EDITORIAL


EDITORIAL.
 Rabe R F

 

The Homoeopa…


The Homoeopathic physicians advice is frequently sought by parents in regard to the question of immunization of children against smallpox, diphtheria and other disease, recently also in respect to the tuberculin testing of school children. A particularly sinister aspect of the entire proposition is the fact that compulsion by Boards of Health and school authorities is implied in many instances when there is no law, ordinance or ruling authorizing such compulsion. Therefore, uninformed parents are in effect swung into line and regimented through misrepresentation.

The entire immunizing and testing business is a racket of the worst sort operated at both public and private expense. Every physician should be informed as to what is compulsory and what is optional in the way of tests and immunization in his own state. He will then be in a position to answer questions and advise his clientele whenever such problems arise.

According to H.B. Anderson of the Citizens Medical Reference Bureau only nine states have a vaccination requirement; in six states it is optional; four states specifically prohibit it and in twenty-nine there is no requirement. In Arizona, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah there are statutory provisions against compulsory vaccination. The public is carefully guarded against such information as it might tend to limit the sale of smallpox vaccine and other biological products.

In our opinion vaccination against smallpox and immunization against other diseases have done more harm than good. Their real value is commercial one.

In the absence of legal requirements the homoeopathic physicians advice should be against the employment of such measures. When a parent calls on the phone or inquires regarding diphtheria immunization, assuming it to be optional, as for example in Pennsylvania, simply tell them to refuse it as there is no law to make it obligatory.

As long as the tuberculin test is not compulsory, parents of minor children are within their rights in refusing permission for the test and students of legal age cannot be compelled to submit to it against their will and the public should be informed of these facts. Even in the presence of legal requirements the physician can often have an individual patient excused by issuing a certificate setting forth the physical condition and stating in no uncertain terms that he has advised the parents against vaccination or other immunization. Children suffering from glandular dysfunction and endocrine imbalance as well as those with a tuberculous, asthmatic or hay fever tendency are often extremely sensitive and allergic and any such condition furnishes excellent grounds for taking a definite stand against the use of any serum or vaccine either as a diagnostic or prophylactic measure. E.U., JR.

Rabe R F