[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 27, 1935


Author Affiliations


JAMA. 1935;104(17):1542. doi:10.1001/jama.1935.02760170080027

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:—  In regard to the communication of Dr. Arthur G. Schoch in The Journal, March 9, page 852, concerning the "specious conclusion" that the acne was connected with the chronic vaginitis in my report of a case of chronic vaginitis treated with phenylmercuric nitrate (The Journal, January 19, p. 212), much could be said. When the acne first appeared, the patient was told that it might be connected with the vaginitis, and that it might clear up if the vaginitis could be cured. That the two were connected I have no doubt from what actually happened, as recorded. The possibility of the acne being caused by the local applications of iodine was not even considered for the very good reason that it was present before the iodine applications were made. Moreover, at no time did the patient take iodine in any form (including iodized salt) by mouth. Again,

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