 |
|
SYPHILISReview of the Recent Literature
HERMAN BEERMAN, M.D.;
IRA L. SCHAMBERG, M.D.;
LESLIE NICHOLAS, M.D.;
LAWRENCE KATZENSTEIN, M.D.
AMA Arch Intern Med. 1955;95(2):256-319.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
|
|
THIS, THE nineteenth annual review of syphilis, contains contributions published during the period July 1, 1953, to July 1, 1954. The over-all trends in this material are along the lines discussed in the previous review.1 In fact, presentations of the problems seemed to have become so repetitious and so suggestive that further work on a dead subject 2 was a waste of time for all concerned, and such a waste of space in important medical journals, that we were considering saying "amen" to these summaries. However, certain experiences we have had in which trainees in dermatology and syphilology have not only failed to recognize active syphilis but have also actually failed to consider this disease in the differential diagnosis have convinced us that, like typhoid fever, syphilis must always be kept in mind. Furthermore, several editorial accounts in medical and lay journals of the potential and actual resurgence of
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
Philadelphia; Wilmington, Del.; With the Collaboration of T. Guthe, M.D., and C. J. Hackett, M.D., Geneva, Switzerland
From the University of Pennsylvania Departments of Dermatology, School of Medicine (Donald M. Pillsbury, M.D., Professor); Graduate School of Medicine (Herman Beerman, M.D., Chairman), and the Venereal Disease Control Section, Division of Preventive Medicine, Philadelphia Department of Public Health (Ira L. Schamberg, M.D., Chief). Dr. Guthe and Dr. Hackett are with the World Health Organization.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
|
