THE MADRAS PLAGUE CASE. To the Editor
o/"Thb Indian Medical Gazettk." Sik,?A-3 y?u did not publish the letter I wrote to you giving details about the case of plague which occurred at the General Hospital, Madras, I shall feel obliged bv vour * * inserting this brief note. Lt.-Col. Maitland (in his second letter) lays great stress
upon the fact that three medical men who saw the patient of opinion that it was not a case of plague. It is necessary to state that four medical men who saw the case were very decidedly of the reverse opinion. Of these four, one was the Sanitary Commissioner, Lt.-Col. King, the other was the Health Officer of Madras, and a third was the medical attendant on the case and Professor of Hygiene, i.e., myself. I regret very much that you did not publish my original letter since the latter, taken in conjunction with Dr. Cook's letter, would have carried conviction as to the true nature of the case, to the mind of every unbiassed reader. In conclusion, I wish to emphasise the fact that the assertion that the patient had twice before sufEered from similar attacks is demonstrably incorrect, a statement in which I am supported by the patient himself. I am, &c., were
A. G.
GRANT, Capt.,
J, M.
o/"Thb Indian Medical Gazettk." Sik,?A-3 y?u did not publish the letter I wrote to you giving details about the case of plague which occurred at the General Hospital, Madras, I shall feel obliged bv vour * * inserting this brief note. Lt.-Col. Maitland (in his second letter) lays great stress
upon the fact that three medical men who saw the patient of opinion that it was not a case of plague. It is necessary to state that four medical men who saw the case were very decidedly of the reverse opinion. Of these four, one was the Sanitary Commissioner, Lt.-Col. King, the other was the Health Officer of Madras, and a third was the medical attendant on the case and Professor of Hygiene, i.e., myself. I regret very much that you did not publish my original letter since the latter, taken in conjunction with Dr. Cook's letter, would have carried conviction as to the true nature of the case, to the mind of every unbiassed reader. In conclusion, I wish to emphasise the fact that the assertion that the patient had twice before sufEered from similar attacks is demonstrably incorrect, a statement in which I am supported by the patient himself. I am, &c., were
A. G.
GRANT, Capt.,
J, M.
