Pasteur and Rabies (1890)
By Dr Thomas Dolan M.D. – 40 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary
Sasha Latypova recently posted this excellent piece on rabies and Pasteur.
Rabies Recipes: How sane doctors were defeated by the insane scientists 140 years ago.
The rabies story is so amazingly corrupt, and yet its legacy is still so strong to this day.
At every turn it’s a fraud.
This is an important book shedding light on the fraudulent original “science” of rabies and the fraudster Pasteur.
With thanks to Dr Thomas Dolan.
Related Posts
Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers)
This deep dive is based on the book:
Discussion No.53:
21 key insights from “Pasteur and Rabies”
Thank you for your support.
Analogy
Imagine a skilled car mechanic who becomes widely celebrated for developing a new method of fixing engine problems. He claims his method works on any make or model of car, and can even prevent future breakdowns. When cars arrive at his shop, he classifies them into three categories based on how sure he is that they have engine problems, even though he admits he can't actually see inside many of the engines to confirm issues.
He injects a special fluid into each car's engine in varying amounts over several days. When cars run fine afterward, he claims his treatment saved them from certain breakdown. However, local mechanics notice that many of these "treated" cars had no real engine problems to begin with, and some cars actually develop new transmission problems after his treatment - something rarely seen before.
Meanwhile, other mechanics demonstrate that regular maintenance and proper driving habits prevent most engine failures. They also show that cars previously claimed "unfixable" without his treatment often run perfectly fine with basic care. Most tellingly, when they check official vehicle repair records, they find the same number of engine failures occurring before and after his miracle treatment became available.
This analogy mirrors how Pasteur's rabies treatment gained acceptance through authority rather than evidence, how he classified cases without reliable diagnostic methods, how his treatment sometimes created new problems (paralytic rabies), and how basic prevention proved more effective than his complex solution. Just as a car might run fine without intervention, many bite victims naturally avoided infection without treatment - but in both cases, the "cure" received credit for a natural outcome.
The transportation analogy makes it easier to understand how a treatment can appear successful while actually having little or no effect, and how authority and statistical manipulation can create an illusion of effectiveness even when documented evidence suggests otherwise.
12-point summary
Statistical Reality vs Claims - Historical French rabies mortality averaged 25 deaths per year, with Pasteur's claims of saving hundreds of lives annually contradicting documented hospital records that showed no significant reduction in death rates after his treatment introduction.
Treatment Evolution and Risk - Pasteur's treatment methods evolved through trial and error, moving from simple to intensive protocols and back again, with each change driven by treatment failures rather than scientific understanding. The intensive treatment notably introduced a new danger: paralytic rabies.
Geographic Patterns - County-by-county statistics revealed highly localized patterns of rabies occurrence, with some regions showing zero cases while others maintained consistent infection rates. This pattern suggested local control measures were more effective than treatment.
Police Officer Evidence - The Metropolitan Police experience provided compelling evidence against high infection risks, with no rabies deaths among officers despite hundreds of documented bite cases. This challenged Pasteur's claims about transmission rates.
Bite Location Significance - Hospital records demonstrated that bite location strongly influenced survival rates, with head wounds showing 22.2% mortality compared to 0.59% for bites through clothing. This factor proved more reliable in predicting outcomes than treatment timing.
Scientific Understanding Gaps - The rabies virus remained unidentified and uncultivated throughout Pasteur's work, making it impossible to understand how treatments actually functioned. This fundamental gap in knowledge undermined claims of scientific certainty.
Clinical vs Laboratory Divide - A significant split emerged between clinical observers who documented patient outcomes and laboratory scientists who relied on animal experiments, highlighting the difficulties in translating experimental results to human treatment.
Prevention Effectiveness - Municipal control measures and dog laws proved more effective at preventing rabies than post-exposure treatment, with some regions achieving complete elimination through proper enforcement alone.
Classification Problems - Pasteur's classification system for rabid dogs relied on post-mortem examinations that leading veterinarians considered worthless for confirming rabies, creating fundamental flaws in his statistical analysis.
Treatment Timing Contradictions - While Pasteur initially claimed quick treatment was essential, he later treated patients successfully months after exposure, creating irreconcilable contradictions in his explanations of treatment effectiveness.
Protective Factors - Multiple natural factors influenced infection rates, including clothing protection, wound bleeding, and the presence of other microbes in saliva, suggesting many "cures" might have involved cases where infection was unlikely regardless of treatment.
Authority vs Evidence - The acceptance of Pasteur's treatment relied heavily on his scientific authority rather than clinical evidence, with criticism suppressed until mounting treatment failures and statistical contradictions became impossible to ignore.
40 Questions & Answers
1. How did Pasteur's reported mortality rates compare with historical French rabies statistics?
The historical mortality rate for rabies in France, according to Tardieu's report to the Minister of Hygiene in 1863, averaged approximately 25 deaths per year. This figure was considered reliable as it was based on comprehensive responses from all departments and local authorities. When examining specific years between 1850-1872, the numbers fluctuated from as low as 12 deaths to a maximum of 66 deaths, with most years showing between 20-40 fatalities.
Pasteur's statistics claimed dramatically higher numbers, suggesting potential deaths prevented in the hundreds per year. Sir James Paget, citing Pasteur's work, claimed 15% mortality among those bitten by rabid dogs, suggesting that of 7,000 bitten individuals, 1,000 would have died without treatment. This stark contrast with historical data raised significant questions about the accuracy of Pasteur's reported figures and the classification of rabid dog bites.
2. What were the key discrepancies in Pasteur's statistical reporting methods?
The primary discrepancy lay in Pasteur's classification system, which divided cases into three categories: Class A (dogs proven rabid by experimental test), Class B (dogs recognized as rabid by veterinary surgeons), and Class C (dogs merely suspected of being rabid). This system presumed all patients were exposed to danger and made no allowance for non-rabid dogs, despite veterinary experts considering post-mortem evidence "worthless" for confirming rabies.
Furthermore, Pasteur's statistics showed an unprecedented surge in rabid dog cases in France, which contradicted all previous epidemiological patterns. The reporting method also failed to account for patients who left Paris for the provinces, making it difficult to track actual outcomes. When deaths occurred, they were often explained away through various contradictory arguments about treatment timing or intensity, rather than being incorporated into accurate statistical analysis.
3. How did the mortality rates in the Department of the Seine change before and after Pasteur's treatment?
Dr. Dujardin Beaumetz's official records for the Department of the Seine showed virtually no improvement in mortality rates after Pasteur's treatment introduction. The four years before Pasteur's treatment (1882-1885) recorded 38 deaths, while the four years after (1886-1889) recorded 37 deaths, demonstrating remarkable consistency rather than improvement.
More tellingly, in 1889, among six recorded fatalities, three occurred in patients who had undergone Pasteur's anti-rabic treatment, while three had not received treatment at all, suggesting the treatment had no significant impact on survival rates. This pattern directly contradicted claims of treatment efficacy and raised serious questions about the method's actual preventive value.
4. What evidence supported Professor Peter's criticism of Pasteur's statistical methods?
Professor Peter's criticism was supported by official hospital records and mortality statistics from multiple sources. He demonstrated that the real mortality from hydrophobia in France remained stable or slightly increased after Pasteur's treatment introduction, contrary to claims of dramatic reduction. Peter collected testimony from 34 medical practitioners who had seen only rare cases of rabies throughout their careers, contrasting sharply with Pasteur's claims of treating 1,500 cases in just six months.
Additionally, Peter highlighted the contradictions in Pasteur's explanations for treatment failures. When Lord Doneraile died, Pasteur claimed eleven days was too late for treatment, yet he simultaneously claimed success in cases treated much later. Peter also documented cases where Pasteur's intensive treatment appeared to induce fatal paralytic rabies, a previously rare form of the disease.
5. How did English county-by-county rabies statistics challenge Pasteur's claims?
English county statistics revealed highly localized patterns of rabies occurrence, with some counties showing no cases at all while others demonstrated consistent patterns of infection. Lancashire showed the highest rate with 214 deaths over twenty years (3.6 per million), while several counties recorded zero deaths. This geographic distribution suggested that rabies was far less prevalent than Pasteur's statistics implied.
The English data also revealed that the Hydrophobia Commission's calculation that 860 persons would require treatment annually in England was grossly inflated. In reality, Pasteur treated only 210 English patients total over several years, demonstrating a significant disparity between projected and actual numbers requiring treatment. This discrepancy challenged the fundamental assumptions underlying Pasteur's statistical claims.
6. What role did classification of rabies cases play in statistical manipulation?
The classification system created by Pasteur artificially inflated the number of rabies cases by including three broad categories without sufficient scientific verification. The system accepted veterinary diagnosis post-mortem as evidence of rabies, despite leading veterinarians like Dr. George Fleming stating that no post-mortem examination could definitively prove rabies. This classification method effectively counted suspected cases as confirmed cases.
The system also failed to account for cases where dogs were never found or examined, yet these cases were still included in treatment statistics. This created a self-fulfilling prophecy where treated patients who survived were counted as "saved" from rabies, even when there was no evidence the dog that bit them was actually rabid.
7. How did hospital mortality records contradict Pasteur's success claims?
Hospital mortality records provided precise documentation of rabies deaths, complete with patient names, dates, and locations. These records showed that Pasteur's claim of 12 deaths per year in Paris hospitals was inflated - the actual average was 5.2 deaths per year from 1881-1885. This documentation provided irrefutable evidence against Pasteur's statistical claims.
The hospital records also demonstrated that mortality patterns remained consistent before and after Pasteur's treatment introduction. During pre-treatment years, hospitals recorded similar fluctuations in death rates as they did after treatment began, suggesting no significant impact from the new method. This contradicted claims of dramatically reduced mortality through treatment.
8. What was the significance of the geographical distribution of rabies cases?
The geographical distribution of rabies cases revealed distinct patterns that challenged Pasteur's uniform approach to treatment. Different regions showed vastly different incidence rates, with some areas reporting no cases while others demonstrated consistent patterns of infection. This distribution suggested local factors played a more significant role than previously acknowledged in disease transmission and control.
The geographic data also highlighted the importance of municipal control measures over treatment. Areas with strict dog control laws and effective police enforcement showed lower incidence rates regardless of treatment availability. This pattern suggested that prevention through public health measures might be more effective than post-exposure treatment.
9. How did Pasteur's treatment formula evolve over time?
Pasteur's initial formula used spinal cord solutions from 14 to 1 days old, administered in a specific sequence. When deaths occurred, he modified the formula to exclude the strongest solutions (days 4 through 1), creating what became known as the simple treatment. However, continued failures led to the development of an intensive method using stronger solutions again.
The treatment eventually settled on a compromise formula using cords no fresher than five days old, after the intensive method proved dangerous. This evolution demonstrated the empirical nature of the treatment, with changes driven by treatment failures rather than scientific understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
10. What were the key differences between the original and intensive treatment methods?
The original treatment method used a graduated series of injections starting with highly attenuated virus (14-day dried cord) and progressing to stronger solutions (1-day dried cord). This method spanned 10 days of treatment with daily injections. The intensive method compressed this timeline and used stronger solutions more quickly, sometimes administering multiple injections per day.
The intensive method proved more dangerous, leading to cases of paralytic rabies - a previously rare form of the disease. This forced a return to weaker solutions, but Pasteur continued to claim success with both methods, creating contradictory explanations for why some patients died under each protocol. The differences between methods highlighted the experimental nature of the treatment and the lack of scientific understanding of how the injections actually worked.
11. Why did Pasteur abandon the intensive treatment method?
Deaths from paralytic rabies forced Pasteur to retreat from the intensive method. Notable cases, including Goffi from the Brown Institution who died of paralytic rabies after intensive treatment, demonstrated the dangers. The British Hydrophobia Commission attempted to attribute Goffi's death to the cat's virus rather than the treatment, but the British Medical Journal quickly challenged this explanation, noting that acute ascending paralysis cases often recovered when not treated intensively.
