THE COLON IST. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1919. A MYSTERIOUS DISEASE.

Colonist, Volume LXI, Issue 15075, 19 May 1919, Page 4

THE COLON IST. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1919. A MYSTERIOUS DISEASE.

At the end of the third wave of the influenza epidemic in England, in March last, the medical correspondent of "The Times" made some interesting comments upon the theories formed from widespread and prolonged observation of the disease. Incidentally he revealed the doubt "and uncertainty by which the profession are hampered in combating epidemics and devising remedial and preventive measures. He says the succession of waves in England maintained the mysterious periodicity which the disease seems to have established for itself. This periodicity is roughly twelve weeks. The first wave began in July and died down about the .end'of August—a two months' course. Twelve weeks after, the beginning of the first wave—at the beginning of October—the second wave began to flow. This wave was spent by the middle; of December. Again, twelve weeks after the beginning of the second wave, i.e., in January, the third wave appeared. It had hegun to spend itself in the first days of March. Meanwhile the evidence that the causative organism of the epidemic is the filter* passing germ described by the late Major Graeme Gibson, and also by Captain Wilson, accumulates^ It is a very strong body of evidence, and to a great extent satisfies the requirements of proof laid down by Koch. That is to say, the germ can be recovered from patients affected by the disease; it can be cultivated outside the body; I it can, when inoculated into animals, re- ; produce the phenomena of the disease ; '< I and it can be recovered again from the i inoculated animals, and again grown. It is just the failure to understand the necessity of proof of this sort which has led so many observers to describe "germs of influenza." This is, perhaps, especially true to the much debated Pfeiffer's bacillus, which was originally discovered in the 'eighties > and has been discussed a hundred times since. The bacillus is one of the many which are very commonly present in the human nasopharynz. (Other bacilli very frequently found in healthy throats and noses are pneumonia bacillus, the streptococcus and the staphylococcus.) f**nis by no means establishes the Pfeitter bacillus as the cause of a disease. Were such an argument admitted, there wmjld be no limit to the number of things which might be suspected in thei same connection, e.g., baldness, soft corns —all of which occur frequently in j persons suffering from influenza. Wej should be back again in the dark ages. { The correspondent does not think it has been established of the Pfeiffer bacillus or of any other bacillus or coccus, except the one mentioned above, that it; will produce influenza when inoculated | into animals, or that it can be re-* covered from these ■animals after infection. In the absence of proof of this kind, the statement that the bacillus is. present iii the throats of all influenza patients does not carry us much farther. It is, in all probability. So axe other bacilli. Admittedly these "residents'' may and do afflict severe illness once the resistance which normally holds them at bay is broken down. It is exceedingly improbable that they themselves are tne agents which initiate the attack. It is for this reason, the correspondent explains, that the value of vaccination is questionable. A disease cannot be vaccinated against when its exact cause is in doubt, though as a result of Major Greene Gibson's discovery a new vaccine may possibly become available. The best use that can be made of vaccination at present is to inoculate against the "residents,',' the germs which lie constantly in wait -for their host, and visit pneumonia and blood poisoning upon him when he is weak, And there are objections even to this course. A, standardised vaccine is available against the pneumonia complication, and the correspondent goes no further regarding its efficacy than to « say .that the first authentic statistics are hopeful. He says .that many announcements of "cures" of the disease have been- made. The public should realise that upwards of. 80 per cent, of all cases of iincomplicated influenza in this epidemic have got well by themselves. When pneumonia has supervened it has, of course, been a different story. It is easy to see that an individual treating a limited number of cases in gome particular way, by some particular serum or drug, might easily have recoveriea in 100 per cent, of his pa-

tients. He would ascribe this good re— suit to his drug or serum. In point of fact his patients would have recovered* in any case.^ Rigid control of .every! new" method "essential• before 'it can be accepted; otherwise vast disappointment will-result/ That means• pitting a large number of treated cases against an eqtial - number of untreated cases,' or cases treated by other methods. Only then can conclusions worth talking about be drawni . Bacteriologists and others who publish statements of re-| suits without having sufficiently con- i trolled their work do no good service to'!1 science or to humanity. ' j -■■■■' ~——————-— j