Apergols, put out by H. K. Wampole Co., Inc., is alleged to be a “Uterine Stimulant.” Apergols is apparently an inversion of the name Ergoapiol and the preparation appears to have essentially the same formula, namely: Apiol 5 min. Oil Savine 1/2 min. Ergotin 1 gr. Aloin 1/8 gr. Aromatics q. s. As in Ergoapiol, the constituent referred to in the formula as “Apiol” appears to be oleoresin of parsley-seed instead of the definite substance apiol described in New and Nonofficial Remedies. In general the claims made for Apergols are the same as those made for Ergoapiol (see p. 82). The Council refused admission to Apergols because they are advertised indirectly to the public, because of unwarranted therapeutic claims, because of the non-descriptive name and because the product is unscientific.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 12, 1914._) ASEPTIKONS Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry Aseptikons are vaginal suppositories sold by the Chinosol Co. of New York. Each suppository is said to contain: Ac. Salicylici 2 gr. Ac. Borici 10 gr. Quin. purae (Alkal.) 1 gr. Chinosol 2 gr. But. Cacao 60 gr. The following claims appear in advertisements: “These suppositories are indicated in cervicitis, leucorrhea, specific and non-specific vulvo-vaginitis and in all cases where complete vaginal antisepsis is desired.” “Non Toxic, Non Irritating; No Damage to Membranes. Yet a More Powerful Antiseptic than Bichloride.” The Council decided that the foregoing claims in the absence of evidence must be held exaggerated and likely to mislead, and also that the claim “Stronger than Bichloride” which appears on the box is misleading. The position of the Council is that “In the case of pharmaceutical preparations or mixtures the trade name must be so framed as to indicate the most potent ingredients.” The name Aseptikons does not give any indication of the ingredients of the product. The Council holds that “The combination of two or more remedies in a mixture must be considered contrary to scientific medicine unless a distinct reason exists for such combination.” No evidence has been submitted to establish the value of the combination in Aseptikons. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Council voted that Aseptikons be refused recognition because unwarranted and misleading therapeutic claims are made, because the name does not indicate its potent constituents, and because the combination of two or more remedies in a mixture is considered contrary to scientific medicine unless a distinct reason exists for such combination.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 14, 1914._) BETUL-OL[G] Abstract of Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry