Those who are opposed to the Pfeiffer bacillus being the cause of influenza in its epidemic form base their position on the points that the common finding of the bacillus might be accounted for on the grounds of its being a secondary rather than a primary invader; that while it is not so common at ordinary times, it does occur with other organisms in whooping cough and sometimes in chronic diseases of the air passages, and that the rules of Koch have not been complied with in that the organism has not been found in every case of the disease; that where it has been grown in pure culture and inoculated into man and animals, it has either produced no disease, or the lesions which followed have not been typical of epidemic influenza. On the side of those who believe that the Pfeiffer bacillus is the chief cause, or, at any rate, that it is partly responsible for epidemic influenza, are the facts of its fairly constant presence in the purulent bronchial secretion of patients suffering from epidemic influenza; its relatively uncommon occurrence at other times; its known pathogenicity in occasional cases of meningitis, and in the inflammation of the bony sinuses of the head and face; the relative immunity of nearly all common laboratory animals and the fact that the attempts to transfer epidemic influenza from man to man failed not only when Pfeiffer bacilli were used, but also when direct contact and direct coughing by the patient into the face of the volunteer were tried. The argument that many cantonment laboratories failed to find the organisms loses weight when we find that the percentage of positives increased where the material examined was removed directly from the 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.