Postinfluenzal Disturbances of the Nervous System

Abstract

To facilitate the removal of the cases from the docket and at the urgent solicitation of our attorney and with the con¬ currence of the court we paid the nominal fine in each case, which later on was refunded to us by the customer. At the same time we notified these two patrons that we insisted on their withdrawing the three products from the market until every package was redressed with new labels and cir¬ culars in the wording of which none but true statements were to appear. It is to the credit of both men to say that both cheerfully acquiesced and both had every package redressed properly before a single package was offered for sale. Our reason for inflicting this lengthy communication on your readers is that through the publication in Volume 72 of The Journal (see page 60, Jan. 4, 1919) Sharp & Dohme is by inference held out as being particeps criminis and as the originators and promoters of these three undoubtedly "Misbranded Nostrums." The injustice of that inference must appeal-at once to all fair-minded men who through reading the foregoing statement of absolute facts must concede that we were and are innocent of any intentional cooperation with this "misbranding." Therefore it is with a keen appreciation of your fairness to all houses of good repute that we ask that you give this communication a place in the widely read Journal, thereby affording us an opportunity of putting ourselves in the right light before the large group of ethical physicians whom we have honestly served for so many years and whose respect and confidence we feel that we can justly expect to retain. Sharp & Dohme.

Encephalitis lethargica and the influenza virus. III. The influenza pandemic of 1918/19 and encephalitis lethargica: neuropathology and discussion

“…In 1919 it had been plausible to assert that “[postinfluenzal] diseases of the cerebrospinal axis are of common occurrence” (Mayer 1919) despite dissenting voices (for instance, Eichhorst 1919). But the experience of subsequent influenza pandemics and the employment of increasingly refined pathological techniques led some to comment that influenzal encephalitis was quite rare (Crome 1954), while others cast doubt on the existence of influenza encephalitides altogether (Aronovich 1934; Stuart-Harris 1953, p 23).…”

“…Many authors stalwartly employed terms such as “post-influenza encephalitis”, “encephalitis comatose” and “encephalitis post gripposa” throughout the EL period (including Heiman 1919; Mayer 1919; Re 1919; Jaksch-Wartenhorst 1922, 1923; Fleischmann 1923; Herrmann and Wotke 1925). But these were more than matched by opposing reports, many of which were based on significantly greater case numbers.…”