“... 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 1-1/2 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 .10

and partially in crystalloid state)

“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)[J]

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

[J] See index for additional article on Bell-Ans.

“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.”

[247] British Association for the Advancement of Science. Second Report

on Colloid Chemistry. Published for the Department of Scientific and

Industrial Research by His Majesty’s Stationery Office.

[248] Ferrivine, Intramine and Collosol Iodine, J.A.M.A. =69=:841 (Sept.

8) 1917.

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]

[249] Collosol Preparations, J.A.M.A. =72=:1694 (June 7) 1919.

[250] Collosol Cocaine Not Admitted to N. N. R., J. A. M. A. 72: 1094

(April 12) 1919.

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

448

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 TREATMENTS |

| 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[K]

[K] Glyco-Heroin

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 bromid 48 gr.

“Hyoscyamus 1 gr.

“Chloral hydrate 96 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 discussed[251] 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.

[251] Here is what _The Journal_ published on Erling:

A. E. Erling according to the stationery, is “Chairman” of “Censors.”

Our records fail to show that Erling ever graduated in medicine.

The Health Department of Milwaukee, however, says that Erling, when

interviewed, claimed to have “a diploma from the German Medical College

of Chicago, but refused to show or present the same.” The American

Medical Directory has this item:

_German Medical College, Chicago. Chartered Dec. 28, 1891, by

Johann Malok. Fraudulent. Extinct._

A few years ago Erling was in La Crosse, Wis., and in 1908 a circular

letter bearing his name and picture was sent out, from which the

following extracts are taken. Capitalization as in the original:

“Dear Friend:--Permit me to call your attention to the fact that

Dr. A. E. Erling, the eminent specialist, after many years of

travel, practice and medical research, has given up his extensive

road practice and severed his connection with the several medical

institutes which have heretofore occupied considerable of his

attention.... Dr. Erling’s success in the treatment of all CHRONIC

DISEASES IS TRULY REMARKABLE. NERVOUSNESS, ALL BLOOD DISEASES,

RHEUMATISM, DISEASES PECULIAR TO WOMEN; CATARRH, DEAFNESS, CHRONIC

CONSTIPATION ... APPENDICITIS ... PILES, STOMACH TROUBLES, PARTIAL

PARALYSIS, etc., give way as if by magic under his skilful method

of treatment.... Understand, please, that Dr. Erling DOES NOT

ACCEPT A CASE FOR TREATMENT unless he can PROMISE A SPEEDY AND

POSITIVELY PERMANENT CURE.”

_The Journal_ also has in its files advertisements (vintage of 1915),

from some Wisconsin country newspapers; which notify the afflicted that

“Drs. Erling and Karass, the expert German Specialists,” could be seen

in their offices in the “Schlegel Hotel,” the “Schlitz Hotel,” etc., as

the case might be. Whether one of these “German Specialists” was Dr.

Arnold E. Erling, _The Journal_ does not know. Official medical records

fail to show, at least, that there is any other Erling in the state of

Wisconsin.

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 33-1/3 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:

INTRAVENOUS

OXYCHLORIN, ZYME-OID, COMPOUND,

Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent.

Potassium (K+) 12.26 13.50 13.79

Sodium (Na+) 8.20 9.84 9.82

Boric acid anhydride (B₂O₃) 18.63 13.42 15.20

Chlorate (ClO₃-)  25.52 27.53 26.44

Nitrate (NO₃-)  21.70 24.22 23.75

Water calculated 13.29 10.42 11.72

“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 acid  21.1 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.”

[252] “Free” or elementary iodin (such as the tincture of iodin)

is used externally for its local irritant and antiseptic effects.

“Combined iodin” (_e. g._, iodid of potassium), does not produce

these effects; and when preparations containing iodin in combined

form are used, it is with the expectation of obtaining the systemic

(“alterative”) effects such as are produced by iodids.

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.

As a result of the publicity that was given the Koch treatment, the

Wayne County (Detroit) Medical Society appointed a committee to

investigate the treatment. Its first report appeared in the Bulletin

of the society for Dec. 22, 1919. Briefly, this report said that the

Board of Health of Detroit had placed at the disposal of the committee

twelve beds in a local hospital with the necessary special nurses and

everything else required free of charge. The committee sent certain

patients to the hospital; and there were also some other patients

recommended by different physicians as proper cases for treatment.

