The nature of the problems involved necessitates a somewhat extended discussion of the subject. Digalein (liquid) is said to contain 1 part of soluble amorphous digitoxin Cloetta in 1,000 parts of glycerin and 1,600 parts of water with 7.5 per cent. of alcohol. One c.c. is said to contain 0.0003 gm. of the amorphous digitoxin. Digalen was accepted by the Council[27] and the following footnote was appended to the description in New and Nonofficial Remedies: [27] The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 11, 1909, p. 869. “The Council has not determined whether digalen contains ‘soluble amorphous digitoxin’ or not, but accepts it simply as a soluble digitalis preparation.” Tablets of Digalen were accepted by the Council as a dosage form of Digalen. Each tablet is said to represent 0.5 c.c. (eight minims) of Digalen (liquid). One of the principal considerations which led the Council to accept Digalen was that it was regarded as affording a fairly constant and stable preparation of digitalis suitable for intravenous administration. If Digalen is not fairly stable and of fairly constant composition it has no obvious advantage over an active soluble digitalis preparation, such as digitalein. The evidence now at hand seems to show: 1. Digalen is not of constant composition or activity. 2. The manufacturers, or their agents, continue to make misleading statements. 3. It is merely a solution of certain digitalis principles, probably of digitalen mainly, in impure form. COMPOSITION Cloetta[28] prepared a soluble amorphous substance which he called “Digitoxinum solubile Cloetta,” but no information concerning the method of preparation has been published. [28] Cloetta: München. med. Wchnschr., 1904, No. 33. Cloetta reported the result of an elementary analysis of his product which he compared to the analyses of digitoxin (crystalline) made by Schmiedeberg and by Kiliani, and stated that there could be no doubt concerning the chemical identity of the two substances. Kiliani[29] characterized as preposterous Cloetta’s claim that the active constituent of Digalen is chemically identical with digitoxin and stated that Digalen was merely an impure digitalein. Kiliani has recently reiterated the statement that the so-called “amorphous digitoxin” is not identical with digitoxin.[30] [29] Kiliani: München. med. Wchnschr., 1907, p. 886. [30] Kiliani: Am. Jour. Pharm., 1913, lxxxv, 224. Cloetta’s failure to publish his method of preparing Digalen places an additional burden of proof on him (or the manufacturers of Digalen), concerning the identity of the product, and in the face of Kiliani’s denial of the correctness of Cloetta’s contention we must have strong corroborative evidence of Cloetta’s claim before we can accept it as being established.