Am.  Jour.  Pharm. ) 
May,  1877.  j 
Editorial. 
27'j 
It  is  apparent,  by  comparing  these  formulas  with  the  account  given  above,  that 
they  are  simplifications  of  the  composition  as  stated  by  Prof.  McLean.  In  regard 
to  the  imperceptibility  of  the  alcohol,  however,  the  statement  of  Dr.  Broadbent 
appears  to  require  some  qualification  ;  for  Wittstein,  in  his  "  Geheimmittellehre," 
1876,  p.  82,  describes  the  nostrum  as  being  "sold  in  vials  containing  not  much  over 
half  an  ounce  (weight),  and  as  being  a  dark  yellowish-brown,  not  perfectly  clear 
liquid,  which  smells  of  alcohol,  and  at  the  same  time  of  camphor  and  saffron,  and 
has  an  intensely  bitter,  somewhat  aromatic  and  plainly  camphoraceous  taste.  It  con- 
tains, according  to  Buchner,  quinia  and  probably,  also,  cinchonia,  camphor,  saffron  j, 
probably,  also,  aloes,  myrrh  and  other  aromatics  like  galangal  ;  it  might,  therefore, 
be  prepared  by  exhausting  Calisaya  bark  with  water  acidulated  with  sulphuric  acid,, 
concentrating  by  evaporation,  neutralizing  with  lime,  exhausting  with  strong  alco- 
hol, and  adding  some  camphor,  saffron,  etc.'" 
It  is  further  stated  that  "  Ragsky,  from  his  analysis,  has  contrived  the  following 
formula  for  preparing  a  vial  of  the  tincture:  1  grain  camphor,  2^  gr.  aloes,  10  gr. 
orange  peel,  and  12  gr.  elecampane  are  digested  with  |  ounce  (weight)  of  alcohol 
and  24  drops  of  diluted  sulphuric  acid  5  to  the  tincture  is  added  9  gr.  sulphate  of 
quinia  and  3  drops  of  Sydenham's  laudanum.  Some  state  to  have  observed  the 
presence  of  ginger  and  angelica,  but  these  two  are  subordinate  in  quantity." 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  before  the  alleged  virtues  of  this  nostrum  were  heralded 
forth  the  constituents  upon  which  they  depend  were  not  previously  ascertained. 
Being  an  opponent  to  polypharmacy,  we  have  no  faith  in  "  a  farrago  of  inert  sub- 
stances." 
The  Nostrum  Chlorodyne — The  March  number  of  the  "  Pacific  Medical  and 
Surgical  Journal  "  contains  a  forcible  and  well-timed  editorial,  which  we  transcribe 
to  our  pages,  merely  remarking  that  we  need  not  travel  to  Great  Britain  to  find 
physicians  who  prescribe,  and  medical  journals  who  advertise,  nostrums,  and  even 
"  puff"  them. 
British  physicians  at  home  and  in  America  are  in  the  habit  of  employing  the  nostrum  called  Chloro- 
dyne, asserting  that  its  virtues  are  such  that  they  would  not  be  justified  in  discarding  it,  nostrum  though 
it  be.    Various  formulas  have  been  announced  for  its  composition,  based  on  chemical  analysis  and  experi- 
mental use.    But  its  exact  composition  remains  a  matter  of  doubt,  though  for  all  practical  purposes  the 
proposed  substitutes  are  doubtless  as  good,  and  some  of  them  probably  better.    How  far  medical  men 
who  prescribe  it  under  these  circumstances  violate  the  ethics  of  the  profession,  is  a  question  worthy  of 
thought.    No  one  who  does  prescribe  it  can  consistently  open  his  lips  against  other  nostrums,  or  the 
nostrum  business  in  general  ;  for  other  practitioners  have  the  same  right  as  themselves  to  use  and  endorse 
such  other  nostrums  as  they  may  conceive  to  be  useful.    And  so  professional  men  succeed  in  countenan- 
cing and  upholding  the  entire  abomination.    Like  Cowper's  Mahometans  over  the  interdicted  swine, 
some  choosing  the  snout  and  some  the  tail  as  parts  exempt  from  prohibition, 
"  From  tail  to  snout  the  hog  is  eaten." 
There  is  not  in  the  long  catalogue  of  quack  medicines,  any  other  one  that  has  so  linked  the  profession 
with  quackery  as  chlorodyne.    There  is  no  stronger  proof  of  this  than  the  fact  that  one  of  the  most 
prominent  and  best  esteemed  of  the  British  medical  journals  promulgates  in  every  issue  an  advertisement 
of  the  nostrum,  with  such  laudations  of  it  as  the  manufacturer  chooses  to  make  public.    Dr.  J.  Collis 
Browne,  it  is  stated,  was  the  discoverer,  and  the  formula  has  been  confided  only  to  J.  T.  Davenport,  who 
is  the  sole  manufacturer.    We  think  a  standard  medical  journal  should  not  hire  its  columns  in  this  style 
for  the  promotion  of  quackery.    When  such  things  are  done  within  the  family  how  shall  we  expect 
secular  and  religious  periodicals  to  do  otherwise  than  flood  the  country  with  all  sorts  of  vile  impostures  ! 
Under  such  circumstances  the  attempt  to  reform  the  customs  of  the  community  in  this  respect  may  well 
bring  down  upon  ourselves  the  denunciation— Ye  fools  !    First  take  the  mote  out  of  your  own  eye,  &c. 
