GERMS. 69 



"How, too, should we otherwise explain the recovery 

 of some people from phthisis except by assuming that 

 the soil, which was at one time favorable to the growth 

 of the bacillus became later on unfavorable ?" Can any 

 one select more convenient words to prove that germs 

 are the result and not the cause of disease ? 



The author recently addressed a letter to a leading 

 germ theorist, for many years professor in one of our 

 leading university's medical department, asking the 

 question: "In diseased conditions is it not true that 

 germs are an advantage by reason of their power to 

 reduce and liquify dead tissue and thus aid .in relieving 

 the system?" In reply this eminent doctor said: 

 "Dea'd or diseased tissue can indeed be gotten rid of by 

 fermentative and other changes induced by germs, but 

 at an enormous expenditure of vital energy and tissue- 

 cells." Again he says: "While the results following 

 germ action do serve to get rid of dead or diseased 

 tissue, they do so in a dangerous and wasteful manner." 

 Again, "Dead tissue or dying tissue can be removed 

 only by either putrefactive changes or by a combina- 

 tion with suppurative processes, if germs be present, 

 yet no such combination obtains in the absence of 

 germs." 



Then he argues that, "Cancellous tissue and the 

 medullary canal are hollowed out of solid bone." 

 Also, "The means by which all tissue waste is removed 

 during the constant physiological breaking down and 

 building up of tissue." In this way the professor says : 



"Extensive masses of dead tissue, osseous as well as 



