the professors connected with the College of
Physicians and Surgeons, New York, published a "Report upon one
thousand Tuberculin tests in young children." He says:

"The observations included in the following report were all made at
the Babies' Hospital upon ward patients. Very few of the children
were over three years of age, the majority being under two years....
In the early part of the year, unless some positive contra-indication
existed, some test, more frequently the eye-test, was used as a
routine measure in order to determine whether and under what
circumstances reactions were obtained in HEALTHY CHILDREN, or in those
at least PRESUMABLY NON-TUBERCULAR."[1]

[1] Archives of Pediatrics, January, 1909.

This is perfectly plain. Healthy children, or children presumably
without any symptoms of tuberculosis, were experimented upon in order
to see whether a positive reaction could be obtained. Of 555 cases of
infants subjected to this test, who were presumably not tubercular,
only two gave a positive reaction, although there were seven cases in
which the reaction was doubtful.

We are told by this writer that "care was taken not to use tuberculin
in an eye which was the seat of any form of disease, tuberculous or
otherwise," and to this precaution, he ascribes his freedom "from
unpleasant results." He insists that "on account of the kind of
observation necessary, and the possible dangers connected with the
eye-test, it is not wise to employ it indiscriminately, as among the
out-patients of a hospital." Undoubtedly this is true; and he repeats
the advice: the ophthalmic test "CANNOT WELL BE USED IN AMBULATORY
PATIENTS." Yet we have just seen that the test WAS thus used in the
large number of cases "who formed the unselected material of an
ambulant clinic" from another well-known hospital dispensary.

The final judgment of the experimenter does not appear to be entirely
favourable to the test involving the eye, though he insists that with
proper precautions it is safe. Taken apart from the physical signs
and general symptoms, the tests may mislead. "Some failures and some
unexplained reactions occurred with all the tests." Even though safe,
yet

"an intense or prolonged reaction sometimes occurs which is not
pleasant to see; besides, in pathological conditions of the eye,
DISASTROUS RESULTS MAY FOLLOW. THE EYE IS TOO DELICATE AND IMPORTANT
AN ORGAN TO BE USED AS A TEST WHEN ANY OTHER WILL ANSWER QUITE AS
W