THE IDENTITY OF ANTITOXIN. 653 



onistic to snake-venom, but powerless against ricin and abrin; 

 rabies serum is potent against snake-venom, but impotent 

 against the diphtheria and tetanus toxins, and against ricin and 

 abrin; streptococcus serum is potent against snake-venom, 

 powerless against the others; cholera serum is moderately 

 effective against snake-venom, but without effect against the 

 others; diphtheria antitoxin is powerless against snake-venom, 

 tetanus toxin, ricin, and abrin; the antitoxic sera of swine, 

 erysipelas and typhoid are powerless against all these poisons." 

 Of course, these experiments are only referred to in this 

 connection to show that it is only in the light of prevailing 

 views that there is good ground for the assertion that specificity 

 is not subject to close limitations: a statement which, given its 

 true meaning, amounts to saying that the question of specificity 

 cannot be elucidated with the aid of prevailing doctrines. In- 

 deed, there is no connection between the action of one toxin 

 upon another, on the one hand, and the action of the organism 

 upon a given toxin introduced into the circulation, on the 

 other, even irrespective of any of the views we have submitted. 

 If, in addition, the fact that the experiments were performed 

 in vitro, i.e., apart from chemical influence which the constit- 

 uents of living blood and cells may exert upon the toxins, is 

 taken into consideration, it becomes clear that the evidence 

 they afford is misleading. Indeed, the clinical side of the ques- 

 tion affirms the contrary; as we interpret its teachings, they 

 clearly indicate that each germ, i.e., each toxin, as is the case 

 with any poison, possesses its own characteristic properties as 

 a molecular structure. True, there is considerable resemblance 

 between the effects of various toxics, and groups of these agen- 

 cies, such as those represented by "sedatives," "cerebral stimu- 

 lants," "narcotics," etc., in pharmacodynamics, may be formed. 

 But this only further emphasizes the truth of clinical teach- 

 ings, since the need of dividing the many remedies represented 

 into groups affirms the dissimilarity of effects shown by these 

 groups. That each group is itself composed of specific agen- 

 cies, each of which is endowed with its own mode of action, is 

 as well known; ether and chloroform, for instance, are both 

 anaesthetics, but they differ materially in their effects upon the 

 organism if absolute specificity is accepted as standard. These 



