"The result of the serum craze had been that the hospital was neglected for the laboratory. Microbes of all the diseases were found in perfectly healthy subjects. Microbes existed, but as a consequence, not a cause. Toxins which the seropaths professed to find were only the results of normal fermentation. The English public had always supported him in his fifteen years' struggle against Pasteurism." Dr. Lutaud, says the National Society, is "the great authority." The _New England Anti-vivisection Monthly_ in 1900 calls him one of "the brightest scientists of modern times." His _Journal de Médecine de Paris_ recalls the _Medical Brief_:-- "To wish to apply the same methods of treatment, whether preventive or curative, for two morbid conditions (a _wound_ with the point of entry _abnormal_ and an infectious _malady_) in essence so different, is to commit a gross error.... The sick are destroyed by that which cures their wounds." These two "medical journals," the _Medical Brief_ and the _Journal de Médecine de Paris_, are upheld by the National Society as though they were expert witnesses of irresistible authority, and are quoted with a sort of ceaseless worship in that Society's official journal. Also it quotes the _Herald of Health_; and _Medical Liberty_, "a monthly publication issued by the Colorado Medical Liberty League, Denver, Colo., whose eloquent editor seems to be an uncompromising foe to medical bigotry and monopoly, and humbugs of every description." Such are the medical journals which support the _Zoophilist_ as a scientific journal. Now let us take another point of view. Let us consider whom the _Zoophilist_ praises, and whom it condemns. That, surely, is a fair test of an official journal. And we get a clear result. The late Lord Salisbury and Mr. Arthur Balfour are "notoriously pro-vivisectionist"; Lord Lister has "apostatised from the anti-septic faith"; M. Pasteur is a "remorseless torturer"; the late Mr. Lecky was "degenerate," because he "performed the _volte-face_ and went over to our opponents"; and the late Professor Virchow was subjected to "scathing criticism" by one Paffrath, and was proved to be absurd. But its praises are given to a very different set of men. There is no room here to note the lighter moods of the _Zoophilist_; its jokes about cats and catacombs, and two-legged donkeys and four-legged donkeys, and how to catch mosquitoes by putting salt on their tails--and it will even _break its jest on the dead_--but it rebukes another journal for levity, saying, _We regret to see our_ _painful subject treated in this manner._ No room, either, for its description of anti-vivisectionist plays, poems, novels, and sermons. Let us, to finish with, take a few statements from its pages, almost at random; some of them are reprinted there from other sources. The supply is endless; let us limit ourselves to six of them:--