The Quack Doctor

Source: The Patriot (London) 12 September 1853

It is no misnomer Cordial! —no stupefactive, deadly narcotic! —but a veritable preservative of Infants!

Regular readers of The Quack Doctor might be able to hazard a guess at the active ingredients of this product. Like other infant quieteners, it did contain a narcotic, and, like them, it was a killer.

One unusual thing about Atkinson and Barker’s Royal Infants’ Preservative, however, was a particularly dubious form of promotion.

A few hours after my son was born in 2007, the only person in the post-natal ward who noticed I was there was a sales rep who came to present me with Pampers vouchers and sign me up to mailing lists for catalogues full of baby-related crapola. In hindsight I am mildly outraged at the tackiness of this marketing ploy, but at the time I was happy to see a friendly face, and handed over my details. The only harm done was a bit of junk mail that’s still turning up three years later. What I didn’t know at the time was that a similar practice was in operation in the 1870s, with far more sinister results.

In 1876, Kilburn doctor William H Platt wrote to the medical journals to highlight an issue he’d discovered quite by accident. Local parents were finding flyers for the Royal Infants’ Preservative enclosed with their children’s vaccination papers. At this period, vaccination against smallpox was compulsory, and these official documents were sent out to all who had registered a birth. Platt surmised that someone from the company had done a dodgy deal with the Board of Guardians to come up with this plan.

The result, he believed, was:

…to induce the people receiving these papers, many of them poor and ignorant, to believe that these so-called infant preservatives are recommended by the same authority which enforces vaccination.

The handbills involved would have been something like the above, and as you can see, they also purport to have the ultimate celebrity endorsement. Atkinson and Barker were ‘Chemists to Her Majesty in Manchester’, but quite how often she popped into their Bowdon warehouse I don’t know. The relationship mainly involved the company trumpeting the royal connection and boasting about the time they sent the Queen a gift of the Preservative in a classy bottle.

The mixture’s composition was listed in the Druggist’s General Receipt Book in 1878.

Carbonate of magnesia 6 drs.
White sugar 2 oz.
Oil of aniseed 20 drops
Spirit of sal volatile 2 drs.,
Laudanum 1 dr.,
Syrup of saffron 1 oz.,
Caraway water to make a pint.

(‘dr’ refers to drachms)

The amount of laudanum was pretty small, but then so were the people who received it. In 1886, an inquest on the body of a six-week-old baby decided that a mere six drops of Royal Infants’ Preservative had been enough to kill it, as it was already weakened by illness. Surgeon Mr H S Leigh told the jury that when he saw the baby the morning after the dose,

…its pupils were contracted to the size of a pin’s head; it was covered with a cold, clammy sweat; it was breathing about six in the minute, and was apparently moribund.

The child ‘lingered on till evening, when it died.’

The Preservative had been around since the 1790s. In the 1830s, artist O. Hodgson satirised parents’ reliance on such products with the following cartoon.

Image credit: Wellcome Images

Mrs Easy, on the right, is informed that her house is about to fall down with her child inside.

‘Never you mind,’ she says. ‘I gave it a bottle of Infant’s Preservative before I come out so there is no danger.’

.

.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

A couple of weeks ago a I did a post about McMunn’s Elixir of Opium, and because I had quite a bit of information about it, I intended to do a podcast. Unfortunately I was suffering from the worst cold ever (N.B. every cold I have is the worst cold ever) so I couldn’t speak enough to do the recording. I’ve now been able to finish it (with a bit of help from the dog, who snuffles in the background), so you can listen on the player above, or by clicking here.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

.

In other news, I’m pleased to announce that The Quack Doctor is a finalist in the Medgadget Awards Best Literary Medical Weblog category. I’m up against some excellent contenders, but if you’d like to vote for me I would of course be delighted. You can see all the different categories and finalists here, or go straight to the poll here. Voting closes on 14 Feb.

.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Source: Western Journal of Medicine and Surgery (Louisville, KY), July 1855 Click here for Transcript

There are no prizes for guessing what was in this. First formulated in the mid 1830s by Dr John B McMunn (or M’Munn), it became a big hit in the US once a drug company called A B Sands bought the recipe in 1841. The dosage instructions gave plenty of room for manoeuvre:

To a child a month old, or younger, give from half a drop to two drops; to a child 6 months old, from 3 to 10 drops; and to adults from 10 to 60 drops (or even double or treble that much, if the pain and other symptoms be severe and urgent) mixed in two or three teaspoonsful of water, according to the size of the dose. As the administration of every medicine should be governed by its effects, it is proper to begin with the smallest dose, and increase or repeat it at proper intervals until the desired effects are produced.

