MORRIS FISHBEIN, literary caricaturist of the "Cults," and self-appointed entertainer of the public with selected Cultist antics, introduces his Chapter on "The Anti-Vivisectionist" with a definition borrowed from George Jean Nathan, one-time editor of Smart Set.

    "An anti-vivisectionist," said Mr. Nathan, "is a woman who strains at a guinea pig and swallows a baby." This "soul-searching mot," says Dr. Fishbein, "of all Mr. Nathan's delightful aphorisms," had been selected by him as "the one which delighted him most," and Dr. Fishbein adds: "the one he selected is likewise the one which gives me most joy."

    We are perfectly willing that Messieurs Nathan and Fishbein should classify themselves in this fashion, since it has been truly observed, that people reveal more of their real selves by what they think is amusing than by what they think is sad. In this sense, the coarse and disingenuous bon mot ascribed to Mr. Nathan, in what it tells us of its perpetrators, may justly be called "soul-searching." Personally, it seems to me—quite aside from its dishonest implications—such a sorry jest that I am moved to paraphrase it with a quip of my own make: Is not a "smart set" editor, then Mr. Nathan, one who strains at the Bible and swallows a pharmacopoeia? Or, narrowing it to closer limits, one who strains at Moses and swallows a Fishbein?

    I do not offer this as first-class humor, but only as a counterpart to the Nathan bon mot, with the respectfully submitted addenda showing it to be more truly descriptive of the editor than his favorite epigram is descriptive of an anti-vivisectionist.

    Before proceeding to analyze that epigram—which Dr. Fishbein says, states the case for the anti-vivisectionist "in a nutshell"; and before entering on the consideration of the case for vivisectors, both in and out of "nutshells," let me say that the case for the opposition is stated when the fact of vivisection is stated. It is not the anti-vivisectionists who are on trial before the world's sense of justice, decency, and humanity. They do not need to make any excuse, or give any reason for opposing a thing which is in its essence so horrible that simply to name it, is to cause an instinctive recoil in any normal mind.

    I witnessed a rather striking instance of this quite recently when an uneducated colored woman, hearing the word for the first time, asked me, "What do they mean by vivisection?" I explained briefly, telling her only a few of the things taken from the confessions of vivisectors themselves, when she covered her face with her hands and visibly shuddered. Then uncovering it, she looked at me with unaffected pain in her solemn negro eyes, and said: "Well I never knowed they was such folks in the world! Why they ain't got no conscience at all, have they?"

    I thought I had never heard a more scathing indictment of "the scientific method" than was here pronounced by this untutored child of Nature. Quoting from a more sophisticated source, Gilbert K. Chesterton states the viewpoint of the opponents of vivisection very succinctly and sufficiently:

    "The vivisectionist, for the sake of doing something that may or may not be useful, does something that certainly is horrible. . . . Now whether torturing an animal is or is not an immoral thing, it is, at least, a dreadful thing. It belongs to the order of exceptional and even desperate acts. Except for some extraordinary reason I would not grievously hurt an animal; with an extraordinary reason I would grievously hurt him. If, for example, a mad elephant were pursuing me and my family, and I could only shoot him so that he would die in agony, he would have to die in agony. But the elephant would be there. I would not do it to a hypothetical elephant.

    "Now it always seems to me that this is the weak point in the vivisection argument. (Suppose your wife were dying.) Vivisection is not done by a man whose wife is dying. If it were it might be lifted to the level of the moment, as would be lying or stealing bread, or any other ugly action. But this ugly action is done in cold blood, at leisure, by men who are not sure that it will be of any use to anybody, men of whom the most that can be said is, that they may conceivably make the beginnings of some discovery which may perhaps save some one else's wife in some remote future. That is too cold and distant to rob an act of its immediate horror. That is like training a child to tell lies for the sake of some great dilemma that may never come to him. . . . You are doing a cruel thing, but not with enough passion to make it a kindly one."

    It is not the anti-vivisectionist viewpoint, however, which requires to be explained or defended. That is simply the natural, normal reaction of the average normal human being against wanton and senseless cruelty. One does not require to be an animal lover to any extreme degree to feel this natural repulsion at the thought of animal torture. Even those—many of them—who ruthlessly kill animals for their own pleasure or profit, would balk at the long-drawn-out agonies staged in vivisection laboratories.

    I wish to state at the outset of my discussion of this subject, that I have never felt any strong personal attachment for animals, and never in my life had an animal pet of any kind. As a child I preferred dolls, and when I grew older I preferred children as playthings. My interest in animal life has been intellectual rather than sentimental. I find many of them very interesting to watch, and I think any fair-minded observer of their habits must concede that their conduct, by and large, compares very favorably with that of the "superior animal"—man.

