The physiology of the carbohydrates : a reply to Dr Pavy's "Epicriticism" / by D. Noël Paton.

  • Paton, Diarmid Noël, 1859-1928.
Date:
1896
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The physiology of the carbohydrates : a reply to Dr Pavy's "Epicriticism" / by D. Noël Paton. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    6/16 (page 5)
    ceptions of Dr Pavy’s results which have led me to misrepresent his meaning. Let me add, however, that fortunately these points are of minor importance, and without direct bearing on the question of the fate of sugar. The first of these is in regard to the amount of carbohydrate which Dr Pavy maintains may be cleaved off from the proteid substance, and upon this misconception certain arguments on pp. 10 and 16 of my article are founded. But if these arguments be struck out, the' evidence against Dr Pavy’s theory is not affected. The second is in regard to the nature of the sugar in the blood in the general circulation. Upon it no argument is based, so that it need not be discussed here. The third point is in regard to the range of variation in the reducing power of the alcoholic extract of the portal blood. In my statement on p. 8, the 10 should have been 18. The error is due to the printer, but I should not have allowed it to pass. Correctly stated, in Dr Pavy’s Experiment II., p. 104, Physiology of Garlohydrates, the first sample of blood withdrawn had its reducing power raised by sulphuric acid by 18 per cent., while the second had its reducing power raised by 27 per cent. In Experiment II., p. 105, the first portion of blood had its reducing power raised by sulphuric acid by 20 per cent., the second portion by 30 per cent. Taking, then, these figures instead of those given in my article, I still think that they strongly “ militate against any definite con- clusion being drawn from the observations.” These are the only misrepresentations with which I can charge myself. I regret that I should have allowed myself to fall into such errors, and I apologise to my readers and to Dr Pavy for having failed to truly represent his results. Dr Pavy very bitterly complains of my misrepresentation of his consideration of Ldpine’s work. I do not blame myself for omitting to consider a sentence beginning (p. Ill), “ Weighty objections have been raised by various authorities,” without any reference to the authorities, and I do not see that the use of a capital S at the beginning of my quotation injured his contention in any way. As to the other misrepresentations with which I am charged I simply deny them, and I consider that I have represented Dr Pavy’s results and arguments as fully and fairly as it was possible to do without reproducing whole pages of his book, which my readers as medical men were supposed to have read or to be about to read. I leave it to those who will take the trouble to peruse my original article as well as Dr Pavy’s “ Epicriticism ” to judge in how far I have dealt unfairly with him. Methods. In my article the methods used by Dr Pavy were only cursorily considered. Dr Pavy defends them at considerable length, and as