For rabies, Mr. Berdoe praises the "Buisson Bath Treatment for the Prevention and Cure of Hydrophobia." The virtues of this treatment are proclaimed by the Chairman of the Canine Defence League, F. E. Pirkis, Esq., R.N., of Nutfield, Surrey, and it is founded, we are told, on the simple common-sense principle that if poison is injected into a person's veins the best thing to do is to get it out as quickly as possible. This sentence, and the reference to Mr. Pirkis for further particulars, and the fact that there is, or was, a Buisson Bath at the "National Anti-vivisection Hospital," bring us to the question, What is the value of the evidence in favour of this treatment?
Mr. Berdoe, in his Catechism of Vivisection (1903), gives this evidence at considerable length. The treatment, he says, is simplicity itself. It is merely the use of the vapour bath, which causes a free action of the skin to be set up, this draws the blood to the surface of the body, and so relieves the congestion of the internal organs. Let us consider this sentence. (1.) Suppose that X—— were bitten by a mad dog, say on March 1st, and on March 8th he took a course of Buisson Baths, for safety's sake. There would be no congestion, at that period, of his internal organs; what would be the good of drawing the blood to the surface of his body? Mr. Pirkis says that there would be poison in his veins; it would be a very subtle poison. How can Mr. Pirkis tell that it is all in his veins and none of it elsewhere? Again, X—— would be feeling perfectly well. How would a vapour-bath get this poison out of his veins? It could not do it by relieving the congestion of his internal organs, for they would not be congested. How would it do it? And how would Mr. Pirkis know when it had done it? (2.) Suppose that X—— were bitten by a mad dog, and, in due time, were seized by hydrophobia. Has Mr. Pirkis ever seen a case of that disease—ever seen a case of hydrophobia? Are they going to tie X—— down, or steam him under chloroform, or what? And how many baths would he want? But there are cases; there is evidence; a "mass of cures in Asia." Let us look at them; and let us divide them into cases of prevention and cases of cure. Let us take, first, the cases of cure.
There are five of these. Five, and no more. One is Dr. Buisson; cured by one bath, while he was trying to commit suicide; nothing said about the dog. One is a case at Kischineff, near Odessa, 18 years ago; no evidence is given that the dog was rabid. One is a case at Arlington, New Jersey, 18 years ago; no evidence is given that the dog was rabid. One is the case of Pauline Kiehl; no date; no reference to say where the case is published; no account of her symptoms. And one is a case at the Jaffna Hospital, Ceylon; no date; and nothing said about the dog. Of these five cases, three were a boy, a lad, and a little girl; but their ages are not given. Five cases in 20 years; they hail from all parts of the world, France, Russia, the United States, Ceylon, and France again; three of them happened 18 years ago, or more. And, we may be certain, not one of them is genuine. Spurious hydrophobia, the simulation of the disease out of sheer terror of it, as in Dr. Buisson's case, is well known.
Now we come to the cases of prevention. Over 80 of them, we are told; but seven are especially noted. Four in 1895, under the care of Dr. Ganguli of Dinajpur; two in 1896, under the care of Dr. Dass of Narainganj; and one in 1896, Mr. Kotwal of Bassein. Of this "mass of cures in Asia," we all know what would have been said if Pasteur had been in charge of them; that the dogs were not rabid, that the bites were not infected, that the wonder is that the poor deluded victims were not added to Pasteur's hecatomb.
Next, what does Mr. Berdoe say of the division of all patients at the Pasteur Institute into classes A, B, and C? Does he admit that a dog is proved to have been rabid, if a minute portion of its nervous tissue, taken from it after death, and put into a rabbit, causes the rabbit to have paralytic rabies? No; there are still two things left for him to say:—
1. He says, on the authority of the Veterinary Record of ten years ago, that the death of a rabbit with cerebral symptoms is not a positive indication of death from rabies.
2. He says that Vulpian discovered that healthy human saliva was poisonous to rabbits, and that it contained a micro-organism which Pasteur had also found in the saliva of a rabid patient. What does this statement prove or disprove? It is twenty-five years old; but Mr. Somerville Wood, not long ago, used it at a debating society with great fervour.
Also Mr. Berdoe quotes the late M. Peter, Dr. Lutaud's forerunner; quotes an obiter dictum of Professor Billroth, but without any date; tells us that Pasteur himself, in a letter, referring to one particular case, declared cauterisation to be a sufficient preventive, but does not tell us the date of the letter, or the facts of the case; and quotes a death-rate, but stops at 1890. Of course, any method of treatment, if you ransack its records over a sufficient number of years, will show, now and again, failures or disasters. Take, for instance, those methods of light-treatment, which Mr. Berdoe praises so highly. They have had many failures, and one or two disasters. If they had been discovered by the help of experiments on animals, we might have had a pamphlet from the National Society, The Roentgen "Cure": its list of Victims.
Certificate A and Certificate B
Frequent use has been made of some words spoken by the Home Secretary in Parliament, on July 24th, 1899. He was asked whether he would state what rules were laid down with regard to the granting or signing of certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics in experiments on animals; and whether there was any limit to the number of such certificates which one person might sign, or to the number of experiments upon different animals which might be performed by the person holding one such certificate. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of these questions. Certificate A, which is granted only for inoculation experiments or similar proceedings, and never for any serious cutting operation, dispenses wholly with anæsthetics. Certificate B, which is granted for any kind of operation plus observation of the animal after operation, dispenses partly with anæsthetics; that is to say, the operation is done under an anæsthetic, and the subsequent observation of the animal, which is counted as part of the experiment, is made without an anæsthetic. The questions come to this: When the Home Office grants Certificate A, or Certificate B, what precautions does it take against any abuse of these certificates, and what restrictions does it impose on them?