The above report is published simply as another example of the “ethical proprietaries” that physicians are asked to prescribe. It is not unique. It is neither better nor worse than hundreds of others. To show what absurdities appear in the “literature” (?) that is sent to physicians, we reproduce a paragraph from an advertising pamphlet. The promoters’ statement as to the composition of the product is absurd, but not more so than are the claims made for it as a therapeutic agent. There is not a “patent medicine” on the market for which any more blatant, extravagant and ridiculous claims are made. The manner of exploiting saliodin is another illustration of the tendency on the part of nostrum-makers to advertise their wares through pseudo-scientific articles published in a certain class of medical journals. In the pamphlet sent out by the Saliodin Company appears a reprint of an article from the Philadelphia _Medical Summary_ of February, 1905. It is entitled “A Similarity in the Etiologic Factors of Rheumatism and Malaria,” and was written by J. C. Denston, M.D. In it occurs this statement: “The manufacturers (of saliodin) publish their formula and, _I think_, distribute samples and literature on request.” The charming ingenuousness of this statement is fully realized when it is understood that J. C. Denston is the president of the Saliodin company. This is also another illustration of what is now a common occurrence, viz.: men who are engaged in manufacturing proprietary products and who have an M.D. degree use that degree as a commercial asset, and by this means the average reader is led to think that articles written by them in praise of their own products are spontaneous tributes from practicing physicians.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 26, 1907._) THEOBROMIN SODIUM SALICYLATE VERSUS “DIURETIN”: THE ECONOMICAL ASPECT W. A. Puckner and Paul N. Leech The following inquiry is from Dr. Reid Hunt, recently appointed professor of pharmacology at Harvard Medical School: