The formula for this nostrum is never published, although in some of the advertising matter it is claimed that it is “at the disposal of physicians.” A physician wrote to the Expurgo Manufacturing Company, asking for the formula. He was told that the preparation was “exclusively derived from the vegetable kingdom,” from which one may recognize a family likeness to the “dope” put out by the immortal Lydia Pinkham. Further, to copy the letter exactly:
“The ingredients of which Antidiabetes is composed are chiefly:
“fructus syzigii jambulani
“cortex syzigii jambulani
“flores Rosmarini
“fructus Anisi stellati
“Extr. fl. Colæ
“Extr. fl. Condurango
“Extr. fl. Chinæ spir. spiss.
“Extr. fl. Calami
“Extr. fl. Gentianæ.”
The recipient of this noncommittal and uninforming “formula” again wrote the Expurgo Manufacturing Company, asking for quantities. Evidently this nostrum concern considered such a request a piece of impertinent inquisitiveness, for it replied to the physician in these terms, given verbatim et literatim:
“Dear Sir:—Yours of the 16th duly to hand. We note that you state ‘... I do not like to be working in the dark, and you can readily see that this is the case unless I know how much of each ingredient I am giving....’
“In your letter of the 6th you asked for the composition, which you promptly received. We would like to state that we are dealing with about 600 Doctors. Some of them asked for the formula, which they received. They are all very conscientious gentlemen and none of them ever pretended ‘to work in the dark.’ You know furthermore that none of these ingredients is harmful in any way and yet ‘work in the dark.’ You know that if there were any harmful ingredients in our preparations, we would expose ourselves to imprisonment. If you are so anxious to know all about it, why do you not analyse our medicine? This would enlighten you in your ‘perfect darkness.’ If you want to deprive your patients and yourselves of the indisputable good of our preparations, simply do not prescribe them. Why finally do you not write to the Doctors whose names we gave, who know enough to be able to enlighten those who need it.
Truly yours
The Expurgo Mfg. Co.,
C. M. v. Amerongen, Manager.
More than a year ago, a Wisconsin physician, himself a sufferer from diabetes, wrote The Journal that for three months he had been using Expurgo Anti-Diabetes which the Expurgo people had sent him. He declared that the nostrum had greatly reduced the percentage of sugar in his urine. In its reply, The Journal asked him whether, in testing his urine he had used portions of twenty-four hour specimens or merely individual specimens. His attention was called to the fact that most of the nostrums for diabetes are diuretics which, by increasing the amount of urine passed, give an apparent decrease in the amount of sugar excreted. A few days later, the physician wrote again, stating that he had committed the very error The Journal had suspected, and reporting that an examination of a twenty-four-hour specimen showed that the glucose-excretion, instead of being diminished, actually increased. This matter was referred to editorially in The Journal, Nov. 9, 1912, under the title, “A Possible Fallacy in Testing Diabetic Urine.”
Specimens of Expurgo Anti-Diabetes were examined in the Association’s laboratory and the chemist’s report follows: