24 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XVI. No. 388 



came after that period had elapsed must be expunged from the 

 list of cures. Or, if Lord Doneraile's death was due to the appli- 

 cation of the weak or first method, then the cases of the others 

 treated by the same formula fall to the ground. 



A yet further objection from the scientific standpoint is to be 

 found in the fact that we know absolutely nothing of the action 

 of these injections. M. Pasteur has not been able to tell us either 

 the rate of absorption of each injection, or any thing of the physi- 

 olopiical processes which take place. 



In order to substantiate these objections, I shall throughout 

 quote M. Pa-^teur's own words, and give his own statistics, and 

 the names of his cases. The first point to which I must call at- 

 tention is the remarkable classification which he has adopted with 

 regard to the proofs that the patients he has treated were bitten 

 by dogs that were really suffering from rabies. The following is 

 the form adopted: Class A. Cases in which the dog was proved 

 to be rabid by the experioiental test ; Class B. Cases in which the 

 dog was recognized as rabid by the veterinary surgeon ; Class C. 

 Cases in which the dog was onlj suspected of being rabid. 



This classification presupposes that all the patients have been 

 exposed to danger. It makes no allowance for non rabid dogs, 

 with the strange result, that, according to these statistics, a veri- 

 table epidemic of rabies affecting thousands of dogs must have 

 existed in France during the years which have elapsed since M. 

 Pasteur introduced liis system. 



It may be objected that in this matter the most eminent medi- 

 cal men in England support M. Pasteur. In reply to this, I will 

 take one of the most eminent of these names, and show that his 

 assertions with regard to the Pasteurian system are not supported 

 by statistical, physiological, or pathological evidence. At a meet- 

 ing at the Mansion House on Monday, July 1, l!i89, Sir James 

 Paget stated, that, "taking the average of all persons bitten by 

 rabid dogs, 15 per cent would suffer from the disease, and 15 per 

 cent would die. ... In the seven thousand bitten, if fifteen of 

 each hundred had died, there would have been as nearly as possi- 

 ble a thousand deaths, but only a hundred died. Pasteur has 

 therefore saved already nine hundred lives." In the report of the 

 English Hydrophobia Commission, Sir James Paget agrees with 

 his co-workers in stating ' that at least 5 per cent of the persons 

 bitten would suffer from the disease." We have therefore two 

 estimates of 5 and 15 per cent as the mortality in the case of those 

 bitten by rabid dogs. With each percentage we obtain a supposed 

 increased saving of life. 



In order to realize the value of these assertions as applied to the 

 Pasteurian statistics, let us inquire carefully what was the mor- 

 tality in France during the years before M. Pasteur took up his 

 work; for it will be manifest that if this system saved nine hun- 

 dred lives in five years, then there ought to have been an equal or 

 proportionate mortality in France before the introduction of the 

 Pasteurian system. The facts, however, are far otherwise. The 

 illustrious Tardieu, in a report presented to the minister of hygi- 

 ene in 1863, maintained that twenty-five cases of rabies per year 

 approximately represented the mean mortality in France from 

 that disease. 



The following figures represent the mortality in France in each 

 year from 1850 to 1873: 1850, 27; 1851, 13; 1852, 46, 1853, 37; 

 1854, 21; 1855. 21: 1856, 30; 1857, 13; 1858, 17; 1859, 19; 1860, 

 14; 1861, 21: 1862, 36; 1863, 49; 1864, 66; 1865, 48; 1866, 64; 

 1867. 57; 1868, .56; 1869,36; 1870,36; 1871, 14; 1872, 15. But 

 these statistics may be objected to on the ground of their anti- 

 quity. I therefore give more recent statistics, furnished by one 

 who is not unfavorable to the Pasteur system. 



Dr. Dujardin Beaumetz, director of the Sanitary Service of 

 Paris, has addressed to the prefect of police a report on hydro- 

 phobia in Paris, furnishing the following data of comparison: — 



Four Years antecedent to Pasteur. Four Years of Treatment. 



These figures represent the deaths in the Department of the Seine. 



With such figures before us, what becomes of the statement of 

 our distinguished surgeon, that M. Pasteur has by his system saved 

 nine hundred lives, when the national statistics of France prove 

 conclusively that in no five years, for a quarter of a century, pre- 

 ceding M. Pasteur's discovery, did any such number of people die 

 from this disease. The statistics of other countries also negative 

 the statement. 



The remarkable effect produced upon the statistics of hydro- 

 phobia by M. Pasteur's discovery is yet more strikingly shown 

 when we investigate the returns from the Paris hospitals. On 

 Nov. 3, 1887, M. Pasteur wrote to the Academy of Medicine as 

 follows: "We know that sixty persons have died in the Paris 

 hospitals during the last five years, a mean of twelve per year." 

 After careful investigation of the hospital returns for those years, 

 I am compelled to contradict this statement, and I am prepared 

 to submit to M. Pasteur a full list of the names of all the patients 

 who died in the Paris ho'ipitals during that time, showing the fol- 

 lowing results: in 1881, 11 died; in 1882, 3; in 1883, 4; in 1884, 8; 

 in 1885. 5. This gives a total of 36, or an average of 5.2 per 

 annum, in place of the annual average of 13, as estimated by M. 

 Pasteur. I am able to give the full details of the uumber of 

 French patients treated by M. Pasteur who have died since the 

 introduction of the Pasteurian system. For the complete list of 

 the names of the patients, with the date of the bite, date of treat- 

 ment, and date of death, I am indebted to the energy and ability 

 of Dr. Lutaud. Space will not permit me to give this list in full, 

 but the following is a recapitulation: in 1886, 19 deaths; in 1887, 

 27 deaths; in 1888, 23 deaths; in 1889, 21 deaths; giving a total of 

 80, or a yearly average of 20. These cases only represent the 

 deaths after inoculation by M. Pasteur. To obtain the annual 

 mortality of rabies in France, we must add to the foregoing the 

 deaths of those persons who have not been treated at the institute. 

 According to statistics published by M. Pasteur himself in 1886, 

 the deaths among the non- inoculated for that year amounted to 

 17. If these be added to the 19 who died after treatment, we 

 have an annual mortality of 36, as against an annual mortality, 

 according to Tardieu's returns, prior to the introduction of inocu- 

 lation, of 35 to 30. With these statistics before us, we are forced 

 to the conclusion that the words quoted from the address of our 

 eminent surgeon at the Mansion House were prompted more by 

 generous impulse, and by feelings of respect and friendship for 

 Pasteur, than by any strict regard to statistical data. As we have 

 seen, Sir James Paget fixes the general mortality of those bitten at 

 15 percent. M. Pasteur, in his article in the New Review (Decem- 

 ber. 1889) accepts this estimate, but thinks it is too low for bites 

 on the face and other exposed parts. In such cases he thinks that 

 the figures should be from 60 to 90 per cent. If we add up the 

 number who have been bitten on exposed parts, and accept these 

 percentages, then M. Pasteur's saving of life has been much 

 greater, and his cures for France alone amount to some hundreds 

 per annum. When we remember the ascertained mortality in 

 France, and the rarity of hydrophobia there in past years, such 

 percentages as the foregoing reduce the system to an absurdity. 



The good old Dr. Berkenhout, writing about rabies in 1783, 

 told us that he knew not of any human attempt which had a bet- 

 ter resemblance to the Knights of La Mancha's attack on a wind- 

 mill than that of combating popular errors and reasoning against 

 popularly received opinions. I have been at times disposed to 

 accept this view, and have felt inclined to let popular fashion ex- 

 pend itself. When I first criticised the method of Pasteur, what 

 I said was received with incredulity and positive disfavor; but as 

 time went on, and many of my predictions were verified, the in- 

 credulity gave place to greater tolerance in regard to opinions 

 expressed against the system. There was a complete change of 

 front. The infallibility of the method was abandoned, and its 

 apologists adopted another tone. "Pasteur's system was not per- 

 fect,"' they said. "No system of therapeutics was perfect. Pas- 

 teur would be an angel, and not a man, if he could, at one coup, 

 bring rabies into subjection." "Give him time," said another. 

 Yet another apologist appealed to the law of averages, and said. 

 "Pasteur has reduced the mortality from 5 per cent to 1 per 

 cent." 



To M. Peter the world owes the first exposure of the dangers of 



