This article has many mistakes and myths related to the Carrion’s disease history that are common in medical publications (1). It is necessary to correct them for that the scientific community can learn an real history:


1) Carrion designed a clinical experiment only for reproduced Verruga Peruana. One of the most common historical errors is that Carrion sacrificed his life to establish the common etiology of Verruga Peruana and Oroya Fever. In 1885, his experiment was only designed to reproduced the benign Verruga Peruana, not the Oroya Fever. Unfortunately, he developed in his experiment a fever associated with severe anemia, which is known as Oroya Fever. It was difficult for him to accept, but eventually be recognized that he was developing this dangerous sepsis. This recognition is in fact this scientific finding but it was not a planned finding. Scientific contribution of Daniel Alcides Carrion was obtained by serendipity (2), but he was also able to do it because of his scientific preparation, and his prepared mind.

2) Carrion did not demonstrate the hypothesis of unitary theory of bartonelosis. Although Carrion’s experiment provided clinical evidence that Oroya fever and verruga peruana were the same disease, Carrion made no scientific proof of unitary theory Carrion’s disease like by mistake some scientific papers publish it. In 1905, Alberto Barton observed intracellular bacteria in blood smears from Oroya fever patients but did not solved the riddle of the etiological agent of Carrión's disease because he did not described this bacteria in Verruga Peruana patients. The doubt persisted. The final demonstration of the hypothesis could be made in 1926 by Hideyo Noguchi, of the Rockefeller Institute to isolate the bartonella bacilliformis in both phases of the disease, Oroya Fever and Verruga peruana. (3,4).


3) Carrion probably developed called Oroya fever, a severe sepsis with severe anemia, The doctors to try to save his life experimentally administered injections of phenic acid, currently banned for its toxicity. Carrion's death came just hours after the intravenous administration of toxic antiseptic, fiscal research at the time did not investigate the toxic application of antiseptics because they still do not knew such toxicity, and only concentrated on inoculation of the infectious agent, cataloging the death caused by the infectious agent of the Peruvian wart, but in hindsight, considering the application of phenic acid, death of Carrion can be categorized as culpable homicide by malpractice. (5).



BIBLIOGRAPHY



1. Salinas D. Daniel Alcides Carrión en las publicaciones médicas chilenas: Errores históricos Rev Med Chile.
2014; 142 (5) ; 657-8
2. Stella A. La contribución de Carrión: un ejemplo de serendipia. Folia Derm Peru. 2001; 3: 63-7.
3. Salinas D. El Experimento de Daniel Alcides Carrión: Una Historia Real. Diagnóstico; 2013;52 (1):39 – 48
4. Noguchi H The etiology of verruga peruana J Exp Med 1927; 45: 175-89
5. Salinas D. La muerte de Daniel Alcides Carrión: Una revisión crítica An Fac Med. 2009;70(2):143-8