Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:48:42.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The antigenic activity of some poliomyelitis vaccines used in the United Kingdom in 1958

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

E. J. C. Kendall ,
R. L. Vollum ,
T. S. L. Beswick ,
Ann Miller  and
J. O'H. Tobin
E. J. C. Kendall
Affiliation:
Medical Officer, Epsom College, Epsom
R. L. Vollum
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Oxford
T. S. L. Beswick
Affiliation:
Biological Standards Control Laboratory, Medical Research Council Laboratories, Hampstead, N.W.3
Ann Miller
Affiliation:
Biological Standards Control Laboratory, Medical Research Council Laboratories, Hampstead, N.W.3
J. O'H. Tobin
Affiliation:
Biological Standards Control Laboratory, Medical Research Council Laboratories, Hampstead, N.W.3
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.

The potency in man of eight different commercial vaccines and an experimental vaccine, as judged by the antibody response after the primary course of two injections and after a booster dose 9–12 months later, was compared. All the vaccines produced good responses to Types 2 and 3 but some were less satisfactory for Type 1. The relation of potency to protection in man is discussed and the use of one of the vaccines as a minimum standard for this country is suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 1960 , pp. 399 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

Beswick, T. S. L. (1959). Proceedings of the European Society against Poliomyelitis, 1959 (to be published).Google Scholar
Gard, S. (1958). Arch. virusforsch. 8, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, E. J. C., Beswick, T. S. L., Miller, Ann & Tobin, J. O'H. (1960). Brit. med. J. i, 1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. S., Field, Anne M., Macrae, A. D., Miller, Ann & Tobin, J. O'H. (1960). Brit. med. J. i, 1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, F. T. & Evans, D. G. (1959). Brit. med. J. i, 1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, F. T., Yetts, Risha & Gaisford, W. (1958). Brit. med. J. ii, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proceedings of a Symposium on Immunization in Childhood (1959). Wellcome Foundation, pp. 38–58. Edinburgh: E. & S. Livingstone.Google Scholar
Report from the Biological Standards Control Laboratory (1959). Brit. med. J. i, 609.Google Scholar
Report to the Medical Research Council (1957 a). Brit. med. J. i, 366.Google Scholar
Report to the Medical Research Council (1957 b). Brit. med. J. ii, 1207.Google Scholar
Russell, K. (1958). Brit. med. J. i, 622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, A. B. (1958). Advanc. Paediatrics, 10, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salk, J. E. (1956). Amer. J. med. Sci. 232, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salk, J. E. (1959). J. Amer. med. Ass. 169, 1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soloviev, V. D. & Gendon, U. Z. (1960). Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 22, 291.Google Scholar
Somer, P. de., Maeyer, E. de & Prinzie, A. (1958). Arch. virusforsch. 8, 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar