[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 24, 1915


Author Affiliations

Assistant Professor of Medicine, Rush Medical College (Neurological Department); Associate Neurologist, Presbyterian Hospital; Neurologist to Cook County Hospital CHICAGO

JAMA. 1915;LXIV(17):1384-1385. doi:10.1001/jama.1915.02570430016005

Engman, Buhman, Gorham and Davis1 state that in four cases of general paresis, the administration of large doses of neosalvarsan (0.9 gm.) intravenously, showed negative results as to the presence of arsenic in the spinal fluid in all four cases.

Citron states that salvarsan does not reach the spinal fluid by either the blood or lymph streams and cannot be demonstrated in the spinal fluid after subcutaneous or intravenous injection.

Wechselmann2 doubts these results as to the presence of arsenic in the spinal fluid following such injections, as he has not been able personally to verify them.

Sicard and Bloch3 administered salvarsan in 0.4 gm. doses to seven patients either subcutaneously or intramuscularly and no arsenic was found in the spinal fluid. They noted traces of arsenic in the spinal fluid, however, in one case two hours after an intravenous injection of 0.4 gm. of salvarsan.


First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview