THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TUBERCULOSIS 511 



they tell the reader so in plain emphatic words which leave no 

 room for misunderstanding. 



Now we turn to what must be one of the most extraordinary 

 passages that has ever appeared in the report of a scientific 

 investigation — the passage quoted from page 28. Let us analyse 

 the statements. Firstly, the Commissioners state that they have 

 found bovine tuberculosis in human beings. This is absurd. 

 Bovine tuberculosis is tuberculosis in bovines. Human tuber- 

 culosis is tuberculosis in human beings. What they mean is that 

 they have found "bovine" bacilli in cases of human tuberculosis. 



In a flash they ring the changes. The next sentence begins 

 with the words — " the bacilli of bovine source." In other words, 

 they beg the whole question ; they determine the very questions 

 they were appointed to decide not by argument, not by investi- 

 gation but by word-jugglery of the worst order. What right 

 have they to use the words " bacilli of bovine source "? They 

 have no right and, if words mean anything (vide the quotation 

 from page 27), they know they have no right. 



This Report purports to be based upon the investigations 

 carried out by their technical experts. The scientific work 

 dealing with the nature of the bacillus found in these cases is 

 discussed in a volume by Dr. A. Stanley Griffith : Investi- 

 gation of Viruses obtained from Cases of Human Tuberculosis 

 {other than Lupus)." In this volume Dr. Griffith published 

 photographs of the cultures obtained. What is his description 

 of the organisms referred to by the Commissioners ? Does he 

 describe them as " bacilli of bovine source " ? Dr. Griffith's 

 description (taken from page 532) is " Cultures of Bovine Tubercle 

 Bacilli of Human Origin (Group I.) on Glycerin Agar." Lest 

 there should be any question of misquotation the writer has 

 photographed that portion of the page referred to. 



By suppressing the words " of human origin " and substitut- 

 ing for them the words " of bovine source" the Commissioners 

 manage to maintain the argument. But it must not be forgotten 

 that the whole passage depends upon this substitution of words. 

 Employ the proper description as it is employed by Dr. Griffith 

 and the whole argument simply falls to pieces. 



Having thus extricated themselves from the difficulties of 

 demonstrating what cannot be demonstrated, the Commissioners 

 proceed to their predestined and prearranged conclusion. 



In the Final Report a list is published of twenty-nine cases 



