You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 119 No. 6, June 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  From the Archives of the Archives
 This Article
 •Full text
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

A look at the past . . .

Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:896.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 95 words of the full text and any section headings.

My impression was deep that here, at the southern end of the Mississippi Valley, the majority of our patients with acute iritis are also victims of the specific disease. Is it possible, I have often asked myself, that in so vast a country as the United States the prevalent causes and the course of diseases may be somewhat different in widely separated areas? Or do variations arise solely from the different racial stocks preponderating, the densities of population and the unlike conditions such differences entail?

Reference: Bruns H. Syphilis and iritis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1925;54:462.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.