View report page

135
St. Bartholomew's Hospital, E.C.,
December 19th, 1902.
I should have reported before this on the samples of Cockles if the work had
'been finished, that is to say, if the analysis of the last two samples, Fresh Cockles
No. 5, and Cooked Cockles No. 6, from Leigh-on-Sea (received on 16th December),
had been completed. Unfortunately, it is not completed yet, and I propose giving
you here a summary of the results so far obtained.
Samples Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were "cooked" cockles. Of each of these twelve
cockles were selected, cleaned on the outside, and a fraction of a droplet of the
interior of the animal was used for each cultivation in the various media required
to discover bacillus coli communis, bacillus typhosus and spores of the anaerobic
virulent bacillus enteritidis sporogenes. For each sample (1, 2, 3, 4), therefore,
something like three dozen cultures in tubes and plates were used. Of those
first tubes, which on incubation showed the changes indicating or suggesting the
presence of the above microbes, sub-cultures had to be made for isolating them in
pure culture, and these were finally used for applying all the tests and reactions—
chemical and physiological—necessary for their identification.
The result so far has been this:—
From Sample No. 1, received December 6th, were obtained (a) bacillus coli
communis; (b) spores of the virulent bacillus enteritidis sporogenes; (c) a microbe
which resembles The typhoid bacillus in the following respects: The aspect and
growth of the colonies are more like those of the typhoid bacillus than of the
bacillus coli; so also those in streak and stab culture. The bacillus in question
forms acid in litmus milk, but does not curdle the milk, that is to say, it resembles
the bacillus typhosus in those respects, as also in the fact that it does not form
Indol. It is cylindrical and highly mobile, just like the bacillus typhosus; but
unlike bacillus typhosus, and like bacillus coli, it ferments (that is, bubbles) gelatine.
I have tested the emulsion of this bacillus in respect of its relation to typhoid
blood; blood of a typhoid protected guinea-pig, which in dilution of 1 in 100
agglutinates the emulsion of the laboratory typhoid bacillus. One in 100 failed
to agglutinate the emulsion of the above bacillus in this dilution, but gave a fairly
good positive re-action as 1 in 20, though less distinct as 1 in 50.
I have obtained, through Dr. Caldwell Smith, from Dr. Beggs, of the Fever
Hospital at Tooting, blood of the two patients that have been sent to the Hospital
by Dr. Caldwell Smith, and that had been infected by eating cockles. I tested this
blood on our laboratory typhoid, and found it gave strikingly positive re-action as
1 in 20, agglutination being complete within 5 to 10 minutes. Tested on an
emulsion of our bacillus of the cockles the above blood failed to give any positive
reaction as 1 in 20 in one hour.
While, then, it appears that the interior of the cockles of this Sample I contained
microbes of sewage, there is no evidence that the microbe isolated, and which
resembled the typhoid bacillus in several respects, was the real bacillus typhosus.
From Sample 2* were isolated the bacillus coli communis, and the same species
of coli-like or, rather, typhoid-like bacillus, as was described above. No spores of
the bacillus enteritidis sporogenes were obtained from this lot.