This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

JOHN H. MUSSER, Jr., M.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1921;28(5):638-648.

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

The controversy over the therapeutic effect of inorganic iron has raged for several centuries, in fact, very considerably has it occupied the minds of medical men since Menghis, in 1746, reported that he had found iron in the blood of man. This controversy continued up until the past fifteen years, when Abderhalden, in 1906, abandoned his contention that iron could not be converted into hemoglobin. Since, then, it has been very generally accepted that inorganic iron is converted into hemoglobin as is the iron in the food and the so called organic iron. A re-opening of this controversy might be said to have occurred last year, when Whipple¹ and his co-workers published their studies on the regeneration of the blood after anemia. In one of this series of papers they show that ordinary inorganic iron in the form of Blaud's pills has little or no effect on blood regeneration without . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PHILADELPHIA

From the Department of Research Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

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