OF THE ANTIVIVISECTIONISTS AGAIN W. W. Keen, M.D. Philadelphia Reprinted from THE JOURNAL of the (American Medical Association August 10, 1901 MISSTATEMENTS OF THE ANTIVIVI- SECTIONISTS AGAIN. San Francisco, July 8, 1901. On January 21, 1901, I sent a reply to James M. Brown, president of the American Humane Association, in response to a letter from him challenging me to produce proof of inaccuracy in the references to a number of certain alleged experiments and of garbling of the reports of the same. My reply was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association and the Philadelphia Medical Journal of Feb. 23, 1901. In reply I received a letter from Mr. Brown saying that he expected to spend the month of February in California, and could not give attention to my letter until his return. Mr. Brown seems to have been detained in California much longer than expected, for up to the present moment-nearly six months-I have received no further reply whatever. ' In- directly, however, a certain reply has been published in the form of an anonymous pamphlet entitled "The Reality of Human Vivisection," which is called a "review" of my letter. Not long since I had the pleasure of attending a lecture to one of his classes in moral science by Rev. Dr. Faunce, the ac- complished president of Brown University. Among the virtues which he discussed was "Courage" and he pointed out the moral cowardice of anonymous letters. While such a letter is an in- stance of private moral cowardice, an anonymous pamphlet such as this is an instance of public moral cowardice. An honorable open foe I at least respect; one who skulks behind anonymous pamphlets I despise. The antivivisectionists seem to delight in such secrecy and anonymous attack. There are four publications on this subject up to the present moment, to which I shall hereafter refer by number, except the last which I shall call the "review." 1. In senate document No. 78, 55th Congress. 3d Session, the last of a collection of cer- tain antivivisectionist papers is one entitled "Human Vivisec- tion," signed "A. Tracy." I should like to know who this mys- terious "A. Tracy" is. 2. There is a pamphlet entitled "Human Vivisection," third edition, printed for the American Humane Association in 1900, which reprints this paper (with the omission of "A. Tracy's" 2 name) and adds to it a long continuation of the misstatements of the first. This is anonymous. 3. There is a small pamphlet entitled "Human Vivisection," published by the Humane Society, Washington, D. C., chiefly a rehash of the misstatements of pamphlet No. 2. This is also without the name of any author. 4. Now comes the last pamphlet, the "review" of my letter. 1 his is not only without the name of any author, but without even that of a publisher. It is simply dated "Boston, 1901." The character of every one of these publications, however, is such that I do not wonder that the author wishes to conceal his identity. lhe "review (No. 4) re-prints Mr. Brown's letter to me and at the end adds: "No sufficient rejoinder to his [my] letter [in reply to Mr. Brown] would be admitted to the columns of tlrse medical periodicals. (The Journal of the American Medical Association and the Philadelphia Medical Journal). The duplicity of this sentence is evident. The ordinary reader, for whom it is evidently intended, would understand that a reply had been sent to the editors of these medical journals and that they had declined to print it. This is absolutely untrue. No such communication has ever been received by the editor of either of these journals. The critical reader will see that the sentence just quoted does not definitely state that such a com- munication has been rejected. But for one critical reader a thousand casual readers will get the impression which the sentence was evidently intended to convey. It is impossible for me to take up all the misstatements and misrepresentations contained in the 32 pages of this last anony- mous "review," nor is it necessary to do so. That I should be honored fiom such a source by vilification and misrepresenta- tion, I expected, of course, but I did hope at least that there would be an honesty of statement to which no exception could be taken. The author, however, is a very curious person who does not seem to be limited by the ordinary laws of either fair dealing or truthful statement. Moreover, he would be a very poor lawyer. Most of the evidence cited by him is derived from published reports by cer- tain medical men. Having, therefore, chosen his witnesses, and put them on the stand, he would not be allowed in any court of law to discredit his own witnesses by selecting part of their testimony as trustworthy and rejecting part as unworthy of credence. And, yet, throughout this "review," while the anony- mous author is eager to accept the statements of the various authorities as to what they did. he declines to admit their statements as to their