ANAPHYLAXIS 379 



danger and will produce an antianaphylaxis, which becomes evident 

 after 12 hours. This is probably dependent upon the very slow pene- 

 tration of small amounts of antigen into the circulation from the gut, 

 and has, therefore, an effect similar to the repeated injection of small 

 amounts directly, or the very slow and gradual method of intrave- 

 nous injection advocated by Friedberger for the prevention of serum 

 sickness in man. This phase of the subject is considered in greater 

 detail in a subsequent discussion of serum sickness. 



This observation has recently been confirmed by Coca. 



As far as we can understand it at the present time, the desensi- 

 tization depends upon a saturation of the antibodies in the animal 

 with antigen, which temporarily removes them from possibility of 

 further reaction. A gradual administration of antigen to the sensi- 

 tized animal, either by fractional dosage or slow administration, may 

 bring this about without the fatal shock resulting from a too sudden 

 and violent reaction. This is the rationale of Besredka's and Fried- 

 berger's methods. 



Antianaphylaxis produced in this way is specific, 64 although, as 

 we shall see, there are other methods by which it is claimed that a 

 nonspecific antianaphylaxis can be produced. One of these consists 

 in the injection of anaphylactic animals with peptone. The problem 

 of peptone poisoning and its relation to anaphylaxis will receive sep- 

 arate consideration. 



Banzhaf and Steinhardt 65 have reported that 0.5 gram of lecithin 

 given to sensitized guinea pigs protects them against second injec- 

 tion. Rosenau and Anderson 66 have failed to confirm this. 



The above methods of rendering animals antianaphylactic apart 

 from the bearing they may have on purely therapeutic possibilities, 

 serve to throw much light upon the possible mechanism of the reac- 

 tion within the animal body. It is of great interest for the under- 

 standing of the physiological conditions underlying anaphylaxis also 

 to consider briefly the influence upon anaphylactic shock which may 

 be exerted by certain drugs. The preventive influence of atropin 

 we have already mentioned in connection with the work of Auer and 

 Lewis. Besredka, who, as we shall see, attributes the major part of 

 anaphylactic manifestations to reactions proceeding from the central 

 nervous system, claims to have succeeded in injecting ordinarily 

 fatal doses of antigen without harm into guinea pigs previously 

 anesthetized with ether. Banzhaf and Famulener 67 have similarly 



64 Pfeiffer has recorded an exception to this in that he claims to have 

 rendered a horse-serum sensitive animal refractory by an injection of swine 

 serum. 



65 Banzhaf and Steinhardt. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol and Med., Vol. 7. 

 1910. 



66 Rosenau and Anderson. Hyg. Lab. Bull., 64, 1910. 



67 Banzhaf and Famulener. Studies N. Y. Dep. Health Ees. Lab., 1908. 

 p. 107. 



