When you think of sexually transmitted diseases, various pictures come to mind. First of all, I am a doctor who majored in dermatology. In my professional qualification, it is stated as ‘Facharzt für Dermatologie und Venerologie’. Syphilis, the most dreadful among sexually transmitted diseases, is expressed in various types of skin lesions including hair loss. As such, the skin symptoms of syphilis are diverse, and it is a terrible and terrifying disease that even invades the central nervous system, including the brain and spinal cord.
Before the advent of antibiotics, gonorrhea and syphilis were the most terrifying diseases that were prevalent in European society in the 1930s and 1940s. World-famous musicians such as Mozart, Beethoven, Paganini, Schubert, Schumann, and Smetana, who are familiar with us, have been added to the dishonorable ‘list of syphilis’, so we know how big a social issue syphilis was.[Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Dis(2008)]
In addition, because typical symptoms of syphilis can be identified in the skeleton of an ancient Egyptian mummy, syphilis is a disease that is old enough to claim that it is the same as human history.
I had the good fortune to purchase the book Die Lehre von den venerischen Krankheiten und ihrer Behandlung (Dr. C. Kolb, 1871), published in 1781, at an old bookstore in Germany. I read it like a detective novel. Among the contents, the logical argument that syphilis is a ‘viral’ was very interesting.
Although it is certain that syphilis is a disease that people transmit through sexual intercourse, while no bacteria can be found, the ooze from the patient’s syphilis lesion is applied to the monkey’s skin. After confirming that applying it to a wounded area can cause the same symptoms of syphilis in monkeys, he concluded that the pathogen that causes syphilis is not a bacterium, but a virus, which is much smaller than bacteria, and made such a bold claim.
According to the theory at the time, it can be seen that pathogens that are too fine to be seen were classified and defined as viruses. In other words, the pathogens at that time were classified according to their size.
The classification system of pathogens has been reorganized according to the results of research in which ‘Watson & Crick’ was jointly awarded the Nobel Prize (Physiology and Medicine) in 1962 for the structure of DNA molecules. As a result, syphilis is not a virus but belongs to a group of bacteria. Notes: James Watson (USA, 1928-), Francis Crick (UK, 1916-2004).
However, in 1905, German zoologist Fritz Schaudinn (1871-1906) achieved the feat of discovering and proving the pathogenic bacteria in the exudate of syphilis lesions using the special technique of the existing microscope.
As the proper noun ‘optical microscope’ at that time said, ecologically[빛]This is the structural principle of the ‘optical microscope’, which is a machine designed to see microorganisms through a magnifying glass while receiving it as a reflector and sending it to the microscope body. That is, most of the bacteria might be identified under the ‘light microscope’.
However, Shoudin observed the specimen collected from the ‘syphilis lesion’ in a dark field in which the light source, the reflector, was removed from the existing optical microscope, and saw an amoeba-like object wriggling. It was named ‘Spiroheta pallida’ (later renamed ‘Treponema pallidum’).
Conversely, even with a ‘x1000x magnification’ microscope in 1905 or today’s ‘x100,000x magnification’ state-of-the-art microscope, you will not be able to see pathogens in a conventional way. As such, ‘Dark field inspection’, which is a product of ‘conversion of ideas’, is the key issue.
So, I am amazed at Shaudin’s ‘change of thinking’, and I pay attention to the fact that this ‘turn of thought’ achieved the discovery of the century. Syphilis is a terrifying disease that will leave a huge footprint in the century. It is a splendid achievement in 1905.
However, he died at the young age of 35 in 1906, the year following that great historic feat. So, German academia laments that he left the regret that he did not receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Looking back, it cannot but be an interesting piece of history. In 1871 Dr. Kolb’s dignified argument is interesting, and it’s really surprising that Shoudin’s ‘change of thought’ is a feat reminiscent of ‘Columbus’s egg’.
Watching the ‘situation of the present (昨今)’ in which our society continues to engage in unicellular debates, it is today that we begin to seriously think regarding the limitations of ‘truth’ and the ‘transition of ideas’ conveyed by the ‘truth’ of history. .
