1. It is uncertain what part of the plant contains the active principle if one exists; and its nature is unknown. The National Standard Dispensatory states that its “activity must be confined to the flower in some special stage of its development or to a certain part of it or to some parts gathered with it.” This uncertainty may explain the negative results obtained by some observers, but it makes the drug one that cannot be generally relied on and gives an excellent opportunity for the exploitation of proprietary preparations. 2. Some of the experimental work and much of the clinical evidence has been obtained and published under proprietary auspices. For this reason many of the therapeutic claims made for the drug must be viewed as merely the reflection of the exaggerated statements made by the advertisers of proprietary preparations. 3. The value of clinical evidence when unsupported by an animal experimentation is much diminished by the tendency of enthusiastic and untrained observers to attribute to the drug given the effect really due to general remedial measures, psychic suggestion and so forth. While it must be admitted that valuable remedies may exist whose therapeutic properties cannot be revealed by animal experimentation, yet in the absence of such experimental evidence conclusions should be drawn with extreme caution. Bearing these conditions in mind, the following statements seem to be justified: (_a_) The botanical, chemical and pharmaceutical properties of cactus are not sufficiently determined to make any available preparation a reliable remedy. (_b_) There is some evidence that cactus may be capable of affecting the animal heart and nervous system, but its action is not that ordinarily attributed to it. It does not increase the force of the heart-beat. (_c_) While there is some clinical testimony as to its usefulness in functional diseases of the heart, the indications for its administration are at present too uncertain to afford a safe basis for recommending it. 4. While the drug may be deserving of further experimental and clinical investigation, this should be carried on in reliable pharmacologic laboratories and in clinics provided with facilities for exact observation.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., March 12, 1910._) CALCREOSE Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry In response to inquiries and in view of the extensive advertising propaganda, the Council, on Dec. 19, 1913, took up for consideration Calcreose (Maltbie Chemical Company, Newark, N. J.). Examination showed that the preparation contained, in loose combination, approximately equal weights of creosote and lime. The claims made in the advertising “literature” were extravagant and uncritical, and the Council therefore held Calcreose ineligible for New and Nonofficial Remedies.