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
The report of our Chemical Laboratory shows that Saloform is not a
definite compound as claimed, but a simple mixture of hexamethylenamin
and lithium salicylate. It is therefore in conflict with Rule 1. It is
also in conflict with Rule 6, for neither hexamethylenamin, lithium,
nor salicylate are therapeutically effective “uric acid solvents”; nor
would any of these have any effect on “phosphaturia.”
The mixture also conflicts with Rule 10; for it is inadvisable to
administer the ingredients in fixed, but unknown proportions.
It is recommended that Saloform be deemed inadmissible to N. N. R.
The Council adopted the recommendation of the referee and authorized
publication of this report.--(_From Reports of Council on Pharmacy and
Chemistry, 1916, p. 71._)
SECRETOGEN
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
About a year ago the Council declared Secretogen,[103] a product the
active ingredient of which was stated to be “pancreatic secretin” and
advertised as a remedy for certain conditions of defective digestion
and assimilation, to be ineligible for New and Nonofficial Remedies.
The reasons for this decision were stated at the time as follows:
[103] J. A. M. A., May 1, 1915, p. 1518.
“1. No evidence has been presented that the absence of secretin is a
cause of gastro-intestinal diseases. It is usually present, and if not
present, as in achylia gastrica, there is evidently some compensating
arrangement by which the pancreas is stimulated to perform its regular
functions.
“2. There is no evidence that secretin in any form is physiologically
active when administered by mouth.”
Since Secretogen was not the only so-called secretin preparation on
the market, and since the use of secretin preparations was recommended
by certain writers, notwithstanding the lack of evidence of its value,
the Council caused an experimental investigation of the question to be
made. This was carried out by Prof. A. J. Carlson of the University of
Chicago.
No secretin was found in the commercial products examined, namely,
Secretogen Tablets, Secretogen Elixir and Duodenin. Furthermore,
Carlson’s results[104] confirmed the Council’s previous conclusion
as to the inertness of secretin administered by mouth. The Council
endorsed Professor Carlson’s findings.[105]
[104] Carlson. A. J.; Lebensohn, J. E., and Pearlman, S. J.; Has
Secretin a Therapeutic Value? J. A. M. A., Jan. 15, 1916, p. 178.
Reports Council on Pharm. and Chem., 1915, p. 98.
[105] So-Called Secretin Preparations, J. A. M. A., Jan 15, 1916,
p. 208; Reports Council on Pharm. and Chem., 1915, p. 96.
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