This pattern of paralytic deaths led Professor Peter to raise serious concerns at the Academy of Medicine in Paris. When confronted with evidence that the intensive method might be dangerous, Pasteur modified his approach to use weaker solutions. This reversal highlighted how the treatment evolved through trial and error rather than scientific understanding.
12. How did the five-day treatment protocol differ from earlier versions?
The five-day protocol eliminated the use of the strongest solutions (cords dried for fewer than five days), reducing the risk of treatment-induced complications. Unlike earlier versions that used increasingly potent solutions culminating in one-day dried cords, this protocol maintained a more moderate approach throughout the treatment course.
However, this modification created a paradox in Pasteur's explanations of treatment failures. When Lord Doneraile died after receiving only five-day treatments, Pasteur claimed the treatment was too weak, despite having successfully treated other patients with the same protocol. This inconsistency highlighted the empirical nature of the treatment's development.
13. What was the scientific basis for Pasteur's injection timing?
The scientific basis for injection timing remained largely theoretical and unproven. Pasteur's method assumed that injected virus and excretory substances given in daily emulsions of dried cords would have time to permeate the system and counteract the original infection. However, there was no clear understanding of absorption rates or physiological processes connected with each injection.
The timing appeared arbitrary, as multiple injections were sometimes given on the same day without knowledge of how the previous injection had been processed by the body. The lack of scientific understanding about the rabies virus itself - which Pasteur admitted had never been isolated or identified - made it impossible to establish a truly scientific basis for the injection schedule.
14. How did the treatment of Lord Doneraile exemplify problems with the method?
Lord Doneraile's case exposed fundamental contradictions in Pasteur's method. Pasteur claimed the treatment failed because Doneraile waited eleven days after being bitten and received only the simple treatment with five-day cords. However, Pasteur had successfully treated other patients who came later than eleven days and used the same protocol, including several Russians who traveled greater distances.
Doneraile's servant, bitten by the same fox just eight hours earlier, survived after receiving identical treatment. This outcome challenged Pasteur's explanation about timing and treatment intensity, suggesting either that the treatment's effectiveness was unpredictable or that other factors determined survival rates.
15. What role did injection timing play in treatment outcomes?
Injection timing proved inconsistent in determining treatment success. While Pasteur initially claimed timing was crucial, stating that waiting too long after a bite would render treatment ineffective, he later contradicted this position by successfully treating patients who came weeks or months after being bitten. In December 1889, he even claimed "it is never too late to begin the treatment."
Cases like Marinot, a French soldier who died despite receiving treatment within an hour of being bitten, contrasted with survivors who delayed treatment for weeks. This inconsistency suggested that injection timing might be less significant than other factors in determining outcomes.
16. How did Pasteur explain treatment failures?
Pasteur's explanations for treatment failures shifted constantly and often contradicted each other. When patients died after receiving the simple treatment, he blamed the weakness of the solution. When deaths occurred after intensive treatment, he reverted to claiming the simple treatment was more appropriate. He alternately cited delayed treatment, improper treatment intensity, and various other factors to explain failures.
These contradictory explanations culminated in his 1889 statement that "rabies may suddenly appear during the process of treatment," despite earlier claims about treatment timing being crucial. This pattern of shifting explanations suggested a lack of understanding about why treatments succeeded or failed.
17. What were the documented cases of paralytic rabies following treatment?
Paralytic rabies, a previously rare form of the disease, emerged as a significant complication of Pasteur's intensive treatment. Cases like Goffi demonstrated a new pattern of paralysis rather than traditional hydrophobic symptoms. The British Medical Journal noted that this form of rabies differed from typical cases, particularly in its paralytic progression.
Professor Peter identified multiple cases of paralytic rabies occurring specifically after intensive treatment, leading him to warn the Academy of Medicine about the treatment's dangers. This new manifestation of the disease raised serious questions about whether the treatment itself could induce a fatal form of rabies.
18. How did wolf bite cases differ from dog bite cases in treatment outcomes?
Wolf bite cases demonstrated significantly higher mortality rates than dog bites, but Pasteur's statistics appeared to exaggerate the difference. While Pasteur claimed a 62% mortality rate for wolf bites, Dr. Kishensky's careful study of Moscow hospital records showed a 30% mortality rate, with deaths primarily occurring in cases involving extensive head wounds.
The Moscow data revealed that out of 24 severe wolf bite cases, only five died, all with extensive head wounds. This suggested that wound severity and location, rather than the species of the biting animal, might be the critical factor in determining outcomes.
19. What factors influenced survival rates in documented cases?
Multiple factors affected survival rates, including bite location, severity, and whether clothing provided protection. Head and face bites proved most dangerous, with mortality rates of 22.2% compared to 2.2% for hand bites and 0.59% for bites through clothing. These statistics came from documented hospital cases rather than Pasteur's theoretical calculations.
The bleeding of wounds, protective clothing, and the possibility that dogs had exhausted their virus through previous bites all influenced survival rates. Additionally, Pasteur himself acknowledged that the presence of other microbes in dog saliva might prevent rabies development, suggesting that multiple factors affected infection rates.
20. How did clothing affect bite outcomes and treatment success?
Clothing provided significant protection against rabies infection, with documented cases showing dramatically lower mortality rates for bites through clothing (0.59%) compared to exposed areas. This protection factor wasn't adequately accounted for in Pasteur's statistics, which often treated all bites as equally dangerous.
The protective effect of clothing helped explain why many people bitten by supposedly rabid dogs survived without treatment. This factor, combined with natural bleeding of wounds and other protective mechanisms, suggested that many of Pasteur's "cures" might have involved cases where infection was unlikely to occur regardless of treatment.
21. What patterns emerged in treatment failure cases?
Treatment failures showed several consistent patterns that challenged Pasteur's explanations. Patients died regardless of when they began treatment - some like Marinot died after receiving treatment within an hour of being bitten, while others who delayed treatment for weeks survived. This contradicted Pasteur's varying claims about optimal treatment timing. The cases also revealed that deaths occurred under both simple and intensive treatment protocols.
A particularly telling pattern emerged in cases where multiple people were bitten by the same animal. In several documented instances, treated patients died while untreated victims survived, as in the case of a postman who died after treatment while another man bitten by the same dog remained healthy without intervention. These outcomes suggested that the treatment's effectiveness was unpredictable at best and potentially harmful at worst.
22. How did police officer bite cases challenge treatment assumptions?
The Metropolitan Police statistics provided compelling evidence against Pasteur's claims about rabies risk. Despite handling thousands of suspicious dogs and sustaining numerous bites (186 documented cases between 1885-1886), no police officers died from rabies. This remarkable record existed before Pasteur's treatment became available, demonstrating that dog bites, even from potentially rabid animals, rarely resulted in hydrophobia.
Sir Charles Warren's testimony revealed that even officers with "hands covered with bites" from supposedly rabid dogs survived without treatment. Only seven officers were ever sent to Paris for Pasteur's treatment, despite the high number of bite incidents. This evidence suggested that the risk of developing rabies after a dog bite was far lower than Pasteur's statistics implied.
23. What role did bite location play in treatment outcomes?
Hospital records from Moscow's Katharine Hospital provided clear evidence that bite location significantly influenced survival rates. Of 18 patients bitten in the head, four died (22.2% mortality), while only two deaths occurred among 90 patients bitten on the hands (2.2% mortality). No deaths occurred in 25 cases of feet bites, and only one death occurred among 170 cases of bites through clothing (0.59% mortality).
These statistics demonstrated that bite location was a more reliable predictor of outcome than treatment timing or method. The data suggested that Pasteur's uniform treatment approach failed to account for this crucial variable, potentially leading to unnecessary treatment in low-risk cases and inadequate intervention in high-risk situations.
24. How did the timing of treatment affect patient survival?
The relationship between treatment timing and survival proved inconsistent and contradictory. Pasteur initially claimed that treatment must begin quickly after exposure, citing Lord Doneraile's eleven-day delay as a reason for failure. However, he later treated Madame Luisa Caressa successfully nearly a year after her bite, claiming the treatment would "prove just as efficacious as if she had undergone the process immediately."
This contradiction extended to numerous cases. Some patients died despite immediate treatment, while others survived after significant delays. The evidence suggested that treatment timing had little predictable effect on outcomes, challenging one of the fundamental principles of Pasteur's method.
25. How did clinical observers challenge Pasteur's laboratory methods?
Clinical observers, led by Professor Peter, questioned the scientific basis of Pasteur's approach. They pointed out that treating a disease with an unknown virus using solutions of uncertain strength contradicted basic medical principles. Dr. Klein, an Inspector of the Local Government Board, emphasized that subcutaneous inoculation in humans differed fundamentally from the intracranial injections used in animal experiments.
These clinical observers also highlighted the lack of understanding about how the treatment actually worked. Without knowledge of absorption rates, physiological processes, or even the nature of the rabies virus itself, the treatment remained purely empirical. Their criticisms focused on the gap between laboratory results and clinical application.
26. What was Professor Peter's role in exposing treatment dangers?
Professor Peter, as a respected clinician and member of the Academy of Medicine, provided the first systematic critique of Pasteur's method. He collected and analyzed mortality statistics showing that death rates from rabies had actually increased since Pasteur's treatment introduction. More importantly, he identified and documented cases of paralytic rabies occurring specifically after intensive treatment, a previously rare form of the disease.
His position as successor to Trousseau and his extensive clinical experience lent weight to his observations. Peter's careful documentation of cases and outcomes helped expose the contradictions in Pasteur's claims and the dangers of the intensive treatment method, ultimately forcing Pasteur to modify his approach.
27. How did veterinary evidence reliability affect case classification?
The reliability of veterinary evidence proved problematic for Pasteur's classification system. Dr. George Fleming, Veterinary Inspector-General, testified that post-mortem examination could not definitively determine whether a dog had been rabid. This admission undermined Pasteur's Class B classification, which relied on veterinary certification of rabies through post-mortem examination.
This unreliability created a fundamental flaw in Pasteur's statistics. Cases were being classified as confirmed rabies based on evidence that leading veterinarians considered worthless, artificially inflating the number of rabid dog bites and, consequently, the apparent success rate of the treatment.
28. What were the key differences between clinical and laboratory approaches?
The clinical approach, represented by Professor Peter and others, emphasized patient observation, documented outcomes, and consistent diagnostic criteria. This methodology relied on verifiable hospital records and careful documentation of symptoms and progression. In contrast, Pasteur's laboratory approach focused on animal experiments and theoretical mechanisms, often making assumptions about human applications based on rabbit studies.
This fundamental difference in approach led to conflicting interpretations of results. While laboratory experiments showed consistent patterns in rabbits, human outcomes proved far more variable. Clinical observers argued that this disconnect demonstrated the limitations of applying laboratory findings directly to human treatment without understanding the underlying mechanisms.
29. How did animal experimentation results translate to human treatment?
The translation of animal experiments to human treatment proved problematic. Pasteur's successful results with intracranial injection in rabbits did not necessarily apply to subcutaneous injection in humans. Dr. Klein pointed out that the same method produced different results in different species - protecting some dogs while causing rabies in rabbits.
Furthermore, the degree of virus attenuation through cord drying, while established for rabbits, remained uncertain for humans. The lack of understanding about minimum and maximum attenuation levels "quoad hominem" (with respect to humans) meant that treatment protocols remained essentially experimental, despite claims of scientific certainty.
30. What role did medical authority play in treatment acceptance?
Medical authority significantly influenced the acceptance of Pasteur's treatment, despite clinical evidence questioning its effectiveness. Sir James Paget's statement that "those who knew him would rely on his word without any question" exemplified how personal authority sometimes overshadowed scientific evidence. This deference to authority led to acceptance of statistical claims that contradicted documented hospital records.
