MAIGNEN ANTISEPTIC POWDER

Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry

The report which appears below was submitted by a referee and after adoption by the Council was sent to the manufacturer for comment, in accordance with the Council’s regular procedure in such cases. The manufacturer’s comments were transmitted to a second referee, who reported that after a careful consideration of the manufacturer’s reply he saw no valid reason for a modification of the report. The referee also reported that a visit to the Maignen Institute further served to convince him of the viciousness of the treatment as given and that the records made by the persons in the employ of the institute were too inadequate to serve as clinical evidence. On the referee’s recommendation, the report as originally adopted was reendorsed by the Council and authorized for publication.

W. A. Puckner, Secretary.

Maignen Antiseptic Powder is marketed by the “Maignen Institute for the Study of Bacterial Diseases,” Philadelphia. It is claimed to be a mixture of calcium hydroxid, sodium carbonate, aluminum sulphate and boric acid, but no statement as to the amount of the several constituents is furnished. Its action depends on the sodium hydroxid which is formed when the powder is treated with water, 1 Gm. of the powder as now submitted to the Council yielding 0.32 Gm. of sodium hydroxid (NaOH) and a specimen obtained a year ago yielding 0.28 Gm. Its promiscuous use is recommended both to physicians and to the public with claims which are extravagant, preposterous and even dangerous.

A pamphlet, clearly intended for the laity, entitled “What Is Catarrh?” gives direction for the “sterilization” of the nose, throat, stomach, lungs, eyes, gums, mouth and the genito-urinary tract. The following, taken from this pamphlet, illustrates the absurdity of the claims made for Maignen Antiseptic Powder:

“STERILIZATION OF THE STOMACH

“Take of the Maignen Antiseptic Powder half the quantity raised on a dime, scant.

“ADD to a tumbler of water, preferably warm, and stir.

“Drink slowly.

“This is what may happen:

“1). Belching may be the first indication of the sterilization of the stomach.

“2). The excess of acidity is corrected.

“3). The fermentation is stopped.

“4). The sterilization extends to the Intestinal Tract.

“5). The bowels are regulated without purgation.

“6). The whole metabolic process is improved.

“When and how often to drink the antiseptic solution.

“a). For Indigestion, whenever distressed, before or after meals.

“b). For Constipation, half an hour before breakfast or last thing at night.

“c). For Gastro-Intestinal troubles, such as Typhoid Fever, Dysentery and Cholera, which are the most serious forms of catarrhal inflammation, take half a tumbler or a whole tumbler of hot water with half the quantity of Powder raised on a dime every hour, and between times a glass of generous [sic] wine.

“Remarks

“The sterilization recommended here is a plain disinfecting process which does not interfere with medical treatment. It is, on the contrary, of great assistance to it.

“It has been found very effective in breaking up the cigarette habit. It does away with the craving by removing the morbid irritation of the mucous membrane.”

Eighty-eight disorders are listed in a pamphlet entitled “Antiseptic Therapeutics” all of which are reported as having been treated with success. The dangerous character of the Maignen “sterilization” propaganda is illustrated by a pamphlet “First Aid to Baby-Sick” and by the recommendation on the trade package:

“To prevent Blood Poisoning, Lockjaw, Hydrophobia and Infectious Diseases.”

The legend on the trade package and the advertising matter contained in it are likely to lead the public to place dependence on a weak sodium hydroxid solution as a means of preventing blood-poison, lockjaw, hydrophobia and infectious diseases. The pamphlet “First Aid to Baby-Sick” recommends its use in sore eyes, teething and sore mouth, sore throat, running ears, running nose, sore chest, summer complaint, skin troubles and infection after vaccination; if any trust is put in these claims, they are bound to lead to the sacrifice of many infants through neglect of proper treatment.

Patent No. 1,086,339 has been granted on this powder to P. J. A. Maignen of Philadelphia by the U. S. patent office on the following specification of claim made in the application:

“1. A process for destroying microorganisms on living tissue, without injuring the latter ... whereby the growth of such organisms is inhibited and their substance dissolved without deleterious effect upon contiguous healthy tissue.”

With brazen assurance this grant has been twisted by the unscrupulous promoters into a government endorsement of the preparation. It, of course, means nothing of the sort, as, no doubt, in accordance with legal routine the patent was granted without any investigation by the patent office to determine the effectiveness of the powder for the purpose claimed.

In view of the dangerous, unwarranted and absurd claims made for Maignen Antiseptic Powder the referee recommends that it be refused recognition, and that the Council declare its agreement with views expressed in the article “Maignen Pulv.” published in The Journal, Feb. 15, 1913, p. 537, particularly the following:

“The germicidal powers of strong alkalies have long been known, but the inconvenience of their application to tissues and mucous membranes has prevented their use. That they will be of service when sufficiently diluted not to irritate the tissues is improbable, for the antiseptic power of such solution is slight and the disinfectant value practically nil.”

Because the Maignen Institute has twisted the granting of U. S. patent No. 1,086,339 into a quasi-endorsement of the claims made for Maignen Antiseptic Powder it is recommended that a copy of this report be sent to the Commissioner of Patents as a protest against the present law, which authorizes the granting of patents on unproved and improbable medical claims.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 14, 1914.)

TYREE’S ANTISEPTIC POWDER [E]

Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry with Comments

Tyree’s antiseptic powder was assigned for examination to a subcommittee of the Council, which made the following report:

To the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry:—Your subcommittee, to whom was assigned Tyree’s Pulv. Antiseptic Comp., marketed by J. S. Tyree, Washington, D. C., reports as follows: The label on the package states: “This preparation is a scientific combination of borate of sodium, alumen, carbolic acid, glycerin and the crystallized principles of thyme, eucalyptus, gaultheria and mentha, in the form of a powder,” etc.

The statement that the powder contains the crystalline principles of thyme, eucalyptus, gaultheria and mentha is vague and misleading, since the chief medical constituents of eucalyptus and gaultheria are liquids, but it tends to convey the impression that the powder contains the essential constituents of these drugs, namely, thymol, oil of eucalyptus or eucalyptol, oil of wintergreen, or methyl salicylate, and menthol.

The literature supplied to physicians claims its composition to be: “Parts, sod. bor., 50; alumen, 50; ac. carbol., 5; glycerin, 5; the cryst. principles of thyme, 5; eucalyptus, 5; gaultheria, 5, and mentha, 5.”

The composition, therefore, might be expressed as follows:

Sodium borate (borax)	50 parts, or	38.46	per cent.
Alum	50 parts, or	38.46	per cent.
Phenol (carbolic acid)	5 parts, or	3.85	per cent.
Glycerin	5 parts, or	3.85	per cent.
Thymol	5 parts, or	3.85	per cent.
Oil of eucalyptus or eucalyptol	5 parts, or	3.85	per cent.
Oil of gaultheria (or methyl salicylate)	5 parts, or	3.85	per cent.
Menthol	5 parts, or	3.85	per cent.

Analysis of specimens purchased from different sources in the open market were made under our direction. The reports of the chemists show that Tyree’s antiseptic powder contains no borax, or mere traces only, and that it contains no alum, or mere traces only. Instead, the analyses show that boric acid and zinc sulphate are the essential constituents. The amounts of carbolic acid, thymol, menthol, etc., contained in the powder, if present, were far below the quantities indicated by the formula. The presence of glycerin could not be demonstrated, and, if present, the amount must be very small.

One chemist reports: The result of analysis shows that different samples differ slightly in composition, but that the following indicates the average composition of the product:

Per Cent.
Zinc sulphate, anhydrous	15.56
Boric acid	81.26
Volatile matter at 100° C. for four hours	0.45

The undetermined portion consists of salicylic acid, carbolic acid, menthol and eucalyptol; possibly other antiseptic agents may be present in very minute quantities.