Although a ‘secret remedy,’ the Elixir was popular with physicians and was advertised a lot in medical journals. One of its selling points was that it was supposedly ‘denarcotised’, and thought to be safer than laudanum. Not all doctors, however, supported it. In 1850, the Western Lancet (Cincinnati) ran an article suggesting that it was inappropriate for the New York Medical Gazette to promote this dubious nostrum. ‘All this,’ they insisted later, ‘was conceived in the kindest feeling to the editor, and with no other motive than to correct what we conceive to be a serious evil to the profession.’

The editor, Dr D Meredith Reese, didn’t take the ‘kindest feeling’ too well. He called the Western Lancet‘s article an ‘unprofessional attack’ and asserted that the Elixir was not a secret remedy – if the Lancet‘s editors didn’t know what was in it, that was down to their ignorance. The Lancet commented:

Now it is exceedingly amusing to hear the declaration made by Dr. Reese, that this article is not a secret remedy, and yet he is unable to give its composition! This is funny indeed…

…Perhaps his system of ethics, like his favorite elixir, is also a secret.

In 1864 the original recipe came to light, showing the process of treating opium with sulphuric ether to remove the narcotine and make the product safe – a nice idea but narcotine doesn’t have narcotic properties anyway, and the medicine certainly was not safe. It was as addictive as any other opium product –  in the early 20th century, for example, George Pettey M.D. related the case of a woman who had taken the Elixir for 31 years, losing 16 newborn babies to the congenital effects.

Another danger – not entirely the Elixir’s fault – was the possibility of mistakes on the prescription. An 1860s physician prescribed the product for a little girl, but instead of elx. of opium, he put exl., and doctors’ handwriting being what it is, the apothecary interpreted it as ext. (extract) of opium – a much stronger preparation that resulted in the child sleeping ‘the sleep which knows no waking.’

A particularly tragic case occurred in Monroe, NY, in 1875. A 17-month-old boy showed symptoms of worms, and ‘By the advice of an old Florida woman, who said it would cause the worms which were supposed to be in the child’s stomach, to have a good sleep‘, the mother gave him 15-20 drops of elixir every hour, sending worms and baby to sleep forever. When his breathing became rapid and rattly, she carried him to the nearest neighbour, a third of a mile away, but it was too late.

The child never moved a muscle from half past 3 till it died, which was about 11 at night, living some 12 hours after the last dose. It is a sad thing to see the child cut down in health as it were, and at an age when all the cares of the parents and affections of its brother and sister were at its very height of enjoyment. The little fellow was at play in the morning as ever and at 11 at night was a corpse.

.

.

.

Many thanks to R L Ripples of TweetsofOld for the story from the Monroe Gazette and Courier.

Sir John Hill (the “Sir” came from a Swedish title) started out as an apothecary and also tried his hand at acting before becoming a prolific writer. He edited the British Magazine from 1746-50 and produced a huge variety of works including plays, advice on marriage and child-rearing (under the pen-name The Hon. Juliana-Susannah Seymour), scientific treatises and botanical books. The best-known of these was the 26-volume The Vegetable System – or, to give its full title, The Vegetable System, or, a Series of Experiments, and Observations tending to explain the Internal Structure, and the Life of Plants; their growth, and Propagation; the Number, Proportion, and Disposition of their Constituent Parts; with the True Course of their Juices; the Formation of the Embryo, the Construction of the Seed, and the Encrease from that State to Perfection.

Hill, who had a genuine medical degree, started producing patent remedies when the expense of publishing his writing began to take its toll, and the ploy worked, earning him a considerable fortune. According to Thomas Graham in Modern Domestic Medicine (1827), the ingredients of the Pectoral Balsam were balsam of tolu (a plant resin), opium, honey and spirit of wine. Quackish or not, it sounds a darn sight better than Lemsip to me.

.

The Public are most seriously cautioned against
various Counterfeit Preparations of the Genuine PEC-
TORAL BALSAM of HONEY, invented by the late Sir JOHN
HILL, M.D., and now faithfully preprared from his MS. Re-
cipes, by his Relict and Executrix, the Hon. Lady HILL, at
her house in Curzon-street, Berkley-square, London.—More
than 36 years experience has confirmed the unequalled efficacy
and safety of this elegant Medicine in the immediate relief, and
gradual cure, of Coughs, Colds, Sore Throats, Hoarseness,
Difficulty of Breathing, Catarrhs, Asthma, and Consump-
tions; for it is the greatest preserver of the Lungs, and contains
all the healing, softening and soothing qualities of that salubri-
ous extract of flowers called Honey, and the essential parts of
the richest Balsams; it is restorative as Asses Milk, and never
disagrees with the stomach. A large tea-spoonful in a wine
glass of water, is a dose, converting the water into a most
pleasant balsamic liquor, to be taken morning and evening.
A common cold yields to the benign influence of this Medi-
cine in a few hours; and when resorted to before the lungs
are ulcerated, all danger of consumption is certainly prevented.
Such are the faint outlines of the merits of Sir John Hill’s Bal-
sam of Honey, a preparation of most exalted efficacy, the re-
sult of long researches into nature, by the Linnaeus of Britain;
a man who dedicated his life to Botany, and justly sought the
true means of health in the vegetable kingdom; but as the
severest human laws are unequal to the prevention of extreme
fraud by coining and forgery, so it is not to be admired that the
merits of this Medicine have induced base and avaricious men
to vend counterfeit preparations of it, preparations not merely
devoid of all efficacy, but also highly deleterious, whereby
many persons have lost their lives, and others been reduced to
the brink of the grave in a few days time.—Lady Hill desires
that all persons will take notice, that her Balsam of Honey is
only to be had at the original Patent Medicine Warehouse, No.
150, Oxford-street (opposite New Bond-street); E. Newbery,
corner of St. Paul’s; Tutt, Royal Exchange, London; and
Clarke, No. 269, Borough; in bottles, price 3s. 6d. each.—
The Genuine may be known by the Signature “H. Hill,” in
red ink on the label of each bottle.

Source: The Times, Friday 15 April 1796

Originating in New York in the 1840s, Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup was a dangerous concoction. Parents often did not realise that it contained morphine, and sadly, as the American Medical Times put it in 1860, were “relieved of all further care of their infants” through its use.

  

 

 

Bateman’s Drops had been around since the 1720s and were prepared by various suppliers, hence the specification that these were Barclay’s Bateman’s Drops rather than anyone else’s.

The main ingredients were aniseed, camphor and opium, so the drops would have at least a temporary effect and could be rather dangerous if swigged indiscriminately. Different suppliers had different recipes and the amount of opium varied considerably.

 BARCLAY’S DR. BATEMAN’S PECTORAL
DROPS—This Medicine has long been held in the
highest estimation for all Rheumatic and Chronic complaints,
in pains of the limbs, bones, and joints, for influenza, and
in violent colds. The genuine Bateman’s Drops, prepared
by BARCLAY and SONs, if taken in time, are a great pre-
ventive of fever, which too often arises from neglected colds.
As a proof of the great efficacy of Barclays’ Bateman’s
Drops in Rheumatism, the following cure is submitted to
the public and every inquiry into the truth of the statement
earnestly solicited:—
     Extract from a letter addressed to Mr. Hattley, Bury.
                                        Greenhalgh Moss, near Bury.
     Sir—In the beginning of last winter, I was suffering
under a severe attack of Rheumatism, and being informed
by my neighbour, Henry Lord, of the great benefit his wife
had received from the use of Barclays’ Bateman’s Drops in
a similar complaint, I was induced to try the same, and hav-
ing purchased a bottle from your shop, I found the greatest
relief, and before I had taken the fifth bottle, I was able to
follow my employment, and continue in good health.
                       I remain your obedient servant,
                                                        ROBERT BOOTH.
***Be careful to ask for Barclays’ Bateman’s Drops,
and observe that the names of BARCLAY and SONS are en-
graved on the stamp. Price 1s. 1½d. and 2s. 3d.

Source:  The Derby Mercury, Wednesday 5th January, 1842.

Note: The inconsistency of apostrophe placement (Barclay’s/Barclays’ ) is as shown in the original.