372. Misbranding  of Dr.  Hunt's   Cervical  Spine  Relaxer.     U.   S.  v.   Or.  Albert
Thurlow Hunt.   Plea of nolo contendere.   Fine, 850.    (F. D. C. No. 2110.
Sample No. 11019-E.)
The labeling of this device bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its efficacy in the conditions indicated hereinafter.
On October 14, 1940, the United States attorney for the Southern District
of California filed an information against Dr. Albert Thurlow Hunt, Los
Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about January 3, 1940, from the State
of California into the State of Texas of a device known as Dr. Hunt's Cervical
Spine Relaxer which was misbranded.
Examination showed that the device consisted of a sling fitting under the
chin and around the back of the neck and riveted to a horizontal bar. A
block and tackle were used to operate the device. One end of this block and
tackle was inserted in the horizontal bar and the bar was to be fastened to
a hook over a door or to some overhead point. The block and tackle were
manipulated to cause a stretching of the operator's neck.
The device was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements and
designs appearing in the circular were false and misleading in that they
represented that it was an effective and competent treatment to prevent
the following disorders, or to overcome them if they already existed: Functional
disorders of the head, throat and neck, headaches, insomnia, hay fever, nasal
catarrh', catarrhal deafness, enlarged tonsils, sinus troubles, pyorrhea, eye
troubles, goiter, apoplexy, neck, shoulder and arm neuralgia, brachial neuralgia,
draining sinuses, head noises, dizziness, tonsillitis, sinus congestion, bronchitis,
bronchial asthma, eyestrain and crossed eyes, mastoid abscess, angina pectoris,
mental aberration, curvature of the spine, exophthalmic goiter, laryngitis,
various heart troubles, and many other distressing conditions which are bene-
fited by improved circulation; that it constituted an effective and competent
self-administered home treatment of many serious and painful disorders;
that it would bring about the restoration of normal circulation; that it would
give complete relief with no other treatment; that it was the best possible
self-administered treatment for the relief of that great intractable group of
head and throat disorders so disappointingly treated by other measures, that
is, that it was an effective and competent treatment for said disorders; and
that it would relax the cervical spine; whereas it was not an effective or
competent treatment for such purposes.
On October 14, 1940, the defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere,
the court imposed a fine of $50.