Chapter XXXVIII: Part III: Contributions From the Journal: Proprietary Products (6)

“There are physicians everywhere who abandon the general, or
family, practice of medicine, to devote their life to some
specialty. My specialty is the improvement of the facial features
and the beautifying of the shoulders, neck and arms. I round
out hollow cheeks, build up the neck, eradicate wrinkles, make
irregular noses perfect and remove defects by a process which
is my own secret. I claim no superhuman power or ability; I have
simply bent my whole professional study and energy to the one line
of remodeling--so to speak--the human features, and I employ only
scientific methods and aids in my operations.”

In another piece of advertising, a little booklet bearing Edward Percy Robinson’s name, we find the following:

“This is what I accomplish....

“Remove all wrinkles and traces of age from the forehead, or about
the eyes and mouth. Lift sag from cheeks and chin.

“Round out hollow cheeks.

“Remove depressions and defects from the chin.

“Build up the neck and shoulders.

“Build up and enlarge the bust.

“Round out and give symmetry to unshapely arms and remove the lines
of age from the hands.

“Correct many of the defects not mentioned here, but which may be
possessed by exceptional cases.”

Still another advertising leaflet purports to be a reprint of an “editorial” from the _Mercantile and Financial Times_ of March 11, 1914. It is a pretentious puff of Robinson, telling about his “scientific attainments” and his marvelous secret preparations used in “Youthifying the Face.” The _Mercantile and Financial Times_ is an utterly discredited sheet run for the purpose of selling what appear to be editorial comments. Such “editorial” puffs are paid for through the purchase of a certain number of copies of the paper by the party who desires the publicity. The Associated Advertising Clubs of the World exposed this publication in a special bulletin issued in June, 1919, and described it as an “example of publications that serve as convenient tools of fake promoters.” In 1911 the _Mercantile and Financial Times_ published an “editorial” endorsement of the consumption cure “Nature’s Creation.” It has done the same for a fakish device known as the “Ideal Sight Restorer.” It published a puff on the “Oxypathor,” a swindle so preposterous that the exploitation of this “gaspipe” fake was debarred from the U. S. mails and its exploiter was sent to the federal penitentiary.

Reproduction (reduced) of a testimonial for an obesity
cure fake, “Get Slim.” The A. M. A. chemists reported that this
“vegetable combination” consisted of baking soda and pink-tinted
tartaric acid and sugar.]

We also find in our files a testimonial signed E. P. Robinson, M.D., 1402 Broadway (Edward Percy Robinson’s address in 1912), extolling the virtues of a foolish piece of quackery, the obesity cure “Get Slim.” This nostrum was exposed in The Journal some years ago and was also exposed by Dr. Wiley in _Good Housekeeping_. The “Get Slim” concern sued _Good Housekeeping_ for libel but a jury decided that _Good Housekeeping_ had told the truth. In the “Get Slim” testimonial Robinson is quoted as saying that he is “acquainted with the ingredients entering into its manufacture” and he describes it, as did the “Get Slim” concern, as “a purely vegetable combination.” The fact is the Association’s chemists found this “purely vegetable combination” to consist of sugar and tartaric acid, each colored pink, and baking soda.

And this is the gentleman who claims to have discovered the cause of, and offers for sale a cure for, one of the most baffling scourges known to modern medicine--cancer. Except for the articles that have been published during the past three years in the _Medical Record_, we are unable to find anywhere in representative medical literature anything to indicate that Edward Percy Robinson can lay any claim to special knowledge of, or skill in the treatment of, cancer. What we do find are advertisements describing Edward Percy Robinson’s alleged abilities as a “face beautifier,” puffs from utterly uncritical or discredited sources and a testimonial to the value of a preposterous “fat cure” fake.

With the best brains of the world at work on the problem of cancer, it is reasonable to assume that any man who has found out even a little more than has previously been discovered or is able to accomplish even a little better results than the average in the treatment of this dreaded disease, would be well known to scientific medicine.

* * * * *

After this article was in type physicians began sending in No. 3 (April, 1921) of _Therapeutic Leaves_. This is still another reprint of Nos. 1 and 2, with minor changes. In the first two, Tekarkin is described as “a solution of potassium nitrate of special strength;” in No. 3 it becomes “a special solution containing potassium nitrate.” In Nos. 1 and 2, Robinson described an alleged case of “Cancer of the Rectum _Treated_ with Tekarkin.” In No. 3 this becomes “Medicinal Treatment _Cures_ Cancer of the Rectum.” In No. 3 the names of the editors, assistant editor and general manager are eliminated.

The inside back cover of No. 3 contains an advertisement of Tekarkin, in which physicians are warned that “Cancer of the Lung May Present Diagnostic Signs of Tuberculosis.” It contains the further startling information that the particular micro-organism responsible for pulmonary tuberculosis is the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus! Thus:

“The Klebs-Loeffler bacillus may find a suitable habitat in a
malignant area of lung tissue and thrive therein. The presence of
the bacillus does not necessarily exclude the presence of cancer.
A chronic cough with blood-streaked sputum may be the result of
tuberculosis and cancer.”--(_From The Journal A. M. A., May 28,
1921._)

TYREE’S ANTISEPTIC POWDER AGAIN

The “Ethical and Commercial Requirements” of the Drug Business

“I am fond of the retail drug business and follow it every day of my life. I know and observe to the fullest extent its ethical and commercial requirements.” This from a circular letter recently received by physicians, and signed J. S. Tyree, who asks that he be forgiven for writing you personally, but there are several reasons why he thinks the circumstances warrant it. All of which is preliminary to calling attention to an enclosure, which accompanies the circular letter, and is described as a “short memorandum” submitted for “your consideration.”

The “memorandum” is a four-page leaflet of which three pages are devoted to “Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder.” One of these three pages is a reproduction of a letter on the stationery of the Surgeon General’s Office of the War Department, and signed “W. M. Gray, M.D., Microscopist, Army Medical Museum; Pathologist to Providence Hospital.” The letter describes a series of “bacteriological and comparative tests” made by Dr. Gray with Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder. The entire second page of the circular is given over to the results of these bacteriologic tests which compare various strengths of Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder with “mercuric bichlorid,” phenol and formaldehyde.

The physicians who received this advertising material in April, 1919, might easily overlook the fact that Dr. Gray has been dead several years, that the letter which is reproduced is dated Jan. 3, 1890, and that the bacteriologic tests were made in 1889--thirty years ago!

The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry in 1906[258] published the results of an analysis of Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder which showed that although the stuff was advertised as a mixture of borax and alum, it was in fact essentially a mixture of zinc sulphate and boric acid. The publication of the Council’s report in 1906, showing the falsity of the formula, brought out the admission that the composition had recently been changed. Certain it is, however, that for at least a decade past, the Tyree product has been a zinc sulphate-boric acid preparation. Yet, according to the manufacturer’s own statement, Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder in 1889, when Dr. Gray made his bacteriologic tests, was an entirely different substance from the present mixture.

[258] At this time Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder was an “ethical proprietary”--heaven save the mark!--and advertised only to physicians. Later, as _The Journal_ has shown, it entered the “patent medicine” field as “ideal for douche” and the “best preventative known.” The articles on this nostrum are reprinted in the ninth edition of “The Propaganda for Reform.”

Here then we have a manufacturer publishing in 1919, in behalf of a certain product, tests that were made in 1889 with a product of different composition, although of the same name! Is this observing “to the fullest extent” the “ethical and commercial requirements” of the “retail drug business”?

There is no scientific excuse for such a mixture as Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder. If, however, physicians feel that they must use an irrational conglomeration such as this, why not prescribe Pulvis Antisepticus, N. F.? Like the Tyree product, this, too, is essentially a mixture of zinc sulphate and boric acid, with minute amounts of phenol, eucalyptol, menthol and thymol, to say nothing of a dash of salicylic acid. This official article has at least the virtue of constancy of strength, composition and purity assured under the federal Food and Drugs Act.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., May 17, 1919._)

WHEELER’S TISSUE PHOSPHATES

“The Commissioner of Health directs me to call to your attention
the enclosed advertisement issued by T. B. Wheeler, M.D., Company,
Montreal, Canada, in which the name of the Association’s _Journal_
is being used.”

