VIROL
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
Virol, sold in the United States by the Etna Chemical Company, is put out by Virol, Ltd., London, England. It is said to be
“A preparation of bone marrow, red bone marrow of medullary structure of ox rib and calf bones, eggs, malt extract, and lemon syrup made from fresh fruit.”
“Marrow fat is emulsified with extract of malt, lemon syrup and eggs, it is further enriched with soluble phosphates of lime, iron and soda, and glycerine solution of red bone marrow.”
Many of the therapeutic claims made for Virol the Council considered grossly exaggerated; among them are the following:
“... a complete food for children.”
“... a complete nutrient.”
“The value of the Lime-Salts (representing the Egg Shells) contained in Virol is fully illustrated in its influence upon Rickets; whilst Struma, Chronic Bronchitis, Anaemia and Influenza are all combated by its use in a degree, which, we venture to say, has never been approached.”
“The fat, as represented by the Marrow-bone and Egg Yolk, is so minutely divided that it admits of even far more rapid absorption by the villi of the intestine than milk.”
“It is an ideal form of food, readily digested and assimilated in the weakest of conditions.”
“Virol has a marked effect on the metabolism of the body, increasing the production of opsonins and stimulating phagocytosis. As an adjuvant to the natural defensive processes of the patient in all diseases of bacterial origin its value can scarcely be over-estimated.”
The objections of the Council were transmitted to Virol, Ltd. The firm’s reply was reported to the Council by the referee of the Committee on Therapeutics who held that no adequate or satisfactory answer had been made to the objections raised against the advertising claims for Virol.
The claims made for Virol being unsubstantiated and unwarranted, the Council voted that the preparation be refused recognition.
In accordance with the practice of the Council, the exploiters of Virol were afforded an opportunity to comment on the foregoing statement before its publication. On their objecting to the findings, the entire matter was turned over to a second referee. This referee, in making his report, reviewed the claims made for Virol and commented on the lack of evidence to substantiate these claims. He stated that a chemical analysis of the preparation had yielded the following result:
| “Sugar, as maltose | 60.0 per cent. |
| “Fat | 13.2 per cent. |
| “Proteins | 3.2 per cent. |
| “Ash | 1.6 per cent. |
| “Water and volatile matter | 21.6 per cent. |
“There is no appreciable diastatic action. A little glycerol is present in the volatile matter. The preparation is therefore an extract of malt with fat and a small amount of protein.”
He then continues:
“That Virol has food value cannot be denied, but that it has sufficient value to warrant the claims of the manufacturers is not evident. Virol cannot be considered a complete food, as the advertising literature reiterates, or an ideal food for infants. The amount of protein is far too low in comparison with the carbohydrates to warrant this view. The dosage recommended is not large. Thirty gm. a day would furnish only about 1 gm. of protein and 4 gm. of fat. The 3 teaspoonfuls a day recommended for children would furnish protein and fat even below this.
“If employed alone it cannot be a complete or sufficient food, and if employed along with other articles of diet—milk and bread, for example—it is not easy to see wherein lies the efficacy of the small weights of fat and protein added in the form of Virol. Here the demand made on our credulity is too great, as the protein in the preparation is the familiar protein of eggs, meat and malt, and the fat largely that from the egg-yolk and marrow, according to the claims. It is not known that any specific virtues reside in these bodies, or in the egg-shells, also claimed as present.
“In the opinion of the present referee there is nothing in the composition of Virol to justify the claims made for it. The judgment and recommendations of the first referee follow from the facts and must be accepted by the Council.”
The Council directed that the previously prepared report be allowed to stand and that it be published along with a suitable reference to the report of the second referee.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 20, 1915.)
PART II
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CHEMICAL LABORATORY
ANUSOL HEMORRHOIDAL SUPPOSITORIES [AG]
W. A. Puckner and L. E. Warren
An abstract of an article concerning “anusol suppositories” was published in The Journal, Jan. 23, 1909. This gave the results of an analysis by a foreign chemist, J. F. Suyver, which were to the effect that “anusol suppositories” contained no “anusol.” Schering & Glatz, the American agents for “anusol” suppositories, took exceptions to the abstract, asked that The Journal retract, and submitted the findings of a chemist in support of their claim that the suppositories do contain “anusol.” To determine the composition of “anusol hemorrhoidal suppositories” as they are found on the American market, trade packages were purchased (April 6, 1909) and submitted to examination[90] in the Association’s laboratory.
According to the claims of the manufacturers, 12 suppositories contain:
| “Anusoli | 7.5 | grams. |
| “Zinc oxid | 6.0 | grams |
| “Balsam Peruv | 1.5 | grams |
| “Ol. theobrom | 19.0 | grams |
| “Ungt. cerat | 2.5 | grams” |
Calculated to percentages the formula reads:
| Anusoli | 20.54 | per cent. |
| Zinc oxid | 16.44 | per cent. |
| Balsam Peruv | 4.11 | per cent. |
| Ol. theobrom | 52.06 | per cent. |
| Ungt. cerat | 6.85 | per cent. |
When this product was submitted to the Council some time ago, Schering & Glatz stated that, according to the manufacturer, “anusol” is the “iodo resorcin sulphonate of bismuth, having the following rational formula: [C6H2ISO2.O(OH)2]3Bi. In the meta-dioxybenzol C6H4(OH)2, the resorcin, one H has been replaced by one I, and for another H the sulfonic-acid group SO2-OH has been substituted, so that meta-dioxybenzol is transformed into C6H2ISO2-OH(OH)2. In the sulfonic acid the H of OH is replaced by Bi and, as Bi is trivalent the above rational formula results.”
According to this formula “anusol” should contain:
| Iodin | 32.99 | per cent. |
| Sulphur | 8.34 | per cent. |
| Bismuth | 18.07 | per cent. |
And the “anusol” suppositories should contain:
| Iodin | 6.77 | per cent. |
| Sulphur | 1.71 | per cent. |
| Bismuth | 3.71 | per cent. |
Examination showed that the suppositories contain about 0.08 per cent. iodin, or 1.2 per cent. of the amount claimed; 0.28 per cent. sulphur, or 16.3 per cent. of what is claimed; 0.71 per cent. bismuth, or 19 per cent. of what is claimed; and zinc equivalent to 16.5 per cent. zinc oxid, or about 100 per cent. of claim.
From the standpoint of the iodin content alone, assuming that all of the iodin found is present in the form of “anusol,” the results of the examination of the product (as found on the American market) verifies, for all practical purposes, Suyver’s statement that “anusol suppositories contain no anusol,” for the quantity of iodin present is so minute (about 1⁄82 of that required by the formula) as to be unworthy of serious consideration. The presence of sulphid in appreciable amounts was demonstrated showing that the sulphur is present, at least in part, in the form of sulphid and not as sulphonate as is claimed. In a measure, too, this is in accord with the findings of Suyver, who concluded that, in the product which he examined, the bismuth was present in the form of sulphid. The proportions of sulphur and of bismuth (respectively about 1⁄6 and 1⁄5 of the required amounts) indicate still further that the product is not all that it is claimed to be.
A specimen submitted by Schering & Glatz to the Council two years ago contained 0.99 per cent. iodin, or 1.3 per cent. of the amount claimed; 0.23 per cent. sulphur, or 13.4 per cent. of the claimed amount; and 0.52 per cent. bismuth, or 14 per cent. of what is claimed by the formula. Since the above determinations were made another specimen of Anusol Hemorrhoidal Suppositories was received from Schering & Glatz, July 16, 1909. This sample was found to contain about: 0.075 per cent. iodin, or 1.1 per cent. of the amount required by the formula; 0.265 per cent. of sulphur, or 15.5 per cent. of the requirement and 0.88 per cent. bismuth, or 23.7 per cent. of the required amount. It will thus be seen that the composition of the oldest specimen and also that of the specimen recently sent, corresponds in a general way to that of the one first examined.
Whether judgment be based on the determination of the bismuth, the sulphur or the iodin, the results just given clearly show that the claims made concerning the composition of “Anusol Hemorrhoidal Suppositories” are not substantiated by the facts.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 2, 1909.)