The Resistance (Or Immunity) Developed by the Reaction to Syphilitic Infection

Abstract

The idea of an inhibitory influence has been suggested as a means of explaining certain phenomena of syphilitic infections and there is some experimental evidence on which to base such a conception. The difficulty has been that most of the evidence cited in support of this theory was susceptible of more than one interpretation. This applies in particular to reinoculation and superinfection experiments which have been the favorite means of demonstrating inhibitory effects.

The Masking or Delay in the Development of Syphilis after Penicillin Therapy for Gonorrh A

“…Urbach (1946) in his book on allergy points out that in fevers and diseases like syphilis and tuberculosis, where the skin reactions are severe, visceral manifestations are less marked. Brown and Pearce (1921) formulated their law of inverse proportion on similar findings. Bloch (1923) (quoted by Urbach) managed to transfer specific hypersensitivity in Thiersch grafts, demonstrating the existence of antibodies in the epidermis.…”

“…Kraus and Volk (1906) (quoted by Chesney) suggested this acquired immunity might be regional, and the former considered the skin to be the chief site of this immunity. Brown and Pearce (1921), experimenting with rabbits, found that there was an inverse ratio between the initial response to syphilis inoculation and the subsequent course of the disease, and they formulated a "law of inverse proportion." Chesney and Kemp (1925) showed that a second infection in the rabbit may show no local lesion-a fact which they attributed to local change-and yet may cause a bloodborne infection, this fact suggesting that other tissues have not developed this high immunity.…”

Review of Experimental Research in Syphilis and Its Possible Application to Man

“…In rabbits Brown and Pearce (I920) 9 have shown that the primary sore can be suppressed for some time, partially or wholly, by treatment with arseno-phenylglycyldichloro-m.-aminophenol, the effect of which in causing resolution of lesions is greater than its spirochoeticidal action. They showed also that general symptoms were more certain to follow and more severe in degree in proportion to the extent to which the development of the primary sore had been inhibited; this aspect of the subject is dealt with more fully below.…”