Volume 1 / Part 3 — PART III CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE JOURNAL: PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS (continued 2)

“The school occupies a badly lighted building, containing nothing that can be dignified by the name of equipment. There has been no dissecting thus far (October to the middle of April, 1909), anatomy being didactically taught. Persistent inquiry for the ‘dissecting-room’ was, however, finally rewarded by the sight of a dirty, unused, and almost inaccessible room containing a putrid corpse, several of the members of which had been hacked off. There is a large room called the chemical laboratory, its equipment ‘locked up,’ the tables spotless. ‘About ten’ oil-immersion microscopes are claimed—also ‘locked up in the storeroom.’ There is not even a pretense of anything else. Classes in session were all taking dictation.”

Dr. Rogers is, or was, if he is not still, “Permanent Secretary” of the “National Association of Panpathic Physicians”—whatever that is. In fact, one of Dr. Rogers’ specialties seems to be the founding of quasimedical organizations—organizations, apparently, which may prove useful in the promulgation of such projects as he may, at the time, be interested in. A few years ago, Rogers was exploiting a “cancer serum” and, presto, the “American Cancer Research Society” came into being, L. D. Rogers, president. Soon thereafter certain members of the profession were circularized urging them to purchase shares in the “Cancer Research Laboratory and Hospital,” par value $10. Apparently, the profession did not invest.

A few years ago, also, L. D. Rogers’ name appeared on the “Faculty” list of the “American Post-Graduate School,” a concern which granted—on the mail-order plan—a long line of sonorous degrees and an equally complete line of ornate diplomas.

THE JAPANESE CONSUMPTION CURE

Then, in 1915, there appeared in the classified columns of certain newspapers the following advertisement:

TUBERCULOSIS—New Japanese treatment; to prove merits and give discovery quick publicity will send 10 days’ treatment free. DR. ROGERS, 546 Surf St., Chicago.

So far as we have been able to learn, Rogers, for some unexplained reason, did not call into existence out of the vastly deep a “Japanese-American Tuberculosis Research Society.” This consumption cure apparently died of inanition.

Then came the “Auto-Hemic Serum” with its inevitable sequel, the “National Society of Auto-Hemic Practitioners.” Another adjunct to the serum exploitation is the North American Journal of Homeopathy, the official organ of the “Auto-Hemic Practitioners” and of the “American Medical Union” and possibly of some other “societies”—but not representative of homeopathy!

WHAT IS AUTO-HEMIC THERAPY

What is this new therapy? According to a very lurid poster, it is described as “The Missing Link in Medicine”—possibly referring to the ease with which one may make monkeys of certain physicians. More specifically, although still vaguely, we learn:

“It consists in giving the patient a solution made by attenuating, hemolizing, incubating and potenizing a few drops of his or her own blood, and administering it according to a refined technic developed by the author.”

Elsewhere it is said to consist:

“... in taking five drops (or some multiple of five) of blood from a vein and putting it into nineteen times as much sterilized, distilled water, and incubating it at fever temperature for twenty-four hours, and then making further dilutions according to the needs of the case, as can be determined only by a physician skilled in its use.”

Neither of these statements, of course, describes the “refined technic” of those “skilled in its use,” but those who are interested can, by sending Dr. L. D. Rogers, “One Hundred Dollars cash-in-advance” get a mail-order course in this new marvel.

But if it is rather expensive to learn just how to use “Auto-Hemic Serum,” it does not cost so much to learn what the “serum” will do. Rogers has written a book on the subject, “Auto-Hemic Therapy,” which is used as a premium for subscriptions to the North American Journal of Homeopathy, price $5.00 per year, payable in advance. In the book Dr. Rogers modestly assures his readers that he considers his discovery more important than that of Alexis Carrel, winner of a Nobel Prize.

A CURE FOR LAZINESS

One of the chief virtues claimed for this serum is that of developing in the patient who takes it an unbounded energy that, apparently, makes him want to work himself to death. In some sensational articles that have appeared in Sunday editions of newspapers on Rogers’ serum, the stuff has been described as “Lazy Serum.” One of the first cases described in the Rogers book is that of a young waiter, “a good-for-nothing lazy fellow who would not work and would not pay for medical services” and who was turned over to Dr. Rogers’ free clinic. He was given the serum on Thursday and was told to report Saturday. He did not return until Monday, his excuse being that “he worked all day Saturday until midnight and all day Sunday and felt as if he could work all day and all night without rest.” The “case report” ends:

“... finally remarking, ‘I feel like a bird’ he flew out of the classroom and we never saw him again.”

HOUSEWIVES TAKE NOTICE

The next case described is that of a servant girl who had not worked for a year; within a week after taking the “Auto-Hemic Serum,” “she voluntarily beat carpets till she blistered her hands.” Then there was the rooming house keeper who had spent more than half of each day in bed. After an “Auto-Hemic” injection she “discharged her maid and janitor ... and did all the work of her twelve room house herself, beating rugs, firing furnace and carrying out ashes besides doing some of the laundry.” “Case No. 7176” is interesting: A man, generally considered the laziest person in his community and with a habit of “drinking thirty whiskies a day,” took “Auto-Hemic Serum.” He stopped drinking, shaved himself and changed from “a “bum” to that of a sober, clean, wholesome, bright and honest workman.” Then there was the case of the “lady physician” who “took the serum one evening and the next morning reported that she had the ‘giggles’ all day”; also she became “more magnetic.” More remarkable still was the case of the young woman clerk in a retail store who, after taking the serum, “astonished her employer by volunteering to work overtime.” In the chapter dealing with “Ills Peculiar to Women” Dr. Rogers details the moving story of a man to whom the “serum” was given and who reported that “about the third twenty-four hours after taking it his bowels moved forty times”—nevertheless, “he felt no exhaustion.”

In all phases of human activity the serum seems to work wonders. “The cases are numerous in which the frigidity of both sexes have [sic] melted after Auto-Hemic treatment.” A young married woman with a morbid dislike for her husband took the serum and within a week “became normal.” The discoverer suggests that in some cases there is no doubt that this serum “would prevent divorce.” A 40 year old woman who could not endure to wear any waists but white or black was able, it seems, after taking the serum to tolerate a veritable Jacob’s coat.

Is, then, “Auto-Hemic Serum” good for everything? Let Dr. Rogers answer:

“Briefly stated, without any great exaggeration, this new modified serum treatment is good for anything that is the matter with you, provided the cause is not organic, mechanical or bacterial.”

One infers that in the inorganic, mental, spiritual and nonbacterial spheres the stuff is supreme. But it has its limitations. For instance, Dr. Rogers states that he once had “a very troublesome cough which lasted several weeks, but did not yield to this serum.” Reaching the conclusion that some other treatment was necessary “he had the bones of his neck ‘adjusted’ and got immediate relief.”

AS A COMPLEXION BEAUTIFIER

The serum “cannot be made up by the barrel and sold at wholesale or retail”:

“If it could be bottled and stored and sold at retail like a patent medicine, the demand for it as a complexion beautifier alone would net the proprietor millions. More than one person a few days after taking the treatment has been wrongly accused of painting.”

Should any of The Journal readers decide to take the $100 mail-order course in “Auto-Hemic Therapy” he should realize that even after he has done so there are certain restrictions in the practice of this “therapy.” In no case must he administer “a course of Auto-Hemic Treatment” for “less than $100, paid in advance.” The only exceptions to this rule are “cases of absolute charity, expectant mothers and to persons positively unable to pay that amount.” Furthermore, Dr. Rogers says that for the reputation of his method, as well as for the good of all concerned, “I insist that the entire fee be paid in advance and that the course extend over a period of one year whether the patient needs few or many treatments.”

DOLLARS AND CENTS

For those who do not wish to take the mail-order course, Rogers offers to prepare individual specimens of the “serum” from blood that is sent to him by the physician. The cost of this “serum” is $5.00, “in advance,” of course.

Still emphasizing the commercial side, “Auto-Hemic Therapy” is especially recommended to “the general practitioner growing old and the physician who is ambitious to build up a creditable and lucrative practice” because “the health of four people out of five (old or young, whether they consider themselves sick or well) taken at random can be improved by this method of treatment”! An Ohio physician was said to have doubled his $3,000 practice in two years after starting the “Auto-Hemic” method. A Virginia physician is alleged to have “increased his income $10,000 a year.” A Pennsylvania physician urged by Rogers to send $150.00 for the mail-order course, was assured that this “is merely a nominal amount, as most of the doctors have been able to get this amount back the first month.”

But enough. The story, were it not for the tragic element that forms the background, would be amusing. But it is tragic!—(From The Journal A.M.A., Feb. 14, 1920.)

“AUTOLYSIN” ADVERTISING

To the Editor:—Enclosed is a little booklet I received today from the Goodhue Publishing Co., of New York, exploiting the Horowitz-Beebe cure-all for cancer, which, were it not for certain obvious serious features, would make humorous reading.

What psychologic explanation can be made of the fact that there are always sufficient numbers of suckers to make such pseudoscientific adventures profitable?

H. C. Dodge, M.D., steamboat Springs, Colo.

To the Editor:—In my professional life I have been flooded with the usual number of insults to intelligence both by mail and by the softspoken detail man. As a result, I have no doubt, of the active propaganda for reform carried on by The Journal, these insults have lost a certain quality of “rawness” and become much more cleverly done.

One of these has just been perpetrated on the profession which will probably hold the championship pennant for 1916, although I admit that it is early in the year to begin prophecy. A very modestly bound, well printed volume comes to my desk with the compliments of the publishers. At the end of the volume is a group of highly ethical advertisements of other books of the author. So far, so good. The last four pages, however, contain the advertisement of a forthcoming book on the “autolysin” treatment of inoperable cancer. Perhaps we might forgive this were it not for the following paragraph: “This book tells how the general practitioner ... may take an active hand in fighting the malady. The weapons he requires are an ordinary hypodermic syringe and some ampules of Autolysin. The syringe he already possesses. Autolysin he may secure, if he is a legally qualified practitioner, by writing,” etc. Incidentally, the book is advertised to the Intelligent Layman.

Isn’t it beautiful? Too bad the lamented F. F. F. with his mock turtles or those prominent eugenists of scopolamin-morphin fame could not take a lesson in advertising. It was not very long ago that we were invited to come East and learn how to use “autolysin,” or else pay the rather heavy fee for an imported tutor. Now all we need is a “gun” and some of the “dope.” All this is interesting in view of the recent article on the failure of “autolysin” in mouse tumor. It is a foregone conclusion that a lot of “autolysin” will be used, so cancer patients, who have been told that they have cancer, will get better through suggestion, and a lot of enthusiastic reports will pour in from medical brethren who have never studied psychology. Then the thing will slump and we shall all be ready for the next fad.

Nevertheless, each one of these things furnishes us with a text for another sermon on ethics of medical advertising, so I suppose they do not live in vain.

J. W. Force, M.D., Berkeley, Calif. Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, University of California.

[Comment.—With each of the foregoing communications is a circular letter from the Goodhue Company, advertising Dr. Henry Smith Williams’ book on “The Autolysin Treatment of Cancer.” With this circular is a booklet entitled “Notes on the Treatment of Inoperable Cancer with the New Remedy Autolysin (Horowitz-Beebe) Issued by the Autolysin Laboratory.” Similar circular letters and pamphlets have been sent to The Journal from various parts of the country. The Goodhue Company, publishers, therefore are apparently killing two birds with one stone—advertising the book as well as “Autolysin.”

The Journal has been informed that Henry Smith Williams in some of his magazine articles uses the pen name “Stoddard Goodhue,” and that Henry Smith Williams is a part owner of the Goodhue Publishing Company.

Articles on “Autolysin” will be found in The Journal, Nov. 6, 1915, pp. 1641, 1647 and 1662. The article on “Action of ‘Autolysin’ on Mouse Tumors,” by Dr. Francis Carter Wood, appeared in The Journal, Jan. 8, 1916, p. 94.— Ed.]—(Correspondence in The Journal A.M.A., Jan. 29, 1916.)

“BASIC CANCER RESEARCH” AND “COSMOPOLITAN CANCER RESEARCH SOCIETY”

Medical journals, and some other technical publications, have received recently what purport to be items of news value sent out by the “Medical News Bureau,” 77 Seventh Ave., Brooklyn, New York. The “manager” of this alleged bureau is given as D. E. Woolley. These “news items” are undated but are marked: “(For immediate release)” One of these starts with the statement, attributed to Mme. Curie, that cancer can be cured by radium and then continues:

“Cancer can be cured by the use of selenium and tellurium, more plentiful and less costly elements,” says F. W. Humphreys of Brooklyn, an American born student of chemistry and science who has devoted years to the study of the cause of cancer and the discovery of methods for relief....

“For the purpose of further developing methods of control and treatment of disease by the use of selenium and tellurium discovered by a number of local scientists, chemists and physicians, the Basic Cancer Research has been organized and an efficient laboratory established at 847 Union Street, Brooklyn....”

“Through the education of the people and special instruction to physicians it is hoped it may soon be possible to gain control of and eradicate the disease which now appears so great a menace. Mr. F. W. Humphrey, one of the organizers of the new institution, estimates that within ten years, or perhaps less time, cancer will no longer be considered a fatal disease.”

Evidently the joker here is the “Basic Cancer Research” of 847 Union Street, Brooklyn!

Newspapers are approached from a different angle. They receive free publicity matter on stationery reading “Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society” (D. E. Woolley, secretary), 847 Union St., Brooklyn, N. Y. With this matter is a letter from Woolley addressed to the editor of the paper to which the stuff is sent and asking:

“In the interest of suffering humanity will you please give space to the enclosed?

“No object of greater importance has ever been presented for your helpful consideration. Thousands are dying whom you can help save.”

According to the “news item” that accompanies this letter the “Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society” has been founded for the purpose of “investigating and developing methods” by which cancer “may be successfully combated and eventually eradicated.” It states further that the “society” will “disseminate information concerning symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and methods of prevention” of cancer. Furthermore, the membership of the society “includes physicians, scientists and chemists of prominence, laymen of means, and the sympathetically inclined from all walks of life.” Nor is this all!

“Doctor Frederick Klein the eminent authority on urinology and the chemistry of cancer, has evolved a new colorimetric test which is a most wonderful and valuable discovery in the diagnosis of cancer and various other diseases. This test will be particularly valuable in all life extension work because it determines, even in children the possibility of predisposition toward any particular disease, whether tuberculosis, cancer, diabetes or any of the diseases which in later life may become fatal. It determines also the vitality of the subject enabling the physician to accurately determine the condition of any of the vital organs.”

We learn in closing that memberships in the “society” are “graduated from $1.00 upwards according to the ability and disposition of those who may be interested.”

Located at 77 Seventh Avenue, from which the press agent material of the “Medical News Bureau” is sent, is the “Basic Chemical Corporation of America.” According to such information as we have been able to get, the president of this concern is F. W. Humphreys, the “student of chemistry and science who has devoted years to the study of the cause of cancer and the discovery of methods of relief.” We are informed that Mr. Humphreys was for a while in the employ of a “chemical company” of Philadelphia, and has been in the photographic line down in Virginia and later was connected with a real estate concern in Brooklyn. Another officer of the Basic Chemical Corporation is said to have been in the grocery line in a small village in Missouri, selling out and later coming to Brooklyn and entering the insurance business. Still another officer, it seems, was in the fish business. In addition to these three officers, there are two directors, one of whom is in the fancy grocery line, and the other is a local practicing physician whose name we find in the Propaganda department’s testimonial file under Sanmetto and Arsenauro.

The Dr. Frederick Klein, who is described as the “eminent authority on urinology and the chemistry of cancer,” is not a physician but claims a Ph.D. from Munich, Bavaria. Klein claims to have developed certain urinary tests. One of these, according to him, “indicates the body Vitality with great accuracy,” another proves the presence of cancer, a third is the “syphilis test” and a fourth is the “pregnancy test.” And these are not all!

Those who read the reports of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry may remember that Frederick Klein is the gentleman who made “Sulfo-Selene,” which the Council, in refusing it recognition, described as a “mixture containing a selenium compound of undetermined composition produced by reduction of nitro-selenous acid with sulphurous acid, mixed with bile salts and diluents.” Sulfo-Selene was widely exploited in the newspapers in 1916 as a remedy for cancer, and Klein got a good deal of publicity at that time.

Just what product the Basic Chemical Corporation of America is putting, or is about to put, on the market we do not know. From the rather vague talk about selenium and Frederick Klein’s marvelous diagnostic discoveries, it might be inferred that “Sulfo-Selene” was to be resurrected. Be that as it may, it seems fairly obvious that the material being sent out by D. E. Woolley—whether as “Manager” of the “Medical News Bureau” or as “Secretary” of the “Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society”—is advertising matter in the guise of news.

In this connection it is worth noting that the American Newspaper Publishers’ Association, in a special bulletin issued in 1909, published a very complete list of press agents and the interests these agents represented. This list contains the name D. E. Woolley, who then was sending out press notices for the National Association of Piano Dealers of America. Is this the gentleman who is now acting as press agent for the Basic Chemical Corporation of America? If it is, it may be that the slump in the piano trade has caused Mr. Woolley to turn from musical instruments to cancer cures.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 3, 1921.)

Seleni-Bascca

In the issue of September 3 The Journal called attention to a campaign of free publicity that was being instituted by a Brooklyn concern that, apparently, had for sale an alleged remedy for cancer. The press agent material was of two kinds—for medical journals and for newspapers. That which went to the medical journals was sent out on the stationery of the “Medical News Bureau,” 77 Seventh Ave., Brooklyn. The “manager” of the bureau was given as D. E. Woolley. The items sent out to medical journals stated that the “Basic Cancer Research” had been organized to develop a treatment of cancer by the use of selenium and tellurium.

The material received by newspapers was sent out by the “Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society,” 847 Union St., Brooklyn (the same address as the “Basic Cancer Research”). The “Secretary” of the “Cosmopolitan Cancer Research” was D. E. Woolley!

The name of one “Dr. Frederick Klein” loomed large in the matter sent out by the “Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society.” Klein, we were told, is “the eminent authority on urinology and the chemistry of cancer.” The Journal called attention to the fact that Frederick Klein’s name was not unknown in the Propaganda files, as he was the gentleman who manufactured “Sulfo-Selene,” a product that was widely heralded in the newspapers in 1916 as a remedy for cancer. It was also brought out that Klein, who is not a physician, claims to have evolved certain remarkable urinary diagnostic tests whereby the presence of cancer, syphilis, etc., may be determined.

More than a month after the publication of The Journal’s article, a letter was received (October 8) from Frederick Klein. To quote literally from part of the letter:

“In the above Journal dated Sept. 3th, Vol. 77, on page 805, regarding the ‘Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society’ you have amongst others, mentioned my name Dr. Frederick Klein.

“I wish to inform you that I have given my legal adviser the order to write a note to the above Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society, 847 Union St., Brooklyn, forbidden them to the effect that my name should not be used by above society in any form or writing in any of their transactions, this has been done some time ago to prevent unethical conceptions concerning myself.”

Shortly after the article of September 3 another item appeared in the newspapers throughout the country to the effect that the Cancer Research Society was offering a “$100,000 Cancer Prize” for a “medicinal cure for cancer.” Many of the newspapers of the country seemed to bite on this piece of free publicity. This was in the first week of October. In the third week of the same month a Brooklyn paper announced that 3,000 people had submitted formulas for curing cancer to the Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society. The article containing this announcement gave interesting descriptions of some of the “cures” submitted and closed with the statement that the Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society was establishing “clinics” in various cities. It ended with the statement:

“All treatments are confidential. In this respect the society had the cooperation of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities. It also has the cooperation of the American Medical Association.”

The closing sentence is, of course, unequivocally false.

At the time of The Journal’s article the name of the particular preparation which the Basic Chemical Corporation of America was putting out was unknown. Shortly after the article appeared it was learned that the product was on the market as “Seleni-Bascca.” A physician, himself a sufferer from carcinoma, after reading the article of September 3, sent The Journal some correspondence he had received from the Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society regarding the alleged cure. One piece was a letter signed “F. W. Humphrey, Acting Director; Dictated by Dr. George D. Barney,” which read in part:

“Our claim is a very simple one indeed, namely that the use of a proper preparation of Selenium (Seleni-Bascca) restores the Sulphur metabolism to normal; we claim that cancer cannot exist in any form, when the Sulphur metabolism is normal, the results from the proper use of Seleni-Bascca in cases of Carcinoma are quick and lasting, the Medical Profession can hardly realize that in this modest treatment a remedy for the Dreaded Carcinoma has been discovered.

“Seleni-Bascca in its colloidal form is quickly taken up by the blood stream, reaches the finest tissues and almost immediately resists the further growth of the disease. The research work has been going on since 1901, under the direction of Dr. Frederick Klein, in connection with Medical Men who have proved to their own satisfaction that Seleni-Bascca should be used as a treatment in every case of malignancy.”

Seleni-Bascca comes in small vials containing fifty tablets. Each vial bears a label reading:

“SELENIBASCCA. A mixture of Colloidal Selenium in tablet form. Recommended in the internal treatment of Carcinoma and some other cases of faulty metabolism.”

Some of the preparation was turned over to the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory with the request that the tablets be examined to determine whether or not they contained, as claimed, selenium in colloidal form. The laboratory report follows:

CHEMICAL REPORT

“An original vial of ‘Seleni-Bascca’ (Basic Chemical Corporation of America) was examined in the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory to determine whether or not the substance contained colloidal selenium. The bottle contained 50 tablets weighing approximately 0.1 gm. (about 1¹⁄₂ gr.) each. The major portion of the tablet was soluble in hot water. Qualitative tests indicated the presence of chlorid, sulphate, small amount of nitrate, potassium, sodium, starch, talc and selenium. Tellurium was not found to be present. The ash was equivalent to 5.5 per cent.; over one-half of the ash consisted of a talc-like substance. The amount of selenium present in the specimen examined was only about 1.3 per cent.

“In the literature sent out by The Basic Chemical Corporation, ‘Dr. Frederick Klein’ is mentioned as chemist. Several years ago, the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry investigated ‘Sulfo-Selene,’ a cancer remedy, with which the same ‘Dr. Klein’ was connected. The alleged composition of ‘Sulfo-Selene,’ as given to the Council, was:

“Selenium.25

“Sulphur (partially in colloidal and partially in crystalloid state).10

“Potassium carbonate.10

“Nitrogen.05

“Bile Salts.50

“To which is added an inert base or vehicle; as sugar of milk or amylum.”

“It was claimed that ‘Sulfo-Selene’ was prepared by reducing nitro-selenious acid with sulphurous acid, neutralizing with potassium bicarbonate and then adding bile salts. Assuming that the composition claimed for ‘Sulfo-Selene’ was correct the analysis of ‘Seleni-Bascca’ shows that the two products resemble each other. The tests, however, failed to reveal in ‘Seleni-Bascca’ the presence of the bile salts claimed to have been present in ‘Sulfo-Selene.’ ”

“The product is not colloidal as claimed as the selenium can be removed by ordinary filtration.”—(From The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 19, 1921.)

Repudiated by the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities

To the Editor:—My attention has been called to the fact that there appears in a recent issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association a statement that the Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society, located at 847 Union Street, Brooklyn, has the cooperation of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities. In reply may I say that the Bureau of Charities has no connection, understanding, or relationship whatever, with the Cosmopolitan Cancer Research Society, and has never sent a patient to them.

T. J. Riley, Brooklyn. Secretary, Brooklyn Bureau of Charities.—Correspondence from The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 24, 1921.

BELL-ANS (PAPAYANS, BELL)[M]

As the New York Tribune’s “Ad-Visor” Sees It

“Why avoid draughts? Sit by an open window if you want to! Just take a few drops of Sneeze-o before you go into the draught and after you come out of it, and you’ll never catch cold.

“Don’t be afraid of contagion. Kiss your Uncle Ebenezer, even if he’s dying of tuberculosis! Just fortify yourself with a sip of Lungicide before you go to his bedside, and another when you come away, and you’ll be taking no risk.

“Are you going to sit there and let the other folks eat up all the good things just because you are afraid to pitch in, when 2 or 3 Bell-Ans taken before and after the meal would enable you to enjoy your share of all that’s coming without a bit of discomfort or distress? Bell-Ans has restored the pleasures of the table to thousands who say: ‘I can now eat anything and plenty of it, too.’ ”

“The first two blurbs are The Ad-Visor’s. The third is a bona fide advertisement of Bell-Ans, aimed to catch the holiday trade. They are all patterned after the same style and the first two are no more lacking in logic than the last. Overeat—deliberately court indigestion—invite gout—don’t be a gourmet, be a gourmand—be an anti-Hoover and eat a lot of food, whether you need it or not; than take Bell-Ans. If it doesn’t ‘absolutely remove indigestion,’ your druggist will give you back your money! Could anything be fairer than that?

“Such copy as this is not limited in its evil effects to the misguided individual who eats lobster and ice cream at midnight and trusts to Bell-Ans to atone for his indiscretion. The most serious effect of such reckless advice is the example which the advertising sets to other advertisers.”

The comments just quoted are from the Ad-Visor department of the New York Tribune of Feb. 7, 1918. They are respectfully referred to the New York Medical Journal, the International Journal of Surgery and the Woman’s Medical Journal—three presumably scientific publications that through their advertising pages urge physicians to prescribe Bell-ans.—(From The Journal A.M.A., Feb. 23, 1918.)

CAMPHO-PHENIQUE

Appealing to the New Fledged Graduate.

The secretary of the Harvard University Medical School received from the Campho-Phenique Company of St. Louis a letter that, presumably, has been sent to most of the medical colleges of the country. It read:

“We wish to supply the senior class of all Medical Colleges with physicians’ samples of Campho-Phenique Liquid and Campho-Phenique Powder, and Ointment for 1918.

“We will thank you very kindly if you will send us a communication stating the number of students in your graduating class, and if possible, we would like the name of each and every student, that we may send him personally a sample of Campho-Phenique. In this way, we are sure the party receives the sample.”

Presumably, the Campho-Phenique concern believes in following the old advice: Catch ’em young! In this connection, it may be well briefly to call to the attention of fourth-year medical students the results of the investigation of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of Campho-Phenique. The Council’s findings on Campho-Phenique Liquid were to the effect that the preparation, which was exploited under a false “formula,” was, essentially, a solution of camphor and phenol in liquid petrolatum, substances well known in medicine and none of which under its own name has been credited with possessing any superlative virtues. The Council’s verdict on Campho-Phenique Powder was that “for all practical purposes it is essentially a camphorated talcum powder” containing, apparently, sufficient camphor and phenol to give the talcum powder an odor. It was further brought out in the Council’s report that the Campho-Phenique Company was in effect one of the numerous trade names adopted by one James F. Ballard of St. Louis. Mr. Ballard seems to market a number of “patent medicines,” most of them sold direct to the public, but some, as in the case of Campho-Phenique, exploited to the public via the medical profession. “Herbine,” a “marvelous preparation” that “puts the liver in healthy condition”; “Ballard’s Snow Liniment” that when applied to wounds performs “a perfect cure that leaves no scar”; “Dr. T. L. Stephens’ Chemical Eye Salve” which “acts quickly in all cases” and cures “failing vision,” are some of the numerous “patent medicines” made and sold by Ballard. “Collins Ague Remedy,” “Swaim’s Panacea,” “Swayne’s Panacea” and “Renne’s Pain Killing Oil” are four more of Mr. Ballard’s products, for each of which he has pleaded guilty in the federal courts to making false and fraudulent claims knowingly and wantonly.

If medical colleges of the better class were turning out graduates today who could be caught by free samples of such nostrums as Campho-Phenique, then, indeed, would the outlook for the future of scientific medicine be a gloomy one. But they are not. The young man or woman who goes out today from a reputable medical college is imbued with the scientific spirit, has developed habits of straight thinking and will not, we believe, be so uncritical as to accept at their face value claims made for nostrums of the Campho-Phenique type.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 9, 1918.)

“CINCHOPHEN”: FORMERLY “ATOPHAN”

It will be remembered that the Federal Trade Commission adopted the names arsphenamin and neo­arsphenamin for the drugs first introduced as “salvarsan” and “neosalvarsan,” respectively; the terms barbital and barbital sodium for the substances first introduced as “veronal” and “veronal sodium,” and the word procain as the name for the compound first marketed as “novocain.” In issuing licenses for the use of the patents on these drugs, the commission stipulated that the drugs should be sold under the new American title unless the firm desired to use a new trade designation, in which case the titles chosen by the commission should be given equal prominence. The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry has cooperated with the Federal Trade Commission and has adopted the new names as the descriptive names which appear in New and Non­official Remedies. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., which has purchased some 4,500 German-owned patents, many of them for synthetic drugs, proposes to continue the wise policy of the Federal Trade Commission by requiring that those who receive licenses for the use of patents for synthetic drugs must use a common designation for each drug selected by the foundation. “Cinchophen” has been selected as the designation for the substance introduced as “atophan” (also described in the U. S. Pharmacopeia under “phenyl­cinchoninic acid”). In consideration of this action on the part of the Chemical Foundation, and also because physicians found it difficult to use the pharmacopeia name “phenyl­cinchoninic acid,” the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry has recognized the contracted term “cinchophen” as a name for the drug introduced as “atophan.” It is hoped that physicians will support this simplified and nonproprietary nomenclature in the same spirit with which they adopted the terms “arsphenamin,” “barbital” and “procain.”—(Editorial from The Journal A.M.A., Aug. 9, 1919.)

“COLLOSOLS”: AN UNCRITICAL ENGLISH ENDORSEMENT

Under the auspices of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, there has just appeared a report on the present status of colloid chemistry.247 The work has been recognized as sufficiently important to receive the endorsement of the government Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Of particular interest to physicians is the chapter on “Administration of Colloids in Disease” written by Alfred B. Searle, “consulting chemist, Sheffield.” After a somewhat academic generalization of colloidal drugs, the “thesis” is devoted largely to the “Collosols”—proprietary preparations made by the Crookes Laboratories. The “scientific” evidence presented by Searle for colloids in medicine reads as if the advertising literature of the Crookes concern had been considered ample source of information. Thus: “Colloidal Manganese,” besides having been “used with remarkable and surprising results in the treatment of coccogenic skin diseases,... gives excellent results [in impetigo, chronic seborrheic eczema and acute folliculitis] when employed in conjunction with intramine”! The grave danger of the intramine therapy has been known for more than two years, both here and abroad,248 in fact, one author stated that in cases of intramine injections, “the pain is undiluted torture.” In a style as bombastic and verbose as the usual house-organ write-up, the report recklessly details all sorts of conditions in which so-called colloids—and particularly the “Collosol” brand—have been recommended, but derogatory findings are conspicuous by their omission. Even Sir Malcolm Morris is quoted as lending his name (and title) to the endorsement of “Collosols.”

