TABLE 3.—DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION BY DR. KEIDEL
| Case | No. | Prepar- ation | Local Reaction | Total Amount Solution Given, C.c. | Duration of Treatment | Effect on Wasser- mann | Type of Case | Result | General Remarks |
| 1 | 3 | 2 | OOO | 3 | 6 da. | + | Latent | ||
| 2 | 5 | 2 | MOSMS | 5.6 | 9 da. | + | Gummas | Marked improvement | |
| 3 | 7 3 | 1 2 | MMM; others U UUU | 9.5 | 3 mo. | – to + | Latent | ||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | U | 0.75 | ... | + | Latent | ||
| 5 | 4 | 1 | SSSM | 4.4 | 9 da. | – | Gummas | After 4th injection, developed diarrhea; melena | |
| 6 | 9 | 1 | OOUMSOSMU | 9.1 | 1 mo. | – | Latent | ||
| 7 | 2 | 3 | MM | 3.8 | 2 da. | + | Latent | Well tolerated | |
| 8 | 7 | 2 | OOOOMOU | 9.6 | 17 da. | + to + | Primary | Primary healed | |
| 9 | 4 | 1 | SMMU | 5.5 | 9 da. | + | Gumma | Improved | |
| 10 | 3 | 3 | MSS | 3 | 6 da. | + | Palmar syphilis; tertiary | Markedly improved | |
| 11 | 7 | 3 | MSMMMMM | 10.6 | 13 da. | + to + | Latent | ||
| 12 | 3 2 | 2 1 | MMO SM | 5.4 | 14 da. | + | Secondary (papular) | Rash disappearing | Developed toxic erythema on thighs. Cleared up on stopping HgCl2 and under local treatment |
| 13 | 10 | 3 | MMMMMMMM MMU | 12.6 | 20 da. | + to + | Secondary (lichen syph.) | Rash not improved | Small induration following injection of 1.2 c.c. |
| 14 | 6 2 | 2 1 | OOMSMM SM | 7.2 | 17 da. | + to + | Old cerebro- spinal syphilis | Responded to doses of 1 c.c. with salivation; fever after injection of 1.2 c.c. | |
| 15 | 4 | 1 | SOMS | 4.2 | 7 da. | + to + | Secondary (condylomas) | No improvement | |
| 16 | 9 2 | 3 2 | OMOMMSMSO SO | 10.4 | 12 da. | + | Secondary (pustular syph.) | Pustules dried up; head- ache and fever gone | Slight gingivitis following dose of 1.5 c.c. |
| 17 | 5 2 | 1 2 | SSMSU MS | 13.3 | 18 da. | + to + | Tertiary; aortitis | General condition im- proved | |
| 2 | 3 | MS | |||||||
| 18 | 4 | 2 | OOMM | 9.5 | 13 da. | – to + | Latent | ||
| 2 | 1 | MM | Markedly improved | ||||||
| 19 | 2 | 3 | MU | 2.5 | 5 da. | + | Gumma | ||
| 20 | 5 2 | 2 3 | MMMMO MS | 9 | 14 da. | + to + | Latent | Marked general improvement | Small induration following No. 3 |
CORPORA LUTEA (SOLUBLE EXTRACT), PARKE, DAVIS & CO.
Report of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry
Following inquiries, the Council took up for consideration “Corpora Lutea (Soluble Extract),” marketed by Parke, Davis & Co. in the form of ampules and proposed for hypodermic administration. The report which appears below was submitted to the Council by a committee, and was adopted by the Council. Corpora Lutea (Soluble Extract) was declared inadmissible to New and Nonofficial Remedies, and publication of the report authorized.
W. A. Puckner, Secretary.
Corpora Lutea (Soluble Extract) has not been submitted by the manufacturer. The information of the referee is based, therefore, on the claims made in the trade package, and on the statements in the price list. These show that the product is essentially secret and claims made for the actions and uses of the preparation do not make clear the essentially experimental status of the article, and are therefore misleading.
Conflict with Rule 1.—No definite statement of composition appears beyond the indefinite claim that it is an aqueous solution of “soluble Corpora Lutea Extract,” each ampule corresponding to 0.2 Gm. of desiccated gland. How these soluble products are obtained, whether they represent all the water-soluble principles, or whether some have been eliminated, are questions that are not answered. Yet such information is essential to intelligent and scientific use, for, as there is no method of standardization, the method of preparation is the only mark of identity. For instance, we do not know at this time whether proteins have anything to do with the supposed value of corpora lutea. It is, therefore, essential to know whether or not the proteins have been eliminated.