When Science Tried — and Failed — to Prove Contagion: The Rosenau Spanish-Flu Experiments
When historians recount the 1918–1919 “Spanish Flu” pandemic, the tale is usually cast as a terrifying, rapidly spreading virus that raced across the globe, killing tens of millions. Underlying that story is a foundational assumption: this flu was contagious — passed from person to person, via respiratory secretions, or airborne droplets, or bodily fluids. That assumption is so deeply embedded that we often forget: it was once scientifically tested.
And failed.
At the height of the pandemic, a group of researchers under Milton Joseph Rosenau (working with the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy) undertook one of the boldest contagion experiments in history, aiming to prove how influenza spreads. The results — published shortly after the pandemic — revealed a shocking fact: they could not make healthy men sick, even under aggressive exposure.
What the Experiments Did (and How They Tried)
-
The researchers assembled around 100 healthy, influenza-free volunteers from the U.S. Navy — mostly young men, in good health, and selected precisely because they had no recent history of “the grippe.”
-
First, volunteers were inoculated with a pure culture of Pfeiffer’s bacillus (which, since the late 19th century, had often been blamed for flu). The bacillus was sprayed into their nostrils, eyes and throat. When this produced no disease, the dose was ramped up dramatically — including using many different strains (some freshly taken from necropsies). Still: no influenza.
-
Then they tried using secretions — mucus, sputum, nasal washings, throat swabs, phlegm — from actual flu patients, introducing this material to volunteers via spray into nose, throat and eyes, and even via filtered samples and injections. None of the recipients developed flu.
-
As a “last resort,” they exposed some volunteers directly to flu patients: volunteers spent time near infected patients, shook their hands, talked face-to-face, and even were coughed into by the sick — the sort of close contact that should have ensured contagion. Still: no one got sick.
After repeated rounds of experiments, using a variety of methods — bacteria, secretions, blood, close physical contact — the result was always the same: zero successful transmission.
What the Researchers Themselves Concluded
In the official summary published in 1919, the tone is cautious and candid. The researchers admitted that they had entered the outbreak “with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person.” Yet after all these experiments they concluded:
“Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”
They acknowledged two major problems with drawing definitive conclusions: first, a lack of clear diagnostic criteria for “influenza” (i.e. no reliable way to know with certainty that a “case” was truly influenza rather than something similar); second, confounding issues — during the experiments, many volunteers developed streptococcal tonsillitis, which muddied the waters.
Because of those confounders, the official report hedged: while some transmissions “may have occurred,” the overall results were inconclusive.
Why This Should Shake Confidence in Germ Theory
The conventional interpretation of the 1918 pandemic — and germ theory in general — rests on the idea that a pathogen (virus, bacterium, or similar) is not only associated with disease, but is transmitted from person to person via identifiable vectors (droplets, secretions, etc.).
Historically, demonstrating this transmission has been treated as secondary to simply isolating the pathogen. But the Rosenau experiments attempted the more fundamental test: Can healthy people reliably be infected by contact with the sick, or their discharges?
The answer was: no.
That raises a profound question: if the “most contagious disease ever” could not be reliably transmitted under strict experimental conditions — even with repeated, concentrated exposures — what does that say about the assumption that germs/transmission are the root cause?
It suggests that perhaps our understanding of disease causation is incomplete — or flat wrong. Perhaps what appears as a “contagious disease” may depend on other factors: host imbalances, environmental conditions/toxins, internal milieu, or unknown triggers.
Furthermore, if even “flu” — a disease widely regarded as infectious — could not be transmitted under experiment, then the very idea of contagion requires stronger proof than has been offered.
If You Were Designing a Germ-Theory Proof Experiment — How Would You Do It?
Reading the Rosenau story invites a challenge: if one wanted to definitively prove germ theory (i.e. that a given microbe causes disease through contagion), how should one design the experiment?
Here’s an ideal blueprint, contrasting with what Rosenau did — and exposing where even modern studies often fall short:
-
Clear, unequivocal diagnosis: first, establish unambiguous diagnostic criteria for the disease (symptoms, biomarkers, pathology) so there is no doubt whether a “case” is truly the disease in question.
-
Isolate the suspected pathogen in pure form: not just secretions, but purify the organism (or virus) away from all other organisms/materials — to exclude confounders.
-
Prove pathogenicity in a controlled host: maybe using an animal model (if ethical/possible) to show that the pure pathogen alone can cause the disease.
-
Demonstrate reproducible transmission: transfer the pure pathogen from a diseased individual into healthy subjects under controlled conditions, with all extraneous variables accounted for.
-
Rule out alternative explanations: ensure that no other microbes, toxins, or environmental factors could be responsible for the disease.
-
Repeatability: the experiment must be reproducible — with consistent results across multiple independent trials and different populations.
By those standards, the Rosenau experiments fall short: they used mixed secretions (not purified organisms), lacked precise diagnostics, and failed at the transmission step.
What’s the Broader Implication for Terrain Theory?
For those drawn to the Terrain Theory understanding — that disease arises from the internal environment, physiology, and balance of the organism, rather than an invading germ — the Rosenau experiments serve as a historical vindication. They show that the “germ theory experiment,” when actually attempted, failed spectacularly.
And the Rosenau experiments are not the only ones.
Hundreds of transmission/contagion studies have been conducted over the past century, and they have all met with similar results: failure to prove germ theory.
So here's the question we leave for every reader: if you had to prove germ theory — definitively, beyond doubt — how would you do it? Would you rely on the standard modern protocols? Or would you demand experiments of the kind that Rosenau never — or perhaps could never — deliver?
And if you concluded that such experiments are impossible (or unethical), what should that tell you about our confidence in germ-driven public health doctrine?
Conclusion — A Halo of Doubt Over Contagion
The Rosenau Spanish Flu Experiments stand as a largely forgotten historical footnote: a large-scale, human-subject contagion study, conducted at the height of a global pandemic — and yet ending in blanket failure to transmit disease.
For believers in germ theory, this should be an uncomfortable footnote — not ignored or rationalized away, but confronted.
For proponents of terrain-based or alternative paradigms, it offers a powerful reminder that the path to understanding disease is more complex than germs + exposure = illness.
Whatever your view, the experiments force a reckoning — and invite deeper investigation. If we are to ground disease science on rock and not on faith, we must ask hard questions.
__________________________________________________________________________
Sources/Downloads:
