| Fellows’ Syrup of Hypophosphites | 1 | cover page |
| Kondon’s Catarrhal Jelly | 1⁄2 | page |
| Expurgo Anti-Diabetes | 1⁄2 | page |
| Laxol | 1⁄2 | page |
| Campho-Phénique | 1⁄2 | page |
| Palpebrine | 1⁄2 | page |
| Zumota | 1⁄2 | page |
| Sanmetto | 1⁄4 | page |
While in the reading pages the following products are puffed:
| Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder. | Dioxogen. |
| Waterbury’s Compound. | Palpebrine. |
| Papine. | Bannerman’s Intravenous Solution. |
| Kondon’s Catarrhal Jelly. | Daniel’s Concentrated Tincture of Passiflora. |
| Ranier Natural Soap. | Peacock’s Bromides. |
| Iodia (Battle). | Aletris Cordial Rio. |
| Creo-Derma. | Gonosan. |
| Fellows’ Syrup of Hypophosphites. | Digipuratum. |
| Tannalbin. | Dioradin. |
| Expurgo Anti-Diabetes. | Pepto-Fer. |
| Zumota. | Lactol. |
| Sulfothen. | Campho-Phénique. |
Summed up: The Army and Navy Medical Record is but another of the parasites of quackery. It is not entered as second-class matter and it has probably no bona-fide circulation. While it is claimed to be “Devoted to the Interest of the Medical and Surgical Corps of the Army and Navy, the Public Health Marine Hospital Service and the Red Cross Society” it is actually devoted to none of these. It is devoted to the exploitation of the advertising public for the special financial benefit of the man who calls himself its editor—Arthur G. Lewis. Advertising contracts are obtained under false and fraudulent pretenses. In brief, Arthur G. Lewis is using the good name of the various medical services of the United States government to further his swindling operations. He has written letters to honorable physicians making dishonest and insulting propositions to deceive and defraud the public. Editorial indorsements of the Army and Navy Medical Record mean nothing except that money has been paid for them. In short, the Army and Navy Medical Record is a fraud, and its “editor,” Arthur G. Lewis, a faker.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 25, 1913.)
THE MEDICAL TIMES ADVERTISEMENTS
In Which Are Discussed Some “Oversights” and the Ethics of Journalism
Two or three weeks ago we published letters from two physicians calling attention to an advertisement of a “cancer cure” hospital appearing in the Medical Times. As a result of The Journal’s comments, some of the physicians who were listed as “contributing editors” of the Medical Times wrote that they had requested that their names be withdrawn from this list. In reply to at least some of these letters, the editor of the Medical Times wrote asking them to reconsider their decision and offering as an excuse the statement that the appearance of the “cancer cure” hospital advertisement was an oversight. In this connection the following letter from the Medical Times, addressed to The Journal of the American Medical Association, is pertinent:
“Gentlemen:—We note in your issue of October 18 an article calling attention to an advertisement which appears in the columns of this journal, and to which your editor rightly objects.