I have already said that ten out of thirteen patients whom I treated with bark, wine, and laudanum, and that three out of four, in whom I added the cold bath to those remedies, died. Dr. Pennington informed me, that he had lost all the patients (six in number) to whom he had given the above medicines. Dr. Johnson assured me, with great concern, about two weeks before he died, that he had not recovered a single patient by them. Whole families were swept off where these medicines were used. But further, most of those persons who received the seeds of the fever in the city, and sickened in the country, or in the neighbouring towns, and who were treated with tonic remedies, died. There was not a single cure performed by them in New-York, where they were used in several sporadic cases with every possible advantage. But why do I multiply proofs of their deadly effects? The clamours of hundreds whose relations had perished by them, and the fears of others, compelled those physicians who had been most attached to them to lay them aside, or to prepare the way for them (as it was called) by purging and bleeding. The bathing tub soon shared a worse fate than bark, wine, and laudanum, and, long before the disease disappeared, it was discarded by all the physicians in the city.
In answer to these facts we are told, that Mr. Hamilton and his family were cured by Dr. Stevens's remedies, and that Dr. Kuhn had administered them with success in several instances.
Upon these cures I shall insert the following judicious remarks from Dr. Sydenham. “Success (says the doctor) is not a sufficient proof of the excellency of a method of cure in acute diseases, since some are recovered by the imprudent procedure of old women; but it is further required, that the distemper should be easily cured, and yield conformably to its own nature[93].” And again, speaking of the cure of the new fever of 1685, this incomparable physician observes, “If it be objected that this fever frequently yields to a quite contrary method to that which I have laid down, I answer, that the cure of a disease by a method which is attended with success only now and then, in a few instances, differs extremely from that practical method, the efficacy whereof appears both from its recovering greater numbers, and all the practical phenomena happening in the cure[94].”
Far be it from me to deny that the depression of the system may not be overcome by such stimuli as are more powerful than those which occasion it. This has sometimes been demonstrated by the efficacy of bark, wine, and laudanum, in the confluent and petechial small-pox; but even this state of that disease yields more easily to blood-letting, or to plentiful evacuations from the stomach and bowels, on the first or second day of the eruptive fever. This I have often proved, by giving a large dose of tartar emetic and calomel, as soon as I was satisfied from circumstances, that my patient was infected with the small-pox. But the depression produced by the yellow fever appears to be much greater than that which occurs in the small-pox, and hence it more uniformly resisted the most powerful tonic remedies.
In one of my publications during the prevalence of the fever I asserted, that the remedies of which I have given a history cured a greater proportion than ninety-nine out of a hundred, of all who applied to me on the first day of the disease, before the 15th day of September. I regret that it is not in my power to furnish a list of them, for a majority of them were poor people, whose names are still unknown to me. I was not singular in this successful practice in the first appearance of the disease. Dr. Pennington assured me on his death bed, that he had not lost one, out of forty-eight patients whom he had treated agreeably to the principles and practice I had recommended. Dr. Griffitts triumphed over the disease in every part of the city, by the use of what were called the new remedies. My former pupils spread, by their success, the reputation of purging and bleeding, wherever they were called. Unhappily the pleasure we derived from this success in the treatment of the disease, was of short duration. Many circumstances contributed to lessen it, and to revive the mortality of the fever. I shall briefly enumerate them.
1. The distraction produced in the public mind, by the recommendation of remedies, the opposites in every respect of purging and bleeding.
2. The opinion which had been published by several physicians, and inculcated by others, that we had other fevers in the city besides the yellow fever. This produced a delay in many people in sending for a physician, or in taking medicines, for two or three days, from a belief that they had nothing but a cold, or a common fever. Some people were so much deceived by this opinion, that they refused to send for physicians, lest they should be infected by them with the yellow fever. In most of the cases in which these delays took place, the disease proved mortal.
To obviate a suspicion that I have laid more stress upon the fatal influence of this error than is just, I shall here insert an extract of a letter I received from Mr. John Connelly, one of the city committee, who frequently left his brethren in the city hall, and spent many hours in visiting and prescribing for the sick. “The publications (says he) of some physicians, that there were but few persons infected with the yellow fever, and that many were ill with colds and common remitting and fall fevers, proved fatal to almost every family which was credulous enough to believe them. That opinion slew its hundreds, if not its thousands, many of whom did not send for a physician until they were in the last stage of the disorder, and beyond the power of medicine.”
3. The interference of the friends of the stimulating system, in dissuading patients from submitting to sufficient evacuations.