View report page

In addition, a further case was seen in consultation, but
in this instance there was no known contact of the disease
and again the patient was not suffering from Smallpox.
The measures taken proved effective and no case of Smallpox
occurred within the Borough.
In addition to the above-mentioned, the following two
cases were also brought to my notice:—
CASE NO. 1.
On the evening of Saturday, 20th October, I was asked
by a local practitioner to see a patient suffering from an acute
pustular rash suspected to be Smallpox. The patient had
arrived in this Country on the previous Saturday from Israel.
She had been vaccinated in infancy and again six months
prior to her illness but no scarring from the second vaccination
could be found although she was positive that the revaccination
had been successful.
The distribution of the rash was not suggestive of Smallpox
and the patient was not sufficiently ill considering the
severity of the rash, nor had she the usual prodromal symptoms,
although she stated she had been suffering from a
" cold ".
In my opinion this was not a case of Smallpox but in view
of the patient's recent return from the Near East I asked
one of the Consultants of the Ministry of Health to see her.
He confirmed my opinion.
CASE NO. 2.
On Saturday, 29th December, a message was received
from St. Marylebone Public Health Department stating that a
resident of Hendon had been admitted to the Hospital of
St. John and St. Elizabeth on the 27th suffering from
Pneumonia and that a rash had subsequently appeared,
strongly suggestive of Smallpox. On investigation it was
found that the patient had flown to Canada on 3rd December,
returning by air on the 15th. There was a history of successful
vaccination in April, 1948. His son had also flown to
Canada on the 3rd December, returning to France and Germany
on the 15th and, ultimately, to England on the 26th.
The patient was kept under observation during the week-end
but the diagnosis of Smallpox was not, ultimately, confirmed.
24