In the United States the medical profession has created a means whereby physicians need not be misled by such “high” authorities as evidently has been the case with our English confrères. Once more the value of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry is strikingly manifested. What are the facts about “Collosols”? The Council has reported that a number of the “Collosol” preparations were not colloids at all, and “if ... injected intravenously as directed, death might result, making the physician morally if not legally liable”;249 that in the cases in which the therapeutic claims were examined, the claims were found to be either exceedingly improbable or exaggerated; furthermore, that the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory found “Collosol Cocaine,” on analysis, to contain only 40 per cent. of the claimed amount of cocain.250

Such are the findings which have been presented to the American physician. But the British physician is now being made the object of an intensive advertising campaign for “Collosols,” based in part on an uncritical, pseudo­governmental endorsement. Just so long as the English profession will not protect itself by creating a competent board to examine and judge proprietary medicines and to control methods of exploitation, just so long will such extravagant and even cruelly misleading claims continue to impede scientific progress in therapeutics.—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 18, 1919.)

Collosol Manganese

To the Editor:—Has anything been published on the efficacy of “Collosol Manganese” in malaria? I recently read the Council’s report which indicated the fakishness of the “Crooke’s Collosols,” but I also was told that the War Office of England had requested a study to be made of colloidal manganese in malaria.

J. B., Columbus, Ohio.

Answer.—Stephens, Yorke, Blacklock, Macfie, Cooper and Carter report in the Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology (Feb. 28, 1919, p. 345) the results of their investigation for the English government and conclude: “Collosol Manganese in the doses used is of no value in the treatment of simple tertian malaria.”—(Query in The Journal A. M. A., May 3, 1919.)

COTTON PROCESS ETHER

To the Editor:—Please let me know what information you have about the enclosed clipping?

E. W. Carpenter, M.D., Greenville, S. C.

To the Editor:—“Cotton Process Ether,” manufactured by the Du Pont Co., has been given considerable notoriety in the lay press. A letter of inquiry addressed to the firm elicits the information that “Cotton Process Ether is a very highly refined Di-ethyl Ether charged with Ethylene Gas.” ... What is your opinion of the “Cotton Process Ether”? Has the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry investigated this product?

John L. Atlee, M.D., Lancaster, Pa.

To the Editor:—I have been waiting for some reference to the new anesthetic referred to in the enclosed clipping, but if any has been made in the medical press I have failed to notice it. If there is anything of interest in connection with this item, and it is not too much trouble, I will thank you to put me in touch with the situation.

Holman Taylor, M.D., Fort Worth, Tex.

Answer.—About January 20, the “News Service” of the “E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Inc.,” circularized the press of the country with what it was pleased to term a “good ‘filler’ ”; this particular piece of press agent work dealt with “The New Du Pont Ether.” To quote one paragraph from the “News Item”:

The new anesthetic, which is a highly refined di-ethyl ether, modified by the addition of gases, has the following characteristics: (1) the property of inducing and maintaining anesthesia with practical freedom from postoperative nausea, and (2) the property of inducing and maintaining analgesia (conscious insensibility to pain) as distinguished from anesthesia (insensibility to pain plus narcosis).

The Du Pont Ether and the claims made for it are seemingly based on the work of one man, “James H. Cotton, M.A., M.D., Toronto, Canada,” who published an article on “Cotton Process Ether and Ether Analgesia,” in the American Journal of Surgery for April, 1919. However, Cotton did not give the composition of the “new” ether nor, so far as we are aware, has his work been corroborated. In view of the inquiries received, the Secretary of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry asked the Du Pont Chemical Works for the composition of the new ether. From the firm’s reply we quote one paragraph:

“... The procedures of manufacture, and the exact composition of our ether, we regard as confidential information which we are entitled to retain unless a condition were to arise in which we were unable alone to satisfy the demand for this type of ether.”

It has been recognized—and incorporated in the “Principles of Medical Ethics”—that the use of a therapeutic agent of unknown composition is unscientific and contrary to the best interests of the medical profession and the public; but it is many times more serious for a physician to employ a secret or semisecret substance as an anesthetic. A physician using such a semisecret substance would have little defense if the patient should die.—(Query in The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 21, 1920.)

A Note from the Manufacturers

In the Query and Minor Notes department of The Journal of February 21, some inquiries from physicians relative to “Cotton Process Ether” were answered. In referring to the composition of this product it was stated that the secretary of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry had asked the manufacturers, the Du Pont Chemical Works, for information on this point and one paragraph from the firm’s reply was quoted. Another paragraph from the same letter was omitted; and to this omission the manufacturers took exception, expressing the opinion that by it The Journal led its readers to infer that the concern had “refused to furnish any information whatever” regarding the composition of the ether. The following paragraph, italicized as in the original letter, is the one in question:

“Cotton Process Ether contains no components which do not occur in other anesthesia ethers. Its peculiar properties result from the thorough methods taken to exclude harmful impurities, such as aldehydes, peroxides, traces of acids, carbon monoxide, sulphur compounds, etc., and to include carefully regulated quantities of only such of the usual components as we have found to give distinctly beneficial properties to the ether. We are willing to state that in this class we consider properly prepared ethylene of greatest importance, but we have not announced which of the beneficial components of anesthesia ether we include in our ether, or the amount of such components.”

As the quotation shows, the paragraph is informative in a negative rather than in a positive way in that it states what Cotton Process Ether is not rather than what it is. Since that time, however, the manufacturers have notified The Journal that they have definitely decided to present Cotton Process Ether to the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry for consideration and that in preparing the data required by the Council will define Cotton Process Ether as follows:

“An improved anesthesia ether consisting of highly refined diethyl oxid (C₂H₅)₂O, plus approximately two volumes of ethylene (C₂H₄), ¹⁄₂ volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and 1 per cent. by weight of ethyl alcohol.”—(From The Journal A. M. A., May 22, 1920.)

DIONOL

“Dionol” is advertised to physicians by the Dionol Company of Detroit. If one takes the word of the manufacturers, the therapeutic possibilities of Dionol are apparently limited only by the blue sky. Even the company admits that “the unprecedented range of action” of this marvel “may come as a surprise.” A glance over the published “case reports” confirms the inference. From “Bed Sores,” “Bubo,” “Catarrh” and “Circumcision” through “Croup,” “Deafness,” “Dysmenorrhea” and “Eczema,” including “Endometritis,” “Erysipelas,” “Gastritis” and “Hemorrhoids,” not omitting “Osteomyelitis,” “Otitis Media,” “Pneumonia” and “Ptomaine Poisoning,” down through the pathologic alphabet to “Quinsy,” “Sciatica,” “Spinal Curvature,” “Varicose Veins,” and “Whooping Cough” one concludes that here at last is a catholicon indeed.

What is Dionol? First it should be said that the preparation comes in two forms: as an ointment and as an emulsion. The ointment, so declare the manufacturers, “is always required”; the emulsion may be used “as an auxiliary treatment.” The Dionol “literature” when stripped of the verbal camouflage with which it abounds may be said to propound the following theories and propositions: First, that the nerves of the body are electric conductors insulated from the surrounding tissues by the nerve sheaths; second, that inflammation breaks down the insulation with the resultant escape of the current and an interference with the normal metabolic action of the cells; third, that Dionol, when applied to the body, penetrates the tissues, “coating the cells and with them the nerve sheaths with a nonconducting layer which is sufficient to insulate the nerve sheaths and stop the leak.”

So much for the theory on which the alleged action of Dionol is based. Dionol itself is a sort of glorified petrolatum. Not, of course, that the manufacturers describe it in any such crude and understandable language. According to the company, Dionol is “composed of pure hydrocarbons, especially selected with regard to specific gravity, viscosity and other necessary physical properties” which has been “perfectly deionized by our special scientific process under the Baines Method.” It appears, from further reading, that ordinary petrolatum will not “turn the trick”; presumably because it does not overcome the human short circuits which the Dionol Company declare are always present in inflammation. When, however, the petrolatum has been subjected to the “Baines Method” it achieves, it seems, an esoteric value that puts to shame its plebeian origin.

The whole thing is very simple. To those physicians that like this sort of thing this preparation should make a strong appeal.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 26, 1918.)

Glorified Petrolatum

An Indiana physician sends us in a batch of leaflets detailing the marvels of “Dionol” and thus comments:

“I received the enclosed in the mail today and I am puzzled, perplexed and astounded. I had formed the opinion that the profession was getting better; that it was more scholarly than formerly when the two course school was still in existence and any one could matriculate; that it was no longer possible for a ‘patent medicine’ manufacturer to palm off his wares on us. After reading this stuff and realizing that such methods must be remunerative, I am deeply humiliated. Is it possible that educated physicians respond to this kind of advertising? Or has some one perpetrated a joke on me? If the profession can be thus successfully exploited one can no longer wonder at the following which every new ‘ic’ and ‘ism’ acquires.”

It is a pity that the medical profession generally does not react to the Dionol and similar advertising as does our correspondent. As the concern continues to do business, the presumption is that at least some physicians are using Dionol. As was pointed out in The Journal of Jan. 26, 1918, Dionol seems to be a glorified and esoteric form of petrolatum. The exploitation of Dionol is based on the following theory: (1) The brain is a generator of neuro-electricity; (2) the nerves are the conductors of this electricity; (3) the nerve sheaths are the insulator; (4) wherever there is local inflammation the nerves are short circuited, due to a breaking down of the insulation resistance of the nerve sheath; (5) this results in “an escape of neuro-electricity;” (6) Dionol coats the nerve sheaths with a nonconducting layer and this restores the insulation and “stops the leak.”

Whether this ingenious theory was invented to lend an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing tale and give a “reason for being” for Dionol or whether Dionol was first invented and it became necessary to evolve a theory that would give some plausibility to the claims made for this etheralized petrolatum, we are unable to say. In any case the theory and the product are exploited together.

