The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-06-09
PASTEUR'S COLD CHICKEN NO
LONGER SERVES FOR HASH

l
authorities are caught on the wrong |
side of the cold" controversy, and |
in their desperation they don't mind |
handing the public mess of hash in
lieu of an honest argument. When
they begin making hash Of Pasteur's
cold chicken, 1t is time to show them
up.
have before me three recent ex-
amples of this. One is q popular ar
ticle written by gentleman who
purports to be a medical authority;
another Is a public bulletin composed
by former health commissioner;
the third is a bit of news service copy
by bright young woman who han
dies the health publicity for "char-
ity" organization.
All cite Pasteur's famous expert
ment with the hens and anthrax, and
all imply that this experiment proved
that exposure to cold may produce
disease. The ex-health commissioner
draws a conclusion that would aston
ish Pasteur, for he says the great
scientist found that a chicken had
marked immunity to anthrax, but
that this immunity could be overcome
by standing the chicken in cold wa
ter.
OF course Pasteur scarcely knew
what immunity meant; they had not
conceived that idea In his time. Pas
teur never found that chickens had
immunity Of any kind. This is just
one Of those convenient scientific"
observations which modern self
styled authorities" draw from their
own inner consciousness.
Any Intelligent person who cares
to read the life Of Pasteur may see
for himself that these trick author
tiles are either ignorant or dishonest.
I suspect that the medical gentle
man first made the dishonest deduc-
ton from Pasteurs experiments, and
the ex-health commissioner and the
bright young woman publicist bor-
rowed the idea from him.
What Pasteur really proved was
that he could produce anthrax In
hens by inoculating them with the
| anthrax germ. Physicians and others
did not believe this could be done,
Pasteur inoculated hens with the an
thrax germs, but the hens did not
develop the disease. Fowls have a
higher natural body temperature
than sheep, cattle or man. Pasteul
conceived the idea that II he could
bring the body temperature Of the
hen down to that Of the sheep OF
man, the hen might prove as sus-
| ceptible to anthrax as are sheep anC
men. Fowl naturally never have an.
thrax. So he immersed a hen II
cold water for hours, until the hem
temperature was brought down tt
that Of mammals. Then he was abb
to inoculate the hen with anthrax.
Some of the old timers, however
insisted the mere chilling Of the hen
had caused the disease which Pasteu
produced by incubation with aEthra,
germs. So PaSteur immersed q mum
Der of hens in cold water till thei
temperature was brought down t
that OF mammals (98), then, instea'
Of inoculating them, he took then
out Of the water, dried them and lie
them warm up again to their natura
body temperature. None OF thes
hens became sick or died.
Il The important difference between
Pasteurs experiment and every d.
exposure to cold and wet such as 70
and I and every live person expert
ence, is that ordinary exposure doe
J not appreciably alter our nature
body temperature.
So don't let the trick medical {
health authorities" nlislead 70
about that. There Is no scientifi
, evidence that every day exposure
, cold or wet lowers any immunity any
one may have against any know
disease.