Passing from the simple inflammatory complications to those of a specific character, we will first mention erysipelas. Genuine erysipelas following vaccination is quite rare, but when it does occur it is prone to prove serious. The writer believes that it always depends on secondary infection—i.e. that the vaccinal wound becomes the nidus of an erysipelatous contagium already existing in the patient's surroundings, just as any other traumatic surface might, and that the vaccinal virus has nothing whatever to do with it. Admitting that improper virus is apt to give rise to dangerous inflammatory complications, the latter are not really erysipelatous, whatever guise they may put on. Erysipelas following vaccination calls for no other treatment than what is proper for traumatic erysipelas under ordinary circumstances.
We now come to the subject of vaccinal syphilis. The question of the possibility of conveying constitutional taints along with vaccinia was raised long ago, but, partly relying on certain theoretical tenets, and partly because of the rarity of well-ascertained facts to shake the blind confidence felt in the utter harmlessness of vaccination, the profession fought the suggestion without properly investigating it. In regard to syphilis, the broad assertion was maintained that two infectious diseases could not affect an individual at one and the same time: either syphilis would be communicated alone or vaccinia alone; moreover, it was affirmed that the juices of a syphilitic person were not capable of giving rise to the disease by inoculation unless they happened to proceed from a syphilitic lesion. There was never sufficient basis for the former of these two doctrines, and the latter received a rude shock when it was shown by Pallizzari and the anonymous physician of the Palatinate that the blood of a syphilitic subject was capable of conveying the taint. Meantime, certain horrible outbreaks of syphilis were reported, chiefly in Italy, that could not reasonably be imputed to the ordinary occasions of syphilitic infection. Even these occurrences, however, failed to shake the general incredulity, especially in Great Britain, where until quite recently men's orthodoxy in medical matters was gauged by their obstinacy in refusing to investigate, far less believe, the slightest proposition unfavorable to vaccination, and where, also, observations from beyond the limits of the empire were looked upon as in all probability fallacious.
To a Frenchman, M. Viennois, we are indebted for the first systematic and fair-minded study of the subject of vaccinal syphilis. This writer demonstrated that the Rivalta cases and those of other like outbreaks were certainly due to vaccination, but he concluded that they owed their occurrence not necessarily to the use of lymph from syphilitic subjects, but to the fact that that lymph contained blood. By this time it had come to be recognized that syphilis was inoculable by the blood. But even Viennois's masterly essay, and the facilis descensus it offered to those English authors who found themselves confronted with proof positive of their error, failed to make any noteworthy impression beyond the concession that syphilis might possibly be communicable in vaccination, but that, if it were, the catastrophe might easily be escaped by avoiding the use of lymph contaminated with blood, and that, therefore, the danger was practically no danger at all, for no one in England would think of using bloody lymph! In all this the English were slavishly followed by our own countrymen. It is proper to add, however, that Ballard of London did his best to present the matter in a proper light to the British profession, and that it is largely due to his labors and to those of Jonathan Hutchinson (the latter of whom supplemented Ricord's discovery that vaccine lymph is never free from blood with abundant clinical evidence of the existence of vaccinal syphilis unavoidable by the mere observance of Viennois's safeguard) that we are now freed from the clog of error in this matter. Nor was it the English alone that so long baffled the recognition of the truth; in the French Académie de Médicine, Jules Guérin and his adherents fought desperately against it.
At the present day we know that syphilis is liable to be communicated in vaccination, and that, too, without regard to visible blood in the lymph employed. There are two ways of avoiding it. One is, to use non-humanized lymph, since the lower animals are insusceptible to syphilis.1 This is simple. The other is, to select a human vaccinifer that is free from syphilis. This is difficult. Too great reliance, however, should not be placed upon the vaccinifer; it is possible to convey syphilis even in the use of bovine virus. Suppose two persons, A and B, are to be vaccinated at one sitting, A being syphilitic. If A is vaccinated first, and the same lancet, imperfectly cleansed, is used on B, it is plain that B will be inoculated not only with vaccine lymph, but also with A's blood. It is of the first importance, therefore, that this form of vaccinal inoculation of syphilis should be carefully guarded against; and that can be accomplished most certainly by using a fresh instrument for each patient.
1 Practically, this is certain, although there is some reason to believe that the disease may be conveyed to monkeys.
From a medico-legal point of view it is important to note that constitutional syphilis may follow vaccination, and yet have nothing to do with it. Suppose an infant to be born syphilitic, but with no visible manifestations of the taint. Let that child be vaccinated, and let the syphilitic dyscrasia afterward break forth. The ordinary inference would be that the syphilis was due to the vaccination; and in most instances this view would certainly be urged by the syphilitic parent, since it would free him from suspicion. It is always easy to disprove such an allegation, however, for syphilis communicated in vaccination always shows itself first in the form of a chancre at the site of the vaccination. Therefore in any given case, unless this mode of onset can be proved, the syphilis is manifestly not of vaccinal origin. Some observers, it is true, are of the opinion that vaccination may evoke a pre-existing syphilis, to use Lanoix's term—i.e. that it may hasten the appearance of the characteristic manifestations, and even determine their localization at the site of the vaccinal inoculation. But, even allowing the truth of that proposition, in such a case the lesion would be constitutional, not chancrous.
It is well, nevertheless, to take precautions against being placed on the defensive in this way; and it may commonly be avoided by declining to vaccinate infants under three or four months old, since inherited syphilis generally manifests itself by that time. This prudence on our own behalf should not be carried so far, however, as to lead us to deny the benefit of vaccination to very young infants whenever the prevalence of small-pox is such that they are in obvious danger of exposure.
As regards its management, vaccinal syphilis does not differ from the ordinary form of the affection, and hence demands no other treatment than what is proper for the disease contracted in the usual way. It simply originates in an extragenital chancre.
Concerning the conveyance of other constitutional taints in vaccination our knowledge is very limited. The present tendency of pathological investigation is, however, to accord inoculability to many diseases that formerly were not imagined to possess that quality, so that in regard to other affections than syphilis it is prudent to use the utmost care in the choice of lymph. There is one supposed safeguard that does not seem to have the slightest title to be so regarded—namely, the notion that a typical pock cannot be developed on a person affected with a specific cachexia. There is no truth in the doctrine. Over and over again the writer has seen perfect vaccine pocks on persons whom he knew to be syphilitic.
Cutaneous affections of a non-specific character are sometimes observed to result from vaccination; that is to say, they follow close upon its performance, without any other known exciting cause. It may fairly be supposed that in many instances they would have shown themselves even if the vaccination had not been performed, for it is often the case that we are unable to speak positively in regard to the exciting cause of an eruption. Several years ago a striking case in point was related to the writer by a well-known physician of this city, S. S. Purple, in whose practice it occurred. Purple had engaged to vaccinate a child on a certain day, but for some reason the vaccination was not done. In about a week from the appointed day, however, erysipelas made its appearance, beginning on the left arm at the usual site of vaccination, and pursued its course to a fatal termination. To be sure, we are now speaking of non-specific affections, but erysipelas illustrates the proposition perfectly, notwithstanding its specific character.