The indirect advertisement to the public, which Rule 4 provides against, has been the means of inducing the extensive lay use of “Antikamnia,” “Bromidia” and “Fellows’ Syrup.” Naturally Rule 4 has been bitterly opposed by most proprietary firms. Arguing that many physicians dispense their own drugs, pharmaceutical firms have insisted that every medicinal preparation should bear on its label, not only the dose of the preparation, but also a statement of the diseases in which the article is indicated. Whether manufacturers anticipated the profession’s resentment toward the claim that physicians determine the treatment and perhaps the diagnosis by means of the statements on labels, or because the Shirley amendment to the Food and Drugs Act makes the proprietor responsible for therapeutic claims on the label of a medicine, it is a fact that fewer preparations than formerly need to be refused on account of infringement on this rule. In fact, some thoroughly objectionable proprietaries make a show of being “ethical” by omitting all therapeutic discussion from the labels of their preparations. _Therapeutic Claims._--Rule 6 makes ineligible for New and Nonofficial Remedies any articles regarding which the manufacturer or his agents make unwarranted, exaggerated or misleading statements as to the therapeutic value. Recognizing the long established custom of therapeutic exaggeration, it has been most difficult to determine the degree of conservatism which might with fairness be required of a manufacturer. In view of the common acceptance of individual impressions as dependable evidence, it is often almost embarrassing to declare as incompetent the statement of some well meaning and all-too-kind-hearted doctor. However, as the pitfalls of haphazard clinical trials become better known and the physician’s mistrust of glowing accounts of marvelous cures more outspoken, the manufacturers’ claims will be more moderate.