This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
—In The Journal, March 11, is published an article by Lichtenberg and his associates on this subject. The fundamental problems of fusospirochetal disease seem to have completely escaped the authors. In view of the tragedies that will surely follow application of their implied therapeutic deductions, we feel obligated to protest. The title is misleading. From its wording one would expect a discussion of the spirochetes, but they are ignored except as vaguely confused with the terms fusospirochetes and fusiform bacilli and are proved nonpathogenic by that dangerous method of assumption. The title errs in stating "the fusiform bacillus." It would have been more correct to have stated "a fusiform bacillus" and that tentatively.In fusospirochetal disease the spirochete for the following reasons is considered to be most important:Fusospirochetal disease of the mouth is limited exclusively to the dentulous age; i. e., the spirochete age. Prior to
Fusospirochetal disease of the mouth is limited exclusively to the dentulous age; i. e., the spirochete age. Prior to
Belding LJ, Belding PH. "THE PATHOGENICITY OF THE FUSIFORM BACILLUS AND SPIRILLUM OF PLAUT VINCENT". JAMA. 1933;101(4):300. doi:10.1001/jama.1933.02740290048029