Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:58:06.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pseudo-Schick Reaction and the Intradermol Toxoid Test of Moloney: their Relationship and Significance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Maurice Mitman
Maurice Mitman
Affiliation:
Divisional Medical Officer, Public Health Department, London County Council
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.

A total of 212 new members of the staff of the North-Eastern Fever Hospital were Schick and Moloney tested. The Schick-positive reactors were immunised with formol toxoid and post-Schick and Moloney tests were performed. The following conclusions were reached:

(1) The intradermal toxoid test of Moloney or Zoeller corresponds exactly with the pseudo response in the Schick test.

(2) The pseudo response is as efficient as the Moloney for detecting possible reactors to immunising doses of toxoid, and is a more accurate control of the Schick test. The Moloney therefore appears redundant.

(3) A positive MP (Moloney or pseudo) reaction accurately indicates those who will react to immunisation; but a negative MP is no guarantee that the subject will not react.

(4) The MP-reaction is evidence of bacterial hypersensitiveness to specific products of the body of the diphtheria bacillus.

(5) Zoeller's theory that hypersensitiveness is a half-way stage between susceptibility and immunity, is incorrect.

(6) MP-reactions usually, but not invariably, develop pari passu with immunity. Because of this parallelism tests of hypersensitiveness give information as to the state of immunity.

The significance of tests of infection, hypersensitiveness and immunity are considered; and the possible relationship of MP-reactions with bacterial immunity suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 1935 , pp. 512 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, et al. (1923). Diphtheria. Med. Res. Council. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Aviragnet, E. C., Weill-Hallé, B. and Marie, P. L. (1922). Nouveau Traité.de Medicine, II. Paris.Google Scholar
Baranski, R. and Brokman, H. (1926). C.R. Soc. de Biol. 95, 747. Also (1930). Trans. Scient. de la Clin. inf. de l' Univ. de Varsovie, pp. 185–6.Google Scholar
Bessau, G. and Schwenke, J. (1915). Monatschr.f. Kinderh. Orig. 13, 397.Google Scholar
Bray, G. W. (1934). Recent Advances in Allergy. 2nd ed.London: J. and A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Coca, A. F. and Cooke, R. A. (1923). J. Immunol. 8, 163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debré, R. (1932). La vaccination centre la diphtérie. Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Defries, R. D. (1928). Can. Pub. Health J. 19, 210.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1923). Med. Res. Council's Sp. Rep. Ser. No. 75.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1926). Ibid No.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1929). Quart. J. Med. 22, 321–79.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1931). Brit. J. Exper. Path. 12, 319–21.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1933). Trans. Med. Soc. Lond. 56, 81–9.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. P., May, P. M. and O'Flynn, J. A. (1934). Med. Res. Council's Sp. Rep. Ser. No. 195.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. G., Defries, R. D., Fraser, D. T., Moloney, P. J. and McKinnon, N. E. (1932). Amer. J. Pub. Health, 22, 25–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenny, A. T. (1931). In M.R.C. System of Bacteriology, vol. VI. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Goldie, H. (1933). C.R. Soc. Biol. 112, 1314–16.Google Scholar
v. Groer, F. and Kassowitz, K. (1919). Ztschr. f. Immunitats forsch. u. Exper. Therap. Orig. 28, 327–67.Google Scholar
v. Groer, F. and Kassowitz, K. (1920). Ibid 30, 15–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, P. D'Arcy (1932). Med. Res. Council's Sp. Rep. Ser. No. 164.Google Scholar
Jordan, E. O. and Falk, I. S. (1928). The Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology. Chicago, III.: The Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassowitz, K. and Schick, B. (1913–14). Ztschr. f. d. ges. exper. Med. 2, 305–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmer, J. A. (1916). Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med. 13, 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmer, J. A. (1917). Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 28, 163–74.Google Scholar
Kolmer, J. A. (1923). Infection, Immunity and Biologic Therapy. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
Kolmer, J. A. and Moshage, E. L. (1915). J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 65, 144–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmer, J. A. and Moshage, E. L. (1916). Amer. J. Dis. Child. 12, 316–327.Google Scholar
Lerebouillet, P. and Boulanger-Pilet, G. (1928). Manuel Clinique et Thérapeutique de la Diphtérie. Paris: Librairie J.-B. Baillière et fils.Google Scholar
Lloyd, W. E. (1933). Trans. Med. Soc. Lond. 56, 89.Google Scholar
McKinnon, N. E. and Ross, M. A. (1933). Canad. Pub. Health J. 24, 496–500.Google Scholar
Moloney, P. J. and Fraser, C. J. (1927). Amer. J. Pub. Health, 17, 1027–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moloney, P. J. and Fraser, C. J. (1928). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 42, 1420–3.Google Scholar
Moloney, P. J., Fraser, D. T. and Fraser, C. J. (1929). Ibid 43, 12.Google Scholar
Moloney, P. J. and Taylor, E. M. (1932). Amer. J. Pub. Health, 22, 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, R. A. (1933). Trans. Med. Soc. Lond. 56, 68–70.Google Scholar
O'Brien, R. A. (1934). Brit. Med. J. ii, 712–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, R. A. and Parish, H. J. (1932). Lancet, ii, 176–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okell, C. C. (1933). Bull. Hygiene, 8, 633–4.Google Scholar
Opitz, H. (1921). Jahrb.f. Kinderh. 94, 258.Google Scholar
Opitz, H. (1921). Ibid .Google Scholar
Park, W. H., Zingher, A. and Serota, H. M. (1914). Arch. Pediat. 31, 481–7.Google Scholar
Rich, A. R. (1933). Lancet, ii, 521–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roubinovitch, J., Loiseau, G. and Laffaille, A. (1924). Bull, et Mém. Soc. Méd. des Hôp. de Paris, 48, 782–90.Google Scholar
Schick, B. (1913). Muenchen Med. Wchnschr. 60, 2608–10.Google Scholar
Shaw, H. L. K. and Youland, W. E. jun. (1916). Trans. Amer. Pediat. Soc. 28, 329.Google Scholar
Sugg, J. Y., Richardson, L. V. and Neill, J. M. (1931). J. Immunol. 20, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swyer, R. (1935). Lancet, ii, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. (1933). An Outline of Immunity. London: E. Arnold and Co.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. A. (1934). Lancet, i, 678–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C. C., Bunney, W. E., Crooks, M., Cummings, G. D. and Forsbeck, F. C. (1934). Amer. J. Pub. Health, 24, 835–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingher, A. (1916 a). Amer. J. Dis. Child. 11, 269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingher, A. (1916 b). J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 66, 1617–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingher, A. (1921). Arch. Pediat. 38, 336.Google Scholar
Zingher, A. (1922). J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 78, 1945–51.Google Scholar
Zoeller, Chr. (1924 a). Bull. et Mém. Soc. Méd. des Hôp. de Paris, 48, 644–64.Google Scholar
Zoeller, Chr. (1924 b). C.R. Soc. de Biol. 91, 165–7.Google Scholar
Zoeller, Chr. (1924 c). Bull, et Mém. Soc. Méd. des Hôp. de Paris, 48, 1032–7.Google Scholar
Zoeller, Chr. (1924 d). Ibid 48, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoeller, Chr. and Manoussakis, (1924). C.R. Soc. de Biol. 91, 660–1.Google Scholar