[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]
December 4, 1926


Author Affiliations

Berkeley, Calif.

JAMA. 1926;87(23):1934. doi:10.1001/jama.1926.02680230058029

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 article on this subject by J. H. Mitchell (The Journal, Oct. 23, 1926, p. 1351) is worthy of further comment. I wish to state my entire sympathy with the major thought of the paper; but only one side has been presented.The chief problem hinges around the physician whose business it is to interpret the Wassermann report. A large proportion of practicing physicians are not sufficiently versed in serology to evaluate a laboratory report properly. It is certainly not the fault of the serologist if the physician's lack of training, ambition or energy precludes the proper evaluation of a report, or if lack of proper background makes impossible a realization of the limitations of laboratory procedure. It is not the fault of the serologist if the physician has gone so far astray and has become so lazy as both to allow and to welcome the laboratory

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