“The progress, duration, and severity of the disease in man are in relation to the number of Trichinæ taken into the digestive canal. Of sixteen patients observed at Plauen by Drs Böhler and Königsdörffer, eight, who were moderately affected, recovered in a month; four, more severely diseased, were ill two months; of four others, one died with ascites and colliquative diarrhœa at the end of two months, and three recovered slowly at the end of three or four months. Recovery does not imply the death of the Trichinæ, it follows their enclosure in cysts.
“The diagnosis of trichinal infection has several times been made in the living human subject by removing a portion of muscle. M. Davaine thinks it probable that, during the first six or eight weeks of the disease, the diagnosis may be confirmed by searching for adult Trichinæ in the alvine evacuations, produced naturally or by means of a purgative.
“The prophylactic treatment consists simply in the avoidance of uncooked meat. The medicinal treatment must vary with the stage of the disease. At first, attempts must be made to expel the parasites from the intestines by purgatives and anthelmintics. Which amongst the latter is the most energetic is not yet determined. Calomel is, perhaps, M. Davaine thinks, the best. After six or eight weeks all treatment directed towards the intestines is superfluous. It is scarcely probable that any substance will act on the larvæ disseminated through the muscles. Friedreich has recommended picronitrate of potash; but, in the case in which he used it, live Trichinæ were found in the muscular tissue after the patient was considered to be cured.”
In regard to the possibility of curing trichiniasis by the administration of drugs which should act as trichinacides upon the parasites in the condition of flesh-worms, the absurdity of the proposal only equals that which was made in reference to the destruction of hydatids by the administration of kamala. As has been shown in the record of my first experiment the flesh of a trichinised corpse may be thoroughly saturated with a strong solution of chloride of zinc, and yet the worms will remain quite unaffected.
In reference to the dangers arising from the consumption of diseased meat, Professor Gamgee has very cogently put two questions:—“Did Moses know more about pigs than we do?” “Was it a knowledge of the parasitic diseases of swine and man that led Moses to condemn pork as human food?” Mr Gamgee answered both questions negatively, thus:—“The wisdom of the Mosaic law can only be justly estimated with a knowledge of the accidents arising in warm countries from eating pork throughout long and hot periods of the year; and there is no doubt that the direct evil results, as manifested by human sickness, led to the exclusion of pork from the list of Israelitish viands. The masses of measly pork which may be seen hanging from the butchers’ stalls in Southern Europe prove that the long-legged swine which hunt the forests for acorns, and rove about to pick up all kinds of offal, are often unfit for human food, and that they were so to no less extent in the land of Israel is probable.” As supplementing Professor Gamgee’s argument, I may remark that, if Moses had been furnished with special knowledge beyond that of his contemporaries, he would not, in the matter of meat-parasitism, have confined his restrictions to pork. Had he possessed any knowledge of measly beef, he would not have spared the ox on the ground that although “it divideth the hoof, yet it cheweth the cud.” As regards home-reared animals, Professor Gamgee cogently remarked: “It is interesting to observe that parasitic maladies in the pig specially abound in that section of the United Kingdom where swine live most amongst human beings. The Yorkshire and Berkshire pigs, in their native counties enclosed in the farmyards of their breeders, are free from worms which are likely to live in the body of man. The Irish pig is the one most commonly injured by entozoa, and the reason for this is evident when we know how much the cottager relies on rearing a porker which is permitted the free range of house and road, where every description of filth is devoured, charged with the ova of parasites expelled by man or some of the lower animals.” He also adds: “The conditions under which we live in the British isles are certainly much less favorable to the propagation of worms; but we disregard, in our ignorance, the most common precautions to protect ourselves from loathsome diseases, and not only permit dogs to eat any kind of offal in and around slaughterhouses, but sanction the existence of piggeries where all kinds of garbage, charged with worms or their eggs, are daily devoured by swine. The majority of germs calculated to engender parasites are to be found in abundance in the contents of the alimentary canal of human beings and domestic quadrupeds. If pigs are permitted to eat these, as in Ireland or in many British piggeries, we must expect hams, bacon, and pork sausages to be charged with the embryonic forms of human entozoa. Whereas in Iceland the dog is the victim of human negligence, and en revanche the cause of human disease, in the British isles the pig holds this unenviable position. We have good reason to believe, with Moses, that the pig is an unclean beast; but without discarding him from the scanty list of animals to be eaten, it is evident that we can purify the race of swine, and thus prevent human as well as porcine maladies.”
On the authority of Rupprecht, as quoted by Davaine, I append a list of the principal epidemics observed in Germany during the first six years immediately following the discovery of trichinosis:
1. Two slight epidemics in 1860 in the Island of Rügen; 10 to 20 patients (Dr Landois).
2. An epidemic at Stolberg, 1860 (Dr Fricinus). The number of trichinised persons was not stated with certainty.
3. Five epidemics during five summers, 1858 to 1862, at Magdebourg. The number of patients was 300, two only died (Dr Sendler).