This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • 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   What's this?

Ernest H. Beutner, PhD
219 Sherman Hall Department of Microbiology School of Medicine State University of New York Buffalo, NY 14214

Arch Dermatol. 1971;103(1):107-110.

	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.—

The concluding comment of Anderson et al¹ in their article "Pemphigus and other diseases" reads "These findings show that false positive patterns for pemphigus may be encountered in the IIF (indirect immunofluorescent) technique." The basic fallacy in this comment is that IIF technique they refer to is their own, not the group of techniques employed by ourselves and others who have obtained results comparable to ours. We may consider the divergent results from three points of view: (1) the nature of the divergence; (2) a few of the major technical problems that may be involved; and (3) workshop conferences and performance testing programs that can serve to make reliable and meaningful diagnostic immunofluorescent tests for pemphigus and other bullous diseases more widely available.

Before considering these three points, some philosophic comments are in order. In an earlier report from the same laboratory (A21)^* no intercellular staining . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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