So commonplace is malaria that it causes little of the dread inspired by most of the epidemic diseases, and yet, as Ross says, it is perhaps the most important of human diseases. Figures regarding its ravages are astounding. Celli estimated that in Italy it caused an average annual mortality of fifteen thousand, representing about two million cases. In India alone, according to Ross (1910) "it has been officially estimated to cause a mean annual death-rate of five per thousand; that is, to kill every year, on the average, one million one hundred and thirty thousand." In the United States it is widespread and though being restricted as the country develops, it still causes enormous losses. During the year 1911, "in Alabama alone there were seventy thousand cases and seven hundred and seventy deaths." The weakening effects of the disease, the invasion of other diseases due to the attacks of malaria, are among the very serious results, but they cannot be estimated.
Not only is there direct effect on man, but the disease has been one of the greatest factors in retarding the development of certain regions. Everywhere pioneers have had to face it, and the most fertile regions have, in many instances been those most fully dominated by it. Herrick (1903) has presented an interesting study of its effects on the development of the southern United States and has shown that some parts, which are among the most fertile in the world, are rendered practically uninhabitable by the ravages of malaria. Howard (1909) estimates that the annual money loss from the disease in the United States is not less than $100,000,000.
It was formerly supposed that the disease was due to a miasm, to a noxious effluvia, or infectious matter rising in the air from swamps. In other words its cause was, as the name indicated "mal aria," and the deep seated fear of night air is based largely on the belief that this miasm was given off at night. Its production was thought to be favored by stirring of the soil, dredging operations and the like.
The idea of some intimate connection between malaria and mosquitoes is not a new one. According to Manson, Lancisi noted that in some parts of Italy the peasants for centuries have believed that malaria is produced by the bite of mosquitoes. Celli states that one not rarely hears from such peasants the statement that "In such a place, there is much fever, because it is full of mosquitoes." Koch points out that in German East Africa the natives call malaria and the mosquito by the same name, Mbù. The opinion was not lacking support from medical men. Celli quotes passages from the writings of the Italian physician, Lancisi, which indicate that he favored the view in 1717.
Dr. Josiah Nott is almost universally credited with having supported the theory, in 1848, but as we have already pointed out his work has been misinterpreted. The statements of Beauperthuy, (1853) were more explicit.
The clearest early presentation of the circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory of mosquito transmission was that of A. F. A. King, an American physician, in 1883. He presented a series of epidemiological data and showed "how they may be explicable by the supposition that the mosquito is the real source of the disease, rather than the inhalation or cutaneous absorption of a marsh vapor." We may well give the space to summarizing his argument here for it has been so remarkably substantiated by subsequent work:
1. Malaria, like mosquitoes, affects by preference low and moist localities, such as swamps, fens, jungles, marshes, etc.
2. Malaria is hardly ever developed at a lower temperature than 60° Fahr., and such a temperature is necessary for the development of the mosquito.
3. Mosquitoes, like malaria, may both accumulate in and be obstructed by forests lying in the course of winds blowing from malarious localities.
4. By atmospheric currents malaria and mosquitoes are alike capable of being transported for considerable distances.