“‘I can speak in very high praise of Secretogen, which I have used in both tablet form and as the elixir. There is no doubt about its value in a certain class of intractable indigestion which refuses to be benefited by any other remedy. On several occasions I have been much gratified by the definite relief obtained in this class of cases. It hits the mark also in some types of obstinate constipation--I think those cases where the trouble is wrapped up in impaired enervation of the intestine, and where stasis occurs at certain segments of the canal.’ “Hallion very pertinently points out[108] that it is now accepted that opotherapy is not substitutive, but homostimulative and he remarks further that it is well to bear in mind that the so-called active substances which make the extract efficacious need not necessarily be the hormones. ‘It may be the elements of tissue structure which may come to the aid of the injured organ. The hormone should not therefore be looked on as the only active agent of opotherapy and, while its action is important, it need not necessarily be preponderant. The chemical isolation of the hormones is, of course, of interest but may not be as vital to organotherapy as we have thought.’ ...” [108] Presse Médicale, 1912, p. 433. COMMENT BY THE COUNCIL ON PHARMACY AND CHEMISTRY The G. W. Carnrick Company, which formerly claimed that Secretogen was efficacious because it contained secretin, now admits this claim to be unfounded. Notwithstanding, the manufacturers still call their product Secretogen and make for it practically the same therapeutic claims as before. They now base these claims on vague “principles of opotherapy” and on so-called “clinical testimony.” The burden of proof rests on them to show that these old claims, already discredited but put forth again on new grounds, are justified. Have they done so? The “clinical te stimony” is not convincing. So much of it as is definite enough to permit of criticism has already been dealt with. The remainder consists of mere assertions; it is not through reliance on such evidence that the Council can discharge its trust. On this side of the question there is nothing new to be said--reassertion of a refuted argument does not constitute fresh proof. Nor is the case better on the experimental side. The statements of Hallion, Enriquez, Zuelzer and others[109] as to the existence of a “peristaltic hormone” not only have failed of confirmation, but also have been positively discredited. With regard to Draper’s work, which dealt with acute intestinal obstruction, it is difficult to see what is its relevance to the present issue, particularly since Draper’s results were obtained with a product derived from the mucosa of the jejunum and ileum and _not with an extract of the duodenum_ such as Secretogen purports to be. [109] Cf. interal. Schagindweit, E.: Experimentelle Versuche mit Hormonal, Arch. Internat. de Pharmacod., 1913, p. 77.