This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Chicago, Nov. 22, 1893.
To the Editor:
—In your issue of August 26, you published a communication of mine on Hammond's cerebrin, in which the presence of nitroglycerin was suspected.The results of my chemical examination of that article, also of a bottle of Hammond's medullin showed how well founded was that suspicion.A few weeks later Dr. Hammond made public a reply, the essential part of which is that I could not have analyzed the genuine article, since I failed to find alcohol and boracic acid in it.Such a way to meet the issue was so weak, under the light of my statement of the true object of my investigation, that I was contented to let the matter rest without any further remarks.Since then I have seen a circular issued by the Columbia Chemical Co., the manufacturers of Dr. Hammond's animal extracts, which says that I failed
Delafontaine M. Cerebrin Again. JAMA. 1893;XXI(23):868. doi:10.1001/jama.1893.02420750038015
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: