254 



" . . . Because the filtrates have antigenic value also, it does 

 not follow that the two substances are identical." 



FROM his bacteriological and clinical observations Wherry 

 built up concepts of infestation and infection, of 

 localized and general immunity, of localized and general 

 "anaphylactic" susceptibility, sensitivity, and the schemes for 

 their discovery and treatment that were the enveloping spirit 

 of his laboratory, the guide to its therapeutic ventures, and 

 the substance of the too few "contributions" he made to the 

 printed page. He had for years employed vaccines to bring up 

 general immunity, thus to kill down more effectively what 

 were the general or local manifestations of infection. Vaccine 

 therapy by the medical world, however, was little thought of. 

 His associate, Stanley Dorst stated the reasons therefor: the 

 manufacture of vaccines was too much a commercialized 

 venture; even the right-minded failed to get in culture the 

 true cause of the disease to be treated; straight-out stupidity 

 and incompetence lay in too many of the "technicians" so 

 largely relied upon in hospitals for "scientific" diagnosis. 



What did Wherry declare necessary? Individual study of 

 the individual patient by the bacteriologically competent was 

 needed if results were to be obtained. He had always insisted 

 upon an "autogenous" vaccine (one produced from the 

 specific microorganism infesting the patient himself) . Its 

 preparation was easy when only one organism was involved. 

 But how might one know in infections from the nose, the lung, 

 the gut or the genito- urinary tract — where three to fourteen 

 invaders were discoverable — which was the disease-producing 

 germ? Wherry answered: Discover to which of the several the 

 patient is "sensitive." To this end a vaccine needed to be made 

 from each of the organisms separately, a bit injected into the 

 skin and the effects noted. If a welt, or an area of redness for 

 a number of hours about the point of injection was not pro- 

 duced, the patient was either not "susceptible" to infection by 

 that organism, or "immune." That organism, obviously, was 

 not a source of his constitutional poisoning and might be set 

 aside. But if a more positive reaction was obtained, then to 

 relieve the general or local symptoms, "desensitization" had to 



