Further, it is to be noted that Alexis St. Martin's case proves that a gastric fistula is not painful. Scores of experiments were made on him, off and on, for nine years:—
"During the whole of these periods, from the spring of 1824 to the present time (1833), he has enjoyed general good health, and perhaps suffered much less predisposition to disease than is common to men of his age and circumstances in life. He has been active, athletic, and vigorous; exercising, eating, and drinking like other healthy and active people. For the last four months he has been unusually plethoric and robust, though constantly subjected to a continuous series of experiments on the interior of the stomach; allowing to be introduced or taken out at the aperture different kinds of food, drinks, elastic catheters, thermometer tubes, gastric juice, chyme, etc., almost daily, and sometimes hourly.
"Such have been this man's condition and circumstances for several years past; and he now enjoys the most perfect health and constitutional soundness, with every function of the system in full force and vigour." (Dr. Beaumont, loc. cit. p. 20.)
In 1834 Eberlé published a series of observations on the extraction of gastric juice from the mucous membrane of the stomach after death; in 1842 Blondlot of Nancy studied the gastric juice of animals by the method of a fistula, such as Alexis St. Martin had offered for Dr. Beaumont's observation. After Blondlot, came experiments on the movements of the stomach, and on the manifold influences of the nervous system on digestion.
It has been said, times past number, that an animal with a fistula is in pain. It is not true. The case of St. Martin is but one out of a multitude of these cases: an artificial orifice of this kind is not painful.
IV
GLYCOGEN
Claude Bernard's discovery of glycogen in the liver had a profound influence both on physiology and on pathology. Take first its influence on pathology. Diabetes was known to Celsus, Aretæus, and Galen; Willis, in 1674, and Morton, in 1675, noted the distinctive sweetness of the urine; and their successors proved the presence of sugar in it. Rollo, in 1787, observed that vegetable food was bad for diabetic patients, and introduced the strict use of a meat diet. But Galen had believed that diabetes was a disease of the kidneys, and most men still followed him: nor did Rollo greatly advance pathology by following not Galen, but Aretæus. Later, with the development of organic chemistry, came the work of Chevreuil (1815), Tiedemann and Gmelin (1823), and other illustrious chemists: and the pathology of diabetes grew more and more difficult:—
"These observations gave rise to two theories: the one, that sugar is formed with abnormal rapidity in the intestine, absorbed into the blood, and excreted in the urine; the other, that diabetes is due to imperfect destruction of the sugar, either in the intestine or in the blood. Some held that it underwent conversion into lactic acid as it was passing through the intestinal walls, while others believed it to be destroyed in the blood by means of the alkali therein contained."[3]
Thus, before Claude Bernard (1813-1878), the pathology of diabetes was almost worthless. And, in physiology, his work was hardly less important than the work of Harvey. A full account of it, in all its bearings, is given in Sir Michael Foster's Life of Claude Bernard (Fisher Unwin, 1899).
In Bernard's Leçons sur le Diabète et la Glycogenèse Animale (Paris, 1877), there is a sentence that has been misquoted many times:—