Kochs concluded from his analysis that Ophthalmol had the properties of rancid olive oil containing about 6 to 7 per cent. mineral oil. The oil contained no nitrogen, left no ash on ignition and though traces of iodin were claimed to be present, no iodin could be found. It is recommended that Ophthalmol be rejected first, because the use in the eye of an irritant of secret composition and uncertain activity is unscientific and against the interest of public health; second, because Ophthalmol is of secret composition (the composition claimed being practically meaningless), and, third, because no evidence has been submitted to substantiate its claimed superiority over established methods of treatment. The Council declared Ophthalmol inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., July 6, 1918._) SILVOL INELIGIBLE FOR N. N. R. Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry The following report on Silvol (Parke, Davis & Company) was adopted by the Council and its publication authorized. W. A. Puckner, Secretary. The Council took up the consideration of Silvol (Parke, Davis & Company) because of inquiries received. The following report was submitted by the referee in charge of silver preparations: Silvol (Parke, Davis & Company) is a silver-protein preparation of the Argyrol type. Like Argyrol, it is said to contain about 20 per cent. of silver. The referee finds that, like Argyrol, it is nonirritant to the nasal mucosa in a 10 per cent. solution; does not precipitate with chlorid; dissolves in water readily; a 25 per cent. solution has a high specific gravity (Silvol, 1.137 at 20 C.; Argyrol, 1.147 at 20 C.), and is not very viscid (viscosity, 1.25). A 1:1,000 solution of Silvol is clear and about 50 per cent. deeper in color than a solution of Argyrol of the same strength. Silvol differs from Argyrol mainly in that its solutions yield a fine precipitate with egg albumin (under suitable conditions), while Argyrol is nonprecipitant; and in that Silvol solutions are not so effectively decolorized by Lloyd’s reagent. The manufacturers did not reply to an inquiry with regard to the basis for the claims made for Silvol (see Appendix). The referee was therefore obliged to deduce these claims from the firm’s advertising matter. About the same claims are made for the local use of Silvol as are generally made for Argyrol. These may be accepted without detailed evidence in view of the similarity of the two preparations.