Among the material sent in by a correspondent are some “Dionol Case Reports.” Neither the names nor the addresses of the physicians making these reports are given, but the company states that they may be had “on request.” One special “report” is featured under the heading “Infected Wound. Striking Results After United States and French Government Army Surgeons Failed” is signed “Dr. W.” It is dated July 19, 1919. A few months ago the Dionol Company was sending out this same testimonial with the full name and address of the “doctor” giving it. Investigation showed that the “doctor” in question was an osteopath whose specialties, according to his advertisement in his local newspaper, are “Catarrhal Deafness and Hay Fever, Acute and Chronic Diseases”! In this connection it is worth noting that investigation of some of the earlier testimonials sent out by the Dionol concern and alleged to have been given by “doctors” showed that the gentlemen in question were “drugless healers.”

As a “true indication of the value which the medical profession is placing on Dionol” the Dionol Company has published the names of some physicians who, it is alleged, have used the preparation.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 7, 1920.)

THE ELI PRODUCTS OF ELI H. DUNN

Physicians are receiving some miscellaneous advertising matter from a concern that seems to operate under various names such as “E. H. Dunn & Co.,” “Eli H. Dunn,” “Eli Laboratory,” etc. The concern is located at 3820 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. One Journal reader, who is evidently not greatly impressed by this material, forwards the stuff to us with the laconic request: “Will you please give me your opinion on this junk?”

The “junk” referred to comprised, in part, an advertising leaflet on “Eli 606 Capsules,” another leaflet on “Eli Vaginal Capsules,” still another on “Eli ‘Vim’ Restorative;” then there was reference to the inevitable nostrum for intravenous use: “Ampoules Eli Venhydrarsen.” A four-page leaflet, headed in large and very black letters “Confidential Guide to Live Wire Physicians Only,” expressed its key-note in the opening paragraph:

“How to make MONEY as well as REPUTATION in the treatment of all CHRONIC AILMENTS and all types, forms and sequella of VENEREAL diseases.”

The “Eli ‘Vim’ Restorative” is said to be a “tonic aphrodisiac.” The “action” of the product is to “Arouse Sexual Ardor and Desire. Influx blood supply to the genital organs.” A postscript to the “Guide” urges physicians:

“If you do not already use Intravenous Serums, by all means get an outfit, if for no other reason than to meet the popular DEMAND.”

A “Special Note” in the “Confidential Guide” advises physicians who “have to deal with Hysteria” to “write the Author of this Guide, who will explain by personal letter a method of cooperation by which such Convulsions may be At Once and forever stopped.... There will be $100 for You from every case treated.” One physician wrote to the “Author of this Guide”—Eli H. Dunn, M.D.—asking for further information on this treatment for hysteria. He received in reply two letters both signed Eli H. Dunn; one was to be shown to the patient, the other was for the doctor’s own information. The letter for the patient to see described the marvelous effects of “Dunn’s Intravenous and Restorative Treatment” in hysteria and recommended it “with the utmost confidence in every case able to pay you the fee commensurate with the service you render.” Then followed these two paragraphs:

“The cost of the treatment when administered by yourself is $300 CASH WITH ORDERS which includes one complete outfit and technique for administering.

“Should you call me personally in consultation an additional fee of $150 per diem covering the time I am away from my Kansas City office; fees to be collected and held until I arrive.”

The letter that was intended only for the doctor’s eye declared:

“You are to have $100 of the fee and $50 of the per diem.”

It explained that the “complete outfit” referred to in the “patient’s letter” would “consist in part of a tube of intravenous medication” and doses of “Restorative Capsules” and “Eli 606 Capsules.”

Eli H. Dunn seems to have had a somewhat varied and spectacular career. After being graduated in 1885 he apparently started practice in Orion, Ill. During the nineties he was practicing at Elma, Iowa, and about 1900 he seems to have moved to Kansas City, Mo. During 1906 and 1908, he also had an additional office at Denver, Col. About this time he was exploiting “Dunn’s Uterine Evacuant” which was “a strictly legitimate” product which could “be injected within the uterus with perfect safety and immediate effect.” This stuff was advertised both from the Kansas City and the Denver offices. The “Personal Column” of a Kansas City paper in 1910 carried the message to “Ladies” that “Dr. Dunn” was a “Regular physician for women only,” Dunn’s violation of the postal laws in 1911 and of the federal Food and Drugs Act in 1912 need not be gone into at this time.

The Journal would feel like apologizing for devoting space to such a preposterous scheme were it not for the fact that physicians, being human, sometimes “fall for” preposterous schemes. Some, we know, have nibbled at Dunn’s bait; others may do so. The gross commercialism that permeates the advertising matter sent out by Dunn again emphasizes the fact that the fad for intravenous medication offers an attractive field for those who would exploit our profession.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 22, 1919.)

GLOVER’S CANCER SERUM

Scores of letters have reached—and are reaching—The Journal office similar in effect to the following:

“I am enclosing ‘literature’ received from the ‘T. J. Glover Research Laboratory.’ Though purporting to come from Toronto, where the $25.00 are to be sent, if you please, the envelope bears the New York postmark.”

The above is from New Jersey while the two following are from Michigan and Illinois, respectively:

“Have you any information in regard to this party and his treatment for cancer? This is the first I have heard of any such work having been done. One wonders if it is presented in good faith or if the money god has overcome the gentleman’s scientific spirit.”

“Is this just one more of them? Why a roan horse? Some people might want serum from a nice bay or calico cow pony.”

The literature referred to comes in an envelop bearing the name of “T. J. Glover, Research Laboratory, Toronto, Canada,” but mailed, apparently, from New York City. The enclosures are a single sheet circular signed Thomas Joseph Glover and entitled “Etiology of Cancer,” a “Directions” slip and a card quoting prices. In the circular Dr. Glover states that he has prepared a serum from immunized horses, “between ages of seven and nine years, of the roan type,” and has injected this intramuscularly “into patients in the advanced stages of cancer and noticed that it has a specific action on every known type of cancer.” Further:

“Up to the present time I have apparently cured cancer of the face, eye, nose, lip, mouth, tongue, stomach, bowel, bladder, breast and uterus.”

In addition to the circular, was a small leaflet giving directions for the injection of the serum and also a card bearing Dr. Glover’s name and Toronto address and reading:

This is to advise you that Dr. T. J. Glover’s Serum for the treatment of cancer can now be had by application to office at above address.

PRICE FIVE DOLLARS PER TREATMENT. FIVE TREAT- MENTS MINIMUM NUMBER SENT AT ONE TIME.

Send money by Post-Office Money Order or Certified Cheque.

DIRECTIONS FOR TREATMENT WITH EACH ORDER.

This advertising material, which is evidently being widely circulated in the United States, would indicate that the Glover Research Laboratory had received a permit from the United States Public Health Service licensing the interstate sale of this serum in the United States. No such license has been issued.

The Journal briefly reported in the department of Medical News, Oct. 30, 1920, that the Academy of Medicine of Toronto had appointed a committee to investigate the claims made for the Glover “cancer serum.” In the meantime, the most charitable thing that can be said is that the “treatment” is in the experimental stage and the reported results have not been corroborated by independent investigators.—(From The Journal A.M.A., Jan. 1, 1921.)

The Toronto Academy of Medicine Reports Unfavorably on Glover’s Cancer Serum

The method of exploitation of the alleged cancer serum being put out by Dr. T. J. Glover of Toronto, Canada, was briefly discussed in this department of The Journal for January 1. At that time it was pointed out that the medical profession of the United States was being widely circularized by Dr. Glover and that, while the letters purported to come from Toronto, they were, in fact, mailed from New York City. Since this article appeared the circularization seems to have continued undiminished and physicians in various parts of the United States have sent in the Glover advertising material. Oddly enough, the matter now sent out, while identical in every respect with that dealt with in the previous article, bears a different return address on the back of the envelop. The envelops are the same; but the legend “T. J. Glover Research Laboratory, 538 Jarvis St., Toronto, Canada,” has been crudely crossed out and there has been substituted by means of a rubber stamp the legend “MRS. STEWART, 309 W. 54th St., New York.” Still later letters have been modified to the extent that the letters “RS” of “MRS.” have been cut out of the stamp and it now reads “M . STEWART.”

There has now come to hand a report just published by a special committee appointed by the council of the Academy of Medicine, Toronto, to investigate the Glover Serum. The report of this committee may be summed up by one of its closing paragraphs, which reads:

“The data which your committee has been able to obtain have not convinced it that the results of treatment obtained by the use of Dr. Glover’s serum are better than those obtained by similar methods introduced by others, and which have ultimately disappointed the hopes entertained of them.”

The committee’s report deals with the claims that Dr. Glover has made for his serum, both experimental and clinical. It seems that Dr. Glover has claimed that, experimentally, he had (1) cultured cancer cells and from these cells had isolated and cultured an organism which he declared was confined to, and present in, every type of cancer; (2) produced cancer in a number of animals by inoculation with these cells and organisms; (3) obtained a serum—from a horse that had been injected with cultures of these cells and organisms—which, when injected into experimental animals rendered them immune to inoculation, and (4) produced improvement or cure in cases of human cancer by the injection of his serum. The committee reported that it was unable to obtain any evidence to substantiate Dr. Glover’s claims on the experimental aspect of the question as Dr. Glover had refused to permit representatives of the committee to visit his laboratory; had refused the request of the committee to be allowed to examine his cultures and experimental material; had not acceded to the request of the committee that he demonstrate his ability to culture cancer cells and organisms and to produce cancer by inoculation or to immunize animals against it.

The committee attempted also to collect information which would enable it to pass on the clinical claims made by Dr. Glover, first, as to whether he has succeeded in producing cures, either regularly or occasionally, in cases definitely established as cancer and, second, to enable the committee to decide whether his serum in cases definitely established as cancer produces improvement beyond that which occasionally occurs spontaneously or under palliative measures. On both of these points, the committee reported that it found no evidence to warrant the hope that a specific cure for cancer has been discovered by Dr. Glover or that the serum had produced a cure in any case definitely established as cancer.

It should be understood, that the committee’s investigations and findings were completed before the present advertising campaign of the Glover serum was initiated.—(From The Journal A.M.A, Feb. 5, 1921.)

GLYCO-THYMOLINE AND POLIOMYELITIS

One characteristic of the “patent medicine” business is that it trades on fear. Should an epidemic occur the market is flooded with new nostrums purporting to cure or prevent the disease in question, while the manufacturers of older “patent medicines” revamp their advertising so as to make it appear that their preparations are all that stand between the scourge and the public. One has but to remember “Peruna’s” exploitation of the yellow fever epidemic in New Orleans some years ago and the way in which the exploiters of “Pond’s Extract” played on the fears of the public at the time of the former meningitis epidemic in New York City.

