Is there support for the theory that the 1918 influenza resulted from churning up microbe-laden French soil?

Question

Margaret MacMillan's The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914 contains the following:

In the first years of the peace, fresh afflictions fell on European society: the influenza epidemic (perhaps a result of churning up the rich microbe-laden soil in the north of France and Belgium) which carried off some 20 million people around the world ...

This attribution of the flu epidemic's (perhaps) origin to the mixing of soil made me curious, so I was looking around for further sources. Here is one that is freely available (without PubMed subscription): Anton Erkoreka, Origins of the Spanish Influenza pandemic (1918–1920) and its relation to the First World War, J Mol Genet Med. 2009 December; 3(2): 190–194; and it says (notice on soil):

Many factors contributed to it, such as: the mixing on French soil of soldiers and workers from the five continents, the very poor quality of life of the soldiers, agglomeration, stress, fear, war gasses used for the first time in history in a massive and indiscriminate manner, life exposed to the elements, cold weather, humidity and contact with birds, pigs and other animals, both wild and domestic.

Now the words are similar (both citations mention French soil) but the arguments made are quite different. Since MacMillan's appears to be the unconventional one, I am wondering whether I just wasn't able to uncover the right source (the book does not provide any references at this point) or whether it is a glitch in her book. Who knows and can point to specific references that can support the author's argument?

For what it's worth, I've noticed also other (minor) editorial issues, e.g. contradictions as to whether Salisbury may have lost sleep over issues ...

Answer 1

This attempt at an explanation completely ignores the very high probability that the 1919 influenza strain was related to the 1889-90 Russian flu, as evidenced by its extremely unusual mortality pattern.

Without an explanation of this relatedness (to the earlier pandemic), I find it impossible to take this explanation seriously.

Update - correction:
The 1918-20 influenza has been confirmed by DNA analysis to be an H1N1 strain (swine flu). The best (circumstantial) evidence to date is that the 1888-1889 epidemic was an H3N8 strain, but this cannot be determined with certainty.

The unusual mortality pattern for the 1918-20 epidemic is apparently due to a cytokinetic storm in which the body's own immune system is enlisted in a positive feedback loop, resulting in young adults being most susceptible, rather than least susceptible, to mortality.

Although it is confirmed that influenza virus can survive for extended periods of time in frozen lakes, there is no evidence at this time that it can survive in soil that regularly thaws. It seems much more likely that the unsanitary conditions of warfare in the trenches, combined with the very large wards common at the time, created ideal conditions for the rapidly mutating Influenza A virus to morph into a fatal and extremely contagious strain. (The two traits are more commonly traded off against each other, except in conditions which keep infected and uninfected individuals in close contact for extended periods of time.)

Answer 2

No. But the war certainly helped the spread of the disease.

"Microbes in French soil" will mean bacteria. Those caused a lot of gangrenes and the like but the Spanish Flu is caused by a virus.

A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms.

While it is still unclear whether it really came from: Kansas, other US troop camps, via Chinese labourers or just circulated in more limited numbers in Britain and France years before: it is not the soil but the living (in this case also: and dying) conditions of the people in close contact that facilitated the spread. That is not to say that the conditions increased the lethality among the soldiers, as H1N1 was quite unique in killing way more people in good health before infection than those really stressed, like in the trenches.

But in any case: you do not catch the flu from any soil so much as from other people or animals. And "mixing up the soil" causing this disease sounds more like eco-esotericism than science; or it may be an easy to miscomprehend metaphor for this kind of war in general. The first quote from this book by MacMillan is simply incorrect speculation without base.

The medical article quoted in the question is then actually a case of faulty reading, as it lends absolutely no support to the original hypothesis:

Many factors contributed to it, such as: the mixing on French soil of soldiers and workers from the five continents, the very poor quality of life of the soldiers, agglomeration, stress, fear, war gasses used for the first time in history in a massive and indiscriminate manner, life exposed to the elements, cold weather, humidity and contact with birds, pigs and other animals, both wild and domestic.
_{Anton Erkoreka: "Origins of the Spanish Influenza pandemic (1918–1920) and its relation to the First World War", J Mol Genet Med. 2009 Dec; 3(2): 190–194.}

"The coming together of many people on Gallic lands" may sound a bit pompous, but perhaps may also clear up the misunderstanding?