Bovine Tuberculosis And Other Things Of Interest


Not one of them has proved that a single human being has ever died of tuberculosis contracted by beef, milk, cheese or butter, yet they are spending immense sums of money “fighting” a theoretical condition, hampering a vital industry and raising the cost of living–all on a disputed theory with their biggest man against them.


The learned allopathic medical officials and their followers have gotten themselves and the world into a curious tangle over “bovine tuberculosis.” Some of them on the other edges, medical free-thinkers, as it were, say that, given clean food, pure water and fairly decent quarters, all cows will be healthy. Others, like Koch, say the disease is not transmissible to man from cows. The third class say the tuberculous cows are a menace to the public health and that no one can tell whether a cow has the disease without injecting tuberculin into her blood.

One tangle is the fact that many cows that have reacted to the injection and been slaughtered were found to be healthy, while others who were obviously diseased took the “test” without reaction. So it seems it is a test that, like a law-suit, is open to exceptions.

Another tangle is in the realm of pure reason. They teach that the bacilli of tuberculosis and its virus is the cause of that disease, yet the Tuberculin they inject is made from the bacilli and must contain the virus. Furthermore, it, i.e., Tuberculin, proved to be very disastrous to human beings in Kochs day. According to the theory of the spread of disease the Tuberculin injected cannot but help in doing so; indeed, many practical dairymen say it does, and that the tested cows are never so healthy afterwards. The “test” is the virus of tuberculosis and that virus is not a health-agent in the blood, at least so says common sense.

Another tangle is the fact that Koch, who discovered the bacillus of tuberculosis and jumped to the conclusion that it was the cause of the disease and not its effect, also said, after years of investigation, that the bovine bacillus of tuberculosis was not the same as that in human beings, and could not be the cause of human tuberculosis; but the officials preach his first proposition but deny the second. What any of them really know on the subject is another “problem,” for their apparent limitation is the “reaction” of the cow to the poison.

Here is another, a little more remote. It is said that plenty of good, substantial, nourishing food is necessary for recovery from this disease, said to be caused by Kochs bacillus. Yet Mr. Brittlebank (Br. Med. J., Mar. 29), chief veterinary inspector, Manchester, says that “33 per cent.” of the cows in England are infected with tuberculosis, which means, if the ideas of the medical powers are enforced, an advance of 33 per cent. in the price of beef, butter and cheese.

Now, in view of the fact that the medical powers of the past have generally been in error, is it not likely that they are again in an error that, if enforced, will result more disastrously than any of their previous mistakes? This tuberculosis theory of theirs has already resulted in aiding materially in the advance of our most essential food stuffs (in the face of Kochs statement) by hampering and curtailing the cattle industry by insisting on their most uncertain “test.” If these gentlemen cannot tell whether a cow is healthy without injecting a poison into her blood are they scientists?.

Not one of them has proved that a single human being has ever died of tuberculosis contracted by beef, milk, cheese or butter, yet they are spending immense sums of money “fighting” a theoretical condition, hampering a vital industry and raising the cost of living–all on a disputed theory with their biggest man against them.

E.P. Anshutz
Edward Pollock Anshutz – 1846-1918. Editor - Homeopathic Recorder and author of New Old and Forgotten Remedies. Held an Hon. Doctor of Medicine from Hering Medical College.