It is futile to discuss the therapeutic claims made for the various preparations put out by the Lucas Laboratories. One might as profitably discuss the therapeutic claims made for “Peruna” or “Paine’s Celery Compound” for the exploitation of the latter products is on just as high a scientific plane as the exploitation of the “Luvein” nostrums. The proposition offered to physicians by the Lucas Laboratories, Inc., is an insult to the intelligence of the medical profession. Not that the products themselves are necessarily any worse or any better than many offered for intravenous use; the selling methods are more crude, that is all.
The facts are, we have entered a new cycle of nostrum development. The unscientific mixtures for oral administration that characterized so large and disreputable a part of the proprietary medicine business of the past two or three decades are giving way to equally unscientific mixtures for intravenous use. The dangers of the older nostrums are accentuated in the newer by the added element of risk that is inseparable from intravenous therapy. Add to this the temptation to the physician in the way of more substantial fees which, legitimately enough, may be charged when intravenous administration is called for, and the menace of the new style nostrum becomes evident. The Journal can only reiterate the warning that intravenous therapy should be employed only when most positively indicated. Further, because of the danger that is inseparable from this method of drug administration, physicians should be doubly careful to see that products employed for intravenous use come from firms of unquestioned scientific standing.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 20, 1919.)
“PHYLACOGENS” [O]
A physician in Florida writes:
“I am enclosing a copy of a circular letter just received from Parke, Davis & Company, and will call your attention to a marked paragraph in this letter on which I would like to have an expression of your opinion.”
The circular letter which the doctor forwards is devoted to singing the praises of “Pneumonia Phylacogen.” It opens with the statement: “Influenza, we learn, has appeared in your section.” The paragraph marked by our correspondent reads:
“Pneumonia Phylacogen has been found to be a dependable means of preventing and treating pneumonic complications of Influenza. In one large city it became a routine measure to give all persons affected with Influenza an injection of Pneumonia Phylacogen as a prophylactic of pneumonia. The results were remarkable. Not only did the cases improve rapidly, but in a great majority of them the pneumonia did not occur.”
The “Phylacogens” were repeatedly discussed in The Journal during 1913 and 1914 when these products were being pushed with much vigor by the manufacturers. We know of no evidence that calls for a revision of the statements then made regarding them. The injection of phylacogens is simply the administration of a mixture of the filtered products of several bacterial species. The results which follow represent the reaction of the bacterial protein—a reaction for good or evil. There is no scientific evidence to show that they possess any specific prophylactic virtue. To recommend their use in cases of influenza, as a prophylactic against pneumonia, is unwarranted, and the physician who acts on the advice of the manufacturer must assume the responsibility for the results. In case of mishap he cannot fall back on the manufacturer; he will find no scientific evidence to support him.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Nov. 15, 1919.)