Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1892-09-30
DISEASE PROOF.
A POPULAR EXPLANATION OF THE
PHENOMENA OF IMMUNITY.

A POPULAR EXPLANATION OF THE
PHENOMENA OF IMMUNITY.
Why a Person Becomes Able to Resist
Deadly Sickness, Especially an In
fictitious Disease-The Methods of Vac
cination and Ancient Customs.
For long time it has attracted atten-
ton that of a 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 at most the attack is
mild one Generally mild attack of a
disease is Us efficacious as is a severe one in
preventing second (mild or severe) at
tack of the same disease.
This condition of the body, tn which it
can resist more or less successfully attacks
of infectious diseases, is defined as inn
munity. It 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 1900 years ago. immunity
artificially, inasmuch as they dressed their
children in shirts worn by patients sick
with smallpox and made them snuff ups
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-
ton of immunity is given by Thucydides
(450 B. CO., who says, concerning the plague
in Athens, 1.-THE disease attacked no one
twice, at least not in deadly manner.'
Until the time of .Jenner (179S) scarcely
any progress had been made toward the
explanation or the artificial production of
immunity. AS is well known, Jenner in
vestgated the popular belief. which he
found current in Worcestershire as to the
antagonism between cowpox and smallpox.
He found that individuals who had been
noculated 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-yiz., 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-
ton 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 satisfactory explanation of
immunity; not few important facts bear
ing upon the subject have been discovered,
and some practical results have been OBJ
tanned. The whole question is yet. how
ever in very unsatisfactory condition,
and indeed is a highly complicated one.
So far two methods have been used
chiefly for causing immunity. One de-
ponds 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 Loeffier 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 a product of bacteria life.
Of tho nI1mnr0uc attain tS M ado to fl1r-
nish an explanation regarding the action
of these immunity giving substances only
few will be considered.
Acquired immunity has been compared
to an acquired tolerance of poison. Toll
erance of poisons (such as alkaloids) is
constantly observed, but it is limited in
degree, and obtained only as the result of
a long continued succession of doses. I'M
munity is acquired after single applica-
ton of the immunity giving substance, and
can therefore hardly be due to the adapta-
bility 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 these decomposition 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 these substances themselves are chiefly
the products of bacteria life.-Pharma-
ceutical Review.
Before and After.
He had been trying to muster up sufi.
rient courage to take the final step, but it
,voc fhop oftor III pht and still hn hos