results, or else misstates them, going so 3 far as to assert that the statements of the physicians cited, con- cerning the recovery of their patients are "utterly valueless." In my reply to Mr. Brown, I used the following language: "Let me again state clearly the question at issue. It is not whether the experiments meet with my approval, but solely whether the reports of them in the pamphlet issued by the American Humane Association arc reliable and accurate both as to their sources and substance." At the. Hearing before the Senate committee, I distinctly twice over expressed my utter disapproval of many of the experiments referred to in the original pamphlet (No. 2). This condemnation is quoted both on page 1 and page 5 of the anonymous "review"; yet, in spite of these two statements and the third in my letter to Mr. Brown, just quoted, the author represents me throughout his "review" as the apologizer and the advocate of such experi- ments, thus publishing, yet at the same time wilfully ignoring my repeated statements to the contrary. In my letter to Mr. Brown, in support of my accusation that many of the references in the pamphlet on "Human Vivisection" are "vague and indefinite." I cited fourteen instances of quo- tations from newspapers, five of which were without date, and I added six other instances of "vague and indefinite" references not to newspapers. 1 commented upon the unre- liability of newspapers as a source of authority in medical matters. Let us see how the anonymous reviewer attempts to meet this issue. The facts he does not and can not deny. In the first place he claims that I have changed the issue from "the question of "vague and indefinite quotation" to that of vague and indefinite references. When I stated at the Senate Hear- ing (stenographer's report): "Many of them are so vague and indefinite that I could not look them up," it must have been clear to anyone of common sense that I referred to the references to the experiments, and there was no misunder- standing on this point in the letter of Mr. Brown, who asks: "To what other of the references above given did you refer when you informed the Senate Committee that "many of them were so vague and indefinite that I could not look them up?" I was challenged by Mr. Brown to adduce examples of "vague and indefinite references," and this challenge 1 successfully met. On page 22, the anonymous reviewer says: "Of the four- teen journals referred to, every one conveying a statement of fact-save one-had its name and date of publication plainly given." Here it will be observed that a distinction is drawn between references to articles "conveying a statement of fact," and those which do not relate to statements of fact. My in- dictment against the pamphlet on "Human Vivisection" 4 (No. 2) was and is that many of the references are so "vague and indefinite" that the original sources of alleged quotations can not be consulted, and that some of the reports are "garbled and inaccurate." It may be just as important to determine the accuracy of a reference to an expression of an opinion as to learn the facts upon Which the opinion is supposed to be based, and to charge me with an evasion of the issue because I did not restrict myself solely to one particular class of references, but pointed out the vague and indefinite character of all classes of references in the pamphlet, is too absurd to require further comment. As a matter of fact, as pointed out in my letter to Mr. Brown, there are no less than five citations or reports of ex- periments in pamphlet No. 2 for which either no reference whatever is given, or the one inserted is wrong or so vague and indefinite that the original can not be consulted. On page 9, the anonymous reviewer says: "It was pointed out by the president of the American Humane Association that, with one exception, every phase of experimentation specifically mentioned had some reference to a medical authority." It is incredible that the reviewer should not have known the falsity of the statement attributed by him to the president of the American Humane Association, or he may think that in this strangely worded sentence he has constructed some loophole of escape through such avenues as may be afforded by throwing the responsibility for a false statement upon another, or by such equivocal phrases as "every phase of experimentation," "speci- fically mentioned," "some reference." There are in fact in the pamphlet of the American Humane Association seven instances in which reference to a medical authority for the experiments mentioned is lacking, and in addition the sole authority for an important part of the statements regarding Sanarelli's experi- ments are the correspondent of a daily newspaper and a speaker at a convention of the American Humane Association. Let us see how the reviewer tries to meet my demonstration of numerous instances of "garbled and inaccurate" quotations in pamphlet No. 2. Here again the facts can not be denied, but an attempt is made to minimize their importance. 