From the above findings we conclude that Tyree’s antiseptic powder is a mixture of boric acid and dried zinc sulphate and antiseptic bodies, such as menthol, salicylic acid and carbolic acid, eucalyptol, etc. From this it can be readily seen that the label, which is supposed to set forth the composition of Tyree’s antiseptic powder, is not in accord with the facts. The powder does not contain either borate of sodium or alum, and the presence of glycerin could not be established. The antiseptic agents, exclusive of the boric acid, are present only in small amounts.

The report of another analysis concludes as follows:

It evidently contains less than the amount stated of the principles of thyme, eucalyptus, wintergreen and mint. It also contains a very small amount indeed of carbolic acid, much less than that stated. We have been unable to identify certainly the presence of glycerin, and it is doubtful if it be present.

From the result of the analysis we feel confident that the preparation is to all intents and purposes a mixture of boric acid and sulphate of zinc.

The carbolic acid, thyme, eucalyptus, wintergreen, etc., if present, are present only in sufficient amount to give the compound a satisfactory odor.

In view of the fact that J. S. Tyree has given wide publicity to a formula which the preceding report has shown to be a deliberate misrepresentation of facts, it is recommended that the article be refused recognition by the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, and that this report be published in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

The recommendation of the subcommittee was adopted by the Council in accordance with which the report is published.

W. A. Puckner, Secretary.

Mr. Tyree, in a letter to Dr. Simmons (which he states he writes at the request of Dr. Kebler of the Drug Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture, though he is under no moral or financial obligation to do so), says that it has been his intention to inform the medical profession of his reasons for changing the formula of Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder from an alum and borax base to a boracic acid and zinc base. He states that this change was made at the suggestion of prominent physicians connected with hospital clinics on nose and throat, venereal and other conditions and that he has had in contemplation the omission from the label of the various conditions to which the preparation is applicable.

Mr. Tyree, it will be seen, assumes the right to sell to physicians a preparation with a descriptive formula which he acknowledges is false, and he presumes to use his own pleasure as to the time when he will inform them of its true composition.

Mr. Tyree does not state when he changed the formula. We do not know whether it was a year ago, five years ago or ten years ago, but we do know that the package which was used in making the first analysis was purchased as early as last February, and the first chemist’s report was submitted to the Council March 5, 1906. On April 4 Mr. Tyree was notified by the Council that the composition of Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder did not correspond to the formula published by him.

Whether or not Mr. Tyree is justified in offering our profession a preparation as composed chiefly of borax and alum when in reality it is chiefly composed of boric acid and zinc sulphate, we leave physicians to judge.

Discrepancies Between Facts and Claims—Unfortunate
Attempts of Mr. Tyree at Explanation

A report from the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry on Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder appeared in The Journal, Oct. 20, 1906. This showed that the preparation, advertised as a “scientific combination of borate of sodium, alumen, carbolic acid, glycerin and the crystallized principles of thyme, eucalyptus, gaultheria and mentha, in the form of a powder.” was essentially a mixture of boric acid and sulphate of zinc—approximately four-fifths of the former to one-fifth of the latter. “The carbolic acid, thyme, eucalyptus, wintergreen, etc., if present, are present only in sufficient amount to give the compound a satisfactory odor.” As will be remembered, in the correspondence published at that time, Mr. Tyree attempted to explain the discrepancies between his statements and the proved facts by intimating that he had recently changed the formula, and that it was his intention “on or about the first of February to state to the medical profession his reasons for changing the formula,” and that the change had been made “a short time ago, at the suggestion of several prominent gentlemen.” Since that time, through circulars and other advertisements, Mr. Tyree has attempted to explain the matter in various ways. In his latest circular letter he seems to make a deliberate attempt to mislead our profession and to misrepresent facts to a degree that makes it almost impossible to believe that the circular came from a man who claims to be honorable.

First, however, we shall take this opportunity to publish some matter which we have had in reserve since the first exposé was made last October. When it was realized that Mr. Tyree intended to defend himself by claiming that a change had recently been made in the powder, we took occasion to try to secure some of the preparation that had been on the market for a long time. In this we succeeded very well. From a Chicago druggist one package was bought which had been in the store at least since July, 1902—how much longer is not known. The druggist from whom the powder was obtained bought the drug store in July, 1902, and this powder was on hand at that time, none having been bought since. This particular powder was analyzed by a chemist, who found the composition practically the same as that given in the Council’s report, this chemist estimating that it contained approximately 81 per cent. boric acid and 14 per cent. anhydrous zinc sulphate. Bearing in mind that for at least four years and ten months Tyree’s Powder has been essentially the same as it is today, this letter is very interesting: (The comments in brackets are, of course, ours.)

“J. S. TYREE,
“Chemist,
“WASHINGTON, D. C.

“April 16, 1907.

“Dr. ————,

“——,

“My Dear Sir:—Doctors and medical publications of extreme and prejudicial minds often hold and express opinions in honorable faith, but like all critics, they are not always familiar with the conditions composing their opinions, and are often given to expressing them without knowledge of the true motives and facts in the case.

“If you will read an article that appeared in one of the medical weeklies some time ago [The Journal of the American Medical Association, of course] and which has been copied by several of its offsprings [not many we regret to say] relating to Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder, you will see that I had previously informed the editor as well as his council of investigators, that at the suggestion of prominent physicians, extensive clinical experimenting [sic] were being made with some slight [! ! !] changes in my powder, the object being to develop and extend its usefulness in new lines [It had already been recommended for about everything [2]] and at the same time make it more acceptable to the general run of the profession. I also notified this editor that these investigations would not be completed until the first of the present year, after which time these slight [! ! !] changes in the formula of Tyree’s Powder would be announced. [It is now the middle of May; when and where were the changes announced?[3]]

“There is nothing new, startling or dangerous in such changes in formulas. The Pharmacopeias and national books of authority are continuously improving their formulas. It is the same with every preparation on the market. [Mr. Tyree, as a nostrum maker, is in a position to know. His plea evidently is: “I am no worse than others.”] The apparent difficulty in my case is caused by my exceptional frankness [“exceptional frankness” is good under the circumstances] with the profession in telling them [when and where?] about this improvement before I was ready to announce full details and particulars, or place my improved [sic] powder on the market.

“Yours very truly,

“J. S. Tyree.”

For years Mr. Tyree has been misleading physicians by making false statements regarding the composition of his powder and regarding its value as a therapeutic agent. When exposed he tries to defend himself and his business by statements and excuses that are worthy of a schoolboy trying to get out of a bad scrape. We would respectfully suggest to him that he either take his wonderful powder off the market, or—which would probably amount to the same thing—tell the truth, and the whole truth, about it.—(From The Journal A. M. A., May 18, 1907.)

APERGOLS [F]

Abstract of Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry

Apergols, put out by H. K. Wampole Co., Inc., is alleged to be a “Uterine Stimulant.” Apergols is apparently an inversion of the name Ergoapiol and the preparation appears to have essentially the same formula, namely:

Apiol	5	min.
Oil Savine	¹⁄₂	min.
Ergotin	1	gr.
Aloin	¹⁄₈	gr.
Aromatics		q. s.

As in Ergoapiol, the constituent referred to in the formula as “Apiol” appears to be oleoresin of parsley-seed instead of the definite substance apiol described in New and Nonofficial Remedies. In general the claims made for Apergols are the same as those made for Ergoapiol (see p. [82]). The Council refused admission to Apergols because they are advertised indirectly to the public, because of unwarranted therapeutic claims, because of the non-descriptive name and because the product is unscientific.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 12, 1914.)