Minutes of evidence taken by the Departmental Committee on Sleeping Sickness.
- Great Britain. Colonial Office. Committee on Sleeping Sickness.
- Date:
- 1914
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Minutes of evidence taken by the Departmental Committee on Sleeping Sickness. Source: Wellcome Collection.
15/346 (page 5)
![10 October 1913.] A.M.S. (Continued, 65. (Mr. Read.) Do you think in Uganda it would be possible to kill out the game; for instance, I believe there is an antelope there called the sitatunga, which is one of the animals implicated ;. it lives in the swamps, is very much sought after by sportsmen, but is scarcely ever seen or killed. That is one animal it would be almost impossible tc clear out?—If you gave one of these islands to a syndicate who wanted to plant rubber upon it, and they had sufficient capital, there would be very few sitatunga in that island in a very short time. 66. I am talking more of the mainland.—Give them a strip of mainland. 67. (Sir John Bradford.) I have not much to ask you. With reference to the question asked by the Chairman as regards the reservoir and the part played by the game versus other mammals, cattle, and so forth, and man, is it not a fact of importance that the trypanosome is not very pathogenic to the game ? Is not that one of the reasons why the game is such a very important factor as a reservoir ?—Yes. 68. I think that had not been brought out, perhaps, although it is a matter of very great importance ?—As far as one can see, the trypanosome has no effect on wild animals; they appear perfectly sleek and fat, and they do not appear to be affected in any way by the trypanosomes. 69. It would be correct to say that is one reason why the wild game is such a very important reservoir ” —Yes. 70. Could you tell the Committee shortly the evidence that the game is immune? You look upon it as a fact that the game is immune, do you not?—TI sup- pose it depends to a certain extent on the meaning of the word “immune”; if atrypanosome can live in the blood of the animal, that animal is not quite immune from the disease. 71. We might take it in the loose sense as to whether it kills the animal; what is the scientific evidence for or against these trypanosomes killing wild animals >—We have inoculated a good number of antelope with different trypanosomes, but none of these antelope have died of the disease. Some of the antelope in Uganda remained infective for two years or more. There is no evidence from the wild game in a wild country as to whether they are killed off by trypano- somes or not, because in a country of that sort if an animal dies it is eaten up within a few hours by the wild animals round about. The best evidence is, of course, to inoculate the ordinary antelope as a labora- tory experiment, and we have done that quite 12 times. It is difficult to keep the antelope alive when you have got them, so that we do not have many opportunities of making these experiments, but the 12 or so we have made indicated that the animals have the trypano- some in their blood for a certain time, that they do not show any signs of disease, and after a certain time the trypanosomes become very scanty in their blood, but are still there and can still infect the flies if the flies are fed upon them. 72. Is it not the fact that there are antelope at the “present time in Uganda which have been inoculated and are still living in health, and that their blood, at any rate, comparatively recently, was still virulent although they themselves were healthy ?—That is quite true. 73. Lam right in suggesting that that is one of the main reasons why the question of the reservoir in wild game is of such great practical importance P—Certainly. 74. If domestic cattle and men and so forth become infected with this trypanosome they die, and therefore the ae of spreading infection ig shorter ?—Yes, . There is another question I wanted to ask: Is hea any evidence of pathogenic trypanosomes in wild game in fly-free areas P—AII our experience shows not. We have examined a large number of antelope from fly-free areas, and we have never found pathogenic trypanosomes in them yet. 76. Does that apply to your work in Nyasaland or to your other work ?—I am thinking more of the work in Nyasaland. We have a large number of specimens of blood sent in from fly-free areas round about. O 19130 When I say a large number I mean 200 or 300 perhaps. It would be better if it was 2,000 or 3,000. 77. At the present time you have not found any pathogenic trypanosomes in the blood of wild game in fly-free areas >—We have not, but I would not despair of finding them if I looked long enough. 78. As a matter of fact, it has not been found ?— Not up to the present, and in the case of antelope in a fly-free area, that may be due to the fact that after a few months the trypanosomes may disappear so much out of their blood as to render it impossible to find them by ordinary blood examination. 79. They can be found in the antelope in the Uganda laboratory >—Not by the microscope but by inoculations, yes. What I meant was that the antelope in a fly country are probably always being re-infected. 80. As regards the fencing experiment, would it be correct to say that the main object of the fencing experiment from a scientific point of view is to deter- mine and ascertain whether the percentage of infected flies would be diminished by the destruction of game ? —If the fly remained in the fenced-in area then that would be one method of discovering the result of driv- ing offthe wild game; if the fly disappeared from the area that would be another. 51. That would be the main object of the experi- ment from the scientific point of view ?—Yes. We have dissected some thousand flies last year and this year to forma sort of standard, and the ratio when I left was almost the same for this year as for the year before ; that is to say, the same number of infected flies per thousand. It seemed to be very much the same this year as it was last year, so that it would not be at all difficult to find out whether that percentage had fallen or not. 82. You look upon that as a very important thing to ascertain ?—Yes, I think so. 83. Further, you believe, having carefully thought out this question and knowing the ground, that such an experiment is possible 2 _Yes, 84. And you think the possible fallacies would not vitiate it?—It is very difficult to tell what will be the result. 85. At any rate you think from the scientific point of view, speaking asa scientific man, it is an experiment worth doing ?—I think so, especially as I wanted to do it in an economical way and, as it were, just using the material on the spot. I spoke to all the different people round about there; the magistrates are very practical men, and the magistrate in charge of the district said he would undertake to do it, “and that there would be no difficulty in carrying it out. The Director of Public Works was also approached on the subject and said that so far as he could see there would be no difficulty in carrying it out. 86. And lastly, the object of this experiment is not simply to determine the incidence of the disease in man, but also to determine the incidence of the disease in cattle, and to render stock raising more possible ; is not that so? You allow that this trypano- some infection in Nyasaland is more important from the cattle point of view than from the human point of view ?—Yes. 87. So that this experiment, if successful, would afford information of some value with reference to problems of that kind, as well as with regard to the human problem ?—Certainly. 88. (Dr. Bagshawe.) There is only one thing I should like to ascertain. You were telling us just now about the antelope experiments in Uganda; you said that various antelopes which were infected with trypano- somes survived and some fre surviving now. I should like to ask about the sheep, goats and cattle in Uganda that have been infected in a similar way, whether they have invariably died as they did in Nyasaland, or whether they have survived ?—The sheep and goats infected with Trypanosoma gambtense ? 89. Yes.—I do not think many sheep or goats die of T. gambiense. It-is very difficult to get the percentage of mortality among those animals but I do not think gambiense kills goats or sheep, whereas I should say brucet vel rhodesiense does kill them fairly often. it is a slow chronic disease; I have not got my papers A 3](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32178104_0015.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
