And from Rhode Island a physician facetiously inquires:

“I am interested to know of the ‘Reactions of Abrams.’ Have you any information that you can give me in regard to this matter? They apparently do wonderful things in the West.”

While a New York physician acknowledges his failure to keep up with the times thus:

“To-day I had occasion to see a patient who mentioned having an Abrams test for gonorrheal infection of the prostate. He also stated he wished to have Abrams’ treatment for the same condition. Could you enlighten me as to what these are? I thought I had kept myself up to date as to all new tests and treatments in my line; but evidently I have been delinquent.”

According to our records, Albert Abrams, A.M., M.D., LL.D., F.R.M.S., was born in San Francisco in 1864. He was graduated in medicine by the University of Heidelberg, Germany, in 1882. Dr. Abrams is a member of his local medical society and through that holds fellowship in the American Medical Association. Dr. Abrams has written voluminously. In 1910, his book on “Spondylo­therapy” (“Physio-Therapy of the Spine”) was reviewed in The Journal. “Spondylotherapy” is a neologic creation of Dr. Abrams. According to its disciples, it concerns itself “only with the excitation of the functional centers of the spinal cord” and has been called “the science of evoking the reflexes of the body both to diagnose and to cure disease.” In bringing its review of Abrams’ book on “Spondylo­therapy” to a close, The Journal said:

“... one wonders whether this is an attempt to explain osteopathy and chiropractic to the understanding of the regular practitioner, or to exploit the very ingenious percussion devices of the author, or whether it is really true that medical men really know practically nothing about the cure of disease through treatment of the spine. Let us hope that it is the latter and that a careful study of this unique volume may open new avenues of therapy heretofore undreamed of.”

While the review was obviously critical, yet in advertising the book, the publisher picked out part of the closing sentence, omitted the context, and quoted The Journal as having said:

“Let us hope that a careful study of this unique volume may open new avenues of therapy heretofore undreamed of.”

When this matter was brought to the attention of Dr. Abrams, he replied, “I fail to see any real difference in the two quotations” and “only one ... with an astigmatic mentality” could “see any incongruity between the context and the concluding sentence.” Yet, in this same letter which attempted to justify the garbling of a quotation so as to make a critical review appear a laudatory one, Dr. Abrams declared that the review in question was “conceived and executed in a malicious spirit.”