COLLOSOL PREPARATIONS
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
The Council has adopted and authorized publication of the report which appears below declaring “Collosol Argentum,” “Collosol Arsenicum,” “Collosol Cocain,” “Collosol Cuprum,” “Collosol Ferrum,” “Collosol Hydrargyrum,” “Collosol Iodin,” “Collosol Manganese,” “Collosol Quinin” and “Collosol Sulphur” inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies, because their composition is uncertain (conflict with Rule 1). In the few cases in which the therapeutic claims for these preparations were examined, the claims were found to be so improbable or exaggerated (conflict with Rules 6 and 10) as to have necessitated the rejection of these products.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary
The Anglo-French Drug Co., Ltd., London and New York, in November, 1918, requested the Council to consider the products “Collosol Argentum,” “Collosol Arsenicum,” “Collosol Cocain,” “Collosol Cuprum,” “Collosol Ferrum,” “Collosol Hydrargyrum,” “Collosol Iodin,” “Collosol Manganese,” “Collosol Quinin” and “Collosol Sulphur.” The term “Collosol” appears to be a group designation for what are claimed to be permanent colloidal solutions, marketed by the Anglo-French Drug Co., Ltd. Were this claim correct, “Collosols” should contain their active constituents in the form of microscopic or ultramicroscopic suspensions, protected against spontaneous precipitation by the presence of proteins or some similar “stabilizers.”
According to the original patent specifications for Collosols, the metals are precipitated or treated with “peptone,” which acts as the suspending or stabilizing agent. The method of using the peptone makes it doubtful, in the first place, whether the major part of the metals is present in colloidal form, or merely in the form of peptonates, i. e., as ordinary salts. Moreover, the later patents indicate that the products have been unsatisfactory; “experience having shown that some metal colloids under certain conditions not yet fully understood have the tendency to break down after a certain period” (U. S. patent No. 1,116,247). Phenol, it is claimed has a tendency to counteract this decomposition, and the patent covers the use of phenol for this purpose.
It is difficult to see how phenol could possibly have such action. In fact, it obviously does not, for a number of the samples of Collosols submitted to the Council had separated. For instance, “Collosol Hydrargyrum” was not a colloidal solution at all, but a suspension of a coarse powder. The ampules of “Collosol Ferrum” contained a considerable quantity of flocculent precipitate. If either of these preparations were injected intravenously as directed, death might result, making the physician morally if not legally liable.
The recklessness of the claims is further illustrated by the advice that these indefinite mixtures of poisonous metals can be injected in unlimited quantities. Thus, Henry Crookes stated (Chemical News, May 7, 1914, p. 218) that Collosols “contain so small a proportion of metal, viz., 1 in 2000, that even a poisonous body like arsenic can be used with impunity.” He stated that they may be applied as a lotion, intramuscular or intravenous injection, and that “one pint or more can be injected intravenously.”
In the case of “Collosol Cocain,” as was brought out in the Council’s report published in The Journal, April 12, 1919, the manufacturers have admitted that the product is not what they have claimed—and still claim—for it. The report of the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory showed that “Collosol Cocain,” instead of containing 1 per cent. cocain as claimed, contained, in fact, at most not more than 0.4 per cent. cocain.
The report of the A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory on the Collosol products was sent by the Council to the New York office of the Anglo-French Drug Co., Ltd., in duplicate in order to facilitate reference to the London office. This was some months ago. The information which the Council requested has not yet been received, nor has the Anglo-French Drug Co., Ltd., indicated its intention of supplying such information. On the other hand, claims to which specific objection have been made, continue to appear in current advertising. Accordingly, the Council authorizes publication of this report, and declares the Collosol preparations previously named ineligible to New and Nonofficial Remedies.
Additional Notes on Collosol Evidence
In addition to the preceding the following notes of the referee on the evidence so far submitted were sent to the Anglo-French Drug Company, Ltd., for consideration:
Collosol Iodine: The leaflet which describes Collosol Iodine contains claims that are improbable, not in accord with accepted facts nor substantiated by evidence; for instance:
“This preparation contains Iodine in its most active form ...”
“The disadvantages of ‘iodism’ and nausea frequently associated with iodides never occur with Collosol Iodine.”
“In the case of Colloidal Iodine the whole of the Iodine is absorbed and enters into molecular combination with protein to form an iodo-amino acid and ... exerts a reducing action on the lipoids producing a different condition of the blood—hence the use of Iodine as an ‘alterative’.”
“Intravenously the action of Collosol Iodine is more rapid ... in cases of pyemia ... thus showing its absolute non-toxicity.”
“ ‘Per se’ Colloidal Iodine is only slightly parasitotropic and bacteriotropic but micro-organisms are very greatly influenced by its action, and not only is the effect of a subsequently administered remedy greatly increased but also the insoluble colloidal protein of serum itself is reduced to smaller particles, thus increasing its surface and adsorptive capacity and consequent germicidal power. In some cases the serum, thus aided, is enabled to throw off a milk microbial invasion. The above action can be readily demonstrated ‘in vitro’ by means of the ultramicroscope.”
“In Cancer, the intravenous injection of Collosol Iodine relieves pain, even where large dosage of morphine is ineffective.”
