[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]
June 16, 1923


Author Affiliations

Richmond, Va.

JAMA. 1923;80(24):1791. doi:10.1001/jama.1923.02640510047030

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:  —Through an abstract that appeared in The Journal (May 12, 1923, p. 1418) our attention has been directed to the article of Pouliot and Truchard, criticizing our article: "The Dangers of Pituitary Extract" (The Journal, May 21, 1921, p. 1390). Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to secure a copy of the journal containing Pouliot and Truchard's paper; but, assuming that the abstract correctly represents it, we feel that the statements contained in it create an incorrect impression and should not be passed unchallenged.In the abstract, it appears that the entire basis for the criticism of Pouliot and Truchard consists of the inadequacy of our "case reports" of clinical rupture of the uterus following the employment of pituitary solution. As a matter of fact, the mention of such cases in our paper was merely incidental, and constituted only a portion of the argument against the

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