Chapter IV deals with “Some Aspects of Liquor Legislation.” Like Chapter II it is an indictment of prohibition, and the United States Census Bureau’s reports are called on to sustain this thesis. Quotations, too, are made from the writings of Henry Smith Williams further to prove the point. “Dry” Kansas and “wet” Nebraska are frequently compared, to the detriment of the former. One who accepts the statements in this chapter will get the impression that Kansas has more lawlessness, illiteracy, pauperism, and insanity than Nebraska.
Chapter V deals with “The Problem of Legislation.” It is based on the premise that “prohibition does not prevent the consumption of liquor,” but on the contrary, “prohibitive legislation induces the consumption of the most harmful form of liquors.” Stated in another way, it is equivalent to charging that prohibition is hard on the brewers, but beneficial to the distillers. In fact, E. H. Williams, in another book (“The Question of Alcohol”—Goodhue Co.) which also champions the case for the milder alcoholics, quotes Henry Smith Williams as saying, relative to prohibitory legislation: “In general, it would appear that, if our legislators of recent years had been in league with the distiller, they could not have served his purpose better.”
Whether or not Edward H. Williams’ or Henry Smith Williams’ conception of the alcohol problem is good, bad or indifferent, need not at this time concern us. The medical profession, however, has a right to ask two questions: First, Is the Dr. Edward Huntington Williams who wrote “Alcohol, Hygiene and Legislation” the “Dr. Edward H. Williams” who was employed by the brewers to write propaganda favorable to the brewing interests? Second, Was the cloth-bound book, “Alcohol, Hygiene and Legislation,” which was distributed by the Williams brothers, paid for, wholly or in part, by the United States Brewers’ Association?
For those who wish to read Dr. Edward Huntington Williams’ opinion on the alcohol question, the following bibliography may be of service:
“Liquor Legislation and Insanity”: Medical Record 84:791, 1913.
“The Liquor Question in Medicine”: Medical Record 85:612, 1914.
“Inebriety as a Medical Problem”: Post-Graduate 29:603, 1914.
“The Problem of Inebriety”: N. Y. Medical Journal 101:940, 1915.
“Aspects of Inebriety in Alcohol”: British Journal of Inebriety 13:9, 1915–1916.
“The Peace and War Footing of Alcohol”: Medical Record 88:226, 1915.
“Alcohol and Therapeutics”: Medical Record 92:666, 1917.—(From The Journal
A. M. A., Nov. 30, 1918.)
BIOLOGIC THERAPEUTICS AND ITS COMMERCIAL DOMINATION
The danger of commercialized therapeutics has been enormously increased by the introduction of biologic products. These substances offer a rich field for the commercially minded, first, because of the remarkable results which seem to have followed the use of certain products of this type; second, because the field is new and the mode of action of these substances not readily understood and, third—and most important—because, by the very nature of the problems involved, few physicians are well informed concerning them. The influenza epidemic of last year was widespread and fatal in character. It stimulated earnest research in methods of prevention and cure. We were all in a frame of mind to grasp at any straw. Here and there some worker would cry “Eureka”—only to be disappointed when his product was actually put to the test. However, there were more than enough manufacturers ready to place any product on the market with specious claims that could not be positively denied. Vaccines, serums, proteins—all were advanced with such glowing statements as to their properties that only those physicians who kept their feet firmly on solid ground could resist the appeal. Now we have had another epidemic—mild, it is true—but the memories of last year make the average physician ready to accept anything which promises hope, and the manufacturers “make hay while the sun shines.” Physicians have been and are being deluged with literature on the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza. So far as we know, few publications have contained any word of warning on these matters. One exception has just come to notice: the Medico-Military Review, a semimonthly mimeographed publication sent to medical officers of the Army by the Surgeon General’s Office. This says:
You Are Reminded that so far a comprehensive analysis of results obtained by the use of monovalent and polyvalent vaccines in the prevention of influenza has not demonstrated their value. Much carefully controlled experimental work is now being carried out on this subject both in civil institutions and in the Army, and any worthwhile advances will be reported in the Review from time to time. If a prospective vaccine is developed, it will be prepared at the Army Medical School for general distribution and all medical officers will be duly notified. The general use of the present commercial polyvalent protective against influenza is not considered desirable. Numerous telegrams and other requisitions are being received for influenza vaccine. In view of the fact that no prophylactic influenza vaccine is available, such requisitions should be discontinued.—(Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 14, 1920.)