6 H. Gradle, Bacteria and the Germ Theory of Disease, Chicago, 1883, p. 186.
O. Heubner, while studying both the local affection and the general infection of diphtheria, availed himself of the methods of Cohnheim and Litten, who produced diphtheritic deposits by cutting off the circulation of the blood. He ligated the neck of the bladder in rabbits for two hours. On the first day he noticed a hemorrhagic oedema of the mucous membrane, with loosened and tumefied epithelium; on the second a firm and coagulated exudation took the place of the normal tissue; on the third there were genuine diphtheritic spots in the mucous membrane. The newly-formed pseudo-membrane exhibited all the morphological elements of human diphtheria (genuine or scarlatinous) and epidemic dysentery.7 Thus Heubner's results agree with the definition of diphtheria as the compound of severe inflammation and necrosis. The inoculation of his diphtheritic artefacts he found sterile. Animals, however, which were inoculated with diphtheritic masses taken from the diseased human patient fell sick with tumor of the spleen, hemorrhages, and general sepsis, besides a local diphtheritic affection. Scarlatinal diphtheria used for the same purpose had the same effect. Bacilli were developed, but they were not found in the blood-vessels (differing in that respect from the bacilli of anthrax), in spite of continued examination. Thus, Heubner refuses to accept the bacilli as the diphtheritic poison; they are, in his opinion, the result of the morbid process, and not its cause. Thus, though he believes the diphtheria poison to be organic, he concludes that its nature is not yet explained; contrary to the assertions of many prolific prophets of the bacteria literature, who now and then claim for this year's microscopic revelations the same infallibility which was claimed for last year's opposite views.8
7 Die Experimentelle Diphtherie, Leipzig, 1883.
8 L. Letzerich recognized in former years the specific parasites of diphtheria, whooping cough, and typhoid fever as if they were labelled. Then, again (Arch. f. Experim. Pathol. u. Pharmacol.), he admitted the great difficulty in discriminating the specific schizomycetæ of diphtheria, croupous pneumonia, epidemic influenza, and typhoid fever.
E. Rindfleisch9 expresses himself as follows: "The microphytes of diphtheria, septicæmia, and pyæmia have not been isolated and cultivated as yet. But experimenters are convinced that there are a great many species of microphytes underlying genuine putrefaction. In producing septicæmic conditions in animals their efficacy differs. Not every animal is influenced by the same microphyte. Thus it becomes probable that the human organism is endangered by a certain number of the putrefaction microphytes. Some one may have a particular predilection for granulating wounds and mucous membranes, and thereby produce a diphtheritic inflammation. Another may enter the blood from a recent wound and give rise to a septicæmic fever with rapidly fatal termination. The third may invade the body by means of a phlegmonous inflammation, purulent infiltration, thrombosis, embolism, and metastatic abscesses, accompanied with a pyæmic fever of a remittent type."
9 Die Elemente der Pathologie, Leipzig, 1883, p. 301.
After all, it does not appear to me that the bacteria question has come any nearer its solution in the last few years, in spite of the most eager researches and the fact that some of the best medical names in the world of medicine take the parasitic nature of diphtheria for granted. For instance, in the second Congress for Internal Medicine (Wiesbaden, 1883) C. Gerhardt rises in its favor. He makes the statement, or rather admits, that several parasites have been found by different men, that every one considers his the genuine one, that several writers assume that there are several diphtheria parasites, and suggests that, in his opinion, the disease may be produced by different varieties of bacteria. At the same time, he contends that the essence of the disease consists in the erosion (and change) of the epithelium and the emigration of leucocytes. If that be the case, I understand less than ever why diphtheria is, or is to be called, a parasitic disease.
Panum's words seem still to be the soundest expression of all our knowledge on the subject when he says: "It is a matter of rejoicing that physicians have come to the conclusion that certain microscopic organisms, be they considered vegetable or animal, and designated as bacteria, fungi, monads, micrococci, or vibriones, do not exist merely in the minds of theorists as causes of disease, but are in reality enemies that must be combated with all the known efficient weapons in our possession. But, while thus rejoicing, it must be borne in mind that we have but a feeble insight into the relation between these organisms and diseases, and in order to effect that much-desired advance in scientific knowledge—a matter of considerable importance in the practice of medicine—it is necessary not only to grasp at isolated data, but carefully and deliberately to observe and study all the facts before us, and even to devote some attention to those which would tend to prove that there are bacteria and fungi which, under certain circumstances, are perfectly harmless, and that even some of the malignant ones among them do not commit all those outrages with which they are charged, directly and personally."
SYMPTOMS.—In the majority of cases the disease has a prodromal stage, which usually lasts a day or two, and may run a similar course to that of a catarrhal pharyngitis. The patient feels somewhat indisposed, has slight fever, is dejected, complains of painful deglutition, more marked when swallowing fluids than solids or semi-solids, has headache and occasionally vomiting. The occurrence of the latter, however, is very much less frequent than in the outbreak of scarlatina. In very severe cases convulsions have been observed, chills very rarely; elevations of temperature of from 102.5° to 104° F. are frequent; higher ones, from 105° to 107°, rare. At this time it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish a catarrhal angina from a diphtheritic by the subjective symptoms. Slight glandular swellings under the jaw may occur in either. The characteristic objective symptom of the latter disease is the presence of membrane on the reddened mucous membrane of the fauces, which, usually, is markedly injected over all or part of the surface. The arches of the palate and the tonsils, less frequently the posterior wall of the pharynx, are so affected. A distinctly localized redness cannot be but either traumatic or diphtheritic. Larger or smaller deposits are found thereon, lying loose on the surface or deeply imbedded according to the locality. At times the first examination reveals their presence in large numbers; at other times but a single one can be detected, which is soon followed by others, however. Within a certain period of time, as a rule twenty to twenty-four hours, the single deposits coalesce and form a membrane of greater or less extent. Mostly in the same proportion to its increase in size it increases in thickness. On the uvula, soft palate, and the posterior wall of the pharynx the membrane is located superficially, and at times can be easily removed; on the tonsils it has a firmer hold, and is usually amalgamated with their uppermost tissues. On the other hand, there are cases in which no actual membranous formation is observed; in such cases the tissues are more or less swollen, the surrounding portions more or less reddened, and the grayish-white discoloration is the result of an infiltration of the tissues themselves, and cannot be removed.
There are still other cases in which deposits of membrane and tissue infiltration are found at the same time, and where both history and evidence indicate that these two phenomena are the result of one and the same process. When the uvula takes part in the process the swelling is, as a rule, more marked than when the remaining parts of the fauces only are implicated. Its circumference is very considerable, and amounts sometimes to the treble or quadruple of the normal, in consequence of the oedematous condition of the entire tissue.