A comparison of these formulas would justify the designation of the two preparations as twins, but even one twin may have a wart where the other lacks it. The formula of Pulv. Aseptinol Comp. given in the leaflet also includes Hydrastis canadensis, but we believe that a wart should be quite as much of an addition to the anatomy of man as the hydrastis is to this already preposterous formula. Similar as the formulas of these two nostrums were said to be, the general methods of exploiting them were even more similar. A partial list of the diseases for which each has been recommended by its exploiters shows the similarity of methods pursued:
| Tyree’s was Said to be Useful in the Treatment of: | Pulv. Aseptinol Comp. was Said to be Useful in the Treatment of: |
| Leucorrhea | Leucorrhea |
| Gonorrhea | Gonorrhea |
| Vaginitis | Vaginal inflammation |
| Pruritus | Pruritus |
| Ulcerated conditions of the mucous membrane | Ulceration of vagina or cervix |
| Scrofulous ulcers | Chronic ulcers |
| Syphilitic ulcers | Prophylactic against specific disease |
| Disinfecting offensive cavities | Cleansing pus cavities |
| Deodorant | Deodorant |
| Profuse and offensive perspiration | Checks abnormal secretion |
We stated that the formula furnished by Tyree was that given above, but the Council was never able to learn when Tyree actually employed the formula except for advertising purposes; and analysis of the powder showed that Tyree’s Antiseptic Powder was essentially a mixture of boric acid and zinc sulphate, with insignificant amounts of odorous principles.
A remarkable fact brought out in the course of the consideration of the preparation by the Council was that Tyree admitted that he had changed the formula without having published the new one. The Council then showed that a specimen of the “antiseptic” that had been kept in a retail drug store for several years was essentially similar to that sold at the later date. Thus it would seem that Mr. Tyree had been making his powder by one formula and publishing an entirely different one for years before the Council published the facts in the case.
If Tyree found it necessary to change the formula of his powder—if indeed, he ever used the published formula—why did the Aseptinol Manufacturing Company adopt it, or one so closely resembling it?
It is obvious that both of these twin nostrums are utterly unfit for treating the various conditions for which they are or have been recommended; and in view of the misrepresentation in one case, it is difficult to understand why it should be taken as the model for the other. Do physicians believe that a simple mixture of boric acid and zinc sulphate, or a mixture such as that given in the formula of “Aseptinol” powder, is in any way superior to a prescription such as any physician could write?
There is a far more important question to consider than the relative merits of such nostrums and a prescription of the physician’s own devising. That question is whether the medical profession is going to help perpetuate the chaotic conditions that the use of such nostrums fosters or to assist in therapeutic progress by maintaining its independence of such false teachers, and seeking to aid in the establishment of a rational use of drugs and remedial measures.—(From The Journal A. M. A., March 30, 1918.)