LEDERLE LABORATORIES.}}}}
Sanitary, Chemical and Bacteriologic Investigations.
518 fifth avenue.
new york city.
- October 21, 1905.
Anthrax Test. Twenty-four guinea-pigs were inoculated with anthrax bacilli, under the same conditions, the same amount being given to each. The representative of the Liquozone people selected the twelve pigs for treatment. These animals were given Liquozone in 5 c.c. doses for three hours. In twenty-four hours all pigs were dead - the treated and the untreated ones.
Second Anthrax Test. Eight guinea-pigs were inoculated under the same conditions with a culture of anthrax sent by the Liquozone people. Four of these animals were treated for three hours with Liquozone as in the last experiments. These died also in from thirty-six to forty-eight hours, as did the remaining four.
Diptheria Test. Six guinea-pigs were inoculated with diptheria bacilli and treated with Liquozone. They all died in from forty-eight to seventy-two hours. Two out of three controls (i.e., untreated guinea-pigs) remained alive after receiving the same amount of culture.
Tuberculosis Test. Eight guinea-pigs were inoculated with tubercle bacilli. Four of these animals were treated for eight hours with 5 c.c. of a 20 per cent. solution of Liquozone. Four received no Liquozone. At the end of twenty-four days all the animals were killed.
Fairly developed tuberculosis was present in all.
To summarize, we would say that the Liquozone had absolutely no curative effect, but did, when given in pure form, lower the resistance of the animals, so that they died a little earlier than those not treated.
Lederle Laboratories.By Ernst J. Lederle.
Dr. Gradwohl, representing the Liquozone Company, stated that he was satisfied of the fairness of the tests. he further declared that in his opinion the tests had proved satisfactorily the total ineffectiveness of Liquozone as an internal germicide.
But these experiments show more than that. They show that in so far as Liquozone has any effect, it tends to lower the resistance of the body to an invading disease. That is, in the very germ diseases for which it is advocated, Liquozone may decrease the chances of the patient's recovery with every dose that is swallowed, but certainly would not increase them.
In its own field Liquozone is sui generis. On the ethical side, however, there are a few "internal germicides," and one of these comes in for mention here, not that it is the least like Liquozone in its composition, but because by its monstrous claims it challenges comparison.
Since the announcement of this article, and before, Collier's has been in receipt of much virtuous indignation from a manufacturer of remedies which, he claims, Liquozone copies. Charles Marchand has been the most active enemy of the Douglas Smith product. He has attacked the makers in print, organized a society, and established a publication mainly devoted to their destruction, and circulated far and wide injurious literature (most of it true) about their product. Of the relative merits of Hydrozone, Glycozone (Marchand's products), and Liquozone, I know nothing; but I know that the Liquozone Company has never in its history put forth so shameful an advertisement as the one produced on page 28, signed by Marchand, and printed in the New Orleans States when the yelow-fever scare was at its height.
