Letters Sent to Dr. Herman Schlundt, December 11, 1929

Dec 11 1929. Dr. Hermann Schlundt, University of Missouri, Coluabia, Missouri. Dear Doetor Schluadt: I received your letter of Dec. 9th and I may say that I am perfectly willing for you and Mr. Barker to publish the report on the elimination on your sub- jeots A. and B. I do not think it would be wise to give the deta on my pa- tients for neither you nor lir. Barker Inow the condition under whioh they wore taken. In fact I considerod when I sent my specimen to Mr. Berker it was just like sending them to an outside chomist for analysis and all 1t requirod was to report the findings. T e United States Radiun Compeny offered to do it for me and I would consider it methical for any one to use the results. As I wrote you last night I feel that we do not have the data yet to write a paper on olimination umless we simply want to any that radium in eliminated in the stools. There are some other data in your paper which is incorrect and should be corrected but which I did not point out in my letter of yesterdey. Mr. Barker dane to my offico some time age very micol worked us about a letter which I had written to the Journal of the American Medical Association giving a warning againet the publie using radium preparations without the advice of e dooter and also suggesting that whon it is administered by a doctor that it be controlled by the use of en electroscope to be sure that the person being treated was not suscoptible to radium and might not store radiun in the bone instead of eliminating it as wes generally done. I mentioned the faet thet I had come across e man who was radio-active after he hed stepped taking the terial for some months. Nr Barker accused me of not treating you correctly. I can't quite see that as Y did not mention any names or giver any figures and it might be almost any one. In fact I did have 6 far more startling esse in my files which I did not want to mention. In writing the letter I was not inter- ferring with the radium people as it was my understending that they were only selling to the medioal profession but putting out a warning while discussing an editorial sueh as hes been done by other persons not only about radium but other things. I am sorry if I offended them but I have data that they don't know about on the case over signature that cannot be questioned and will be used if occasion requires it. I have been very much provoked over e letter that has been sent out sbout the Curtis case and Columbia University and it is only be- cause of my friendly feelings that has prevented my meking them an issue. From sometime I have felt that the radium people vere not very friendly with me and have felt that results which we got at the Newark Hospi- tal were to blame. Then perhaps the fact that I have examined some of the girls in Newark who have now brought suit may have a bearing. I exemined after con- sulting with Mr. Lee and Mr. Barker one day. I distinctly renember Mr Barker seying that they would rather liko it. I have always sold them about my results and when I made an examination it was with the understanding that none of my findings were to be used in any law suit. I examined some of the children and got positive results but I never would publish the findings unless I could give