A rivalry of foulness

Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854

Nigel Paneth, Peter Vinten-Johansen, Howard Brody, Michael Rip

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Contemporaneous with John Snow's famous study of the 1854 London cholera epidemic were 2 other investigations: a local study of the Broad Street outbreak and an investigation of the entire epidemic, undertaken by England's General Board of Health. More than a quarter-century prior to Koch's description of Vibrio comma, a Board of Health investigator saw microscopic 'vibriones' in the rice-water stools of cholera patients that, in his later life, he concluded had been cholera bacilli. Although this finding was potential evidence of Snow's view that cholera was due to a contagious and probably live agent transmitted in the water supply, the Board of Health rejected Snow's conclusions. The Board of Health amassed a huge amount of information which it interpreted as supportive of its conclusion that the epidemic was attributable not so much to water as to air. Snow, by contrast, systematically tested his hypothesis that cholera was water-borne by exploring evidence that at first glance ran contrary to his expectations. Snow's success provides support for using a hypothetico-deductive approach in epidemiology, based on tightly focused hypotheses strongly grounded in pathophysiology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1545-1553
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Public Health
Volume88
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Snow
Cholera
Health
Water
Vibrio cholerae
Water Supply
England
Bacillus
Disease Outbreaks
Epidemiology
Air
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

A rivalry of foulness : Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854. / Paneth, Nigel; Vinten-Johansen, Peter; Brody, Howard; Rip, Michael.

In: American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88, No. 10, 10.1998, p. 1545-1553.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paneth, N, Vinten-Johansen, P, Brody, H & Rip, M 1998, 'A rivalry of foulness: Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854', American Journal of Public Health, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1545-1553.
Paneth, Nigel ; Vinten-Johansen, Peter ; Brody, Howard ; Rip, Michael. / A rivalry of foulness : Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854. In: American Journal of Public Health. 1998 ; Vol. 88, No. 10. pp. 1545-1553.
@article{707d15ef5fa84d10b0e0a92c1e322039,
title = "A rivalry of foulness: Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854",
abstract = "Contemporaneous with John Snow's famous study of the 1854 London cholera epidemic were 2 other investigations: a local study of the Broad Street outbreak and an investigation of the entire epidemic, undertaken by England's General Board of Health. More than a quarter-century prior to Koch's description of Vibrio comma, a Board of Health investigator saw microscopic 'vibriones' in the rice-water stools of cholera patients that, in his later life, he concluded had been cholera bacilli. Although this finding was potential evidence of Snow's view that cholera was due to a contagious and probably live agent transmitted in the water supply, the Board of Health rejected Snow's conclusions. The Board of Health amassed a huge amount of information which it interpreted as supportive of its conclusion that the epidemic was attributable not so much to water as to air. Snow, by contrast, systematically tested his hypothesis that cholera was water-borne by exploring evidence that at first glance ran contrary to his expectations. Snow's success provides support for using a hypothetico-deductive approach in epidemiology, based on tightly focused hypotheses strongly grounded in pathophysiology.",
author = "Nigel Paneth and Peter Vinten-Johansen and Howard Brody and Michael Rip",
year = "1998",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "88",
pages = "1545--1553",
journal = "American Journal of Public Health",
issn = "0090-0036",
publisher = "American Public Health Association Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A rivalry of foulness

T2 - Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854

AU - Paneth, Nigel

AU - Vinten-Johansen, Peter

AU - Brody, Howard

AU - Rip, Michael

PY - 1998/10

Y1 - 1998/10

N2 - Contemporaneous with John Snow's famous study of the 1854 London cholera epidemic were 2 other investigations: a local study of the Broad Street outbreak and an investigation of the entire epidemic, undertaken by England's General Board of Health. More than a quarter-century prior to Koch's description of Vibrio comma, a Board of Health investigator saw microscopic 'vibriones' in the rice-water stools of cholera patients that, in his later life, he concluded had been cholera bacilli. Although this finding was potential evidence of Snow's view that cholera was due to a contagious and probably live agent transmitted in the water supply, the Board of Health rejected Snow's conclusions. The Board of Health amassed a huge amount of information which it interpreted as supportive of its conclusion that the epidemic was attributable not so much to water as to air. Snow, by contrast, systematically tested his hypothesis that cholera was water-borne by exploring evidence that at first glance ran contrary to his expectations. Snow's success provides support for using a hypothetico-deductive approach in epidemiology, based on tightly focused hypotheses strongly grounded in pathophysiology.

AB - Contemporaneous with John Snow's famous study of the 1854 London cholera epidemic were 2 other investigations: a local study of the Broad Street outbreak and an investigation of the entire epidemic, undertaken by England's General Board of Health. More than a quarter-century prior to Koch's description of Vibrio comma, a Board of Health investigator saw microscopic 'vibriones' in the rice-water stools of cholera patients that, in his later life, he concluded had been cholera bacilli. Although this finding was potential evidence of Snow's view that cholera was due to a contagious and probably live agent transmitted in the water supply, the Board of Health rejected Snow's conclusions. The Board of Health amassed a huge amount of information which it interpreted as supportive of its conclusion that the epidemic was attributable not so much to water as to air. Snow, by contrast, systematically tested his hypothesis that cholera was water-borne by exploring evidence that at first glance ran contrary to his expectations. Snow's success provides support for using a hypothetico-deductive approach in epidemiology, based on tightly focused hypotheses strongly grounded in pathophysiology.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031695877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031695877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 88

SP - 1545

EP - 1553

JO - American Journal of Public Health

JF - American Journal of Public Health

SN - 0090-0036

IS - 10

ER -