MORE ABOUT THE FLUORIDATION RACKET.
The medical profession was caught hands up when the final onslaught of the fluoridation racketeers hit the country; and the difference between the plight of the regulars and the homoeopaths was one of degree only. Both were caught in such an unblessed state of innocence as to the effects of the dose which the health guardians had prepared for us that the only defense the doctors have was, “Lets wait and see.” The homoeopath does have some incomplete records of fluoride effects but the regular, when asked what he thinks of fluoridation, has no leg of information to stand on; although intuitively opposed to the scheme, he has no experimental results to refer to. His knowledge of fluorides at best is confined to a few scattered items picked up from industrial effects or accidental poisonings.
Must not the members of the august Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the A.M.A., they who guard the sacred portals to the pharmacopoeia and the doctors kit, have felt rather flustered when facing the fluoridation dilemma? Not having firsthand convictions, which of course they could not have as to the effects of small dosage, from where did they shake out their approval so suddenly? From the U. S. P. H. S., no doubt. But the Councils fiat relieves the mere practicing doctor of responsibility (sic.). He can now refer to authority; for the authority of official power and privilege goes a long way in these days of popular unresponsibility. But the doctors know it was a fast one, judging by side remarks that have been made.
Well, our greatest troubles as usual come from neglect. The practicing regular has let the greater part of his initiative, and even his independence, slip away to bureaucratic imposition and the supremacy of the superpharmacist. The drug wholesalers and the tax money researchers now do nearly everything in therapy for him except to run in the needle. The superpharmacal and governmental interests largely guide the therapy teaching for the undergraduate and his graduate course is laid out for him by the medical journals and their ads, the detail man, the slicks, the press and a roaring popular demand for wonderful discoveries.
No wonder the doctor is in a pinch when his patients ask him what he thinks of fluoridation. If the regular practitioner and professor had continued to pursue independent thought and observation–like Galen, Hippocrates, Paracelsus and those to whom we look back to as fathers of the craft–the history of medical practice and its results would be different.
Even Hahnemann and Bechamp, too, by this time would probably have been included in the same galaxy.
As it is now, the purely medical man is deep in the shifting sands of commercial medicine, following one “wonderful discovery” after another, even cultivating a “follow up” of false cures and unrecognized metastases. Meanwhile he lets his leaders join hands with the bureaucrats while he himself is pushed farther into the background. The health bureaucrats need only more tax millions from our pockets, more jobs, salaries, swivel chairs and supplies and he will be blanked out entirely.
And the homoeopath? His history is much the same. Weakened by the influx of mental misfits, the exacting art of homoeopathic practice became so leukaemic that its false representatives traded away, or gave away, control of its own institutions; and of course its political status withered as a consequence. It was a perfidious performance that should go into recorded history as a warning to the future.
So now with our numbers so few and with activities at such low ebb for so long, how could we do an adequate number of provings? Of course we know from old experience about the insidious destruction that long-continued small dosage will cause, but how are we to recognize the specific signs of say, sodium fluoride or the stannum salt? Had we kept on the straight and narrow scientific path we would long before now have had a mass of knowledge of various fluorides.
Instead, we have on record, so far as I can find, only the effects of fluoric acid and on incomplete record of the fluoride of lime. These are masterly representatives of their order, to be sure, and mighty as remedies. Even that resource is better than no reference at all. Moreover, any such recording stands as a suggestive lead toward better days to come–we hope.
Incidentally, in answering the inquiry of a correspondent as to why the doctors seem to know so little about fluoride effects, the writer chanced to reply that its no wonder the regular doctors were confused as to what to say about fluoridation because they had never made provings of chemical substances so as to know what their subtoxic effects are, whereas we homoeopaths have had provings of many of them for about one hundred and fifty years. A telegram came across the continent from the secretary of one of the antifluoridation organizations asking permission to print the letter to which assent was given. In giving this assent, we had no motive of invidious comparison at this time but thought perhaps some thoughtful doctor might become interested in that kind of experimentation.
He might consider that we may “have something” after all. Let us hope it may come true. It is only separation that keeps here and there a thoughtful doctor from being attracted to the truth. We surely would welcome help with such work. Proving might be the key to the whole problem of antagonism between the schools. The regulars are absorbing the practices of the osteopaths, chiropractors and other cults, why not ours (Dont smile!) By making provings, uncertainty and confusion in such problems as the present fluoride one would go. Subtoxic effects would be recognized specifically and used to produce health instead of pathology.
As to the fluoridation scheme, if our equivocal homoeopathic functionaries had not surrendered out rights, no doubt we should have mastered this crisis at once. More likely it would never have occurred. Nevertheless, the present situation will eventually be mastered as increasing organization of opponents goes on. But the great problem for homoeopaths is how to produce more provings so as not to get caught again with hands up.
RUDOLPH F. RABE, M.D.
Through the kindness of Miss Elizabeth Stuart Close, President of the Homoeopathic Laymens League of New York, the Recorder has learned of the death, on March 18, 1952, of Dr. Rudolph F. Rabe of Madison, New Jersey, at the age of 80. The cause of Dr. Rabes death was not furnished.
A native of Hoboken, New Jersey, where he was born on Jan, 18, 1872, Dr. Rabe received his early education at the Hoboken Academy, The Stevens Preparatory School, Lawrence Academy and the Dwight School of New York City. From 1892 to 1893, he studied at the Columbia University School of Arts. In 1894, he began the study of medicine at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, later transferring to the New York Homoeopathic Medical College and Flower Hospital, from which he graduated in 1896 with the degree of Doctor of Medicine. Not content with this accomplishment, Dr. Rabe took a year of Post- graduate work at the University of Berlin, Germany.
Returning to this country upon the completion of his studies in Germany, he began the practice of Homoeopathy in New York City in 1897.
Seven years later he was appointed Instructor in Materia Medica at the New York Homoeopathic Medical College and Flower Hospital. His connection with the Department of Materia Medica of his alma mater did not end until his retirement in 1930, at which time he was Professor of Homoeopathic Materia Medica and Head of the Section. From 1920 to 1921, Dr. Rabe served as Dean of the College.
Dr. Rabe was noted for his ready and trenchant pen. Hence, it was natural that he should be given the editorship of The Homoeopathic Recorder upon the death of the late Dr. E. P. Anschutz in January 1918. Under Dr. Rabes direction, The Recorder acquired increased prestige. This post Dr. Rabe held with distinction until 1928, when the Recorder became the property of the International Hahnemannian Association. Though no longer editor, he continued to be a frequent contributor to the Recorder. His “guest” editorials of recent years, though decrying the apparent decadence of Homoeopathy, were yet constructive in tenor in that they urged the profession to face facts and do something other than cry on each others shoulders.
Though in semi-retirement during the last twenty years of his life, Dr. Rabes interest in Homoeopathy never flagged. When health permitted he was to be seen in attendance at the annual conventions of the American Institute of Homoeopathy and of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also a frequent visitor to the meetings of the Homoeopathic Laymens League of New York where his guiding wisdom was greatly welcomed.
Combining the attributes of a great teacher, an ardent proselyte and a wise counsellor, Dr. Rabes great service to the cause of Homoeopathy can never be too highly praised nor his loss fully appreciated except by those who directly benefited by his high qualities.