PART IV

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE JOURNAL: MISCELLANY

ALBERT ABRAMS, A.M., M.D., LL.D., F.R.M.S.

“Spondylotherapy,” “Electronic Reactions,” the “Oscilloclast,” the “Electrobioscope,” Etc.

For some time _The Journal_ has received inquiries of which the following recent examples are typical. This from an Ohio physician:

“Please give me some information concerning Dr. Abrams and his diagnostic and therapeutic devices known as reflexaphore and oscilloclast. If this is published please withhold my name.”

A physician in Massachusetts writes:

“Can you give me any information concerning Dr. (?) San Francisco, California, who reports himself able to diagnose syphilis from a drop of blood sent him on a blotting paper? He has caused a patient of mine a great deal of needless worry.”

And from Rhode Island a physician facetiously inquires:

“I am interested to know of the ‘Reactions of Abrams.’ Have you any information that you can give me in regard to this matter? They apparently do wonderful things in the West.”

While a New York physician acknowledges his failure to keep up with the times thus:

“To-day I had occasion to see a patient who mentioned having an Abrams test for gonorrheal infection of the prostate. He also stated he wished to have Abrams’ treatment for the same condition. Could you enlighten me as to what these are? I thought I had kept myself up to date as to all new tests and treatments in my line; but evidently I have been delinquent.”

According to our records, Albert Abrams, A.M., M.D., LL.D., F.R.M.S., was born in San Francisco in 1864. He was graduated in medicine by the University of Heidelberg, Germany, in 1882. Dr. Abrams is a member of his local medical society and through that holds fellowship in the American Medical Association. Dr. Abrams has written voluminously. In 1910, his book on “Spondylotherapy” (“Physio-Therapy of the Spine”) was reviewed in _The Journal_. “Spondylotherapy” is a neologic creation of Dr. Abrams. According to its disciples, it concerns itself “_only_ with the excitation of the functional centers of the spinal cord” and has been called “the science of evoking the reflexes of the body both to diagnose and to cure disease.” In bringing its review of Abrams’ book on “Spondylotherapy” to a close, _The Journal_ said:

“... one wonders whether this is an attempt to explain osteopathy and chiropractic to the understanding of the regular practitioner, or to exploit the very ingenious percussion devices of the author, or whether it is really true that medical men really know practically nothing about the cure of disease through treatment of the spine. Let us hope that it is the latter and that a careful study of this unique volume may open new avenues of therapy heretofore undreamed of.”

While the review was obviously critical, yet in advertising the book, the publisher picked out part of the closing sentence, omitted the context, and quoted _The Journal_ as having said:

“Let us hope that a careful study of this unique volume may open new avenues of therapy heretofore undreamed of.”

When this matter was brought to the attention of Dr. Abrams, he replied, “I fail to see any real difference in the two quotations” and “only one ... with an astigmatic mentality” could “see any incongruity between the context and the concluding sentence.” Yet, in this same letter which attempted to justify the garbling of a quotation so as to make a critical review appear a laudatory one, Dr. Abrams declared that the review in question was “conceived and executed in a malicious spirit.”

Between 1912 and 1914 Dr. Abrams gave “clinical courses” on “Spondylotherapy” in various parts of the country--price $50. These “courses” were widely advertised by an Ohio concern that seems to make a specialty not only of handling the advertising campaigns of those members of the medical profession who have unusual or bizarre methods to exploit, but also of acting as an agent for the sale of such devices and publications as may be necessary to the proper practice of the particular brand of therapy that is being exploited. At the time this concern was featuring Abrams’ course it called attention to the alleged fact that “no class were [_sic!_] so busy as those employing mechanical treatment such as Osteopathy, Chiropractic, Mechanotherapy, etc.”

Says Dr. Abrams:

“Despite the fury of tongue or the truculence of the pen, the osteopath and chiropractor are inspiring the confidence of the community with their systems. Right or wrong in their theory, they are, in vulgar parlance, ‘delivering the goods.’ Spondylotherapy was a product of necessity--the translation of an ignored field of medicine from a chaotic to a scientific basis.”

Possibly the following testimonial published by Dr. Abrams as typical of many received, and credited to “Dr. Henry Stacy Dodge, Richmond, Va.,” may explain the field that “Spondylotherapy” is to cover. Incidentally “Dr.” Dodge is listed in the Richmond telephone directory as a chiropractor:

“I have been in practice for fifteen years in Chiropractic and ten years an Osteopath and I wish to say that during the last three years I have received more genuine and sincere satisfaction from the application of Spondylotherapy than all other methods combined. My success in gastrology alone is worth many times the cost of the information.”

More recently, Dr. Abrams has advertised that he gives a “course” in Spondylotherapy in San Francisco, beginning on the first of each month. The course last four weeks. “The honorarium for this course is $200.00.”

In 1912 an organization was created devoted to this new therapeutic method: the “American Association for the Study of Spondylotherapy.” Later Dr. Abrams was made Honorary President. Whether the organization is still viable we do not know.

ELECTRONIC REACTIONS OF ABRAMS

In addition to “Spondylotherapy,” Dr. Abrams has also evolved what he calls the “Electronic Reactions of Abrams.” These are said to make possible long-distance diagnoses, it being necessary only to send a few drops of blood taken from the patient and allowed to dry on a slide. There are, it seems, certain instruments and devices used in the performance of these diagnostic feats. By means of the “Electronic Reactions” Dr. Abrams (while admitting the protective factor of vaccination against smallpox) has discovered that practically all the vaccines obtained from reliable firms yield the reaction (“electronic tests”) of congenital syphilis, and that many of them also yield the reaction of tuberculosis and of streptococci and staphylococci. Further, “from the cicatrices of all vaccinated persons, one can always elicit a reaction of congenital syphilis and in early scars a tuberculous reaction.” Dr. Abrams also declares that exposing vaccine virus for ten minutes to blue light will destroy the syphilitic, streptococcic and staphylococci reactions and exposing it for the same period to yellow light will destroy the tuberculous reaction.

One of Dr. Abrams’ disciples--Sir James Barr--frequently quoted with evident satisfaction, declares that from a fresh sample of blood spread over four square inches of white blotting paper, “Dr. Abrams can diagnose the sex, race and disease of the patient.” However, there are certain precautions that must be taken: The patient should face West, “the blood should be taken in a subdued light and there should be no strong red or yellow coloring material in the room.”

In various places Dr. Abrams has asseverated that “if splancho-diagnosis is approached with a prejudiced mind, it is better not to attempt it, for there are ‘none so blind as those that will not see.’”

Dr. Abrams founded and edits _Physico-Clinical Medicine_. It is published by “Physico-Clinical Co.” at 2135 Sacramento St., San Francisco--the address, according to the telephone directory, of Dr. Abrams’ residence. It is a quarterly “Devoted to the Study of the Electronic Reactions of Abrams and the Visceral reflexes of Abrams, in the Diagnosis, Treatment and Pathology of Disease.” Single copies, one dollar; by the year, two dollars. The publication is, apparently, not entered as second class matter, in fact, presumably, it could not be, as it seems obviously to be an advertising affair. Each issue contains material dealing with “Spondylotherapy,” “Splanchno-Diagnosis,” “Electronic Reactions” and other discoveries and theories of Dr. Abrams. In it also is published a list of “Some recent visitors at Dr. Abrams’ laboratory,” the names and addresses of the “Lessees of Oscilloclast” (about which more later), testimonials for Dr. Abrams, etc.

Of course, it carries advertisements of Dr. Abrams’ “Physico-Clinical Laboratory” (also at 2135 Sacramento St.) and his “Practical Courses in Spondylotherapy and Electronic Diagnosis and Treatment” ($200 in advance). Some of the devices of Dr. Abrams are also advertised. “No apparatus sold on credit. Terms cash.” Among these are:

“Dr. Abrams’ Electrodes for Electronic Diagnosis $ 6.00 “Biodynamometer 36.00 “Dr. Abrams’ Reflex Set 36.00 “Dr. Abrams’ Electro-Concusser 120.00”

THE OSCILLOCLAST

But what seems to be the outstanding piece of apparatus, devised or invented by Dr. Abrams, the pièce de resistance, as it were, of physicoclinical diagnosis and treatment, is the “Oscilloclast.”

This device is not for sale. It can be had only on lease. The first payment is $200 or $250, according to whether it is wired for alternating or direct current. Then there is a monthly payment of $5. Dr. Abrams publishes a list of more than 130 men who have leased one or more “Oscilloclasts.” Sir James Barr’s name heads the list. According to Dr. Abrams, the “Oscilloclast” owes its conception to the therapeutic principles he advocates. These, in part, are:

“1. Physiologic phenomena are manifestations of electronic energy.

“2. Pathologic phenomena are manifestations of perturbed electronic energy.

“3. The energy in health and disease has an invariable and definite rate of vibration (determinable by the electronic reactions).

“4. Specific drugs possess a like vibratory rate as the diseases for which they are effective.

“These like vibratory rates (hemovibrations) of drugs owe their efficiency to their inherent radioactivity. Thus, an obsolete drug like gamboge painted on the chest in incipient tuberculosis will effect a symptomatic cure within a few weeks. Gamboge possesses the same vibratory rate as tuberculosis. Our conception that drug action is dependent on direct cellular contact is thus demolished....

“5. All forms of energy whether derived from heat, electricity or magnetism may be made to yield different rates of vibration and these rates corresponding to the diseases are utilized for their destruction.”

