Hey Steve,
Great site, best of luck with it.
Phil

Good short article on Windsor. I was intrigued by the local content. Although I’m not from Windsor I was always keen to see local content, and situation of this sub-narrative into a grand national narrative or other traditional forms of history.

As far as the actual topic of diphtheria vaccination it would be interesting to explore if religious practices was responsible for the negative reaction to the vaccination. In particular the border cities would also be an interesting study during this time period as the scent of impending amalgamation is in the air. One thing to come out of the amalgamation was joint administrative bodies like the Essex border cities utilities commissions and other joint bodies. What role the amalgamation of health services and other services had on the experimental diphtheria vaccination program?

Regardless of the answer to these questions the article combines a nice amount of well informed text as well as colourful and informative media.

As was mentioned in the article citizens could have responded favorably to vaccination for the simple reason that the small pox epidemic in the area was severe. It would be interesting to see if those parents who had lived through the epidemic had chosen to vaccinate their children on that basis.

Alternatively, the increased acceptance of vaccinations in general could be because of a greater awareness in the ability of the medical field to prevent disease. Or, parents could have chosen to vaccinate their children based on fear. The advertisement with the infant playing happily while the title reads “Toxoid prevents diphtheria” seems to indicate that in order to continue to have a happy healthy child you must vaccinate.

I found this article to be relevant to contemporary concerns regarding vaccination. The newspaper article of the two children sent home because they were not vaccinated is a contemporary issue. Many parents of autistic children are questioning the safety and validity of vaccination.

Overall, Melissa Valentik has crafted an interesting report on diphtheria in Windsor Ontario between 1925 and the Second World War. As its focus this article is limited in scope to documenting local events, the actions and concerns of health and government officials, as well as the publication of the issue in a variety of print materials at the time. It was interesting to note the presented role and assumed responsibilities of the government in health education and disease prevention at the time in attempting to prevent diphtheria as well as the argued importance of immunization and vaccination which the medical community was advocating. In this regard, it was interesting to see how advertising, newspaper articles, news agencies, schools, and health notices were all used to express and reiterate a similar public health message in the early to mid twentieth century.
The combination of historical interpretation on the part of the author and the presentation of primary documents embedded into the article served as a strong basis of support and reference for the topic under discussion. The format of presenting historical materials and ideas clearly demonstrates the advantage of utilizing a multimedia and online format to present historical documents and materials. The author was also quite adept at appropriately combining relevant images to the text of the paper. In many ways, the use of a variety of materials serves to reveal other more subtle social and political comments about the period in general, local history in particular, as well as the social and economic realities of the time. Similar future discussions of the topic would do well to expand upon the economic, social, political, religious, and demographic realities of the region and their potential impact upon the views and actions of health officials. This was after all a period of great economic fluctuation, political upheaval, and industrial change and one is forced to wonder about the impact of these movements upon local society, regional health, and medical practice in general. Moreover, though interesting, the lack of government reports, reviews, and references to medical journals, professional speculation, and other authoritative resources does much to remove from the medical insight of the paper. Similarly, the inclusion of even a brief commentary on previous considerations of the issue, and of research regarding diphtheria or local medical history would have done much to contextualize the importance of this report. In addition, the inclusion of a relevant bibliography, or commentary on the historical or medical credentials of the author would also do much to promote academic validity of the author and text as a scholarly work and publication.
It is also somewhat shocking that this report takes such a generalized approach to the handling of the diphtheria incident of the period. What of the public’s response, the views of local physicians, women, and those across the boarder? What actions were taken in Detroit, or did this health problem not manifest there? If so, what was the American reaction socially, politically, medically? If, for instance, diphtheria was not a problem in Michigan cities then why was it not? What information could be gleaned from an expanded exploration of this topic throughout the region and the variety of perspectives possible? To have explored such material would have served to further develop the acknowledged connection between the medical, social, economic, and political aspects of Windsor society at the time. Moreover, this article does little to actually document diphtheria as a disease, the causes for concern regarding it, or detail why the region was susceptible at the time. Furthermore, this article could develop its scope by expanding on several issues such as the noted, “public resistance” to “compulsory vaccination” during previous small pox incidence and brief commentaries regarding some of the other “cities used for [the] pilot program.”
Though overall an interesting report, it serves more as a generalized introduction to the medical realities of a moment rather than as an effective exploration of the issue in the fuller sense which it could be. In this regard this is an article which serves to document that diphtheria was of concern in a particular place, at a specific time, and which presents some of the primary documents which are representative of the situation and the reaction to it. In its own defence however, it is a resource which makes no claim to the wider investigation of the issue of diphtheria or medical history and is premised by the author to be a research note.

This article brings to mind several contemporary issues associated with vaccination today. I found it particularly interesting that parents were suspicious of compulsory inoculations against diseases and it was recorded that they were more likely to partake if they were given the choice. This issue seems very reminiscant of debates raging today about optional HPV vaccinations as its effectiveness has only be proven in the prevention of extreme cases of the disease.
Another issue that arose when reading this article is the association of the administration of health care for communicable diseases through the school system. It seems as though there is an association between local health units and schools to work together in order to facilitate the immunization of schoolchildren. The partnership between the two seems like a logical endeavour in order to reduce disease outbreaks.
Finally, the article illustrates the power of the media in influencing our decisions regarding our lifestyle. The advertisements employ pictures of happy children to emphasize the importance of vaccination to remain healthy. Once again, this is very reminiscent of advertisements today that push various vaccines for vacationers against Hepatitis or the importance of the aforementioned HPV vaccine in the prevention of cervical cancer.
While this note is relatively short, the author is able to raise several questions about vaccination and the relevance of its discussion today. Clearly, more study on vaccines is required to offer definitive answers about the effectiveness of their administration. This article highlights questions and concerns about communicable disease vaccination that arose between the two World Wars that we continue to discuss today.

I found this short article very informative, and it was interesting to learn how the Windsor campaign served as a pilot program for immunization initiatives in Ontario.

As for reasons why citizens reacted favourably to immunization against diphtheria, I would agree with all of the suggestions above. In particular, I was intrigued by Becky’s comment about fear. Certainly the Toronto billboard cited in the article is appealing to parents’ emotions, but there were even more blatant examples of media campaigns in the 1920s which attempted to frighten parents. It has been noted that diphtheria vaccination initiatives, more than those for other conditions, often chastised (and explicitly blamed) the parents of any child who fell ill and died of the disease. Given this vitriol, it seems reasonable that many parents would have been motivated to vaccinate their child at least in part due to fear.

There are several other potential factors that may help to explain why vaccination was embraced by the public, though each would require much more historical investigation. For instance, it may be useful to examine the role played by family physicians in promoting vaccinations in private consultations and in public forums. Also, it would be interesting to survey the impact of government-sponsored radio programs and advertisements which touted the benefits of diphtheria vaccination. Another contributing factor may have been economic, as the cost of the vaccine decreased considerably in 1916 after domestic production began in a University of Toronto lab. By 1925, I’m fairly certain that the cost of the vaccine was even lower. Although it’s difficult to gauge the relative impact of any one particular factor, these may nevertheless serve as fruitful avenues for future research.