[Article VIII]
Tyree’s Antiseptic and Aseptinol
It may seem paradoxic to say that recent progress in the medical sciences has made therapeutic chaos possible, but it is true nevertheless. Revolutions are sometimes slow and orderly, sometimes sudden and attended with confusion. The revolutionary changes in the medical sciences have been so numerous and so rapid that the general practitioner has been unable to keep pace with them, and in the resulting confusion the nostrum maker has seen his opportunity for exploiting his useless, dangerous or unscientific preparations. The greater the confusion, the greater his opportunity; and it is no exaggeration to say that he has been the most potent factor in maintaining the chaos of therapeutics.
The majority of our readers would probably say that the existing scientific medical literature insures the permanence of established beliefs, but every one who has delved into the literature has found instances of truths that had been established and forgotten—buried under the ever-increasing avalanche of contributions to that literature.
Typical half-page Tyree advertisement appearing in medical journals.
Rapid advances are still being made in the medical sciences and unless constant vigilance is exercised therapeutics will return to the chaotic condition from which it has so recently emerged. It was in recognition of these facts—the danger of this return to chaos, and the difficulty, in fact, impossibility, of any individual’s keeping pace with all of the medical sciences—that the American Medical Association secured the cooperation of men in various branches of medicine in the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, in order that it may place the results of therapeutic progress before the readers of The Journal in an impartial manner.
Are you profiting by this work, or are you still depending on your unaided efforts to distinguish the false teachings of the nostrum venders from that of scientific medicine? Are you prescribing “Antikamnia” and “Ammonol” or a simple member of the group, such as acetanilid or phenacetin? Are you depending on “Tyree’s Antiseptic,” so called, or are you using an antiseptic about which there is no mystery, for which no false claims are made, and one which is really effective? In short, are you using drugs of unquestioned value, such as are described in “Useful Drugs,” or are you taking your therapeutic instructions from nostrum makers’ circulars?
Perhaps you have been led to believe that the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry is composed of “theorists” and that the nostrums represent the work of “practical men.” Every one should strive to be practical, of course, and it is worth while to inquire whether scientific experimenters, who so largely mold medical literature, should be termed theorists, or practical men. A practical man practices that which is useful in the treatment of the sick, and he must determine who is capable of furnishing him with a better materia medica. A perusal of medical literature will convince any unbiased mind that medical science progresses only by means of experiment, hence experimenters must be considered the really practical men while those who cling to outworn theories are really the “theorists.”
Typical Aseptinol advertisement.
When Lister introduced antiseptic methods into surgery he inaugurated a veritable revolution, which afforded the nostrum makers opportunities for reaping rich harvests through the exploitation—under extraordinary claims—of cheap mixtures of little, or no, value. There is no lack of antiseptics of extraordinary activity in the test tube that are practically harmless to man, and it would seem natural to suppose that such antiseptics could be used to control the development of bacteria in such diseases as typhoid fever, but, unfortunately, such hopes have not been fulfilled. Ehrlich experimented with many phenol derivatives that showed decided antiseptic activity in the test tube, in the hope that he might find some that could be used to combat such common diseases as diphtheria and typhoid fever, but while many of these are of low toxicity for man, he was unable to find even one that could be used effectively in the treatment of any of these diseases. His discovery of arsphenamin (“salvarsan”) resulted from quite another type of investigation.
Many practitioners lose sight of the essential difference between antiseptics and disinfectants and employ antiseptics in cases in which only a disinfectant action would be of value. An antiseptic does not destroy bacteria, it merely inhibits their growth; and when it is diluted too much, it loses its effects and the bacteria may begin to multiply as though no antiseptic had been used. This is especially true after the use of weak antiseptics in the mouth. These are soon diluted or removed by the saliva, and the bacteria continue to multiply with only a momentary interruption at best; hence to advise the use of an oral antiseptic as an effective means of treating diphtheria is little short of criminal.
“Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder” was submitted to the Council nearly twelve years ago. The label on the package stated:
“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.”
One of the older newspaper advertisements of Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder.
A leaflet issued several years ago by the Aseptinol Manufacturing Company states that “Pulv. Aseptinol Comp.” combines in an elegant form boric acid, the salts of aluminum, crystallized phenol, and the active crystalline principles of thymus, mentha and gaultheria.
A comparison of these formulas would justify the designation of the two preparations as twins, but even one twin may have a wart where the other lacks it. The formula of Pulv. Aseptinol Comp. given in the leaflet also includes Hydrastis canadensis, but we believe that a wart should be quite as much of an addition to the anatomy of man as the hydrastis is to this already preposterous formula. Similar as the formulas of these two nostrums were said to be, the general methods of exploiting them were even more similar. A partial list of the diseases for which each has been recommended by its exploiters shows the similarity of methods pursued:
| Tyree’s was Said to be Useful in the Treatment of: | Pulv. Aseptinol Comp. was Said to be Useful in the Treatment of: |
| Leucorrhea | Leucorrhea |
| Gonorrhea | Gonorrhea |
| Vaginitis | Vaginal inflammation |
| Pruritus | Pruritus |
| Ulcerated conditions of the mucous membrane | Ulceration of vagina or cervix |
| Scrofulous ulcers | Chronic ulcers |
| Syphilitic ulcers | Prophylactic against specific disease |
| Disinfecting offensive cavities | Cleansing pus cavities |
| Deodorant | Deodorant |
| Profuse and offensive perspiration | Checks abnormal secretion |
We stated that the formula furnished by Tyree was that given above, but the Council was never able to learn when Tyree actually employed the formula except for advertising purposes; and analysis of the powder showed that Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder was essentially a mixture of boric acid and zinc sulphate, with insignificant amounts of odorous principles.
A remarkable fact brought out in the course of the consideration of the preparation by the Council was that Tyree admitted that he had changed the formula without having published the new one. The Council then showed that a specimen of the “antiseptic” that had been kept in a retail drug store for several years was essentially similar to that sold at the later date. Thus it would seem that Mr. Tyree had been making his powder by one formula and publishing an entirely different one for years before the Council published the facts in the case.
If Tyree found it necessary to change the formula of his powder—if indeed, he ever used the published formula—why did the Aseptinol Manufacturing Company adopt it, or one so closely resembling it?
It is obvious that both of these twin nostrums are utterly unfit for treating the various conditions for which they are or have been recommended; and in view of the misrepresentation in one case, it is difficult to understand why it should be taken as the model for the other. Do physicians believe that a simple mixture of boric acid and zinc sulphate, or a mixture such as that given in the formula of “Aseptinol” powder, is in any way superior to a prescription such as any physician could write?
There is a far more important question to consider than the relative merits of such nostrums and a prescription of the physician’s own devising. That question is whether the medical profession is going to help perpetuate the chaotic conditions that the use of such nostrums fosters or to assist in therapeutic progress by maintaining its independence of such false teachers, and seeking to aid in the establishment of a rational use of drugs and remedial measures.—(From The Journal A. M. A., March 30, 1918.)