The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1892-09-15
DISEASE proof.
A POPULAR EXPLANATION OF THE
PHENOMENA OF IMMUNITY.

" DN"N'g S''hhfbNt hoFtNiAtly III
fictitious Disense--The Methods Of Vac
cination and Ancient Customs.
For long time it has attracted atten.
tion that Of number Of persons equally
exposed to certain infectious diseases
| some are attacked by it much more severe
| ly than others, while many do not become
sick at all; also that persons who have re-
covered from attacks of certain diseases do
not generally, when exposed to them again
within limited period Of time contract
| these diseases, or Mt most the attack Is
| mild one. Generally a mild attack Of n
disease is as eflicacious as is "a severe onei in
preventing second (mild or severe) at
| tack of the same disease
This condition of the body, in which It
| can resist more or less successfully attacks
Of infectious diseases, is defined as i'm.
munity. 1t may be natural or acquired,
and an individual may be immune against
| one infectious disease, but not against an.
other.
The Chinese were most likely the first
who produced 5000 years ago) immunity
artiflcially, inasmuch as they dressed their
children in shirts worn by patients sick
with smallpox and mado them snuff up
the scabs in order to render them immune.
The Brahmins also applied ropes made of
hair and soaked In the poison Of smallpox.
Another observation bearing on the ques-
tion of immunity Is given by Thucydides
| (45O Is. C), who says, concerning the plague
in Athens, "The disease attacked no one
| twice, at least not in deadly manner"
Until the time of Jenner Q70S) scarcely
any progress had been made toward the
| explanation or the artificial production of
| immunity. As Is well known, Jenner in.
vestigated tho popular belief which he
found current in Gloucestershire as to the
antagonism between cowpox and smallpox.
He found that individuals who had been
inoculated accidentally with the lymph of
| cowpox and had recovered from the slight
.,disease resulting were subsequently i'm
, mune toward smallpox. To Jenner is due
| great credit for having established this
| fact, for having made it known generally
| and for having introduced artificial vac
| cination-viz., immunity against smallpox.
His work has been of incalculable benefit
to humanity, since smallpox is now com.
| paratively rare disease, while before his
| time it was one of the most common.
Except as to its connection with small.
pox, immunity received but little atten-
| tion until about 1877 when the advances
made in other departments of bacteriology
again drew the attention Of experimenters
| to the subject. A great variety of theories
| has since been propounded with the view
| Of furnishing a satisfactory explanation of
| immunity; not few important facts bear
ing upon the subject have been discovered,
and some practical results have been OBJ
! tained. The whole question is yet, how.
\ ever, in very unsatisfactory condition
| and indeed is q highly complicated one.
So far two methods have been used
! chiefly for causing immunity. One de.
pends upon the antagonistic action of one
| kind or one species of bacteria upon the
other; the other upon application of sub.
| stances (ptomaines, or more likely toXo-
bumins) produced by bacteria grown in
pure cultures. The immunity giving sub
stances are isolated from these cultures in
! as pure a state as possible, and are used
\ simultaneously.
From cultures of the LoefIler diphtheria
bacillus a highly poisonous toxalbumin
has been separated, which, after it has
been sterilized by heat and then injected
| under the skin, secures immunity against
| subsequent incubation with the virulent
| germ Of diphtheria.
The substance which is the immunity
| giving principle in the lymph used for
| smallpox vaccination has not been isolated
| yet, but there can be no doubt that here,
| too, we have to deal with substance
which is product of bacteria life.
or the numerous attempts made to fur
nish an explanation regarding the action
| OF these immunity giving substances only
| a few will be considered.
| Acquired immunity has been compared
| to an acquired tolerance of a poison. Tol-
erance of poisons (such as alkalods) is
l constantly observed, but it is limited in
l nLN l.. -. q
| a long continued succession of doses. I'M
munity is acquired after single applica-
tion of the immunity giving substance, and
can therefore hardly be due to the adapta-
bilty of the body to accommodate itself.
as it were, to the presence of poisonous
substances.
| Before it was clearly demonstrated that
| products Of bacteria life, and not the bac
| terra themselves, cause immunity, the
| theory of exhaustion" was given as an
| explanation. According to this theory, the
bacteria on the first invasion" of the
| body consume a number of substances
which form necessary nutriment of the
invading species of bacteria. When it was
shown that immunity was given by sub
| stances in the absence Of bacteria this
theory became untenable.
| The following theory is the only one
which today is in no opposition to facts OBJ
served; 1t supposes that the excretions or
decomposition products Of the bacteria re-
| main in the body after the first invasion
and prevent the return of the same species
| If thesedecomposition products are formed
| outside the body and injected into it they
also remain there, or at least cause such
permanent changes that the bacteria can.
not exist in it.
In other words, immunity may be
brought about, or cure may be effected,
| by introducing into the body those sub
stances which are antagonistic to bacteria,
and thesesubstances themselves are chiefly
the products of bacteria life-Pharma.