406 
THE SACCHARIDE OF COD-LIVER OIL. 
understood by the account of the composition of the powder given in the little 
“treatise” that accompanies the boxes sold in England? At page 6 of that 
pamphlet we read:—“ This saccharine powder is formed by incorporating cod- 
liver oil with an absorbing and conservative substance, by which means the 
elements of the oil (iodine, chlorine, bromine, phosphorus, sulphur, etc.) are 
completely assimilated. ... A long and methodical trituration preserves all its 
virtues, and gradually developes its medical properties.” 
The only conclusion to be drawn from Dr. Le Thiere’s letter is an admission 
on his part that the powder paraded before the public as a mixture of cod-liver 
oil and sugar contains no cod-liver oil at all. In the sentence just quoted from 
the “ treatise ” the elements iodine, bromine, etc. are mentioned, not in a general 
sense, but as constituent parts of the oil; Dr. Le Thiere admits, in effect, that 
the oil is absent, therefore he admits that the constituent parts of the oil are 
absent too. This was just the conclusion I came to in my analysis of the powder 
published in the December number of your Journal. 
Here I might let this matter rest, content with such an unexpected confirma¬ 
tion of the truth of my analysis ; but my duty as an analyst, holding a public 
appointment, forbids me to do so. 
Dr. Le Thiere seeks to retreat from an untenable position by suggesting that 
the powder contains in a general sense the elements of cod-liver oil,—iodine in 
the form of iodide of potassium, phosphorus as hypophosphite of lime, etc. Now 
these substances are common medicines, whose doses are well known ; w r e should 
therefore expect to find a reasonable amount of them in the stated dose (half a 
teaspoonful) of the powder. But on dissolving even eight or ten times that 
quantity in w r ater, and applying the starch test, or the nitrate of silver test for 
iodine, no reaction was obtained from the contents of either of the boxes I 
examined. Nor, on burning a similar amount, was a weighable quantity of ash 
obtained, which would have been the case had the specimens contained iodide 
of potassium, bromide of potassium, or hypophosphite of lime. Other experi¬ 
ments showed the absence of free or combined sulphur or phosphorus. 
What now will medical men, chemists and druggists, patent-medicine dealers, 
and the public generally say to “ Dr. Le Thiere’s Saccharated Cod-Liver Oil 
Powder ”? The “ treatise ” said it was'cod-liver oil and sugar; I said there was 
no oil in it: Dr. Le Thiere admits, in effect, that the treatise was wrong and I 
right. Dr. Le Thiere now says that the powder is a mixture of milk-sugar and the 
above well-known metallic salts. I say that chemical tests performed on speci¬ 
mens obtained from commercial houses in Paris and London still show that it 
is milk-sugar onty. 
With regard to the first part of Dr. Le Thiere’s letter, I may shortly say that 
it was quite unnecessary to ask me to relieve Messrs. Roberts and Co. and 
Messrs. Wilcox and Co. from responsibility, inasmuch as I imputed none to 
them. I simply copied and published in my paper the label on the box of 
powder obtained from Paris. They themselves incurred any responsibility that 
may be connected with the matter by allowing their names to be so used. On 
the boxes sold in England I find other names which, now that Dr. Le Thiere 
has admitted the proprietorship of the powder, need not be mentioned. No 
imputation of any kind was or is cast on any mere dealer in the powder. 
I am, Gentlemen, yours faithfully, 
17 , Bloomsbury Square. John Attfield. 
BIRMINGHAM CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—The short notice contained in last month’s Journal, of the unsuccess- 
