This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Louis Pelner, M.D.; Samuel Waldman, M.D.
1352 Carroll St., Brooklyn 13.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954;51(2):282-284.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor:

—Under ordinary circumstances, we feel that medical controversy is wasteful of time and effort of the participants, since the situation is often cleared with the passage of time. However, the article by Bedrossian and others (A. M. A. ARCH. OPHTH. 50: 277 [Sept.] 1953) and the accompanying editorial by F. H. Adler in the same issue, page 275, impels us to write this letter.

The theme of the editorial is the publication of misleading information, and the extravagant praise of the accompanying article by Bedrossian, which refutes our work (Am. J. Ophth.34:613, 1951). We feel that a careful study of Dr. Bedrossian's own tables and method of procedure would make an unbiased observer come to a very different conclusion than did Dr. Bedrossian. Also, we should like to point out why Bedrossian's paper is not the ideal model that it is stated to be.

Our . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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