These extreme claims exceed the limits of permissible optimism, unless they are supported by strong dependable evidence. They contrast sharply with the low esteem in which the phenolsulphonates (sulphocarbolates) are generally held. To accept these claims, and to justify encouraging physicians to rely on them, it would be necessary to establish: First, that feasible concentrations have a distinct antiseptic action on cultures of intestinal bacteria. This experiment could be easily made, but the claims do not seem to be based on evidence of this kind. Second, that the preparation actually checks putrefaction in the intestines. There are several methods by which this proof may be attempted; but the claims do not appear to be based on evidence of this kind. Third, that the preparation actually has a favorable influence on the progress of diseases. This sort of evidence is exposed to so many fallacies that it would have to be gathered very carefully and critically, duly discounting the effect of other treatment; for instance, by comparison with similar cases which do not receive this preparation. This is especially important; and yet we find directions to use this preparation in conjunction with active cathartic treatment, which in itself has considerable influence on the conditions for which this preparation is recommended. No evidence of this kind is presented. The testimonials contained in the advertisements cannot be considered as serious evidence. None present any indication of accurate record or proper control of conditions, or of the performance of control observations. They are superficial impressions, to which little or no weight can be attached. It is recommended that Intestinal Antiseptic W-A be considered ineligible for New and Nonofficial Remedies.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 19, 1914._) BANNERMAN’S INTRAVENOUS SOLUTION Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry Bannerman’s Intravenous Solution (Wm. Bannerman and Co., Chicago) was refused recognition because vague, indefinite and misleading statements were made regarding its composition, because it was recommended for anemia, tuberculosis and syphilis under grossly exaggerated and unwarranted claims and because the intravenous injection of complex and indefinite mixtures is unscientific and dangerous. Notice of the action of the Council having been sent to the Bannerman Company, the firm submitted a revised statement of composition and also a revised advertising circular. The claim is made that Bannerman’s Intravenous Solution “is a compound of only the purest and proven efficient U. S. P. drugs.” According to the latest statement: Each 10 c.c. of Bannerman’s Solution contains: