previous cases.
Case 4. ‹ A family of five to whom Vaccin. 1M was given, remained with
impunity in the second story of a tenement house while the small-pox was
above and below them.
During the past two years, Vaccinine has been given to great numbers at
a free clinic in this city, and as far as ascertained, no case of small-pox,
or even varioloid, has occurred amongst those who had taken it. It is
rather a singular coincidence, but not one of the children who had taken
Vaccin. were ever brought to the clinic with whooping-cough, nor has there
any information been received of a case having occurred amongst them.
VARIOLINUM

Allen's Nosodes:

Dr. Fellger gave Variolinum reports, giving Variolinum to hundreds of
people, and none of them were ever attacked with small-pox. In one family
where the father had confluent smallpox, he gave Variolinum as a
prophylactic, and of the others, although not one had been vaccinated, not
one of them took the disease.
Anshutz's New Remedies
(This paper, by Dr. Charles Wood hull Eaton, of Des Moines, Ia, was
read before the American Institute of Homeopathy at the meeting held at
Jamestown, Va., in the year 1907. It really gives the basis of what is known
as "Homeopathic vaccination" which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
It, Variolinum, might be said to be the advance guard of "vaccine therapy"
though given by month and in potency, mostly the 30th.
The appended paper is slightly condensed, though it omits nothing that
is essential. Variolinum is not a "new" drug, having been in more or less
used for the past 70 years and, though it is an "old" one, it is not
"forgotten." In theory it is the same as the prevalent prophylactic, typhoid
for instance, but in practice it differs in the fact that it is not given
hypodermically, but by month and does not produce "reactions," or,
homeopathically speaking, "aggravations," while affording a more certain
protection.)
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 small-pox. It is not contents of a
vaccine pustule. It is the virus of variola; not the virus of vaccinia. It
is the virus of small-pox; not the virus of cow-pox. 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 cow-pox virus is indirect;
conferred by small-pox; it is direct.
Second. Is the use of Variolinum reasonable? It is reasonable (a) If an
individual may be rendered immune to 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 hypodermically 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 bars 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 to 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.
(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 hypodermically 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?
Never 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 anger 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 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."
But the comparative amount required by the two methods of inoculation
in order to produce toxin 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.
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 smallpox; 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 the fact has compelled
the enactment of food inspection law. How then can we escape the verdict
that the use of Variolinum is reasonable? In a word, we have first the first
the virus, second the law of immunization, and third, the fat 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 small-pox 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 seen a case of
small-pox much less had they any chance to test its prophylaxis. But 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 the users of
the new vaccination to contribute their experience in the following
particulars:
I. Number whom you protected by Variolinum........
II. Number that you know to have been exposed to small-pox after taking
Variolinum.....................
III. Number who had small-pox 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. My 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:
547
Number who had smallpox after taking Variolinum: 14
As already noted, the total number of Variolinum vaccination 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 small-pox." Necessarily the number known to have expose must have
been far less than the number actually exposed. And here again the
scientific caution of the reporting physician is conspicuous and
commendable. For example, one of them who reports only eight known exposures
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 small-pox. 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 small-pox.
In one house there were six inmates. One of their number had small-pox. The
other five had never been vaccinated. I used the Variolinum on three, the
other two scarified. None of them took small-pox. 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 internes 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
penthouse for about four weeks." (Dr. Hazard.)
"I know positively of eleven that were exposed to small-pox and were
continuously in the room with the sick. Of that number, two had what I
thought to be the initial fever of small-pox, but no eruption appeared, and
in three days all the trouble had subsided." (Dr. Humphrey).
"Family of J. S. Three cases of small-pox 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 small-pox, though in
constant and direct contact with the sick members of the family." (Dr.
Adams.)
"February, 1901. V. H. Developed small-pox. 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 some 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 small-pox. His wife and
five children, none of whom had been vaccinated, were given Variolinum.
Within forty-eight hours the oldest son developed symptoms of small-pox, 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 and nursed him through a
very 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 small-pox. 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 small-pox and neither of them
contracted the disease." (Dr. Bywater.)
"Girl. Given Variolinum in October, 1904. Was quarantined 35 days this
spring with three cases of small-pox and did not contract the disease. Was
of that takes everything that comes along, but escaped this time." (Dr.
Bywater.)
"Ethel Stevens. Then aged six, was given Variolinum 30X in January,
1902. Have had small-pox 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 of 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 small-pox 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 small-pox some two or three months after, and they were
exposed, but did not take the disease.(Dr. Brown.)
Of the fourteen who had small-pox after the use of Variolinum, one was
a mild case of small-pox occurring two years after; three were not strictly
within the limitations of the test, as they "had also been vaccinated by
scarification a short times previous to the attacks of small-pox." 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, small-pox 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 small-pox occurs after scarification with much greater frequency that
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 small-pox epidemics; while the numerous death in the army of the
Philippines, 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 of England and Wales,
which show for the year 1879 to 1884, a total number of deaths from
small-pox 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 fourteen instances of small-pox, 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 shall have in it nothing of the bias of the advocate.
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 small-pox. Shows thus by clinical test to be
remarkably effective in actual practice, as well as scientifically correct
in the 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 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 small-pox 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 distinctly our own, as
distinctively as an 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 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 the Organon, "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.

(Emphasis added)

Warm wishes,

Charlotte Gilruth
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]