Armstrong – Table of Contents

States Public Health Service, moreover, detailed a medical officer [C.A. or W.T.H.?],
who was familiar with the details of the experimental work, to the infected area. This
officer, through a series of well attended meetings with physicians, the first of which was
held in Montgomery, Alabama July 15,1936, fully acquainted the profession with the
theoretical and experimental bases for the proposed method.
The health officials directing the field trials advised that the proposed remedy be
administered either by a physician or under his immediate supervision for several
reasons: a) The proposed spray had not been administered to any large group of
individuals, and it was desirable that its application be closely observed for side and
untoward effects, and, that any such effects be reported promptly. b) It was felt that a
physician acquainted with the rationale for the treatment could apply it more
professionally than an emotionally involved parent unacquainted with nasal anatomy. c)
Record keeping was important for all treatment, and forms for that purpose were made
available to physicians.
Since proper application of the solution to the nasal cavity was fundamental to the
success of the method, The President’s Birthday Ball Commission made a grant in March
1936 to Dr. Max Peet of the University of Michigan to determine the best method for the
application of the chemical for nasal installation. Utilizing X-ray studies of opaque
substances in monkeys, Dr. Peet and associates demonstrated that spraying the monkeys’
nasal vaults coated the area as completely as the usual method of flooding the nose. The
position of the head apparently was not critical. The preparation of the spray and the
schedule of spraying were as outlined above by Armstrong and Harrison. The
investigators and the State Health Department concurred that, rather than crowding