FROM THE AUTHOR. THE ETIOLOGY AND PROPHYLAXIS OF THE TUBERCULOUS DISEASES. J. C. WILSON, M.D. [.REPRINTED FROM THE MEDICAL NEWS, JUNE 8, iS8q. | THE ETIOLOGY AND PROPHYLAXIS OF THE TUBERCULOUS DISEASES. Being the Address in Medicine before the Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania, at its Thirty-seventh Annual Session, held in Pittsburg, June 4, ifcSg. By J. C. WILSON, M.D., Of Philadelphia. Knowledge, like the hard woods, is of slow growth. Auenbrugger worked seven years upon that discovery which he gave to an unheeding profession as the “ In- ventum Novum.” Half a century later it was rescued from oblivion by Corvisart, to be extended and perfected in another quarter of a century by Piorry. Laennec had already acquired a reputation by his practice and writ- ings, when, in 1815, he invented the stethoscope. Four years later he published his Treatise upon Mediate Aus- cultation and the Diseases of the Lungs and Heart, but almost a quarter of a century elapsed before this method of clinical investigation became popularized among med- ical men, and was generally taught in the schools of Eng- land and America. Jenner spent nearly twenty years in investigations and experiment before he published, in 1798, his Enquiry into the causes and effects of the cow- pox. Yet each of these discoveries revolutionized that de- partment of the art of medicine which it affected, and to-day no student is entitled to receive the degree, which marks his admission to the profession, who does not know more of percussion than Auenbrugger, at least as much of the principles which underlie auscultation as Laennec, and unless he has easily acquired the essential facts of that beneficent discovery which cost Jenner twenty years of toil. These things were in the old days. We live, if not in an era of more impatient intellectual activity and keener 4 inquiry, at least in a time of the infinitely more rapid dis- semination of information. A flash of electricity, a turn of the press, and that which happened yesterday is known all over the civilized world. But this is news, not knowl- edge. Lister’s memorable introductory lecture in the Univer- sity of Edinburgh on “the germ theory of putrefaction, the basis of a new mode of treatment which finds its application in all departments of practice,” was deliv- ered in the autumn of 1869. It makes a little pamphlet of twenty-two pages. The time was ripe for the princi- ples set forth in that publication, and in others which quickly followed it. Much that had gone before led up to them. We think at once of the work of Latour, of Schwann, of Pasteur. The facts were convincing. Many of the details of Lister’s early methods were, it is true, unnecessary, some were faulty; but the underlying thought was right. If not a new truth, it was certainly a new application of truth. Nearly twenty years have elapsed, and the seed sown by Lister has grown and multiplied and brought forth an abundant harvest. The surgery of to-day stands in bright contrast to the surgery of that day. The antiseptic pro- cedure has enormously widened its scope and increased its precision. Its capacity to relieve suffering and pro- long life is abundantly enlarged. The contrast is so striking that it has become customary to speak of the art of to-day as the New Surgery. This revolution was not brought about in a day. Lis- terism and the operative technique which it inspired, made for a long time slow and halting progress. Preju- dices were to be overcome, old habits of thought given up, the traditions abandoned, and it was only little by little, notwithstanding the readiness of inter-communica- tion and the eagerness for new and better things which characterize the present, that the New Surgery came into being. Koch, who had previously published a paper entitled “ Investigations into the Etiology of the Traumatic In- fective Diseases,” announced his discovery of the tuber- cle bacillus and its relation to tuberculosis in March, 1882. As an example of scientific research, this work stand unequalled in the history of medicine. Had it led to no practical results, its thoroughness, the logical se’quence of the various progressive stages of the investi- gation, its completeness, the rigid tests to which he sub- jected his results, make it a model for investigators in every department of biology. Koch demands, in order to determine whether or not 5 a given bacterium is the cause of a certain disease, the fulfilment of the following requirements : (a) The special bacterium must be present in all cases of the disease. (&) It must be separated from other microorganisms, and from all matter found with it in the diseased animal. (<;) Thus freed from all foreign matter, it must be capable, when properly introduced, of producing the disease in healthy animals. (