This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ...Fortbildung, 1906, iii, 211. Arb. a. d. Kbnigl. Inst. f. Exp. Therap., 1906, Heft i, 92. Zeitschrift f. Krebsforsch., 1907, v, 74. It had been previously recorded by Bashford' that mice which had rid themselves of a certain transplantable mammary carcinoma were more resistant to re-inoculation with this tumor than with Jensen's carcinoma. There was, therefore,2..". a degree of protection which is common, and a certain degree which is specific." But the common protection was, as Bashford, Murray, and Cramer3 indicated, conferred by the tumor not as tumor, but as mouse tissue, and Bashford, Murray, and Haaland4 could discover no evidence that carcinoma evolved more resistance to sarcoma than did normal tissue, although sarcoma protected to a high degree against carcinoma. They could not, therefore, subscribe to Ehrlich's belief that protection between carcinoma and sarcoma was mutual and of equal degree. Haaland,5 in earlier experiments, had seen that an unsuccessful inoculation with Jensen's tumor did not protect against the subsequent implantation of sarcoma, but Lewin,6 on the contrary, was convinced that there could exist in the rat conditions of resistance common to sarcoma and carcinoma. Rats unsuccessfully inoculated with sarcoma, or in which a carcinoma had undergone spontaneous absorption, had been, in his experience, refractory to both carcinoma and sarcoma. Michaelis, Fleischmann, and Pincussohn 7 found that mice unsuccessfully inoculated with Jensen's tumor were not resistant to a Berlin growth, and Gierke,8 that mice negative to the inoculation of a tumor were protected in an extraordinarily high degree against the same, and to a somewhat lower degree against different tumors. 1 British Med. Jour., 1906, ii, 209. Lancet, 1906, ii, 314. ...