indeed Pfeiffer contradicts it flatly. Sulphite would have to be given in enormous doses to be absorbed into the blood as a sulphite and remain unchanged in the presence of an oxidizing medium.

In the literature of the use of the drug for pyemic conditions and malarial hematuria are recorded enormous doses employed, as much as forty to sixty grains every two to three hours. No ill effects have been observed from such use. Can it be possible that the sulphurous acid formed from such doses is the deadly irritant to the gastric mucosa it is claimed to be? Is it not true that if such were the case we should find in the records of its former generous employment important observations on this feature? The extremely corosive action of H2SO3 would certainly have given evidence by causing fatal symptoms were it evolved in the human stomach in the great quantity that it has been theoretically claimed to be.

It would appear that theoretic reasoning based on test-tube experiments is responsible for these unsupported claims. The action of hydrochloric acid in considerable quantity on dry sodium sulphite in a test-tube, is a different proposition from the action of such sulphite, in small quantity, mixed with food in the human stomach. In the stomach we have oxidizing agents at work rapidly reducing the sulphite to sulphate and when such sulphites are present in but small quantity, a very minute, if any, conversion of SO2 can possibly occur by reaction with the hydrochloric acid.

In the several papers of Pfeiffer, Kionka and Harrington bearing on the action of the sulphites, we are able to criticize the methods employed and results deduced in a general way which will illustrate how fallacious are such findings to settle the question under dispute, i. e., the action of a drug (sodium sulphite in this instance) as a food preservative. Pfeiffer, for example, took a half gram on an empty stomach, fasting, and administered the same to a number of his friends. The

symptoms which followed were pressure and pain in the stomach, retching and general discomfort. Also, he states the taste of the salt was extremely offensive. There is no comparison in such an experiment to the use of sulphite in minute quantity mixed with food. The same criticism holds of his studies of lethal doses of the drug administered by subcutaneous

injection, or introduced directly into the circulation. These studies are interesting, but their deductions do not apply to the question with which we have to deal. In this connection an interesting fact develops bearing on the toxicity of the sulphites. Pfeiffer found that in warm-blooded animals the lethal dose by subcutaneous injection was from nine to twenty-five grains (0.58 to 162 grams) for every two pounds of body weight. An average fatal dose, subcutaneously injected, for a man weighing one hundred and fifty pounds would be 1,275 grains, if the comparison actually applied. If given internally, larger doses than those above mentioned are required to give the same symptoms. The blood is not affected. Dogs cannot be poisoned by the internal administration of sodium of sulphite, unless the esophagus be tied after the introduction of the drug into the stomach. Pfeiffer concludes from his experiments that "the sulphite exerts a distinctly poisonous action on both cold and warm-blooded animals, but they are so rapidly changed into sulphates that, unless very large doses be given, a sufficient amount of unchanged salts is not present to produce a poisonous effect." Pfeiffer used a salt containing 25.25 per cent. SO2. Kionka in his experiments used a salt of twice the strength in SO2 as Pfeiffer. He was able to kill a rabbit in four hours by introducing into the stomach a quantity equal to 359.2 grams of sulphite of 25.25 per cent. strength in SO2 for a weighing sixty kilos.

Kionka in two experiments with sulphite as a meat preservative in the strength of per 1,000 fed dogs with a given quantity of meat so treated for sixty-six to sixty-eight days respectively. During the experiment the animals gained weight and appeared well. They were killed and the postmortem studies showed a perfectly normal stomach and digestive tract, but there were some areas of hemorrhage in the lungs and areas of inflammation and degeneration in the liver and kidneys. In these experiments the proportion of preservative was not excessive but the quantity of meat eaten by the dogs may be gleaned from the fact that a dog weighing 12.75 kilos received in sixty-eight days 56.3 kilos of meat, containing in total 186.75 grams of sulphite. This would represent a daily feeding of nearly ten kilos of such meat for a person weighing sixty kilos. Can a comparison be drawn from such experiments, and is it

not marvelous that the alimentary tract was practically normal after such abuse of food?

Harrington's experiments dealt with six scavenger cats, with no knowledge on his part of the ravages of disease in their past venturous lives. They were fed for five months with raw chopped meat containing 0.2 per cent. of pure sodium sulphite. No record is made of the amount of meat consumed during the period, or consequently the total amount of sulphite consumed. The cats were doubtless at first eager to eat anything and may have gorged themselves. They gained weight for a number of weeks, and this in spite of their being necessarily confined and not leading their usual lives. At this time the diet may have palled upon them and they probably consumed less.

At no time, according to Harrington, did the animals show any outward evidence of poisoning up to five months, when all were killed with chloroform. Parenchymatous degeneration of the kidneys was found, but no such extensive lesions as in Kionka's animals. The amount of sulphite was 0.2 per cent. against 0.1 per cent. used ordinarily in meat to secure the best preservative effects.

Not only was this a great overdose extending over five months, but the animals were living confined lives and were poor specimens to begin with. Further, they were killed with chloroform and renal lesions were to be looked for. Are the deductions made from such experiments trustworthy, as far as they relate to the problem of food preservation? They have value in proving the lack of irritating action of the drug on the alimentary tract and would seem to settle the point conclusively. As to the question of the action of the sulphite on gastric digestion, I have made a number of studies in vitro which will be published in the paper to which I have previously referred. Basing my methods in part after that of Chittenden and following in vitro Nature's methods as far as possible, by prolonged digestion I have found that proportions up to 1 per cent. of sodium sulphite have no retarding effects as determined by the amount of syntonin, albumose and peptone in the flasks at the end of a given time. One more point as to the sulphites; it may be possible to condemn their use because they maintain in chopped meat the natural color of the meat for a varying time in ordinary temperatures (twenty-four to

forty-eight hours), but the evidence of their harmfulness on the economy is certainly wanting. We garnish a dish to make it appear more attractive and appetizing. An innocent substance which maintains a natural color may be permitted for the same purpose. If a considerable amount of sulphite is added to freshly chopped meat there results a vermilion tint, decidedly unnatural, and the unpleasant taste of the preservative and the lack of flavor in the meat may at once be detected. This is a safeguard in itself. I have never been able to improve tainted meat by the addition of any substance, and it is true, so far as we know, that no preservative exists which will render a spoiled food edible. As to the studies of the effect of a given diet or given drug in minimum does on man, the matter is fraught with difficulty. The very moment a victim offers himself for experiment he is in a susceptible mental condition to exaggerate every sensation. He knows he is receiving a harmful substance; indeed, in Dr. Wiley's recent experiments the drug had to be used in capsule or the subjects lost appetite. Let a number of men sit at the best repast which the cook's art can produce, and let some one whisper that the food is not as good as it looks, that somewhere there is a lurking poison concealed, or even a hair, and away will go the appetite. Those who are brave enough to eat will take every subsequent peristaltic wave as an omen of evil. We cannot destroy our human victims and examine them postmortem after a given period, and if the danger of food preservatives, properly regulated, is as vague and as insidious as is claimed, morbid anatomy alone would settle the point. Possibly some of those submitting to experimentation may break away from the routine and indulge themselves unwisely; any subsequent illness may be attributed wrongly to the effects of the drug studied. Malingering is a factor, as well as nervous apprehension. Such isolated studies and scarce approach in directness, and certainly those upon such animals as dogs.

Much of the work in the direction of animal experimentation has gone for naught because of the full lack of appreciation of the terms of the problem. The conditions under which food preservatives are used are not paralleled in the experiments. Animals so studied should be allowed a moderate amount of exercise. Their lives should resemble the

customary life of such an animal. It should not be overfed or surfeited with a drug, but some variety of diet should be permitted, and the proportion of preservative to body-weight estimated correctly, making due allowence for toleration, previously determined by the action of a larger dose. We even find statements that rabbits have been used as subjects of experimentation to determine the action of a preservative added to meat. An observer along such lines should first determine the effects of carnivorous food on the herbivora. As well feed a man nails and compare his digestion to that of an ostrich.

REPORT OF A CASE OF TETANUS SUCCESSFULLY TREATED WITH ANTITETANIC SERUM.

BY E. H. TEGTMEIER, M.D., MILLSTADT, ILLINOIS.

I was first called out two miles from town, on October 4, at 8 a.m., to see W. B., 12 years old. I examined the patient and found I had a case of tetanus with opisthotonos. Upon inquiry for the history I was informed that he fell in school the previous Wednesday, September 28.

Sept. 29. Parents saw peculiar change in eyes, which his father diagnosed as lock-jaw, but could find no wound.

Oct. 2. Being Sunday, family did not care to call physician owing to religious principles.

Lock-jaw

Oct. 4. I was called. Complete opisthotonos. diagnosed. Recommended having another physician called in consultation. Family objected. At 4 p.m. started to use Antitetanic Serum (Parke, Davis & Co.), 10 cubic centimeters every six hours, day and night.

Oct. 5. No change. Poor results.

Oct. 6. Same results.

Oct. 7. Slight improvement. Spasms intermittent. Opisthotonos nearly gone. Gave him but three injections that day. The father would not allow me to inject any more.

Oct. 8. Spasms every minute. Patient became worse.