[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]
June 5, 1915


JAMA. 1915;LXIV(23):1915. doi:10.1001/jama.1915.02570490031016

It is not far from the truth to say that until recently the treatment of cholera has been essentially expectant and symptomatic. Specific antiseptic substances administered by mouth to inhibit the growth of the infecting organisms in the alimentary tract have been without value. Attempts have been made sometimes to expel the bacterial invaders by the use of purgative drugs. Yet such procedures fail to bring any relief whatever to some of the consequences and complications that attend the original intoxication. Prominent among the latter are the renal lesions, not infrequently accompanied by uremia.

Dr. A. W. Sellards1 of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, who has had an extensive experience in the treatment of cholera in the Far East, has lately pointed out that some of the symptoms of uremia which resemble toxemia are due, not to the presence of a foreign toxin, but to the depletion of a normal

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