Name the German Physician; who isolated Vibrio Cholerac in1883 is? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Name the German Physician; who isolated Vibrio Cholerac in1883 is?

Answer: Robert Koch

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Name the German Physician; who isolated Vibrio Cholerac in1883 is?....

QA->Name the German Physician; who isolated Bacillus Anthracis in1877 is?....

QA->Name the German Physician; who Tuberculosis bacillus in1882 is?....

QA->Name theyoung volcano found by the NASA Scientist in isolated mountain, analysis ofimages to be expected less than 1 billion years old?....

QA->Indian-American physician, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama as Surgeon General of the US?....

MCQ->Consider the following statements about a magic tee The collinear arms are isolated from each other.On of the collinear arms is isolated from E arm.On of the collinear arms is isolated from H arm.E and H arms are isolated from each other. Of the above statements...

MCQ-> On the basis of the information provided, answer the questions below.Eight doctors P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W of the same family i.e. father, mother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, 2 daughters and 2 sons visit a clinic every day for one hour each except on Monday which is a holiday. The timings are 9 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 6 pm, with lunch time from 1 pm to 2 pm. Each has a different specialisation namely Cardiologist, Orthodontist, Neurologist, Paediatrician, Gynaecologist, Urologist, Radiologist and General Physician.1.No doctor visits the clinic before doctor Q and after doctor U. 2.The Orthodontist visits right after lunch and is followed by R who is a female. 3.The mother comes in at the same place before lunch as the younger son P after lunch. 4.The General Physician is the sister of Urologist’s father and is last to visit before lunch. 5.The Cardiologist is the first while the elder daughter is the last to visit. 6.T is the mother’s brother of U and visits between the father and mother. 7.Before 1 pm, V comes after the Radiologist, who is second to visit during the day 8.S, the mother comes at 11 am after the father. 9.The Neurologist is at the same place after lunch as the Gynaecologist before lunch and comes right after Urologist.The General Physician is a ____________ and comes at ___________
...

MCQ-> Consider the following information and answer questions based on it. E, F, G, H and K visit a hospital on week days. Each one of them is a physician, surgeon, dentist, cardiologist, nephrologist but in the random order. Each visits the hospital only one day in the week and attends to their profession only. 1. The physician visits office every Monday. 2. E is the cardiologist who comes neither on Tuesday nor Thursday. 3. K is a surgeon and G is not the physician. 4. The person who visits the office on Thursday is not a nephrologist. 5. H works on a Tuesday and K works on the following day.Who is the nephrologist?
...

MCQ-> The persistent patterns in the way nations fight reflect their cultural and historical traditions and deeply rooted attitudes that collectively make up their strategic culture. These patterns provide insights that go beyond what can be learnt just by comparing armaments and divisions. In the Vietnam War, the strategic tradition of the United States called for forcing the enemy to fight a massed battle in an open area, where superior American weapons would prevail. The United States was trying to re-fight World War II in the jungles of Southeast Asia, against an enemy with no intention of doing so. Some British military historians describe the Asian way of war as one of indirect attacks, avoiding frontal attacks meant to overpower an opponent. This traces back to Asian history and geography: the great distances and harsh terrain have often made it difficult to execute the sort of open-field clashes allowed by the flat terrain and relatively compact size of Europe. A very different strategic tradition arose in Asia. The bow and arrow were metaphors for an Eastern way of war. By its nature, the arrow is an indirect weapon. Fired from a distance of hundreds of yards, it does not necessitate immediate physical contact with the enemy. Thus, it can be fired from hidden positions. When fired from behind a ridge, the barrage seems to come out of nowhere, taking the enemy by surprise. The tradition of this kind of fighting is captured in the classical strategic writings of the East. The 2,000 years' worth of Chinese writings on war constitutes the most subtle writings on the subject in any language. Not until Clausewitz, did the West produce a strategic theorist to match the sophistication of Sun-tzu, whose Art of War was written 2,300 years earlier. In Sun-tzu and other Chinese writings, the highest achievement of arms is to defeat an adversary without fighting. He wrote: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." Actual combat is just one among many means towards the goal of subduing an adversary. War contains too many surprises to be a first resort. It can lead to ruinous losses, as has been seen time and again. It can have the unwanted effect of inspiring heroic efforts in an enemy, as the United States learned in Vietnam, and as the Japanese found out after Pearl Harbor. Aware of the uncertainties of a military campaign, Sun-tzu advocated war only after the most thorough preparations. Even then it should be quick and clean. Ideally, the army is just an instrument to deal the final blow to an enemy already weakened by isolation, poor morale, and disunity. Ever since Sun-tzu, the Chinese have been seen as masters of subtlety who take measured actions to manipulate an adversary without his knowledge. The dividing line between war and peace can be obscure. Low-level violence often is the backdrop to a larger strategic campaign. The unwitting victim, focused on the day-to-day events, never realizes what's happening to him until it's too late. History holds many examples. The Viet Cong lured French and U.S. infantry deep into the jungle, weakening their morale over several years. The mobile army of the United States was designed to fight on the plains of Europe, where it could quickly move unhindered from one spot to the next. The jungle did more than make quick movement impossible; broken down into smaller units and scattered in isolated bases, US forces were deprived of the feeling of support and protection that ordinarily comes from being part of a big army. The isolation of U.S. troops in Vietnam was not just a logistical detail, something that could be overcome by, for instance, bringing in reinforcements by helicopter. In a big army reinforcements are readily available. It was Napoleon who realized the extraordinary effects on morale that come from being part of a larger formation. Just the knowledge of it lowers the soldier's fear and increases his aggressiveness. In the jungle and on isolated bases, this feeling was removed. The thick vegetation slowed down the reinforcements and made it difficult to find stranded units. Soldiers felt they were on their own. More important, by altering the way the war was fought, the Viet Cong stripped the United States of its belief in the inevitability of victory, as it had done to the French before them. Morale was high when these armies first went to Vietnam. Only after many years of debilitating and demoralizing fighting did Hanoi launch its decisive attacks, at Dienbienphu in 1954 and against Saigon in 1975. It should be recalled that in the final push to victory the North Vietnamese abandoned their jungle guerrilla tactics completely, committing their entire army of twenty divisions to pushing the South Vietnamese into collapse. This final battle, with the enemy's army all in one place, was the one that the United States had desperately wanted to fight in 1965. When it did come out into the open in 1975, Washington had already withdrawn its forces and there was no possibility of re-intervention. The Japanese early in World War II used a modern form of the indirect attack, one that relied on stealth and surprise for its effect. At Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, and in Southeast Asia, stealth and surprise were attained by sailing under radio silence so that the navy's movements could not be tracked. Moving troops aboard ships into Southeast Asia made it appear that the Japanese army was also "invisible." Attacks against Hawaii and Singapore seemed, to the American and British defenders, to come from nowhere. In Indonesia and the Philippines the Japanese attack was even faster than the German blitz against France in the West. The greatest military surprises in American history have all been in Asia. Surely there is something going on here beyond the purely technical difficulties of detecting enemy movements. Pearl Harbor, the Chinese intervention in Korea, and the Tet offensive in Vietnam all came out of a tradition of surprise and stealth. U.S. technical intelligence – the location of enemy units and their movements was greatly improved after each surprise, but with no noticeable improvement in the American ability to foresee or prepare what would happen next. There is a cultural divide here, not just a technical one. Even when it was possible to track an army with intelligence satellites, as when Iraq invaded Kuwait or when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel, surprise was achieved. The United States was stunned by Iraq's attack on Kuwait even though it had satellite pictures of Iraqi troops massing at the border. The exception that proves the point that cultural differences obscure the West's understanding of Asian behavior was the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. This was fully anticipated and understood in advance. There was no surprise because the United States understood Moscow's worldview and thinking. It could anticipate Soviet action almost as well as the Soviets themselves, because the Soviet Union was really a Western country. The difference between the Eastern and the Western way of war is striking. The West's great strategic writer, Clausewitz, linked war to politics, as did Sun-tzu. Both were opponents of militarism, of turning war over to the generals. But there all similarity ends. Clausewitz wrote that the way to achieve a larger political purpose is through destruction of the enemy's army. After observing Napoleon conquer Europe by smashing enemy armies to bits, Clausewitz made his famous remark in On War (1932) that combat is the continuation of politics by violent means. Morale and unity are important, but they should be harnessed for the ultimate battle. If the Eastern way of war is embodied by the stealthy archer, the metaphorical Western counterpart is the swordsman charging forward, seeking a decisive showdown, eager to administer the blow that will obliterate the enemy once and for all. In this view, war proceeds along a fixed course and occupies a finite extent of time, like a play in three acts with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The end, the final scene, decides the issue for good. When things don't work out quite this way, the Western military mind feels tremendous frustration. Sun-tzu's great disciples, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, are respected in Asia for their clever use of indirection and deception to achieve an advantage over stronger adversaries. But in the West their approach is seen as underhanded and devious. To the American strategic mind, the Viet Cong guerrilla did not fight fairly. He should have come out into the open and fought like a man, instead of hiding in the jungle and sneaking around like a cat in the night. According to the author, the main reason for the U.S. losing the Vietnam war was
...

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions.There is no field of human endeavour that has been so misunderstood as health, while health which connotes well-being and the absence of illness has a low profile; it is illness representing the failure of health which virtually monopolizes attention because of the fear of pain, disability and death. Even Sushruta has warned that this provides the medical practitioner power over the patient which could be misused. Till recently, patients had implicit faith in their physician that they loved and respected, not only for his knowledge but also in the total belief that practitioners of this noble profession, guided by ethics, always place the patient’s interest above all other considerations. This rich interpersonal relationship between the physician; patient and family has barred a few expectations prevailedtill the recent past, for caring was considered as important as curing. Our indigenous system of medicine like ayurveda and yoga have been more concerned with the promotion of the health of both the body and mind and with maintaining a harmonious relationship not just with fellow being but with nature itself, of which man is an integral part. Health practices like cleanliness proper diet exercise and meditation are part of our culture which sustains people in the prevailing conditions of poverty in rural India and in the unhygienic urban slums. These systems consider disease as an aberration resulting from disturbance of the equilibrium of health which must be corrected by gentle restoration of this balance through proper diet, medicines and the establishment of mental peace. They also teach the graceful acceptance of old age with its infirmities resulting from the normal degenerative process as well as if death which is inevitable. This is in marked contrast to the western concept of life as a constant struggle against disease aging and death which must be fought and conquered with the knowledge and technology derived from their science; a science which with its narrow dissective and quantifying approach has provided us the understanding of the microbial causes of the communicable disease and provided highly effective technology for their prevention, treatment and control. This can rightly be claimed as the greatest contribution of western medicine and justifiably termed as ‘high technology. And yet the contribution of this science in the field of noncommunicable disease is remarkably poor despite the far greater inputs in research and treatment for the problem of aging like cancer, heart disesase, paralytic strokes and arthritis which are the major problems of affluent societies today.Which of the following has been described as the most outstanding benefit of modern medicine ? (A) The real course and ways of control of communicable diseases. (B) Evolution of the concept of harmony between man and nature. (C) Special techniques for fighting aging....