Evening star., 1934-06-12
To the Editor OF The Star:

DO tne BullOT OIL Inc oldf'
The greatest enjoyment that small
group of extremists secure from their
false beliefs Is the satisfaction of being
different from other people. With
knowledge of this psychological phe-
nomenon, the futility OF convincing
an NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. of his wrong be-
lief, is evident. The article that ap-
Star on June S, however, brought to
mind several points concerning this
subject, which I wish to consider
here
In my letter in The Star of June l.
I suggested the name animal-tarian
to replace that Of humanitarian, some
times wrongly used as a synonym for
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. 1t is obvious that
a person who considers human life
less important than that of lower
animal Is anything but a humani-
tartan. No, the Nord was not used
in an attempt to be facetious, and it
is of my own coinage. New words
must arise to take care Of unusual
and unexpected situations.
The benefits of vaccination. so ard
emily opposed by our critics, are no
longer a question of opinion. and op-
position to the practice is explicable
only on the basis of ignorance. The
efficiency of the Pasteur treatment for
rabies is no longer problematical, and
1t is hard to conceive Of o person
denying its vSlue or refusing to take
the treatment just because the serum
was produced from a rabbit.
In Sweden. for IS years prior to
vaccination, the small pox deaths, per
million inhabitants, was 2,050; while
for IS years following enforced vac
cination, the death rate dropped to
$50 per million inhabitants. To apply
this to the United States it means the
saving of approximately 10000 lives
per year, from this one disease alone.
Can you imagine the attitude of per-
son wishing to do away with this
treatment just because in producing
the vaccine few of our dear little
bovines have to suffer a little? II a
small pox epidemic were to make its
appearance in this city the anti-vivi-
sectionists would be among the first
to rush for the vaccine. They would
forget all about the fact that 1t is
produced from some humble little calf; :;
they wouldn't even care.
An anti-v has no right to rear
family If he is going to deny his
children the protection afforded by
vaccines, produced from animals. In
fact, 1t Is doubtful that this protection
will be withheld, because I do not
believe that anti-vivisectionists are
truly sincere and consistent In their
views.
I quiet agree with our critic that
animals probably prefer not to be
used experimentally. but neither do
our soldiers prefer to be shot to pieces
in the cause Of democracy. Yet, men
say, this is nobls thing. How much
more good and how much less harm
Is caused by the use Of experimental
animals in developing something to
help humanity instead Of destroy
ing it7
Hygiene and sanitation are major
| factors in maintaining health, but un-
fortunately cannot be relied upon alto
gether. Even If they could 1t is in
conceivable to think that everybody
would be hygienic. and until this
source of infection is eliminated, at
least we must rely upon our vaccines,
produced from animals, used for hui
manity's benefit. and providing the
anti-vivisectionists' source Of greatest
enjoyment-to differ.
My dear critic. do not think that
many q scientist has not submitted
himself to be used in place of an ex-
perimental animal, when the situation