‹‹‹ prev (20) Page 12Page 12

(22) next ››› Page 14Page 14

(13) Page 13 -

13

contains about 21/3 times the amount of immunising element that vaccine I
contains.

19th May 1905. Experiment III. Serum of goat VII.
Dilution of vaccine. Vaccine I. Vaccine II.
Undiluted Growth. Growth.
2-fold dilution ,, ,,
3 ,, ,,
4 Sterile. ,,
5 ,, ,,
6 ,, ,,
7 ,, ,,
8 ,, ,,
9 ,, Sterile.
10 Growth. ,,

     The growth in tube 10 of vaccine I was evidently an experimental error.
It is, therefore, left out of account. It is clear that the serum in this observation
was much less bactericidal than in either of the two experiments previously
detailed. We can calculate, in the same way as we have done before, that
vaccine II is 2 ½5 times stronger as regards its immunising power than vaccine I.

     When we compare the results of these three observations made with
the same two vaccines but with three different sera on three different days, we
find that the relative strengths, as regards receptor content, were practically
constant, namely, (1) 1: 2.2, (2) 1: 2.3,and (3) 1: 2.4; the average of the three
observations being 1:2.3 We can, therefore, take it that vaccine I as regards
its immunising power is 2.3 times weaker than vaccine II and that the dose
of the former should be 2.3 times greater than in the case of vaccine II. If the
dose of vaccine II be I cc., then we would expect the same immunising effect
from 2.3 cc. of vaccine I.

     In conclusion, we have now to show that this method of comparative stan-
dardisation is also applicable to filtrate vaccines. Wright and Windsor12 have
already demonstrated that the filtrate of a broth culture of bacillus typhosus

Images and transcriptions on this page, including medium image downloads, may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence unless otherwise stated. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence

Takedown policy