BACTERIOLOGY OF WHOOPING-COUGH 29 



that in reality the specificity of this organism does not rest upon any 

 too sure foundation. It does not meet Koch's requisites. In many 

 epidemics the bacilli are constant in the throats, being often present 

 in large numbers; and they have been obtained from abscesses and 

 numerous other lesions in the body. In postmortems the organisms 

 are found in large numbers, especially in the respiratory passages 

 and the lungs. It is somewhat questionable whether the influenza 

 bacillus has ever been obtained from the blood during life. Canon's 

 results are absolutely discredited by Pfeiffer himself, and the work 

 of Jehle, Isambert, Rosenthal, and others needs further confirmation. 

 The pathogenicity of the bacilli for animals is very low, and the 

 experiments of Pfeiffer in regard to the presence of toxins are not at 

 all convincing though the more recent work of Kolle and Delius and 

 Slatineano indicate their occurrence. These facts are hardly suffi- 

 cient to demonstrate beyond question that the organism is specific, 

 and that it is not merely a secondary invader. 



It is interesting that the French especially have always been skeptical about the 

 etiologic role of Pfeiffer's bacillus in influenza; and many data have been presented 

 in opposition to the view that it is specific for this disease. Elmassian, 1 in 1899, could 

 not distinguish between organisms obtained from whooping-cough, acute bronchitis, 

 pulmonary tuberculosis, and pneumonia. He considered them all identical with 

 Pfeiffer's bacillus of influenza, and said that it was not proved that this bacillus was 

 the specific cause of grippe, but should be considered only the probable cause. Rosen- 

 thai 2 quotes Metchnikoff as saying that Pfeiffer could not find the influenza organisms 

 in an epidemic of grippe in 1899. He thinks it an ordinary microbe of the pathologic 

 flora of the lungs, and not specific for grippe. Sacquepee3 studied a typical and very 

 severe epidemic of grippe in a garrison, and found Pfeiffer's bacillus in only the latter 

 part of the epidemic (February). At other times he found a Gram-negative, motile, 

 typhoid-like bacillus, and also pneumococci and streptococci. He thinks that the 

 influenza bacillus is not specific, and that grippe may not be due to any specific microbe- 

 Bezanfon and Israels de Jong,* in an epidemic of grippe, studied the expectorations of 

 25 cases bacteriologically, and found Pfeiffer's bacillus to be very rare. They call 

 special attention to "Micrococcus catarrhalis" and to " paratetragene zoogleique" 

 which were very common. They found pneumococci, streptococci, pseudo-diphtheria, 

 pneumobacilli, and rarely staphylococci. They conclude that grippe is not caused by 

 Pfeiffer's bacillus, but is due to a variety of organisms of exalted virulence. Kleinen- 

 berger,5 in 27 cases of epidemic influenza, found the influenza bacillus only eight 

 times. The M. catarrhais was present in nearly every case. Lord, 6 of Boston, has 



1 Ann. de I'lnsl. Past., 1899, 13, p. 621. 



" Compt. rend, de la Soc. de Biol., 1900, 52, p. 266. 



s Arch, de mid. exper., 1901, 13, p. 562. 



* Reviewed, Bull, de I'Inst. Past., 1905, 3, p. 372. 



* Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1905 31, p. 575. 



6 Boston Med. and Surg. Jour., 1905, 152, pp. 537 and 574. 



