42 Dr. Becky An Addendum to a previous paper entitled [May, 



'' There had been no contact with any person labouring under any 

 kind of infectious disease. There were 7w cases of infectious disease 

 of any kind existent at the time in the village or neighbourhood." 

 •s(. * -H- -H- * -if 1^ ^ill \jQ readily admitted that the above case 

 offers ample food for reflection, and suggests st-rongly that by some 

 subtle influence existing at the time in the body there was a struggle 

 for development m different directions of the infecting factor. Either 

 this must be inferred, or the coDclusion arrived at of infection simul- 

 taneously and separately by the specific germs associated with the 

 diseases named — none of which diseases in the most clear manner 

 possible Dr. Millican asserts were anywhere to be found at the time. 

 But other anomalies are also recorded, which strengthen Die in my 

 convictions. For instance, in the British Medical .Journal for February 

 1, 1879, Dr. Holland records a case where a pupil at a school con- 

 tracted ''decided scarlatina" from two new pupils, who "though 

 doing ordinary school duties had a nasal discharge and excoriation of 

 the lips, attributed to cold." 



During the second week the pupils fell il] in rapid succession to 

 the number of 24 or 25, and the school was broken up. The invalid 

 presented — and this is the remarkable point — every conceivable 

 variety of diphtheria and scarlatina. In other words, from an anomalous 

 indeterminate infecting source common to both, seemed to arise two 

 diseases hitherto regarded as specifically distinct from each other. 

 The explanation suggests itself that an indeterminate germ originally 

 finding dissimilar conditions in the various pupils developed in some 

 in the direction of diphtheria, in others of scarlet fever ; and curiously 

 coincidcDt with this explanation of these cases are some remarks made 

 b}' Professor Hueter, '■'f Grufswold, at the International Medical 

 Congress at London, 1881. He spoke as follows : — 



"Practically, the question of the specific functional activity of 

 micro-organisms and their relative unity may be stated something in 

 this wa}^ : — * Is it necessary that a person who falls ill with scarlatina, 

 measles, or small-pox must have received the infection from another 

 individual affected by scarlatina, measles, or small-pox ? I for my 

 part answer the question with No ! while the defender of the theory 

 of absolute specificity must answer it in the affirmative. I consider it 

 possible that at any spot the putrefactive processes may take on such 

 a course that micro-organisms arise from them which produce scar- 

 latina. The disease might then origaiate at tliis spot without there 

 having been an}' absolute continuity of infection from another case 

 of scarlatina. "' {Vide Transactions Int. Med. Cong., vol. 1, p. 329). 

 Coming from an aulhority and observer like Hueter, tliese words are 

 entitled to respect, and if the cases I have quoted above are worth 

 anything they exemplify in a marked manner the truth of his 

 assertions. 



AVriting in 1872 Professor Stokes remarks {Vide British Medical 

 Journal, April 13th, 1872 — A Discourse on State Medicine) : — 



" No one who has not had a lifelong experience of epidemics can 

 estimate the difficulties which exist as to their origin. * ^' *« * * 

 The appearance of epidemics at irregular periods, while their sup- 

 posed exciting causes remain constant ; their disappearance though 

 tlie causes continue in full operation ; their outbreaks in all latitudes, 

 climes, and seasons ; their different modes of siireading ; the want of 



constancy in their symptoms and history (for every great epidemic 



