Porras Gallo M I
Unidad de Historia de la Medicina, Departamento de Salud Pública e Historia de la Ciencia, UCM.
Cuad Complut Hist Med Cienc. 1993;1:103-28.
The different etiological theses which were defended before the Real Academia Nacional de Medicina (Royal National Academy of Medicine) during the 1918-19 epidemic have been studied using the annals of the afore mentioned Academy for the years 1918 and 1919. Apart from the official stance, which considered Pfeiffer's bacillus to be responsible, numerous other hypoteses formulated by researches throughout the world were also discussed. The clinical academicians were the staunchest defenders of traditional etiology whereas, those who questioned this belief, quite to the contrary were from a health background. However, the oportunity offered by the 1918-19 epidemic to gain advances in the knowledge of influenza was lost as Pfeiffer's bacillus was not rejected as the agent of the disease, despite not meeting the requirements of new medical science.
利用上述学会1918年和1919年的年鉴，对1918 - 19年疫情期间在西班牙皇家国家医学院（Real Academia Nacional de Medicina）所辩护的不同病因学论点进行了研究。除了认为 Pfeiffer 杆菌应为此负责的官方立场外，世界各地研究人员提出的许多其他假设也得到了讨论。临床院士是传统病因学最坚定的捍卫者，而那些质疑这一观点的人，恰恰相反，来自卫生领域背景。然而，尽管Pfeiffer杆菌不符合新医学科学的要求，但由于它未被排除作为该疾病的病原体，1918 - 19年疫情所提供的推动流感知识进步的机会就这样错失了。
