Why the appeal? A study of almanacs advertising Dr. Chase's patent medicines, 1904–1959
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a study of one company's almanacs from 1904–1959, this paper does not claim to provide a comprehensive history of patent medicines, nor is it a detailed history of the Dr. A.W. Chase Medicine Company. Rather, it is an exploration of one tactic used to sell patent medicine during the first half of the 20th century, and is a starting point for studying the role of advertisements in popular medical practice. This study is based on a thorough reading and analysis of a collection of over 30 almanacs published between 1904 and 1959 that can be found at the Osler Library at McGill University. The Dr. Chase Almanacs are the most complete set at the Osler library, which boasts over 200 almanacs published between 1848 and 1970 from over 50 different companies.1 It is worth noting that though Dr. Chase was originally American, his products were peddled in Canada as early as 1885. The almanacs in question are specifically geared towards a Canadian context, as they were printed in Toronto, and appeal directly to a Canadian market. This discussion takes the patent medicine almanac and asks why the appeal? Why did patent medicine companies use almanacs to sell patent medicines over decades, and why did consumers purchase the products they sold? KEY POINTS Patent medicines were advertised, and presumably consumed, with much vigour in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Discussion of patent medicine advertising techniques helps to understand the practices and rationale for self-medication. Exploring the motivation behind patent medicine consumption in the 20th century may prove relevant to understanding the appeal of pseudo-medicines in the 21st century. POINTS CLES A la fin du XIXe siecle et au debut du XXe siecle, les medicaments brevetes faisaient l'objet d'une vigoureuse publicite et, sans doute, d'une forte consommation. L'examen des techniques utilisees pour faire la promotion des medi caments brevetes est utile pour comprendre les pratiques en matiere d'automedication et les raisons qui justifient le recours a de telles pratiques. L'examen des facteurs qui ont favorise la consommation de medicaments brevetes au XXe siecle pourrait aider a comprendre l'attrait pour la pseudo-medecine au XXIe siecle. It is important to briefly explain what is meant by patent medicines. For many, the term patent medicine is interchangeable with nostrum, proprietary, quack and alternative medicine.2 Though perhaps all of these terms can apply to Dr. Chase's medicines, “patent” in this discussion refers to the genre of medicine available without a prescription and intended for self-medication, often secret in formula, and claiming to cure a wide variety of ailments.3,4
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".