Accompanying this brief note to The Journal from the secretary of Dr. Haven Emerson, Commissioner of the Department of Health of the City of New York, was a four page leaflet devoted to the exploitation of “Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates.” The trend of the circular is to lead the average reader to infer that The Journal of the American Medical Association has endorsed Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates. For example, in describing the preparation one reads:

“It embodies ... the best recent scientific opinion concerning
the treatment of the disease (tuberculosis) as stated ... by the
official Journal A. M. A.”

Elsewhere in the circular The Journal’s criticisms of the hypophosphites and the glycerophosphates (proprietary preparations which are competitors of the Wheeler product) are quoted and twisted into a tribute to the ingredients of Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates. Garbling quotations, distorting statements, separating phrases from their contexts and omitting qualifying clauses, all for the purpose of making out a case for some proprietary remedy is a trick as old as quackery itself. That it should be used in advertising Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates is entirely fitting. Obviously, the T. B. Wheeler, M.D., Company esteems the opinion of The Journal on pharmacologic matters. This being the case, it should, in the interest of truth and scientific accuracy, publish in its advertising circulars just what The Journal has said about Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates. It could not do this better than by quoting from a recent editorial note which commented on a report of the Chemical Laboratory on this preparation. Here is part of the The Journal’s comment:

“‘Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates’ is an unscientific shotgun mixture
whose most active and powerful drug is the alcohol it contains.
That it was not years ago relegated to the realms of obsolete
and discarded preparations is a commentary alike on the lack of
scientific discrimination and on the power of advertising.”

Here we have “Wheeler’s Tissue Phosphates” stripped of the verbal camouflage with which its exploiters have invested it.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 22, 1917._)

BRIEFER PARAGRAPHS

Alcresta Lotion

_To the Editor_:--What is the composition of Alcresta Lotion?

L. T. A. Hotten, M.D., Paris, Idaho.

According to a circular in our files, “Alcresta Dental Lotion-Libby” contains “Emetin, the active amebicidal principle of Ipecac, together with Benzoic Acid, Thymol, Eucalyptol and Aromatics.” The theory that emetin is an active amebicide against pyorrhea alveolaris has been exploded. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the firm does not list the product in the latest catalogue in our files.--(_Query from The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 29, 1921._)

Calcidin Tablets (Abbott)

_To the Editor_:--What is the composition of calcidin tablets
(Abbott) and what is their value?

J. S.

ANSWER.--Calcidin is claimed to be a mixture of iodin, lime and starch. In contact with water, the iodin and lime react to form calcium iodid and calcium iodate. By the acid of the gastric juice, the calcium iodid and calcium iodate are decomposed with liberation of free iodin. The administration of calcidin tablets amounts to giving free (elementary) iodin. In the past, the advertising for calcidin has contained the unwarranted claim more or less directly that it was the most effective and only noninjurious preparation of iodin for internal use, and that it possesses all of the valuable properties of the iodin with all of the objectionable effects left out. So far as we know, the effects produced by the administration of free iodin do not differ from those produced by the administration of iodids and, therefore, calcidin has no advantage over the iodids, such as sodium iodid.--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 25, 1920._)

Di-Crotalin Treatment of Epilepsy

_To the Editor_:--Do you have any literature or information
relative to the Di-Crotalin treatment for epilepsy? I will be
very grateful if you can furnish information as to method of
preparation, rationale of the treatment, etc.

R. C. Decker, Captain, M. R. C.,
U. S. Soldiers’ Home, Washington, D. C.

ANSWER.--Di-Crotalin is a rattlesnake venom preparation sold by the Swan-Myers Company of Indianapolis as a “Treatment for Epilepsy, Chorea, Bronchial Asthma, Chronic or Hereditary Nervous Headache, Nervous Prostration Incident to Change of Life, Hysteria-Mania, Insomnia, Neurasthenia, etc.” Dr. Thomas J. Mays of Philadelphia advocated the use of rattlesnake venom for tuberculosis. Later his former assistant, Dr. R. H. Spangler, used the same material in the treatment of epilepsy. That any measure of success sufficient to justify the adoption of the rattlesnake venom or crotalin treatment for epilepsy has resulted is not to be concluded from the available reports. Still less evidence is there for the use of rattlesnake venom in the list of conditions for which the Swan-Myers Company has recommended its preparation. There are a number of good reasons why a cautious physician will shun the administration of this treatment and advise against it. J. F. Anderson, working in the hygienic laboratory of the United States Public Health Service, reported a death from the crotalin treatment in consequence of infection, and reports that the market supply of crotalin solution and crotalin tablets is highly contaminated. He also found both crotalin and crotalin solution to vary in activity. The use of rattlesnake venom was discussed in The Journal, March 15, 1913, p. 850.--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Aug. 17, 1918._)

Estivin

_To the Editor_:--What is “Estevin,” or something like that? It is
said to be good in hay-fever.

