592 COMPARATIVE MERITS OF VACCINATION. 
cinated and re-vaccinated nearly 12,000 persons. In 
comparing the results of his re-vaccinations with long 
humanised lymyh and those in which he used heifer-trans¬ 
mitted cowpox vaccine, he obtained, in the former instance, 
35 per cent, of successes, and with the latter 80 per cent. 
Among the latter, “ in certainly over 50 per cent, the appear¬ 
ances very nearly approached the typical primary vesicle.” 
Dr. Martin’s 80 per cent, of successes is a considerably higher 
average than that given by others who have practised animal 
vaccination. (Dr. Warlomont of Brussels states 62 per cent 
as being the like average in Belgium), but from my own ex¬ 
perience we do not doubt his correctness. 
In discussing the alleged disadvantages of animal vaccina¬ 
tion as a means of protecting human beings, our author 
specifies four objections which have been raised, and to three 
of these I shall refer briefly. The possibility of communicat¬ 
ing animal diseases to human beings has been suggested as 
an objection to animal vaccination. “ A sufficient answer/’ 
says Dr. Martin, “ is that there is not an authentic record, 
hardly even an unauthentic one, of a single case of this sort 
in the whole history of vaccination.” But in our opinion a 
stronger negation (one confirmed, too, by experience) lies in 
the facts, that an animal not in perfect health (suffering, for 
example, from diarrhoea through change of diet) will not take 
vaccinia, and that there is no proof that a bovine or any other 
animal disease (except vaccinia and hydrophobia) can be in¬ 
duced in the human subject by inoculation . As regards, next, 
the objection that animal virus “ does not take easily” in the 
human subject, and that it “ does not keep well,” our author 
shows that the former is due to bovine albumen being less 
readily soluble than that from the human subject, and that 
it can be remedied by bestowing more care in rendering animal 
vaccine soluble before applying it to an infant. He states 
that “ direct animal virus on ivory or bone points or quill 
slips keeps as well as any other, and so does this virus in the 
form of the dried vesicle or scab whereas he considers 30 
per cent, of tubes of this virus (fluid) to be not trustworthy in 
twenty-four hours after their removal. 
Two further objections are discussed—and with regret here 
we notice an unwarrantable amount of blame laid on Dr. 
Seaton by our author. It is urged by some that the vaccina¬ 
tion of a heifer with even e ' diving” warm fluid lymph is an 
uncertain process. From considerable practice in this pro¬ 
cedure I gladly confirm Dr. Martin’s remark—“properly done 
vaccination of animals with bovine virus may be said to be 
invariably successful, so very rare are the exceptions,” the 
