It is very difficult, even from a historical standpoint, to accept a description of an epidemic, exanthematous affection of a century ago and try to adapt this description of disease to what we see to-day. Our point of view is entirely at variance with that of observers of an early clinical school. With such a disease as roetheln or rubella our confusion is more marked if we study the epidemics of this disease described by Hildebrand in 1832, Heim in 1812, and Forney in 1784-1796. It is not surprising that such a writer as Jurgensen is thrown into doubt. It would be well if we should reject all but the most modern descriptions of epidemics of roetheln, as these modern writers can be more easily understood by us to-day. We do no injustice then to older, or we may say to antiquarian, historians; their descriptions are obscured by lack of
KOPLIK H. ROETHELN.ITS DIFFERENTIATION FROM MEASLES OR SCARLET FEVER.. JAMA. 1900;XXXV(19):1195–1199. doi:10.1001/jama.1900.24620450009001d
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.