View report page

39
If G. R. was the source of the infection, the milk consumed
on April 20th and April 21st would be the ones most liable to
be contaminated. The dates correspond very closely to the
probable dates upon which the cases that occurred in this
district were infected.
There was one other mode by which this milk supply might
have been infected. It is possible for the Scarlet Fever germs
to be implanted upon the udder and teats of the cows, if there
be present an ulceration of the teats or an inflammation of the
udder. The cow may thus be the source of Scarlet Fever in man,
not because it is constitutionally infective, but because it is
acting as a carrier of human infective organisms.
It has been stated that another milker (D. F.) had suffered
from sore throat, and that he lived in a village where Scarlet
Fever was prevalent. As a rule, even a sore throat that occurs
during a Scarlet Fever outbreak is looked upon with suspicion,
and some authorities regard these cases of sore throat without
a rash as an abortive form of Scarlet Fever. The possibility
that D. F. had implanted the infective germs upon the teats
of the cows was borne in mind, but all the evidence pointed
against this indirect manner of infection.
The cows were examined by a veterinary surgeon, who
reported that there was no evidence of recent mastitis or
ulceration of the teats. Moreover, the sudden outbreak of short
duration pointed to a purely human source of infection.
The bulk of the evidence goes to show that G. R. probably
infected the milk when acting as milker. Although the specific
germ of Scarlet Fever has not with certainty been isolated, there
is reason to believe that the germ finds in milk a favourable
medium for growth.
From the time the milk was handled by G. R. to its delivery
at the customers' houses there would be ample and favourable
opportunity for the multiplication of the germs.