The Propaganda for Reform in Proprietary Medicines, Vol. 2 of 2

by Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry

In December, 1918, Merck and Co. submitted another specimen and said: “We believe this is a better grade than we have been able to make in the recent past. It seems to meet all the tests for N. N. R., 1919, with two exceptions: these are (a) solubility in alcohol, and (b) the test for uncombined tribromphenol.{”}

When the two recent samples of bismuth tri­brom­phenate-Merck and two samples of Xeroform-Heyden were examined according to the new monograph the results given in Table 8 were obtained.

TABLE 8.—EXAMINATION OF TRIBROMPHENATE AND XEROFORM

1. BISMUTH.
Brand and Date Received	Weight Taken, Gm.	Weight of Bi2O3 Obtained, Gm.	Per Cent. of Bismuth, Gm.
Xeroform-Heyden (from mfr.) July, 1918	0.6754	0.3565	47.2
Xeroform-Heyden (open market) July, 1918	0.8259	0.6156	66.7
Bismuth tri­brom­phenate-Merck Nov., 1918	0.4882	0.2512	46.1
Bismuth tri­brom­phenate-Merck Dec., 1918	0.8869	0.4495	45.5

2. UNCOMBINED TRIBROMPHENOL.
Brand and Date Received	Weight Taken, Gm.	No. C.c. of Tenth-Normal NaOH Con- sumed, C.c.	Per Cent. of Free Tribromphenol
Xeroform-Heyden (from mfr.) July, 1918	1	7.4	24.5
Xeroform-Heyden (open market) July, 1918	1	0.7	2.3
Bismuth Tri­brom­phenate-Merck Nov., 1918	1	5.7	18.8
Bismuth Tri­brom­phenate-Merck Dec., 1918	1	5	16.5

In view of the laboratory’s report the referee of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry in charge of bismuth tri­brom­phenate recommended that the acceptance of Xeroform-Heyden and bismuth tri­brom­phenate-Merck be withdrawn, but that this should be without prejudice to their reinstatement when satisfactory products are again offered for sale. The Council adopted the recommendation of the referee and accordingly Xeroform-Heyden and bismuth tri­brom­phenate-Merck are omitted from New and Non­official Remedies, 1919.

When the laboratory’s findings with regard to Xeroform-Heyden and the action of the Council deleting the article from New and Non­official Remedies was reported to the Heyden Chemical Works, the firm expressed regret that efforts to produce a product equal to that formerly obtained from Germany had so far not been successful and announced that it had decided to withdraw Xeroform-Heyden from the market for the present. When Merck and Co. was advised in regard to the report of the laboratory and Council’s action, this firm questioned the feasibility of producing a product meeting the Council’s standards and suggested that the test for free tri­brom­phenol be revised to permit as much as 15 per cent. of this constituent. When Merck and Co. was reminded that its product submitted in 1915 essentially complied with the adopted standards (an old sample of Xeroform-Heyden was also found to comply) and that the estimate of the therapeutic value of bismuth tri­brom­phenate is based on a product essentially devoid of free tri­brom­phenol, the firm replied:

“As stated in our letter of the 12th inst., we do not wish to market the chemical unless it meets all legitimate requirements of the physicians that use it. If, therefore, your standard proves to be good and it is commercially possible to make supplies conforming to it, we shall do so. We shall discontinue the article unless it is of suitable quality.”—(From Reports A. M. A. Chemical Laboratory, 1918, p. 93.)

---