The Cause of the Inflammatory Phenomena
Garrod’s discovery that uric acid was present in the blood in gout not unnaturally led to the assumption that herein lay the origin of its symptomatology, and what else than confirmatory could be the deposition of uratic deposits here and there in the body. The corollary seemed obvious that, given the presence of a certain proportion of uric acid in the blood, then gout must result. But, unfortunately, it was not so; for, lo! and behold, an excess of uric acid in the blood is in no sense pathognomonic of gout.
Thus, the blood in leukæmia contains a high percentage of uric acid, in some cases exceeding that found in gout, and enduring, moreover, for a longer period. Yet no symptoms distinctive of gout appear, nothing that can be referred to uric acid. But it was contended the reason why gout does not ensue is because simultaneously with increased formation there is increased elimination of uric acid. But, unfortunately, despite augmented excretion, the percentage of uric acid in the blood is still maintained at a high level, and still no gout occurs.
Moreover, it is met with also in nephritis, simple and pernicious anæmia, intestinal inflammation, certain fevers, notably in malaria between attacks, and in typhus after the febrile stage, pneumonia, plumbism, etc. Indeed, the ubiquitousness with which uric acid is found in the blood, and this in conditions wholly distinct from gout, would of itself seem sufficient to dissipate any lingering doubts as to its being anything more than a symptom of gout and not its proximate cause.
Obviously, with these revelations the uric acid theory was within measurable distance of being uprooted. Deposed from its high estate as a causal agent, and accredited with only a symptomatic value, the question arose whether indeed this bogey, “uric acid,” was even capable of fulfilling a minor rôle, of originating any symptoms, much less gout, in its entirety. In other words, is uric acid toxic or non-toxic?