lungs at autopsy, where special cultural methods were in use and where the laboratory personnel was large enough to devote a sufficient amount of time to each individual culture. All of these points indicate that the organism was overlooked in a great many instances. In our laboratory we found the examination of sputa very unsatisfactory because of the great amount of contamination, and because the bacillus seemed to lose its ability to grow after a relatively short time in the sputum in vitro. Moreover, I am convinced that the bacillus changes its morphology to such an extent under varying conditions as to make it impossible of identification when present among other organisms in sputum smears. The failure of animal inoculations is also not conclusive evidence against the Pfeiffer organism, because guinea pigs, rats and mice have a natural immunity for them. Rabbits are only slightly susceptible, and then only to intravenous injections. The mixture of the Pfeiffer bacillus with any one of several other pathogenic organisms will increase the pathogenicity of both. Monkeys inoculated intracranially develop a typical Pfeiffer bacillus meningitis. Whatever the ultimate outcome of the investigations as to the parasitic cause of epidemic influenza, the Pfeiffer bacillus was the generally accepted cause at the beginning of the 1918 epidemic, though it was at once realized that most of the deaths were due to complicating pneumonias and to secondary infections with other organisms. Under the circumstances, one of two courses was open: (a) the acceptance of the Pfeiffer bacillus as the presumptive cause of influenza and the preparation of a specific prophylactic vaccine against infections with that organism; or (b) the use of a mixed bacterial vaccine containing the common and most deadly secondary infecting organisms, designed to increase the patient’s general resistance by decreasing his susceptibility to the allied, collateral and secondary infecting agents. Attempts were made along both lines, with more or less unsatisfactory results. _The Attempt to Develop a Specific Prophylactic Vaccine by the Use of Pure Pfeiffer Strains_ By a specific prophylactic vaccine for any given disease, we mean a material which when inoculated into an individual will actively protect that individual against the given disease. In infectious diseases, the immunizing material is usually of microparasitic origin (in contrast to desensitizing substances used in pollen diseases and those due to unusual sensitiveness to foreign proteins), and is specific only for the disease caused by the microparasite from which the material was prepared. With the knowledge in hand during the epidemic, the logical plan seemed to be to prepare a pure Pfeiffer bacillus vaccine, the object of which was to eliminate primary infection with that organism and thus prevent the secondary invaders from obtaining a fertile soil.