Nor is the case better on the experimental side. The statements of Hallion, Enriquez, Zuelzer and others[109] as to the existence of a “peristaltic hormone” not only have failed of confirmation, but also have been positively discredited. With regard to Draper’s work, which dealt with acute intestinal obstruction, it is difficult to see what is its relevance to the present issue, particularly since Draper’s results were obtained with a product derived from the mucosa of the jejunum and ileum and not with an extract of the duodenum such as Secretogen purports to be.
The innuendo that the Council discriminates in favor of certain manufacturers, is itself a confession of weakness.
In publishing this correspondence the Council’s sole object is to put the medical profession in possession of the exact facts of the case. These may fairly be summed up as follows:
1. Secretogen was originally marketed as a preparation containing secretin. None was found in it.
2. Notwithstanding proof of this fact, the G. W. Carnrick Company retain the original name of the product, knowing that, by its association with their former erroneous assertions concerning Secretogen, this name must inevitably convey to a physician using the product the impression that he is administering secretin. In the advertising literature no hint is given that this original statement was erroneous.
3. The product called “Secretogen” has not been shown, either experimentally and by sound clinical evidence, to possess useful therapeutic properties.
Under these circumstances the Council reaffirms its decision.—(From Reports of Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, 1916, p. 72.)