It should be noted that when the preparations were submitted each ounce of the preparation was claimed to contain 9 grains of iodin, while in the subsequent letter the company declares that they contain only 3-2/3 grains to the ounce. If it be assumed that the unit intended is the avoirdupois ounce, the preparation should contain 2.06 per cent. of iodin according to the first statement and 0.84 per cent. of iodin according to the second statement. While the dark color of the preparations suggested the presence of appreciable amounts of free iodin, the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory reported that an examination of the specimens submitted by the Medical Supply Company showed that “No. 1” and “No. 2” each contained but 0.033 per cent. of free iodin; hence both preparations are in conflict with Rule 1. For both preparations the labels suggest their use for the treatment of “septic wounds, burns, pustular processes of all varieties, and especially bronchial troubles.” This constitutes a conflict with Rule 4. Regarding No. 1 the advertising circular included with the trade package asserts: “Its merits have been practically demonstrated in the following conditions. We invite your especial attention to its use in diseases of the thoracic cavity, especially Bronchitis and Pneumonia, Rheumatism, Lumbago, Migraine, Neuralgia, Orchitis, Balanitis, enlarged glands or any disturbance of the lymphatic system, anti-galactagogue, or wherever analgesic action is required.” “No. 2” is said to be especially adapted to the needs of the surgeon, it “can be applied in any wound either aseptic or infected.” It is asserted that the usual method of preparing patients for operation may be discarded and that patients may be operated on after application of this ointment: “... We have no other preparation to-day which serves the purpose of L. O. Compound in operative and post operative treatment. “It is a powerful antiseptic and germicide combining anesthetic, analgesic and alterative properties.” After attempting to discredit the approved methods of preparing the field for surgical operations, the advertising circular continues: “Method of today: A liberal amount of L. O. Compound No. 2 is applied to the intended area of operation, massage thoroughly until absorption is complete. Patient is ready for operation ...” Both products are in conflict with Rule 6. Further, as the names of these pharmaceutical mixtures are not descriptive of their composition, they also conflict with Rule 8. The use of complex mixtures such as these is irrational and leads to misplaced confidence on the part of the physician; particularly when, as in this case, neither the label nor the advertising matter gives the necessary information regarding the composition of the preparations further than that, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Food and Drugs Act, the amount of chloral is declared (Rule 10).