Constant Reader.

ANSWER.--The product called “Estivin” is sold by Schieffelin and Company, New York. A request for a statement of the composition of this preparation sent to Schieffelin and Company by the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry brought the indefinite and, therefore, meaningless statement that “‘Estivin’ is an extract of Rosa Gallica containing no alcoholic or foreign ingredients.”--(_Query from The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 12, 1921._)

Iron Arsenite

_To the Editor_:--Can you inform me how iron arsenite can be
prepared for subcutaneous injection? A commercial firm furnishes
physicians with ampules of arsenite of iron. Is this really
arsenite of iron?

S. H. Kempner, M.D., New York.

ANSWER.--Ferric arsenite (iron arsenite) is in itself relatively insoluble in water, but may be treated with ammonium citrate, the resulting product thus being soluble; the latter substance was at one time described in New and Nonofficial Remedies as “Ferric Arsenite, Soluble” and is sometimes sold as a solution in ampule form. In 1912, the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry deleted “Ferric Arsenite, Soluble” from New and Nonofficial Remedies because “one cannot, in administering Ferric Arsenite, Soluble, give a useful dose of iron without giving too much arsenic; and, vice versa, one cannot give a safe dose of arsenic without giving too little iron.” The Council, therefore, held the preparation to be irrational and unscientific.--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 19, 1921._)

K-Y Lubricating Jelly

_To the Editor_:--1. What is the composition of “K-Y Lubricating
Jelly”? 2. Can you furnish a formula for a simple nongreasy
lubricating jelly?

S. T.

ANSWER.--1. The composition of “K-Y Lubricating Jelly” has not been divulged. Examination of the advertising matter reveals only meaningless statements, such as: “This is a judicious combination of vegetable products ... Combined in well balanced proportions with non-irritating antiseptics ...,” “It incorporates a sufficient quantity of mild antiseptics (of the Thymol class) ...” and “... contains _NO_ formaldehyde.”

2. Probably a simple tragacanth jelly, which can be made cheaply, will produce the same effects as those of the proprietary preparation. The following formula was published by Mr. J. K. Thum, apothecary at the German Hospital, Philadelphia (_Druggists Circular_, September, 1915, p. 586):

LUBRICATING JELLY

Tragacanth, whole 3 gm.
Glycerin 25 c.c.
Phenol 1.5 gm.

Distilled water, a sufficient quantity to make 300 c.c. The
tragacanth is broken in small pieces, and put into a wide-mouthed
bottle; the other ingredients are added and the bottle frequently
shaken.

In regard to this formula, Mr. Thum writes:

It has been used in our gynecologic department for years.... For
the last six years we have been dispensing it in collapsible tubes
throughout the hospital for general work.--(_Correspondence in The
Journal A. M. A., May 12, 1917._)

“Nikalgin”

_To the Editor_:--_Collier’s_ has a special article this week on
“Nikalgin.” Have you any information on this subject? It sounds
like nostrum stuff.

P. R. Minahan, M.D., Fond du Lac, Wis.

ANSWER.--“Nikalgin” is said to be the “invention” of Gordon Edwards, an engineer. Large claims for its anesthetic and antiseptic virtues have been made. While no very definite information seems to be forthcoming regarding the preparation, it has been said to be “composed of quinin, hydrochloric acid and urea.” This would indicate that “Nikalgin” may be nothing more wonderful than the well known local anesthetic, quinin and urea hydrochlorid, the _Quininae et Ureae Hydrochloridum_ of the U. S. Pharmacopeia, or a modification of it.--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 22, 1917._)

Pertussin and Syrup of Thyme

_To the Editor_:--A short time ago I received a sample of
“Pertussin” and used some in an obstinate case of bronchitis
with excellent results. I have since received a catalog from a
pharmaceutical firm, which advertises syrup of thyme. I have
searched for a formula to make my own syrup of thyme, but have not
been able to find one. Will you publish one?

