Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T15:49:17.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revaccination as a measure of immunity to smallpox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

E. S. Horgan  and
Mansour Ali Haseeb
E. S. Horgan
Affiliation:
Stack Medical Research Laboratories, Khartoum
Mansour Ali Haseeb
Affiliation:
Stack Medical Research Laboratories, Khartoum
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Serological methods for the determination of smallpox immunity are briefly discussed, and it is concluded that they are unlikely to provide a diagnostic method of sufficient accuracy.

2. Experimental work is recorded which shows certain differences in the response of previously vaccinated individuals, revaccinated simultaneously with a standard vaccine lymph and an elementary body suspension (vaccinia) of high potency. The significance of these differences is discussed.

3. The results indicate that although the advantage of the e.b. suspension over vaccine lymph is relatively insignificant, that of two insertions over one is very marked. In revaccination the routine use of one insertion only may result in a certain number of semi-immunes (vaccinoids) being erroneously reported as immunes.

4. It is concluded that if the two insertion technique be practised, persons showing immune reactions (negatives) may be considered, in all probability, as possessing full immunity to vaccinia-variola virus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 43 , Issue 5 , April 1944 , pp. 337 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

References

REFERENCES

Blaxall, F. R. (1930). A System of Bacteriology, 7. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Haagen, E. (1936). Bull. off. Int. d’Hyg. Publ. 28, 458.Google Scholar
Jenner, E. (1798). An Inquiry into the causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae. London.Google Scholar
Kasai, H. (1926). Scientific Ref. Gov. Inst. Inf. Dis. Tokyo, 5, 63.Google Scholar
Kii, N. (1926). Scientific Ref. Gov. Inst. Inf. Dis. Tokyo, 5, 113.Google Scholar
Leake, J. P. (1936). Bull. off. Int. d’Hyg. Publ. 28, 1909.Google Scholar
Leake, J. P. & Thomas, S. (1926). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 87, 1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levaditi, C. & Lépine, P. (1938). Les Ultravirus des Maladies Humaines. Paris: Maloine.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, E. M. G. & Salaman, M. H. (1938). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 19, 184.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1928). Rep. Committee on Vaccination. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Morosov, M. A. (1938). Bull. off. Int. d‘Hyg. Publ. 30, 735.Google Scholar
Müller, V. A. (1932). Rev. Microbiol. Epidem. Parasit. 11, 25 (in Russian). Quoted in Bull. Hyg. (1933), 8, 171.Google Scholar
Nagler, F. P. O. (1942). Med. J. Aust. 1, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, M. J. (1935). Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 6th ed. New York: Appleton Century Co.Google Scholar
Sprunt, D. H. (1941). J. Exp. Med. 74, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooyen, C. E. & Rhodes, A. J. (1940). Virus Diseases of Man. Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar