3. The value of clinical evidence when unsupported by an animal experimentation is much diminished by the tendency of enthusiastic and untrained observers to attribute to the drug given the effect really due to general remedial measures, psychic suggestion and so forth. While it must be admitted that valuable remedies may exist whose therapeutic properties cannot be revealed by animal experimentation, yet in the absence of such experimental evidence conclusions should be drawn with extreme caution.
Bearing these conditions in mind, the following statements seem to be justified: (a) The botanical, chemical and pharmaceutical properties of cactus are not sufficiently determined to make any available preparation a reliable remedy. (b) There is some evidence that cactus may be capable of affecting the animal heart and nervous system, but its action is not that ordinarily attributed to it. It does not increase the force of the heart-beat. (c) While there is some clinical testimony as to its usefulness in functional diseases of the heart, the indications for its administration are at present too uncertain to afford a safe basis for recommending it.
4. While the drug may be deserving of further experimental and clinical investigation, this should be carried on in reliable pharmacologic laboratories and in clinics provided with facilities for exact observation.—(From The Journal A. M. A., March 12, 1910.)
CALCREOSE
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
In response to inquiries and in view of the extensive advertising propaganda, the Council, on Dec. 19, 1913, took up for consideration Calcreose (Maltbie Chemical Company, Newark, N. J.). Examination showed that the preparation contained, in loose combination, approximately equal weights of creosote and lime. The claims made in the advertising “literature” were extravagant and uncritical, and the Council therefore held Calcreose ineligible for New and Nonofficial Remedies.
In June, 1914, at the request of the Maltbie Chemical Company, the Council undertook a reconsideration of the preparation. The advertising claims were now found more conservative. Before the existing claims could be judged, however, the Council deemed it necessary to require from the company satisfactory proof (1) that the large doses of Calcreose recommended and administered actually furnish large amounts of creosote to the blood, and (2) that patients taking these large doses do not suffer from digestive disturbances, loss of nutrition, albumin in the urine or phenol urine, as claimed. The Council accordingly advised the company of this requirement, at the same time stipulating that nothing in the report should be interpreted as indicating a belief on the part of the Council that enormous doses of creosote are necessary for, or will promote a cure of tuberculosis.
The Maltbie Chemical Company has not up to the present date furnished this proof, but has evinced a disposition to make the Council’s holding Calcreose under advisement appear in the guise of a quasi-approval. It is therefore recommended that Calcreose be refused recognition for conflict with Rule 6.—(From the Journal A. M. A., June 26, 1915.)