NEURILLA
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
The following report was adopted by the Council. Its publication was authorized to show how a practically worthless mixture may be exploited by means of ill-considered testimonials.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
Neurilla, which appears to be the sole product of the Dad Chemical Company, New York, is advertised as
“The Ideal Nerve Calmant.”
“... a nerve tonic ... indicated in cases where the nerve centers are poorly nourished and over-sensitive ...”
“... a stimulant to the nervous system.”
“A Valuable Aid in the Treatment of Fevers, Colds, La Grippe, etc.”
The following non-quantitative and indefinite formula is given on the label of a recently purchased bottle of Neurilla:
“Prepared from Scutellaria Lateriflora, Passiflora Incarnata and Aromatics.”
“Proportion of Alcohol 20.3%.
“Made by Dad Chemical Co., New York, U. S. A.
“Dose, One Teaspoonful Four Times a Day.”
According to the formula, then, this mixture contains, aside from alcohol and aromatics, two vegetable drugs, scutellaria and passiflora, on which the alleged virtues of the preparation must be presumed to depend.
Scutellaria lateriflora, or skullcap, is a bitter drug, one of the many “herbs” to which, on wholly unreliable “clinical evidence,” therapeutic properties were at one time ascribed. Most pharmacologists do not mention the drug, and those who do generally state that it has very feeble therapeutic properties. It was admitted to the Pharmacopeia, but in 1909 its deletion was recommended by a committee of the Section on Practice of Medicine of the American Medical Association (The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 4, 1909, p. 792). We understand that the next edition of the Pharmacopeia will omit mention of skullcap.
Passiflora incarnata, or passion-flower, is another “herb,” which, although known for about seventy years, has never gained the confidence of the medical profession and has not even been admitted to the Pharmacopeia. According to a Council Report:
“None of the evidence is sufficient to show that passiflora has therapeutic value; hence it is deemed inadvisable to include the drug in the list of nonofficial remedies” (The Journal A. M. A., March 19, 1910, p. 983).
On these two obsolescent “herbs,” then, rest the remarkable claims made for Neurilla. A certain degree of appetizing effect may be expected from the bitter taste and a very slight degree of physical stimulus from the alcohol. Except for these effects—and they are largely delusive and temporary—the preparation is therapeutically inert and worthless.
The evidence on which the manufacturers of Neurilla base their therapeutic claims appears to consist of testimonials from physicians. As a matter of fact, this is true of practically all of the large group of nostrums of which Neurilla is typical. An analysis of these Neurilla testimonials brings out clearly what such “evidence” is worth.
ILL-CONSIDERED TESTIMONIALS
The testimonials for Neurilla have been given with reference to indefinite conditions of nervousness that border on the psychic and include hysteria, neurasthenia, neuralgia and the like. Nervousness and indigestion are two diseases in which suggestion, especially when aided by bitters and alcohol, produces temporarily a feeling of improvement. As an illustration, take the following testimonial:
“But more striking was the following case: One evening between 5 and 6 o’clock I was sent for, family lives near me, and I was informed that the young lady had promised to be bridesmaid, a function she had never performed. Her mother said the daughter would certainly drop in her tracks as she walked up to the altar with the procession, and they had about concluded to send a note saying to the parents of the bride that she could not come, although that would be very disagreeable (and no less offensive, said I). They agreed with me. I ordered Neurilla for two hours. She went to church, and, I was informed the next morning, passed through the dreaded ordeal simply fatigued, and was now fast asleep on account of the nice effect of Neurilla.”
It might provoke a smile to think that a manufacturer would publish so silly a testimonial were it not that the very fact of its publication indicates that there are medical men thoughtless enough to read and accept such stuff as reliable evidence as to the value of any product.
TESTIMONIALS GIVEN LONG AGO—THE REMEDY ABANDONED
A number of physicians who had given testimonials were asked in writing whether the testimonials were genuine and whether they still entertained the high opinion of Neurilla expressed at a former date. Several replied that, if they had ever given such testimonials, they had forgotten the circumstance. From the replies received we select the following:
The testimonial which bears Dr. A’s name reads:
“I am using Neurilla with most satisfactory results.”
Dr. A now says:
“As to its positive value as a therapeutic agent I have not used it enough to know.... If the language you quote ... appears as given in or as a ‘testimonial’ it must in some way be garbled and appears wholly without my knowledge or consent.”
Dr. B is quoted as having written:
“I do not often lend my influence to furthering the fame of a proprietary remedy, but I have achieved such excellent results from the use of Neurilla as a calmative in hysteria and other nervous disorders, that I feel its manufacturers are entitled to an acknowledgment of gratitude from me.”
Dr. B writes:
“I have not prescribed a dose of the nostrum in years. The use of my name in connection with Neurilla is unauthorized.”
Dr. C once wrote:
“I have used Neurilla with good results.”
Dr. C now writes:
“In re ‘Neurilla’ I think I used the preparation once or twice and it seemed to do good work, but if due to the preparation or other influences, I am not able to verify. I have not used it since nor will, as I am opposed to using these preparations except in certain cases where the ℞ contains remedies whose value I have verified under the most rigid tests.
“P. S. This testimonial must have been given many years ago.”
Dr. D’s testimonial is admitted to be based on a single case:
“I am using Neurilla in a bad case of neuralgic tic with very good results on an aged lady. She has taken several bottles, and is still taking it with very good results.”
Dr. D sums up his later experience by saying:
“I have long since abandoned the use of Neurilla in practice.”
The following bears Dr. E’s name:
“I endorse Neurilla without hesitation. It meets all indications for which it is intended.”
This is what Dr. E writes now:
“As to the enclosed testimonial in regard to Neurilla said to be written by me I have no recollection. I am not prescribing Neurilla.”
Dr. F’s experience is similar. The testimonial credited to him reads:
“I have prescribed Neurilla in nervous disorders with good results.”
Dr. F now writes:
“I don’t remember of ever having prescribed ‘Neurilla’ or of having given a testimonial for it or any other patent medicine if I knew it to be so.”
SUMMARY
In the booklet from which the foregoing are taken, there are forty testimonials. Those which we quote are merely samples. To sum up the results of this analysis: Of the testimonials some are said to be unauthorized; a number were written with so little thought that the writers had since forgotten their very existence; the conclusions expressed in most are not in fact justified by the writers’ mature judgment and experience. A number of writers admit that their experience is insufficient to determine whether the supposed good results were due to the medicine used or to other influences. Of course such evidence is unworthy of credit and happily, very little is now being furnished by doctors; even our courts refuse to admit it.
In short, the published formula shows that Neurilla is nothing more than a preparation of discredited drugs; it is exploited largely by means of carelessly formed and thoughtlessly expressed opinions of physicians. It is recommended that this report be published as an illustration of such methods and as a protest against them.
[Editorial Comment.—Neurilla is advertised in the following publications:
| Archives of Pediatrics, | Medical Sentinel, |
| Atlanta Journal Record of Medicine, | Medical Standard, |
| Charlotte Medical Journal, | Pacific Medical Journal, |
| Indianapolis Medical Journal, | Southern Practitioner, |
| International Journal of Surgery, | Texas Medical Journal, |
| Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, | Woman’s Medical Journal, |
| Medical Herald, | Eclectic Medical Journal, |
| New York Medical Record, | Ellingwood’s Therapeutist, |
| Medical Review of Reviews, | Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy.] |
| —(From The Journal A. M. A., March 27, 1914.) | |