We are told that
“As a hematinic, the protochloride of iron justifies the confidence of the medical profession.”
“The protochloride, more than any other salt of iron, stimulates the paptic [sic] and hydrochloric glandular system of the stomach, increasing the flow of acid gastric juice.”
It is unnecessary to discuss the truth or falsity of these assertions, since Three Chlorides does not contain the protochlorid of iron. For the same reason, it is obvious that the small amount of iron which it contains is the only possible justification for the claim that the preparation is
“... Non-Productive of ... Constipation or Teeth Discoloration.”
It is hardly necessary to point out that it is a therapeutic exaggeration to claim that Three Chlorides is of particular value in the treatment of tertiary syphilis, that in eczema it is “the most effective remedy,” that in any form of constipation it is “the remedy par excellence,” or that
“After arresting malarial attacks with quinine, the combination of iron, arsenic and mercury with calisaya is an essential requisite.”
“Whenever gastric troubles and digestive disturbances furnish a contra-indication to iron, this contra-indication disappears when the iron is combined with arsenic.”
“The simultaneous exhibition of small doses of arsenic and bichloride of mercury, besides augmenting the effect of iron upon the red blood-cells, completely obviates the tendency to vascular congestion and hemorrhage.”
Finally, the suggestion that by the use of Three Chlorides iodids may be prevented from causing iodism is absurd.