Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:13:05.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Laboratory Diagnosis of Typhus Fever. Further Observations on the value and on the significance of the Weil-Felix Reaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

N. Hamilton Fairley
N. Hamilton Fairley
Affiliation:
Pathologist, 14th Australian General Hospital. Lecturer and Examiner in Parasitology, Egyptian University.
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.

Following the capture of Jerusalem and in the early months of 1918 Capt. C. M. Craig, R.A.M.C., obtained a culture of a proteus-like bacillus from the civil Jewish bacteriologist of that city. He was informed that this organism was being extensively used by German and Austrian bacteriologists on the Eastern front for the diagnosis of Typhus Fever. After making some preliminary observations on its agglutination by the sera of typhus patients he forwarded the culture on to this laboratory for further investigation, the preliminary account of which was published by Craig and Fairley (21 Sept., 1918, Lancet, pp. 385–6).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , August 1919 , pp. 203 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1919

References

page 204 note 1 A full account will be found in Nuttall (1917), “The part played by Pediculus humanus in the causation of disease.”. Parasitology, vol. x. pp. 44–57, 74–75.Google Scholar

page 204 note 2 Plotz, , Olitsky, and Baehr, (1915), Journ. Infect. Dis. xvii. 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 204 note 3 Olitsky, (1917), Journ. Immunology, ii. 363.Google Scholar

page 204 note 4 Weil, and Felix, (1917), Wien. klin. Wochenschr. xxx. 393–9Google Scholar; Viteček, Ibid. 967–972.

page 205 note 1 Sterling, and Sterling, , Wien. klin. Wochenschr. xxx. 972–4Google Scholar; Ballner and , Ibid. 966–7; Dadez, and Kvahelsha, (1917), München. med. Wochenschr. lxiv. 1379–1381.Google Scholar

page 205 note 2 Garrow, (1917), Lancet, i. 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 213 note 1 Craig and Fairley, loc. cit.Google Scholar