[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]
October 19, 1907


JAMA. 1907;XLIX(16):1368-1369. doi:10.1001/jama.1907.02530160046005

Concerning the relation of antecedent trauma to the genesis of tumors there exists the most remarkable difference of opinion, for there may readily be found statements varying from that of Herzfeld,1 who advances the dictum, "No tumor without trauma," to the view recently expressed by Councilman,2 that the theory of traumatic etiology of tumors "has much the same footings as does the theory of maternal impressions as a cause of malformation. In both there are many striking coincidences." Surely either one of these two views must be as extreme as the other. To compare the hypothesis that in some cases tumors are the outcome of trauma, with the belief in maternal impressions as a cause of fetal malformations, is scarcely justifiable, for while we have the most conclusive reasons, based on sound anatomic and physiologic grounds, for denying that an anatomic abnormality of a fetus can be the

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