If one accepts one of Dr. Abrams’ theories, the possibilities of such a piece of machinery as the “Oscilloclast” would seem to loom large, not only in therapeutics, but also in economics. All one needs to do, according to Dr. Abrams, is to ascertain “the vibration rate of a drug” and then to substitute the same vibration as produced by the “Oscilloclast.” Thus, if one substitutes the “vibratory rate of atropin” for the drug itself “the mouth dries or the subject feels as if it were puckered.” Conversely, if you switch the “Oscilloclast” to the pilocarpin vibratory rate, there is a copious flow of saliva.

THERAPEUTIC RESULTS WITH OSCILLOCLAST

What some of the lessees of the oscilloclast are accomplishing (if we are to believe the clinical reports published in _Physico-Clinical Medicine_) may be gathered from the following quotations:

“Woman, Age 52.--Diagnosis of acquired syphilis made by one of our most eminent clinicians. (?) Abrams test showed tuberculosis of the apex of the right lung. No syphilis. Fourteen treatments with the Oscilloclast at 5. Patient gained fourteen pounds in three weeks. Now in perfect health.”

“Mechanic, Age 22.--Acute acquired syphilis. General eruption, throat, mouth symptoms and chancre. Thirteen treatments with the Oscilloclast at 3, and splenic sterilization only. Complete abatement of all symptoms.”

“Woman, Age 42.--Strep infection of the second upper cuspid tooth of three years’ standing. Well developed sinus. Regular discharge of pus. Eight treatments with the Oscilloclast at 2. Clinically cured.”

“Cancer of the pylorus and pylorectomy executed at the Mayo Clinic. Later, vomiting, severe pains, loss in weight, etc. After the third treatment [with “Oscilloclast”] pains ceased and, after 14 treatments, she was well and continued so when I last saw her.”

“Cancer of uterus. Inoperable. Severe uterine hemorrhages. Electrode of Oscilloclast to cervix and hemorrhage ceased after second treatment. After 14 treatments the patient declared she was well. Another case of the same character was followed by equally good results.”

ECONOMIC RESULTS WITH OSCILLOCLAST

It also seems to be a great business-getter, as the following testimonials published by Dr. Abrams show:

“The Oscilloclast has doubled my business.”--S. King, M.D. (Pa.).

“I am doing good work with the Oscilloclast in T. B. and when I get more room I shall want another machine.”--H. Michener (Kas.).

“We are swamped with work and our three cord Oscilloclast is working to full capacity. We are still astonishing the incredulous and keeping busy. We must have another Oscilloclast at once for there are so many here who demand treatment.”--W. P. Myers, M.D. (Cal.).

THE ELECTROBIOSCOPE

More recently, Dr. Abrams has extended his observations and experiments, using what apparently is a modification of the old fashioned pith ball suspended by a silk thread from a rubber rod with which we all experimented during our high school days. This device Dr. Abrams has called the “Electrobioscope.” It is for sale by the Physico-Clinical Co. The “Electrobioscope,” in addition to doing many other things, has demonstrated (to Dr. Abrams) the “sexuality of numbers and sounds.” Thus, if the pith ball is charged negatively and the numbers 1 to 9 are marked on a narrow board and the vowels and consonants are marked on another board, it will be found--still according to Dr. Abrams--that even numbers repel the pith ball while odd numbers attract it. Vowels repel and consonants attract. “A female hair repels and a male hair attracts.” From these data Dr. Abrams deduces that “even numbers and vowels are female and odd numbers and consonants are male.”

The value of music as a therapeutic agent is briefly touched on by Dr. Abrams and we are told that the overture of “Tannhäuser” will increase the pulse rate whereas “Meditation” diminishes blood pressure and pulse rate. “In dogs, music augments elimination of carbonic acid and increases the consumption of oxygen.” Love, says Dr. Abrams, “is dependent upon matter in vibration and the passional component has a wave metric index of 14 in both sexes.” In referring to legendary lore, Dr. Abrams apparently assigns a scientific basis for the belief among the bucolic that carrying around a potato has therapeutic virtue. Thus:

“A cut potato (carried on the person) prevents elicitation of the stomach reflex when the negative pole of a bar-magnet is presented to the stomach region whereas the positive pole will evoke dulness.”

It seems also that the “rheumatic rings” of iron “when worn yield a neutral energy which prevents the elicitation of the stomach reflex by either pole of a bar-magnet.” We learn, too, that the divining rod “no longer belongs to occultism but is entitled to consideration as a scientific fact.”

Dr. Abrams also has investigated methods whereby the sex of the fetus may be diagnosed. In the human these investigations have, apparently, been so limited as to permit only tentative conclusions. In the case of eggs of the domestic fowl, Dr. Abrams reports that with four eggs that yielded negative polarity, the result of incubation was four hens. Of five eggs yielding a positive polarity only two hatched, one was a hen and one a rooster, giving an “error in observation.” Three eggs tested yielded neutral polarity and “as predicted the eggs were sterile.” In case of an egg yielding a negative (female) polarity “an attempt was made to reverse the sex by painting one end of the egg with a yellow coloring material.” The result was a rooster.

Much more might be written about what one of our correspondents calls the wonderful things they are doing in the West, but space forbids. “Neither the fury of tongue,” says Dr. Abrams in the preface to his book, New Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment, “nor the truculence of pen can discredit the author’s observations which are capable of analyzation and demonstration.” If there is any scientific foundation for the marvels that Dr. Abrams so picturesquely features, the scientific world has not yet found it out!--(_From The Journal A. M. A., March 25, 1922._)

Dr. Abrams’ Graduation

In this department of The Journal for March 25 appeared an article on Dr. Albert Abrams and some of his discoveries. We have now received a letter from a physician, who asks that his name be not published, reading:

“_To the Editor_:--I notice in your article on Albert Abrams the statement that he was born in 1864 and received his degree of M.D. in Heidelberg 1882; if these data are furnished by himself and not a typographical error--though I find the same data in the American Medical Directory for 1916--then it is high time that some board of censors should make a careful examination of his credentials.

“Anybody, like myself, who is acquainted with medical matters in Germany knows that it is preposterous to assume that anybody could obtain the degree of M.D. in any German university at the age of 18 years.

M. D., Leipzig.”

Eighteen _is_ rather young to receive an M.D. degree from Heidelberg! By again going over the various sources of information available the following data were collected: In Polk’s Medical Directory for 1886 Dr. Abrams’ name appears as a graduate of the University of Heidelberg, 1882, and of Cooper Medical College in 1883. The records we have from these two institutions confirm these dates. The year of Dr. Abrams’ birth seems less clear. In the early part of 1902 the American Medical Association sent Dr. Abrams a blank for him to fill out for a permanent record. This was returned in due course and, according to it, Dr. Abrams was born in San Francisco Dec. 8, 1863. This same date appears in various editions of “Who’s Who in America.” A blank sent by the A. M. A. Directory Department to Dr. Abrams in 1908 asking for a personal biographical report was returned Aug. 20, 1908; it gave Dr. Abrams’ date of birth as Dec. 8, 1864. A similar blank sent in the earlier part of 1909 was returned giving the same birth date. We learn, however, that an affidavit executed in 1917 states that Albert Abrams was born in San Francisco Dec. 8, 1862.

Just how long Dr. Abrams attended Heidelberg University before he was granted the M.D. degree, we do not know. Apparently, at that time the standards for admission to that institution were not especially severe and the length of time one would have to attend before being admitted to an examination seems to have depended on the educational credentials that the matriculant offered. What credentials Dr. Abrams submitted, we do not know. Assuming that the earliest date (1862) represents Dr. Abrams’ date of birth, he could have been but twenty years old when he received his M.D. from Heidelberg. This indicates a precocity that might have forecast Dr. Abrams’ later achievements.

Throughout the records of Dr. Abrams’ educational credentials there appears the statement that he also graduated from the “University of Portland” in 1892, receiving the degree of A.M. From references available we have been unable to find any record of a “University of Portland.”--(_From The Journal A. M. A., April 8, 1922._)

A Defense by Upton Sinclair

A somewhat voluminous letter has been received from Mr. Upton Sinclair, which is a defense of Dr. Albert Abrams of San Francisco. We publish Mr. Sinclair’s letter because we believe it is written in honesty and sincerity--and because The Journal readers will enjoy it! It is worth mentioning in this connection that Mr. Sinclair in his latest book devotes a few pages to a eulogy of Dr. Abrams and his methods. This material has not only been reproduced by Dr. Abrams in his “house organ” _Physico-Clinical Medicine_ but is reprinted in leaflet form and is being distributed by some of the individuals who are exploiting the Abrams methods. Such reprints have been sent to this office by both laymen and physicians.

MR. SINCLAIR’’S LETTER

_To the Editor._--A few weeks ago you published an article dealing with the discoveries or claims of Dr. Albert Abrams of San Francisco. I happen to be attending Dr. Abrams’ clinic at the time and have discussed this article with him at some length. Dr. Abrams follows the policy of ignoring attacks on his work, taking the view that in the long run, the man who cures disease makes his way in the world in spite of all opposition. However, it is easy to see that he has been deeply hurt by this attack on his reputation, and as one of his friends and most ardent admirers I am taking the liberty of addressing a letter to you.

I do not know if the rules of your publication permit intervention in medical affairs by a mere layman. Permit me to introduce myself as a layman who for some twenty years tried faithfully to be cured of various diseases by many doctors of the best reputation in many parts of the world, and failed; and who, therefore, was compelled, as a matter of self-protection, to look into the question of health for himself. I have read so many different kinds of books on health and made so many experiments of my own that nowadays when I meet with a group of physicians I find that before long they come to accept me as one of themselves. You may not go that far, but at least you may be so generous as to allow me to tell you a little of what I have seen during the time I have spent in the clinic of Dr. Albert Abrams.

I observe that in the course of your two page article dealing with this subject, you nowhere have anything to charge against Dr. Abrams, nor do you show that you have investigated his work. You consider that all you have to do is to quote Dr. Abrams’ own words as to what he can do, and that _these words refute themselves_. [Italics our.--Ed.]. Also you quote Dr. Abrams’ schedules of prices, and imply that his motives are mercenary. I will take up these two questions one at a time.

WHAT DR. ABRAMS CAN DO

First, as to what Dr. Abrams can do: I have been here and have seen him do all that he claims to do. Therefore, you will understand that this portion of your argument does not produce much impression on me. I merely say to you, why do you not come and see, or why do you not send some reliable representative to see--before you take it for granted that Abrams is a knave or a lunatic? This man is not merely a colleague of yours; he is a fellow of the Royal Medical Society of Great Britain [We know of no such society.--Ed.] and surely he was entitled to a little elementary courtesy from you. Why did you not at least write to him and permit him to put before you a little of his evidence on the genuineness of his work? You admit that he is a graduate of the Universities of Heidelberg and Stanford; [Dr. Abrams is not a graduate of “Stanford.”--Ed.] you admit that he was graduated from Heidelberg at the age of twenty. It happens that this was the youngest and remains the youngest age at which any man has taken a Doctor’s Degree at that University in a hundred years. If you had inquired further you might have learned that ten years ago Abrams was one of the most respected physicians in San Francisco. What has he done since to forfeit the honors of a lifetime? All that he has done is to shut himself up in his laboratory and make the most revolutionary discoveries of this or any other age; and now when he emerges and offers this work to the world, you can think of nothing to do but jeer at him.

I spent two weeks in his clinic; then I took six months to write to his physicians all over the country, _and to experiment with his cures on a great number of my friends_. [Italics again ours.--Ed.] Now I am spending another two weeks in his clinic, and I venture to stake whatever reputation I have, or hope to have in this world, upon the statement that Albert Abrams has discovered the great secret of the _diagnosis and cure of all the major disease_. [Again we must italicize.--Ed.] He has proven by diagnosing with the taps of his own sensitive finger tips over 15,000 people, and my investigation convinces me that he has cured over 95 per cent. of these who have taken his treatments. Moreover, he has taught his method to 200 or 300 other physicians, and some 80 per cent. of these have submitted to me answers to a questionnaire in which they claim thousands of cures.

You may say, perhaps, that I am not competent to judge of cures. For the sake of argument, I will grant that; but I assert that I am competent to judge of physicians, for I have tested several score of them, and if I ever knew a devoted scientist and a great humanitarian, it is Albert Abrams. In his clinic I have met perhaps a hundred physicians, and I venture to assert that a number of these are men both of integrity and capacity, and when I asked them why they came, I got invariably one answer: “Because I sent him blood specimens and I found that invariably he sent me a correct diagnosis.” Not once, but at least two score times, I have seen Albert Abrams take a blood specimen brought to him, without even the name of the patient, and heard him diagnose cancer or sarcoma, and from the blood specimen locate the growth PRECISELY TO AN INCH. [Italics fail one here!--Ed.] Then I have seen the patient, an entire stranger to Abrams, brought into the clinic and examined, not merely by Abrams, but by a score of other physicians, and the growth found precisely at the spot indicated. (This was done twice between the time when this letter was dictated and the time when it was transcribed.) Three times, yesterday, I saw a diagnosis made of syphilis and the patient brought in, and all the standard reactions demonstrated. I have seen, not once, but hundreds of times, tubercular lesions diagnosed and located from the blood specimen and the patient brought in and the condition demonstrated by percussion. All these things are going on day after day. They are being done in other clinics in several score of cities, and you may have the addresses for the asking. Why do you not ask? [We have some such addresses in the Propaganda files.--Ed.]

THE ECONOMIC ELEMENT

I take up the second criticism, that Albert Abrams is mercenary. He charges $200.00 for the clinical course, which may last as long as the physician wishes. It seems to me that that price is to be judged somewhat in relation to what he has to teach. He maintains a large establishment; he has need of many assistants, and expensive apparatus for his research work. He charges for the use of his oscilloclast a deposit of $250.00, and a rental of $5.00 per month. The former item covers the cost of manufacturing the machine, and the second item must be compared with the fact that a great number of physicians who are using this instruments are today _enjoying incomes of from $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 per week_. [Once more, italics!--Ed.]

A few weeks ago I visited a physician who told me he had treated thirty-two patients that day with his one instrument, and that his income was over $1,300.00 for that week, and I could name several who have given similar accounts. It may be, of course, that you will say they should not charge so much. The average charge is about $200.00 for a _guaranteed cure of such diseases as syphilis, tuberculosis, cancer and sarcoma_. [Italics our again.--Ed.]. Do you know anyone who will guarantee to cure a cancer or sarcoma at any price? [No!--Ed.]

I am sure you will agree with me that it would be possible to find physicians who would be willing to put up many hundreds of dollars to guarantee that neither cancer nor sarcoma can at the present time be cured except by operation. And I can recall many cases in my lifetime when I paid hundreds and even thousands of dollars to be cured of diseases by the medical profession, and I am unable to recall a single case where I was ever cured of anything. [Still this need not be an indictment of scientific medicine.--Ed.]

Finally, as regards to the subject of mercenary motives, permit me to state that I have in my possession a letter from Dr. Abrams stating that what he desires is to have established an institute for the purpose of making his work known to the world, and that if such an institute is established he is prepared to give up all his other work and devote all his time, without compensation, to the institute. Furthermore, he is willing to furnish his instruments without charge to any medical institution which requests them. Within the last few days, on account of the enormous number of blood specimens brought into his clinic, Dr. Abrams has signed in my presence, and is prepared to issue a statement to the effect that his charge for examining blood specimens is to be raised from $10.00 to $25.00 and all checks are to be made payable to a Trust Fund which is to be immediately established, for the purpose of founding the institution above referred to. I do not see how the medical profession can ask for more than this; but if you do, I should be pleased to receive your suggestions and transmit them to my friend.

AN OLD STORY

Now, this failure to recognize a great medical discovery is an old story. It was the experience of Harvey [We knew poor Harvey would be dragged into this.--Ed.], of Jenner and of Lister. But the world moves on, and men’s brains should improve, and it should be possible to shorten the time of persecution which the great pioneers of science have to suffer. I put to you this simple proposition: Send a reliable man of science to the clinic of Albert Abrams, and let him stay there as long as he pleases and see all that he wishes to see, and then send you a report, and if it indicates that you have blundered in your condemnation, be honest and say so, and save your profession from another black mark against its name.

Upton Sinclair, Pasadena, Cal.

Comment

A testimonial is of value to the extent that the person giving it is an authority on the subject on which he testifies. When Mr. Sinclair testifies on socialism we may listen respectfully, believing him competent to express an opinion; but when Mr. Sinclair gives a testimonial on certain bizarre methods of interpreting difficult and obscure problems in medicine, he leaves us cold.

Mr. Sinclair says that he has spent time in Dr. Abrams’ clinic and is wonderfully impressed with Dr. Abrams’ achievements. So is the small boy impressed with the marvelous facility with which the magician extracts the white rabbit from the silk hat. Mr. Sinclair is convinced “that Albert Abrams has discovered the great secret of the diagnosis and cure of all the major diseases.” The small boy is equally convinced that the prestidigitator has solved the mystery of producing snow white bunnies from airy nothings.

Great store seems to be placed by Mr. Sinclair on the favorable reports that he obtained from those who are relieving the public--of from $1,000 to $2,000 a week--by the Abrams methods of diagnosis and treatment. What kind of evidence did he expect to get from such obviously _ex parte_ sources? Mr. Sinclair’s naïveté may be childlike, but it is not scientific. While the significance of the statement may not be apparent to Mr. Sinclair, it is a fact that when the names of the one hundred or more lessees of the Abrams “Oscilloclast” were checked up it was found that a number of these individuals were already in the Propaganda files in some other connection. That these disciples of Abrams, who are “enjoying incomes of from $1,000 to $2,000 a week,” should speak favorably of the Abrams method was inevitable!

Some years ago Upton Sinclair wrote a book on his (at that time) panacea for human ailments. It was the “Fasting Cure.” At that time he told of individual acquaintances suffering from various ailments: one was “dying of kidney trouble”; another was “in the hospital from nervous breakdown”; still another had “only a year to live,” while a fourth was “a nervous wreck, craving for death.” Of these Mr. Sinclair said at the time: “And there is not one of these people whom I could not cure if I had him alone for a couple of weeks.”

MR. SINCLAIR AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION

At that time Mr. Sinclair was greatly perturbed at the attitude of the medical profession toward his dictum that “the fast is Nature’s remedy for all diseases.” There was just one physician “who was really interested.” This man lived “in an out of the way town in Arkansas” and asked Sinclair to “let him print several thousand copies of the article in the form of a pamphlet to be distributed among his patients.” As Mr. Sinclair said at the time, “one single mind among all the 140,000 [physicians], open to a new truth!” And this “open mind,” that of a man who was practicing in a small town in Arkansas and needed “several thousand copies” of the Sinclair article to distribute to his patients!

After his “fasting cure” experience, Mr. Sinclair had the “raw food” fad--also abandoned in due time. In one of his recent books (“The Brass Check”) he refers to his outgrown fads in the following words: “I ... was willing to try anything in the hope of solving the health problem, which I have since realized is insolvable--there being no diet or system of any sort which will permit a man to overwork with impunity.” He states further in this same connection:

“I look back in retrospect and have not a little fun over my ‘monkey diet’ days.”

Who shall say that ten years hence Mr. Sinclair may not be able to look back, good humoredly, in retrospect, to another time when he was “monkeying” with a subject that was beyond his ken?--(_From The Journal A. M. A., April 29, 1922.)_

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID, NOT ASPIRIN

The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry publishes a report in this issue giving its reasons for deleting “Aspirin-Bayer” from New and Nonofficial Remedies. In order that a standard may be provided, the drug acetylsalicylic is retained[259] in N. N. R. under its scientific name, acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin appearing as a synonym. The attempt on the part of the Bayer Company to perpetuate the monopoly it has had for seventeen years in the United States was briefly discussed editorially in The Journal, Aug. 12, 1916. We quoted from _Printers’ Ink_, a magazine devoted to advertising, in part as follows:

[259] See index for additional article.

“The manufacturers of aspirin are about to launch an extensive advertising campaign to clinch the market as far as possible before the expiration of their patent rights next year.... The purpose of the campaign is to identify the product with the trademark of the Bayer Company and to this extent hamper competition after the expiration of the patent.”

It is worth while reminding physicians of the privileges the Bayer Company has enjoyed for so many years, owing largely to our inequitable and crude patent laws, or to their construction. First, it should be remembered that practically no other country in the world, not even the original home of the preparation, would grant a patent on either acetylsalicylic acid, the product, or on the process for making that product. The United States granted both! As a result, for seventeen years it has been impossible in this country for anybody except the Bayer Company to manufacture or sell acetylsalicylic acid, either under its chemical name or under any other name. Neither was it possible for individuals, hospitals or any other institutions to import it, legally, for their own use.

Needless to say, the American people have been made to pay exorbitantly for the monopoly our patent office granted this firm. Three or four years ago The Journal, through the American consuls, obtained information regarding the price at which acetylsalicylic acid was sold in foreign countries. At that time, acetylsalicylic acid, as “aspirin,” was costing American druggists--and of course the American public had to pay still more for it--43 cents an ounce. Just across the border in Canada it sold for one-third the price asked here. In some of the foreign countries, acetylsalicylic acid under its scientific name could be purchased by the druggists of those countries at from one-sixth to less than one-tenth the price that it cost American druggists. Here are some of the figures:

Austria-Hungary 4 cents an ounce Holland 4 cents an ounce British Isles 6 cents an ounce Norway 4 cents an ounce Denmark 4 cents an ounce Sweden 4 cents an ounce France 4 cents an ounce United States 43 cents an ounce Germany 4 cents an ounce

Not content with the iron-bound monopoly which it had been granted through our patent laws, the company attempted further to clinch its exclusive rights by giving the preparation a fancy name, “aspirin,” and getting a trademark on this name. The patent on acetylsalicylic acid expires next month (February, 1917). After its expiration the product, and its method of manufacture, become common property. American manufacturers will now be able to do what manufacturers in other countries, other than the patentees, have long been doing--make and sell acetylsalicylic acid.[260]

[260] The Bayer people may try to convey the impression that “Aspirin” is pure and reliable whereas other brands are not. Since acetylsalicylic acid is a definite chemical compound, there is no more likelihood of this being sophisticated than there is of quinin being adulterated. Furthermore, the Council in accepting acetylsalicylic acid for New and Nonofficial Remedies has provided standards of purity which will insure a uniform product. The brand of one firm--Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Co., of Philadelphia--has been accepted by the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry for inclusion in New and Nonofficial Remedies, 1917.

Unfortunately, it is extremely improbable that any American manufacturer will market acetylsalicylic acid under the name aspirin, although we believe they would have a legal right to do so. The courts have held in related instances that when a patented article has been known during the life of the patent under a trademarked name, with the expiration of the patent the name as well as the product becomes common property. The classical “Singer Sewing Machine” decision and the lanolin case are in point. The Bayer Company, through a widespread newspaper advertising campaign, seems to be attempting to perpetuate its seventeen-year monopoly by leading the public to believe that there can be only one brand of genuine acetylsalicylic acid on the market--that made by the Bayer Company.

The firm will, of course, continue to manufacture and advertise the product under the name “Aspirin-Bayer,” and will probably charge high prices for it, as was the case with phenacetin (acetphenetidin). In any event, physicians hereafter should do what for a long time we have been advising should be done, namely, prescribe the compound under its scientific name, acetylsalicylic acid. They should do this if for no other reason than that they would be using the name which carries with it a reminder of the composition of the preparation. Of course, for those who have been writing “aspirin” it will be rather difficult to write “acetylsalicylic acid,” just as a quarter of a century ago it was difficult for the physician of that day who had been using the copyright name “antifebrin” to write “acet-anilid,” a name which nowadays is easy, even for laymen.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 20, 1917._)

“What’s in a Name?”

Under the caption “What’s in a Name?” the current (April) issue of the _Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry_ has an editorial dealing with the nomenclatures--common and proprietary--of acetylsalicylic acid. The editorial was prompted by an article by Dr. Leech printed in the same issue. Replying to its own question:

“The answer to this question so far as it applies to acetylsalicylic acid (popularly known as aspirin) is the difference between eighty-eight cents, the price the druggist must pay for every one hundred tablets of Bayer aspirin, and forty cents, the cost of an equally pure American product. Naturally, this difference in cost is passed on to the individual consumer.

“That no scientific justification exists for this difference in cost is clearly shown in the contribution by Dr. Paul Nicholas Leech, of the Chemical Laboratory of the American Medical Association, page 288 of this issue.

“On the other hand, the excess profit fully warrants the extensive and shrewdly-worded advertising campaign now in progress, a campaign which must eventually fail, because in the first place, it is contrary to the prevailing spirit of modern advertising, the motive of which is constructive rather than destructive, and, in the second place, it appeals merely to the temporary ignorance of the public at large, and has no basis in fact.

“We have been informed that the Custodian of Alien Enemy Property has taken charge of the stock interests of alien enemies in the company conducting this propaganda. Surely the Custodian will not care, even in a trustee capacity, to continue as a participant in a misleading campaign whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of a monopoly hitherto enjoyed under full patent protection.”

The article to which the editorial refers is a somewhat technical one giving the findings of an examination made, at the request of the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, in the Chemical Laboratory of the American Medical Association by Paul Nicholas Leech, Ph.D., of various American brands of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin). The result of the investigation may be summed up briefly in the statement that there are on the American market, made by American firms, several brands of acetylsalicylic acid that are just as good as, if not better than, the Bayer product.

The Journal has called attention to the misleading propaganda on the part of the Bayer Company (Farbenfabriken vorm. Friedr. Bayer & Co.), in its attempt to perpetuate the monopoly granted under our inequitable patent laws. This is done by conveying the inference that the only pure acetylsalicylic acid on the market is that known as “Aspirin-Bayer.” Physicians should again be reminded of the facts in the case of aspirin: Practically no other country in the world, and certainly not Germany, the original home of aspirin, would grant a patent either on acetylsalicylic acid, itself, or the process for making it. The United States granted both! As a result no one in this country except the Bayer Company could for seventeen years manufacture or sell acetylsalicylic acid either under its chemical name or under any other name. Nor was it permissible for hospitals or individuals to import it. While the monopoly held, the American people were compelled to pay from six to ten times as much for acetylsalicylic acid as were the people of Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Holland, Norway or Sweden. At a time when American druggists were compelled to pay 43 cents an ounce for acetylsalicylic acid as aspirin, just across the border in Canada it sold for about one-third the price.

About a year ago, the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry announced that “Aspirin-Bayer” had been deleted from New and Nonofficial Remedies while the scientific term acetylsalicylic acid was retained along with standards to insure its quality. The necessity for a standard becomes evident when it is remembered that acetylsalicylic acid is not yet an official drug, and its purity, therefore, is not subject to the control of the federal Food and Drugs Act. It is worth while at this time to remind physicians that several brands of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) have been found to comply with the standards set by the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry and have been admitted to New and Nonofficial Remedies.[261] These, of course, are thereby subject to the control of the federal law to conform to the standard to which they profess.

[261] The following brands of acetylsalicylic acid conform to the standards of the Council and are in New and Nonofficial Remedies:

“Aspirin-- L. and F.”: Lehn & Fink, New York. “Acetylsalicylic Acid-- Squibb”: E. R. Squibb & Sons, New York. “Acetylsalicylic Acid-- Merck”: Merck & Co., New York. “Acetylsalicylic Acid-- Milliken”: John T. Milliken & Co., St. Louis. “Acetylsalicylic Acid-- M. C. W.”: Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, St. Louis. “Acetylsalicylic Acid-- Monsanto”: Monsanto Chemical Works, St. Louis. “Acetylsalicylic Acid-- P. W. R.”: Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Company, Philadelphia.

