THE AMERICAN 



MONTHLY 



MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL 



YoL. IT. 



New York, May, 1881. 



No. 5. 



Charlbon and the Oerm-Theory 

 of Disease. 



BY D. E. SALMON, D. V. M. 

 II. 



At times it has seemed that many 

 scientists were playing fast and loose 

 with the germ-theory, in a style not 

 very consistent with the elementary 

 principles of scientific reasoning. On 

 the one liand, the mere presence of 

 bacteria in the blood or other liquids 

 of man or animal, affected with a 

 contagious disease, has been accept- 

 ed as a proof that the disease in 

 question was caused by bacteria ; but 

 as such organisms were found in 

 various non-specific affections, and, 

 indeed, were shown to be universally 

 present, and the difficulty of separa- 

 ting the pathogenic from the septic 

 forms and of proving the effect of the 

 former is so great, that there has been 

 a reaction which leads many at present 

 to utterly reject the germ-theory. 

 However, such varied opinions should 

 hardly excite surprise in regard to a 

 subject of which so little is known, 

 for there are always some who reach 

 the most positive conclusions from 

 the very slightest evidence. ' 



Now, I am convinced that these 

 extreme views must be modified be- 

 fore we arrive at the truth ; of them- 

 selves, however, they are not evidence 

 either for or against the germ-theory. 

 In science a fact must be demon- 

 strated before it can be accepted, and 

 when once properly established, it 

 must remain a fact, no matter what 

 results are attained by other lines of 

 investigation. In other words, facts 

 do not contradict each other, and 



when they appear to do so, it is 

 only because our knowledge of the 

 subject is superficial. This principle 

 seems to have been neglected, how- 

 ever, by many of those who are dis- 

 cussing the etiology of charbon ; and, 

 now, after a demonstration has been 

 made of the pathogenic action of the 

 Bacillus anthracis, we are continually 

 being told that this demonstration 

 must go for nothing because results 

 attained through other lines of re- 

 search appear to some to be incon- 

 sistent with this fact. 



If these points are unduly insisted 

 upon, it is because it seems necessary 

 to be positive in regard to these 

 fundamental principles ; but it is 

 not my intention to disregard other 

 observations or the conclusi9ns 

 which may be reasonably drawn from 

 them. Facts must agree, no matter 

 by whom discovered, and I shall not 

 set the example of suppressing any 

 of them. We will, therefore, consider 

 the observations which are believed 

 by some to conflict with the germ 

 theory as applied to this disease. 



I. The bacillus anthracis is 



NOT ALWAYS FOUND IN THE BLOOD 

 OF ANIMALS WHICH HAVE DIED OF 



ANTHRAX. — Although it is manifest 

 that septicaemia has been frequent- 

 ly confounded with charbon,* I am 

 willing to accept it as a fact that 

 there are some unmistakable cases of 

 charbon in which the Bacillus anthra- 

 cis cannot be found in the blood by 

 direct microscopical observation; and 



* L. Pasteur, Communication to Paris 

 Academy of Medicine, July 17, 1877 ; also, 

 Recueil de M^decine V^tifinaire, 1877, pp. 

 763-4- J 



