Admixture of Oil with Other Ingredients of Stool.—Generally well mixed, but from time to time a patient would have a stool of free oil. This occurred with all varieties of oil. (It necessitated reduction of the dose, and if then the bowels were not active enough, the administration in addition of cascara, aloin, etc.)
Leakage About the Anus.—A disagreeable feature complained of by many is that when they take enough of the oil to move the bowels, there is sufficient leakage from the anus to keep the neighboring skin continually in a greasy condition, and sometimes to stain the clothes. That there is any difference in this regard between the oils has not been determined.
In the reports, one clinician noted no differences that were not negligible. Another was slightly in favor of No. 2 (heavy Russian) as regards taste. A third reporter did not make comparative tests. A fourth is slightly in favor of “B” (heavy Russian) as regards taste and general suitability. All of the findings of this investigation are based on hospital cases. A fifth reporter favored No. 1 (light Russian petrolatum). He considered it the most prompt in its effect, the most uniform in results, and the most prone to give a satisfactory admixture of the oil with the other materials. The difference, however, from the other oils was not marked. Another reporter noted no special differences.
SUMMARY
The results of this clinical investigation appear to warrant the conclusion that so far as therapeutic results are concerned the differences in the action of the three varieties of liquid petrolatum, namely, light Russian liquid petrolatum, heavy Russian liquid petrolatum and American liquid petrolatum, are too slight to be of importance. Hence the choice between the lighter and the heavier oils, and between the Russian and the American is an open one, to be determined not by therapeutic differences, but by palatability, dependent on the degree to which the refinement of the oil is carried out. The U. S. Pharmacopeia, the revision of which is now nearing completion, no doubt will furnish standards which will insure a suitable product. From the findings of the foregoing report it would appear that a satisfactory standard might permit the use of either Russian or American oil, if suitably refined so as to be as nearly as possible devoid of odor and taste.—(From The Journal A. M. A., March 6, 1915.)
ANGIER’S EMULSION[AD]
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
Angier’s Emulsion is essentially a petroleum product. When it was first put on the market commercial interests had been fostering the idea that petroleum products had food-value, and the manufacturers of Angier’s Emulsion, making use of the idea, advertised it as a “food-medicine” and an “ideal substitute for cod-liver oil.” The impression thus created has been kept alive through persistent advertising in spite of scientific proof to the contrary. To-day many who know that petroleum products have no food-value are still likely unconsciously to class Angier’s Emulsion among nutrients. Although the manufacturers now advertise this product as “purely mechanical in its action,” they yet show a disposition to profit by the old misapprehension, since, so far from expressly disavowing the old claims as erroneous, they mingle with the new ones vague claims of “tonic and reconstructive merits” apparently designed to sustain, in those who do not take time to consider the evidence carefully, the old faith in the claimed nutritive qualities of the preparation.
While the Council judges a preparation by the claims made for it at present, and not by any past misstatements when these have been thoroughly corrected, the past advertising of Angier’s Emulsion so instructively illuminates the scientific worthlessness of proprietary therapeutic claims in general, and the whole course of its history is so typical that the referee has thought it well to review the subject briefly. The Council has authorized the publication of the following report.