RUB A535

RUB A535 (also known as Antiphlogistine) is a rubefacient introduced in 1919 and manufactured by Church & Dwight in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.^[1]

A 1914 advertisement

While relatively unknown outside of Canada (it is not sold in the US), it is indeed a popular product for the treatment of tough muscle pain, arthritic pains, rheumatic pains, bursitis, lumbago, etc.^[2][3] Church and Dwight claim that (on their website) nearly all the research, development and production of RUB A535 was and still is done in Canada. Patients who are allergic to salicylates (ASA based drugs, such as aspirin), or who are taking anticoagulant medications should avoid the use of the product. It is also recommended to not use it more than 3–4 times a day.

Ingredients[]

The active ingredients in RUB A535 are camphor, eucalyptus oil, menthol, and methyl salicylate.^[4] Some formulations also contain capsaicin and triethanolamine.^[5]

Varieties[]

Currently, RUB A535 has been released in a variety of products:

• Originally, it was produced in a particular white cream, carrying a rather offensive medical odor.
• Recently, the name was also given to a line of dual action back patches that change temperature (known as Hot-Cold patches).
• An improved cream was also developed, claiming to be odorless, differing from their normal cream, which carries the same smell as most topical analgesics.
• As of 2008 the "Ultra Heat" sport stick was released and shipped to many provinces including Manitoba. The package looks like an orange deodorant stick, that is a little taller than usual. Says sport along the left side. Comes in a 100g stick, is a spearmint smelling cream, and gets dispensed by turning the dial at the bottom like deodorant, and it is forced through three slits at the top, under a cap.
• There is also a cold A535 named "Ice"

See also[]

• Liniment

References in other disciplines[]

Historically, the then local distributor was involved in a notable case in the High Court of Australia, about State income tax, Denver Chemical Manufacturing Company v The Commissioner of Taxation (New South Wales) (1949) 79 CLR 296. It simply involved a difference of views about how to disclose income on a tax return, but is the leading authority in its area.

External links[]

• Official Website

References[]