Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:28:37.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Schick and Dick reactions in different classes of the community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Scott Thomson ,
A. J. Glazebrook  and
C. A. Green
Scott Thomson
Affiliation:
From the Department of Bacteriology, University of Edinburgh, and the Royal Naval Hospital, Porte Edgar
A. J. Glazebrook
Affiliation:
From the Department of Bacteriology, University of Edinburgh, and the Royal Naval Hospital, Porte Edgar
C. A. Green
Affiliation:
From the Department of Bacteriology, University of Edinburgh, and the Royal Naval Hospital, Porte Edgar
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.

1. Great differences in the number of young adult reactors to the Schick and Dick toxins were found in different social classes.

2. In white races the immunity in young adults, in the absence of previous clinical disease, to diphtheria and scarlet fever, as evidenced by negative reactions to Schick and Dick tests, seems to be caused wholly by contact with the infective agents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 1940 , pp. 115 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1940

References

REFERENCES

Ando, K., Nishimura, H. & Ozaki, K. (1929). J. Immunol. 17, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asbelew, W. N. & Margo, A. A. (1932). Zbl. Bakt. 126, 212.Google Scholar
Bormann, F. von (1936). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 62, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cauchi, J. & Smith, E. C. (1934). Lancet. 2, 1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, L. J., Guzdar, J. S. & Fernando, F. S. (1935). J. Hyg., Camb., 35, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1923). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., No. 75.Google Scholar
Dungal, N. (1932). Brit. J. exp. Path. 13, 360.Google Scholar
Dungal, N. & Sigurjonsson, J. (1935). Brit. J. exp. Path. 16, 503.Google Scholar
Dyer, R. E., Caton, W. P. & Sockrider, B. T. (1926). Publ. Hlth Rep. Wash. 41, 1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gear, H. S. (1937). Chinese med. J. 51, 203.Google Scholar
Grasset, E. (1933). South Afr. med. J. 7, 779.Google Scholar
Grasset, E. & Perret-Gentil, A. (1933). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 113, 1457, 1460.Google Scholar
Heinbecker, P. & Irvine-Jones, E. I. M. (1928). J. Immunol. 15, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirszfeld, H., Hirszfeld, L. & Brokman, H. (1924). J. Immunol. 9, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleine, F. K. & Kroo, H. (1930). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 56, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulley, H. C. & Fleisher, M. S.Am. J. Pub. Health, 28, 854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosling, E. (1928). Z. Immunitäts. 59, 521.Google Scholar
Serra, G. (1936). Bull. med. du Katanga, 13, 49. (Abs. Bull. Hyg. (1936), 11, 889.)Google Scholar
Souchard, & Tournier, (1937). Bull. soc. med. chir. Indochine, 15, 147.Google Scholar
Sugie, S., Honda, G. & Kawai, T. (1937). J. med. Ass. Formosa, 36, 1100.Google Scholar
Turbott, (1931). Ann. Hlth Rep. N.Z. (Abs. Bull. Hyg. (1932), 7, 689.)Google Scholar
Vaucel, M., Joyeux, B. & Hoang-Tich-Try, (1936). Bull. Soc. med. chir. Indochine, 14, 395.Google Scholar
Van Slype, W. (1935). Ann. Soc. belge med. trop. 15, 269–273.Google Scholar
Zingher, A. (1923). Amer. J. Dis. Child. 25, 392.Google Scholar