LABORDINE
A Report by the Council and Some Pertinent Comments Added Thereto
The following report was submitted to the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry by the subcommittee which examined Labordine:
To the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry:—Your subcommittee presents the following report on Labordine, sold by the Labordine Pharmacal Co., St. Louis.
Labordine is advertised to physicians as having the following composition:
| Apium Graveolens (true active principle) “Process-Laborde” | 353⁄8 |
| Gaultheria Fragrantissima (true active principle) “Process-Laborde” | 251⁄8 |
| Acete Amide-Phenyle | 151⁄8 |
| Quinina | 11⁄8 |
| Benzoyl-Sulphyonic-Imide | 231⁄4 |
It is stated to be a “vegetable antipyretic”; that {“}it reduces temperature without heart depression,” and physicians are warned to “avoid acetanilid poisoning and danger from other coal-tar antipyretics.”
While the “formula” and the statement just quoted are sufficient evidence of the fraudulent character of the product, yet an abstract of the reports of the chemists who analyzed it is given further to demonstrate its character.
Taking the average of the reports of analyses, labordine contains:
| Acetanilid | 37.9 |
| Free salicylic acid | 6.9 |
| Quinin | present |
| Corn starch | present |
| Milk sugar | 34.7 |
This report of analysis only makes apparent that Labordine is not what it is claimed to be. While it is claimed to contain 231⁄4 per cent. saccharin, this substance was not present, or mere traces only. While, in a disguised way, it is stated to contain 151⁄8 per cent. acetanilid, it contained nearly 40 per cent.
It is recommended that Labordine be not approved and that this report be published.
The recommendation of the subcommittee was adopted by the Council, and in accordance therewith the above report is published.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
COMMENTS
A concrete illustration of some general principles previously laid down is furnished by a nostrum too unimportant to be of any value, save to “point a moral and adorn a tale.”
About thirteen years ago Labordine was advertised under the name of Analgine-Labordine, “A purely vegetable product,” “a combination of the active principles of Camellia Thea, Apium Graveolens, saccharin and carbohydrates,” “Superior to Antipyrine, Phenacetine, Antifebrine, Acetanilid”—note the use of two names for the same thing—“or any of their imitations,” and “unexcelled by any coal-tar product or their compounds.” In 1894 the name was changed to Labordine, in order, as its owner stated, to prevent its being mistaken for a coal-tar product of similar name.
What its composition was at this time we do not know, since there is no guarantee of the permanence nor stability of nostrum formulas except “the honor and reputation of the manufacturers,” which, as investigation has shown, is not always unimpeachable. There has been nothing to prevent alteration of the formula, if the proprietors desired, with every change in the moon. But the name and the general tone of the advertising has been the same. The claim of superiority over coal-tar products has been constantly made.
As to the present conditions, a circular enclosed with a sample of Labordine, recently sent from the St. Louis office, contains the formula given above in the report of the Council. In the same circular are also found these illuminating statements: “The medical profession has long appreciated the dangers involved in the administration of various mineral remedies now so commonly employed, and the value of a safe, effective and reliable vegetable antipyretic is universally recognized. Such a remedy is Labordine. It is purely vegetable in its composition and produces none of the evil after-effects of the coal-tar derivatives.... Labordine ... is a purely vegetable cardiac stimulant.... There is nothing mysterious about Labordine or its constituents.... The ‘Process-Laborde’ gives the true active principles of the Celery and Indian Wintergreen, something heretofore difficult to obtain. To this is added the fact that absolutely chemically pure Acet-Amide-Phenyle is used. The latter is the most valuable and, in fact, the only vegetable antipyretic known.”
The above report of the Council shows the following facts:
1. Apium Graveolens (true active principle), “Process-Laborde” is probably powdered celery seed. One chemist says: “The powder has the characteristic odor of celery, while a microscopic examination shows the presence of a substance having the characteristic structure of seeds in general.” If celery seed has any “active principle” it has never been isolated. As to its therapeutic value, nothing whatever is known. It is, we understand, highly beneficial in the case of singing canaries, but authorities in scientific therapeutics have never discovered that it possessed any remarkable medicinal qualities.
2. Gaultheria Fragrantissima (true active principle), “Process-Laborde,” is probably ordinary everyday salicylic acid. One analysis showed salicylic acid to be present to the amount of about 7 per cent. The question of whether or not salicylic acid could in any way be considered the “true active principle” of Gaultheria Fragrantissima, was submitted to Prof. John Uri Lloyd of Cincinnati, the eminent authority on the chemistry of the proximate principles of plants, who replies:
“The advertisement is evidently so worded that, although the name of the Indian plant Gaultheria Fragrantissima is employed, its true and active principle being wintergreen oil, the concoctor can mystify his patrons and at the same time use the well-known wintergreen oil, made in America, which in my opinion, so far as any chemical test might be concerned, could not be distinguished from the methyl salicylic acid (wintergreen oil) derived from the Indian plant. Concerning whether salicylic acid is a proximate constituent of Gaultheria Fragrantissima, in my opinion, it would be a misnomer to make such an announcement. Salicylic acid, per se, does not exist, in my opinion, in the plants mentioned, being made by chemistry.”
3. The third and most important ingredient in this “purely vegetable antipyretic” is brazenly announced as “Acet-Amide-Phenyle,” but it is only necessary to say that this imposing designation is an attempt to “Frenchify” a scientific name for acetanilid.
Analysis shows that this coal-tar product is present to the amount of 37.9 per cent., or 1.89 grains in a 5-grain tablet.[56] In other words, this imposing Labordine, made by a mysterious and elsewhere unheard of “Process-Laborde,” is simply one more of the many acetanilid powders that have been foisted on our profession and that have filled our journals for years past. The only thing in it that is of practical therapeutic value is 2 grains of acetanilid to a 5-grain tablet. The statement that Labordine is a purely vegetable preparation is probably intended by the proprietors as a good joke on the medical profession. Acetanilid is not usually regarded as a vegetable product, at least it is not ordinarily found in market gardens. The only vegetable source from which acetanilid can be obtained is the beautiful flowering coal-tar bush, from which so many other nostrum vendors obtain their “perfectly harmless, purely vegetable antipyretics,” all composed of acetanilid and something to hide it. If the statements made by one of the company’s employees and quoted below are true, Labordine is not “manufactured and made chemically pure in the laboratories of the Labordine Pharmacal Company,” for this company has no laboratory, and its product is manufactured for it.
4. Our readers will be interested to know that the important ingredient entered under the imposing name of Benzoyl-Sulphyonic-Imide is simply a highly scientific name for saccharin. Even on this point, however, the formula is misleading, since it claims 231⁄4 per cent. of this substance, whereas the analysis shows that the presence of saccharin could not be proved. If it is present at all it is in quantities much less than stated, and so small as to be difficult of recognition. Instead it appears that the product contains common starch and about 35 per cent. of milk sugar.
THE COMPANY ITSELF
One of the humiliating phases of the proprietary medicine business is that, in many instances, these preparations are foisted on our profession by men who know nothing of medicine, pharmacy or chemistry, yet who not only presume to concoct our medicines for us, but also assume to instruct us how to use them.
Gould’s Commercial Register for 1907 gives the officers of the Labordine Pharmacal Company as H. M. Coudrey, president; M. Crawley, vice-president, and D. E. Gamble, Jr., secretary and treasurer. The place of business is given as 420 Market street, St. Louis. We are informed that Harry M. Coudrey is an insurance agent and the present member of Congress from the Twelfth Missouri District; that Mark Crawley is a clerk in the insurance office of H. M. Coudrey; and that Mr. Gamble is cashier in the same office. A recent visit of a representative of The Journal to 420 Market street, St. Louis, showed that the office of the Labordine Pharmacal Company is in Room 12 on the third floor of an old dilapidated building. There was no sign on the door of the office, but on the wall next to an old elevator was a very small sign which read “Labordine Chemical Company, Room 12.” The office at the time of the visit was apparently in charge of a young woman about 20 years old. Careful scrutiny of the furniture and fixtures showed that the room contained an old oak roll-top desk in one corner and a kitchen table, on which were piled about half a dozen packages of Labordine. The floor of the room was bare and very dirty. In an adjoining room, the door of which was open, was piled a lot of broken furniture. No laboratories nor chemical apparatus were visible. The young woman in charge stated that Labordine was made by the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, at No. 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis.
This is a fair sample of nostrums and of the methods of exploiting them. The bitterly humiliating fact about the whole business is that a preparation, advertised under such palpably misleading claims, could actually be advertised in medical journals, even in journals of a supposedly high scientific standard, and could be bought and prescribed for years by supposedly intelligent and conscientious physicians. It is not supposed that every physician should be enough of a chemist to detect the ridiculous discrepancies between the published formula and the therapeutic claims made for such a mixture. But that members of a supposedly learned profession should fail to have enough interest in the preparations they prescribe for their confiding patients to find out that acetanilid is being masked under an obsolete and little used name, that under an imposing polysyllabic designation is hidden saccharin, that the so-called “active principle Process-Laborde” (whatever that may be), is equivalent only to one-third grain of salicylic acid in a 5-grain tablet, and that the advertising matter sent out for years by this company contained absolute falsehoods regarding the composition and therapeutic benefits of its preparation, is certainly just cause for shame and humiliation. If a physician, knowing the composition of Labordine, wishes to prescribe it and prescribes it intelligently, he has a perfect right to do so. If he wishes his patient to have 2 grains of acetanilid, 1⁄20 of a grain of quinin, and 1⁄3 of a grain of salicylic acid, and considers a mixture of ground celery seed, starch and milk sugar as a proper vehicle for this medication, no one will question his right to administer it. No physician, however, has any right, either moral or professional, to prescribe a preparation, concerning the ingredients of which he knows absolutely nothing.
Is it possible that such carelessness may be one of the causes of waning public confidence in our profession? We leave it to our readers to determine whether such a moral can be drawn from this typical nostrum story.—(From The Journal A. M. A., March 30, 1907.)