112 Botanic Drugs 



Cactus grandiflorus was studied by Scheele and, 

 later, by Rubini. Neither claimed a digitalis action 

 for it, as has been erroneously stated. Their some- 

 what involved statements showed it, in their opin- 

 ions, to influence the heart muscle and the sphincters 

 in medicinal doses; but they made no claims based 

 on animal experimentation. Hosts of clinicians 

 have agreed with them. 



From the animal side, Gordon Sharp (Practi- 

 tioner, Sept., 1894) found no active principle and 

 determined no action except mild diuresis. Hatcher, 

 more recently, definitely proved the commercially 

 marketed so-called "active principle" to be prac- 

 tically inert. His later tests of cactus itself were 

 less convincing, since he did not prove identity or 

 origin of material used. But he proved, as was 

 long suspected, that cactus does not possess a 

 digitalis action. I have taken large doses of a re- 

 liable tincture, and noted no toxic symptoms there- 

 from; but the pulse was quickened and there was 

 gastric irritation, with a feeling of general discom- 

 fort. Blood-pressure was not raised. Also I have 

 taken vastly excessive doses of the "active prin- 

 ciple" with no demonstrable effect. And I have 

 made concentrations of cactus, which I believe the 

 commercial "active principle" to be, and the product 

 was wholly unstable, the mucilage therein soon 

 proliferating microorganisms. Furthermore, micro- 

 scopical examination of the commercial product 

 shows the presence of numerous microorganisms. 

 From the practical standpoint, I believe the "active 

 principle" to be of little or no value. 



Various specimens of the tincture have, in my 

 hands, varied largely in effectiveness, as judged 



