Lest the appearance of this detailed study of secretin, after the rejection of so-called secretin preparations, should be interpreted (as manufacturers whose products have been rejected have endeavored to interpret such action) as a case of first condemning a preparation and then getting the facts, the Council’s methods, and their application in this case, may be briefly stated. The Council maintains that, when a manufacturer places a product on the market, the burden of proof is on that manufacturer to show that the properties of his product are in accordance with his claims for it. As stated in the introduction to N. N. R., “it is ... manifestly impossible for the Council to investigate the composition of every complex pharmaceutical mixture, or to check thoroughly every therapeutic claim; it can give only an unbiased judgment on the available evidence.” Acting on this principle, the Council examined the claims made for Secretogen, an alleged secretin product manufactured by the G. W. Carnrick Company. The conclusion was that these claims were in absolute conflict with the available evidence as to the action of secretin. It is not necessary to review this subject again. It will suffice to state that the claims made for Secretogen rest on two fundamental propositions: (1) that deficiency of secretin (or, rather, of prosecretin) in the intestinal mucosa is a factor in gastro-intestinal diseases; (2) that secretin given by the mouth is absorbed and produces increased secretion of the pancreatic and intestinal juices and of the bile. From an examination of the evidence available, including that submitted by the manufacturers, the Council concluded: “1. No evidence has been presented that the absence of secretin is a cause of gastro-intestinal disease. 2. There is no evidence that secretin in any form is physiologically active when administered by mouth.” That these conclusions were justified is shown again by the review given by Carlson of the literature, much of which was also reviewed in the Council’s previous report. Since the claims of the Carnrick Company were not supported by any satisfactory evidence, no further investigation on the Council’s part was necessary to warrant rejection of the product. The Council did not undertake to determine, for instance, whether or not Secretogen and similar products actually contain secretin; the determination of this point was immaterial here, in view of the conclusiveness of the evidence that secretin given by mouth has no physiologic action.