[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]
February 1971


Arch Ophthalmol. 1971;85(2):255. doi:10.1001/archopht.1971.00990050257026

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.  —We are familiar with Dr. Nicol's interesting article, "Treponeme-like Forms and Artifacts." However, we have had no great difficulty distinguishing treponemes from glass shavings.Dr. Nicol mentions the low incidence of positive serologies among those patients having treponemes in their aqueous. We discussed this problem in our paper and pointed out that this phenomenon has been confirmed repeatedly by other workers in the field.He suggests that "a more complete description of the general physical findings" was indicated. We saw no reason to include in the paper lists of negative or noncontributory findings. It is evident that had we found syphilitic stigmata among our uveitis patients, we would have presented them in detail to support our thesis further. As for "a more detailed report of the character of the ocular inflammation," we have found in our experience and from the reported experience of others interested in uveitis,

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