E. F. Benner, M.D., Salfordville, Pa.

ANSWER.--The subjoined formula yields a product very similar to “Pertussin” in taste, flavor, composition, and probably in activity as well:

Fluidextract of thyme 15 c.c.
Glycerin 15 c.c.
Syrup to make 100 c.c.

The original German preparation contained 1.5 gm. of sodium bromid in each hundred cubic centimeters, and this might be added to the foregoing formula with advantage, so far as action is concerned. However, a sample of “Pertussin” purchased in the open market in the United States failed to respond to tests for bromids.

As fluidextract of thyme is not official, this formula is presented as furnishing an acceptable preparation:

Thyme, in No. 60 powder 100 gm.

Moisten with a mixture of:

Water 25 c.c.
Alcohol 15 c.c.
Glycerin 10 c.c.

After standing five hours, pack in a percolator. Exhaust with a menstruum of alcohol, 1 volume, and water, 3 volumes. Reserve the first 85 c.c. of percolate. Concentrate the weak percolate to a soft extract and dissolve in the reserved portion. Make up to 100 c.c. by addition of a mixture of alcohol, 1 volume, and water, 3 volumes.

Other aromatic expectorants, such as terebene, terpin hydrate or creosote, might be expected to have similar but greater effect in chronic bronchitis. (_Query in The Journal, A. M. A., March 27, 1920._)

Quinin and Urea Hydrochlorid

_To the Editor_:--Could you tell me why quinin and urea
hydrochlorid has not become more popular for local anesthesia? Is
it less efficacious or more toxic than other preparations? If it is
useful, can you name some trustworthy firm or brand? Please omit my
name in answering.

L. F. C., M.D., Mexico.

ANSWER.--Quinin and urea hydrochlorid “has the actions of quinin. When injected hypodermically it exerts an anesthetic action much more prolonged than that of cocain” (Useful Drugs, Ed. 4, 1920, p. 127). It has been pointed out editorially in The Journal (Feb. 14, 1920, p. 462) that quinin has been regarded for more than half a century by toxicologists as a protoplasmic poison capable of destroying various forms of animal and vegetable cells, and hence it need not be surprising that tissue necrosis may be produced by strong solutions of the quinin salts. That this deleterious reaction actually does occur and has militated against the general use of quinin and urea hydrochlorid is confirmed by the report of the Committee on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Local Anesthesia in Nose and Throat Work (The Journal, July 31, 1920, p. 315). To quote:

The only local anesthetic that produces edema and sloughing is
quinin and urea hydrochlorid. So many statements were found in the
literature that this anesthetic has been abandoned in other fields
of medicine because of edema and sloughing, that writers who had
presented favorable reports in nose and throat operations were
communicated with by your committee. One writer who had recorded
390 cases of tonsillectomies extolling this anesthetic, which he
had used for four years and is still so recorded, now states that
he has not used it in two years, although no publication has been
made retracting his former endorsement. Still another writer, who
stated that quinin-urea came nearest the ideal local anesthetic,
now states that he has ceased using it. Your committee finds that
as far as nose and throat operations are concerned, this drug has
practically gone into “innocuous desuetude.”

The anesthesia produced by this drug at the time of operation is good and the recovery of the patient might often be enhanced by its use if it did not have the serious drawback. The product is official in the U. S. Pharmacopeia, and may be obtained from any reputable pharmaceutical house.--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Aug. 21, 1920._)

