5455. Homeopathic drugs.    (Inj. No. 298.)
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION FILED : 3-27-56, E. Dist. Wis., against Louis Pauly,
Milwaukee, Wis.
NATURE OF BUSINESS : The complaint alleged that the defendant was engaged
in selling and distributing various homeopathic drugs in the form of tablets
of various strengths and designated by name as follows: Calcium Fluoride
(Calcarea Fluorica), Calcium Phosphate (Calcarea Phosphorica), Calcium
Sulfate (Calcarea Sulphurica), Iron Phosphate (Ferrum Phosphate), Sodium
Chloride (Natrum Muriaticum), Potassium Chloride (Kali Muriaticum),
Sodium Sulfate (Natrum Sulphuricum), Silica (Silicea or Quartz), Potassium
Phosphate (Kali Phosphate), Potassium Sulfate (Kali Sulphuricum), Mag-
nesium Phosphate (Magnesium Phosphoricum), and Sodium Phosphate
(Natrum Phosphoricum).
It was alleged that while these drugs were held for sale by the defendant,
\?after shipment in interstate commerce, the defendant caused the drugs to be
accompanied by the following pieces of labeling: Blotters entitled "Professional
Comments on the Bio-Chemic System of Medicine" and "My Proposed Cover
?See also NOB. 5441,5442,5444-5451, 5453,5454.
Page for Letter No. 16 November, 1950"; booklets entitled "My Open Letter
No. 12," "Supplement Letter No. 13 November, 1949," "Supplement Letter
No. 19 April, 1952," "Supplement Letter No. 6 June, 1945," "What the For-
gotten 12 Tissue Remedies * * * Can Heal in The Human Body," "Supplement
Letter No. 15 November, 1949," "Letter No. 22 January, 1954," "My Booklet
Letter No. 24 April, 1955," and "My Booklet Letter No. 25 * * * The Bio-
chemic System of Medicine November, 1955"; and leaflets entitled "Letter
No. 13 September, 1948," "Excerpts From My Coming Letter No. 14 for 1949,"
"I am Calling This Sheet My #17 Letter July, 1951," "Letter No. 18," "Louis
Pauly," "January, 1954 Supplement Letter No. 21A," "Mr. Roy C.
Frank * * * January, 1953," "Supplement Letter No. 20 January, 1953,"
"Supplement Letter No. 21 * * * July, 1953," and "Letter No. 7 March, 1946."
CHARGE : The complaint charged that the defendant was violating the Act by his
acts of causing the above-mentioned labeling to accompany the above-named
1?drugs, in that such acts were done while the drugs were held for sale after
2?shipment in interstate commerce and resulted in the drugs being misbranded as
follows: 502(a)-the accompanying labeling of the drugs contained false
and misleading representations that the drugs were adequate and effective
treatments for the following diseases, symptoms, and conditions: tuberculosis,
dermatitis, bronchitis, infantile paralysis (polio), fungus infections, chronic
diseases, itching, eczema, prostatic hypertrophy, skin rashesi, sores, all skin
diseases, pyorrhea, arthritis, Hodgkin's disease, piles, boils, asthma, con-
stipation, headaches, epilepsy, earache, tumors, pneumonia, abscess of the
rectum, coughs, colds, psoriasis, acne, anemia, bed wetting, carbuncles, dyspep-
sia, impetigo, nervousness, fever, insomnia, neuritis, paralysis, prostate trouble,
sinus diseases, stys on the eyes, fistula, high and low blood pressure, menopausal
symptoms, leg cramps, lymphoblastoma, cancer, leukemia, Buerger's disease,
colitis, nervous and mental breakdown, gallbladder trouble, glandular affec-
tions, female tumors, sciatica, diabetes, rheumatism, jungle rot, tonsillitis, ap-
pendicitis, breast cancer, shingles, multiple sclerosis, warts, ulcers, Bright's
disease, heart trouble, gallstones^ hay fever, other allergic diseases, muscular
dystrophy, virus infections, mumps, and stomach ulcers.
The complaint alleged also that if the defendant was forced by an in-
junction to refrain from using the above-mentioned accompanying labeling on
the drugs distributed by him, the defendant would not discontinue such dis-
tribution but would, unless enjoined, continue to distribute the drugs, while
held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, without labeling stating
the conditions and purposes for which the drugs were intended; and that, in
such case, the drugs would be misbranded under 502(f)(1), in that their
labelings would fail to bear adequate directions for use because of the omission
from such labeling of statements of the conditions and purposes for which the
drugs were intended.
The complaint alleged also that the defendant was well aware that his
activities were violative of the Act; that 3 seizures of homeopathic drugs in
his possession had been made since 1952; that a Notice of Hearing had been
issued to him in 1955, charging that his drugs were misbranded; and that
he had been warned of the requirements of the Act at 6 different establishment
inspections.
DISPOSITION: On 4-9-56, upon the failure of the defendant to appear, a
preliminary injunction was entered pending the final determination of the
action. On 5-31-57, the defendant having consented, the court entered a
decree of permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from doing any of
the following acts with respect to the above-named drugs or any other drugs
of similar composition while such drugs are being held for sale after shipment
in interstate commerce:
(a)?causing such drugs to be accompanied by the above-mentioned
labeling;
(b)?causing such drugs to bear labels or be accompanied by labeling
containing the representations described above and any other false
and misleading representations; and
(c)?causing the omission from the labeling of such drugs of statements
of the purposes and conditions for which the drugs are intended.