There were nine altogether. After going over the cases carefully, the

committee found some in which the diagnosis was doubtful. There were

five cases, however, of undoubted cancer, a positive diagnosis having

been made from specimens and microscopic examination. The management

and treatment of these patients were turned over to Dr. Koch.

Dr. Koch seems to have raised certain objections and to have made

certain criticisms. He also insisted that he ought to have some

representative on the committee. The committee offered to put on any

and all he would name. He failed to name any. The committee reported

further that Dr. Koch was very negligent in his treatment of the

patients and finally, on November 26, the committee met with Koch and

went over all the cases with him. At that time he gave the patients

injections and promised to attend to the treatment regularly in the

future. According to the report, he saw the patients only once more

(three days later) and then did not come near them again. As the

patients became disgusted with the neglect, some of them left and

the committee sent the rest home and closed its connections with the

investigation of the subject.

In the same issue of the Bulletin of the county society in which this

committee’s report was published, the editor of the Bulletin stated

that from all sections of the country inquiries were coming relative to

the treatment and “from long distances patients are coming to Detroit

to be ‘cured’ of cancer.” The editor further stated: “It is reported

that Dr. Koch is treating many patients, promising much and charging

well.” To this Dr. Koch retorted that only about 30 per cent. of his

patients had “contributed.” The rest were treated free.

The Wayne County Medical Society Bulletin for Jan. 5, 1920, was

devoted almost exclusively to another discussion of Dr. Koch’s “cancer

cure.” It was there stated that a second committee had been appointed

to gather what information could be obtained from outside sources

relative to cases treated by Dr. Koch. This committee reported that

of fifty-six cases of which it was able to obtain data, only three of

the patients showed clinical improvement; twenty-one of the patients

were dead. Three more patients treated both by the Koch injections and

by operation were reported as clinically improved. The condition of

eighteen of the patients was reported as stationary, or unimproved. In

eleven of the cases, the results were unknown but the surgeons reported

unfavorably.

The committee reported further that Dr. Koch’s records were incomplete

and that he had submitted no proof that his injections have any

particular merit and the committee concluded that the study “is

entirely experimental and improperly supervised.”

Evidently, the most that can be said of Dr. Koch’s alleged “cure”

for cancer is that the claims made for it have not been supported by

independent investigators.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 12,

1921._)

Further Comment

Last week some space was given to the alleged cure for cancer put out

by Dr. William F. Koch of Detroit. Incidentally, it should be mentioned

that Dr. Koch’s article of Oct. 30, 1920, to which reference was made,

appeared not in the _New York Medical Journal_, as stated, but in the

New York _Medical Record_.

The following correspondence throws additional light on the subject:

_To the Editor_:--To the number of inquiries which you have received

regarding the alleged cure of cancer by Dr. Koch, permit me to add

the following personal experience. On July 1, 1920, I was asked to

examine an ex-patient of mine whom I had not seen professionally for

many years. Her husband frankly told me that for several months his

wife had been treated by Dr. W. F. Koch for inoperable carcinoma of

the pelvic organs, that he wished Dr. Koch to retain charge of the

treatment but hoped I would give my opinion regarding certain nervous

manifestations in the patient which were causing him (her husband)

much concern.

At the same time, he showed me a letter written by Dr. Koch

purporting to explain the symptoms and offering suggestions regarding

treatment. I called on the patient and found her in the last stages

of generalized carcinomatosis. Simple palpation of the abdomen

revealed multiple nodules involving both lower and upper abdominal

quadrants. I did not feel justified in making a pelvic examination

but noted a profuse foul-smelling discharge on the vulvar pad. My

prognosis did not meet with the deluded husband’s approval. The

patient died within a week and a necropsy confirmed the clinical

picture of carcinomatosis. Enclosed is Dr. Koch’s letter; the

patient’s name should, of course, be omitted if you see fit to

publish this note.

George de Tarnowsky, M.D., Chicago.

The letter from Dr. Koch which Dr. de Tarnowsky enclosed with his own,

follows. We have, of course, deleted the name of the patient.