The sun., 1880-12-12

formations often met with in the lungs
(resuItinR from chronic peri-bronchitls
or pncumonial. which havo become con-
tractcd, fibrous. and even calcaroous. His
conclusions were indetermnate. rejecting the
state of doubt in which his mind remained. All
that no would pronounce himself sure oil"
was that thoro were more "sickly" animals
(whatavcr the precise nature OF the sickness
might bel among the subjects OF his expert
ments than among animals OF the same species
in their natural condition. He Acknowledged
further that tho suspicious now becoming cur
rent that tho nodulous products OF the pearl
disease are injurious to man are. In reality
we'll founded. and that tho public authorities
should prohibit tho sale OF euch specific
products. But he found so little evidence OF
hurtful results from eating simply the flesh
of animals afflicted with that maludy tpro-
vided that there were no pearl nodules in iD
that he hardly felt warranted In advising tho
Government to prohibit the sale OF such flesh
after all the nodules had been carefully ro-
moved. Tho reader will perceive. however. that
even this cautious statement makes the rigorous
inspection OF slaughter houses matter OF vital
import to the public welfare. As to the tnint
transmitted by tho milk OF COWS suffering from
tho disease no did not consider his expert
ments conclusive. and he refused to give de-
cided opinion on the subject. although 1t seemed
to him probable that tho milk OF those COWS
whose udders were affected might be injurious.
Although. too Virchow recognized the harm
iulness OF the nodulous products when eaten.
as we'll as lin certain casesl OF milk. still he did
not deem 1t proved that there is n special virus
in tho pearl disease. and suggested that
future experimentation should take the
direction OF feeding with still other morbid
products to SEQ II some OF them will
~.
add that experiments later than those OF vir-
chow indicate that II human tuberculosis and
the pearl disease OF cattle are. as the German
scientist maintained. not identical. they are Mt
least tintercommunicable In the British Medi-
cal Journal OF May %. 1880. DR.. D. II. Cullimore
reports the case OF dog who swallowed
quantity OF the matter expectorated by his mas
ter. who was suffering from advanced pulmo-
nary consumption. The dog soon Bickened.
became emaciatcd. had cough. and at the end
OF twelve days died. Upon a post-mortem ex-
animation the lungs were found studded with
sCftened patches In various stages OF Gaseous
degeneration. many OF them containing muco-
purulent matter On the other hand. DIR. Charles
Creighton reported to The Lancet. June 10.
1880. that he had attended several patients
whom he supposed to DO affected with common
acute military tuberculosis. At tho autopsy.
same peculiar pearly nOdule formations which
are wont to be seen in cattle that have died OF
the pearl disease. His inference was that these
patients had caught the malady through eating
meat or through milk.
Is consumption to be classed with smallpox
and syphilis. among the diseases designated as
specincf" VIII. In other words. its character
istic tnberculous product, when directly intro
duced into the circulation Of another person by
incubation. generate. not merely disease.
but literally the same disease The most prom
inent. II not the first OF experimenters. was DR..
Ylemin. professor at the Val de Grace Hospital
at Paris who gave an account OF his researches
toward the close OF 1866. DIR. vllemin operated
on twenty-five rabbits. inoculatinR them with
fragments OF tubercle taken from the lungs OF
men who had died OF phthisis. In all but two
OF them liberalization OF the lungs was dis
closed on post-mortem examination. 1t was
urged that these cases were by no means con-
elusive, the rabbit being particularly susceptl-
Bile to tuberculosis. and that the test. to be
satisfactory. oughtto be made on animals which
are seldom or never phthisical. Objection was
also made to his using tuberculous material
taken from men who had been dead from
twenty-four to thirty six hours. and It was suR-
gested that his results might have come from
the cadayerous substance simply. and were not.
therefore. a proof OF specific virus resident
In tubercle. To meet these objections DIR. VIM.
Marcel of London inoculated nineteen guinea
pigs with the expectoration OF living patients.
The deduction from his experiments was that
the incubation OF guinea pigs with the matter
coughed up by persons suffering from tuber-
cular consu nlption will. at all events. In cer-
tain stage OF the disease. give rise to tho iorma-
tion OF turbercles In the subjects OF the opera
tion. Similar results we're obtained by Messrs.
Herard. Cornil. and Genaudet in Paris. and
Iegert in Germany. An experiment performed
In SYRIA. Greece. was specially remarkable from
the .acl that the subject was a human being. A
man who was suffering from gangrene OF the
big toe OF the left foot, and for whom death
was inevitable in consequence Of his refusal to
submit to AMI putation. not only was shown, by
} careful examination. to have perfectly healthy
lungs but there was abundant evidence that he
had not the least tendency to tuberculosis. A
quantity OF sputa from q man in consumption
was now injected into the upper part Of the left
thigh-whether with or without the subjects
consent we are not informed. In thrco weeks
an exam. nation OF his lungs showed tho begin
ming OF disease and in tEirty-eght days. when
the man died from gangrene. seventeen tuber-
cles were found in the upper lobe OF the right
lung. and two In the left lung. This case seems
to furnish pretty strong evidence that the tu-
berces discovered were a direct result OF the
incubation. as it is exceedingly improbable
that man OF his age (55 years) could. without
the incubation. have had so many-all. too.
being only in the first stage of development.
| II we had before US only the experiments just
mentioned. most persons probably would be
| convinced that phthisls is a specific disease.
| transmissible by incubation. On the other
| side. however. must be set the apparently sue
cessiul experiments OF Clarke. Fox. Sanderson.
Schottelius. and others. who. by the introduc-
ton OF non-tubercular matter. such as cuttle-
fish powder. pulveraed cheese, and even COM
mon sand, produced in the animals on which
| they operated nodules which they pronounced
| indistinguishable from tubercles. Such STUN
bling blocks can only be removed by denying
| that what seemed to these men tubercle was
tuberce. This was done BIZ Villemin himself
| In 1863 by Parrot in 1873 and by Prof. Dn
Costa OF Philadelphia in 1880. The latter
reviewing the whole subject. pronounced
the production OF true tuberces from
non-tubercular material either by inocu-
lation or by inhalation, 20 he not proven" He
admitted that nhammatory nodules arise. bu
denied that these have the structure Of genu'