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 Caccamise's letter raises some rather cogent issues. Regrettably, he does so in an accusatory fashion.Our motivation for writing a letter to the editor was straightforward. One of us (H.M.L.) had edited a textbook that recommended a therapeutic regimen for chronic blepharitis. Clinically that regimen had ceased to be effective, and the change in effect seemed to be related to the product being used to scrub the eyelids, namely, Johnson's Baby Shampoo (Johnson & Johnson Baby Product Co, Skillman, NJ). The manufacturer of this product was at the time advertising widely that "conditioners" had been added to the product and was promoting it for use as an adult shampoo. Several patients called our attention to the fact that they discerned physical differences in the product, and our discussions with a number of pharmacists confirmed this observation. We commented on this in the original text of the letter,
Leibowitz HM, Capino D. Interest in the Report of a New Treatment-Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(1):17. doi:10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010018008
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.