“In Rheumatism the ionic method of treatment with Collosol Iodine is strongly advised.”
“In Recovery from Alcoholism the internal administration of Collosol Iodine restores the normal condition of cell activity, ensuring rapid recovery.”
Collosol Hydrargyrum: This is said to be a preparation of colloidal mercury and would therefore be similar to Electromercurol (New and Nonofficial Remedies, 1919, p. 167). Colloidal mercury preparations have been used to some extent; they appear to have no decided advantage over other, noncolloidal, mercury compounds. They differ sufficiently from them, however, to justify acceptance for New and Nonofficial Remedies, providing that reasonable claims are made for them. The leaflet advertising Collosol Hydrargyrum contains statements that cannot be accepted and require thorough revision to make them acceptable. The following are instances:
“Although—especially locally—the action of mercurials is markedly antiseptic, when taken internally or injected, it has been stated by some of the best known authorities, that their action is rather to increase the natural resisting power of the body to disease, probably because of stimulation of the oxidases.”
With the soluble mercurials “considerable upset of the normal cell conditions of the tissues ensues whilst these soluble salts are being converted to a condition in which the body can make use of them.”
“The colloidal state ... is stated by some authorities in the case of mercury to be invariably precedent to absorption.... With the usual forms of mercury the danger of too great a dose per cell is considerable, but in the case of colloidal mercury, the diffusion is extremely rapid and chemical affinity low. Hence the danger to the individual leucocyte is minimized and the maximum effect obtained.”
“... absence of pain is usual in the administration of colloidal preparations and is due to their isomorphism with the colloidal lipoid and protein of the tissues and body fluids.”
“According to McDonagh,... mercury acts as an oxidizing agent and that the process of oxidation is more effective in the early stages of syphilis in producing the death of the causal organism ...”
Collosol Manganese: The circular submitted to the referee is a reprint of a paper by Sir Malcolm Morris on “The Treatment of Furunculosis and Other Deep-Seated Coccogenic Infections by Collosol Manganese.” It reports four cases of furunculosis, each of which cleared up after the intramuscular injection of a few doses of Collosol Manganese. The author seems to attribute the cure to the manganese but the evidence is not convincing. Even the author admits that, in the treatment of furunculosis in general “when at last the dismal procession ends, this often appears to be less the result of treatment than because the disease has run its natural course.” Unless much better evidence is in existence, the preparation must be considered to conflict with Rule 6, which requires therapeutic claims to be substantiated.
Collosol Argentum: The evidence submitted as to actions consists of a single reprint by Roe, which is not convincing, and this fantastic statement by Boys:
“A young girl, aged 18, came to my house with acute inflammation of one eye with an ulcer on the cornea. Two drops of Collosol Argentum were dropped in the eye at 7 p. m., and a pad placed over the eye. When she came next morning the eye was quite well; the ulcer had disappeared, and there was no inflammation.”
There is no evidence that this preparation acts as catalyzer and assists the natural resisting bodies of the tissues; or that these are “oxygen carriers.” Unless the claims are supported by better evidence, they, in the opinion of the referee, could not be accepted.
There have been submitted to the Council samples of the following metallic Collosols:
| Collosol Argentum | Collosol Ferrum |
| Collosol Arsenicum | Collosol Hydrargyrum |
| Collosol Cuprum | Collosol Manganese |
Also Collosols of Iodine and Sulphur, and finally Collosols of Cocain and Quinin. Of all the above, except sulphur, only three small ampules have been submitted. This does not admit of any chemical examination but a statement of the physical appearance may be of interest.
Collosol Arsenicum, 0.2 per cent.: Very turbid with large quantities of a lemon yellow flocculent precipitate. On shaking does not become homogeneous and rapidly separates again.
Collosol Argentum, 1-2000: The liquid has a slight opalescence. There is considerable deposit of a heavy black precipitate. Does not become homogeneous on shaking and the black substance quickly separates again.
Collosol Cuprum, 0.5 per cent.: Dark red somewhat opalescent liquid. No precipitate. May be colloidal.
Collosol Ferrum, 1-2000: Liquid clear. Large quantities of dark brown flocculent precipitate. The precipitate is not distributed evenly when the mixture is shaken and settles out quickly on standing.
Collosol Hydrargyrum, 5 per cent.: Milky liquid. Large quantities of white deposit mixed with considerable black. The deposit mixes fairly well but the greater part settles out after standing an hour or two.
Collosol Manganese, 2.5-1000: Clear reddish-brown liquid without deposit of any kind. Is not opalescent or fluorescent.
Collosol Iodin, 1-500: Very pale straw colored liquid without deposit. Has a slight opalescence.
Collosol Sulphur, 1-100: Liquid is opalescent. There is some deposit of yellow particles. A four ounce bottle was also submitted. The liquid in this bottle is milky with considerable deposit of yellow crystals like ordinary crystalline sulphur.
Collosol Cocain, 1-100: Transparent, colorless liquid with no deposit. Chemical examination showed 0.4 per cent. of what may have been cocain. This residue gave alkaloidal tests.
Collosol Quinin, 1-100: Slightly opalescent, colorless liquid, with no deposit. Gives alkaloidal reactions.—(From The Journal A. M. A., June 7, 1919.)