Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:52:43.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On some Recently Developed Methods for Measles Prophylaxis.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

W. S. C. Copeman
W. S. C. Copeman
Affiliation:
(Lately “Assistant Étranger” in the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Paris.)
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.

That the human race is extremely susceptible to the ravages of measles is well known, Brownlee not being guilty of much exaggeration when he states that, in the presence of infection, the only way to avoid this disease is to have had it. MacNalty (1918) states in his report on the subject to the Local Government Board that “the disease is so universal in this country that few children escape it,” this being particularly true in reference to the poorer urban classes. Butler (1913) found as a result of the study of the statistics for the public elementary schools of Willesden that among persons who had attained the age of 15 and upwards, only 2·7 per cent. had escaped measles. Zingher states that amongst children who have not previously suffered from the disease, and who are exposed to it, between 96 and 98 per cent. will develop it.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 24 , Issue 3-4 , December 1925, pp. 427 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925

References

Aviragnet, (20. iii. 1923). Soc. de Ped.Google Scholar
Blackfan, Peterson and Conroy, (1923). Ohio State Med. Journ. XIX. 97.Google Scholar
Butler, (28. ii. 1913). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. (Epidemiol. Section).Google Scholar
Butterweisser, (1924). Deutsche med. Wochenschr.Google Scholar
Débré, and Joannon, (viii. 1923). Rev. d'Hygiène.Google Scholar
Débré, and Ravina, (1923). Bull. et Mém. Soc. Méd. des Hop. de Paris, XLVII. 226.Google Scholar
De Castro, (1922). Arch. Esp. de Ped. VI. 517.Google Scholar
Degkwitz, R. (iv. 1920). Zeitschr. f. Kinderheilk. XXVII. 171; XXV. 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degkwitz, R. (1921). Monatschr. f. Kinderheilk. XXII. 186.Google Scholar
De Jong, and Bernard, (1923). Bull. et Mém. Soc. Méd. des oôp. de Paris, XLVII. 500.Google Scholar
De Stefano, S. (1923). Pediatria, XXXI. 781.Google Scholar
Glaser, and Müller, (1921). Med. Klin. XVII. 649.Google Scholar
Herbman, C. (1915). Arch. Pediat. XXXII. 503.Google Scholar
Hiraishi, and Okamoto, (1921). Jap. Med. World, I. 10.Google Scholar
Kundralitz, K. (1923). Wien. med. Wochenschr. LXXIII. 1200.Google Scholar
Kütter, P. (1921). Zeitschr. f. Kinderheilk. XXX. 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNalty, A. S. and Wheaton, S. (1918). Reports to the Local Govt. Board (New Series, No 115)Google Scholar
McNeal, M. (1922). Journ. Am. Med. Assn. VII. 340.Google Scholar
Maggiore, S. (1921). Pediatria, XXIX. 873.Google Scholar
Manchot, and Reiche, (1921). Med. Klin. XVII. 1230.Google Scholar
Nicolle, and Conseil, (1918). C. R. Acad. des Sc.Google Scholar
Nicolle, and Conseil, (1918). Bull. et Mém. Soc. Méd. des Hop. de Paris, XLII. 336.Google Scholar
Nicolle, and Conseil, (1921). Arch. Inst. Pasteur de l'Afrique du Nord, 193.Google Scholar
Nobécourt, and Paraf, (10. vi. 1922). Presse Médicale.Google Scholar
Ratnoff, H. L. (1923). Arch. Ped. XL. 683.Google Scholar
Richardson, and Connor, (iv. 1919). Journ. Am. Med. Assn. LXXII.Google Scholar
Torres, and Pacheco, (1920). Arch. Lat. Am. de Ped. XIV 305.Google Scholar
Weaver, and Crookes, (1924). Journ. Am. Med. Assn. LXXXII. 240.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, L. (1922). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. XLVIII. 1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingher, A. (1924). Journ. Am. Med. Assn. LXXXII. 1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zschau, (1921). München. med. Wochenschr. LXVIII. 1049.Google Scholar