[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
September 29, 1928


Author Affiliations

Collège de France, Paris

JAMA. 1928;91(13):979. doi:10.1001/jama.1928.02700130057025

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:  —I have recently read in The Journal (July 28, p. 246) that the microbe of Vincent's disease "had been described by Rauchfuss in 1893 and by Plaut in 1894." I had never before seen the name of Rauchfuss in the history of Vincent's disease. As for Plaut, this author did not "describe" or even see Bacillus fusiformis in his paper in the Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, 1894, p. 920. He did not describe the illness. If you consult that paper, you will easily see the proof of it; and that conclusion has been everywhere approved. I have described the etiology, the bacteriology, the clinical characters and varieties of angina, the diagnosis and even the treatment of that illness. I was also the first to study the fusospirochetal infection in hospital gangrene (1896), in tropical ulcers, etc.Plaut merely mentioned in 1894 that he had seen "Miller's bacilli and

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview