View report page

135
seen that oysters eaten five weeks ago might easily be responsible for an outbreak
of Enteric Fever, whilst samples taken from the same beds to-day
could, upon examination, prove negative.
The attention of the Fishmongers' Company was called to the matter, and a
copy of Dr. Klein's report forwarded to them.
On the 20th May, a case of Enteric Fever was notified from Chelsea.
There appeared to be no history of any possibility of infection except from
oysters of which the patient was in the habit of partaking once a week when
he attended the Board Meetings of a City Company. A sample of the same
brand of oysters was submitted to Dr. Klein for analysis, who reported thereon
as follows:—
"I have analysed the sample of Oysters No. 3 delivered here by your Inspector
"on May 31st.
"(1.) As to general pollution—
"(a) The oysters contained no B. coli communis.
"(b) The oysters contained no streptococci.
"(c) The oysters contained enteritides spores per ¼ of oyster.
"(2.) As to specific pollution as tested by Drigalski plates the oysters contained
"no microbes belonging to the group of Paratyphoid-Typhoid bacilli.
These oysters were, therefore, above suspicion, but the fact must not be lost
sight of that the oysters examined were procured on the 31st May, whereas those
were eaten on the 22nd April, and this again is a further illustration of one of
the difficulties that Sanitary Authorities have to contend with in their
endeavours to ensure the purity of the shellfish sold within their districts.
Another case of Enteric Fever, with which was associated the consumption
of oysters, occurred in January in the West Sussex Combined Districts, the
circumstances of which were as follows:—
Two dozen oysters were delivered at a local residence by a fisherman who
stoted that they were supplied to him by a firm of salesmen in Billingsgate
Market. There appeared to be some reason to doubt the truth of this statement,
the Medical Officer of Health for the District believing that the man obtained
the oysters from a local hawker. Enquiry at Billingsgate Market substantially
supported this view, as the firm from whom the oysters were alleged to have
been purchased, altogether repudiated any transaction with the man in question.
The oysters were served to the table cooked, but the patient partook of some
before they had been submitted to this process, and was the only person in the
house affected. This case was only brought to my notice with the object of
proving or disproving the statement that the oysters came from the City
Markets.