Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:59:12.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Relationship of the Pseudo-Diphtheria to the Diphtheria Bacillus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. F. Petrie
G. F. Petrie
Affiliation:
Assistant-Bacteriologist, Serum Department, Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The extreme diversity of opinion as to the identity of the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus and the bacillus of Hofmann, and the importance of the subject from the public health standpoint, make it desirable to bring forward any facts which may assist in arriving at a solution of the problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 1905 , pp. 134 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1905

References

Behring, (1904). Aetiologie und aetiologische Therapie des Tetanus, Berlin, p. 8.Google Scholar
Bruck, Carl (1904). Experimentelle Beiträge zur Theorie der Immunität. Zeitschr. f. Hyg., Bd XLVI., p. 176.Google Scholar
Cobbett, Cobbett (1903). Discussion on “The Nature of the so-called Pseudo-diphtheria (Hofmann) Bacillus and its significance (if any) in the bacteriological examination for Diphtheria.” Journal of State Medicine, Vol. XI., p. 609 (Liverpool Congress of Royal Institute of Public Health, 1903).Google Scholar
Ehrlich, (1900). Report of 13th International Congress of Medicine at Paris (Section of Bacteriology and Parasitology), p. 28.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, and Morgenroth, (1900). Ueber Haemolysine. Berliner klinische Wochenschr., p. 453.Google Scholar
Glücksmann, (1897). Ueber die bakteriologische Diagnose der Diphtherie. Zeitschr. f. Hyg., Bd XXVI., p. 417.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. H. (1903). Supplement. Report on Bac. diphtheriae and microorganisms liable to be confounded therewith. 31st Annual Report of Local Government Board, 1901, 1902, p. 418.Google Scholar
Graham-Smith, (1904). A study of the virulence of the Diphtheria bacilli isolated from 113 persons and of 11 species of diphtheria-like organisms, together with the measures taken to check an outbreak of Diphtheria at Cambridge, 1903. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. IV., p. 258.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alice (1904). The question of virulence among the so-called Pseudo-diphtheria Bacilli. Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. I., p. 690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewlett, R. T.. (9 07, 1904). Supplement to the British Medical Journal, p. 16.Google Scholar
Lambotte, (1902). Les sensibilisatrices des Bacilles diphtéritiques et Pseudodiphtéritiques. Centralbl. f. Bact., Bd XXX., p. 817.Google Scholar
Lesieur, (1901). De l'Agglutination des Bacilles dits “Pseudo-diphtéritiques” par le sérum Anti-diphtéritique, Compt. rend. de la Société de Biologie, T. 53, p. 819, and Les Bacilles dits “Pseudo-diphtéritiques”, Paris, 1902.Google Scholar
Lubowski, R. (1900). Ueber einen atavischen und avirulenten Diphtheriestamm und über die Agglutination des Diphtheriebacillus. Zeitschr. f. Hyg., Bd XXXV., p. 87.Google Scholar
Ruediger, (1903). Trans. Chicago Path. Soc. (cited by Hamilton, 1904).Google Scholar
Salter, (1899). The Pathogenicity of the Pseudo-diphtheria bacillus and its relation to the Klebs-Loeffler organism. Trans. Jenner (Lister) Institute of Preventive Medicine (London), 2nd series, p. 113.Google Scholar
Spronck, (1896). Ueber die vermeintlichen “schwachvirulenten Diphtheriebacillen” des Conjunctivalsackes und die Differenzirung derselben von dem echten Diphtheriebacillus mittels des Behring'schen Heilserums. Deutsche med. Wochenschrift, p. 571.Google Scholar
Wassermann, (1904). Entstehung und Wirkungsweise der aktiven Stoffe im Immunserum. (Internationaler Kongress für Hygiene in Brüssel, 1903.) Ref. Centralbl. f. Bacteriologie, Referate, Bd 35, p. 17.Google Scholar