COMBATING INFLUENZA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17097, 28 February 1919, Page 5

COMBATING INFLUENZA.

THE USE OF VACCINES,

VALUE NOT DETERMINED.

DR. FRENGLEY'S OPINION.

The subject of the use of anti-influenza vaccine was dealt with by Dr. J. P. Frengley, deputy chief health officer, before the Epidemic Commission yesterday. Dr. Frengley said that ho knew the vaccine used at the military camps was obtained from the Wellington laboratory, but he was not aware if the pneumonic type organism had been obtained and added. On November 6 he telegraphed to the Government bacteriologist, Wellington, asking if he had had an opportunity of making vaccine from the pneumonic type of influenza; also if he had any stock he could recommend. Witness also asked for an opinion as to value. On the following day 2000 maximum doses of polyvalent mixed vaccine were posted, and a further supply of more recent stock was promised. On receipt of the stock witness took it to Dr. C. E. Maguire, medical superintendent of the Auckland Hospital, and the latter expressed doubt as to the value of vaccine treatment, and asked if witness recommended its use. Witness said definitely that he would not urge the use of vaccine, as he, too, was doubtful, and that ho left the matter to Dr. Maguire's own judgment.

On November 9 witness received a reply from the Government bacteriologist, stating, inter alia:—"No experience hero of vaccine treatment of these cases. My own opinion is that treatment is worse than none, unless experience is accompanied by great attention and especially tuition. I would not recommend prophylactic treatment." This information was conveyed to Dr. Maguire.

Witness communicated with the professor of bacteriology, Dnnedin, regarding vaccine treatment, and he advised witness as follows—" Vaccine treatment of pneumonic cases risky. Do not recommend unless in hands of experienced man." Subsequently the professor telegraphed to witness, pointing out the unlikelihood of prophylactic preventative vaccine being of much use in stopping' the epidemic, and drawing attention to the risks.

Dr. Frengley said that the general opinion of most medical practitioners in Auckland that vaccine therapy was risky was proved by the fact that no application was made for vaccine, and so far as witness was aware Dr. Maguire was not asked to supply any. Referring to the possible value of the use of masks, Dr. Frengley said the epidemic occurred too suddenly to make use of masks as a preventive measure. In reply to a member of the commission, Dr. Frengley said that no definite evidence had been received from Australia as to the value of vaccine therapy. In New Zealand vaccine had very recently been widely distributed by the chief health officer, and was available for those who cared to employ its use. Ho uaderstood that medical men were slow to use vaccine for the reason previously stated.