The Potassium Nitrite Outcry. [January, 
aid of a little judicious distortion and misunderstanding, 
may be construed as cruelty. An eminent medical contem- 
porary says — “ So long as lay readers indulge that morbid 
curiosity which leads them to peruse the pages of medical 
journals, it is certain that scares innumerable will be cre- 
ated..” With all due deference we would suggest that the 
motive for such perusal is stronger than mere morbid 
curiosity. The paid official, if seized with a fit of truthful- 
ness, might exclaim — “ Sirs, ye know that by this craft we 
have our wealth ! ” . The honorary official, if candid enough, 
might admit that his esoteric motive is kudos , self-advertise- 
ment, and, in an indirect manner, advantages of a more 
tangible nature. Small likelihood, therefore, that such 
persons will desist from their search for something about 
which an outcry may be raised and the public deluded. 
Such are the taCtics of all agitators, the “ Humanaster ” 
not excluded. The case then stands as follows : — In place 
of the Holy Office we have certain self-constituted societies ; 
in lieu of “ Domini Canes ” and the other mendicant orders 
we have a crowd of novelists of both sexes, who certainly 
have not taken the monastic vows. Lastly, certain ethicist 
writers undertake the task of a Caccini or a Scioppius. By 
the machinations of these men and women, peers, prelates, 
judges, and Royalty itself, have been deluded into a league 
against Science. 
These reflections are naturally suggested by certain recent 
doings and sayings. Drs. Ringer and Murrell, it appears, 
have tried the effects of sodium nitrite in the treatment of 
some diseases, and have communicated the results — un- 
satisfactory, if not alarming — to the world in the columns 
of the Lancet. What were their motives for adminis- 
tering this salt we — not being a medical practitioner — cannot 
profess to explain ; but in ordinary candour we feel bound 
to assume that their previous experiments upon cats must 
have given them reason to expeCt that in certain cases it 
might prove of value. 
T. heir conduCt in making and publishing these experiments 
has been severely criticised by the “ Medical Times ” as “ a 
deploiably false move, which the ever- watchful opponents of 
vivisection will not be slow to profit by.” 
It has been very justly contended that one of the results 
of the Vivisection ACt ” will be to render experimentation 
upon human beings more frequent ; but in this case no such 
plea can be admitted, since two cats had been previously 
experimented upon, and that with rapidly fatal effects. The 
Medical T.imes, indeed, holds that it is impossible to 
