first papers “owing to my ignorance of actual composition,” and that all the Dioradin used by him was of the composition stated in the submission to the Council. [44] Bernheim and Dieupart: Revue Internationale de la Tuberculose, May, 1911, p. 336. While this vindicates the good faith of the American Dioradin Company, it does not clear up the mystery. The question occurs at once: What led Dr. Bernheim to make such positive statements? Was he drawing purely on his imagination? If so, why did his imagination take this peculiar special direction? Or if he did have some reason to imagine the “iode peptonisé,” who supplied this reason? And if, at that time, he was given to understand by Szendeffy, who must have supplied him with the material, that it contained the iodized peptone, how can he be positive at this time, that it did not contain it? Has he actually analyzed the old material? There is also a further question which needs to be answered. Why has Dr. Szendeffy waited until Dioradin was rejected by the Council before correcting Bernheim’s serious misapprehension, in the meantime permitting the circulation of Bernheim’s paper? Until these questions have been satisfactorily answered, the element of mystery about the composition of Dioradin cannot be cleared away. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE The available experimental evidence regarding “Dioradin” is restricted to some quotations from its inventor Szendeffy, in the paper of Bernheim and Dieupart (p. 334). These, if confirmed, would show that radium alone has practically no effect on cultures of tubercle or colon bacilli; that 0.1 gm. of “iode-menthol” (concentration not stated) checks the growth of the acid-fast organisms; and that this antiseptic efficiency can be nearly doubled by the addition of a little radium. No quantitative data are given, so that it is difficult to judge the accuracy of the observation. Granting that it is correct, it would have little bearing on the therapeutic actions of Dioradin, for there is nothing to show that the effective test-tube concentration is reached in the pulmonary tissues. It is also claimed that the injection of Dioradin prevents tubercle infection. The referee believes that the Council and the medical profession should hesitate to accept this conclusion without further details; and these would require confirmation by unprejudiced observers. CLINICAL EVIDENCE