Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T04:09:06.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Epidemiology of Plague1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. Ashburton Thompson
J. Ashburton Thompson
Affiliation:
President of the Board of Health and Chief Medical Officer of the Government of New South Wales
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.

It is now twelve years since it first became possible to study plague by modern methods, and yet no conclusion on its aetiology has been reached which has met with general acceptance. Two causes, as it seems to me, have chiefly contributed to this disappoinment. One consists in the appeal which has been persistently made to bacteriology for the lights which in fact are not in its power to shed; the other is neglect of the epidemiological method, or at least failure to apply it effectively. In consequence, a field has been occupied by the bacteriologist which could not be profitably laboured by him. The epidemiologist has not seriously disputed this usurpation of his domain, and for his apparent apathy he has not been without excuses of some weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 6 , Issue 5 , October 1906 , pp. 537 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1906

References

REFERENCES

Bannerman, W. B. (1904), Report on experiments undertaken to discover whether the common domestic animals of India are affected by Plague. Report to Govt. of India. (Not published.)Google Scholar
Calvert, W. J. (1903), Plague bacilli in the blood. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. Vol. XXXIII. Orig. p. 247.Google Scholar
Condon, J. K. (1900), Report on the Bombay Plague, 1896—99. Bombay.Google Scholar
Creighton, (1905), Plague in India. Journ. of Society of Arts, vol. LIII. p. 813.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, B. (1900), Les puces des rats et des souris jouent elles un rôle important dans la transmission de la peste bubonique à l'homme. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. Abt. 1., vol. XXVII. p. 1.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, B. (1903), Les nouvelles recherches sur l'action des puces des rats et des souris dans la transmission de la peste bubonique. Centralbl. f. Bakt. Ref. vol. XXXIII. p. 753.Google Scholar
Gauthier, and Raybaud, (1903), Recherches experimentales sur le rôle des parasites de rat dans la transmission de la peste. Revue d'hygiène, vol. XXV. p. 426.Google Scholar
Hankin, E. H. (1898), La propagation de la peste. Ann. de l'Inst. Pasteur, vol. XII. p. 705.Google Scholar
Hankin, E. H. (1905), On the epidemiology of Plague. Journ. of Hyg. vol. V. p. 79.Google Scholar
Herzog, M. (1904), The Plague, Bacteriology, Morbid Anatomy and Histo-Pathology. Bulletin of Bureau of Government Laboratories, Manila, no. 25483.Google Scholar
Hill, (1904), Report on Plague in Natal, 1902—1903.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission of 1898—9, Report of (1901), Par. 221.Google Scholar
Kolle, W. (1901), Berichte über die Thätigkeit in der zu Studien über Pest eingerichteten Station des Instituts für Infectionskrankheiten 1899—1900. Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infektionskr. vol. XXXVI. p. 411.Google Scholar
Liston, W. G. (1904), Plague-rats and Fleas. Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. Bombay.Google Scholar
Liston, W. G. (1905), Indian Med. Gazette, p. 43.Google Scholar
Lowson, J. (1897), Report on the Bombay Plague epidemic. Bombay.Google Scholar
Ogata, M. (1897), Ueber die Pestepidemie in Formosa. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. vol. XXI. p. 774.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1897), Zur Aufklärung der Rolle welche Insekten bei der Verbreitung der Pest spielen. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., vol. XXII. pp. 87—97.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1898), Zur Aufklärung der Rolle welche stechende Insekten dei der Verbreitung von Infektionskrankheiten spielen. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. vol. XXIII. pp. 625—635.Google Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. (1899), On the rôle of insects etc. as carriers in the spread of bacterial and parasitic diseases of man and animals. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports, vol. VIII. 154 pp.Google Scholar
Pearse, T. F. (1905), Report on Plague in Calcutta for the year ending 30th June, 1904. Calcutta.Google Scholar
Rosenau, M. J. (1901), Viability of Bacillus pestis. Bull. no. 4 of the U. S. Marine Hospital Service. Washington.Google Scholar
Simond, P. L. (1898), La propagation de la Peste. Ann. de l'Inst. Pasteur, vol. XII, p. 625.Google Scholar
Simond, P. L. (1905), La question du véhicule de la peste. Rev. Médical du Brésil.Google Scholar
Simpson, W. J. (1903), Report on the causes and continuance of Plague at Hongkong, pp. 49—103. Hongkong.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. Ashburton (1900), Report on an Outbreak of Plague at Sydney, 1900.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. Ashburton (1903), Report on a second Outbreak of Plague at Sydney, 1902.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. Ashburton (1904), Report on a third Outbreak of Plague at Sydney, 1903.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. Ashburton (1904), Report on a fourth Outbreak of Plague at Sydney, 1904.Google Scholar
Tidswell, F. (1903), Report on a second Outbreak of Plague at Sydney, 1902. By Ashburton Thompson.Google Scholar
Tiraboschi, G. (1903), Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Pestepidemiologie. Archiv f. Hygiene, vol. XLVI. p. 251.Google Scholar
Wilm, (1896), Report on Plague in Hongkong, 1896. Hongkong.Google Scholar
Wilm, (1897), Ueber die Pestepidemie in Hongkong im Jahre 1896. Hygienische Rundschau, vol. VII. p. 217.Google Scholar