    I oppose vivisection, therefore, first on scientific grounds; because of the illogicalness of seeking the positive, open road to Health—which lies fair to the sunlight of hygienic living and commonsense, through the tortuous bypaths and darkened labyrinth of medical superstition and barbarities which find their counterpart in the Voo-doo practices of an African witch-doctor.

    I oppose it, in the second place, on the score of common decency and humanity, which are outraged both in the case of the tortured animals and their human torturers. Not the least of the evils of this inhuman practice, is the hardening and deadening effect upon those who constantly participate in, or witness, cruelty. And lastly I oppose vivsection as the last word in cowardice. The most defenseless creature in the universe is a dumb animal before a vivisector—shaming the sheep before her shearers; and nowhere is the law of noblesse oblige—the law which should ever govern the strong in their dealings with the weak—so outraged. And even as I regard courage as the highest attribute of the human soul, so am I forced to condemn cowardice as its worst, and vivisection as the lowest form of cowardice.

    Nor is it possible for the evil effects of such a practice to stop with the vivisector and vivisected. Their baneful influence extends to every portion of the community touched by the system which sanctions and sponsors vivisection.

    "There is in man a specific lust for cruelty," says Bernard Shaw, "which infects even his passion of pity and makes it savage. A craze for cruelty can be developed just as a craze for drink can. . . . Those who accuse vivisectors of indulging the well-known passion of cruelty under the cloak of research, are, therefore, putting forward a strictly scientific psychological hypothesis, which is also simple, human, obvious and probable."

    And even where "the craze for cruelty" does not develop, the calloused sensibilities inevitably developed in men constantly engaged in cruel experiments on helpless animals, will not conduce to the gentlest consideration for the helpless humans entrusted to their care. The Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, a very reliable and conservative organization doing medical research in New York, reproduced in one of its bulletins (No. 120), fac-simile tables taken from an article in the N. Y. State Journal of Medicine (February 1, 1924), by Dr. Abraham Zingher, of the New York City Department of Health, showing that thousands of children in the New York City schools "had been experimented upon with 14 different mixtures of toxin-antoxin, all but one of which when injected into guinea pigs, caused paralysis or death." One of these mixtures would be tried out on one group of children, and another mixture on a second group. The Citizens Reference Bureau also quotes from an address to the New Jersey Medical Society (July, 1924), by Dr. William H. Park, Director of Laboratories of the New York City Health Department, wherein he admits the Department's use of antitoxin "for experimental purposes."

    This is the same Dr. Park, who when confronted with his own statement that "diphtheria could never be conquered with antitoxin," cited by H. B. Anderson, secretary of the Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, in its March (1925) News Letter, publicly repudiated the statement ascribed to him as "an absolute misrepresentation"; accused Mr. Anderson of "deceptive use of figures"; and denounced the Reference Bureau as "that organization which has been putting forward the most horrible statements and lies!"

    Whereupon Mr. Anderson, who is a very unemotional individual, calmly returned to the fray with photographic reproductions (see the Bureau's April, 1925 News Letter) of Dr. Park's article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of date November 4, 1922, p. 1584, from which the ascribed statement had been quoted, and of that gentleman's vehement denial of the same in the New York Times of March 29, 1925.

    This episode involving an issue of veracity between the responsible head of New York City Laboratories (where "animal experimentation" is carried on in the manufacture of vaccines and serums), and the Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, a layman's organization for combating—not vaccine-serum therapy per se, but only its compulsory use, is very significant, and covers three salient points in this discussion.

    First, it illustrates the readiness of the metropolitan press to take the doctor's side in any controversy between him and a layman, and to assume that the doctor must always be right and the layman always wrong. Second, it brings out rather poignantly the treacherous nature of a doctor's recollections in any matter affecting his personal prestige or "the dignity of the profession," and shows the riskiness of accepting his statements at par. And lastly, this incident demonstrates the dire need to defend "animal experimentation" with worse things even than the George Jean Nathan epigram—bad as that is.

    It is bad, from the standpoint of honesty, accuracy, and literary taste; but comprising as it does in brief form two of the three main tactical lines of vivisection defense, for my purposes of analysis, I may say that bon mot delights me almost as much as it does its author and publisher. We note first Mr. Nathan's facetious effort to restrict the sex of the opponents of vivisection. "An anti-vivisectionist is a woman"—a damnable fact if it can be established.

    If the public can be made to believe that the only persons opposing the cutting, burning and poisoning of living dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.— thereby interfering with the work of "noble, disinterested scientists," and blocking the wheels of progress—are "a lot of hysterical women, whose natural impulses, denied normal expression, have been turned into abnormal love for animals"—why then the cause of vivisection will win in a canter. The scientific world cannot be expected to turn from its high purpose for the sentimental cackling of neurotic women!

    Now even granted that some of the opposition to vivisection comes from lonely women in whom frustrated instincts may have produced what modern psychology terms a "neurosis"; do the defenders of vivisection realize that the men who can calmly engage in that business are under the strongest sort of imputation of neurosis and perversion? And will any one contend that it is better for an abnormal impulse to take a cruel than a kindly turn?

    To deprive the champions of cruelty of their favorite argument, however, we need only turn to the long list of able and distinguished men who have opposed vivisection in all ages. In deference to the literary pretensions of the coiner and booster of the bon mot quoted at the beginning of this chapter, we will look first at the male writers, and name a few of the most prominent ones. We find among Englishmen of letters, besides Shaw and Chesterton, already quoted, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Carlyle, Robert Browning, Edward Carpenter, John Galsworthy, Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens, Oliver Goldsmith, Prof. Edward Augustus Freeman, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, Historian Lecky, Walter Savage Landor, Jerome K. Jerome, Robert Louis Stevenson, Tennyson, Sir William Watson, Ruskin, Shakespeare and Dr. Samuel Johnson, with many others that cannot be enumerated within the scope of this chapter, who denounced the practice of vivisection in terms that could not be misunderstood.

    Among American writers who were proud to be enrolled among anti-vivisectionists, were Mark Twain, Robert Ingersoll, Elbert Hubbard, William Dean Howells, Edwin Markham, James Martineau, Edmund Vance Cooke, James Oliver Curwood, Bolton Hall, and others who could be named. In the words of Bernard Shaw:

    "From Shakespeare and Dr. Johnson to Ruskin and Mark Twain, the natural abhorrence of sane mankind for the vivisector's cruelty, and the contempt of able thinkers for his imbecile casuistry, have been expressed by the most popular spokesmen of humanity."

    Among literary celebrities of other countries denouncing vivisection, Victor Hugo, Voltaire, Maeterlinck, Maarten Maartens, Tolstoy and Richard Wagner, may be mentioned. But perhaps literary characters—even when masculine—are too tame and pallid by nature to constitute competent judges of this red-blooded, two-fisted business of torturing dumb animals? Many writers, we are assured, are under "scientific" indictment or suspicion of harboring "neuroses."

    Let us then turn to the consideration of the list of statesmen, jurists, men of affairs and naturalists—real scientists, who have raised their protests against "the scientific method" sponsored by official Medicine and defended by Dr. Fishbein and Mr. George Jean Nathan—the sponsors in this case largely overshadowing the defenders, who but for such powerful protection, would scarcely dare to be defenders. In opposition to them, stand such names as Bismarck, Viscount John Morley, John Bright, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Lord Loreburn, late Lord Chancellor of England, Maurice Barrès, Marquis du Trèvou, Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir George Greenwood, Admiral Dewey, Hon. Henry W. Blair and Hon. William E. Chandler, U. S. Senators from New Hampshire, in the political world; while in the world of science, Alfred Russell Wallace, co-worker with Darwin; Baron Georges Cuvier, founder of the science of Comparative Anatomy; Auguste Comte, famous French naturalist; George Searle, University Lecturer in Experimental Physics at Cambridge, and Luther Burbank, the American wizard of plant life, are sufficient singly or collectively, to discredit the vivisector's scientific claims and cast into derision the Fishbein pronouncement that they are followers of what is essentially an illogical, fanatical cult, opposing progress if it involves in any way what they conceive to be abuse of the lower animals for purposes of study."

    The author of "Medical Follies," p. 151, says:

    "This opposition seems to rest on a lack of actual knowledge of what animal experimentation has accomplished for mankind, of what it has contributed to the life and comfort of the animal, of the extent to which the animal may suffer in the cause of experimentation, and of the very rules which scientists themselves have made to safeguard their work with animals."

    A far more accurate statement than this, is the converse proposition that such support as an unthinking, uncritical laity now lends to medical experimentation on animals, "rests on a lack of actual knowledge" either of what it means or what it has accomplished. The fact that the vivisector's work is done behind closed doors for the most part, that only a few persons in the immediate neighborhood of animal laboratories hear the cries and moans of the victims, prevents the public at large from realizing the actual nature or extent of these experiments.

    Most of the information the general public gets on the subject comes from the vivisectors themselves, or their paid emissaries, both of whom are interested in minimizing the horror of the thing, of course. To accept the testimony of these men is tantamount to letting the criminal sit in the judge's chair. To quote Shaw again:

    "It is hardly to be expected that a man who does not hesitate to vivisect for the sake of science, will hesitate to lie about it afterwards to protect it from what he deems the ignorant sentimentality of the laity."

    In other words, the things the vivisector does in the ordinary routine of his art are so much worse than lying, that even malicious lies look rather white by comparison. Any one who doubts this on my statement, may judge for himself by reading the accounts of these "experiments" furnished by the experimenters themselves. For when vivisectors talk to each other—in medical literature—their speech is much less guarded than when they talk for public consumption, and some of them appear to gamble with the assumption that laymen do not read medical literature—and not many of them do.

    But this black art of Medicine—what Robert Ingersoll called "the Inquisition of Science"—has always had its opponents among medical men themselves, and some of these—more courageous than their brethren—have taken their professional lives in their hands to aid the Anti-Vivisection Movement. Some of these have described for us horrors witnessed with their own eyes; others have pointed out to us the incriminating confessions of the high-priests of the "scientific" inquisition. Thus Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, professor of surgery at Harvard, and Surgeon to the Massachusetts General Hospital, in an address before the Massachusetts Society, 55 years ago, drew such a revolting picture of an old horse he had seen vivisected, that those who listened had little appetite for their next meal. Said this most eminent surgeon of his day in America on that occasion: "You say that 'somebody must do it.' I say that nobody should do it, that it is needless."

    In November, 1922, in Town Hall, in New York City, I listened to a lecture on Vivisection by a noted English physician opposed to it, Dr. Walter R. Hadwen, of Gloucester, England, L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., and L.S.A. Besides this array of professional abbreviations, we learn from his biographer that in his own country Dr. Hadwen was "First Prizeman in Physiology, Operative Surgery, Pathology and Forensic Medicine; Superprizeman and Double Gold Medalist in Surgery and Medicine; Life Member and Lecturer of the Ambulance Association."

    These honorary distinctions should suffice, it would seem, to establish Dr. Hadwen's professional status at home, and to claim the respectful attention of even Dr. Fishbein and the Smart Set editors in this country. On the above-mentioned occasion, the lecturer summoned the vivisectors themselves to the witness box by reading from their own confessions contained in medical journals which he had brought and piled on the lecture stand beside him.

    He described an experiment on the brain of a dog performed and related by Dr. Blair Bell, an English vivisector of some renown, who had shortly before been entertained by his vivisectionist colleagues in the United States. He had opened the dog's skull, affixed a wax tumor on its brain, and then closed the scalp. Ninety-eight days later, he published a picture of that dog—a poor wretched, deformed creature, distorted in every limb, and presenting a horrible, piteous spectacle. Dr. Bell's excuse for this exquisite piece of work, was that he was trying to discover something about the properties of the pituitary gland—which lies at the base of the brain—but he doesn't tell us what the valuable discovery was, and Dr. Hadwen said nothing whatever was discovered.

    He next made Sir John Rose Bradford tell about his experiments upon 39 little fox-terriers—taking out one kidney and cutting away the other piecemeal, in order to see how long the intelligent little animals could live with as little kidney as possible. When Sir John was asked in cross-examination by the Royal Commission on Vivisection, "What was it you learned by that?" he hesitated a bit and then answered: "Well, we did discover that dogs didn't suffer from anything akin to human Bright's Disease!"

    Dr. Hadwen paid his respects to Dr. Alexis Carrel, of the Rockefeller Institute, who is said to have won his position on the Rockefeller staff by the marvelous feat of removing a dog's kidney from its natural lumbar position and transplanting it to the dog's neck, where it was made to grow and function for a time. The English physiologist facetiously asked his audience whether it were the fashion in America for people to wear their kidneys in their necks? Dr. Carrel appears to have the obsession of many of his colleagues, that medical "science" is superior to Nature, as the bulk of his work at the Institute is of this bizarre, incongruous experimentation upon animals—dislodging organs from the places where Nature intended them to grow and transplanting them to new, unwonted surroundings. Lastly, Dr. Hadwen, in his New York lecture, quoted from Dr. George W. Crile's work on "Surgical Shock," to show the refinements of cruelty in the vivisector's trade. The record is such a ghastly one that merely to enumerate the experiments which this famous American surgeon owns up to having perpetrated, is to make one feel that the only rational, as well as the most charitable interpretation, is the abnormal sadistic lust of cruelty, which like the craze for drink or morphia, blinds the reason and dulls the sensibilities even of highly intelligent and educated persons. Here are some of the things Dr. Crile relates as his "experiments" on 148 dogs "in order to try to ascertain the physiological effect of shock": He tarred some of them over and set fire to them. He cut some of them open, took out their entrails and poured boiling water into the cavity. He took their paws and held them over Bunsen flames. He deliberately crushed the most sensitive organs of the male. He poked out their eyes and then worked a tool around the empty socket, and crushed every bone in their paws with a mallet.

    It is doubtful if even men blinded by the lust of cruelty would record such things for other vivisectionists to read—and take chances on having it fall into unfriendly hands—did they not feel themselves secure from popular fury and the vengeance of animal lovers under the sacred palladium of Science! "These things are dreadful and deplorable," say their lay apologists, "but they are necessary in order to prevent more dreadful things."

    This brings us to the consideration of the scientific aspects of vivisection and to the second dishonest implication of the Nathan epigram, namely, that there is any inherent conflict between the interests of the guinea pig and the interests of the baby. The tendency of human nature to arrogate the finest motives for the very worst things it does, was noted by thoughtful observers a long time before psychoanalysis came into vogue to provide a name for it. "Defensive psychology" is the modern explanation of the vivisector's plea that his inhuman practices are serving the cause of suffering humanity and helping the physician to banish illness from the sick world.

    The first witnesses we will call for the opposition will be the physicians and surgeons whose tasks, it is claimed, are lightened by the fruits of vivisection. From a long list on file in the offices of the New York Vivisection Investigation League, at 105 East 22nd Street, we quote only a few of the more conspicuous medical names which have gone on record as disavowing any benefits to medicine or surgery from animal experimentation. Sir Charles Bell, a distinguished British physiologist and anatomist, whose discovery of distinct functions of the nerves was regarded as the greatest addition to medical knowledge since Harvey's demonstration of the circulation of the blood, in his book on "The Nervous System of the Human Body" (p. 217), said:

    "Experiments have never been the means of discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions. . . . I have made few experiments, simple and easily performed, and I had recourse to them, not to form my own opinions—which I urged on the ground of anatomy alone—but to impress them upon others. . . . For my own part, I cannot believe that the secrets of Nature are to be discovered by means of cruelty. If anything could exceed the hideous cruelty of the whole business, it would be the childish absurdity of the claims to benefit which are being constantly put forth by the advocates and promoters of the system."

    Dr. Robert Bell, the great cancer expert of England, recently deceased, said:

    "It is impossible to deduce any satisfactory conclusion in regard to cancer in man by experimenting on animals, etc."

    Sir Lawson Tait, the most distinguished and honored surgeon of his day, F. R. C. S. of Edinburgh and F.R.C.S. of England, and professor at Queen's College, Birmingham, said in Birmingham Post, December 12, 1884:

    "Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that by vivisection had been obtained almost every important fact in physiology, etc. . . . I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning surgery; and not only has vivisection not helped the surgeon one bit, but it has often led him astray."

    Again in 1899, in a letter in the Medical Press, Tait said:

    "Such experiments never have succeeded, and never can; and they have, as in the cases of Koch, Pasteur and Lister, not only hindered true progress, but have covered our profession with ridicule."

    The late Surgeon-General Charles Gordon, K. C. B., Physician to Queen Victoria, in a speech at Westminster Palace Hotel, 1892, said:

    "Whether the young men now entering the army as medical officers, are vivisectors or not, I do not know. I hope for the sake of our soldiers, that they are not. . . . Performing experiments upon one set of animals for the benefit of another set of living being is not only against logic, but against analogy."

    "The foundation for vivisection is wrong; the conclusions cannot be true," said the late William Blackwood, M.D. and Brigadier-General U. S. A. Engineers, in an address at Philadelphia in 1885.

    Herbert Snow (London University), M.R.C.S. of England, late Senior Surgeon at London Cancer Hospital:

    "Those who endeavor to pierce to the core of things, regard vivisection as not only an outrage on morality, but a gross hindrance to the progress of true science, and an insurmountable impediment to the Higher Evolution of the race."

    From "On the Futility of Vivisection," p. 8, Dr. Forbes Winslow, M.R.C.P., Founder of, and Physician to, the British Hospital for Mental Disorders, called "one of the world's greatest authorities on mental diseases" in the New York Medical Journal, September 2, 1911, in an address at Caxton Hall, December 5, 1910, said:

    "Nothing has been advanced in science in 40 years by means of vivisection which justifies the practice as it exists to-day. Not only is it increasing in England, but I regret to say that on the Continent we must throw a veil over the hospitals and over the medical students, etc. As a result of 40 years' experience, I say that vivisection should not be tolerated, etc. . . . There are many more eminent men in my profession who are adverse to vivisection than who are in favor of it."

    And so on, we might fill a whole chapter with the testimony alone of eminent physicians and surgeons against the claim of vivisectionists that the practice has any scientific value. Those who desire fuller information on the extent to which vivisection is opposed by representative people in all walks of life, may obtain it by applying to the N. Y. Vivisection Investigation League, whose intelligent president, Mrs. C. P. Farrell is a sister of the late Robert G. Ingersoll. Perhaps Mrs. Farrell can explain to such inquirers, WHY the "hundreds of American physicians and surgeons on file with the League and in perfect accord with its anti-vivisection aims," did not wish their names made public?

