[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.146.176.35. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
February 14, 1925

INTRADERMAL VACCINATION

JAMA. 1925;84(7):536. doi:10.1001/jama.1925.02660330056032

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor:  In your answer to the question as to the relative merits of the present intradermal method of vaccination, and its advantages over the old scratch method (The Journal, January 17, p. 223), you failed to mention that one of the chief advantages of the intradermal method is that it gives a much higher percentage of "takes" than vaccination by the so-called "incision" method. This point I (The Journal, Aug. 24, 1918, p. 654) proved rather conclusively as a result of a comparative study of the intradermal and "incision" methods at the time that I devised my original method of intradermal vaccination against smallpox. In my method I injected 0.1 c.c. of virus diluted with equal parts of sterile distilled water. Zinsser also makes note of this point in his most recent textbook of bacteriology (Hiss-Zinsser: A Textbook of Bacteriology, Ed. 5, 1923, p. 899). T. Twyman (J.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×