Ricord Pills and House Organ Therapeutics

_To the Editor_:--My mail is frequently cluttered with pseudo-scientific data from various manufacturers of proprietary remedies which contain as much real scientific information as the _Police Gazette_. I am enclosing a sample page of such a periodical. The article has been so cleverly worded in the first paragraph, as to impress the unthinking with the idea that sodium cacodylate is superior to arsphenamin, when we know in reality that sodium cacodylate has been proved practically worthless in syphilis (_vide_ “Venarsen”). One case is reported, in which twenty injections of sodium cacodylate were administered intravenously, from October 23 to December 14. On December 18, a Wassermann test proved negative, it had been strongly positive on October 20, but during the same interval from October 23 to December 14, the patient had been taking by mouth “Ricord pills” each containing half a grain of yellow iodid of mercury; granted that he had taken these pills regularly, during all that time, it might well be that the Wassermann would be sharply influenced by them. Again, a negative Wassermann in the midst of treatment proves little; it might be positive again in a few days. The article stimulates the further use of a product of known worthlessness in the treatment of syphilis. How any one can use sodium cacodylate in preference to arsphenamin in syphilis is beyond me. If I mistake not, the Propaganda Department has not taken up the matter of these various pamphlets of the drug companies, such as the _Doctor’s Factotum_, _Therapeutic Notes_, etc., lauding to the skies such articles as “Seng,” “Cactina Pillets,” etc., _ad nauseam_. The saddest part of the whole thing is that it must bring returns from the unthinking, otherwise they would soon disappear, which would be a great relief for the scrubwomen who empty our waste baskets.

Paul E. Bechet, M.D., New York.

[Comment.--The “sample page” sent by Dr. Bechet is from the March-April, 1918, number of Parke, Davis & Company’s _Therapeutic Notes_. It contains an “Original Communication” on “The Treatment of Syphilis with Sodium Cacodylate, by Adolph Lappner, M.D., Detroit, Mich.” The “article,” while nominally devoted to the praise of sodium cacodylate, is virtually a puff for “Ricord Pills.” a Parke, Davis & Co. product.]--(_Correspondence in The Journal A. M. A., July 13, 1918._)

Stannoxyl

_To the Editor_:--I am very anxious to know whether tin or stannous
oxid (SnO) has or has had any place among useful drugs. I have seen
such a prescription given in the treatment of mucous colitis, and
would be very glad to learn what its use may be.

Carlos Manuel Garcia, M.D., Havana, Cuba.

ANSWER.--Recently, on the assumption that tin workers are less troubled with boils than the average person, two French investigators proposed the use of tin compounds in the treatment of staphylococcic infections. Based on their work, a proprietary preparation--Stannoxyl--has been placed on the market which is claimed to be “composed of stannous oxide and specially purified metallic tin.” Absurd claims are made for the product: for instance, “... We have no hesitation in offering STANNOXYL--in Tablets or Cachets--as the only true specific for diseases of Staphylococcus origin.” The available evidence is unconvincing and in no way warrants such exaggerated statements.--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., March 6, 1920._)

_To the Editor_:--I was much interested in your answer to a query about Stannoxyl (The Journal, March 6, p. 629). I submit the following experience as a confirmatory note:

While serving with the Royal Army Medical Corps in Egypt, I for some time had charge of the medical division of a hospital in which most of the skin diseases occurring among soldiers in the district were treated. The most common conditions were boils and septic sores, chiefly due to staphylococcal infection, though several of the latter cases were diphtheritic. The treatment adopted was that in ordinary use, namely, incision and evacuation of pus, application of antiseptic dressings, and in most cases employment of the specific vaccine. It was possible to judge of the efficacy of any variations of treatment, as there were always plenty of cases undergoing the usual treatment with which the results could be controlled.

An available supply of Stannoxyl, a proprietary remedy consisting of a mixture of metallic tin and tin oxid, enabled me to give it a fair trial in full doses in eight cases of boils of average severity, in which culture revealed the infecting organism to be _Staphylococcus aureus_. The boils were treated locally as usual, but no vaccine was given. No improvement could be demonstrated in these cases that could not be shown in other cases similarly treated with the omission of Stannoxyl; in fact, three of the treated cases were much longer in clearing up than the untreated controls. Eight cases do not constitute a very large series from which to draw conclusions; but if the preparation were as good as the descriptive literature would lead one to believe, one should have expected an evident result in at least one of these cases.

It has been stated that Stannoxyl does not inhibit the growth of staphylococci, but only renders the growth less virulent. It is known that a certain amount of tin may be absorbed from the intestine, and Salant, Rieger and Treuhardt have shown that in certain cases tin may be retained for some time in the skin; but it is questionable whether, when preparations of tin are given by mouth, any reaches the staphylococci in the boils, or at any rate enough materially to influence their growth or virulence.

In the cases treated by me, the results did not at all suggest that Stannoxyl was a “specific for diseases of staphylococcal origin.”