    The reader will note the medical authorities I have quoted, with one exception, are English, and those published by the Investigation League are preponderantly English, French and German. But these will suffice, I trust, to pique my readers' interest and stimulate further research on the subject. If we must accept these matters on somebody's ipse dixit, by all means let us see to it that the "authority" is first-class. Dr. Forbes Winslow said a majority of the "eminent" ones of his profession were opposed to vivisection; those at all familiar with the history of the Medical Hierarchy and its drastic methods of dealing with nonconformists and insurgents, will readily understand that only the "eminent ones" can afford to speak the truth in professional matters!

    The scientific futility of vivisection—as given by these eminent opponents—rests on three counts: first, the structural, physiological and mental differences between man and the other animals, render any deductions from animal experimentation inconclusive and untrustworthy; second, even if these differences did not exist, the abnormal condition—terror and intense pain—of the animal used in the experiments, destroys their physiological significance; and third, nothing is claimed to have been established by such experiments which was not already established, or could not be better established by clinical observation of human beings.

    I respectfully submit this rationale on vivisection—which does not require expert intelligence to grasp—to the reader's consideration, to be pondered alongside the Fishbein pronouncement carried on page 160 of "The Medical Follies":

    "Those who obstruct this progress (vivisection) by needless and unwarranted follies should be considered as subjects for mental investigation, or else as misguided sentimentalists whom one condones, but whom one does not take too seriously."

    Probably few will accuse Dr. Fishbein of being swayed by sentimental considerations, but he may be open to other influences to be found lurking in the medical game. It may occur to some one to ask why, if the preponderance of weighty medical opinion—as well as the consensus of balanced lay judgment—is on the side of the Antis, is vivisection on the increase, not only in America where there is no legal check on it, but also—according to Forbes Winslow—in England and on the Continent, where since 1906 some effort has been made to restrict and regulate it?

    At least a partial answer to this question—if it is not indeed the one and sufficient reason—is found in the fact that for the past 35 years the principal uses of "animal experimentation" have been devoted to the manufacture of vaccines and serums; and the serum industry—in all its various ramifications and commercial returns—has grown into the most imposing thing in modern medicine. Charles M. Higgins, retired ink manufacturer of Brooklyn, N. Y. and compiler of "Horrors of Vaccination Exposed," states on official reports that there were in 1920 ninety-nine concerns licensed by the U. S. Government to manufacture vaccines and serums, and capitalized at more than 50 million dollars. The two largest and best know, are the H. K. Mulford Company near Philadelphia, and the Parke, Davis & Co. Laboratories of Detroit.

    Some of these concerns manufacture from 15 to 20 different kinds of serums, and it cannot have escaped the most casual observer that a craze for serumization has swept the medical profession. Practically every ailment now has its specific serum remedy, and the hypodermic has superseded the tablet and tincture. To say that some of this serologic enthusiasm is not traceable to the fact that patients can be induced to pay more for an inoculation than for an ordinary dose of physic, is to disregard one of the commonest factors in the human economic equation.

    As perhaps not every one knows, the new therapy known as serology is based on the Pasteurian version of the germs, combined with a sort of bacteriological adaptation of the Hahnemann "law of similars." The idea is, that a "culture" obtained by running the microbe through the body of an animal via inoculation, when injected into the blood stream of man or beast suffering from the disease which this same microbe is supposed to cause, will result in the production of "anti-toxins, or anti-bodies" in the patient's blood which will battle mightily for the overthrow of the malady!

    Now from the best information available, this anti-toxin-anti-body production is purely conjectural, what is called "a medical hypothesis." Nobody has ever seen an anti-toxin or anti-body, and there is no positive evidence of their existence outside of Pasteurian imagination, say the bacteriologists opposed to the Pasteur School. As I have stated in a previous chapter, there were, and are, plenty of opponents of the Pasteur idea in the ranks of orthodox medicine, among whom Lawson Tait was easily first, perhaps. He is quoted as charging Pasteur with having "covered the medical profession with ridicule."

    I believe that this is the least of Pasteur's sins; and that when the evidence is all in, and the full enormity of the suffering and death entailed on the race, particularly upon children, by his inverted germ-theory, is better understood, this false god of modern medicine will be as much execrated—even by the medical profession—as he is now eulogized. The author of "Medical Follies" says:

    "Without the aid of this method"—animal experimentation—"Pasteur could not have founded the science of bacteriology; such diseases as hydrophobia, tuberculosis, yellow fever, plague, scarlet fever, diphtheria and diabetes would not have passed under the control of scientific medicine, but would have continued, etc."

    As to hydrohobia, some of the best medical authorities have doubted the existence of such a malady —among them William Osier, who believed it to be a form of tetanus. Other skeptics have maintained standing offers of cash prizes for one single case of genuine rabies to be brought to them, without ever having to forfeit the money. Such an one was Dr. Charles Dulles of the University of Pennsylvania, who said: "In the last 14 years in handling more than one million small animals, principally dogs and cats, the catchers were bitten 15,000 times, but not a single case of hydrophobia developed."

    The late Dr. W. O. Stillman, president of the American Humane Association, testified that in 40 years' active practice of medicine and during 20 years as president of a large local humane society which received thousands of dogs, in spite of a constant lookout for rabies and hydrophobia, he had never seen a case. Of course hundreds of cases are on record of simple animal disorders diagnosed as "rabies," and these cases multiplied greatly after the establishment of "Pasteur Institutes." Faber, director of the Veterinary Institute at Vienna, said that, "of 892 dogs brought to him under suspicion of rabies, only 31 were really affected," and of course those 31—like all medical diagnoses—were "subject to change." A mass of similar testimony is available as to the rare incidence of rabies—if such a malady there be.

    Now a word about the famed "Pasteur treatment" with the anti-rabic fluid concocted by him from the tortured brains and spinal cords of countless rabbits. The National Anti-Vivisection Society of England collected from the official returns of Pasteur Institutes a list of 1,220 deaths after treatment between 1885 and 1901. Concerning these figures, Dr. George Wilson says:

    "Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths occurred during and immediately after treatment, by ruling that all deaths which occurred either during treatment or within 15 days after the last injection—should be excluded from the statistical returns. Because of this extraordinary ruling, the death rates in all Pasteur Institutes were kept at a low figure."

    The late Dr. Charles Bell Taylor in the National Review, July, 1890, published a list of Pasteur's patients who died after treatment while the dogs, that had bitten them got well! A notable case was that of a French postman named Pierre Rascol, who with another man was attacked by a dog said to be mad. The dog's teeth failed to penetrate Rascol's clothing, but this companion was badly bitten. He refused to go to the Pasteur Institute, however, and got well; whereas Rascol, who had not been bitten, was forced by the postal authorities to take the Pasteur treatment, and within a month he died from "paralytic hydrophobia"—a new malady brought in by Pasteur's "perfect method."

    There have been well-authenticated instances of insanity as well as death resulting from the administration of the anti-rabic injection. One of each fell under my personal observation during a short stay in Southern California in 1923. In the house where I stopped in Hollywood was an old man afflicted with pitiable melancholia for twenty-five years, following treatment for a cat scratch at a Pasteur Institute in Chicago, his wife told me. Prior to that he had been a happy, clear-headed, prosperous business man. The other anti-rabic casualty was a child bitten by a dog in Los Angeles, who was given the Pasteur inoculation immediately, and died in agony shortly afterwards.

    Isolated cases are not conclusive—either way—of course; yet isolated cases, "screened statistics," and whole-cloth fabrications have been ruthlessly employed to support the roseate claims of the Pasteurites that "the Father of the Germ Theory" was also the savior of mankind from mad dogs. Next to milk-stoppers, rabid animals and so-called hydrophobia have done most to carry Pasteur's name and fame to the average citizen. Even a small amount of well-authenticated contrary evidence should tend to discredit—to some extent, at least, a system which hasn't a shred of common sense in support of it.

    Take for example, the Vaccination superstition, founded on a milk-maid legend of the 18th century, that one who had had cowpox would never have smallpox. From this Jenner devised his astute scheme of inoculating well people with cow-pox in order to prevent their having smallpox; and upon his representation to the trusting British Government that one such inoculation would render the inoculated immune for life, he was awarded £30,000 of English money for this transcendent cowpox revelation!

    This was fine for Jenner, who emerged at once from an obscure country pharmacist (he was later made an M. D. by acclamation) into a world-renowned figure; but this life-immunity business was much too slow for modern vaccine-manufacturers who have waxed rich on the revised immunity theory now in vogue, which empowers a health official to pull the statute of limitation on any vaccine-conferred immunity which is seven, five, or even one year old, that cannot exhibit a satisfactory scar!

    Cowpox, which furnished the original seed virus for the cult of Jenner, was a somewhat mysterious malady of restricted incidence—appearing only on the udders of milch-cows and never occurring among the male bovines—and was thought by the best authorities to be syphilis of the cow, communicated to her from the syphilitic hands of the milkers. Among those supporting this view in England were Sir Charles Creighton, Demonstrator of Anatomy at Cambridge, author of books on Pathology, Epidemiology, and Microscopic Anatomy; Edgar M. Crookshank, Professor of Bacteriology at King's College, London, and author of "History and Pathology of Vaccination"; Sir William Collins of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and Dr. William Scott Tebb, F.R.C.S. and member of the Royal Commission on Vaccination appointed by Queen Victoria in 1889, which after sitting for seven years—taking testimony and sifting data collected from all over the United Kingdom—brought in a unanimous recommendation for abolishing the compulsory vaccination law. And this was done by Act of Parliament in 1898, after which vaccinations declined from 85.5 per cent of births in the 1872-1881 decade to 43.4 in the ten-year period from 1912-1921. In the first-named decade the number of smallpox deaths in England and Wales was 37,082; whereas in the last-named period, with half the number vaccinated, the deaths from smallpox dropped to 122.

