[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 20, 1926


JAMA. 1926;86(8):571. doi:10.1001/jama.1926.02670340049028

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:  —The letter of Dr. Whipple (The Journal, January 30) needs a seconder, because the subject is of great importance. The assertion of Williamson and Ets (Arch. Int. Med.36:333 [Sept.] 1925) that inorganic iron is of no value in anemia is not true. From a clinical standpoint, bleeding an animal does not cause "anemia." Anemia is a distinct pathologic condition, primary or secondary. For laboratory experimenters to bleed animals and then to administer inorganic iron, and to state that it is of no benefit, but that food irons are of benefit, and then to draw the conclusion that inorganic iron is useless in the anemias of human beings, and broadcast the belief, is inexcusable. Such an assertion will certainly be used as an advertisement for the various organic irons on the market. Animals that have been bled, or human beings suffering from hemorrhage, do not have

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