The Dioradin Company submits considerable clinical data in favor of Dioradin. It must be remembered that most favorable opinions have been published, from time to time, about scores of “consumption cures,” which have mysteriously lost their efficiency when their novelty wore away. There is no more reason to doubt the good faith of those who are enthusiastic about Dioradin than of those who have been enthusiastic about other “cures.” There appear to be features in the course of tuberculosis which make the judgment of therapeutic measures peculiarly difficult. It is possible that impartial clinical trials of Dioradin by tuberculosis experts appointed by the Council might facilitate judgment as to the actual efficiency of Dioradin. The referee doubts, however, whether this would advance the Council very much toward the acceptance of the substance. Such an investigation would be so lengthy that it should not be undertaken until the Dioradin Company itself has offered at least presumptive evidence in this direction, especially in view of the adverse report recently made by Cecil Wall.[45] Ten tuberculous patients were treated by Wall in strict accordance with the method outlined to him by Bernheim, yet Wall concludes that none of the cases, though treated accurately in accordance with the instructions, can be quoted to justify any of the claims for the therapeutic efficiency of Dioradin. The Council cannot undertake lengthy investigations of this character until it is put in possession of data which would show to its satisfaction that such investigations would probably be fruitful. [45] Wall, C.: Brit. Med. Jour., July 20, 1912, p. 109. CONCLUSIONS From investigations made, it appears that the claims in regard to the composition of Dioradin have contained vague statements and contradictions which arouse a feeling of uncertainty and lack of confidence. Until this uncertainty is cleared away, Dioradin cannot be considered as complying with Rule 1. The experimental data are insufficient and unconvincing. Some favorable clinical reports have been submitted, but the accuracy of the observations is to be questioned and they are more than offset by the negative results observed by Cecil Wall. As might be expected, other negative results, if observed, have not been submitted and there is nothing in the manufacturer’s claim to show whether the improvement reported is really due to the peculiar mixture called Dioradin or to any one of its ingredients. It is therefore recommended that Dioradin be not accepted for New and Nonofficial Remedies. In view of the extensive advertising of this preparation and because of the admittedly incorrect statements in the earlier papers it is recommended that publication of this report be authorized.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 26, 1912._) ECHINACEA