Leech’s report gives still greater weight to the suggestion that has been made for some time, viz., that physicians should describe acetylsalicylic acid under its scientific name rather than its proprietary name, even though, in the opinion of The Journal, the proprietary name, aspirin, has become common property since the expiration of the acetylsalicylic acid patent. Every consideration of public interest, of patriotism and of ordinary common sense should prompt physicians to specify acetylsalicylic acid in writing prescriptions.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., April 13, 1918._)

Advertising Principles--Lay and Medical

The Journal has received two letters, one from a physician who had written to the New York _Tribune_ protesting against an advertisement of “Aspirin (Bayer)” that appeared in the rotogravure supplement of a Sunday edition and the other the New York _Tribune’s_ answer to the protest. The two letters make an editorial in themselves. Here is the letter of the physician--Dr. Edwin H. Shepard of Syracuse, N. Y.--which was addressed to the editor of The Journal:

“When a great daily newspaper takes a stand for honest advertising it seems worthy that acknowledgement should be made. On April 14 the illustrated Sunday supplement of the New York _Tribune_, together with many of the other papers of the country, published a duplicate of the enclosed advertisement of ‘Aspirin.’ Your own instructive editorial on ‘Acetylsalicylic Acid, or What’s in a Name?’ had appeared in the copy of The Journal of the day preceding.

“Believing in the sincerity of the _Tribune_ in its effort for honest advertising, I sent them a copy of your editorial together with the page of advertisement, also calling attention to the statements in the advertisement which seemed questionable. Among the questionable matters in the advertisement were the statements, ‘The one genuine Aspirin,’ ‘No other is genuine,’ ‘That which is genuine possesses qualities of excellence never found in imitations,’ ‘For your protection ... every package and tablet is marked with the Bayer cross,’ ‘Your guarantee of purity,’ and ‘Refuse substitutes as they may prove ineffective and harmful.’

“The Tribune was requested to investigate into the standing of the Bayer company and its product. A few days later the enclosed letter was received from the paper’s Bureau of Investigations.”

And here is the New York _Tribune’s_ answer, signed by R. R. Baer, assistant director of that paper’s Bureau of Investigations:

“We have your letter of April 14th, which was acknowledged on the 22nd, in re Aspirin. For your information: Our rotogravure supplement is printed a number of days in advance of the Sunday paper. When these copies which have already been printed are used, no further Aspirin copy will appear. This means a loss of some four pages.”

How many of the numerous medical journals that are still carrying the “Aspirin (Bayer)” advertising would make such a financial sacrifice for mere principle?--(_From The Journal A. M. A., May 25, 1918._)

“Aspirin”--A Common Name

“Aspirin” as a trademark will no longer exist if the recommendation of the Examiner of Interferences of the United States Patent Office is upheld, as it probably would be, should the matter be taken to the courts. The opinion of the Patent Office was the result of a petition by the United Drug Company in the case of that company against the Bayer Company, or, as it was called at the time the suit was brought, the Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Company. The stand taken by the Patent Office is directly in line with that that has been held in this and other cases by The Journal, which has for years insisted that it was against public policy to permit patentees to extend the seventeen-year monopoly, which the patent laws grant, to a perpetual monopoly by the simple device of obtaining a trademark for the name of the thing patented. It is a fundamental principle in law that “no one can have a monopoly in the name of anything.” This, of course, has been recognized and admitted even by those manufacturers who have attempted to invoke the trademark laws to obtain an unwarranted advantage.

The manufacturers of aspirin have held that the chemical name “monoaceticacidester of salicylic acid” was the true name of the patented article, and was the _only_ name which became public property when the patent right expired. The Patent Office points out, however, that for years the only name that the public ever saw on the brand of monoaceticacidester of salicylic acid made by the holders of the patent on this product was “Aspirin.” The Examiner of Interferences in his decision points out that, previous to 1915, the Bayer Company sold no tablets to the retail-purchasing public, but marketed its product as a powder; further, that it did sell vast quantities of the powder to tablet-makers, who sold “Aspirin Tablets,” and that the consuming public knew the product only by the name “Aspirin.” This name, then, had a significance to the purchaser, similar to that of the word “quinin” on a package of quinin tablets, or the word “calomel” on a package of calomel tablets. As the Patent Office says: “In other words, the _prima facie_ significance of this word ‘Aspirin’ to such purchasers was that of a name”--and as a name it is “necessarily incapable of exclusive use by any one.”

The Patent Office’s decision also brings out the fact that, until the owners of the aspirin patent commenced making tablets themselves, the aspirin tablets on the market were not uniform, and that this lack of uniformity was a fraud on the public which the owners of the aspirin patent should have prevented. The concern did prevent it when it began to make the tablets itself, but maintained in its contention against the United Drug Company that it was unable to control the matter previously--a contention to which the Patent Office gives short shrift. It is further pointed out that the Bayer Company evidently recognized the weakness of its contention by the emphasis it placed through its advertising on the “Bayer Cross.”

When the Bayer Company began manufacturing its own aspirin tablets, it made a pretense of complying with the letter of the law, while violating its spirit, by placing on the label under the word “Aspirin,” the statement that “the monoaceticacidester of salicylic acid in these tablets is the reliable Bayer manufacture.” Says the Patent Office: “With regard to the expression ‘monoaceticacidester of salicylic acid,’ a mere inspection of it is sufficient to apprise any one of its inherent unsuitability for use as a name by the lay purchasing public.” This attempt on the part of the company to “beat the devil around a stump” tended, in the opinion of the Patent Office decision, “to show that the respondent was familiar with the methods of some modern traders to meet the trend of the law.” And, discussing such methods, the Examiner of Interferences says: “A very popular one is for a trader to seemingly bend to the necessity of the situation by placing on the label a notation which in theory, but not in practice, may be used by the public to identify the article after the monopoly has expired. To the examiner this practice seems to be merely a manifestation of that keen commercial instinct which endeavors to keep just ahead of the law. This instinct is fairly common in traders, and is clearly disclosed in trademark infringement cases.”

Summed up, the decision is to the effect that, as in any case prior to 1915, the public had been driven to look on the word “Aspirin” as the name of a _thing_, and as the Bayer Company had not used the word as a “trademark” within the meaning of the law, the Patent Office recommends that the registration of “Aspirin” as a trademark be canceled. If no appeal is taken from this decision, or in case an appeal is taken, should the opinion be sustained, the attempt on the part of the patentees of aspirin to get a perpetual monopoly on their product through the trademark laws will have been definitely defeated.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 11, 1919._)

“Aspirin Bayer” and the Sterling Products Company

A correspondent, who asks that his name be not published, writes:

“Your editorial on ‘Aspirin or Acetylsalicylic Acid--An Important Court Decision’ is timely. Too often, I fear, physicians forget ‘what’s in a name.’ I have been told that the Sterling Products Co., the present owners of the Aspirin-Bayer rights, are manufacturers of other ‘patent medicines.’ Are they interested in the Winthrop Chemical Company, which firm seems to be using the much vaunted ‘Bayer Cross’ on the labels of the products formerly imported from Germany by ‘The Bayer Company’? If you answer this in The Journal, kindly omit my name.”

The recent history of Bayer & Co., is somewhat as follows: Shortly after the United States entered the war, the Alien Property Custodian took over the property of Bayer & Co. (Inc.) and its subsidiary, the Synthetic Patents Co. In his report to congress the Custodian said:

“The stock of Bayer & Co. (Inc.) and of Synthetic Patents Co. was sold by me at public auction, the successful bidder being the Sterling Products Co., a West Virginia corporation dealing in proprietary medicines. This company had previously agreed to dispose of the dye plant and patents, in case it secured the property, to Grasselli Chemical Co., one of the largest makers of heavy chemicals in the country. The price paid was $5,310,000, plus back taxes and other obligations of many hundred thousands more.”

After the Sterling Products Company had acquired the pharmaceutical end of the business, the Winthrop Chemical Co. was incorporated in the state of New York. This concern seemingly secured control of all the Bayer pharmaceutical specialties except “Aspirin.” The Bayer Co., it was announced, had been merged with the Sterling Products Co., and “Aspirin-Bayer” added to the latter firm’s list of “patent medicines”: Cascarets, Danderine, Pape’s Diapepsin, California Syrup of Figs, Neuralgine and Dodson’s Livertone. The business is apparently a paying one financially as witness the following excerpt from a recent announcement in a drug journal:

“Stockholders of the Sterling Products Co., Inc., of Wheeling, manufacturers of Neuralgine, Cascarets, Bayer’s Aspirin, and other well known products, and the largest proprietary medicine organization in the world, at their annual meeting received a report of Manager W. E. Weiss, which showed that the company did a $10,000,000 business in 1920. The total profits were $2,100,000, while a total of $1,080,000 was paid out in dividends.”

Just what relationship exists between the Winthrop Chemical Co., and the Sterling Products Co., we do not know. As our correspondent points out, the “Bayer Cross” is used on the label of the Winthrop products.

The advertising campaign of “Aspirin, Bayer” since it entered the “patent medicine” field has been typical of that field. By half truths and inferential falsehoods the public has been led to believe that the only genuine aspirin on the market is that put out under the Bayer name. The facts are, of course, that the aspirin of any reputable firm is just as good as the aspirin put out by the makers of Livertone, Danderine and Cascarets.

There is one point, however, that is of vital importance to the medical profession; The decision recently rendered in the United States District Court of Southern New York makes it obligatory for druggists, when filling a physician’s prescription calling for “aspirin,” to dispense the Bayer product. When the public buys aspirin on its own responsibility--without specifying any particular brand--the druggist may give the purchaser any make of acetylsalicylic acid he sees fit. To repeat what was said in The Journal’s comment on this decision: “Unless a physician wishes to cater to the concern owning the Bayer rights and to aid in perpetuating what was a monopoly for seventeen years, he should be careful to prescribe the drug under the term ‘acetylsalicylic acid,’ The court now places the responsibility directly on the medical profession. Avoid ‘aspirin’--write ‘acetylsalicylic acid.’--(_From The Journal A. M. A., June 11, 1921._)

THE ALLIED MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS OF AMERICA

Another Rocket in the Pyrotechnics of Quasimedical Organizations

It was once said, in the days when diploma mills flourished, that it seemed easier to start a “university” than it was to open a grog shop. A study of quasimedical organizations convinces one that it is easier to found a “medical society” than it is to establish a peanut stand. Most reputable practitioners of medicine who care to affiliate themselves with medical organizations are members of the American Medical Association, its component societies, or similar scientific bodies. It is not surprising then, that those who live and move in the twilight zone of professionalism, from visionaries riding bizarre medical hobbies to those who have special interests to exploit, should create and make use of hybrid medical organizations. Such organizations multiply as rapidly as rabbits. They flourish for a while, obtain more or less newspaper and other publicity--usually more, because of the sensational methods of those controlling them--then, having served the purpose of those who brought them into being, they lapse into innocuous desuetude.

The official accouchement of the Allied Medical Associations of America occurred, according to that organization’s report, May 18, 1918. On the official stationery of the Allied Medical Associations of America in use in May, 1919, we find the names of the “Officers,” “Censors,” etc. These constitute, presumably, the more prominent members of this organization. We give briefly, some data regarding some of these so that a rational perspective may be obtained:

L. M. Ottofy, M.D., St. Louis, Mo.--Dr. Ottofy seems to have been the chief organizer, if not, indeed, the founder. He has been its “Secretary-Treasurer” since its inception; he is also “editor” of its journal. Ottofy, according to our records, was born in 1865 at Budapest, Hungary, and was graduated in 1888 by the Homeopathic Medical College of Missouri. In Polk’s Medical Directories for 1914 and 1917, Ottofy has those extended notices which any physician can obtain who cares to pay for them. According to these notices, Ottofy is, or has been, affiliated with the following “societies”:

President of the International Cancer Research Society. Ex-President of the St. Louis Society of Medical Research. Second Vice President of the Missouri Institute of Homeopathy. General Secretary of the American Association of Progressive Medicine. Chairman of the Board of Censors of the Missouri Institute of Homeopathy. Member of the American Institute of Homeopathy. Member of the Southern Homeopathic Association. Member of the American Association of Orificial Surgeons. Member of the Southern Homeopathic Medical Society. Member of the Kansas City Society of Medical Research. Honorary member of the Chicago Society of Medical Research.

In December, 1911, numerous newspaper clippings show that Dr. Ottofy was obtaining much publicity relative to his antivaccination activities. At that time the papers reported that Ottofy was suing the St. Louis Board of Education for $25,000 damages, because the board would not admit to the schools of the city a child he had “internally” vaccinated. In November, 1913, the St. Louis _Republic_ reported that Ottofy had claimed to have discovered a serum for the cure of cancer, and quoted Ottofy as claiming “a record of 72 per cent. of cures” in “selected cases.” In February, 1914, the newspapers reported that Ottofy was making a trip east “on the trail of radium for use in his practice in the cure of cancer” and quoted him as stating, “I have learned on good authority that there is radium in Missouri, and just where I refuse to divulge at this time.” In January, 1915, the St. Louis _Republic_ reported that Ottofy, at a meeting of the “St. Louis Society of Medical Research,” had announced that he had perfected a serum treatment for cancer, which “is curing patients who have been pronounced incurable by so-called ‘cancer experts.’” In January, 1916, the St. Louis _Star_ reported that Ottofy had sought an injunction against the Board of Education of St. Louis to restrain it from using its funds for “the maintenance of a Board of Hygiene.” In July, 1916, St. Louis papers recorded that Ottofy, who was then running for coroner, had been cited to appear before the prosecuting attorney to explain a charge of passing out, at a political meeting, a card alleged to have borne an indecent drawing of President Wilson. The prosecuting attorney was said to have instructed Ottofy to bring the plates from which the cards were printed to his office. Two days later the papers stated that Ottofy had sent the cards and plates by messenger to the prosecuting attorney’s office.

N. La Doit Johnson, M.D., Chicago.--Dr. Johnson’s name appears as the “First Vice-President” of the Allied Medical Associations of America. A few years ago, Dr. Johnson’s name also appeared as the “Dean of the Faculty” of the “American Post Graduate School.” This “school” was a mail-order concern which, according to the “Annual Announcement,” would grant diplomas and confer degrees as follows: “Master of Surgery,” “Bachelor of Medicine,” “Bachelor of Science,” “Master of Electro-Therapy,” “Doctor of Osteopathy,” “Doctor of Psychology,” “Master of Massage,” etc.

H. M. Goehring, D.O., M.D., Pittsburgh, Pa.--The “Second Vice-President,” according to the letterheads of the “Association” carries the letters D.O., M.D., after his name. So far as our records show, and they are most complete and based on official data, H. M. Goehring is an osteopath, but not a doctor of medicine.

A. E. Erling, M.D., Milwaukee, Wis.--A. E. Erling, according to the stationery, is “Chairman” of “Censors.” Our records fail to show that Erling ever graduated in medicine. The Health Department of Milwaukee, however, says that Erling, when interviewed, claimed to have “a diploma from the German Medical College of Chicago, but refused to show or present the same.” The American Medical Directory has this item:

_German Medical College_, Chicago. Chartered Dec. 28, 1891, by Johann Malok. Fraudulent. Extinct.

A few years ago Erling was in La Crosse, Wis.; and in 1908 a circular letter bearing his name and picture was sent out from which the following extracts are taken. Capitalization as in the original:

“Dear Friend:--Permit me to call your attention to the fact that Dr. A. E. Erling, the eminent specialist, after many years of travel, practice and medical research, has given up his extensive road practice and severed his connection with the several medical institutes which have heretofore occupied considerable of his attention ... Dr. Erling’s success in the treatment of all CHRONIC DISEASES is truly remarkable. NERVOUSNESS, all BLOOD DISEASES, RHEUMATISM, DISEASES PECULIAR TO WOMEN, CATARRH, DEAFNESS, CHRONIC CONSTIPATION ... APPENDICITIS ... PILES, STOMACH TROUBLES, PARTIAL PARALYSIS, etc., give way as if by magic under his skillful method of treatment ... Understand please, that Dr. Erling DOES NOT ACCEPT A CASE FOR TREATMENT unless he can PROMISE A SPEEDY AND POSITIVELY PERMANENT CURE.”

The Journal also has in its files advertisements (vintage of 1915), from some Wisconsin country newspapers, which notify the afflicted that “Drs. Erling and Karass, the expert German Specialists,” could be seen in their offices in the “Schlegel Hotel,” the “Schlitz Hotel,” etc., as the case might be. Whether one of these “German Specialists” was Dr. Arnold E. Erling, The Journal does not know. Official medical records fail to show, at least, that there is any other Erling in the state of Wisconsin.

W. W. Fritz, M.D., Philadelphia.--Another of the “Censors.” This presumably is W. Wallace Fritz, M.D., D.D.S., N.D., D.O., D.C., who was the “Dean” of the “American College of Neuropathy,” and “Professor of Neuropathy” at the same institution. According to newspaper reports published when the “dean” of the American College of Neuropathy was called into court to testify regarding the “school,” Fritz admitted that when he became dean of this “college,” the “college” had three students and thirty “Faculty Members”! Fritz, it should be mentioned in passing, is a member of the Philadelphia County Medical Society and by virtue of this membership he has qualified as a Fellow of the American Medical Association! Recently Fritz’s name appeared in connection with the formation of a new organization, founded, it appears, for the laudable purpose of fighting the “Medical Trust.” Fritz, according to the newspaper reports, is treasurer of this new organization, which has adopted the inspiring title, “Constitutional Liberty League of America” and seems to be a later edition of the mushroom “National League for Medical Freedom.” Quoting from the newspaper report:

“Dr. W. Wallace Fritz, a member of the American Medical Association, created a profound impression when he said that all health laws were written by agents of, or members of, the American Medical Association, and that this organization was at once the most powerful and the most baneful of all the American Trusts. Dr. Fritz then went on to say: ‘Most of the drugs administered are worthless. Most of the doctors who prescribe them are incompetent, but both the injurious drug and the ignorant prescriber are protected, in and out of court, by the American Medical Association, which trust is now raising a vast fund with which to drive all drugless healers out of the profession. Medicine is the camouflage used to conceal the most alert, the most rapacious and the least patriotic of all the trusts milking the American people. The tyranny of the Medical Trust is unbelievable. It is also un-American.’”

The Philadelphia _Sunday Transcript_ of May 4, 1919, had a five column article under the name of W. Wallace Fritz. It is a most vituperative affair, and reeks with fire and brimstone. It is directed chiefly against the American Medical Association, and physicians are dubbed “Prescription Writing Drug Peddlers Who Prosper Through Monopolistic Laws Rather than by the Practice of an Exact Science.” In the course of this diatribe we read:

“The members of the American Medical Association are manifesting an unwarranted interest in the dear people, who, in their assumption, need quinin and mercurial guardian; who under this class legislation confines us to this monopoly of the big and little pill, is trying by hook and crook to shut out the natural and rational methods of cure which are driving the drug monopoly from the face of the earth. Diagnosis and consultation consist in four or five medical doctors, whose faces denote death, sitting around a sick man and guessing what ails him. After that has been performed they guess at what will cure him, and that is generally a sure sign the undertaker will follow.”