At present the public is much exercised over the epidemic of infantile paralysis. Anticipating that the nostrum fraternity would attempt to reap a golden harvest from the public distress, the federal officials issued a bulletin of warning on the subject. Naturally, the bulletin was addressed to the lay public, the government assuming that physicians knew enough to avoid being misled by any such advertising campaigns. Apparently, the assumption is too broad. At any rate, the manufacturers of “Glyco-Thymoline” are circularizing physicians, one of whom writes as follows:

To the Editor:—I am enclosing circular letter that I received this morning which seems to me almost a crime. I do not suppose that there is any way to prevent anything of this sort, but it is certainly a shame to attempt to deceive people in this way. As I recollect, Glyco-Thymoline is almost inert, practically no more efficient than Dobell’s Solution.

E. Fletcher Ingals, M.D., Chicago.

The circular letter referred to was on the stationery of Kress & Owen Company, manufacturers of Glyco-Thymoline. It read:

Dear Doctor:—Regarding Infantile Paralysis, it is conceded that the source of infection is through the Nose, Mouth and Throat.

Taking this measure to be correct, we believe that there is no safer prophylactic measure than the use of Glyco-Thymoline, with three parts of water, as a mouth, tooth and nasal wash, by means of the K. & O. Nasal Douche and the toothbrush.

Glyco-Thymoline tends to promote exosmosis, and prevents the absorption of the germ or toxic matter.

We would be glad to send you samples of both Glyco-Thymoline and the Douche should you so desire.

With best wishes, we beg to remain,

Yours very truly,

Kress & Owen Company.

Glyco-Thymoline has been discussed in these pages. A report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry pointed out that this “patent medicine” is simply a weak antiseptic, so feeble that even in full strength it does not kill Staphylo­coccus aureus in four hours and is of little, if any, greater therapeutic value than sterile salt solution. Yet, Glyco-Thymoline has been recommended by its manufacturers, either directly or inferentially, for such diseases as diphtheria, ophthalmia neonatorum and consumption. Today its manufacturers put it forward as one of the safest prophylactic measures against infantile paralysis and have the effrontery to make this suggestion, not to the uninstructed public but to the medical profession. Presumably, as a business organization, the concern believes it will convince a sufficient number of physicians of the therapeutic efficacy of its product to pay for the cost of this advertising campaign. If it appraises the situation correctly there need no longer be any wonder expressed that in the recent suit against The Journal, “patent medicine” makers were able to enlist the help of medical men.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 16, 1916.)

GLYKERON: COLD STORAGE TESTIMONIALS [N]

The law which limits the length of time that food products may be kept in cold storage could with advantage have its scope extended to include “patent medicine” testimonials. Physicians recently received through the mails—at a time when the mails were frightfully congested with Christmas business—a sixteen page pamphlet sent out in a plain envelop as first class matter. The caption of the pamphlet reads: “Cough and Its Treatment in Pulmonary and Laryngeal Tuberculosis: By Henry Levien, M.D., While Medical Director and Physician-in-Charge of the Liberty Sanitarium, Liberty, N. Y. From the Buffalo Medical Journal.” The pamphlet is devoted to the alleged virtues of that dangerous and widely advertised nostrum, “Glyco-Heroin (Smith),” whose more recent and less descriptive name is now “Glykeron.” Physicians might assume, and doubtless will assume, from the pamphlet that this reprint represents a recent pronouncement on the subject with which it deals. The facts are that the “Liberty Sanitarium” has, apparently, been out of existence for at least fifteen years, while the article itself originally appeared more than eighteen years ago—September, 1901. One of many physicians who sent in the copies received called attention to the fact that he had left the address to which the pamphlet was directed, more than six years ago. Even at that, the mailing lists of the concern that sells this heroin-containing nostrum are more than twelve years ahead of its “clinical reports.”—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 17, 1920.)

GRAY’S GLYCERINE TONIC: “WHOSE BREAD I EAT HIS SONG I SING”

Last September the United States Department of Agriculture issued a press bulletin describing the work of the Bureau of Chemistry in prosecuting the venders or manufacturers of fraudulently exploited “patent medicines.” At the end of the bulletin was a tabulated list of “other preparations against which the government’s charge that they were falsely or fraudulently labeled was sustained by the federal courts.” Tucked away in the list was a product often euphemistically described as an “ethical proprietary” but none the less essentially a “patent medicine”—“Gray’s Glycerine Tonic.” The editor of the Atlanta Journal of Medicine, apparently not having read the bulletin with any great degree of care, published it verbatim. Thus it was that the Atlanta Journal-Record of Medicine for September, 1915, presented the interesting sight of a half-page advertisement of “Gray’s Glycerine Tonic” in the same issue that contained the government’s article classifying “Gray’s Glycerine Tonic” among the false and fraudulent products! What happened? In the very next issue the Atlanta Journal-Record of Medicine apologized thus editorially:

“In our September issue, Gray’s Glycerine Tonic Comp. was inadvertently included in a list that seemed to be under the ban of the Government and very likely an injustice has been done the Purdue Frederick Company which we desire to undo as far as possible.”

Did the editor mean by “inadvertently included,” that he would have omitted “Gray’s Glycerine Tonic” from the government’s list had he noticed it in time? If so, on what grounds? It is a fact that “Gray’s Glycerine Tonic” was one of the “Fifty Falsely Labeled Medicines”; it is also a fact that it is one of the products that government officials and the federal courts have declared to be sold under claims that are “false, fraudulent and misleading.” If “Gray’s Glycerine Tonic” was fraudulently exploited—and the government and the courts have so declared it—why is it necessary for the editor of a medical journal to apologize to his subscribers for having told them so?—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 1, 1916.)

HAGEE’S CORDIAL OF COD LIVER OIL

“Under the deceptive heading ‘Making Cod Liver Oil Palatable,’ the Charlotte Medical Journal in its December issue prints a boost for ‘Cord. Ext. Ol. Morrhuae Comp. (Hagee),’ or, as it is generally known to the drug trade, ‘Hagee’s Cordial of Cod Liver Oil.’

“The boost intimates that this is a preparation in which cod liver oil has in some way been rendered palatable, and then goes on to say that this is a cod liver oil product which has not suffered the least loss of those essential elements which make the crude oil such a high-class reconstructive.

“At first sight one might question whether a cod liver oil product which contains absolutely no cod liver oil had not suffered the loss of essential elements. But a closer reading discloses a significant qualification, namely, the phrase, ‘those elements which make the crude oil such a high-class reconstructive.’

“The boost is misleading from beginning to end. The manufacturers have not succeeded in this preparation in ‘making cod liver oil palatable,’ nor does their preparation in any way possess the virtues of cod liver oil. These claims have again and again been refuted, but they continue to be published—at a price but rarely in reputable medical journals.”

The above is quoted from the Weekly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York. The Bulletin is issued for the enlightenment of the public.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 8, 1916.)

HYPNO-BROMIC COMPOUND

A physician in Vermont writes:

“This is simply a word of inquiry—and of possible warning to other practitioners—regarding a preparation known as Hypno-Bromic Compound manufactured by H. K. Wampole & Co. This compound is dispensed by druggists without prescription and contains in each ounce:

“Cannabis indica 1 gr.

“Morphin ¹⁄₄ gr.

“Potassium bromid48 gr.

“Hyoscyamus 1 gr.

“Chloral hydrate96 gr.

“I have at the present time three young women who are addicts to this preparation as the result of thoughtless prescriptions from physicians. This mixture evades the working of the Harrison Act and may be dispensed freely at the discretion of the druggist and, as a result, these three cases of mine have been able, by visiting at the various drug stores in town, to keep an ample supply on hand at all times.”

“Hypno-Bromic Compound” is more than an unscientific mixture; it is a dangerous product and should not be sold indiscriminately over the drug counter. Before the Harrison Narcotic Law went into effect, “Hypno-Bromic Compound” contained half a grain of morphin sulphate to the ounce instead of its present one-fourth grain. Physicians remember that Section 6 of the Harrison law contains a joker—put over by the “patent medicine” interests—that exempts proprietary remedies containing one-fourth grain of morphin or less to the ounce from the restrictions of that act. While it is illegal for a physician to write a prescription which contains morphin, no matter how small the amount, unless he conforms in all ways to the requirements of the Harrison Narcotic Law, “patent medicine” concerns can sell indiscriminately nostrums containing morphin up to this amount and the public can buy them without let or hindrance. No reputable druggist would sell a layman over 700 grains of chloral hydrate or 2 grains of morphin or 8 grains of extract of cannabis indica, without a prescription, yet, the druggist may hand over 8 ounce bottles of Hypno-Bromic Compound which contain 768 grains of choral hydrate, 2 grains of morphin sulphate, 8 grains of extract of cannabis indica, 8 grains of hyoscyamus and 384 grains of potassium bromid! Physicians who prescribe such products as Hypno-Bromic Compound and druggists who indiscriminately sell such stuff are disgracing two honorable professions.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 7, 1920.)

INTRAVENOUS COMPOUND (LOFFLER)

Its Composition and the Peculiar Methods by Which It Is Exploited

For some time past inquiries have been received regarding Charles Lyman Loffler, his Post-graduate Course in Intravenous Therapy and especially relative to “Intravenous Compound (Loffler).” For instance, a physician writes:

“Can you tell me anything about the Physicians Drug Syndicate.... They are pushing the sale of Thymozene and offering One Hundred Dollars’ worth of stock fully paid and non-assessable, free to those sending in their order, and also a copy of Dr. Loffler’s Lectures on the Blood.”

And from another physician:

“What do you know of Charles Loffler, M.D., and his Intravenous Compound? A few evenings ago a man who appeared to be about 40 years old came to my office and tried to interest me in the above-mentioned article; he claimed to be Dr. Charles Loffler of Chicago. With him was a young lady whom he introduced as Miss B——. Miss B—— said that she had been with Dr. X—— [a physician of high standing in Los Angeles] for two months and that he was using the Intravenous Compound; also quoted other physicians.... His whole layout looks quackish, and were it not for the fact that he showed me a letter that appeared to be from Dr. X——, I should not have given him a second thought.”

And this also:

“Charles Loffler, M.D., or his agent was traveling around inducing one M.D. in each town to take up his methods of blood examination and treatment and with a little advertising of blood examinations free the doctor selected gets quite a run of patronage.”

Another physician writes:

“My attention has been called by another physician to Loffler’s Intra-Venous Compound. May I trouble you to give me any information that you may have with regard to its composition and its value as a therapeutic agent?”

C. L. Loffler does business from Rooms 1101–1102, Venetian Bldg., Chicago, the location of the “Intravenous Chemical Co.,” the “Physicians Drug Syndicate” and the “Ma-Oze Chemical Co.” Of these, more later. The Journal has in its files a large amount of material regarding Loffler. A brief résumé of that part of the material dealing with Loffler’s professional activities will be given for the purpose of allowing physicians to evaluate the scientific status of Loffler’s “Lectures,” “Post-Graduate Courses,” his therapeutic “discoveries” and his products.

It seems that Loffler was reared in Yankton, S. D. In 1898–1899, Loffler was a senior student at John Creighton Medical College, but, for reasons that need not be gone into here, he was never graduated. He received a diploma from Barnes Medical College in 1900, and in the same year was licensed to practice in South Dakota. In 1902 he was at Le Mars, Iowa; in 1904 his name appears in the medical directory, under Sioux Falls, S. D., as “Specialist in Chronic Troubles.”

THE INTRAVENOUS COMPANY IN COLORADO

Charles L. Loffler’s “specialty” is “Intravenous Medication.” In 1912 and 1913, as the Intravenous Company of Colorado Springs, he was sending out a booklet entitled “Consumption.” This described the alleged marvelous results to be obtained in the treatment of tuberculosis by the use of “Intravenous Compound”; there was also a side line, “The Loffler Internal Bath Plate.” At that time the administration of “Intravenous Compound” was recommended intravenously, hypodermically, by rectum, by mouth and even by insufflation. When the stuff was to be given by rectum, the recommendation was made: “First wash out the bowels with a preliminary injection of two or three quarts of warm water, using for this purpose the Loffler Internal Bath.”

In 1913 Loffler sought a larger field for his peculiar talents and left Colorado Springs. After a short stay in Denver he is next found in Minneapolis, where he was also “engaged in the practice of intravenous therapy” and, incidentally, seems to have been an organizer and manager of a common law concern known as the Automatic Thrasher Co.

THE PHYSICIANS’ DRUG SYNDICATE

In 1919 we find Loffler in Chicago as president of the “Physicians Drug Syndicate.” This concern—another common law organization—had for its vice president one A. E. Erling, M.D., and for its secretary and treasurer, Arthur C. Hanson. Erling was discussed251 in an article that appeared in The Journal, July 5, 1919, on the egregious “Allied Medical Association of America” of which organization C. L. Loffler was “President” in 1918.

Hanson, the secretary and treasurer of the Physicians Drug Syndicate, is said to have hailed originally from Minot, N. D., where he was in the drug business. His name appears in the Propaganda files as the manager of the Ma-Oze Chemical Co. of Minneapolis, which, in October, 1919, was advertising in a daily paper of that city:

“Protect yourself against influenza. Don’t let the germs get a foothold in your system. Kill them with Ma-Oze Antiseptic Powder. Use it as a gargle. It is ... sure death to all kinds of disease germs.”

In a preliminary statement sent out by Hanson in the early part of 1919 it seems that the Physicians Drug Syndicate was conceived “primarily to supply physicians with a product to be used in Leucorrhea and personal cleanliness of women.” This product, apparently, was the Ma-Oze of influenza fame in Minneapolis. It was to be put out, however, under the name of “Thymozene,” which, “packed in 4 ounce unlabeled carton for dispensing,” would “show nearly 100 per cent. profit to the organization over the profit which you make if you dispense your own drug.”

THYMOZENE, FREE STOCK—AND EVERYTHING

In October, 1919, the Physicians Drug Syndicate was circularizing physicians in Iowa trying to get them to send in $6 for “1 Dozen Thymozene 4 oz.” For this $6 the doctors were to get, in addition to the marvelous Thymozene, the following rights, privileges and emoluments:

1. A free Post-Graduate Course in Intravenous Therapy by Dr. Charles Loffler.

2. A gift of $100 worth of stock in the Physicians Drug Syndicate.

3. A copy of Dr. Loffler’s Lectures on Blood.

4. The privilege of purchasing future supplies of Thymozene “at wholesale prices less discount of 33¹⁄₃ per cent.”

The letter making these offers mentioned incidentally:

“Besides our product Thymozene we have been forced to add a Uterine Wafer to be used in connection with hot Thymozene douches in Leucorrhea. These wafers are simply miracle workers.”

In addition to this circular letter there was a membership blank leaflet detailing the marvels of “Thymozene.” There was another leaflet headed in very large, black type “Influenza” and recommending “Ma-Oze Antiseptic Powder” or “Thymozene” for this condition. Still another leaflet accompanying it lauded “Intravenous Compound (Loffler)” and reprinted laudatory puffs of this preparation that were credited to H. H. Witherstine, M.D., Rochester, Minn., Joseph B. Klinehans, M.D., Chicago, and the “Loring Park Sanatorium” of Minneapolis.

In addition to the Intravenous Compound (Loffler) there is, of course, certain “apparatus for the giving of the treatment” which the Intravenous Chemical Co. supplies. The “compound” must be given just so, and the Intravenous Chemical Co. “reserves the right to refuse to supply any physician with Intravenous Compound (Loffler) who, either through lack of proper apparatus or proper care in preparation of solution, or for any reason, uses it in such a manner that will cast discredit upon it.”

The complete apparatus, including 2 ounces of Intravenous Compound (Loffler), sells for $24. What is Intravenous Compound? Apparently, nobody knows except Charles L. Loffler, who asks physicians to inject—and we regret to say some are injecting—this nostrum of unknown composition into the veins of their patients. To a physician who had raised the point of secrecy Loffler wrote in part:

“I am sure that you will agree with me that it is far better to place this treatment in the hands of competent physicians, such as Dr. Witherstine, and many more whose names I will gladly send you, and to protect the honest and competent doctor who investigates and takes up the work, than to publish the formula and give to the unscrupulous a chance to try to make the product and no doubt to claim to cure disease that is beyond hope. The formula is not kept secret for profit ... but is so kept upon the advice of a number of good men who have the interest of the doctor at heart.... I am willing and anxious to place the product and the results in thousands of cases before the A. M. A. on the one condition that the formula shall be kept secret for the benefit of the reputable physician.”

In another letter written more recently to a physician who called attention to the secrecy of the nostrum, Loffler wrote:

“The Intravenous Compound contains approximately 58 per cent. oxygen, 12 per cent. chlorine, 16 per cent. potassium, 9 per cent. sodium and 5 per cent. boron. I have no hesitancy in giving it, and it was due to an incompetent man in this office that this was not given fully in the booklet. He made the changes without my consent and has caused me to answer many inquiries by physicians.”

A seeming frankness is a trick as old as nostrum exploitation itself. Loffler’s “formula” is meaningless. A quack who was putting out a mixture of 1 part baking soda and 2 parts common salt might with equal frankness say that his marvelous combination contained approximately 35.4 per cent. sodium, 4.8 per cent. carbon, 19 per cent. oxygen, 40.4 per cent. chlorin, and 0.4 per cent. hydrogen.

In order that the profession might know more about this product a specimen was turned over to the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory for analysis. Here is what the chemists report:

CHEMISTS’ REPORT

“One original 2 ounce bottle of ‘Intravenous Compound (Loffler) for Intravenous Use’ was submitted to the Association’s Chemical Laboratory for examination. According to the label, the product is sold by the ‘Intravenous Chemical Co., Chicago.’ The bottle contained a white granular substance, which appeared as if the ingredients had been fused together. The product responded to tests for sodium, potassium, chlorate, borate and nitrate. As this same set of chemical radicals was found by Puckner and Hilpert (J. A. M. A., May 22, 1908, p. 1706) to be present in ‘Oxychlorin’ and ‘Zyme-oid,’ a quantitative comparison of ‘Intravenous Compound (Loffler)’ was made.

“The analysis indicated that all three products are essentially the same:

Oxychlorin, Per Cent.Zyme-Oid, Per Cent.Intravenous Compound, Per Cent.

Potassium (K⁺)12.2613.5013.79

Sodium (Na⁺) 8.20 9.84 9.82

Boric acid anhydride (B₂O₃)18.6313.4215.20

Chlorate (ClO₃^-)25.5227.5326.44

Nitrate (NO₃^-)21.7024.2223.75

Water calculated13.2910.4211.72

“Assuming that the chlorate in ‘Intravenous Compound (Loffler)’ is present as potassium chlorate and the nitrate is present as sodium nitrate, the figures obtained by the analysis correspond to a mixture approximately as follows:

Potassium chlorate (KClO₃)38.6 per cent.

Sodium nitrate (NaNO₃)32.6 per cent.

Potassium borate (K₂B₄O₇) 4.9 per cent.

Sodium borate (Na₂B₄O₇) 4.0 per cent.

Boric acid21.1 per cent.

“From the results of the examination it is concluded that this preparation is a mixture of alkali chlorate and nitrate and boric acid, probably produced by fusing together the constituents. It is practically the same mixture as Oxychlorine and Zyme-oid as analyzed nearly fourteen years ago in the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory.”

Throughout the advertising of “Intravenous Compound (Loffler)” the physician is reminded of the financial returns that the product offers.

“... The financial return will prove as interesting to yourself as results are to the patients.”

“And lastly but not less interesting, the financial returns are commensurate with results.”

“... the instruction given me in the use of your Intravenous Compound and the opportunity presented adds four to five hundred dollars per month to my bank account.”

“... will not only give you more positive results than have ever obtained in chronic and progressive diseases but a very remunerative business.”

“Intravenous Compound (Loffler) is supplied in granular form, 2 ounces to a bottle, at $2 per bottle. An ounce will average fifteen treatments and treatments are at from $3 to $5 each, according to the ability of the patient to pay.”

A physician whose name the Intravenous Chemical Company had given as a user of Intravenous Compound (Loffler) was written to by another physician who was interested in the matter and he was asked frankly for his opinion. He replied in part:

“The treatment makes a profound impression on the recipient and is usually followed by a marked improvement mentally, and I have not been keen enough to draw the line of just how far the physical or material improvement went and when the psychical began.

“For the office ‘specialist’ of the advertising type this would be a boon, but I am not entirely satisfied that its use completely justifies its claims.”

