While the theoretical basis of bromid medication is not yet fully settled, the weight of the best pharmacologic authority and clinical experience is decidedly against the dogmatic claim of the Peacock Chemical Company that “the best result is obtained by prescribing a combination of bromides.” And if there were any advantage in prescribing such a combination, the physician ought to regulate the proportions. The following quotations are from the advertising matter: “Being uniform in purity and therapeutic power, it can be relied upon to produce clinical results which it is believed cannot be obtained from the use of commercial bromide substitutes.” “The purity, quality and constant uniformity of this high grade product have long made it a standard bromide preparation.” These claims are unfounded. The analyses published in the concern’s own advertising “literature” show a variation of 8 per cent., in the bromid content, which certainly indicates a sufficient lack of uniformity. Again quoting: “In order to insure the best results the bromides must be pure, i. e., free from alkalies and almost free from chlorides. The U. S. P. allows three per cent. of chlorides. Peacock’s Bromides contains the least possible amount of this impurity. Bromism is therefore less frequent in those cases in which this preparation is employed.” In view of the claim of low chlorid content, it is interesting to note that the analyses above referred to show that the chlorid content is actually higher than that of some other bromid preparations on the market. The claim of merit on the ground of freedom from chlorids is, of course, absurd, and must be regarded as an attempt to play upon the credulity of the doctor. As a matter of fact, the average individual takes with his food many times the amount of chlorid he could possibly take in contaminated bromid. The 10 per cent. of alcohol would undoubtedly have a greater disturbing influence on the bromid action than the amount of chlorid that might be present in any bromid on the market. Then we have the statement that, owing to this freedom from chlorids: “Bromism is therefore less in those cases in which the preparation is employed.” Sodium chlorid, even as an impurity, would retard rather than favor the development of bromism; sodium chlorid is even used as an antidote in bromid poisoning. The therapeutic claims lay stress on the value of the bromids in sleeplessness, epilepsy, sexual excitement, tetanus, infantile convulsions, chorea, delirium tremens, the climacteric, migraine, headache due to pelvic conditions, ovarian neuralgia, etc. These and other claims, while too vague to be branded as falsehoods, are misleading and not in accordance with modern teaching or practice; the latter recognize the limitations of bromid therapy as well as its scope and advantages. For instance, in epilepsy the company asserts that: