Search

AFTER THE isolation of rubella virus in 1962,1,2 many investigators directed their attention toward studies that were to characterize the agent, define the nature of the disease, and eventually lead to vaccine development. The initial efforts of several groups to produce inactivated rubella virus vaccines were disappointing. Completely inactivated materials were usually not antigenic, and experimental preparations that did elicit an antibody response were thought either to contain residual live virus or to confer no protection to a rubella challenge.3,4 Early attempts to develop a live rubella virus vaccine were also unrewarding. A number of separate research teams prepared experimental materials from virus strains arbitrarily passed varying numbers of times in cell cultures.5-9 Unfortunately, these viruses were not attenuated, and recipients contracted rubella with rash and, in many instances, transmitted their infection to susceptible contacts.At this time, our laboratory was likewise engaged in passing strains of

During a rubella outbreak, the effect of exposure on 33 susceptible persons, 22 vaccinees, and 66 others with immunity from earlier rubella was studied. Groups were examined daily and specimens were collected for virologic testing. Infection occurred in 22 of the susceptible persons; all tested were viremic, excreted copious amounts of virus, and had clinical rubella. None of the previously vaccinated or naturally immune individuals developed rubella. Antibody boosts indicative of subclinical reinfection occurred in five vaccinees and one naturally immune child; these six were not demonstrably viremic, and only two vaccinees excreted virus. Antibody level appeared to influence resistance to reinfection. However, any detectable antibody protected against disease, prevented viremia, and blocked or modified pharyngeal virus replication. It was concluded that rubella exposure of vaccinees with antibodies was unlikely to constitute a significant clinical or epidemiologic risk.

Subsequences of boundedly complete M-bases need not be boundedly complete. An example of a somewhat reflexive space is given whose dual and one of whose factors fail to be somewhat reflexive. A geometric description of boundedly complete M-bases is given which is equivalent to the definitions of V. D. Milman and W. B. Johnson. Finally, certain M-bases for separable spaces give rise to proper complemented subspaces.