[24] Heinemann: Laboratory Guide in Bacteriology, p. 86.
[25] Thoms: Arb. a. d. Pharm. Inst. d. Universität, Berlin 11:210, 1914.
[26] Seifert, Otto: Die Nebenwirkungen der modernen Arzneimittel, 1915.
[27] Dr. Benedict’s personal communication to a member of the Council is as follows:
“In the report of the Council upon Lactopeptine which you sent to me, I find the following statement: ‘Careful examination failed to show the presence of either diastase or pancreatin.’ In this connection I will cite to you the following experiment carried out by myself: A package containing a 1-ounce bottle of Lactopeptine (powder) with seal unbroken was purchased in the open market and opened in this laboratory. The label bore the special Number 6 2382. Two hundred milligrams of this product was dissolved in 50 c.c. of a 0.25 per cent. solution of sodium carbonate in water. This solution was divided into two portions of 25 c.c. each. One of these portions was boiled at once, and after cooling was added to 1 gm. of moist fibrin contained in a flask. The other portion (unboiled) was also added to 1 gm. of moist fibrin contained in a flask. Both flasks (after addition of 5 c.c. of toluene to each) were stoppered and placed in an incubator at 37 degrees, and left there for twelve hours. Examination of the two flasks at the end of this period showed that the one to which the unboiled solution of Lactopeptine [powder] had been added contained much less solid protein than did the other. Although this fact was obvious to the naked eye, the exact extent of digestion in the two flasks was determined by heating both to boiling, acidifying with acetic acid, diluting to definite volume, filtering and determining the nitrogen in the filtrate by Kjeldahl’s method. Subtracting the trace of nitrogen contained in the filtrate of the control flask, the results showed that 42 per cent. of the original fibrin present had been dissolved by the unboiled Lactopeptine solution. This can be ascribed only to tryptic activity under the conditions of this experiment. Furthermore, this is not simply a ‘trace’ of activity, but is at least sufficiently marked to warrant a statement that this sample showed a distinct tryptic activity. Inasmuch as I have obtained exactly similar results with two other samples of Lactopeptine (powder) (these being the only ones I have examined), I am inclined to question the correctness of the Council’s statement regarding the absence of trypsin from this preparation. [As noted above, a fresh preparation was used.—Ed.]
“May I again add that I am making no statement regarding therapeutic value of preparation, and that I have no opinion upon that matter one way or the other? My work was undertaken solely out of interest to see whether trypsin could exist in the powder (which gives a markedly acid solution when dissolved in water). The Elixir Lactopeptine could theoretically show no tryptic activity, nor have I found any trace of such activity in one sample of the Elixir examined.
“In making use of any of the contents of my letters kindly include the statement that my work upon Lactopeptine was done without remuneration of any kind, and was done only for the scientific interest attached to the question.”
[28] Report on Proprietary Digitalis Preparations, J. A. M. A., Dec. 4, 1915, p. 2024.
[29] Secretogen, J. A. M. A., May 1, 1915, p. 1518.
[30] Carlson, A. J.; Lebensohn, J. E., and Pearlmann, S. J.: Has Secretin a Therapeutic Value? J. A. M. A. 66:178 (Jan. 15) 1916.