[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
May 20, 1893


JAMA. 1893;XX(20):570. doi:10.1001/jama.1893.02420470026008

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


A paper by Dr. Carl Beck, in the New York Medical Journal, April 22, presents an argument in favor of the antiseptic external use of the drug named in the caption. He finds in this drug a good substitute for iodoform, probably as powerful as the latter, and rather more so than aristol, dermatol, iodol, pyoktannin and some others that have been coming to us from Germany during the past year. Apart from the question of strength, the author prefers phenocoll to iodoform for the following reasons: the former is devoid of odor; it is readily soluble in hot water; it does not irritate the sound skin; it is not contra-indicated in cases of kidney disease; it can be safely applied over extensive surfaces as of burns or ulcers; it is potent in comparatively low percentages of strength. When Dr. Beck began the external use of this substance, he dusted

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview