This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
The number of new drugs constantly recommended to the therapeutist is bewildering. The fertility of the synthetic chemists of Germany seems as exhaustless as the coal beds whence they derive their material. Yet it is questionable whether or not the practice of medicine is benefited by this multiplication of remedies. Paraldehyde, hypnone, urethan and now sulfonal, have all in turn been vaunted for their remarkable hypnotic virtues, and yet our old stand-bys, such as chloral hydrate, continue to maintain their supremacy. Some of the most recent testimony on this point has come from no less an authority than Dr. Huchard, whose conclusions were summarized in our letter from Paris in The Journal of February 23. He has tried sulfonal and found it inert in phthisis, heart disease, subacute articular rheumatism, neuralgia, etc., and therefore believes that its special sphere of action must be in nervous sleeplessness. In his experience it
IS THE ANTIPYRIN CRAZE HARMLESS? JAMA. 1889;XII(11):379–380. doi:10.1001/jama.1889.02400880019003
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: