The Propaganda for Reform in Proprietary Medicines, Vol. 2 of 2Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry (American Medical Association)
Science
The Propaganda for Reform in Proprietary Medicines, Vol. 2 of 2
Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry (American Medical Association)
Patent medicines
Since firms other than the G. W. Carnrick Company are manufacturing
alleged secretin preparations, and since recommendations for the use
of secretin preparations in gastro-intestinal diseases have even crept
into textbooks, it seemed desirable to obtain further information on
certain points. The Council therefore requested Prof. A. J. Carlson
of the University of Chicago to check the results of previous
investigators with regard to the action of secretin administered by
mouth or directly into the intestine, and, in addition, to investigate
the secretin content of certain alleged secretin preparations.
Carlson and his co-workers, like all previous investigators, found that
secretin given by mouth, or introduced even in enormous doses directly
into the intestine, is entirely inactive. They also found that marked
destruction of secretin followed contact for one minute with human
gastric juice and that secretin is rapidly oxidized and rendered inert
in contact with the air.
Further, they were unable to demonstrate the presence of secretin
in samples of Secretogen and another supposed secretin preparation
(Duodenin) bought on the open market. In the case of Secretogen there
was one exception: one bottle was found which contained a little
secretin, but it was necessary to administer (by intravenous injection,
of course) the entire contents of the bottle (100 tablets) to obtain “a
small but unmistakable secretin reaction.”
In these studies the methods employed were those by which secretin was
discovered. It is only by the use of such methods that the presence or
absence of secretin can be determined. Apparently the manufacturers who
place so-called secretin preparations on the market do not make use of
these methods, by which alone even the composition of their products
can be determined.
Carlson and his collaborators conclude:
“There is as yet no reliable evidence that lack of secretin is a
primary or important factor in any disease. Even should this be
established, secretin therapy, to be effective, must be intravenous.
Secretin has not yet been prepared in sufficiently pure state to render
possible intravenous injection in man without injurious effects. And
even when this is attained, the very fleeting action of secretin
will in all probability render secretin therapy as futile in all the
diseases in which it is theoretically indicated as epinephrin therapy
is in Addison’s disease.”
In short, secretin is as ineffective taken by mouth as it would be
rubbed on the skin.
The referee recommends that the work of Professor Carlson be
endorsed.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 15, 1916._)
HAS SECRETIN A THERAPEUTIC VALUE?[B]
A. J. Carlson, Ph.D., J. E. Lebensohn, M.S., and S. J. Pearlman, B.S.
Chicago
[B] From the Hull Physiological Laboratory of the University of Chicago.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account