THEORIES RELATING TO ANAPHYLAXIS 97 



have to connect these facts one with the other and 

 explain why the second injection is so dangerous. 

 This is just the point at which theory commences — 

 that is to say, where the breach in the anaphylactic 

 structure makes its appearance, a breach which each 

 author seeks to fill up for the time being from the 

 resources of his own imagination. 



According to Charles Richet the syndrome for 

 which we proposed the name anaphylactic shock, a 

 term universally adopted at the present day, is not 

 a shock at all in the proper sense of the word such 

 as we generally understand it, but a true intoxica- 

 tion by a poison, to which he gives the name 

 of apotoxin . 



Charles Richet has given us a satisfactory^ explana- 

 tion as to how he conceived the genesis of apotoxin, 

 but our knowledge as to its properties is still far from 

 being well defined. 



We should note that as soon as it was demonstrated 

 that the serum of animals in a state of anaphylaxis 

 contained a specific antibody (sensibilisin) it became 

 clear to everyone that anaphylactic mishaps were 

 due to the combination of this antibodj^ with antigen. 

 What was less clear on the one hand was the nature 

 of this antibody, and on the other the conditions 

 under which this combination was accomplished. 



According to Charles Richet, the combination of 

 antibody with antigen has the effect of setting up 

 a toxin, just as amygdalin, when it combines with 

 ^mulsin, forms prussic acid. 



It is in order to emphasise this point of view that 

 Richet designates the anaphylactic antibody by the 

 name of toxogenin — that is to say, a producer of toxin. 

 " The phenomena of anaphylaxis," he says,^ " are 

 the phenomena of intoxication. The poison is a 

 special substance the modes of production of which 

 1 " Anaphylaxis," p. 236. 



