The Propaganda for Reform in Proprietary Medicines, Vol. 1 of 2

by Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry

Boinet and Boy-Teissier found that therapeutic doses of 40 drops of tincture of cactus were without effect on the normal heart. In patients with noisy asystole (asystolie bruyante) the same dose produced no appreciable effect. In the period of latent non-compensation of true cardiac patients, from 80 to 100 drops a day increased the force of the failing heart. In patients with secondary heart disease with arrhythmia of nervous origin, daily doses of 80, 100 and 120 drops of the tincture were well tolerated for weeks; they seemed to increase the fulness of the pulse and regulated its rhythm. In spite of such large doses, these observers never noticed any symptoms that could be attributed to a cumulative action. It must be remembered that the precise preparation of cactus which they used is not known.

Aulde[16] recommends it as a cardiac tonic free from cumulative effects.

Gordon Sharp says: “The therapeutics of the subject, I think, are clear enough. Cactus grandiflorus cannot be included in our list of cardiac drugs. It is not even a simple stomachic tonic and at most all one can say is that it has small diuretic action.”

Hatcher says: “Clinical testimony is so conflicting that between the extreme views of Gordon Sharp and those of Ellingwood there is room for an honest difference of opinion concerning cactus grandiflorus.”

Matthews himself took 100 granules of cactin (¹⁄₆₇ gr.—1 mg. each), 25 every four hours, without experiencing the least effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliable conclusions regarding the therapeutic use of cactus grandiflorus are rendered difficult on account of several factors.

1. It is uncertain what part of the plant contains the active principle if one exists; and its nature is unknown. The National Standard Dispensatory states that its “activity must be confined to the flower in some special stage of its development or to a certain part of it or to some parts gathered with it.” This uncertainty may explain the negative results obtained by some observers, but it makes the drug one that cannot be generally relied on and gives an excellent opportunity for the exploitation of proprietary preparations.

2. Some of the experimental work and much of the clinical evidence has been obtained and published under proprietary auspices. For this reason many of the therapeutic claims made for the drug must be viewed as merely the reflection of the exaggerated statements made by the advertisers of proprietary preparations.