Armstrong – Table of Contents

disease was primary in the mice, the occurrence of the infected rodents in association
with the cases was explained. 2) The housewife in both households apparently suffered
infection while one mate escaped, and the only evidence in the other household members
was a moderate degree of immunity as judged by the results of the serum virus-
neutralization tests. These findings suggested an exposure to infection in the home rather
than a human contact infection. 3) The capture of a less than half-grown infected mouse
in the home 87 days after the patient in Case 2 had been removed from the house
indicated the existence of active infection in the mice independent of the presence of a
recognized human case. 4) The presence in the home of Patient 1 of a person who
possessed strongly developed antibodies, at a time when the patient’s immunity was but
partly developed, suggested that the patient did not constitute the initial introduction of
the virus into the household. Because of these reported findings, Armstrong suggested
that gray house mice, Mus musculus, constituted a reservoir of LCM from which humans
could be infected. He also indicated at this time the pursuit of further investigations of
methods by which effective exposure to infection might be accomplished
Choriomeningitis remained a subject of continued interest for Armstrong.
Additional studies (33) provided definitive proof that the mouse was the major reservoir
for the spread of infection to humans. He also helped expand knowledge of the clinical
spectrum of the disease. In a 1940 report (33) written in association with local internists,
Drs. J. J. Wallace and Louis Ross, he described two additional cases proven by virus
isolation and serological identity with the original strain, the biphasic course of the
clinical illnesses and the isolation of virus from mice trapped in the homes of each case.
He found further 5 of 9 mice living in the same side of the block of one of the patients to