His conclusions were: (1) That necrosing and necrotic processes are developed in various organs as a result of some irritant. (2) That uratic deposits occur in the necrosed area resembling those met with in gouty subjects. (3) That an inflammatory reaction with small cell infiltration ensues in the vicinity of such necrotic areas. But, in regard to these experimental investigations, they are obviously incomparable to the morbid processes that presumably occur in gout in man. Moreover, as shrewdly pointed out by Levison, experimental ligation of both ureters would certainly engender _uræmia_ rather than anything approximating to gout. Again, his experiments with urates and uric acid, by which he claims to have demonstrated their action as chemical irritants capable of inducing necroses in tissues, have proved fallacious. This, for the very cogent reasons pointed out by Luff, which run as follows: “Not only is there no proof that the neutral sodium urate upon which he depends for the starting of the gouty changes, ever exists in the human body, but, on the other hand, very strong evidence to show that it never can exist in the human body.”... “The neutral sodium urate is an extremely caustic and unstable compound, and is decomposed in the presence of carbonates, so that it is impossible for it to exist in the blood. The first factor upon which Ebstein relied for his theory for the causation of gout therefore disappears.” Again, Ebstein’s fundamental proposition that in gout uric acid was produced in many tissues not normally concerned in its production, was ruled out by Horbaczewski’s establishing the fact that in health uric acid is a by-product of the metabolism of almost all tissues. Lastly, the strong _toxic_ properties accredited by him to solutions of the urates was disproved by Pfeiffer’s experiments. This observer showed that urates, in such degrees of concentration as may exist in the human body, are incapable, when injected into the tissues, of inducing _necrosis_.