This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
New York City, Feb. 15, 1905.
To the Editor:
—Your editorial comment (February 11, page 477) on the so-called red-light treatment of smallpox is eminently sound and just. In Dr. Schamberg's original article he stated that he used "ruby-colored" glass, but failed to state that he had tested the same for actinism either spectroscopically or photographically. The old style of genuine pot-metal ruby is, I believe, no longer to be found in trade—at least I have not succeeded in getting any, even from sources that supplied me some years ago. All of the so-called ruby glass that I have examined admits an abundance of actinic light, running up even to the blue of the spectrum. The negative experiences of Dr. Schamberg, therefore, have no weight with me and I much prefer to rely on the positive evidence afforded by Finsen and others. The idea, however, of excluding light in the
Piffard. HG. The Red-Light Treatment of Smallpox.. JAMA. 1905;XLIV(8):642. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.02500350052019