    For the statistical proof of these figures, the reader is referred to the British Registrar-General's Reports, which he may find quoted in Creighton's and Crookshank's works; in a book entitled, "Leicester: Sanitation vs. Vaccination," by J. T. Biggs, Sanitary Engineer and Town Councilor for Leicester; and in Charles M. Higgins' "Horrors of Vaccination Exposed." Mr. Higgins spent $25,000 on obtaining authentic statistics in England alone. But for the most masterly exposition of pro-vaccinist juggling of smallpox and vaccination statistics —to serve the vaccinator's need—we refer the reader to the 18th Chapter of "The Wonderful Century," by Alfred Russell Wallace, the man who shares with Darwin the credit for discovering the principle of natural selection. Perhaps even Dr. Fishbein might hesitate to attempt any disparagement of Wallace's status as a scientist. His 18th Chapter is most significant and illuminating, not only in the story it gives of its author's conversion from the faith of a pro-vaccinist to that which is expressed in his conviction that "Vaccination is a delusion—its penal enforcement a crime"; but also in what it reveals of the vaccine vendor's tactics.

    We have other sidelights on pro-vaccinist ethics—and politics. When Sir Charles Creighton, England's most famous epidemiologist, was Invited to write the article on Vaccinaion for the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, it was supposed, presumably, that he would write in favor of it, since he was "a regular" of the straightest pattern, with degrees from Aberdeen, Berlin and Vienna. "After long, laborious and independent research," as he tells us himself, he wrote a comprehensive, historic review of the whole subject, the net purport of which was that "Vaccination is a grotesque superstition," in Creighton's opinion. And then what happened? When the next edition of the Britannica was issued, the Creighton article on Vaccination was dropped from its pages and one was substituted from the pen of Dr. S. Monckton Copeman, the reputed inventor of "glycerinated virus!"

    Here is another pointer. Dr. J. F. Baldwin, president of the Ohio State Medical Association in 1920, said in his address to that body:

    "The treatment of diseases, or their prevention, by antitoxins, vaccines and serums, is still largely in the experimental stage, with grave doubts as to their value. Unfortunately, much of our literature on the subject—including statistics—is furnished by the manufacturers of them who are interested above all things in the financial aspects of it."

    And then what happened to Dr. Baldwin? He was deposed from his position as president of the Ohio State Medical Association at the next election. Any sincere pro-vaccinist who doubts the facts or conclusions herein presented, is urged to join with us in obtaining an impartial tribunal where witnesses may be examined and facts—real facts—submitted and adjudged. The charge that children's bodies are being poisoned with disease-breeding calf-pus and horse-serum by public health officials, is a grave one. We make it advisedly, with a full realization of its gravity. With a serious realization also, that more important things are involved in this controversy than the health officer's reputation or job, or the pecuniary interests of the vaccine trade. Fetch on the impartial tribunal. We are ready with the evidence—too voluminous to be comprised in the compass of this chapter. If the few facts start an inquiry into the abuses of the public health submitted shall stimulate sufficient public interest to service that may eventually free it from medical domination and place it where it properly belongs —under the control of Sanitary engineers, the Anti-Cults will have justified their opposition both to vivisection and to vaccine-serum practice.

    Dr. F. S. Arnold, M.R.C.S., of Manchester, says:

    "I am not putting forward an opinion, but stating a fact when I say that there is not one of the so-called 'triumphs of vivisection,' such as the antitoxin treatment of diphtheria, Pasteurian inoculation for anthrax, hydrophobia, etc., whose utility is not strenuously denied by eminent physicians and surgeons who are themselves supporters of vivisection. That fine art of cruelty, in other words, has produced nothing whose utility to 'suffering humanity' is unanimously affirmed, even by the vivisecting fraternity itself."

    William Scott Tebb, author of "Recrudescence of Leprosy and Its Causation," in which he cites no less than twenty-five high medical authorities in support of his statement that "leprosy is disseminated through vaccination." in a recent pamphlet on "The Germ Theory of Disease, Its Fallacies and Cruelties," says:

    "It is obvious that the whole germ theory is in the melting-pot, and that with it will fall the whole edifice of vaccines and serums about which a mesh of statistics has been woven."

    Let no deluded mother imagine that her baby's life is made safer by the hecatombs of harmless living things offered to the false god of serology. If she will only look a bit into the records of the death-toll of antitoxin, vaccination, etc., from children's lives, she will learn that in defending even guinea pigs from torture, she is defending babies' lives also.