NEWER CONCEPTS OF FOCAL INFECTION

¹ Los Angeles, Calif.

1. Focal infection concerns the dentist more than the physician.

2. A focus of infection may remain inactive and never produce a focal infection. Therefore, the terms "focus of infection" and "focal infection" are not synonymous.

3. Clinical and laboratory data do not always agree on the diseases caused by foci of infection.

4. The four theories of focal infection do not aid in determining its mechanism.

5. The importance of a focus of infection has not been determined in any case because it depends upon surface exposure, blood supply, structure and functional activity, and not upon accessibility, surgical risk, numerical incidence, and organization of the specialty concerned.

6. Laboratory data do not verify clinical data with respect to the reasons for the results obtained from the elimination of foci of infection.

7. Recent studies in nutrition, and the effects of heat, light, cold, and fatigue, show the similarity between diseases resulting from these influences and those said to be due to focal infection.

8. Focal infection is not a specific disease-producing agency, but a general influence that lowers the body resistance and thus permits native bacteria to cause infection.

9. The beneficial effects derived from the removal of foci seem to be due to an autogenous non-specific protein reaction, which develops from the tissue injured during the operation and not as a result of the eradication of a direct causative factor.