If you encounter a fowl species which weighs some 18 pounds, has a flat and rather large bill (not beak), waddles when it walks, has webbed feet and has been spray-painted blue, can you not safely say this is probably a duck or a goose? Ah, but now, it “quacks” exactly like a duck–not a goose and you see that the feather shaft is indeed white and the forensic studies of the blood and feathers pronounce the species a DUCK–can you not PROBABLY work from the standpoint that it is likely a duck and not the bluebird of happiness which you are TOLD TO ACCEPT AS IDENTIFICATION?
I ask that the “TERMINOLOGY” list be placed in front of the first chapter of this book.
CORRECT DIAGNOSIS OF DISEASE
How does a professor of Disease Control make diagnosis of disease? Does he not take all the symptoms of the illness and carefully analyse each and every one? Then does he not begin to rule out all causative organisms which do not produce like symptoms of the illness at point? Then does he not begin to effort to isolate all present organisms within the sick host? Next, if he has not found anything “outside and visible” in the blood/cellular system–does he not then go “within” the cells (as with the HIV virus) and isolate the PROBABLE beast and continue to study characteristics until he isolates the disease cause beyond all shadows of doubt? Can you not then begin to analyze this organism under the various slide stains and various organisms of identical nature garnered from historical data and various locations of identical disease and symptoms? Would the professor not soon learn that the VIRUS is NOT a COCCI or BACILLUS? Can he not then, beyond a shadow of a doubt, say the organism is a virus EVEN IF OTHERS PRONOUNCED IT PREVIOUSLY TO BE A BACILLUS? What would you call this error in identification? Either an error in identification–OR A LIE BY DECEPTION, whichever is appropriate; but, you would STOP TREATING THE DISEASE AS IF IT WERE CAUSED BY A BACILLUS!!!