Active and passive immunisation against common infectious diseases / by R.A. O'Brien.

  • O'Brien, Richard Alfred, 1878-1970.
Date:
[1925?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Active and passive immunisation against common infectious diseases / by R.A. O'Brien. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    1/6
    [Excerpt from Vol. XLVI., No. 4 (1925) of the Journal of The Royal Sanitary Institute]. SECTION A—SANITARY SCIENCE. Active and Passive Immunisation Against Common Infectious Diseases, by R. A. O’Brien, C.B.E., M.D., D.P.H., Wellcome Physiological Research Laboratories, Beckenham, Kent. T is well known that by efficient vaccination one can obtain complete pro¬ tection against smallpox ; it is not so well known that it is possible to make an immune serum and by injecting this into an unprotected animal show that the serum by “ passive immunisation ” gives protection against an infection with smallpox virus. Teissier in 1912 showed that the serum of patients con¬ valescent after smallpox was of use in the treatment of cases of smallpox. The common diseases to which one or another of these methods has been applied are diphtheria, scarlet fever, measles, variola, mumps, whooping cough and varicella. Early in the history of immunity it was discovered that the serum of an animal which had recovered from an infectious disease contained some pro¬ tective substance against the infecting agent. It was not long before the blood or serum of people who had recovered from a disease was used for the protection or treatment of those exposed to, or suffering from, the same infection, and this is still the only method open to us in connection with several of the common infectious diseases. Diphtheria. For many years we have known that one can cut short an epidemic of diph¬ theria in an institution by passive immunisation, i.e.t by giving antitoxin serum to everyone of the individuals exposed. This method is still used, though it is, not the best way of dealing with an outbreak in a small population. In England active immunisation has been in use for some three to four years. It is time to ask how it has acted. Dr. Okell, Dr. Parish and I, have had four institutions under our own close observation for practically the whole time, and we are thoroughly satisfied with the results. It is fair to ask and answer a number of questions. (1) Has the immunisation caused any harm ? We know of no instance in a total number of some 8,000 people, of whom about one-third have been immunised.