Tur Microscope. 279 
first group; one in fifty-four or 1.8 per cent; in the second group 
three in four hundred cases, or 0,75 per cent. 
M. Brouardel, in examining the statistics of the Council of 
Hygiene, of Paris, from 1862 to 1872, finds that in non-vaccinated 
persons bitten on exposed surfaces, the mortality is 80 per cent. 
In addition Pasteur has vaccinated forty-eight persons bitten 
by mad wolves; of these seven have died, giving a mortality of 
fourteen per cent. Brouardel has shown that non-vaccinated indi- 
viduals similarly bitten present a mortality of 66.5 per cent. 
If the efficacy of the rabic vaccine be compared with that of 
the charbon vaccine and the Jennerian lymph, it is found that the 
three agents have practically the same value. Before the introduc- 
tion of the Jennerian vaccination, out of one thousand small-pox 
patients, five hundred died, while after its introduction but twenty- 
three out of one thousand vaccinated persons succumbed. The 
value of Jennerian vaccine is, therefore, 500:23 equals 217:1. 
Similarly for charbon. Before the use of Pasteur’s vaccine the 
mortality was 120 per 1,000, while at present out of 1,000 vaccin- 
ated animals but five die. The value of charbon vaccine, is, there- 
fore, 120: 5 equals 24:1. In rabies, before the method of vaccina- 
tion, the mortality was 160 per 1,000, while after vaccination the 
deaths were seven per 1,000. The value of antirabic vaccine is, 
therefore, 160: 7 equals 22.85: 1. That is, those various vaccina- 
tions saved about twenty-two out of twenty-three patients, who 
would otherwise hopelessly die of the specified diseases. Of course 
it will be remembered that prophylactic vaccination against small- 
pox prevents a far greater percentage of cases of disease. 
The antirabic vaccination by Pasteur has been very differently 
commented upon. He has been denounced as an enthusiastic 
fanatic and extolled as the most eminent and beneficient genius of 
the country. When, however, we carefully examine the records of 
facts and assure ourselves of the painstaking fidelity with which 
they are compiled, when we ascertain to our satisfaction the sincere 
and honest character of the renowned investigator, we cannot help ° 
but ascribe to him the profound gratitude of our hearts. When 
we remember the frightful character of hydrophobia as a disease, 
the hopelessness of treatment, the utter paralysis of medical skill 
in the presence of the unknown agent of the affliction, and of the 
agonies of the sufferer, we cannot avoid, we would not avoid join- 
