[Skip to Navigation]
April 1964


Author Affiliations

2307 Lindy Lawton, Okla 73505

Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;71(4):605-606. doi:10.1001/archopht.1964.00970010621044

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Dr. Kaufman's letter was referred to Dr. Acers, who offers the following reply:

To the Editor.  —In reply to Dr. Herbert Kaufman's letter, I can, for the main part, only offer hearty agreement. He has made several pertinent points. He first points out the lack of absolute criteria in establishing the clinical diagnosis of toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis. This is certainly true, and it is for this reason that I stated the criteria for the "presumptive" diagnosis of toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis in the article under discussion. If one were to be completely rigid in establishing diagnostic criteria for infectious processes, then fulfillment of Koch's postulates would be the only acceptable standard. This of course is not possible or feasible in all clinical testing situations. The "diagnosis" then becomes a "clinical impression" based on known clinical and histopathological data.The second point alluded to in Dr. Kaufman's correspondence is the small number of patients

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution