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:
—On page 1463 of The Journal for May 1, 1915, Dr. Heimann discusses several statements made in my contribution to The Journal of March 6. Of the many reasons for scientific discussion, that which holds the place of second importance is the speaking of different languages; and this I take to be the cause of the present disagreement.The object of my contribution was not to enforce the generally accepted rules of Wassermann evidence, but rather to call the attention of the practitioner to a few relatively exceptional points not always clearly understood. Had Dr. Heimann written his contribution in advance of my own, I might, indeed, have taken it for a text.Let us consider his conclusions:"1. The Wassermann is negative at times in active syphilis, but only under definite and characteristic circumstances, and when this is understood, no confusion should arise."Surely no practitioner
Keyes EL. Wassermann Reaction as a Clinical Test. JAMA. 1915;LXIV(21):1781. doi:10.1001/jama.1915.02570470065027