October 21, 1905,
Anthrax Test. Twenty-four guinea-pigs were inoculated with anthrax
bacilli, under the same conditions, the same amount being given to each.
The representative of the Liquozone people selected the twelve pigs for
treatment. These animals were given Liquozone is 5 c.c. doses for three
hours. In twenty-four hours all pigs were dead--the treated and the
untreated ones.
Second Anthrax Test. Eight guinea-pigs were Inoculated under the same
conditions with a culture of anthrax sent by the Liquozone people. Four
of these animals were treated for three hours with Liquozone as in
the last experiment. These died also in from thirty-six to forty-eight
hours, as did the remaining four.
Diphtheria Test. Six guinea-pigs were inoculated with diphtheria
bacilli and treated with Liquozone. They all died in from forty-eight
to seventy-two hours. Two out of three controls (i. e., untreated
guinea-pigs) remained alive after receiving the same amount of culture.
Tuberculosis Test. Eight guinea-pigs were inoculated with tubercle
bacilli. Four of these animals were treated for eight hours with 5 c.c.
of a 20 per cent, solution of Liquozole. Four received no Liquozone. At
the end of twenty-four days all the animals were killed.
Fairly developed tuberculosis was present in all.
To summarize, we would say that the Liquozone had absolutely no curative
effect, but did, when given in pure form, lower the resistance of the
animals, so that they died a little earlier than those not treated.
Lederle Laboratories.
By Ernst J. Lederle.
Dr. Gradwohl, representing the Liquozone Company, stated that he was
satisfied of the fairness of the tests. He further declared that in his
opinion the tests had proved satisfactorily the total ineffectiveness of
Liquozone as an internal germicide.
But these experiments show more than that. They show that in so far as
Liquozone has any effect, it tends to lower the resistance of the body
to an invading disease. That is, in the very germ diseases for which
it is advocated, _Liquozone may decrease the chances of the patient's
recovery with every dose that is swallowed, but certainly would not
increase them_.
In its own field Liquozone is _sui generis_. On the ethical side,
however, there are a few "internal germicides," and one of these comes
in for mention here, not that it is in the least like Liquozone in
its composition, but because by its monstrous claims it challenges
comparison.
Since the announcement of this article, and before, _Collier's_ has been
in receipt of much virtuous indignation from a manufacturer of remedies
which, he claims, Liquozone copies. Charles Marchand has been the most
active enemy of the Douglas Smith product. He has attacked the makers in
print, organized a society, and established a publication mainly devoted
to their destruction, and circulated far and wide injurious literature
(most of it true) about their product. Of the relative merits of
Hydrozone, Glycozone (Marchand's products); and Liquozone, I know
nothing; but I know that the Liquozone Company has never in its history
put forth so shameful an advertisement as the one reproduced on page
28, [IMAGE ==>] {028} signed by Marchand, and printed in the New Orleans
_States_ when the yellow-fever scare was at its height. {031}
And Hydrozone is an "ethical" remedy; its advertisements are to be found
in reputable medical journals.
The Same Old Fake.
Partly by reason of Marchand's energy, no nostrum in the country has
been so widely attacked as the Chicago product. Occasional deaths,
attributed (in some cases unjustly) to its use, have been made the most
of, and scores of analyses have been printed, so that in all parts
of the country the true nature of the nostrum is beginning to be
understood. The prominence of its advertising and the reckless breadth
of its claims have made it a shining mark. North Dakota has forbidden
its sale. San Francisco has decreed against it; so has Lexington, Ky.,
and there are signs that it will have a fight tor its life soon in
other cities. It is this looming danger that impelled Liquozone to an
attempted reform last summer. Yet, in spite of the censorship of
its legal lights, in spite of the revision of its literature by its
scientific experts, in spite of its ingenious avoidance of specifically
false claims in the advertising which is being scattered broadcast
to-day, Liquozone is now what it was before its rehabilitation, a fraud
which owes its continued existence to the laxity of our public health
methods and the cynical tolerance of the national conscience.