452  Pharmacologic  Superstitions.        {^oJSfirf  1917' 
editors  of  that  work  to  be  "  those,  the  utility  of  which  is  most  fully 
established/'  305  have  been  already  despoiled  of  their  official  recog- 
nition. I  have  been  surprised  in  looking  over  this  interesting  work, 
not  so  much,  however,  by  the  number  of  ancient  remedies  which  we 
have  ceased  to  use,  but  by  the  absence  of  drugs  today  universally 
recognized  as  our  most  valuable  weapons  against  disease.  Neither 
iodin  nor  any  of  the  iodids  are  in  the  first  American  Pharmacopeia; 
one  looks  in  vain  for  potassium  bromid  or  any  other  preparation  of 
bromin;  there  is  no  form  of  salicylic  acid  except  the  oil  of  gaultheria, 
and  that  apparently  was  recognized  only  for  its  aromatic  odor;  one 
finds  neither  chloral  nor  any  of  our  modern  somnifacients;  coca 
and  cocain  are  both  missing,  as  are  also  santonica  and  santonin; 
ether  is  recognized,  but  chloroform  was  unknown;  nitroglycerin  is 
not  mentioned,  the  only  form  of  nitrite  recognized  being  sweet  spirits 
of  niter ;  the  only  mention  of  ergot  is  in  the  secondary  list — that  is, 
drugs  of  doubtful  worth — where  is  listed  Secale  cornutum  or  spurred 
rye,  but  it  was  not  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  have  any 
preparation  recognized.  One  is  not  surprised  at  the  absence  of  our 
modern  coal  tar  derivatives,  such  as  acetanilid  and  phenol  (carbolic 
acid),  but  that  the  usefulness  of  aspidium  or  pilocarpus  should  not 
have  been  earlier  discovered  seems  worthy  of  comment.  In  the 
place  of  these  remedies  which  the  present  day  physician  relies  on  in 
such  a  host  of  conditions,  we  find  horseradish,  oatmeal,  barley,  stag's 
horn,  metallic  gold  and  silver,  cowhage — whose  sharp  bristles  were 
used  as  a  vermifuge  on  the  theory  that  they  would  stab  the  worm 
to  death — and  scores  of  remedies  not  even  whose  names  would  be 
known  to  many  readers. 
Are  we  to  gage  the  utility  of  a  therapeutic  agent  by  the  clinical 
results  we  think  we  see?  Wendell  Phillips  said  in  one  of  his 
famous  orations,  "  You  read  history  not  with  your  eyes  but  with 
your  prejudices."  The  thought  might  well  be  applied  to  the  medical 
profession.  Practically  all  our  experience  is  interpreted  through  the 
glasses  of  our  prejudice.  Never,  since  the  days  when  the  ancient 
Assyrian  chanted  his  exorcisms  of  the  pathogenic  devil  according  to 
the  phases  of  the  moon,  have  men  been  able  to  free  themselves  in 
the  choice  of  their  remedies  from  the  dominance  of  some  theory  con- 
cerning disease.  Indeed,  it  cannot  well  be  otherwise.  The  manifes- 
tations of  disease  are  so  protean,  and  its  development  subject  to  such 
an  infinitude  of  variation,  that  no  simple  collection  of  observations 
without  interpretation  is  of  the  slightest  value.    If  those  who  believe 
