PONCA COMPOUND
Ponca Compound, also made by the Mellier Drug Company, St. Louis, is a “female weakness remedy” in tablet form. The name suggests that “ponca” is a medicinal substance, and, in fact, at one time, “Ext. Ponca” was named as an ingredient. The nature of “Ext. Ponca” was apparently never explained. It is now replaced in the “formula” by “senecin,” and the only information concerning the composition at present given is:
“Ponca Compound Tablets Contain Extract of Mitchella Repens, Senecin, Helonin, Caulophyllin and Viburnin.”
This “formula” is practically meaningless, not only because the amount of each ingredient is not stated, but also because “senecin,” “helonin,” “caulophyllin” and “viburnin” are in themselves variable mixtures of unknown composition.[13]
Presumably, “senecin,” “helonin,” “caulophyllin” and “viburnin” are extractives of some kind prepared, respectively, from senecio aureus (life root), helonias dioica (false unicorn), calophyllum thalictroides (blue cohosh) and viburnum prunifolium or opulus (black haw or cramp bark). These are, one and all, practically inert drugs. There is no reason to believe that any or all of them can have any beneficial influence in the many and varied conditions for which Ponca Compound is advertised.
The following are excerpts from the advertising matter:
“Ponca Compound is a remedy of a very beneficial character for Functional, Uterine and Ovarian troubles, which will respond to internal treatment, especially when digital examination or surgical interference is undesirable.”
“Ponca Compound is also valuable during gestation and after parturition.”
“Uterine Alterative for Leucorrhoea, Dysmenorrhoea, Amenorrhoea, Metritis, Endometritis, Menorrhagia, Metrorrhagia, Irregular Menstruation, Subinvolution, Painful Pregnancy.”
It is recommended that Tongaline and Ponca Compound and all their preparations be held in conflict with Rule 1, in view of their semisecret and indefinite composition; with Rule 6, for the grossly exaggerated therapeutic claims made for them; with Rule 8, because of their misleading names, and with Rule 10, in view of their unscientific character as irrational combinations. It is also recommended that this report be published.—(From The Journal A. M. A., July 17, 1915.)