|
|
I became curious of the horrific depictions of innoculations against small pox using what looks like very live fluids from infected individuals. Untill looking this up, I hadn't even known that there was a difference between "innoculations" and "vaccinations." I thought them different words for the same thing. Not so I just read!
...the most successful way of combating smallpox before the discovery of vaccination was inoculation. The word is derived from the Latin inoculare, meaning ?to graft.? Inoculation referred to the subcutaneous instillation of smallpox virus into nonimmune individuals. The inoculator usually used a lancet wet with fresh matter taken from a ripe pustule of some person who suffered from smallpox. The material was then subcutaneously introduced on the arms or legs of the nonimmune person. The terms inoculation and variolation were often used interchangeably. The practice of inoculation seems to have arisen independently when people in several countries were faced with the threat of an epidemic. However, inoculation was not without its attendant risks. There were concerns that recipients might develop disseminated smallpox and spread it to others. Transmission of other diseases, such as syphilis, via the bloodborne route was also of concern.
During the decades following the 1721 epidemic in Boston, variolation became more widespread in the colonies of New England. In 1766, American soldiers under George Washington were unable to take Quebec from the British troops, apparently because of a smallpox epidemic that significantly reduced the number of healthy troops (13). The British soldiers were all variolated. By 1777, Washington had learned his lesson: all his soldiers were variolated before beginning new military operations (14, 15). The success of variolation in the New World was not without effect on Europe. In fact, the rapid adoption of variolation in Europe can be directly traced to the efforts of Cotton Mather during the Boston smallpox epidemic in 1721. Although many British physicians remained skeptical even after Mather's success, the data he had published were eventually influential. Variolation was subsequently adopted in England and spread from there throughout Western Europe. For more information on the history of small pox: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1200696 -- "Hello, ladies." Atia http://www.punishermovie.com/
|
Posts:
9
Registered:
3/23/08
|
|
(6 of 6)
Re: Small pox and other health issues of the time
Mar 23, 2008 3:08 PM
|
For a really good overview of the difference to vaccinate and innoculate (and they are two different things) go here:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-04/986402310.Im.r.html
To this day there is NO cure for small pox. It is one of those illnesses that you must just get through HOWEVER today we have ways to help get you through it such as IV hydration and so forth.
--
Edited by PastTimes at 03/23/2008 12:09 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
12,210
Registered:
6/8/07
|
|
(5 of 6)
Re: Small pox and other health issues of the time
Mar 23, 2008 12:57 PM
|
> I became curious of the horrific depictions of
> innoculations against small pox using what looks like
> very live fluids from infected individuals. Untill
> looking this up, I hadn't even known that there was a
> difference between "innoculations" and
> "vaccinations." I thought them different words for
> the same thing. Not so I just read!
>
> ...the most successful way of combating smallpox
> before the discovery of vaccination was inoculation.
> The word is derived from the Latin inoculare, meaning
> to graft. Inoculation referred to the subcutaneous
> instillation of smallpox virus into nonimmune
> individuals. The inoculator usually used a lancet wet
> with fresh matter taken from a ripe pustule of some
> person who suffered from smallpox. The material was
> then subcutaneously introduced on the arms or legs of
> the nonimmune person. The terms inoculation and
> variolation were often used interchangeably. The
> practice of inoculation seems to have arisen
> independently when people in several countries were
> faced with the threat of an epidemic. However,
> inoculation was not without its attendant risks.
> There were concerns that recipients might develop
> disseminated smallpox and spread it to others.
> Transmission of other diseases, such as syphilis, via
> the bloodborne route was also of concern.
>
> During the decades following the 1721 epidemic in
> Boston, variolation became more widespread in the
> colonies of New England. In 1766, American
> soldiers under George Washington were unable to take
> Quebec from the British troops, apparently because of
> a smallpox epidemic that significantly reduced the
> number of healthy troops (13). The British soldiers
> were all variolated. By 1777, Washington had learned
> his lesson: all his soldiers were variolated before
> beginning new military operations (14, 15). The
> success of variolation in the New World was not
> without effect on Europe. In fact, the rapid adoption
> of variolation in Europe can be directly traced to
> the efforts of Cotton Mather during the Boston
> smallpox epidemic in 1721. Although many British
> physicians remained skeptical even after Mather's
> success, the data he had published were eventually
> influential. Variolation was subsequently adopted in
> England and spread from there throughout Western
> Europe.
>
Wonderful. With all we know now, we have barely surpassed these crude treatments.
I'm fairly certain this is vaccinatin. Innoculation is a broad term that can be applied to any injection. But to vaccinate with live and fully virulent organism was dangerous, and a practice that surely killed as many as saved.
--
What if this is as good as it gets?
--
Edited by glen922 at 03/23/2008 10:02 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
9
Registered:
3/23/08
|
|
(4 of 6)
Re: Small pox and other health issues of the time
Mar 23, 2008 11:11 AM
|
Small pox had a death rate on average of 30% for natural cases. (There are 4 forms mild with a low death rate of 4 to 8%, more common form with average around 20% and then two types almost 100% deadly)
The milder form is not as common as the more aggressive form called Conflunant pox. In Europe during the time by the time you where 18 or so you had come throught it however with marks for life over you and about 30 % chance you lost your sight in one or both eyes.
Innoculation came from the far east and africa by two different people (one a woman and the other a slave) Great book to read is The Speckled Monster.
Death rate from innoculation was about 1% with very little chance of the side effects. They also learned that if you took small pox from another that had been innoculated pox (since you come down with a "mild" case of them that don't scar most tiems) you got a mild or milder case.
Still pretty scary to tell someone you are going to give them the most dreaded illness of the time (agruably) but they won't die from it but you can not tell them why. Also normal transmition is by droplets so IMHO by introducting through the skin it will be milder also. They also had protacall for what pox to pick and knew what liquid was good or not.
Oh and it was highly debated to innoculate or not depending on where you lived and so forth. The southern colonies did not (one reason Washington had a hard time doing this) but after his troops where desimated by the illness in Quebec in 1775 he started to rethink this. Late January early February of 1777 he orders innoculation to be carried out.
Innoculation takes about 3 weeks from start to finish....you are left with a 2" diam. scar where you are innoculated but it was always done where you had clothing at all times (back of leg or top arm)
--
Edited by PastTimes at 03/23/2008 8:13 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,170
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(3 of 6)
Re: Small pox and other health issues of the time
Mar 17, 2008 1:30 PM
|
Great information! I had no idea that is how they dealt with the Small Pox at that time. I tell you I would be terrified if I had to have that injected into me 
|
|
|
Posts:
944
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(2 of 6)
Re: Small pox and other health issues of the time
Mar 17, 2008 11:48 AM
|
> I became curious of the horrific depictions of
> innoculations against small pox using what looks like
> very live fluids from infected individuals. Untill
> looking this up, I hadn't even known that there was a
> difference between "innoculations" and
> "vaccinations." I thought them different words for
> the same thing. Not so I just read!
>
> ...the most successful way of combating smallpox
> before the discovery of vaccination was inoculation.
> The word is derived from the Latin inoculare, meaning
> ?to graft.? Inoculation referred to the subcutaneous
> instillation of smallpox virus into nonimmune
> individuals. The inoculator usually used a lancet wet
> with fresh matter taken from a ripe pustule of some
> person who suffered from smallpox. The material was
> then subcutaneously introduced on the arms or legs of
> the nonimmune person. The terms inoculation and
> variolation were often used interchangeably. The
> practice of inoculation seems to have arisen
> independently when people in several countries were
> faced with the threat of an epidemic. However,
> inoculation was not without its attendant risks.
> There were concerns that recipients might develop
> disseminated smallpox and spread it to others.
> Transmission of other diseases, such as syphilis, via
> the bloodborne route was also of concern.
>
> During the decades following the 1721 epidemic in
> Boston, variolation became more widespread in the
> colonies of New England. In 1766, American
> soldiers under George Washington were unable to take
> Quebec from the British troops, apparently because of
> a smallpox epidemic that significantly reduced the
> number of healthy troops (13). The British soldiers
> were all variolated. By 1777, Washington had learned
> his lesson: all his soldiers were variolated before
> beginning new military operations (14, 15). The
> success of variolation in the New World was not
> without effect on Europe. In fact, the rapid adoption
> of variolation in Europe can be directly traced to
> the efforts of Cotton Mather during the Boston
> smallpox epidemic in 1721. Although many British
> physicians remained skeptical even after Mather's
> success, the data he had published were eventually
> influential. Variolation was subsequently adopted in
> England and spread from there throughout Western
> Europe.
>
> For more information on the history of small pox:
>
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?ar
> tid=1200696
>
> --
> "Hello, ladies." Atia
> http://www.punishermovie.com/
Other threads talk about the accuracy of the details in the first two episodes. The innoculations must have been fairly accurate, but it would have taken a very brave person to agree to them.
--
Jane
HBO Forums Host
|
|
|
Posts:
1,988
Registered:
11/3/05
|
|
(1 of 6)
Small pox and other health issues of the time
Mar 17, 2008 1:42 AM
|
I became curious of the horrific depictions of innoculations against small pox using what looks like very live fluids from infected individuals. Untill looking this up, I hadn't even known that there was a difference between "innoculations" and "vaccinations." I thought them different words for the same thing. Not so I just read!
...the most successful way of combating smallpox before the discovery of vaccination was inoculation. The word is derived from the Latin inoculare, meaning ?to graft.? Inoculation referred to the subcutaneous instillation of smallpox virus into nonimmune individuals. The inoculator usually used a lancet wet with fresh matter taken from a ripe pustule of some person who suffered from smallpox. The material was then subcutaneously introduced on the arms or legs of the nonimmune person. The terms inoculation and variolation were often used interchangeably. The practice of inoculation seems to have arisen independently when people in several countries were faced with the threat of an epidemic. However, inoculation was not without its attendant risks. There were concerns that recipients might develop disseminated smallpox and spread it to others. Transmission of other diseases, such as syphilis, via the bloodborne route was also of concern.
During the decades following the 1721 epidemic in Boston, variolation became more widespread in the colonies of New England. In 1766, American soldiers under George Washington were unable to take Quebec from the British troops, apparently because of a smallpox epidemic that significantly reduced the number of healthy troops (13). The British soldiers were all variolated. By 1777, Washington had learned his lesson: all his soldiers were variolated before beginning new military operations (14, 15). The success of variolation in the New World was not without effect on Europe. In fact, the rapid adoption of variolation in Europe can be directly traced to the efforts of Cotton Mather during the Boston smallpox epidemic in 1721. Although many British physicians remained skeptical even after Mather's success, the data he had published were eventually influential. Variolation was subsequently adopted in England and spread from there throughout Western Europe.
For more information on the history of small pox:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1200696
--
"Hello, ladies." Atia
http://www.punishermovie.com/
|
|
|
|
|
