Until these questions have been satisfactorily answered, the element of mystery about the composition of Dioradin cannot be cleared away.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
The available experimental evidence regarding “Dioradin” is restricted to some quotations from its inventor Szendeffy, in the paper of Bernheim and Dieupart (p. 334). These, if confirmed, would show that radium alone has practically no effect on cultures of tubercle or colon bacilli; that 0.1 gm. of “iode-menthol” (concentration not stated) checks the growth of the acid-fast organisms; and that this antiseptic efficiency can be nearly doubled by the addition of a little radium. No quantitative data are given, so that it is difficult to judge the accuracy of the observation. Granting that it is correct, it would have little bearing on the therapeutic actions of Dioradin, for there is nothing to show that the effective test-tube concentration is reached in the pulmonary tissues.
It is also claimed that the injection of Dioradin prevents tubercle infection. The referee believes that the Council and the medical profession should hesitate to accept this conclusion without further details; and these would require confirmation by unprejudiced observers.
CLINICAL EVIDENCE
The Dioradin Company submits considerable clinical data in favor of Dioradin. It must be remembered that most favorable opinions have been published, from time to time, about scores of “consumption cures,” which have mysteriously lost their efficiency when their novelty wore away. There is no more reason to doubt the good faith of those who are enthusiastic about Dioradin than of those who have been enthusiastic about other “cures.” There appear to be features in the course of tuberculosis which make the judgment of therapeutic measures peculiarly difficult. It is possible that impartial clinical trials of Dioradin by tuberculosis experts appointed by the Council might facilitate judgment as to the actual efficiency of Dioradin. The referee doubts, however, whether this would advance the Council very much toward the acceptance of the substance. Such an investigation would be so lengthy that it should not be undertaken until the Dioradin Company itself has offered at least presumptive evidence in this direction, especially in view of the adverse report recently made by Cecil Wall.[45] Ten tuberculous patients were treated by Wall in strict accordance with the method outlined to him by Bernheim, yet Wall concludes that none of the cases, though treated accurately in accordance with the instructions, can be quoted to justify any of the claims for the therapeutic efficiency of Dioradin. The Council cannot undertake lengthy investigations of this character until it is put in possession of data which would show to its satisfaction that such investigations would probably be fruitful.
CONCLUSIONS
From investigations made, it appears that the claims in regard to the composition of Dioradin have contained vague statements and contradictions which arouse a feeling of uncertainty and lack of confidence. Until this uncertainty is cleared away, Dioradin cannot be considered as complying with Rule 1. The experimental data are insufficient and unconvincing. Some favorable clinical reports have been submitted, but the accuracy of the observations is to be questioned and they are more than offset by the negative results observed by Cecil Wall. As might be expected, other negative results, if observed, have not been submitted and there is nothing in the manufacturer’s claim to show whether the improvement reported is really due to the peculiar mixture called Dioradin or to any one of its ingredients.
It is therefore recommended that Dioradin be not accepted for New and Nonofficial Remedies. In view of the extensive advertising of this preparation and because of the admittedly incorrect statements in the earlier papers it is recommended that publication of this report be authorized.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 26, 1912.)