FOOTNOTES:

[A]Read before the Chicago Medical Society, March 26, 1919.

1“New and Nonofficial Remedies” in France, Foreign News, J. A. M. A.71:1331 (Oct. 19) 1918;70:1783 (June 8) 1918.

2Nederl. Tjdschr. v. Geneesk. Oct. 5, 1918, p. 1201.

3An Italian View of the Proprietary Evil, Foreign News, J. A. M. A.71:840 (Sept. 7) 1918; The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry and the Patriotic Medical League in Italy, ibid.71:918 (Sept. 14) 1918.

4Although the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry was established in 1905, it is likely that only a small percentage of physicians know just what the Council is, or have any conception as to its personnel and its ability to judge the available evidence for proprietary medicaments. The personnel has changed from time to time since 1905. At present its membership is: C. L. Alsberg, A.M., M.D., chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.; R. A. Hatcher, Ph.G., M.D., professor of pharmacology, Cornell University Medical College, New York City; A. W. Hewlett, M.D., professor of medicine, Leland Stanford Junior University Medical School, San Francisco; John Howland, M.D., professor of pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University Department of Medicine, Baltimore; Reid Hunt, M.D., professor of pharmacology, Harvard University Medical School, Boston; Henry Kraemer, Ph.D., professor of pharmacognosy, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, Mich.; W. T. Longcope, A.B., M.D., Bard Professor of the Practice of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York City; G. W. McCoy, M.D., director of the Hygienic Laboratory, United States Public Health Service, Washington, D. C.; Lafayette B. Mendel, Ph.D., Sc.D., professor of physiologic chemistry, Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.; F. G. Novy, M.D., Sc.D., professor of bacteriology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.; W. W. Palmer, B.S., M.D., associate professor of medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York City; L. G. Rowntree, M.D., professor of medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis; Torald Sollmann, M.D., professor of pharmacology and materia medica, Medical Department, Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Julius Stieglitz, Ph.D., Sc.D., Chem.D., vice chairman of the Council, professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Chicago; G. H. Simmons, M.D., LL.D., chairman of the Council, editor ofThe Journal of the American Medical Association, Chicago, and W. A. Puckner, Phar.D., secretary of the Council, director of the Chemical Laboratory of the American Medical Association, Chicago.

5Need for Patent Law Revision, A. M. A. Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry Reports, 1917, p. 130.

6Puckner, W. A.: The Abuse of Chemical Formulas, Reports A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory3:7, 1910.

7The Formula for Glyco-Thymoline, J. A. M. A.52:147 (Jan. 9) 1909.

8Hunt, Reid, and Seidell, Atherton: Howell’s Mercol, J. A. M. A.52:225 (Jan. 16) 1909. Howell’s Mercol Again: Another Analysis Fails to Reveal the Presence of Mercury, J. A. M. A.52:1595 (May 15) 1909.

9Taka-Diastase and Liquid Taka-Diastase: Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, J. A. M. A.59:50 (July 6) 1912.

10Iodeol and Iodagol: Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, J. A. M. A.69:1725 (Nov. 17) 1917.

11Vin Mariani: Official Report of Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry—With Comments, J. A. M. A.47:1751 (Nov. 24) 1906.

12Reports of the Council on Pharm. and Chem., 1912, p. 40.

13See Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry on “Resinoids and Concentrations,” J. A. M. A., Nov. 13, 1909, p. 1655.

14The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 24, 1912, p. 572.

15De Santi: Medical Magazine16:141, 1907.

16Rosenberg: Lancet, London2:1871, 1905.

17Seifert: Pharmakol. u. therap. Rundschau, 1904, No. 14; quoted by De Santi (Note 2).

18Daus: Med. Klin.2:4110, 1906.

19Rheinboldt: Deutsch. med. Wchnschr.32:587, 1906.

20Rosenberg: Therap. d. Gegen.7:55, 1905.

21Wingrave: Lancet, London2:1067, 1906.

22Young: Lancet, London1:975, 1908.

23Sutton: Volumetric Analysis, Edition 10, p. 390.

24Heinemann: Laboratory Guide in Bacteriology, p. 86.

25Thoms: Arb. a. d. Pharm. Inst. d. Universität, Berlin11:210, 1914.

26Seifert, Otto: Die Nebenwirkungen der modernen Arzneimittel, 1915.

27Dr. Benedict’s personal communication to a member of the Council is as follows:“In the report of the Council upon Lactopeptine which you sent to me, I find the following statement: ‘Careful examination failed to show the presence of either diastase or pancreatin.’ In this connection I will cite to you the following experiment carried out by myself: A package containing a 1-ounce bottle of Lactopeptine (powder) with seal unbroken was purchased in the open market and opened in this laboratory. The label bore the special Number 6 2382. Two hundred milligrams of this product was dissolved in 50 c.c. of a 0.25 per cent. solution of sodium carbonate in water. This solution was divided into two portions of 25 c.c. each. One of these portions was boiled at once, and after cooling was added to 1 gm. of moist fibrin contained in a flask. The other portion (unboiled) was also added to 1 gm. of moist fibrin contained in a flask. Both flasks (after addition of 5 c.c. of toluene to each) were stoppered and placed in an incubator at 37 degrees, and left there for twelve hours. Examination of the two flasks at the end of this period showed that the one to which the unboiled solution of Lactopeptine [powder] had been added contained much less solid protein than did the other. Although this fact was obvious to the naked eye, the exact extent of digestion in the two flasks was determined by heating both to boiling, acidifying with acetic acid, diluting to definite volume, filtering and determining the nitrogen in the filtrate by Kjeldahl’s method. Subtracting the trace of nitrogen contained in the filtrate of the control flask, the results showed that 42 per cent. of the original fibrin present had been dissolved by the unboiled Lactopeptine solution. This can be ascribed only to tryptic activity under the conditions of this experiment. Furthermore, this is not simply a ‘trace’ of activity, but is at least sufficiently marked to warrant a statement that this sample showed a distinct tryptic activity. Inasmuch as I have obtained exactly similar results with two other samples of Lactopeptine (powder) (these being the only ones I have examined), I am inclined to question the correctness of the Council’s statement regarding the absence of trypsin from this preparation. [As noted above, a fresh preparation was used.—Ed.]“May I again add that I am making no statement regarding therapeutic value of preparation, and that I have no opinion upon that matter one way or the other? My work was undertaken solely out of interest to see whether trypsin could exist in the powder (which gives a markedly acid solution when dissolved in water). The Elixir Lactopeptine could theoretically show no tryptic activity, nor have I found any trace of such activity in one sample of the Elixir examined.“In making use of any of the contents of my letters kindly include the statement that my work upon Lactopeptine was done without remuneration of any kind, and was done only for the scientific interest attached to the question.”

27Dr. Benedict’s personal communication to a member of the Council is as follows:

“In the report of the Council upon Lactopeptine which you sent to me, I find the following statement: ‘Careful examination failed to show the presence of either diastase or pancreatin.’ In this connection I will cite to you the following experiment carried out by myself: A package containing a 1-ounce bottle of Lactopeptine (powder) with seal unbroken was purchased in the open market and opened in this laboratory. The label bore the special Number 6 2382. Two hundred milligrams of this product was dissolved in 50 c.c. of a 0.25 per cent. solution of sodium carbonate in water. This solution was divided into two portions of 25 c.c. each. One of these portions was boiled at once, and after cooling was added to 1 gm. of moist fibrin contained in a flask. The other portion (unboiled) was also added to 1 gm. of moist fibrin contained in a flask. Both flasks (after addition of 5 c.c. of toluene to each) were stoppered and placed in an incubator at 37 degrees, and left there for twelve hours. Examination of the two flasks at the end of this period showed that the one to which the unboiled solution of Lactopeptine [powder] had been added contained much less solid protein than did the other. Although this fact was obvious to the naked eye, the exact extent of digestion in the two flasks was determined by heating both to boiling, acidifying with acetic acid, diluting to definite volume, filtering and determining the nitrogen in the filtrate by Kjeldahl’s method. Subtracting the trace of nitrogen contained in the filtrate of the control flask, the results showed that 42 per cent. of the original fibrin present had been dissolved by the unboiled Lactopeptine solution. This can be ascribed only to tryptic activity under the conditions of this experiment. Furthermore, this is not simply a ‘trace’ of activity, but is at least sufficiently marked to warrant a statement that this sample showed a distinct tryptic activity. Inasmuch as I have obtained exactly similar results with two other samples of Lactopeptine (powder) (these being the only ones I have examined), I am inclined to question the correctness of the Council’s statement regarding the absence of trypsin from this preparation. [As noted above, a fresh preparation was used.—Ed.]

“May I again add that I am making no statement regarding therapeutic value of preparation, and that I have no opinion upon that matter one way or the other? My work was undertaken solely out of interest to see whether trypsin could exist in the powder (which gives a markedly acid solution when dissolved in water). The Elixir Lactopeptine could theoretically show no tryptic activity, nor have I found any trace of such activity in one sample of the Elixir examined.

“In making use of any of the contents of my letters kindly include the statement that my work upon Lactopeptine was done without remuneration of any kind, and was done only for the scientific interest attached to the question.”

28Report on Proprietary Digitalis Preparations, J. A. M. A., Dec. 4, 1915, p. 2024.

29Secretogen, J. A. M. A., May 1, 1915, p. 1518.

30Carlson, A. J.; Lebensohn, J. E., and Pearlmann, S. J.: Has Secretin a Therapeutic Value? J. A. M. A.66:178 (Jan. 15) 1916.

[B]From the Hull Physiological Laboratory of the University of Chicago.

[C]This investigation was undertaken at the request of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry. The following report, having been submitted to the Council, received its endorsement (see preceding report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, “So-Called Secretin Preparations”).

31Pawlow: The Work of the Digestive Glands, 1912.

32Bayliss and Starling: Jour. Physiol.28:325, 1902.

33Wertheimer: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.54:475, 1902.

34Enriquez and Hallion: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.55:233, 363, 1903.

35Fleig: Arch. internat. de Physiol.,10:206, 1910.

36Matuso: Jour. Physiol.45:477, 1913.

37Huston: Ann. et bull. Soc. roy. de sc. méd. et nat.70:178, 1912.

38Starling: Lancet, London2:433, 1905.

39Frouin and Lalou: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.,71:189, 1911.

40Camus: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol., 1902,54:442, 1902.

41Fleig: Jour. de physiol. et de path. gén.6:32, 50, 1904.

42Wertheimer and LePage: Jour. de physiol. et de path. gén.4:1061, 1070, 1902.

43Stepp: Jour. Physiol.43:441, 1912.

44Henri and Portier: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.54:620, 1902.

45Enriquez and Hallion: Presse méd.1:105, 1903.

46Delezenne and Frouin: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.56:319, 1904.

47Bottazzi and Gabrielli: Arch. internat. de physiol.111:156, 1905.

48Enriquez and Hallion: Bull. gén. de thér.162:202, 1911.

49Falloise: Bull. de l’Acad. roy. de Belgique5:945, 1902.

50Bayliss and Starling (Note 2). Matuso (Note 6). Arch. internat. de physiol.10:335, 1911.

51Dixon and Hamill: Jour. Physiol., 1909, xxxv, 314.

52Bayliss and Starling: Jour. Physiol., 1904, xxx, 61. Bierry: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol., 1907, lxii, 433. Bierry and Terroine: Compt. rend. Acad. de sc., 1905, cxli, 146. Lalou: Comp. rend. Acad. de sc., 1910, xxix, 824. Morel: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol., 1909, lxvii, 36. Strassano and Billoro: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol., 1902, liv, 937.

53Bayliss and Starling (Note 23).

54Camus: Jour. de physiol. et de path. gén.4:998, 1902.

55Bayliss and Starling: Jour. Physiol.29:174, 1903.

56Chapman: Proc. Linnaean Soc., New South Wales1:92, 1905.

57Camus: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.61:59, 1906. Hallion and Lequex: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.61:33, 1906.

58Derouaux: Arch. internat. de physiol.3:44, 1905. Lambert and Myer: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.54:1044, 1902. Starling: Lancet, London2:501, 1905.

59Keeton and Koch: Am. Jour. Physiol.37:481, 1915.

60Camus and Gley: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.54:648, 1902.

61Lalou (Note 21). May: Jour. Physiol.30:400, 1904.

62Launoy: Arch. internat. de Physiol.3:62, 1906. Morel and Terroine: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.67:36, 1909. Zunz: Arch. internat. de physiol.8:181, 1909. Lalou: Jour. de physiol.14:465, 1912.

63Starling: Proc. Roy. Soc. Med.,8, No. 4, 1914, Therap. and Pharm. Section, p. 29.

64Moore, Edie and Abram: Biochem. Jour.,1:28, 1906.

65Foster: Jour. Biol. Chem.,2:297, 1906.

66Bainbridge and Beddard: Biochem. Jour.,1:429, 1906.

67Dakin and Ransom: Jour. Biol. Chem.,2:305, 1906.

68Charles: Med. Press and Cir.,133:578, 1906.

69Crofton: Lancet, London,176:607, 1909.

70Moore, Edie and Abram: Biochem Jour.,3:82, 1908.

71Bainbridge and Beddard: Biochem. Jour.3:82, 1908.

72Evan: Jour. Physiol.44:461, 1912.

73Hedon: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.74:375, 1913.

74Pemberton, Ralph, and Sweet, J. E.: Further Studies on the Influence of the Ductless Glands on the Pancreas, Arch. Int. Med., May, 1910, p. 466.

75Enriquez: Bull. du Lab. de biol. Appliq.2, No. 2-No. 8, 1904.

76Wentworth, A. H.: The Cause of Infantile Atrophy, J. A. M. A., July 20, 1907, p. 204.

77Sweet, J. E., and Pemberton, Ralph: Experimental Observations on Secretin, Arch. Int. Med., February, 1908, p. 231.

78Beveridge: Am. Med.20:255, 1914.

79Lockwood, G. R.: Diseases of Stomach, 1913, Chapter on Achylia. Bassler, Anthony: Am. Jour. Gastro-Enter., 1914; Kemp, R. C.: Diseases of Stomach, Intestine and Pancreas, 1912. Reed, Boardman: Am. Jour. Gastro-Enter., October, 1912. Ewald (Therapie der Gegenwart, 1915, p. 5) reports favorable results with Secretogen in one of thirteen cases.

80Harrower: Pediatrics25:430, 1913; New York M. J.118:315, 1913; Arch. f. Verdauungskr.20:577, 1914.

81Flieg: Arch. gén. de méd.191:1482, 1903.

82Wertheimer and Duvillier: Compt. rend. Soc. de biol.68:535, 1910.

83Hallion: Presse méd.20:433, 1912.

84Stockton: In Osier and McCrae’s Modern Medicine3:19, 1914.

85Ehrman and Lederer: Deutsch. med. Wchnschr.35:879, 1909.

86Meltzer, S. J.: The Factors of Safety in Animal Structure and Animal Economy, J. A. M. A., Feb. 23, 1907, p. 655.

87Carlson: Am. Jour. Physiol.38:248, 1915.

88Delezenne and Pozerski: Jour. de Physiol.,14:540, 1912.

89Pawlow: Ergeb. de Physiol., O., p. 266, 1902.

90Secretogen, Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, J. A. M. A., May 1, p. 1518, 1915.

91Stepp (Note 13). Dale and Laidlow: Jour. Physiol.44:11, 1912. Launoy and Ochslin: Comp. rend. Soc. de biol.,74:338, 1913.

92Churchill, J. F.: De la cause immédiate et du traitement spécifique de la phthisie pulmonaire et des maladies tuberculeuses, Paris, 1858.

93The Hypophosphite Fallacy, J. A. M. A., April 25, 1914, p. 1346.

94Marriott, W. McKim: The Therapeutic Value of the Hypophosphites, J. A. M. A., Feb. 12, 1916, p. 486.

95Liquid Sulphur—Sulphume, J. A. M. A., Dec. 2, 1911, p. 1853.

96Proc. Am. Pharm. A.40:488, 1892.

97McCollum and Hart, Grosser and Husler, Plimmer, and Bayliss and Plimmer, quoted by Marshall (Note 2).

98Marshall, E. K.: The Therapeutic Value of Organic Phosphorus Compounds, J. A. M. A., Feb. 13, 1915, p. 573.

99See reports of the Council, J. A. M. A., Jan. 9, 1915, p. 165; Jan. 23, 1915, p. 359; Nov. 27, 1919, p. 1836; March 27, 1915, p. 1093.

100See Reports Council Pharm. and Chem., 1912, p. 36.

101Since publication of this report the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry has revised its rule against recognition of articles advertised to the public so that this shall not apply (a) to disinfectants, germicides and antiseptics, provided the advertising be limited to conservative recommendations for their use as prophylactic applications to superficial cuts and abrasions of the skin and to the mucous surfaces of the mouth, pharynx and nose, and provided they are not advertised as curative agents, and (b) to non-medicinal food preparations, except when advertised in an objectionable manner.

102J. A. M. A., Nov. 2, 1912, p. 1604.

103J. A. M. A., May 1, 1915, p. 1518.

104Carlson. A. J.; Lebensohn, J. E., and Pearlman, S. J.; Has Secretin a Therapeutic Value? J. A. M. A., Jan. 15, 1916, p. 178. Reports Council on Pharm. and Chem., 1915, p. 98.

105So-Called Secretin Preparations, J. A. M. A., Jan 15, 1916, p. 208; Reports Council on Pharm. and Chem., 1915, p. 96.

106All italics are ours. G. W. Carnrick Company.

107Bio-Chem. Jour.1:28, 1906.

108Presse Médicale, 1912, p. 433.

109Cf. interal. Schagindweit, E.: Experimentelle Versuche mit Hormonal, Arch. Internat. de Pharmacod., 1913, p. 77.

110Three other Tilden products have been the subject of deserved and unfavorable comment in the J. A. M. A: “Narkine” in the issue of Oct. 24, 1908, “Hydrocyanate of Iron-Tilden” in the issue of June 19, 1909, and “Febrisol,” in the issue of June 29, 1912. The first two articles are reprinted in the latest (9th) edition of “The Propaganda for Reform.”

[D]From the Department of Dermatology and Syphilology of the Western Reserve University and of the Cleveland City Hospital.

111Dusart, L.: Recherches expérimentales sur le rôle physiologique et thérapeutique du phosphate de chaux, Paris, 1870; Quel est l’acide du suc gastrique? Lille, 1874, unbound, 8 pages; Notice sur l’emploi et les proprietés du lacto-phosphate de chaux, Clichy, 1868, unbound, 8 pages. Dusart and Blache: Recherches sur l’assimilation du phosphate de chaux, Paris, 1868, unbound, 15 pages.

[E]From the Hull Physiological Laboratory of the University of Chicago.

[F]This investigation was begun in 1915 by Drs. A. Woelfel and A. J. Carlson.

112Gillet-Damotti: Comp. rend. Acad. d. Sc., July 7, 1873.

113Fragner: Wien. med. Wchnschr.60:1033–1036, 1910.

114Scherer: Wien. med. Wchnschr.60:1033–1036, 1910.

115Huët: Nederlandsch Tijdschr. v. Geneesk.1:1353–1370, 1914.

116Hygiama is said to be a food consisting of condensed milk, with (fatless) cocoa and cereals added to it (Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine and Surgery, 1907).

117The North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station has recently published (Bulletin 22, 1915, p. 386) a complete chemical analysis of Nutrolactis. It contains only 0.60 per cent. solids (including strychnin and emodin). It has a bitter taste. The alcohol content was 3.5 per cent. The report concludes: “a little strychnin, a little alcohol, and a little laxative is about all there is to cause an increase in the milk secretion.”

118Millbank: New York M. J.50:544, 1889.

119Those who are interested in the relative merits of the Rideal-Walker, theLancetand the Hygienic Laboratory methods for the valuation of disinfectants, should read the following: Method of Standardizing Disinfectants with and without Organic Matter, J. A. M. A., Aug. 24, 1912, p. 667; Standardization of disinfectants, Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, J. A. M. A., April 26, 1913, p. 1316; Standardizing Disinfectants, J. A. M. A., Sept. 30, 1916, p. 883.

120Alpha-napthol was also found to be the basis of the nostrum Benetol. SeeThe Journal, April 15, 1911, p. 1128.

121U. S. Dept. of Agric., Insecticide and Fungicide Board, Service and Regulatory Announcements, No. 16, issued Aug. 8, 1917.No. 244, Misbranding of “Ziratol.” U. S.v.100 bottles, more or less, of “Ziratol”; consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture; product ordered released on bond, p. 248.No. 256, Misbranding of “Ziratol.” U. S.v.936 bottles and 6 jugs of Ziratol, consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture; product ordered released on bond, p. 260.

122Carlson, Lebensohn and Pearlman,The Journal, Jan. 15, 1916, p. 178.

123Carlson: The Control of Hunger in Health and Disease, Chicago, 1916.

124“... it is equally unethical to prescribe or dispense secret medicines or other secret remedial agents,...” Sec. 6, Art. I, Chapter II,Principles of Medical Ethics.

125The evolution of “Phillips’ Phospho-Muriate of Quinine Comp.” from “Phillips’ Wheat Phosphates” may be interesting. Every one knows that therapeutics tends to fashions, and “Phillips’ Wheat Phosphates” appears to have had its inception as the result of the observation that super-refined white flour contains less phosphates than the corresponding amount of wheat. It was assumed that such flour must be deficient in an essential constituent, and the Wheat Phosphates preparation was apparently designed to fill the want. It was exploited for the relief of numerous conditions that were supposed, without satisfactory evidence, to result from this deficiency. When iron, quinin and strychnin mixtures became the vogue a quarter of a century ago, it was only natural to ride on the wave of popularity and the already widely advertised “Wheat Phosphates” was further enhanced—commercially—by the addition of the iron, quinin and strychnin, the amount of alkaloid added being practically negligible. Those who are not familiar with the various phases of the phosphorus, phosphoric acid, lactophosphate, lecithin, nuclein and glycerophosphate propaganda are referred to a report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry inThe Journal A. M. A., Sept. 30, 1916, p. 1033.

Back to Index Next