This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

HERMAN SHARLIT, M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1940;42(5):933-936.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The infectious (virus) nature of many herpetiform eruptions has been established by the production in animals and in human beings of comparable reactions in skin or mucous membrane from inoculation with material from spontaneously evoked lesions. Concerning herpes febralis and herpes progenitalis, similar studies have led to the conclusion that their respective viruses are immunologically distinct, a distinction corroborated by the epidemiologic features of both.¹

Long before a virus became suspected, nineteenth century clinicians of wide experience were sufficiently impressed with the persistent history of venereal disease in patients presenting genital herpes to surmise a venereal origin for the latter. Yet no single, unequivocal case history is recorded that establishes this clinical picture as a venereal contagion in its own right. For this reason the following short reports of 2 cases are recorded. The absolute reliability of the pertinent facts cogently argues acceptance of the theory of a venereal . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?