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. 135 No. 6, June 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Issues in Dermatology
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice
 •Medical Education
 •Medical Ethics
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 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?

Is Pharmaceutical Sponsorship of a Dermatologic Conference Proper?

H. A. Martino Neumann, MD, PhD
From the Department of Dermatology, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Arch Dermatol. 1999;135:645-646.

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

When Alfred Hardy and his staff, which consisted of only a single person, organized the first International (World) Congress of Dermatology and Syphilology at the Hôpital Saint-Louis in August 1889 in Paris, France, it was a meeting of 220 scientists who sought to learn from each other by exchanging experiences and ideas. In those days, dermatology was medicine that was based mainly on experience alone, although, even then, great dermatologists tried to practice medicine predicated on evidence as well. As one example of that conflict in mentality, Wickham called attention to the fact that Paget disease of the nipple could be recognized morphologically as distinct from eczema. Despite his knowing that the process on the nipple was related to cancer, he nonetheless asserted that it was a parasitic disease, "since the psorosperms could even be seen in the scales being shed."1

More than 100 . . . [Full Text of this Article]



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?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Propriety of Sponsorship of Dermatologic Conferences
Ortonne et al.
Arch Dermatol 2000;136:308-310.
FULL TEXT  

Shadow of a Doubt
Mascaro
Arch Dermatol 2000;136:310-311.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.