Evening star., 1896-12-16
THINKS 1T HARMLESS
DR.. D. E. Salmon Regards Anti Toxin
as a Great Success.
has 4 WORD TO SAY ON TIE SUBJECT
Claims That the Objections to It
Are Not Well Founded.
W ii AT HAS BEEN DONE

DR.. D. E. Salmon. the chief of the bu-
reau of animal industries of the Depart
ment OF Agriculture. and one of the lead
ing scientists of Washington, is an ardent
believer in the virtues of anti-toxin for the
treatment of diphtherta. In his opinion
ant-toxin is not in the least degree dan
gerous. and parents should not have the
slightest hesitation in allowing it to be
used upon their children
Anti-toxin. said DR.. Salmon in con-
versation with a Star reporter this morn
ing, is not bit more dangerous than SO
much milk. and people who object to the
use OF the new remedy ought to be equally
alarmed every time they give a child a
glass of milk. knowing that there may be
danger lurking in that as we'll"
Speaking of the merits of anti-toxin
DIR. Salmon said:
1T has been apparent for the mast two
years to those who follow the progress Of
experimental medicine that q remedy of
remarkable power has been brought to
light in the anti-toxin of diphtheria This
remedy had a secure foundation in the re-
suits obtained by experiments upon the
lower animals before 1t was used upon man.
kind; and it has now been used in so many
cases both In hospitals and In private prac-
tice. and with such comparatively uniform
results, that Its efficacy appears absolutely
incontestible to the rational and unbias ed
observer And, yet, this treatment is op-
posed and criticised, just as many ether
great discoveries in science from the dawn
of history to the present day have been
contested and denied.
As to Experts.
Believing that it is important not only
to save the children from malig-
nant disease. but to sustain the health
authorities in their arduous duties at
such time. l would call the attention
of the many readers of The Star to certain
facts bearing upon the statements of the
so-called experts who have been quoted to
discredlt the antitoxin treatment. DR..
Joseph Winters. whose opinions figure go
prominently in the quotation from Senator
Gallinger's report which was published
over Mr. Macfdriand's signature, is, or
was. a member of the board of visiting
physicians of the Willard Parker Hospital,
and his statements were fully and clearly
answered at a subsequent meeting of the
New York Academy of Medicine, by DIR.
John Winters Brannan. member of the
same board, and having equal facilities for
observation of the cases and study of the
records
After going on to show that DIR. Winters
statements with reference to the effects of
the anti-toxin treatment were discredited
by u closer study of the very statistics
upon wh!cl he relied. DR.. Salmon said:
''Dr. Win ers asserted in his paper tt at
because of he depressing effects of anti
toxin upon tn, heart, alcoholic stimulation
was now resorted to to an extent which
was never known in former days. Dr.
Brannan says: The observation of the
other attending physicians of the hospital
is directly 10 the contrary For fear. he W
ever. that their impressions might be wrong
and that DIR. Winters might be right,
statement was secured from the clerk of
accounts and supplies of the health ue
partneCt. giving the amount of alcoholic
stinulaEts used in the Willard Parker
Hospital in the year 1894, and in the six
teen months since January !. 1893, when
the systematic use of anti-tOXin was begun.
This statement showed that in 1884 the
daily consumption of alcohol per patient
was O6J ounce and in 1896 and 1896 to
May /, 1t was r.43 ounce, a reduction of
0.22 ounce, or more than 33 per cent.
4 Case in Point.
"Dr. Brannan further said: In order to
show the fatal effects of even a small dose
OF anti-toxin Or. Winters cited the case
of a child VINO had been exposed to diph-
iberia in Bellevue Hospital, had been given
an immunizing dose of the serum, and had
been sent TO its home in Brooklyn, wnere
ii died shortly afterward, presumably from
the effects of the anti-toxin, as it did not
develop diphtheria.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The patIeTI. I. Elsie Biershank, four years
old OF 2tU Freeman street, Brooklyn, was
admitted to the first division of Bellevue
Hospital April 3. 1896, with a history of
ccnvulsioEs. DI ring her stay in the hos
pital she had occasional convulSlye at
Ia ks. Another child in the same ward
having developed diphtheria, ii was deemed
advisable to in.muniZe the other children.
This was done, but the supply of anti-toxin
not being sufficient il was given to those
most exposed. Elsie Biershank was of
the children who received no serum, and
was discharged before fresh supply could
be obtained. This is the statement made
TO at the close of the meeting two
weeks ago by DR. f. II. Wright. the house
physician the first division of the Belle
yue Hospital. The further history of the
case is as follows: The patient was dis
charged and remair ed well until April %,
when after exposure to cold she was taken
with dyspnoea. DR.. J. A Jenkins of 2I
jefferson avenue, Brooklyn, was called
and made the diagnosis of Inflammation of
the base of the brain and Group. The child
died al $50 pm. of the same day. These
are the facts of this case of anti-;oxin
poisoning.
Faulty observations.
ITO emphasize these statements of Dr.
Brannsn 1 will add that part of DIR. Win
ters' remarks was devoted to the anti-toxIn
treatment as practiced in Europe. His as
sertions called out a letter from DIR. Adolf
Baginsky. extraordinary professor OF dis
cas- . Of children in the University of Ber-
lin and director of the Kaiser and Kaiserin
Fr!edrlch Chlldrens Hospital, published in.
the Medical Record of August s, 1896.
Dr. Sasinsky begins thus: The erron-
cons statements OF DIR. Joseph Winters, re-
Gently made in the Medical Record re-
garding the statistics OF the anti-toxin treat
ment fer diphthe-ia in the Berlin hospital
OF which have the honor TO be the super
Visins physician have compelled me to pre-
sent certain facts to MY American COL
leagues. which may be of interest in the
pending discussion of the real merits of
the new remedy Again. he says: In this
portion OF Or. Winters paper there are so
many false statements, perhaps based part
iy on faulty observations, that 1 find IL
neCesss ~ to preface these remarks with
pain desc ription of our methods as they
actually exist In reference to another
statement he says: This latter is absolute
" untrue. and 1t is equally evident that
DIR. Winters has misunderstood all our
methods-' And again: The observations as
given by DIR. Winters and all his conclu-
sions are incorrect. and are based on such
faulty observations as to amount almost
to misrepresentation. 1t is absolutely un-
true that at the time when no anti-toxin
could be procured children were sent away.
Dr- Winters was in our hospital, according
to oUr visitors list, once only and it is
therefore, quite evident that we cannot
expect him to know our exact mode of
procedure from one superficial inspection.
If this is rot sufficient to convince any