On the identity or non-identity of typhoid and typhus fevers / by William Jenner.
- Date:
- 1850
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: On the identity or non-identity of typhoid and typhus fevers / by William Jenner. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
111/115 page 100
![Thus, then, the assertion that typlioid fever is merely typhus fever modified by the prevailing epidemic constitution, is as irrecoiicilabie with facts, as that the former disease is simply the latter with abdo- minal complication. To conclude,—At the commencement of this analysis I proposed to examine whether typhoid fever and typhus fever dilfered from each other in the same way as small-pox and scarlet fever differed from each other; and, for the purpose of comparison, I laid down certain grounds, as those on which v^^e founded our belief in the non-identity of the two last-named diseases. Those grounds were :— 1st, In the vast majority of cases the general symptoms differ—i. e., of small-pox and scarlet fever. [This holds equally true with respect to the general symptoms of typhoid and typhus fevers.] 2d, The eruptions, the diagnostic characters, if present, are never identical—i.e., in small-pox and scarlet. [The particulars detailed in the foregoing papers prove that this is as true of the eruptions of tj^phoid and typhus fever, as of those of small-pox and scarlet fever.] 3d, The anatomical character of small-pox is never seen in scar- let fever. [Just in the same way the anatomical character of typhoid fever —i. e., lesion of Peyer's patches and the mesenteric glands—is never seen in typhus fever.] 4th, Both—i. e., small-pox and scarlet fever—being contagious diseases, the one by no combination of individual peculiarities, atmospheric variations, epidemic constitutions, or hygienic condi- tions, can give rise to the other. [I have here not attempted to determine how far this holds true with respect to typhoid and typhus fevers ; but I have consi- dered it in a paper read before the Medico-Chirurgical Society of London, December 1849, the contents of which I may anticipate so far as to state, that to my mind the origin of the two diseases from distinct specific causes, is as clearly proved as that scarlet fever and small-pox arise from distinct specific causes.] 5th, The epidemic constitution, favourable to the origin, spread, or peculiarity in form or severity of either—i. e., small-pox and scarlet fever—has no influence over the other, excepting that which it exerts over disease in general. [The facts detailed in these papers prove that this holds as true of typhoid and typhus fevers as of small-pox and scarlet fever.] If, then, the above are the grounds—and, after mature deliberation, I am able to assign no others—for the separation of small-pox from scarlet fever, I think it is indisputably proved, that tyi)hoid fever and typhus fever are equally distinct diseases ;—not mere varieties of each other, but specifically distinct,—specific distinction being shown in typhoid and typhus fevers, as in small-pox and scarlet fcn er, by tln' difference of their symptoms, course, duration, lesions, and cause.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21954653_0112.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
