Diphtheria / by William P. Northrup ; measles, scarlatina, German measles / by Theodor von Jürgensen ; ed., with additions by William P. Northrup ; authorized translation from the German, under the editorial supervision of Alfred Stengel.

Northrup, William P. (William Percy), 1851-

Date:: 1902

Credit: Diphtheria / by William P. Northrup ; measles, scarlatina, German measles / by Theodor von Jürgensen ; ed., with additions by William P. Northrup ; authorized translation from the German, under the editorial supervision of Alfred Stengel. Source: Wellcome Collection.

27/768 (page 19)

$HISTORY. ritis, and he regarded it as contagious, although he was unable to pro- duce it in animals. Trousseau later elaborated the views of his master, and gave the present name, diphtheria, to the disease as better* describing a general constitutional affection, and one capable of causing death not only mechanically, but by a systemic poisoning. The membrane was regarded by him not as a primary lesion, but as a result of infection. Finally, his explanation of the cause of post-diphtheritic paralysis and albuminuria accords well with modern views. The early studies of Virchow and his pupils again tended to confuse the subject. They recognized three forms of inflammation on mucous surfaces: (1) Catarrhal; (2) croupous; (3) diphtheritic. Croupous inflammation was regarded as a superficial process with a greater or less production of young cells. Diphtheria was regarded as a true interstitial process affecting the submucous layers, the diphtheritic exudate continually necrosing, and properly described as gangre- nous. The fallacy of these conclusions was only cleared up by bac- teriolog3\ From this time to the discovery of the dijditheria bacil- lus a great deal of work was done on the pathology of the disease b\ many different observers, notably by Virchow and his pupils, Wright, Cohnheim, and Peters, especiall\^ as to the nature and mode of forma- tion of the membrane, and b} Oertel, Babes, and nian\' others on the remote pathologic lesions of the disease. Period III. Discovery of the Diphtheria Bacillus.—This period dates from the discoveiy of the diphtheria bacillus hy Klebs and its later confirmation b\ Ticiffler fin LSSd). (See I^acteriologv.) Period IV. Antitoxin.—This })eriod dates properlv from 1892, when the plea for the treatment of diphtheria by inoculation was ]U’e- sented to the Congress of Buda])est (Comptes rendus) b}' l^ehring, Kossel, and others (see Antitoxin). From that time to the present day great advances have been made in the production of antitoxin, in its greater concentration, in the knowledge of the proper dosage and of its value as an immunizing agent, so that to-da^ diphtheria ma}' be regarded as the disease of which we have the greatest knowledge as to causation, clinical symptoms, treatment, and prevention.$