C. O. Linder, M.D., Spokane, Wash.--This gentleman (another “Censor”), seems to be an osteopath, who some years ago was “Assistant Secretary” of the “Washington’s Physicians’ Association,” founded apparently by rebels within the osteopathic ranks who denounced the Washington Osteopathic Association as a “professional trust”! Linder apparently claims graduation in 1905 from the “Thompsonian Medical College” of Allentown, Pa. The following item from the American Medical Directory regarding this school is of interest:

“_Thompsonian Medical College_, Allentown. Organized in 1904. Fraudulent. No evidence to show classes were ever held.”

A. H. Flower, M.D., Boston.--Still another “Censor.” Flower, according to the notice that appears in Polk’s Directory for 1917, claims graduation in 1888 from the “American Health College” of Cincinnati, and in 1894 from the “American Health University” of Chicago. Quoting again from the American Medical Directory, here is what we find regarding the former “college”:

“_American Health College_, Cincinnati. Organized in 1874 and re-organized in 1876. Conducted by a Dr. Campbell who originated and copyrighted the so-called ‘Vitapathic System,’ Fraudulent. Extinct about 1888.”

We have no record of an “American Health University” of Chicago, although there was an “Illinois Health University” of Chicago, one of the numerous diploma-mill swindles operated by Armstrong. It was declared fraudulent by the federal authorities and its charter was revoked in 1897. Flower, according to the notice in Polk’s Directory, is:

Ex-President Maine Eclectic Society. Ex-President New England Eclectic Medical Association. Member National Eclectic Medical Association. Member American Progressive Medical Society. Member Massachusetts Eclectic Medical Society.

Z. L. Baldwin, M.D., Kalamazoo, Mich.--Possibly the data just given concerning some of those whose names appeared on the organization’s stationery are more than sufficient for the average physician to get a perspective of the Allied Medical Associations of America. Still, it is worth mentioning that in a letter recently sent out by Ignatz Mayer, extending an invitation to the annual convention of the Allied Medical Associations of America, Mayer took the opportunity of incorporating in his letter a letter which one of the members of the “association” had been sending out, urging individuals to join. The member in question was Dr. Z. L. Baldwin of Kalamazoo, Mich. Dr. Baldwin, as some of our readers may remember, is the gentleman who, a few years ago, was exploiting an “Intravenous Treatment” for the cure of tuberculosis. According to the claims made at that time:

“... for the first time in the history of medicine, we have a successful treatment for tuberculosis.

“... we are able to kill the germs of the disease in the body, thoroughly ridding it of all tubercular infection, destroying the germ and its poisons likewise.”

This was a few years ago. Whether Dr. Baldwin is still specializing in consumption we do not know; apparently not, as we notice that at the first meeting of the Allied Medical Associations, Baldwin’s name was on the program for the “Cure of Goiter by Adjustment of Lenses.”

George Starr White, M.D., F.S.Sc., Lond., Los Angeles, Calif.--A letter received by a physician a few days before the recent convention of the Allied Medical Associations, held out as an inducement to be present the fact that “Geo. S. White will show you how to diagnose disease by means of dif. colored lights and the reaction of the body to the magnetic meridian.” Dr. George Starr White was the “Second Vice-President” of the Allied Medical Associations in 1918. White, according to our records, was graduated in 1908 when he was forty-two years old, by the New York Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital. He was licensed in New York in 1908, in California, Connecticut and Nevada in 1913, and in Michigan in 1916. He seems to have been one of the proponents of “spondylotherapy,” “zonetherapy,” etc., and in 1915 it was announced that he would give one week courses in “Spondylotherapy” in Chicago, Kansas City and Denver, respectively. In his advertisement he emphasized that he was a Fellow of the American Medical Association, which, while true at the time, is no longer true, as on Feb. 4, 1916, he was expelled from membership in the Los Angeles County Medical Association. In May, 1915, White was arrested in Chicago and fined $100 and costs for practicing medicine without a license. Dr. White’s specialty seems to be what is ponderously known as “Bio-Dynamo-Chromatic Diagnosis.” This has been described by one of its enthusiastic adherents as “Diagnosis by Sympathetic Vagal-Reflex.” To obtain the “Sympathetic Vagal-Reflex” it seems the patient must face east or west and have his bare abdomen percussed until a dull area is located. The patient is then faced north or south and again percussed. Then, it seems, different colored lights are thrown on the patient, the location of the areas of dullness being determined meanwhile. A combination of ruby and blue lights “will cause a reflex in cases of gonorrhea,” a “green light will cause a reflex in cases of liver or gallbladder trouble,” while the color for carcinoma is orange red! During the height of the influenza epidemic last winter, White seems to have put on the market “Valens Essential Oil Tablets” which were for “Gripping the Flu out of Influenza,” and were also said greatly to benefit or cure incipient tuberculosis, hay-fever, asthma, and “catar.” The letters “F.S.Sc., Lond.” after Dr. White’s name look well, sound well, and have an air of erudition and mystery that is well worth what they cost. They mean “Fellow of the Incorporated Society of Science, Letters and Arts of London, Ltd.” The “Fellowship” costs one guinea. Not a few “patent medicine” exploiters in the United States carry these mystic letters after their names. The society in question was a seriocomic concern that was exposed by London _Truth_ some years ago and was also dealt with in The Journal of May 29, 1909, in connection with the “Aicsol Consumption Cure” exposé.

So much for the Allied Medical Associations of America. At their recent meeting in New York City they got much newspaper publicity because of their action on the prohibition question. According to the newspaper reports, the organization adopted a resolution declaring that “properly brewed lager beer is absolutely essential in the treatment of certain cases.” They were further reported as endorsing the manufacture of light wines and of beer containing not to exceed 2.75 per cent. alcohol. As a piece of publicity work this resolution was all that its sponsors could expect. The Journal office was flooded with telegrams and letters from physicians, temperance workers, congressmen, church organizations, and others, asking, in effect, What _is_ the Allied Medical Associations of America? This is our apology for giving the amount of space necessary to a proper understanding of this organization. Today the rocket of the Allied Medical Associations of America is blazing a more or less erratic course across the sky of publicity. The stick will be down anon! Any resolution or expression of opinion by this organization, or others of its type, when dealing with the broader problems of public health, is wholly without scientific significance, whether such resolutions are good, bad or indifferent.--(_From The Journal A. M. A., July 5, 1919._)

“ARSENICALS”

The September issue of the _Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology_ presents a number of significant features regarding the use of arsphenamin and related compounds that are at present being widely employed in the treatment of syphilis. To one who studies these statements of laboratory and clinical investigators in the special field involved there must come the conviction that many therapeutic perplexities still remain at the end of nearly a decade of trial for the types of compounds which Ehrlich introduced. It is well for the practitioner to realize this, especially when expert workers still make an appeal for conservative interpretations. Stokes forcefully summarized the situation when he stated at the New Orleans session of the American Medical Association:

Too short a time has elapsed since the discovery of these drugs, and too little is as yet known about the ultimate problems of the pathology, immunology and parasitology of syphilis, to justify the announcing of new infallibilities. The necropsy pathologist of the next fifty years may well, like Warthin, upset our most plausible generalizations of today. Seasoned tradition and conservatism are still the wisest guides in our interpretation of clinical cure. Arsphenamin has made it apparently possible and even probable, but only to the inexperienced has cure been made absolute and inevitable.

It is recognized that the exact composition of arsphenamin in its available form is not fully determined. As has been emphasized again, the quantitative determination of arsenic alone in arsphenamin is insufficient to estimate its purity; in fact, the interstate sale of arsphenamin is controlled by toxicity tests on guinea-pigs made by the Hygienic Laboratory of the United States Public Health Service. Consequently, practical medicine must be on its guard to employ a product which is carefully controlled by such toxicity tests as well as by other criteria. It will not do to charge untoward results offhand solely to idiosyncrasy of the patient, faulty administration or other errors in technic. The drug itself still has inherent dangers. It should be borne in mind also that neo-arsphenamin behaves differently in the animal organism from arsphenamin, and should not be regarded simply as arsphenamin in a convenient form for administration.

It is gratifying to learn from a government expert that after the long struggle to produce satisfactory products, arsphenamin preparations made in the United States are generally less toxic than those of foreign manufacture. Neo-arsphenamin preparations made in the United States compare favorably, and in certain instances are decidedly less toxic than most of the foreign products. Timely presentations of the faults and dangers as well as the undisputed advantages of current therapy in the management of syphilis should be welcomed.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Oct. 9, 1920._)

Pharmacology of Arsenicals

The Public Health Service some time ago[262] warned against the use in syphilis of new arsenicals which are not related to arsphenamin; it was stated that a number of such were being sold with unwarranted claims as to their value. At least three such arsenicals have in recent years been the subject of some exploitation for use in this disease: sodium cacodylate, the sodium salt of methyl arsenic acid (“Arrhenal”) and the sodium salt of ethyl arsenic acid (“Mon-Arsone”).[263] As regards the first two, Castelli showed several years ago that neither has any action on experimental trypanosomiasis and spirochete infections; careful clinical observations in this country have confirmed the inefficacy of sodium cacodylate in human syphilis.[264] Voegtlin and Smith[265] of the Hygienic Laboratory have now shown in animal experiments that ethyl arsenic acid (“Mon-Arsone”) is devoid of any practical trypanocidal action. Thus the “therapeutic ratio” (the ratio of the minimal effective dose to the lethal dose) was about 1, that is, it was effective therapeutically only in approximately fatal doses, the therapeutic ratio for arsphenamin in similar conditions was 17, and that of neo-arsphenamin, 28. In fact, the conditions with ethyl arsenic acid were no more favorable than were those with arsenous acid (the active constituent of solution of potassium arsenite), although it was far less poisonous. The validity of such experiments in determining the probable value of drugs in human syphilis cannot be questioned:[266] it was by such experiments that Ehrlich and his co-workers found two or three of six hundred and six arsenic preparations studied to be of value, and of the next three hundred or more studied only one (neo-arsphenamin) worthy of trial in human medicine. The time has passed when a high arsenic content of a compound and a low toxicity, and a number of cases of apparent clinical improvement, can be assumed to indicate that a drug has any real value in the treatment of syphilis. Many organic compounds of arsenic as well as other drugs may cause temporary or apparent improvement in syphilis, but to date only those related to arsphenamin have proved of real value and comparatively safe. Others which had some real value proved to have dangerous side effects; readers will recall the history of arsanilic acid (“Atoxyl” or “Soamin”) and its acetyl derivative (“Arsacetin”).--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 26, 1921._)

[262] Warning Against Untried Medicaments, J. A. M. A. =74=:1654 (June 12) 1920.

