The Bulletin 
9 
with the cause of the disease, gives it as his opinion that “the various 
accounts of this disorder nullify each other; and the mind is left in 
extreme doubt whether there is anything specific in milksickness.” In 
discussing the existence of milksickness, Anderson (1867) has asserted 
that it is “a mere matter of credulous fancy.” Other writers, as Chap¬ 
man (McCall, 1823), Thompson (1854), and Bowen (Bailey, 1888) 
only go so far as to declare their disbelief in its existence. 
A second reason for failure to determine the relative prevalence of 
this disease formerly is that health authorities have refused to record 
deaths reported under the name of milksickness. Again, genuine cases 
of milksickness have no doubt been diagnosed as gastritis, typhoid fever, 
ptomain poisoning, etc. This is to he expected since physicians have 
not had occasion to observe the malady while receiving their medical 
training, and so do not always identify it in practice. 
The Cause of Trembles and Milksickness. 
The etiology of this disorder has been the subject of considerable 
speculation and investigation, hut no one appears to have presented any 
convincing body of data in support of his conclusions. The solution 
of this question was regarded as of so much importance in the early 
part of the past century that rewards were offered by several State 
legislatures for the discovery of the cause. Even as late as 1904, Osier 
(1904) in addressing medical officers of the United States Army calls 
attention to this as one of the intricate unsolved problems. 
Numerous articles have been written on the causation of this disease. 
In a general way, these can be classified as supporting one of the three 
following theories: (a) mineral poison theory, (b) germ theory, and 
(c) poisonous plant theory. One finds advocates also of other more or 
less plausible hypotheses some of which are mentioned later in this 
report. It is believed that the writers’ evidence can best be presented 
after brief consideration has been given to some of the more important 
published accounts on this phase of the problem. 
a. Mineral Poison Theory. 
A number of observers, among whom are Shelton (1836) in Ala¬ 
bama, White (1836) in Indiana, and McAnelly (1836) in Kentucky, 
held that animals while grazing obtained some poisonous mineral which 
was present in the soil in affected regions. The last of these men be¬ 
lieved also that this poison was present in well water and accounted for 
the occurrence of the disease in autumn by the lowering of the water 
table resulting in the poison becoming “more concentrated.” 
2—Bulletin 
