Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

I refer you to the authority of no less a medical expert than Dr. Richard C. Cabot, the great physician and brilliant master mind of America. Dr. Cabot has definitely put into the records of the American Medical Association that 52 percent of medical diagnosis is on post-mortem examination found to be absolutely false. If there were a specific cure for any disease, nobody would die. There is no such animal as a specific cure for any disease.

I get something, and it is a pain in the neck. Somebody else gets it and it is called malaria. Drugs are like women. They have different temperaments. That, Honorable Senators, is a fact. There is no such animal as a specific cure for any specific disease. Otherwise, we would have simply a bottle house under the opinion of Senator Copeland, or under this provision, perhaps, would be better, because he is a medical doctor of renown. There is no specific cure for a disease. We have sneezing, coughing, shooting, cutting, any blessed thing in the world. If I sneeze 5 times instead of 2 times, I am going to a doctor who will give me a specific cure. That is, therefore, an incongruity and absurdity against which I emphatically voice my disagreement with the Honorable Senator. And it says, "is not a specific cure but is a palliative "-then it is a false advertisement.

I appeal to the Senate of the United States, which is the greatest legislative body in the world. Why should we disgrace our American citizenship-and I am an American citizen, sirs--why should we disgrace our American intelligence by putting such an incongruity there, that unless a thing is a specific cure, it shall not be sold? Why, nothing can be sold. Even ice cream contains gelatin. Flour is white, which makes us white-livered. Everything is chemicalized, and only God Almighty knows what is in any food or drug. You go to the corner drugstore and get some bromo-seltzer. That contains a poison called acetanilid. I practiced medicine 30 years, and I treated 30,000 people, and I left it. I am a retired medical doctor. I practiced medicine in India. In India there is no medical legislative act of any kind. We just kill them and leave them.

The last thing that is utterly absurd, which will absolutely put my institute out of business and put my inventions on the blink, is this: There is something, Honorable Sirs, which must be completely wiped out from the legislation. It is in regard to advertising. It is on page

(At this point Senator Copeland entered the committee room.) Senator COPELAND. Pardon me. I just got here, and I did not get your connections.

Mr. GHADIALI. I am president and treasurer of the Spectro-Chrome Institute, Malaga, N.J., which is a New Jersey corporation, chartered in every State of the Union, from coast to coast. I have been in 10 prisons because of the machinations of the Medical Trust. They have locked me up 10 times in the United States. Why? Because I teach the public not to take any drugs at all. Under this clause that is put here," False advertisement", this is the utmost absurdity in any proposed legislation that I in my life every saw.

Some years ago I wrote a thesis on criminal law. If I had read this act, I would have included this also in it. It is page 15, paragraph c. The purpose of this is to discourage the public advertise

ment for sale in interstate commerce of drugs for diseases wherein self-medication may be especially dangerous.

The medical people do not want people to medicate themselves. They want to get the money from the public and pocket it for their

own use.

It continues "wherein self-medication may be especially dangerous." Who is going to rule on whether a medicine is dangerous or not, except the American medical gentlemen that are licensed for that purpose? The Secretary of Agriculture with this document in his hand will not know anything when you give him the power. You are making a toy, an automaton, out of the Secretary of Agriculture, the great minister of the Cabinet of the United States President. You put into his power the food law for purity of food. I do not want to speak about food and drugs. Others have spoken. Let them do that. I will only take 2 minutes more and close my discourse.

All I want to show to you is the absurdity of this proposition of the Medical Trust here patently contrary to the interests of the public.

The question is here, How can anything be contradictory to the interests of public health if people medicate themselves? It would be contrary to the interests of the medical profession to have the public take its own drugs. A man, for instance, takes Bromo Seltzer, a poison. He gets it in the drug store. That is made in Baltimore by the Emerson Drug Co. Why doesn't the Food Administration take cognizance of that as a poison? Is it contained in the United States Pharmacopoeia? It says on the label to take so many grains, doses, and you either die or you recover. They say that an advertisement shall be a false advertisement, to discourage any advertisement of a drug, and that drug includes a device also. There are 38 diseases here, and, may it please you, sir, they are the nerve diseases, in which my machine has proved its value thousands of times within the last 14 years of its existence. They want to stop me from doing my business, a thing for which I give my whole life. It will stop every inventor from progressing. It will stop all patenting. It will stop the progressing of every tortured American. It will give a monopoly to the healing arts process only by the physicians.

They say this, that "an advertisement shall be deemed as false " if it says it can remedy appendicitis. Give me a case of appendicitis, and I will send the man back in 1 night, having his appendix inside of him instead of in a glass bottle and $300 out.

"Carbuncle." We have with our system, gentlemen, and I appeal to your own honorable intelligence-we have never since had a case of carbuncle without healing it by Spectro-Chrome.

I can take any person and break his carbuncle in less than 2 weeks' time without the knife, and the man goes home keeping his money and his life in his pocket.

Then it says "diabetes." Four weeks of Spectro-Chrome has cured diabetes. Why should we prevented from putting it before the public? It will stop me from saying that Spectro-Chrome did this or that. Even the United States mails will stop me.

I print a monthly magazine called "Spectro-Crome." That, because it does not get the privilege of medical sanction, will be debarred from the mails. I couldn't label it. I couldn't use my machine at all. I appeal to the honorable Senators therefore to consider that

Senator COPELAND. I am sorry that I missed the early part of your speech.

Mr. GHADIALI. I may say that I have the highest respect and honor for Dr. Copeland as a medical gentleman. I am not opposed to Dr. Copeland, and I appeal to his own high intelligence. Why does he include these disorders which the medical profession is unable to' do anything about? My system has remedies diabetes. I have put people out of bed from consumption in 4 days, and because I spoke about those things on the public platform I am every month being fought by the medical profession and they send me to prison. I have been in 10 prisons, sirs, and this lie is not going to put me again behind the bars.

I appeal to your sense of honor. Why does the honorable Senator Copeland want to put something in this about appendix and typhoid? Give me typhoid, and I will cure it, and I won't treat him with quinine or any other medicine. It has been done.

1

I didn't come here to boost my methods. Here is the point, Senators: You are giving a complete monopoly of the healing art to one branch of the American medical profession called the "Medical Trust." I have said it. I appeal to your sense of honor, gentlemen, not to allow any such injustice to people who are thinking far ahead of others, and stop their brainwork from doing a service as they have been doing it for years. If you pass this bill, all invention in medicine will stop. It can be passed only when the medical men can stand forward and say that they have a specific cure for any one of these diseases, which they haven't. I have.

I thank you, sirs, for your kind courtesy.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Dr. C. B. Jordan, Lafayette, Ind.

STATEMENT OF DR. C. B. JORDAN, LAFAYETTE, IND., IN BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES OF PHARMACY

Dr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman and honorable Senators, I represent the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, which includes in its membership 57 of the colleges of pharmacy of the United States. The officers of this association believe that perhaps the pharmaceutical educators in this country appear to be unfavorable to pure food and drug legislation.

As chairman of the executive committee of this association, I am here to correct any such unfavorable impression. Our association is in favor of legislation adequate to safeguard the health of the public, and we heartily endorse efforts which have for their objectives the better protection of public health by the control of production and distribution of food, drugs, and cosmetics. This association which I represent is a member of the Drug Trade Conference and, therefore, was represented at a previous hearing on this legislation.

However, the member organizations of this conference are by agreement permitted to express their individual views and I wish to set forth the position of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy on this legislation.

We are concerned primarily with the health features of this legislation, and frankly admit that we are not sufficiently familiar with the commercial phases of it to express an opinion.

I shall, therefore, limit my remarks to public health features insofar as drugs and cosmetics are concerned. We believe that the present law fails in giving adequate protection to the public in the following particulars:

1. It does not require a statement on the label or package of all of the therapeutically active ingredients of drugs.

2. It does not provide adequate control of advertising of drugs. 3. It does not prohibit the advertisement of drugs for diseases in which self-medication is especially dangerous or injurious to public health.

4. It does not prohibit the use of poisonous ingredients in cosmetics.

There are now so many bills before Congress that it is confusing; therefore, for the purpose of my comments, I shall take Senate bill 2800.

We are in complete accord with the fundamental purposes of this bill, but there are certain sections of it which we consider objectionable and other sections which we desire to have modified to provide even better protection to the public health.

In section 2, paragraph B, line 5, it is not clear to us what is meant by the expression" and not to regulate the practice of medicine."

If this means that the physicians of the United States can purchase and dispense substandard drugs, then we are opposed to it, because we believe that drugs, not matter where they are used, or by whom they are used, should be standardized.

Senator COPELAND. I will be glad, for myself, have you to suggest some language. The purpose of this is to make clear to the chiropractors that they are not to be interfered with in their practice by the use of devices, and so forth. So, if you have better language than this, I am sure I could say for the committee that we will be glad to have it. That was the purpose. Do you get the point that I made?

Dr. JORDAN. I get your point.

Senator COPELAND. That was the point, to make certain that the cults would not be interfered with in the use of any devices. There was no fight as regards drugs. So, if you have a suggestion as to language, we will be glad to consider it.

Dr. JORDAN. Well, Senator Copeland, I am frank to say that I did not know what it meant. I could not interpret it. Therefore I am not in a position to offer any suggestions.

Senator COPELAND. I have told you plainly and frankly what it is. If you will give us the language, we will be glad to have it.

Dr. JORDAN. I cannot, off-hand.

Senator COPELAND. No; I mean, if you will submit it to us.
Dr. JORDAN. Section 4, paragraph B, lines 14-15.

Senator COPELAND. Page 5.

Dr. JORDAN. I think it is page 5, sir. Yes; the word "simulate " is the point I was raising. We believe a better wording of this statement is, "if its name is the same as or fraudulently conveys the impression that it is a name recognized in an official compendium * * * "9

Senator COPELAND. That was the thought in mind.

Dr. JORDAN. The word "simulate "-there was some question in our minds regarding the meaning of the term.

Senator COPELAND. What was the language that you proposed? Dr. JORDAN. "If its name is the same as or fraudulently conveys. the impression that it is a name recognized in an official compendium * * * "

Senator COPELAND. You have in mind exactly the same thing the committee had in mind. Probably the committee was unfortunate in the choice of language.

Dr. JORDAN. Section 8, paragraph A: We believe that the choice of the word "palliative " is not a good one, as it is likely to be held by the laity as synonymous with the word "cure."

We believe, further, that the provision which requires a statement on the label as to how palliation is effected is a poor one because this cannot be done without the use of technical terms, the meaning of which the layman is not likely to know. We, therefore, recommend that this paragraph be given further consideration.

Senator COPELAND. Have you a suggestion as to language?

Dr. JORDAN. Frankly, Senator, I have not had time to consider it from that standpoint.

Senator COPELAND. You have in mind line 23, how the palliation was to be effected?

Dr. JORDAN. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. Of course, that was a matter that had a lot of discussion in the committee. To my mind, it would mean simply one example of the relief of congestion or by the removal of congestion.

Dr. JORDAN. Well, in certain drugs

Senator COPELAND. I am using that only as one example.

Dr. JORDAN. In certain cases, I should imagine, you would have to use rather technical terms, which the laity would not understand, in order to explain how palliation was effected.

Senator COPELAND. The purpose of the committee was, if it was advertised as a palliative-that, as you have indicated, would mean, to the average man, a cure, would it?

Dr. JORDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator COPELAND. We wanted in some way to make clear that if it was advertised as a palliative, there was to be some definition of how that palliation was to be effected. You are finding out how difficult it is to write a bill, are you not?

Dr. JORDAN. Yes, sir; I am frank to say I am.

Senator COPELAND. Because there is not any difference of opinion between us. The only question is how to state it.

Senator MURPHY. Do I understand you to admit that the word "palliative" will be construed generally as curative? Dr. JORDAN. In my judgment I should expect that.

« ForrigeFortsett »