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:
—Thank you for allowing me to read the comments of Dr. Evans, I wholeheartedly agree with his statement "one cannot be careful enough in his descriptions and claims when advocating a relatively new clinical method. Otherwise, disappointment of other workers becomes unavoidable and, even worse, the entire method may fall into undeserved discredit." However, I do not agree with his use of these reasons for justifying his excellent critique of my article. It is hardly likely that the above-mentioned disappointment and discredit will result from any statements in my article. May I make the following comments:1. Dr. Evans quoted Bangerter's technique perfectly accurately. However, my interpretation of this method was so written to simplify comprehending Bangerter's technique and to allow a more obvious comparison to Cüppers' (Curt, not Charles, as Dr. Evans correctly pointed out) after-image method. The positive scotoma which Bangerter effected at the site
Byron HM. PLEOPTICS. Arch Ophthalmol. 1961;66(6):925–926. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1961.00960010925031
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: