Many people have ignorantly and innocently formed an alcohol, morphine, or cocaine habit through the use of patent medicines. Many deaths have occurred from headache powders of which acetanilid is the chief ingredient. Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, says of these headache powders:--

"A woman has a headache and she uses one of these remedies. It relieves the pain. When she has another attack she uses it again and again with the same result. After a while she finds the usual amount of the remedy does not cure the pain. She uses two portions, and so the habit is formed until absolute danger is confronted. For one thing must not be forgotten: these remedies are powerful, for if they were not they would be of no effect.

They are in certain doses deadly; they depress the nervous system; they disturb the digestion; they interfere with natural sleep; they require to be used in increasingly larger quant.i.ties as the system becomes accustomed to their use; they are almost without exception excreted by the kidneys, thus adding an additional burden to organs already badly overworked. They produce a habit of gaining relief which becomes an obsession and incapable of being resisted."

It may be asked, "How is it if these mixtures are harmful only, that so many people profess to have received benefit from them?" There are different reasons for this.

1. The nature of such drugs as alcohol, opium and cocaine is to benumb sensation, so that pain is stilled, and the pain, or functional disturbance forgotten for the time, because the nerves are drugged into insensibility. The person _feels_ better while under the influence of the drug, so thinks it is benefiting him.

2. There are people who imagine they have diseases which they do not have; since trained physicians occasionally err in diagnosis, it is not strange if the laity should do likewise. Such persons are always ready to aver that a certain medicine "cured" them.

A ludicrous example of this is a woman out West, whose picture graces the advertis.e.m.e.nts of a certain nostrum, accompanied by a testimonial that said nostrum cured her of a "polypus"! Upon being written to as to how such a preparation could effect such a cure, she answered that, after giving the testimonial, she found that she had not had a polypus!

3. Some of the cures attributed to drugs, are doubtless due to Nature.

It is estimated that from 30 to 90 per cent. of ailments are cured by Nature, una.s.sisted, and often in spite of, the drugs swallowed. Many of the books advertising these remedies (?) give excellent rules of health, which, if followed, would restore persons to vigor more speedily without the accompanying medicine, than they can be restored while the system has the poisonous drugs to throw off. It may be reasonably a.s.sumed that a goodly number of recoveries ascribed to drug treatments are due, in reality, to the resisting force of a good const.i.tution, or to obedience to the laws of health given in the circular.

4. It is not uncommon for people suffering from certain diseases to have temporary remissions in the course of the disease. No doubt, some of the cases reported as cures are such spontaneous remissions, which are followed, after the testimonials have been written, by relapse. The majority of people are ignorant of the natural course of diseases--of what happens when no treatment is taken. They do not know that a great many affections are characterized by periods of apparent recovery. For instance in some varieties of paralysis, as well as in consumption, the sufferer may to appearance recover completely for a few months or longer; if a remedy was being used at the time, it would naturally get the credit of causing the favorable change.

However, all of the glowing testimonials of wonderful benefits accruing from patent medicines are not what they seem to be. Dr. J. H. Kellogg says in his _Monitor of Health_:--

"The average manufacturer of patent medicines regularly employs a person of some literary attainment whose duty it is to invent vigorous testimonials of sufferings relieved by Dr. Charlatan's universal panacea. In many instances persons are hired to give testimonials, and answer letters of inquiry in such a way as to encourage business. The shameless dishonesty and ingenious villainy exhibited are beyond description."

Recently an advertis.e.m.e.nt of one of these nostrums stated in the headlines that said nostrum was used in the Frances Willard Temperance Hospital, Chicago. The testimonial appended purported to be from a nurse in that hospital, _but the testimonial did not state, as did the headlines_, that the preparation was ever used in that hospital. The president of the hospital board of trustees states that the nurse positively denies having given any testimonial to the company thus advertising. She did give one to another patent medicine concern, but not to this, and never said either was used in the hospital, nor have they been. Suit could be brought for damages, but unfortunately the patent medicine people have unlimited money, and the hospital has not.

Early in the present year there appeared in many daily papers a large advertising picture of a man whose name was appended as a professional nurse of a western city.

The following testimonial accompanied the picture:--

"Mr. ---- of ----, who is a professional nurse of experience, writes,--'My friend is improving, thanks to ----, and you. I am called on to nurse the sick of all cla.s.ses. I recommend ---- to such an extent that I am nicknamed ---- (giving name of nostrum) by nearly everybody.'"

As the writer of this book was acquainted with a physician residing in the small city mentioned in the advertis.e.m.e.nt, she wrote to him, requesting that he investigate this testimonial.

He replied that he found the chief part of the advertis.e.m.e.nt, namely, that Mr. ---- was a professional nurse, false; "First, by his own statement as he told me this morning that he never claimed to be a professional nurse. And my personal acquaintance with him, as well as that of a number of other physicians in our little city, and reliable men and women of this community who are acquainted with him, all testify to the same thing, namely; that he is not a professional nurse, neither is he a nurse, or even a reliable man. He is an innocent, ignorant man, very close to the pauper cla.s.s. He told me when I read the commendation to which his name is affixed, that it was all true except the professional nurse part, and that was entirely false, as stated above."

As the picture was of a fine-looking, intelligent-appearing man it probably was as _genuine_ as the testimonial.

The following was clipped from a copy of _Merck's Report_, April, 1899, a druggists' paper published in New York city:--

MANY DRUGGISTS INDIGNANT.

A PATENT-MEDICINE ADVERTIs.e.m.e.nT CONTAINS UNAUTHORIZED ENDORs.e.m.e.nTS.

"Fully a score of East-side druggists are up in arms over the unauthorized use of their names in a full-page newspaper advertis.e.m.e.nt of a widely-known specific. This advertis.e.m.e.nt appeared recently in certain New York daily papers, and retail druggists who have made it a rule of their business never to recommend any particular proprietary article, found themselves quoted in unqualified laudation of the article so liberally advertised. The names and addresses of the druggists were given in full, and when several of the men quoted conferred together they found that the most barefaced misrepresentation had been resorted to.

"One of the pharmacists thus misrepresented, happened to be Sidney Faber, the secretary of the Board of Pharmacy. He was not selling this particular specific, and had never said a word for or against it, nevertheless, six or eight lines of endors.e.m.e.nt of the article were directly attributed to him. He called on some of his druggist neighbors whose names he saw in the advertis.e.m.e.nt, and ascertained that they, too, had been falsely and unwarrantably quoted. Mr. Faber promptly wrote to the proprietors of the specific in question, and denounced the published endors.e.m.e.nts bearing his name, as a forgery. His indignation was by no means appeased when he received a letter from the proprietary concern, couched in the following language: 'We regret to learn that you have been annoyed by any statements that have appeared in New York city papers. We will forward your letter to them.'

"Within the past few days several of the druggists whose names were used in this advertis.e.m.e.nt without authority, have been considering the advisability of taking legal proceedings in order to ascertain their rights in the matter. It is contrary to pharmaceutical ethics for a pharmacist to specially endorse any proprietary article, or patent medicine. Some of the offended druggists propose to contribute to a fund for the purpose of publicly, and widely, advertising this unwarranted use of their names."

When patent medicine advertisers would dare to resort to such a wholesale fraud as this, what may they be expected to refrain from?

As an ill.u.s.tration of how commendations from notable persons are sometimes obtained, the following is cited: In the winter of 1899, appeared an advertising picture of the lovely Christian lady from Denmark, the Countess Schimmelmann, who was spending some time in Chicago. Below her picture were the words:--

"Adeline, Countess Schimmelmann, whose portrait is here given, in a recent letter to the ---- company, (mentioning proprietors of nostrum) speaks of friends of hers who have been benefited by ---- (mentioning nostrum), and who first advised her to recommend it to her sick friends.

"The Countess, as is well known, is a prominent member of the Danish court. Her coming to this country has been much talked of. Her real object is one of charity. She is stopping in Chicago, _and from there writes her straightforward endors.e.m.e.nt of_ ---- (mentioning nostrum)."

The italics are the writer's. The picture and the testimonial were cut from the paper, and sent to the countess, asking if she had so spoken of this medicine, and, if so, did she, a strong total abstinence woman, know that this mixture contains a large percentage of alcohol.

She responded as follows:--

"Thank you for asking me about the enclosed. A white-ribbon lady came and asked me if I would do her the great kindness to recommend ---- compound (made up of the juice of celery). I said I could not personally recommend it as I neither use, nor want, medicine. But some very reliable friends of mine (_temperance people_, and _true Christians_) told me I would do a good thing in recommending it as they used it, and found it excellent. Then I wrote the following: 'I myself cannot recommend ---- compound as I do not suffer from any of the ailments it is said to be good for, but reliable friends of mine tell me that it is excellent, and I would do a good thing in recommending it to my friends. Adeline, Countess Schimmelmann.'

