``If the two sources cited by Pearson are sound, even the older technique of live virus inoculation was effective. Is there any evidence to the contrary?'' Yoshie
Only the potential hazards that I cited from the NYC quote I included about 1801. That, and the near certainty that preparing variolation was part experience and part luck. For example how can you tell who will have a mild case and therefore be a good sample, and who will turn up dead a couple days later? It's a little difficult to imagine early 19thC doctors separating and labeling samples and then checking them against case outcomes.
Also, following the Jenner story, Jenner was variolated as a child and it was considered dangerous, but necessary. I think one of his siblings or childhood friends died of variolation--can't remember. Casualties from variolation were noted by one source as Jenner's motivation to find an alternative. George III had a son who died from variolation. I got the impression that death and spreading the disease were common enough so that inoculation with live smallpox would only be done if there was already a smallpox outbreak that threatened an even worse outcome.
Anyway, it's easily possible my suspicions were wrong. I was guessing.
As you point out, following Pearson, deliberately withholding vaccine of whatever quality (and believing it to be good) makes the same case, i.e. the US government used smallpox against Native Americans.
``..in effect using medicine as the continuation of war by other means..'' Yes.
>From one of the readings on Jenner, it was noted he had to wait for a
cowpox outbreak to conduct further experiments---after his initial
success. Cowpox evidently had its own cyclic outbreaks.
This got me to thinking about the problem of keeping cowpox around for use as vaccine material. How likely is that cows with cowpox would be around when needed? This suggested to me the likelihood variolation might have been used as a substitute since smallpox would obviously be available in a smallpox epidemic.
CG