causations that must be considered. To my mind it would be just as
reasonable to say that germs cause health, and I defy any
bacteriologist to prove that micro-organisms cause disease any more
than they cause health; and if he can't prove that germs are more
pathologic than they are physiologic, but does succeed in proving
that they are equally important to health and to disease, we can
agree to that equal importance and should be able to go on agreeing
and declare that if germs are the cause of disease they must also
cause health and it is our duty to spend at least a part of our
professional time in cultivating health germs. In fact it would be
much better to spend all our time in cultivating health germs and
insisting on people being inoculated with the serum from these germs
so that there will develop such a state of health that the disease
germs will have no show.

How can a sane man forgive himself for advocating inoculation by
disease germs to cause immunization when by the use of health germs
the health could be built so strong that the pathogenic germs would
have no show. If this theory won't work both ways it is a false
theory, and professional men, who should be logical if any set of
men are logical, should be ashamed to advocate any theory that is
based upon a half-truth.

As I stated the structure and function of an organ point to its
possible maladies. The cecum is the gate-way between the large and
small intestines. Its function of passing the contents of the small
intestine into the large is obstructed much of the time. It is
constantly subjected to bruising, pressure, stretching, and
obstruction, and is, therefore, more liable to be the seat of local
inflammations than any other part of the bowels. Diseases of this