TOXIN AND ANTITOXIN. 535 



authority often cited by Gruber, namely von Behring. Shortly after 

 my theory was formulated this author expressed himself as follows: 1 

 " It seemed about hopeless to attempt to penetrate these mysteries, 

 when recently Prof. Ehrlich published a theory which is destined 

 to illuminate even this subject." 



But even now Gruber does not doubt " that the toxins are very 

 complex bodies and that the toxic action is connected with certain 

 atomic groups; that possibly it is necessary for certain atomic groups 

 to be present so that the poison molecule can be anchored and the 

 toxicity manifest itself." 



One will at once ask why then Gruber attacks my theory if he 

 is satisfied with its fundamental principle, namely, the assumption 

 of an independent haptophore and toxophore group in the poison 

 molecule? That I cannot answer. To be sure further along one 

 encounters the warning, " But one must not too highly personify 

 these different atomic groups, and think of this entire poisoning 

 as a drama with four long intermissions between the acts." I cannot 

 see what is to be gained by such idle talk. 



As a matter of fact the majority of infectious diseases as well 

 as the poisonings do proceed in three phases, and these have always 

 been separated, namely, incubation, the disease itself, recovery. 

 Hence to explain these, as we do, through the independent action 

 of toxophore and haptophore groups seems the most natural thing 

 to do. It is strange that Gruber should now speak of the anchoring 

 of the poison by the elements susceptible thereto as something per- 

 fectly obvious, for in his first attack he laid especial emphasis on 

 " his being the first to furnish the important demonstration that 

 the specific immune substances are bound by the bacteria." How- 

 ever, Gruber's claim cannot be allowed, for all that he demonstrated 

 was that the agglutinins are used up in the reaction. The signifi- 

 cance of a chemical union, however, was first pointed out by us. 

 This union, as Morgenroth's studies on the behavior of anchored 

 amboceptors show, need in no way be connected with toxic action 

 or with a using up of the substance. 



Gruber's statement that the long period of incubation is explained 

 by the feeble affinities I must emphatically deny. The studies of 

 Donitz 2 and of the Heyman school 3 show that the injected toxins 



1 Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 1898. 



2 Ibid., 1897. 



3 Decroly et Rouse, Arch, de Internat. de Pharmaeodynamie, Vol. VI. 