SUMMARY

Intravenous Compound (Loffler) stands revealed as a nostrum of secret composition which physicians are asked to inject into the veins of their patients. It must be purchased in connection with some supplementary material, “a complete set of apparatus,” sold by the same concern. Its successful administration is said to depend on following a technic detailed either in a booklet sent out by Loffler or given by Loffler in a “Post-graduate Course” which costs physicians $50 unless they have purchased six dollars’ worth of another nostrum, “Thymozene.”

The intravenous administration of drugs is impressive. To the patient the technic is mysterious and its psychic effect striking. Its dangers—infection, air embolism, intravascular clotting, sudden death—are matters of record. Every conservative physician will admit that there is no excuse for the intravenous administration of even those drugs that are well known and whose effects have been carefully studied, except when distinct advantages are to be secured. As The Journal has stated before, “Little is known of the results to be expected from intravenous therapy even with simple substances.”

What, then, can be said of the physician who subjects his patients to the intravenous injection—“at from $3 to $5 each, according to the ability of the patient to pay”—of a preparation of whose composition he is as ignorant as he must be of its effects? Intravenous Compound (Loffler) has been on the market ten years; it is unmentioned in the literature of scientific medicine. The name of its exploiter, while not unknown in the twilight zone of professionalism as the exploiter of a nostrum, as a “Specialist” in “Chronic Troubles” and “Intravenous Therapy,” as well as in other capacities even less savory, is equally unknown to scientific medicine.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 12, 1921.)

INTRAVENOUS SPECIALTIES

To the Editor:—There is a salesman here in Salt Lake City making extravagant claims about the medicines advertised in the enclosed pamphlet. Would you kindly advise me as to your opinion of it?

W. C. Schulte, M.D., Salt Lake City.

To the Editor:—I am interested in knowing the attitude of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry regarding the products of the Intravenous Products Company of America, 121 Madison Avenue, New York City. If the Council has already reported, please refer me to the appropriate number of The Journal. If it has not, please give me any information available.

H. B. Gessner, M.D., New Orleans.

Answer.—The Intravenous Products Company of America has not requested the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry to examine any of its intravenous specialties, nor have they been discussed in The Journal or examined in the American Medical Association Chemical Laboratory. The firm’s list of specialties bears a striking resemblance to those of other “intravenous specialty” firms. Endoarsan, like Venarsen of the Intravenous Products Company of Denver, is stated to contain a cacodylate (dimethylarsenate) along with mercury and iodid. Venarsen was reported on unfavorably by the Council (The Journal, May 22, 1915, p. 1780), the inferior efficacy of sodium cacodylate was discussed (The Journal, March 25, 1916, p. 978) and the worthlessness of sodium cacodylate as a spirocheticide confirmed by H. N. Cole (The Journal, Dec. 30, 1916, p. 2012), William G. Ward (The Journal, Feb. 3, 1917, p. 390), and R. L. Sutton (The Journal, Feb. 17, 1917, p. 566). Endosal, like Venosal of the Intravenous Products Company of Denver, is said to contain salicylate and a colchicum preparation (the latter is also said to contain iodids). Venosal was found unacceptable for New and Non­official Remedies by the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry. Like other “intravenous” firms, this company advertises the intravenous administration of drugs such as sodium iodid and hexa­methylen­amin. The objections to and the dangers of indiscriminate administration of drugs intravenously was recently emphasized in a report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry “Some of Loeser’s Intravenous Solutions” (The Journal, April 16, 1921, p. 1120).—(Query from The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 10, 1921.)

IODEX

At fairly frequent intervals physicians receive through the mail free samples of “Iodex,” a black ointment sent out in small, circular aluminum boxes. Iodex is sold by Menley and James, Ltd., New York City, under the claim that it is a preparation of free iodin,252 minus the objectionable features that go with free iodin. The preparation was examined in the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory in 1915, and found practically devoid of free iodin. The laboratory also reported that when 1 or 2 grams of Iodex was rubbed on the skin of the forearm on several subjects and the urine collected and tested for iodin, the results were negative. This disproved the claim that “thirty minutes after inunction [with Iodex] iodine can be found in the urine.”

The findings of the laboratory, which were summed up in a report (The Journal, June 19, 1915) of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry on Iodex, were essentially as follows:

1. The composition is incorrectly stated; the actual iodin content is only about half of that claimed.

2. The action of Iodex is not essentially that of free iodin, although that is the impression conveyed by the advertising.

3. The assertion that iodin may be found in the urine shortly after Iodex has been rubbed on the skin has been experimentally disproved.

At the time the laboratory reported its findings, it pointed out the obvious contradiction in the claim that Iodex is not only an “effective free iodine application without drawbacks” but also a means of “really efficient external iodine therapy without stain or irritation.” It is impossible to have free iodin present in sufficient quantities to be thera­peutically efficient and not get skin stains and irritation.

In a recent issue of the house organ, Pharmacal Advance, there was a large display advertisement of Iodex under the heading: “For prophylaxis and to ‘Double Cross’ Disease,” with the claims:

“Free Iodine.” “Rub Through Skin.” “Does Not Irritate nor Stain.”

On other pages of the same issue these claims appeared:

“There is no therapeutic virtue in Iodex which is not inherent—though often latent—in Free Iodine; and there is no virtue in Free Iodine which is not available in Iodex.”

“In Iodex all the beneficent properties of Iodine are emphasized and all its disadvantages are eliminated—in a word, Iodex is Pure Free Iodine presented thera­peutically active and efficient, ready for use in all conditions, with all the well-known powers of Free Iodine, but without the sequelæ of unpleasant effects, as irritation, corrosion, desquamation, staining, etc., which defeat the ends of treatment when ordinary preparations of Iodine are used. The fact that Free Iodine in the form of Iodex can now be used in rectal and vaginal treatment, without irritation, speaks volumes for its penetrability and bland action.”

These quotations are sufficient to show that the manufacturers of Iodex still persist in their claim that the product contains free iodin. In view of this, the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory has again examined Iodex, having recently purchased specimens on the open market. It reports that Iodex gives no test for free iodin, or at most, but minute traces.

An interesting side-light on the methods of Menley and James is also brought out in the issue of Pharmacal Advance just quoted. Under a “department” misnamed “Book Reviews” the following appears:

“The Actions of Drugs.—Torald Sollmann, M.D. Published by W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. This is a book of lectures designed for students in pharmacy and deals with the subject in plain and simple language. The author in his introduction has brought out the fact that over-counter prescribing is baneful both to the public and to the pharmacist himself. Among some of the interesting points brought out that Pharmacol Advance has always maintained, namely, that ‘Potassium iodid is not absorbed efficiently by the skin; hence the ointment of potassium iodid is unscientific.’

“We would especially call attention to Ungt. Iodi U. S. P., containing Potassium Iodid, used as a solvent for its iodin content. Accepting Sollmann’s statement, it is to be assumed that Ungt. Iodi U. S. P. has not 100 per cent. efficiency.”

Garbling statements from scientific works for the purpose of puffing proprietaries is not unusual in nostrum exploitation. The facts are that the statement in Sollmann’s book, introduced in the Menley and James house organ under the guise of a book review, appeared in a discussion of iodin compounds. In this the author points out that to obtain systemic iodid effects, it is irrational to apply iodin preparations externally. So far as the free iodin content of the official ointment of iodin is concerned, L. E. Warren (Reports of the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory, 1917) has shown that even after more than six months this ointment still contains about 75 per cent. of the free iodin originally added. The official ointment (Unguentum Iodi, U. S. P.), therefore, so far as its free iodin content is concerned, is far superior to Iodex, which contains no iodin in its free state.—(From The Journal A. M. A., May 3, 1919.)

THE WILLIAM F. KOCH CANCER REMEDY

A number of inquiries have been received of which those that follow are typical. This from a Philadelphia physician:

“Would you give me any information you have about one so-called ‘Dr. W. S. Koch,’ Detroit, Michigan? This man is said to claim to have in his possession a cure for cancer, the nature of which I do not know. I know, however, that he obtained a very large fee not very long ago in treating a case, but without success ...”

While a Chicago physician writes:

“I have at hand a pamphlet from Wm. F. Koch, M.D., Ph.D., of Detroit, Mich., which is supposed to be a reprint from the Medical Record of Oct. 30, 1920, entitled ‘A New and Successful Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer.’ Will you kindly advise me what you know about this man’s work on this subject and how much stock I can put in the claims he makes in this article?”

And this from a physician in Seattle, received a few days ago:

“Has your office any knowledge of the cancer cure devised by Dr. William F. Koch, Ph.D., M.D., of Detroit? He published an article on it in the Medical Record, Oct. 30, 1920.... I enclose copy of letter received by one of our patients from his ‘western representative’ which reads like pure quackery. I do not find Dr. Koch’s name in either the A. M. A. or Polk’s medical directories.”

The letter referred to in the last inquiry as coming from Dr. Koch’s “western representative” was addressed to a woman who had written to Dr. Koch with reference to his alleged cancer cure. The letter, dated Jan. 19, 1921, was signed “Chas. L. Tisdale, 1898 Geary Street, San Francisco.” It read:

“Dear Madam:—Your letter of January 10th written to Dr. Koch of Detroit in reference to his cancer cure has been sent to me by Dr. Koch. I am the western representative of Dr. Koch and am giving the treatments with his remedy. I am now treating 14 cases here with some most wonderful results. The amount of the remedy that Dr. Koch can supply me with is limited and it is a very expensive substance. None of it can be sent to Seattle or any other place for I have only enough to treat the cases that are constantly presenting themselves here. If you could come to San Francisco and have the money to pay a reasonable fee, say enough to pay for the remedy, I would be very glad to do everything I can for you.

“The results that have already shown in many of these cases warrant me in believing that almost any case of cancer can be cured if the treatment is persisted in.”

According to our records, Dr. William F. Koch of Detroit was born in 1885. Some years ago he graduated in chemistry and for some time held the position of professor of physiology and physiologic chemistry at the Detroit College of Medicine and Surgery. In 1918, Dr. Koch received his degree in medicine from this same college. Less than a year after his graduation, Dr. Koch declared that he had “developed a real specific cure for cancer.” In the Detroit Medical Journal for July, 1919, there appeared a brief article by William F. Koch, entitled “A New and Successful Treatment and Diagnosis of Cancer.” A more extensive article bearing the same title was published in the New York Medical Journal of Oct. 30, 1920.