View report page

was also found afterwards, on bacteriological examination,
to be infected in a sore on his hand with the true diphtheria
(Klebs-Loeffler) bacillus. If the cowman infected the
cows, he may have contracted the diphtheria in his ulcer
from his own throat, or nose, during the well-known
habit of milkers of spitting upon their hands prior to starting
milking, though, in this connection, no true diphtheria
(Klebs-Loeffler), nor any other suspected, bacilli, were
obtained therefrom, on examination. If the view of the
cowman's ulcer, being infected directly from the cowman
be correct, the source of his diphtheria remains
obscure, as no cases of that disease, NOT of sore throat,
weTe known officially in connection with the particular
farm, or in connection with the particular neighbourhood.
An alternative explanation is that the cows infected
the cowman and the other milkers by inoculation, but
there was no direct evidence to shew that the cows'
mastitis or teat eruptions were diphtheria-infected, the
teat sores being dried up and scaled and giving no results,
on bacteriological examination.
Whichever of these views be true, the interest is
purely scientific, and the conclusions drawn in this
Report, are in no way affected. In any case, it is practically
certain, from information received locally, that the
cowman's ulcerated finger was infectious (diphtheriainfected)
from about the last week in November up to the
date of the amputation, viz.: December 27th, 1913, and
that during that time infected milk was being sent from
the farm G to the dairy X, for distribution into the different
districts supplied. The milk from farm G was under
contract—75 to 90 imperial gallons daily. Taking the
dates of onsets of the diphtheria in the notified patients
(Table III.) it will be noticed that the infection began to
spread during the last week in November and continued
during the first two weeks in December, whr?n it suddenly
ceased, coincidently with the whole of the milk, supplied
from the suspected dairy X, being nasteurised (not less
than a temperature of 180 degrees F.) before distribution
to the public, as a temporary oreventive measure, which
was ordered by the Medical Officer of Health, pending
investigations as to the actual source or sources of infection
being completed and the necessary permanent preventive
measures being taken. The wisdom of this temporary
preventive measure cannot be gainsaid, no further case
of diphtheria being notified afterwards, i.e., no case that
42