1. "Brevity of quotation is often absolutely necessary" ("re- view" p. 9). Why, then, as I pointed out in my letter, are whole sentences added, which do not appear at all in the original ? 2. Errors are described in the "review" as a "translator's exaggeration" (p. 6), "blunders of a copyist" (p. 6), "errors of a translator" (p. 7). So, then, it is now conceded that the pamphlet does contain "exaggerations," "blunders," and "er- rors." It contains not merely "errors of a translator," but deliberate falsification and misn presentations. When a 5 translator says what the author did not say; when the word "collapse" is translated "final collapse" and an oration is made upon the death of patients who did not die; when the American Humane Association in refer- ence to these very cases quotes on the cover of its pamphlet "Is scientific murder a pardonable crime?" in spite of the published fact that the patients referred to did not die; when the translator again and again interpolates words, phrases and sentences which do not exist in the original; when essen tial phrases and paragraphs are omitted, these I submit are no! the mere "errors of a translator" but deliberate misrepresenta tions. Instances of all of these I furnished Mr. Brown in reply to his challenge. The pamphlet, moreover, contains, as I have pointed out, false or misleading quotations which could not be attributed to "errors of a translator" as they were from English sources. One e-in only hope that hereafter the "translators" and "copy- ists" employed by the antiviviscctionists may be more accurate, or rather that the men and women back of these poor em- ployes may be willing not to distort and suppress the truth in order to effect their purpose. It is a safe rule, I find, not to believe any statement of an antivivisectionist uiltil its accuracy is established by reference to the original source from which the alleged statement or quotation is derived. 3. My charge of garbling and inaccuracy of quotation is practically admitted, but the reviewer statis (p. 15): "For none of them [the translations] was the American Humane Association responsible in any way whatever." It is now rather late in the day to advance this disclaimer, after the in- sertion on the inside of the cover of the pamphlet of the sen- tence: "The facts are indisputable," and in the preface ver the signature of the president and secretary of the Association; "In each case, the authority is given." It is a fayorite trick of antivivisectionists to attempt to throw off in this way responsibility, when confronted with incontrovertible evidence of false statements, as is illustrated in the controversy between Miss Cobbe and Mr. Horsley. I shall be curious to see the fourth edition of this pamphlet. For it 1 now furnish one more instance of false statement, the evidence of which was not in my possession last January. Even Mi. Brown admits that to this "the reference may, per- haps, be called indefinite." I submit that "perhaps" it may, for no bock, journal or any other publication was named. The instance I refer to is Jansen's lecture purporting to be quoted on page 26 of pamphlet No. 2. The lecture was published in a well-known journal, the Centralblatt f. Bakteriolofiie u. Para- sitenlcundc, 1891, Vol. x, p. 40. So gross is the falsification that the reference was "perhaps" wisely omitted. The first 6 phrase of the quotation is as follows: "When I began my experiments with smallpox pus, etc." This is an absolute un- truth. What Jansen used was not smallpox pus at all, but sterilized, diluted vaccine lymph, and sterilized blood sei urn from vaccinated calves, which could do no more harm than in- jecting so much water. The entire extra :t is inaccurate as i translation. There can be no question but that the substitu- tion in this alleged quotation of "smallpox pus" for "sterilize d vaccine lymph can not be attributed to the mere "error oi a translator." but is a deliberate falsification. ana this in a pamphlet introduced with the statement to the reader: "The facts are indisputable"! Much has been made of my statement that I could only find in the pamphlet references to "two experiments" in America. Aly reason for this statement was very simple and perfectly evi- dent to any honest-minded reader. In the pamphlet "Human Vivisection" (No. 2) there are a number of experiments related, the numbered ones beginning with the following on page 4: "1. Vivisection Experiments upon the Insane." Under this title several experiments, all of the same nature and by the same individual, are reported, eight being referred to in all. On page 5, appears "2. Vivisec- tion of Children in Boston," and under this a numbef of experi- ments, all by the same person, are referred to. Anybody with common sense would see that when I referred to "two" in- stances, I did not mean two individual experiments, but using the classification of the pamphlet, 1 referred to Nos. "1" and "2" on pages 4 and 5. In fact 1 specifically referred to these pages and mentioned various experiments under each caption. I presume, however, that it is useless to expect fairness from an ambushed enemy. The anonymous "reviewer's" suggestion that as I was Presi- dent of the American Medical Association last year therefore I am responsible for every paper read before that body-when there were hundreds of papers read in over a dozen Sections be- fore several thousand members-is so amusing that 1 pass it by with a smile at the author's simplicity. One sentence of my letter 1 wrote perhaps better than I knew. In the account of Sanarelli's experiments a certain sentence, "I have seen unrolled before my eyes, etc." was quoted by "A. Tracy" in the original paper (No. 1). In that pamphlet two references were given, one to the British Medical Journal, the other to the New England Medical Monthly. 1 stated that this entire sentence occurred in neither of these journals and I added: "Whether it is quoted from some other source not indicated or has been deliberately added, I leave you or A. Tracy to explain." The "reviewer" explains that this quotation was from another source not indicated (surely this 7 was ''vague and indefinite"), namely, Sanarelli's original Italian paper, though no reference was made to it. Inasmuch as in my letter to Mr. Brown I gave the refer- ence to Sanarelli's original paper the anonymous author of the "review" pays me the compliment of supposing that I am a facile Italian scholar, and therefore, that I was perfectly aware that Sanarelli himself wrote this sentence. "With the volume in his hands, the original article open before his eyes," says the "reviewer," "would he have us believe that he did not take the trouble to compare and verify the only quotation from it which appears in the pamphlet? He did not see it? Credat Jud.TUS Apella! There are limitations to credulity. But how queer must be that sense of honor which would permit a man to make a disgraceful imputation knowing all the while that every word of it was false!" The simple facts of the case are these. Unfortunately I am not an Italian scholar, and have never even seen Sanarelli's original article. In order to find out the reaZ facts, I wrote to a friend who reads Italian well, to learn whether these five patients really died, as the American Humane Association pamphlet (No. 2) asserted. He replied giving me the original reference, and stated that not one of them died.. As the "reviewer" points out that this quotation by "A. Tracy" was from Sanarelli's original paper, a very interest- ing enquiry arises, viz., if "A. Tracy" in Senate document No. 78. as is now claimed, quoted from this original paper of San arelli, it is in order for him now to explain how it is when Sanarelli's original paper states that all of these patients re- covered he states that some, if not all of them died, and how he dares to quote nearly a page of oratory about "scientific mur- der" and "assassination," based upon this false statement. On page 2G of the anonymous "review" the author disputes the value of tuberculin as a test for incipient consumption in children. Were it worth my while I could give him references to disprove this statement, but in view of his amazing ignorance of modern medical progress as evinced by the next statement, i do not propose to take the trouble. He says "Dr. Keen knows perfectly well, in the first place, that phthisis, however early discovered,- is not in all probability a curable ailment." Has he never made a postmortem examination and found a cured phthisis? Has he never visited, or even read of. the Adiron- dacks, or Denver, or Colorado Springs, or Minnesota, or Ariz- ona. or New Mexico, or a score of other such places? Has he never read of the many books and pamphlets on sanatoria for consumptives? Does he know nothing of these modern move- ments? Koch's discovery of the bacillus of tuberculosis by experiment upon animals in 1882 has done more to help in curing consumption and other forms of tuberculosis than any other 8 one means and especially by its early recognition. If he will consult the recent Prize Essay on "Tuberculosis as a,Disease of the Masses and how to Combat it," by Dr. S. A. Knopf of New York he will be made aware of the facts. This essay was awarded the prize by the International Tuberculosis Con- gress last year in Berlin in a competition in which 85 prize essays were presented from all over the world. When I see the statement that phthisis is not curable even when discovered at an early stage, put forth seriously by my anonymous reviewer, I throw down the pamphlet in despair. One can not argue further with such dense ignorance. It is equal only to the assertion of another medical light among the antivivisectionists, that brain tumors can not be located outside the motor area. W. W. Keen, M.D.