"I will only consent to the publishing of this letter if you publish the _whole_ letter, and no extract from it, as the white-ribbon lady did for the ---- compound."

If a white-ribb.o.n.e.r played this mean trick upon this distinguished Christian worker she is unworthy of membership in the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. It is more than likely that the "white-ribbon lady,"

was a paid advertising agent of the patent medicine manufacturer, and wore a white-ribbon to gain the confidence of the Countess.

Whether patent medicine manufacturers know how to doctor all ills to which human flesh is heir may be doubted, but that their advertising agents are skilful "doctors" of testimonials is very evident to any one acquainted with the facts.

The Department of Public Charities of New York city in a "Report on the use of so-called Proprietary Medicines as Therapeutic Agents," says:--

"In connection with this subject it might be mentioned that, for years past, the name of Bellevue Hospital has been taken in vain by a number of persons and firms, without any authority whatever. It is a common occurrence that samples of proprietary medicines, foods, mineral waters, plasters, etc., etc. are sent to the hospital, or to members of the house-staff for 'trial,'

whereupon the subsequent advertis.e.m.e.nts of the articles in question often a.s.sert that the latter are 'used in Bellevue Hospital,' leaving the impression upon the mind of the reader that the article, or articles, have been used with the sanction of some member of the Medical Board. It is probably impossible to find a remedy for this evil, from which many other inst.i.tutions of repute likewise suffer. To publish a denial of such false a.s.sertions would only aggravate the evil. The utmost that can be done appears to be, to caution the medical staff against any entanglements with, or encouragement of, the agents of the interested parties."

This report, which was adopted by the Medical Board of Bellevue Hospital, cla.s.sifies proprietary preparations as "Objectionable" or "Un.o.bjectionable" according to the following rules:--

"Un.o.bjectionable preparations are those, the origin and composition of which is not kept secret, and which are known to serve a useful and legitimate purpose. Malted Milk is an example. Objectionable proprietary preparations, by far the largest group of the whole cla.s.s, comprise all those which are aimed at under the medical code of ethics under the term 'secret nostrum,' which term may be more closely defined thus:

"A secret nostrum is a preparation, the origin or composition of which is kept secret, the therapeutic claims for which are unreasonable or unscientific, or which is not intended for a legitimate purpose.

"Examples: The various 'Soothing Syrups,' 'Female Regulators,'

'Blood Purifiers,' and thousands of others."

Dr. A. Emil Hiss, Ph. G., says of the secrecy of these preparations:--

"A secret compound with a meaningless t.i.tle is presumptively a fraud. Why a secret if not to permit extravagant, or fraudulent, claims as to therapeutic merit? * * * * * The ruling motive of the secret being essentially false and dishonest, its employment in the interest of any remedy is clearly a sufficient cause for its condemnation and ostracism."

Mothers sometimes wonder why their boys take so readily to cigarettes, or their daughters to cocaine, never thinking that the soothing syrup, or cough mixture given freely by themselves to their children developed a craving for something stronger later on. Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup, advertised for years in church as well as secular papers as "invaluable for children," is cited in the report for 1888 of the Ma.s.sachusetts State Board of Health as containing opium; also Ayer's Cherry Pectoral, Dr. Bull's Cough Syrup, Jayne's Expectorant, Hooker's Cough and Croup Syrup, Moore's Essence of Life, Mother Bailey's Quieting Syrup, and others too numerous to mention. The report says:--

"The sale of soothing syrups, and all medicines designed for the use of children, which contain opium and its preparations should be prohibited. Many would be deterred from using a preparation known to contain opium, who would use without question a soothing syrup recommended for teething children."

Again, on page 149 the following is quoted from a prominent physician:--

"Among infants, and in the early years of life, soothing syrups are the cause of untold misery; for seeds are doubtlessly sown in infancy only to bear the most pernicious fruit in adult life.

It is said that one of the best known soothing syrups contains from one to three grains of morphia to the ounce of syrup. I believe that stringent legal measures should immediately be taken to stop the sale of so-called soothing syrups containing opium, morphia or codeine."

The writer has known mothers so ignorant of the nature of these soothing syrups as to deliberately put the baby to sleep upon them in order to insure relief from care for some hours.