DAVAINE 239 



malady there are no bacteridia in the blood." The 

 argument was solid, well supported by facts and en- 

 tirely worthy of the one who produced it. 



"This is not all," continued Davaine, "the bacterid- 

 ium is not simply the inseparable companion of the 

 disease. It is the cause of it, and the only cause. The 

 proof is this: ^^s^long as the bacteridium is not present 

 in the blood, the latter is not infectious, and it becomes 

 sjTwhen the organism enters it. If from the sick animal, 

 some hours before its death, you take blood with which 

 you inoculate another animal you will not impart to 

 the latter the disease. If you inoculate it with blood 

 as soon as the microscope shows bacteridia in it, the 

 inoculated animal will die. If you wait to make the 

 inoculation until the bacteridia have disappeared under 

 the influence of putrefaction, you would then possibly 

 obtain the malady of Leplat and Jaillard but not anthrax. 



"You may say, it is true, that in this experiment, 

 the blood before, during, and after the appearance of 

 the bacteridium is not the same blood, or at least may 

 differ in other ways than that which the microscope 

 reveals in the presence or absence of bacteridia. But 

 here is another argument. Take a pregnant animal, 

 give it anthrax and when it is dead make inoculations 

 with the blood; it is infectious; at the same time make 

 inoculations with the blood of the foetus; it is not 

 infectious. This blood is, nevertheless, the direct 

 emanation from the blood of the mother from which it 

 receives through the placenta all the soluble elements. 

 The placenta, acting as a filter, keeps out only the bac- 

 teridia and because of their absence the blood of the 

 fcetus is incapable of transmitting anthrax. 



"Does not that seem to you proof? Here is another 

 experiment : Filter blood from an anthrax victim through 

 a porous earthen filter, as Klebs and Tiegel have done. 