[263] Wright, B. L.; Kennell, L. A., and Hussey, L. M.: Med. Rec. =97=:607 (April 10) 1920.

[264] Nichols, H. J.: Salvarsan and Sodium Cacodylate, J. A. M. A. =56=:492 (Feb. 18) 1911.

[265] Voegtlin, Carl, and Smith, H. W.: J. Pharmacol. & Exper. Therap. =16=:449, 1921.

[266] Compare Schamberg, J. F.; Kolmer, J. A., and Raiziss, G. W.: Am. J. M. Sc. =150=:25 (July) 1920.

Salvarsan: Abrogate the Patent

The Journal has already commented on the difficulty in securing salvarsan, on the moral and ethical question as to whether or not it is justifiable for one person to control the output of a drug necessary to public health. This week we publish an account of the action of the St. Louis and Chicago medical societies, which are calling on the medical profession to appeal to their senators and congressmen to abrogate this patent. The Journal believes that this patent should be abrogated, not alone because the patentees have not supplied the demand, not alone because they have dictated to the medical profession who should have the drug and how much a physician might have, not alone because of the war with Germany, not alone because of the special needs of the government at this time for the control of venereal diseases, not alone because, as some claim, the patent at Washington does not correctly describe the product, but also because the people who are supplying this product are charging prices that are exorbitant compared to the price at which others in this country can supply it. The fact is that the salvarsan one can obtain today costs $4.50 per ampule of 0.6 gram, whereas the same dose of arsenobenzol--a preparation identical with, if not better than, salvarsan--costs $2.00 at retail, and as Dr. Schamberg says: “If we are permitted to continue marketing the same drug after the war, we can sell it at $1.00 or less per tube.” To abrogate this patent would be doing an injury to no one. Certainly the patentees of salvarsan have already reaped their harvest--and a pretty rich one. The supply of salvarsan at a reasonable price in proportion to its actual cost of production is in the interest of the health of the entire population of the country, whereas to let matters rest as they are, is to the benefit of one man. While we are emphasizing here the cost, there is after all a greater question, and that is the supply necessary to help control the ravages of one of the most serious diseases which afflict humanity today. It is the duty of Congress to abrogate the patent on this preparation and, incidentally, on all medicinal preparations of importance.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., April 21, 1917._)

End the Monopoly

The Adamson Bill, known as the “trading with the enemy act,” has recently been passed by the House of Representatives, is now before the Senate, and will doubtless be enacted into a law. One of its clauses confers authority on the Federal Trade Commission to grant licenses to citizens of this country to operate patents owned by enemy aliens. Physicians are interested in the bill primarily because it includes the salvarsan situation. The manner in which salvarsan has been supplied in this country has been so arbitrary and the prices charged so tremendously above the actual cost, that we should not be satisfied unless the monopoly is ended so that the drug can be supplied at least at a fairly moderate figure, and the old methods eliminated. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the Federal Trade Commission will not grant exclusive control--that is, exclusive license--to any one person or firm. To do so would simply perpetuate the old monopoly and the old conditions. England has adopted a law, which, in principle, is similar to the Adamson Bill, and there several concerns have been licensed to manufacture the product. The same should be done here. The Dermatologic Research Laboratories of Philadelphia announce that they can supply arsenobenzol at $1.50 a tube, and that there is immediately available a supply sufficient for any demand that may be made. The same laboratories have announced also that in a few months they will be able to supply hospitals for $1.00 a tube. Considerable responsibility rests on the Federal Trade Commission in this matter, for it is not only a question of monopoly, but also a question of scientific qualifications and ability to make the product on the part of some who may make application. Undoubtedly the commission will secure the cooperation of the United States Public Health Service, under whose supervision these drugs should be manufactured no matter who shall be licensed to make the product.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., July 21, 1917._)

Arsphenamin

No, this is not a new chemical; it is simply the name adopted by the Federal Trade Commission for the hydrochlorid of 3-diamino-4-dihydroxy-1-arsenobenzene--in other words, salvarsan. As our readers already have been informed three firms have been licensed to manufacture and sell arsphenamin; but, while each manufacturer may have his own trade name on the label, the official name must be the prominent one on all packages. Hence, physicians should at once make it a point to learn and use the name “arsphenamin” in place of salvarsan. At first sight, arsphenamin looks formidable. In reality, it is just as easy to familiarize oneself with the word “arsphenamin” as it was to learn to use the terms “salvarsan,” “arsenobenzol” or any other of the trade names.--(_Editorial from The Journal A. M. A., Jan. 19, 1918._)

BEER AND CANCER CURES

Did the Brewing Interests Advertise Autolysin?

Our readers may remember that an article appeared in this department of The Journal for July 6, 1918, under the title “Henry Smith Williams and ‘Proteal Therapy.’” “Proteal Therapy” is a treatment exploited by Henry Smith Williams, M.D., of New York, for use in tuberculosis, cancer, rheumatism, etc. It is apparently a modification of the “Autolysin” cancer “cure” which Williams had previously puffed in _Heart’s Magazine_.

The Journal’s article pointed out that Henry Smith Williams, although entitled to write “M.D.” after his name, is essentially a journalist. He has written voluminously for some years in lay publications on various subjects, both under his own name and under his _nom de plume_, “Stoddard Goodhue, M.D.” In addition, Williams runs a publishing concern called the Goodhue Company, which issues a number of books, many of them being reprints of Williams’ own articles.

Closely associated with Henry Smith Williams is his brother, Edward Huntington Williams, who also is a prolific writer. The Journal’s previous article called attention to the fact that there had been sent broadcast to physicians a neat little cloth-bound book, entitled, “Alcohol, Hygiene and Legislation.” This book, which evidently cost somebody a good deal of money to distribute gratis, was published by the Goodhue Company, and was written by Edward Huntington Williams. Enclosed with the book was an advertising leaflet on the “Autolysin” cancer cure and also a letter from the Goodhue Company, asking physicians to accept it “with our compliments and the compliments of the author.” The letter was chiefly devoted to calling attention to Henry Smith Williams’ “new book, the Autolysin Treatment of Cancer.” The last thirteen pages of the book “Alcohol, Hygiene and Legislation” contained advertisements of the Goodhue Company’s publications, particular emphasis being placed on the “Autolysin Treatment of Cancer,” by Henry Smith Williams.

So much by way of retrospect. Now comes information that may throw an interesting side-light on the matter just presented. There is at present being conducted by a committee of the United States Senate, an investigation relative to the purchase of a Washington (D. C.) newspaper with money alleged to have been furnished by those interested in the brewing industry.

At the opening hearing before the Senate Committee, Tuesday, November 19, the secretary of the United States Brewers’ Association, after admitting that brewers’ propaganda had been published in the _International Monthly_, edited by Viereck (of the _Fatherland_), also declared that the Publication Committee of the brewers’ association employed writers to “write up certain subjects” relating to the brewers’ trade. One of the writers mentioned in this connection was, according to the newspaper reports, “Dr. Edward H. Williams, author of articles published in medical and other journals.”

With this fact before us, it seemed worth while to go through the book that had been distributed so lavishly to physicians with the compliments of the Goodhue Company and Dr. Edward Huntington Williams, in the exploitation of “Autolysin,” and Henry Smith Williams’ book on the subject.

The first chapter of “Alcohol, Hygiene and Legislation” consists of a reprint of an article from the _New York Medical Journal_ of May 8, 1915. The article is a skilful presentation of the case for the defenders of the lighter alcoholic beverages, especially beer. This chapter and all succeeding chapters of the book attempt to discredit prohibitory legislation, and argue that prohibition drives the public to the use of the more ardent alcoholic beverages, while preventing the use of the milder beverages, such as beer, which one is led to infer is not particularly harmful. Throughout the book, also, the state of Kansas is held up as an example of the harm done by prohibition, and the theme is developed that insanity and the use of cocain and other habit-forming drugs follows in the wake of prohibition. The following extracts are from Chapter I:

The evil effects of _beer_ and wine, for example, are greatly less than those produced by spirituous liquors.... [Italics ours.--Ed.]

If our theory of immunity is correct we should expect to find that the older beverages, such as _beer_ and wine, which have been used for thousands of years, are less productive of alcoholic insanity, for example, than the spirituous liquors which are recent innovations. In point of fact we find this to be the case: the spirituous liquors are almost wholly responsible for all forms of alcoholic insanity. [Italics ours.--Ed.]