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 In the meta-dioxybenzol C6H4(OH)2, the resorcin, one H has been replaced by one I, and for another H the sulfonic-acid group SO2-OH has been substituted, so that meta-dioxybenzol is transformed into C6H2ISO2-OH(OH)2.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: