[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]
March 6, 1926


JAMA. 1926;86(10):691. doi:10.1001/jama.1926.02670360031014

Public health workers in the United States have been so generally accustomed to regard contaminated water and milk as the most common vehicles of typhoid, at least in the past, that it is something of a shock to find the experienced London county medical officer taking the stand that these factors have been overrated and that "some of the historical water outbreaks of cholera and typhoid fever were really in all probability due to fish or shellfish; and that many of the supposed milk and most of the ice cream outbreaks were similarly attributable." The immediate cause of this deliverance was, no doubt, an editorial5 in The Journal suggesting that in the United States there is reason to think that when shellfish (oyster) infection now occurs it can be detected more readily than formerly, owing to the subsidence of the great wave of water-borne and milk-borne typhoid, which for