﻿94 The Philippine Journal of Science i9i4 



average of 64.8 days. Accepting these conclusions, it is evi- 

 dent that the occurrence of entamcebic dysentery in an infected 

 individual can be prevented and that prophylaxis against car- 

 riers of E. histolytica can be attained by expelling the patho- 

 genic entamcebae from the intestine of all infected persons. The 

 procedure in such cases would be either (1) to make a differ- 

 ential diagnosis between E. coli and E. histolytica and treat only 

 those infected with the latter species, or (2) to treat all persons 

 indiscriminately who are infected with entamcebae. Positively 

 to exclude E. histolytica from an infection is difficult. In order 

 to do so it would be necessary, in our opinion, that a person of 

 considerable experience with entamoebse examine very carefully 

 a number of cover-glass preparations of each of several formed 

 stools from the infected person— an operation which would con- 

 sume a great deal of time and patience. Furthermore, in the 

 examination of the cysts in 76 cases, Willets- found a double 

 infection in 59.2 per cent, a pure E. coli infection in 35.5 per 

 cent, and a pure E. histolytica infection in 5.3 per cent. It 

 follows that E. coli. was present in 94.7 per cent and E. histoly- 

 tica in 64.5 per cent of the infected individuals. Therefore, 

 it seems to us that the prophylaxis of entamcebic dysentery by 

 excluding E. histolytica from infections is impracticable for 

 routine usage in this locality. It would consequently appear 

 that expelling all entamcebae from the intestinal tract of infected 

 persons would be a more practicable method. In this connection 

 it is necessary to note that it is commonly known that one may 

 harbor an entamcebic infection without the development of enta- 

 mcebic dysentery. Therefore, it is probable that only a small 

 percentage of persons would submit to treatment in order to 



' The following case is of interest as bearing on the question of the incuba- 

 tion period of entamcebic dysentery. Dr. W. P. H., an American interne of 

 the Philippine General Hospital, was admitted to the ward on August 12, 

 1912, complaining of fever and headache. A routine stool examination 

 disclosed cysts of both E. coli and E. histolytica. No treatment for the 

 infection was given. On June 18, 1913, mild dysentery developed with 

 streaks of blood and mucus in the evacuations. Subsequent to the sub- 

 sidence of symptoms in response to ipecac and emetine treatments, E. coli 

 and E. histolytica cysts were found repeatedly in the stools. Other exam- 

 inations made at irregular intervals between August 12, 1912, and June 

 18, 1913, were constantly positive for entamcebae. It would appear that the 

 incubation period in this case was ten months or more. The occurrence of 

 a new infection between August 12, 1912, and June 18, 1913, of course, is 

 not excluded, but Doctor H. states he was exceedingly careful about his 

 drinking water and food during this period. 