J. W. C. Gunn, M.A., M.B., Ch.B., Cape Town.
Professor of Pharmacology, University of Cape Town.

--(_Correspondence in The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 20, 1920._)

Syphilodol

_To the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry_:--If you have not
already done so, will you kindly examine and report on “Syphilodol”
advertised in the enclosed pamphlet?

B. C. Pedersen, M.D., New York.

_To the Editor_:--Have you any information concerning the enclosed
half page advertisement [of Syphilodol] from the _Urologic and
Cutaneous Review_?

Edward S. Newell, M.D., Pelham, N. Y.

_To the Editor_:--I am enclosing an advertisement for a substance
called “Syphilodol” manufactured in New York. Am not familiar with
this article nor have I seen it advertised in the higher class
journals. Can you tell me whether The Journal’s department of New
and Nonofficial Remedies has passed on this article or whether you
have any data concerning it? It looks a trifle fishy to me.

Louis Leroy, M.D., Memphis, Tenn.

_To the Editor_:--I am sending the enclosed correspondence
[Syphilodol letters] to you as it looks as if it might have some
interesting features from the point of view of your nostrum
department.

Isadore Dyer, New Orleans, La.

ANSWER.--These are but some of the inquiries that have been received on this subject and it is encouraging to note the scientifically critical attitude of physicians toward new therapeutic agents. According to the French Medicinal Company, Inc., which markets this product, “Syphilodol is a synthetic chemical product of silver, arsenic and antimony....” Nowhere in the advertising matter is there any more definite statement as to the composition of this new “synthetic” than that just quoted. The product is now under examination in the Association’s laboratory and when this is completed a more detailed report will doubtless be forthcoming. At present the work has progressed sufficiently to show that Syphilodol tablets contain considerable quantities of mercury! Although the advertising leaflets claim that the preparation is “the formula of the late Dr. Alfred Fournier of Paris” and had been exhaustively tested by Metchnikoff, who is alleged to have found it superior to salvarsan and neosalvarsan, yet, strange to say, a careful search of French medical journals fails to show any reports on Syphilodol. _Verb. sap._--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 23, 1918._)

Thialion

_To the Editor_:--Kindly inform me regarding thialion, manufactured
by the Vass Chemical Company, Danbury, Conn. Please omit my name
and address in answering in The Journal.

H. C. W.

ANSWER.--Thialion is an heirloom of the days when lithium salts were supported to be nature’s antidote for all kinds of ailments, supposedly due to excess of uric acid. It was advertised as a uric acid eliminant and therefore good for all kinds of diseases. The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry published a report on thialion in The Journal, Nov. 3, 1906. At that time thialion was advertised by the Vass Chemical Company as a “laxative salt of lithia” with the chemical formula “3Li₂O.NaO.SO₃.7HO,” and an elaborate structural formula was also furnished. The Council reported that the product was not a definite chemical compound, but a mixture consisting chiefly of sodium sulphate, sodium citrate and small amounts of lithia. In recent advertisements, thialion is referred to as “A Non-Effervescing Lithiated Laxative Salt,” “a non-hygroscopic, non-deliquescent, granular salt of lithia,” etc., but the chemical formula does not appear, nor is any definite statement of composition furnished. According to this advertisement, the “indications” for thialion are: “gout, rheumatism, uric acid diathesis, constipation, acute and chronic, sluggish liver, Bright’s disease, albuminuria of pregnancy, asthma, incontinence of urine, gravel, cystitis, chronic lead poisoning, headache, neuralgia, neurasthenia and lumbago, Hay fever, etc.”--(_Query in The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 6, 1919._)

Venarsen

_To the Editor_:--The following is a copy of a letter sent to the Intravenous Products Company, which needs no explanation:

June 8, 1917.

_The Intravenous Products Co., Denver, Colo._

Gentlemen:--In reply to your circular letter under date of June 3,
may I say that after using a great quantity of Venarsen both in
clinical and private cases, I can see no more effect upon these
cases than if so much water had been administered.

This is also the report of Don R. Black, pathologist for Bell
Memorial Hospital, University of Kansas. In our experiments all
bloods were tested before and after each administration of this
product.

William A. Wilson, M.D., Kansas City, Mo.

(_Correspondence in The Journal A. M. A., July 7, 1917._)