Report from the Select Committee on patent medicines.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Patent Medicines.
Date:
1914
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report from the Select Committee on patent medicines. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    15/32
    Group 1. Simple household remedies.—This group consists of a number of house- hold remedies, often originally manufactured from a doctor’s family prescription, and undoubtedly beneficial for uncomplicated ailments. They have in most cases been sold for many years, and as their retail price is out of all proportion to their cost, large fortunes have often been amassed by their proprietors. Except for the fact that often the advertisements of them recommend their use for cases they cannot benefit, thus causing the purchaser to run the risk of serious injury by delay in securing proper medical treatment, there is little or nothing to criticise in their sale. We cannot, of course, give examples of these, as our remarks would at once be used for advertising purposes. Group '1. Dangerous remedies, and drugs for improper purposes.—This is a small q. 6002. class of drugs Avhich should not be sold at all, of which acetanilide is possibly an example ; which should not be sold except on a doctor’s prescription ; or which should not be sold for the purpose foi' which they are offered—as, for example, an unsuitable drug as a general medicine for young children. Group 3. Fraudulent remedies.—This is a large class, having an extensive sale, often at high prices, consisting of abortifacients, of alleged cures for cancer, consumption, diabetes, paralysis, locomotor ataxy, Bright’s disease, lupus, fits, epilepsy, rupture (without operation or appliance), deafness, disease of the eye, syphilis, etc., together with electric belts, apparatus foi‘ supplying oxygen to the system (other than by inspiration), “ ionised ” waters and the like. The discovery of radium will probably add a number of remedies to this group. There should be little difficulty in identifying remedies of this class, and their treatment in the public interest need involve no doubt or hesitation. They are, and are known by their makers to be, cruel frauds ; and the sale and advertisement of them should be prohibited under drastic penalties. Group 4. Remedies making grossly exaggerated claims.—This is a final large class. Genuine simple remedies making exaggerated claims are included in Group 1, as the exaggeration in their case is usually of the nature of the “trade puff.” Those we have in view in this group are remedies depending for their sale largely or wholly upon the extravagant promises they hold out to the purchaser. This, under the name of “misbranding,” is now prohibited by law in the United States, and many cases came before us in which the advertisements of proprietary remedies in this country were refused admission into Australia. This group presents obviously great difficulties in drawing the line between claims which are merely “puffs” and claims which are fraudulent, but we regard it as beyond question that the public is defrauded on a large scale by promises which cannot possibly be fulfilled. As an example of the profits made by the sale of this class of remedies, George Taylor Eulford, the proprietor of “ Dr. Williams’ Pink Pills for Pale People,” left a fortune of £1,111,000. Q. 7681. Medicated Wines. 35. In addition to the various classes of patent and proprietary remedies, our Q. 3697-8. attention has also been forcibly called to the advertisement and sale of medicated wines, Q. 3700. and weighty opinions have been quoted to us regarding their mischievous effects. The Q. 10545-52 trade in these wines is a very extensive one. Messrs. Coleman & Co., the proprietors of “ Wincarnis,” have a capital of £250,000, employ between four and five hundred persons, and, as before stated, spend £50,000 a year in advertising. Mr. Henry James Q. 7987. Hall, trading as Stephen Smith & Co., the proprietors of “ Hall’s Wine,” has a capital of £175,000. The alcoholic content of these wines is very high. For purposes of comparison, the alcoholic strength of familiar wines may be taken to be as follows :— Q- 3650. Claret - - - 9 per cent. Sherry - - - 18 per cent. Hock - - - 10 „ „ Port - - - 20 „ „ Champagne - 10T5 ., „ The alcoholic strength of well-known brands of medicated wines was stated to us as follows:— Bovril Wine- - 20 per cent. Spiers & Pond’s Lemco Wine- - 17 ,, ?? Wine - 17 per cent. *Wincarnis - - lOffi ,, ?? Savar’s Wine - 55 55 Bendle’s Wine - 20 ,, ;? Coleman’s Coca Wine 16 „ „ Glen dinning’s Hall’s Wine - 17-8 „ „ Wine - - 20-8 „ Vin Mariani - 16 ,, .. Ambrecht’s Coca St. Eaphael Tonic Wine - 15 „ Wine - - - 16 „ „ * The proprietor stated this percentage to be about 17 per cent, of absolute alcohol. (Q. 10407.)