However, this authority-based acceptance began to erode as treatment failures accumulated and contradictions emerged. The willingness of respected figures like Professor Peter to challenge Pasteur's methods demonstrated the limits of authority in the face of clinical evidence. This tension between authority and evidence characterized the scientific debate surrounding the treatment.
31. How did the medical community respond to treatment failures?
The medical community's response to treatment failures revealed a deep divide between clinical practitioners and laboratory scientists. Clinical observers like Professor Peter documented cases meticulously and demanded explanations for treatment failures, while laboratory proponents often dismissed failures by creating new explanations about timing, intensity, or other variables. This split reflected a broader tension between traditional medical observation and the emerging field of experimental medicine.
The response also evolved over time as failures accumulated. Initially, most criticism was dismissed or suppressed through appeals to Pasteur's authority. However, as documented cases of treatment-induced paralytic rabies emerged and statistical inconsistencies became apparent, more medical professionals began questioning the method's effectiveness. The emergence of careful hospital documentation eventually made it impossible to dismiss treatment failures as mere anomalies.
32. What were the limitations of post-mortem examinations?
Post-mortem examinations proved fundamentally unreliable for confirming rabies, as testified by leading veterinary experts including Dr. George Fleming. When questioned by the House of Lords Committee, Fleming explicitly stated that no post-mortem examination could definitively determine whether a dog had been rabid. This limitation undermined the entire basis of Pasteur's Class B classification, which relied on veterinary certification through post-mortem examination.
The inability to confirm rabies after death created a circular logic in treatment validation. Dogs were classified as rabid based on unreliable post-mortem evidence, then patients bitten by these supposedly rabid dogs were counted as "saved" when they survived treatment. This methodological flaw made it impossible to accurately assess treatment effectiveness, as there was no reliable way to confirm whether treated patients had actually been exposed to rabies.
33. How did police involvement affect rabies control?
Police involvement in rabies control provided valuable data about actual infection risks and effective prevention methods. The Metropolitan Police experience with dog control demonstrated that direct exposure to supposedly rabid dogs rarely resulted in hydrophobia, even before Pasteur's treatment became available. The complete absence of rabies deaths among police officers, despite hundreds of documented bite cases, suggested that the disease was far less transmissible than Pasteur claimed.
Additionally, police enforcement of dog control laws proved more effective at preventing rabies than post-exposure treatment. Areas with strict enforcement showed lower infection rates regardless of treatment availability. This evidence supported the view that prevention through public health measures offered more reliable protection than Pasteur's treatment method.
34. What prevention methods proved most effective?
Prevention through municipal control measures demonstrated greater effectiveness than post-exposure treatment. Dr. Dujardin Beaumetz concluded that proper enforcement of the 1881 law requiring the killing of dogs exposed to rabid animals provided more reliable protection than Pasteur's treatment. This conclusion was supported by geographic data showing lower infection rates in areas with strict dog control enforcement.
The success of prevention methods was particularly evident in regions that implemented comprehensive control measures, including dog licensing, stray dog control, and mandatory reporting of suspicious cases. These measures reduced rabies incidence without requiring the maintenance of expensive treatment facilities or subjecting patients to potentially dangerous inoculations.
35. How did municipal responses vary by region?
Municipal responses to rabies showed significant regional variation, reflected in the geographic distribution of cases. Some areas maintained consistently low or zero infection rates through strict enforcement of dog control laws, while others experienced regular cases due to less rigorous control measures. This variation provided natural experimental evidence about the effectiveness of different prevention strategies.
Lancashire, for example, recorded the highest rate with 214 deaths over twenty years, while several counties recorded no deaths at all during the same period. These dramatic differences suggested that local policy and enforcement played a crucial role in disease control, independent of treatment availability. The success of some regions in preventing rabies entirely demonstrated the potential effectiveness of proper municipal control measures.
