A "CURE" FOR GOITRE

Shannon News, 28 May 1926, Page 3

A "CURE" FOR GOITRE

SULPHURIC AUID SOLUTION. Consisting of one part of sulphuric acid in fourteen parts of water, "Powell's Goitre Cute," costing 9d a bottle and selling at ss, recently came under the notice of the Health Department, with the result that Francis Powell, Grocer, Dominion Road (Mr H. P. Richmond), was charged in the Auckland Police Court on Friday -with selling a drug bearing a misleading label. Mr V. N. Hubble appeared for the Health Department. Robert Grieve, health inspector, said he purchased a bottie of "Powell's Goitre Cure" at defendant's shop oh February 15. It had been handed to an analyst. The label on the bottle bore instructions to the effect that a gargle should be made with one teaspoonful of the "cure" in water., It I was also instructed that two teaspoonfuls should be taken internally. Defendant told witness the mixture was prepared by his brother and was widely used in the North Island. The Magistrate, Mr Hunt: How much did his conscience allow him to charge; for it? Witness: Fire shillings. Did you try it?—No. Witness added that the preparation was not displayed in the window. ' "Useless for Goitre Treatment." Mr Richmond: As regards conscience, Eno's Fruit Salts, selling at 7s 6d, costs twopence. The Magistrate: But that might do some good. This stuff is no good. Mr Richmond: If your worship has decided that, I decline to go on. i The Magistrate: That's all right. 1 will hear whatever evidence you have in its favour. Mr Hubble said the contents of the bottle analysed were a 7.3 per cent, solution by weight of sulphuric acid and water. • Dr. T. j;. Hughes, medical officer of health, .said the label "Goitre Cure" Avas misleading. Sulphuric acid was useless for the treatment of goitre. Mr Richmond: Many laymen have discovered cures which the profession has accepted. lodine was not known as a goitre cure until recently. Witness: I have known of it since 1900. If people have a natural recovery they might attribute it to anything they have been taking. The Magistrate: The difference between "post hoc'' and "propter hoc." Mr Richmond: Can you tell me of a case in which sulphuric acid has been tried? —Witness: No. I am satisfied itv is not a cure. • { A D'oniinion-wi&e Demand. Mr Richmond: The preparation is in demand throughout New Zealand and there are many testimonials. Defendant makes a small profit by stocking it for his brother. For some years it was given away and later 2s 6d was charged. Thcrewere many inquiries, and the price was increased to ss. The sale does not mean more than about £5 profit a year, so they will bow to the superior knowledge of the Health Department. Defendant did not know what was in the mixture until this analysis. The Magistrate: They have not "boosted" it by advertising, but the public must be protected against themselve3. Mr Richmond: A lady belonging to a nursing guild has been one of the greatcrt "boosters" for the preparation. She will miss it. The Magistrate: Now she knows what is in it she can make it hei'self. Mr Hubble: If these testimonials of hundreds of cures are an indication, there must be considerably more profit in the mixture than has been stated. The Magistrate: I must prevent the sale of .this. The public will buy anything. , Defendant was convicted' and fined £5.