This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
The criticism offered by Dr. Yandell Henderson, of our article in The Journal, July 6, affords me an opportunity to discuss some phases of the subject which have been misconstrued.On some of the most salient points I agree with Dr. Henderson. This is with respect to the use of the term "chronic carbon monoxide poisoning." My associates and I have endeavored to make a clear distinction between what we regard as simple carbon monoxide anoxemia and the more chronic forms with organic changes occurring as residual manifestations of acute asphyxiation or the secondary effects of severe and protracted (chronic) anoxemia.I have frequently called attention to the fact that the term "chronic carbon monoxide poisoning" was misleading. In an article on slow carbon monoxide asphyxiation in The Journal, Sept. 26, 1936, I made the following statement: "Chroniccarbon monoxide anoxemia would designate the true nature of the
Beck HG. LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR CHRONIC CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING. JAMA. 1940;115(9):796-797. doi:10.1001/jama.1940.02810350140026