Quacks, false remedies and the public health / [David Walsh].

  • Walsh, David
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Quacks, false remedies and the public health / [David Walsh]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    22/68 (page 18)
    worm! Harvey’s Blood Pills for Erysipelas. The Quickest Remedy for Itch! Harvey’s Blood Pills for Boils. An Effective Remedy for Eruptions! Harvey's Blood Pills for Rheumatism. ‘The Safest Remedy for Piles. Of this farrago of nonsense it may be stated that the ingredients shown in the analysis could, neither alone nor combined, exert any curative influence upon ringworm or itch. Any person, therefore, purchasing the pills for the cure of either complaint, and remain- ing uncured, would have a ground for action for failure of contract. As to the pills being an efficient remedy for eruptions, it need only be stated that the study of skin diseases embraces an immense variety of conditions that demand prolonged study and special training to grasp at all adequately. In many condi- tions the cure of skin diseases is tedious, and in some hopeless. Moreover, the use of two at least of the ingredients of the pills might create, and possibly aggravate and intensify certain skin eruptions. It needs little beyond these simple statements to prove that the claims set forth in the above-quoted advertisement are preposterously false. Yet they are issued to the public under the cloak of a Government stamp, which to the ignorant purchaser is a sort of guarantee of the genuineness of the wares thus distin- guished. Why should the trade in secret remedies alone be permitted to press and advertise claims that ‘will not stand the test of ordinary commonsense exam- ination as to their genuineness? If a man professes to cure diseases and to sell remedies for that purpose, should he not be called upon to justify his statements and forced to adhere to the terms of the contract entered into with his customer on the direct assertions of his advertisement? Lastly, what is to be said of the editor who admits such an advertisement to his columns? Dr. Squire Sprigge, Editor of the Lancet, has spoken with no uncertain voice on the last mentioned point. “A newspaper editor,” he writes, “or manager may be pardoned if he thinks that the use of his columns to make a nostrum known is a legitimate branch of news- paper business (2), especially when it is remembered that if he took the opposite view the proprietor of the newspaper might be willing to hear of his resignation. But while this is true with regard to some advertise- ments, it is not those of others, and the disgusting advertisements of many modern quacks ought to be tolerated by no self-respecting editor, manager, or proprietor. Yet no falsehood is too shameless, no (2) ‘‘ Medicine and the Publi