SOILED PAPER MONEY 165 



clusively that money is not a means for the transmission of infectious 

 diseases, but I do think that the absence of virulent disease germs shows 

 that soiled money is at least not a common means of transmission of 

 disease. In order to obtain any conclusive evidence on this point it 

 would be necessary to make a careful study of hundreds or even a 

 thousand bills from hospitals and private sick rooms, drug stores and 

 various other sources. 



Emphasis must be given to the animal inoculations carried out in 

 connection with this study, for in a study of this kind they are much 

 more important than the culture experiments, when we consider the 

 susceptibility of guinea pigs to many of the infectious diseases, espe- 

 cially tuberculosis and diphtheria. There may develop within the 

 animal body other forms which would not be detected in a study of the 

 cultures or smears. 



It is no surprise that the theoretical does not agree with the prac- 

 tical side of the subject under discussion. This is often the case, 

 especially when the subject is one which concerns the general public, 

 the majority of whom readily agrees with any one who says that 

 dirty money is a certain means of transmission of infectious diseases. 

 Why shouldn't this be so, when we think of the dirt and odors that 

 accompany some of our paper currency? The bills have been in con- 

 tact with many hands, not necessarily infected ones, but some that have 

 at least been in contact with sores or sputum. Certainly a black picture 

 could be painted and the possibilities made to appear enormous; yet 

 another view is clearly set forth by a bank teller who said : " If one stops 

 to think, monej r can't be a very common means of transmission, for if 

 it were there wouldn't be so many of us alive to-day; the escape from 

 sure death of those whose duty calls for the constant handling of 

 money, is certainly not merely due to chance." 



One conclusion that may be drawn, after a careful study of the 

 subject, is that " money constitutes an unimportant factor in the 

 transmission of disease." We want and certainly need a more fre- 

 quent redemption of our soiled and worn bills, yet the facts and evi- 

 dences at hand do not justify us in alarming the public needlessly by 

 rash statements concerning our currency. Admitting the possibility 

 that money may act as a medium of transmission, certainly the failure 

 of any virulent disease germs to manifest themselves in the foregoing 

 experiments will allow us to feel a bit easier in regard to dirty money. 