36. What role did dog control laws play in prevention?
Dog control laws emerged as a crucial factor in rabies prevention, with evidence suggesting they were more effective than post-exposure treatment. The 1881 French law requiring the destruction of dogs exposed to rabid animals provided a clear framework for prevention, though its effectiveness varied with enforcement levels. Dr. Fleming noted that proper implementation of these laws could potentially eliminate the disease entirely, making treatment facilities unnecessary.
The success of dog control laws was particularly evident in areas with consistent enforcement. These regions demonstrated that systematic prevention through animal control could achieve better results than treating bite victims after exposure. This evidence supported the argument that resources might be better spent on prevention than on maintaining treatment facilities.
37. How did virus behavior affect treatment success?
Understanding of virus behavior remained limited, affecting treatment reliability. Pasteur admitted that the rabies virus had never been isolated or identified, making it impossible to determine how it responded to different treatment protocols. The variable success of similar treatments suggested that virus behavior might be more complex than initially assumed.
The uncertainty about virus behavior extended to transmission mechanisms. Pasteur noted that direct subcutaneous inoculation of rabid dog saliva rarely succeeded in transmitting the disease, yet this same method formed the basis of his treatment. This contradiction highlighted the limited understanding of how the virus actually functioned in both natural infection and treatment contexts.
38. What factors influenced saliva transmission?
Multiple factors affected saliva transmission of rabies, creating significant variability in infection risks. Clothing provided substantial protection, with bites through clothing showing only 0.59% mortality compared to much higher rates for exposed areas. The natural cleaning of teeth through previous bites, bleeding of wounds, and presence of other microbes in saliva all influenced transmission effectiveness.
Pasteur himself acknowledged that saliva composition could affect transmission, noting that other microbes present in dog saliva might prevent rabies development. This complexity in transmission factors helped explain why many people bitten by rabid dogs never developed the disease, regardless of treatment status.
39. How did incubation periods affect treatment timing?
Incubation periods for rabies showed remarkable variation, complicating treatment timing decisions. Dr. Klein pointed out that this variability made it impossible to determine appropriate treatment protocols, as no one could predict how quickly the disease might develop in any given case. This uncertainty undermined Pasteur's claims about optimal treatment timing.
The wide range of incubation periods also made it difficult to evaluate treatment effectiveness. When patients survived, it was impossible to determine whether the treatment had prevented rabies or if the patient simply hadn't been infected. Similarly, when patients died despite treatment, varying incubation periods made it difficult to determine whether the treatment had failed or had been started too late.
40. What was the relationship between bite severity and treatment outcome?
Bite severity showed a clearer relationship to outcomes than many other factors, particularly in wolf bite cases. The Moscow hospital data demonstrated that fatalities occurred primarily in cases with severe head wounds, regardless of treatment timing or method. This suggested that wound severity might be a more reliable predictor of outcome than the treatment protocol used.
However, Pasteur's treatment approach did not adequately account for bite severity in determining treatment protocols. The same treatment regimens were often applied to both severe and minor bites, ignoring evidence that different wound types might require different approaches. This one-size-fits-all approach contributed to unpredictable treatment outcomes.
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
Interesting and illuminating, of course. I am about to start training in Fire/EMT citizen work and the agency is insisting I have a tetanus vaccine. I am declining and that might exclude me from said training. Might you have any revelations about tetanus and its vaccine?
In the early 2000’s, two airmen were bitten by the same wild monkey while overseas. One was on rotation to return home within a few days of the bites. The other stayed in theater. The one who traveled home was healthy a couple of weeks after the bite. The airman who traveled home first was given rabies shots as preventative medicine. He subsequently became ill with a central nervous system disease, suffered for over a year and died.
The airman who stayed in theater returned home months later was too late to qualify for the rabies shot. The second airman to return home never received treatment for rabies and remained healthy.
The wife of the airman who died was told by all doctors that there was no way that the rabies “vaccine” could have been the cause of her husband’s illness. No test to determine if the rabies “vaccine” was the cause, just constant proclamations that vaccines save lives and are safe.