And this is the preparation, it will be remembered--this “powerful agent for promoting asepsis”--which, when applied in undiluted strength, was unable to kill _Staphylococcus aureus_ in four hours! It would be a waste of space to cite further evidence to show that the advertising of Glyco-Thymoline is in conflict with Rule 6 of the Council, which provides that no article shall be accepted “concerning which the manufacturer or his agents make unwarranted, exaggerated or misleading statements as to the therapeutic value.” It is further in conflict with Rule 4, against indirect advertising by means of the label, package or circular accompanying the package. CLAIMS TO ORIGINALITY Hatcher and Wilbert have pointed out that from a therapeutic point of view the composition of Glyco-Thymoline is based on the formula of the widely known “compound solution of sodium borate,” or Dobell’s solution. For the phenol in the original, a mixture of antiseptic acids and volatile oils has been substituted. SUMMARY Glyco-Thymoline is in conflict with Rules 1 and 4 of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, because of its indefinite composition and the method of advertising it to the public. It is in conflict with Rules 10, 6 and 8, in that it is an unscientific, shot-gun mixture sold under unwarranted therapeutic claims and under a misleading name. Altogether it must be considered an unscientific heterogeneous mixture, in which a few valuable ingredients are hidden by the useless shrubbery which surrounds them.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 10, 1914._) GLYCOZONE Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, with Comments A number of specimens of Glycozone purchased in the open market were examined by a subcommittee. The product was found to be a mixture of approximately 90 per cent. glycerin, 5 per cent. glyceric acid, a small amount of water and traces of undetermined matter. The absence of hydrogen peroxid or other peroxids was demonstrated. In its report the subcommittee held that: (1) The name of the product is objectionable and misleading; (2) the statements made in regard to its composition also are misleading; (3) the claims for its therapeutic value are exaggerated and untrue. Since the objectionable statements have been given wide publicity among physicians as well as among the laity, the subcommittee recommended that attention should be called to the matter in The Journal. The report of the subcommittee was adopted by the Council. W. A. Puckner, Secretary.