3、盲人瞎马钻深巷，蠢贼狂吹大喇叭
（1）“希伯拉自身试验”之谜
那么，为什么说巴西女医生说的“希伯，特别是通过在自己身上做实验”是信口胡诌呢？这是因为，希伯不仅在1844年没有拿疥螨在自己身上做实验，他实际上从来就没有做过那样的实验。
据巴西女医生文章的网上版本，她之所以那么说，是根据两个文献：希伯一本出版于1868年的书【15】，和两个意大利人1991年的文章【34】；而在印刷版本中，她又增加了一篇彼森在1927年发表的文献综述：《疥螨研究简史》【21】。但实际上，这三篇文献都没有关于希伯曾经做过自身实验的任何记载：蒙泰苏和古托尼的文章只有上引的那一段提到希伯；彼森的文章虽然多次提到希伯，但只有一次提到希伯自己的研究：
“希伯在1844年对瘙痒及其寄生虫发表了一篇精确的文章。他详细地叙述了试验结果，其结论是如果没有疥螨，就不会有瘙痒。他坚持认为该病情的传播是由于病人的抓挠，抓挠打开了虫穴，将疥螨沾到了指甲上，然后转移给其他人或者本人身体的其他部位。后来，1868年，同一作者指出，人体上的疥螨和动物身上的疥螨属于同种同属，也许是相同的动物。”【58】
而在希伯的那本1868年出版的书中所说的1844年的试验，实际上就是我在前文中介绍过的那个试验，其目的就是要证明疥疮只是疥螨的局部侵染造成的，而治疗疥疮只需要外敷药，而不需要内服药：
“他将疥疮病人分为两组，对第一组病人用药膏涂遍全身，但在疥螨侵染之处则不涂药膏；对第二组病人则只在疥螨侵染之处用药膏涂抹，其余部位不予处理。结果只 有第二组的病人被彻底治愈。”
事实是，在1844年之前的半个多世纪，已经有多人多次通过自体试验来证明疥螨的病原性：1791年，德国医生魏克曼（Johann Ernst Wichmann, 1740-1802）在一本书中描述了自己的两个朋友用疥螨来做自身试验【59】；1801年，英国医生亚当斯在自己身上做试验（已在上文介绍【1】）；1812年，法国一位医学院学生盖勒（Jean-Chrysanthe Gales, 1783-1854）宣称曾用自己分离到的疥螨做自我试验【60】； 1834年，法国医生M. Albin Gras在自己身上多次做试验【61】。除了上述的自身试验之外，据里努奇自称，他早在1815年就曾用疥螨给一个小孩接种【60】。
也就是说，不要说希伯在1844年根本就没有“在自己身上做实验”，就算他真的做了，其意义也不过就是重复试验而已，凭什么他的试验能够“终结了关于疥疮的争论”，而别人的试验却一钱不值？
实际上，方舟子对“希伯拉”几乎一无所知。比如他说的这句话就是一个笑话：
“希伯拉还赞扬了博诺莫和塞斯托尼的开创性研究，他们的名字因此载入史册。”
事实是，希伯1844年的论文是用德文发表的一篇试验报告，其中是否真的“赞扬了博诺莫和塞斯托尼的开创性研究”，这个世界上根本就没有几个人知道。方舟子之所以那么说，就是因为巴西女医生是那么说的，但他却没有注意到巴西女医生引的文献是希伯1868年的一本书，而在那时，博诺莫和塞斯托尼的研究在西方医学界，至少是皮肤病学界，早已尽人皆知了，希伯的赞扬与否根本改变不了这个事实，而博诺莫和塞斯托尼的名字被“载入史册”更不是什么“因此”。
不过，一个关键的问题是，巴西女医生秀娃和美国男华侨方舟子为什么要编造一个“博诺莫和塞斯托尼的发现被埋没了150年”的瞎话？
（2）“教皇御医兰西西”之谜
方舟子和秀娃之所以如此热衷于“一种寄生虫引起的争端”，主要原因就是他们二人都是所谓“冲突学说”的坚定信徒，认为宗教是科学的死对头，所以，他们编造了一个博诺莫的发现被教皇御医反对、“因此”这一重大发现被埋没了一百多年的神话，或曰鬼话。（关于“冲突学说”，见亦明：《以科学的名义行骗》）。这是方舟子的原文：
“雷第将博诺莫的信印成小册子发表，立即引起了争议。主要的反对者是教皇的御医兰西西。兰西西虽然承认疥虫的存在，但是不相信它是疥疮的病因，而是引经据典地指出体液因素才是疥疮的病因。既然教皇的御医开了金口，而且还引用基督教《圣经》作为依据(《旧约·利未记》曾提到疥疮)，为了避免像布鲁诺、伽利略那样受到宗教迫害，博诺莫就没有争论下去。
“23年后，到了1710年，博诺莫和雷第都已去世，塞斯托尼在一封信中才重提对疥虫的发现，但是把这个发现归于自己的名下，没有提及博诺莫，以致有人怀疑博诺莫其实是塞斯托尼为了免受宗教迫害用的化名。
“从那以后，这个发现就没人提及，被人遗忘。医生们仍然相信疥疮是体液因素导致的。……”
它们来自秀娃下面的话：
“在博诺莫的信和雷迪的书发表之后，教皇的首席医师兰西西立即开始了与博诺莫的争论。兰西西认为，疥疮的原因是体液，而疥螨的生长繁殖是在体液失调之后。虽然他承认疥螨的存在，但他不认为那是造成疥疮的唯一原因。由于兰西西是教皇的首席医师、他在争论之中引用了《圣经》、以及先前科学家伽利略、布鲁诺的命运，博诺莫被劝说不要继续争论下去。他的发现于是完全被遗忘。……
“拉斯柏说，塞斯托尼，意大利里窝那的一个药剂师，在1687年给著名的博物学家雷迪写了一封信，因为自己关于疥疮的观点与自生理论相左而害怕受到迫害，他署的是假名博诺莫。1710年1月15日，也就是在博诺莫将自己的发现写信给雷迪的23年之后，塞斯托尼给安东尼奥·瓦利斯纳里写了一封信，否认了前一封信，将发现疥螨的全部功劳──以前划在博诺莫的名下──收归己有。”【62】
而秀娃的前一段文字又是抄自蒙泰苏和古托尼下面的话：
“在那之后，一场论战在博诺莫和兰西西之间爆发。兰西西是教皇的首席医师，他承认疥螨的存在，但不承认它是导致疥疮的唯一原因。兰西西认为，疥疮起源于体液，这个原因在疥螨的生长繁殖之前。因为他的权威地位以及在争论中引用了《圣经》，兰西西处于优势。对伽利略的命运心有余悸，博诺莫被劝说不要继续争论下去。
“部分是由于分离疥螨的困难，博诺莫的发现在那之后被完全遗忘。……”【63】
事实是，方舟子所说的“教皇的御医兰西西”并不是一个不学无术、冥顽不化的天主教徒，而是一个极有成就的科学家和医生。预兆心脏病的“兰奇西氏病征”（Lancisi sign, 亦见【64】）和大脑中的“兰奇西氏神经”（longitudinal striae of Lancisi, 或striae lancisi, 或 nerves of Lancisi, 亦见【65】），就是以他的名字命名的。兰奇西（Giovanni Maria Lancisi, 1654-1720）还是最早注意到蚊子和疟疾之间相关关系之人。方舟子这个“生物医学出身”竟然将这么有名的“生物医学”前辈译成“兰西西”，这就像是一个号称“美国历史出身”的人，把Washington译成“渥星顿”一样，凸显其无知。
其实，“争端”也好，“争议”也罢，它们都是博诺莫──极可能是在塞斯托尼的指使下── “引起”的：博诺莫在1687年8月4日给“兰西西”写信，要求罗马医学会（Congresso Medico Romano）讨论他们的发现，四天后又写信催问。而该学会及“兰西西”本人对这个发现的保留意见又引起博诺莫和塞斯托尼的极度不满。通观那场“争端”，“兰西西”的回应都非常礼貌、节制、专业，并没有以势压人、以教会压人的迹象【66】。
那么，“兰西西”等人为什么对博诺莫的发现持保留意见呢？他们的理由主要有以下三点：第一，博诺莫及塞斯托尼并没有在所有的水疱中都发现疥螨；第二，疥螨不可能是导致所有瘙痒的唯一原因（就像中医的所谓“疥疮”包括很多不同的瘙痒病一样，拉丁文scabies和意大利文pellicelli也可泛指多种皮肤瘙痒病）；第三，不能用一两个人一两年的试验结果来否定其他人在成百上千年中积累下来的知识。
“兰西西”的这些理由至今能够站得住脚。别的不说，第一条理由就非常正当。因为根据十九世纪确立的柯赫法则（Koch's postulates），确定一个微生物的病原性，必须完成四个步骤：
1， 在每一病例中都发现了相同的微生物，并且，在健康者体内不存在这种微生物；
2，能够从感病寄主中分离出这种微生物，并且能够得到它的“纯培养”；
3，用这种微生物的纯培养接种健康的寄主，会导致同样的疾病；
4，从试验发病的寄主中能再度分离出这种微生物。
虽然柯赫法则主要针对病原微生物，但也适用于包括疥螨在内的寄生虫病原物：除了不需要第二步“纯培养”之外（因为可以获得单独的疥螨，而它们本身就是“纯”的），试验者必须完成其余步骤才能够取信于人。但实际上，博诺莫和塞斯托尼连第一步都没有完成：博诺莫在给雷迪的信中承认，他们并不是在所有的水疱中都能够找到疥螨；他们甚至没能证明杀死疥螨能够治愈疥疮（或者相反，疥疮患者痊愈后身上不再有疥螨）。在这样的前提下，如何让人相信疥螨是导致疥疮的唯一原因呢？
也就是说，博诺莫和塞斯托尼的证据最多只能证明疥螨和疥疮之间存在某种相关关系，而远远不能证明这种关系是因果关系。1779年，在莱比锡出版的一本书中，作者对于自己拒绝接受“疥螨是疥疮的病原”这一理论，给出了如下理由：
“虽然我不否认在疥疮的水疱中确实存在虫子，但是，它们的存在却不能被当作它们是病原的证据。它们完全可能是因为某种方式由这种疾病所产生的。因为我们经常看到在溃疡和伤口处长虫子，但没有人会断言这些虫子导致了溃疡。”【67】
这个理由难道不是相当合理吗？实际上，为了否定有人声称的地震与耳鸣的因果关系，方舟子曾特意撰写了一篇文章，如此这般地教训中国国家地震局的专家：
“相关性是因果关系的前提，但是不等于因果关系。要证明两个相关的事件存在因果关系，还必须找到作用机理，解释因是如何导致果的。一个说法越是惊人，需要的证据就必须越充分。”【68】
可是，到了科唬疥疮病原之时，这样的道理对方舟子却行不通了。按照方舟子，既然在（部分）水疱中发现了“疥虫”，那就应该“顺理成章地推测这些小虫子就是疥疮的病因”，否则就是愚蠢、愚昧、就是“相信……所谓自发发生说”。天知道方舟子的“理”到底是什么“理”，他的“章”又是什么“章”。
实际上，博诺莫和塞斯托尼的发现之所以没有得到医学界的接受，不仅在于他们的证据证明不了他们所下的结论，更在于其他人根本重复不出来他们的试验结果：在水疱中根本就找不到疥螨。英国医生亚当斯就说，自己按照博诺莫的描述去寻找疥螨，但却找不到。后来，在一个老妇的帮助下，他才在水疱之外找到了疥螨【47】。1812年，法国人盖勒宣称自己从疥疮水疱中找到了疥螨，并且用疥螨做了自身接种试验。但他后来被人怀疑造假，唯一原因就是其他人按照他描述的方法从疥疮患者的水疱中找不到疥螨。二十二年后，另一位法国医学院学生里努奇根据家乡农妇专门从不起眼的疥螨巢穴针挑疥螨的经验，以及自己和他人的接种试验，才最后将疥螨的病原性确定。但是，盖勒造假案仍旧悬而未决【60】。也就是因为如此，再加上博诺莫托人绘制的疥螨图含有错误，在疥螨的病原性已经得到确认的二十世纪，还有人说，博诺莫或塞斯托尼像是个江湖骗子（This Cestoni (or Bonomo) appears to have been a bit of a quack……）【69】。而彼森则说：
“尽管希伯对他们的工作予以称赞，但博诺莫和塞斯托尼仍旧犯下了几个错误：第一，他们说疥螨存在于水疱中；第二，他们把幼虫误当作成虫。”【70】
事实是，意大利人蒙泰苏和古托尼的文章在介绍了博诺莫与“兰西西”的争论之后，只是这么说：
“部分是由于分离疥螨的困难，博诺莫的发现在那之后被完全遗忘。”
而巴西女医生秀娃则把这句话的前半句话给删了，但却将后半句话接到了自己上一段文字的末尾，给人的印象就是这个“被完全遗忘”是由于宗教势力的反对造成的。而方舟子则把这个错误“完全地”继承了过来。
那么，“兰西西……还引用基督教《圣经》作为依据”到底是怎么回事呢？原来，教皇御医为了说服初出茅庐的博诺莫，真的是苦口婆心，诲人不倦。他通过大量事例证明，造成瘙痒的原因不可能只是疥螨一种，而他举的例证包括，罗马人注意到某种水或者饮料会导致瘙痒，西方第一部皮肤病学专著的作者麦克亚利曾经观察到海鲜等食物会加剧瘙痒（即中医所谓“发”），《圣经》对猪肉的禁食，以及埃及人吃猪肉与麻风病的流行，等等【71】。也就是说，“兰西西”援引《圣经》，并不是像方舟子所想象并且暗示的那样，是要用它来证明“自生说”和“体液说”的正统与正确，进而压服博诺莫；而是要证明，造成瘙痒的因素可能有很多种，比如饮食。
实际上，在《圣经》中，对猪肉的禁食存在于诸多篇章中，如《申命记》和《以赛亚书》，并不限于《利未》一篇。可笑方舟子看到巴西女医生说 “兰西西……在争论之中引用了《圣经》”，但又不知道“兰西西”引用的是哪篇哪章哪节《圣经》，于是故作博学地加上了“《旧约·利未记》曾提到疥疮”这么几个字，结果弄巧成拙，自曝其陋。
（3）“伟大发现被遗忘”之谜
我们下一个要回答的问题是：博诺莫和塞斯托尼的发现真的如巴西医生女秀娃和美国华侨男方舟子所说的那样──“从那以后，这个发现就没人提及，被人遗忘”──了吗？答案当然是否定的。
实际上，从1687年到1834年这147年间，尽管博诺莫和塞斯托尼的“疥螨是疥疮的唯一病原”这一理论没有被医学界普遍接受，但是它却一直薪火相传，生生不息，并且直接导致法国人里努奇在1834年的一锤定音。这是希伯说的：
“还要再次提到鲁卡斯·道修斯、兰宗尼、理查德·米德三人对塞斯托尼和博诺莫发现的翻译和评论。他们的工作有助于这项重要知识的广泛传播。”【72】
希伯提到的鲁卡斯·道修斯是教皇Innocent IX的御医，他对博诺莫的发现具体做了些什么，我们不得而知。但我们知道，兰宗尼在1691或1692年将博诺莫的信译成了拉丁文【73】。
前面提到，米德在1703年将博诺莫的那封信节译成了英文。虽然那篇译文存在某种不足，但不容否认的事实却是，它对传播博诺莫的发现功劳最大。这是因为，米德本人就是一位著名医生，他在1703年被选为皇家学会会员，1727年成为乔治二世的御医。不仅如此，米德本人也相信博诺莫的观点是正确的。在1751年出版的一本书中，米德将博诺莫和塞斯托尼的发现又完整地介绍了一遍【74】。1752年，有“军医之父”之称的英国军医约翰·普灵格尔（Sir John Pringle, 1707-1782）的名著《军旅疾病观察》出版。在当时，普灵格尔对疥疮的病原一无所知。但到了该书第二年再版时，他特意加了一个注释，说自己在初版之后发现了米德翻译的博诺莫致雷迪函。并且，他完全接受了博诺莫的观点【75】。
最有趣的是，有一位名叫韩特 （John Hunter, 1728-1793）的英国著名医生，虽然他本人并不相信疥疮是疥螨导致的，因为他没有在疥疮患者的水疱中发现疥螨，但他却说，有人告诉他另一位叫Teigh的医生曾经在疥疮患者的水疱附近找到了疥螨【76】。尽管韩特没有提到米德或博诺莫，但这个故事足以证明“疥螨导致疥疮”这一理论绝非“没人提及，被人遗忘”。
前面提到，英国著名医生亚当斯在1801年用疥螨在自身接种做试验，他不仅知道博诺莫和塞斯托尼的发现，而且知道他们的发现来源于秕糠学会的词典。这是他对这个发现的直接评价：“博诺莫（对疥螨）的描述其准确性是可以容忍的。”【77】
不仅英国医学界在十八世纪就已经对“疥螨是疥疮的病原”这一理论有所了解，连普罗大众都是如此。1755年出版的《英语词典》（A Dictionary of the English Language） 就是这么定义“itch”（瘙痒）的：
“一种传染性极强的皮肤病，充满血清的小疱遍及全身。显微镜观察发现，它由一种小动物引起。可以被硫磺治愈。”【78】
难怪《伦敦医学杂志》在1788年就宣称，
“瘙痒是由微型动物对皮肤的局部侵染所造成这一事实，在我国已经成为一种共识，因为米德医生曾介绍博诺莫从中发现了虫子。”【79】
在英国之外，博诺莫的发现也被一些著名的学者所接受。例如，大名鼎鼎的林奈（Carl von Linné, 1707-1778）在1734年就将疥螨划入为昆虫纲无翅目。1746年，他又将之命名为“人类皮下螨”（acaru humanus-subcutaneus），并且明确地认定它是疥疮的病原【80】。
在整个十八世纪，疥疮病原学的原创性、突破性的研究发生在德国。1786年，德国著名医生魏克曼（Johann Ernst Wichmann, 1740-1802）的专著《疥疮病原学》（Aetiologie der Krätze）在汉诺威出版。在书中，魏克曼不仅参考、比较了博诺莫致雷迪函，他还将之译成了德文。这是魏克曼对自己工作的总结：
“我希望我已经充分地解释并且证明了疥疮的病原，至少证明‘疥疮是由螨所导致的一种简单的皮肤病’这一说法听上去是可信的，并且是合乎逻辑的。”【81】
希伯对魏克曼的研究评价极高，说：
“他对此病的知识是如此之完整，不但在他之前没有一人能够超过他，即使在他之后也没有几个人超过他。他对疥螨打的皮洞非常熟悉，并且知道在水疱附近寻找年幼的疥螨。他准确地描述了如何用针尖或者铅笔刀尖在不同部位挑取疥螨。”【82】
不过，博诺莫和塞斯托尼的发现真正开花结果是在十九世纪的法国。前面提到，法国著名寄生虫学家雷伊在1827年的书中曾翻译了博诺莫致雷迪函。但实际上，在他之前，博诺莫的发现就已经为法国医生们所熟知。比如，法国著名皮肤病医生、后来曾任路易十八御医的埃利柏（Jean-Louis-Marc Alibert, 1768-1837）就知晓博诺莫的发现。也正是受这个发现的影响，埃利柏才指导盖勒进行了这方面的研究，实际上是在重复博诺莫的试验。盖勒的研究直接导致里努奇在1834年的试验【59, 83】。
疥螨显微形象的变迁
博诺莫在1687年（左一）【49】、魏克曼在1786年（左二）【84】、里努奇在1834年（右一、二）【85】发表的疥螨显微图。注意在博诺莫的图中，疥螨是三对足，并且与真实的疥螨成虫不太一样。有人说，他的图需要相当的想象力才能够与疥螨联系到一起【86】。右一为腹视图（显示其四对足），其余为背视图。
面对着这么多的事实，方舟子竟然能够造出“从那以后，这个发现就没人提及，被人遗忘”这种弥天大谎。这哪里是什么“著名科普作家”，简直就是一个绝无仅有的“谣言大王”。
四、结论
不计标点符号，方舟子的《一种寄生虫引起的争端》一文只有1665字。可就是在这么短的篇幅之内，针对“如此简单明了的一个科学发现”，方舟子却有本事犯下这么多科学常识和科学历史错误，散布这么多没有任何根据、甚至连影子都没有的谣言，制造这么多低级的笑话。实际上，本文指出的这些错误、谣言和笑话远不是他在这篇文章中所制造的全部──为了节省自己的精力，也是为了不浪费读者的时间，我放弃了对方舟子文章进行全面分析的打算。令人不解的是，这样一个史无前例的剽窃惯犯、学术掮客、科学骗子，却被一家“中央级新锐主流大报”封为“著名科普作家”，让他连续不断地向中国社会倾倒学术垃圾、智力毒品。难怪中国农业大学副教授朱毅博士会慨叹道：“我看着科普两个字，就恶心。”【87】
在揭发、论证方舟子抄袭剽窃的同时，本文更重要的目的是还原疥疮病原研究历史的真相。这个真相就是：早在现代科学出现之前，早在西方科学家、医学家介入之前，东方人，包括中国人和阿拉伯人，以及基督教教会人士，就已经知道疥疮患者的身上长有疥螨。疥螨病原性的最后确认，是在欧洲各国的科学家和医生经过几百年的探索之后才取得的。恰如法国科学史学者Daniele Ghesquier所说，这项成就是“集体的建构”（Collective Construction）【60】，而不是某个人的独家专利。具体地说就是，博诺莫和塞斯托尼在大量、广泛地吸收和继承了前人的经验和知识的基础之上，根据自己的研究结果，──观察到疥螨──，大胆地提出了“疥螨是疥疮的唯一病原”这样的假说，并且根据这个假说提出了外部施药、通过杀螨来治疥的治疗方案。这个假说的最终证明，至少需要德国科学家魏克曼、英国科学家亚当斯、法国科学家里努奇、奥地利科学家希伯等人前前后后几十年、甚至上百年的努力。没有这些努力，博诺莫和塞斯托尼的最大贡献就是根据自己的观察提出了一个待证并且早已存在的假说──仅此而已。那种冒充博学、冒充“主流科学界全权总代理”、动不动就要指定谁谁是“第一人”、哪年哪月是“中国历史上一个重要的转折点”之人，譬如方舟子，恰恰就是最无知、最不知道科学研究为何物的学术骗子。
就科学史本身来说，这个由“一种寄生虫引起的争端”还有一层更令人深思的意义：不论是意大利人塞斯托尼，还是英国人亚当斯、科西嘉人里努奇，他们都是在下层劳动妇女的帮助和启发下才最终找到疥螨的。实际上，因为那些下层劳动妇女是在通过除螨来治疥，所以，她们应该早就意识到“疥螨是疥疮的致病原因”这一事实。可叹这种经过人类千百年经验积累所得到的认识，还要再经过几百年的“争端”才能够得到科学界和医学界的认可。由此可见，所谓的“高贵者最愚蠢，卑贱者最聪明”，并非完全没有道理。这也说明，经过千百年经验积累而成的中医学，肯定还存在着大量的、等待人们去发掘的宝藏。而那些张口闭口不离“科学”的骗子，如方舟子，一面蔑视、践踏人类的经验积累，一面把人类经验的总结拿过来当作打击私敌、为自己贴金、为自己牟利的武器。这样的“科学”，已经远远不是恶心不恶心的问题了，而是彻头彻尾的邪恶。
至于《新华每日电讯》这个“中央级新锐主流大报”为什么要心甘情愿地与邪恶为伍，为邪恶提供作恶的平台，则必将“引起”今后几年、几十年、甚至上百年的“争端”，我们不妨将之命名为“一个邪恶引起的争端”。
五、参考文献
【1】亦明：《偷盗坑唬骗：方舟子“分析”韩寒〈求医〉一文的招术》，中国学术评价网2014年5月31日。
【2】见方舟子新浪微博：
《“天才”韩寒作品〈求医〉分析》，2012年1月27日；
《对“天才”韩寒〈求医〉的医学分析》，2012年1月28日；
《三度剖析韩寒〈求医〉之谜》，2012年1月30日；
《韩寒的就诊记录否证了韩寒〈求医〉》，2012年2月3日；
《简评韩寒父亲韩仁均〈说说我自己〉》，2012年1月27日；
《点评韩寒及其父亲的回应》），2012年1月29日。
【3】 亦明：《给福建省教育厅负责人的一封公开信》，中国学术评价网2012年2月16日。
【4】 汪亚民：《世界上有两种科学，一种是科学，一种是方氏“科学”》，汪亚民的博客，2012年2月21日。
【5】刘华杰：《网上访科学/人文两栖学人方舟子》，2000年2月21日《科学时报》。
【6】亦明：《科学骗子方舟子》，作于2011年。
【7】Ramos-e-Silva, M. 1998. GIOVAN COSIMO BONOMO (1663-1696): Discoverer of the etiology of scabies. International Journal of Dermatology 37:625-630.
【8】亦明：《方舟子在2009年抄袭澳大利亚生物学家John S. Wilkins》，中国学术评价网2011年4月3日。
【9】方舟子：《玉米花粉的妄想狂笑话》，新语丝2007年12月4日新到资料。
【10】方舟子：《答郝炘〈方舟子这样写文章不好〉》，新语丝2011年7月20日新到资料。
【11】方舟子：《郭沫若抄袭钱穆了吗？》，《书屋》1999年第5期。
【12】方舟子：《多维新闻网剽窃的铁证》，新语丝2000年4月10日新到资料。
【13】Roncalli,
RA. 1987. The history of scabies in veterinary and human medicine from
biblical to modern times. Veterinary Parasitology 25:193-198.
【14】见：田力苗主编：《亚里士多德全集·第四卷·动物志》，颜一译，中国人民大学出版社1997年版187-188页。（英文：“Those
insects which are not carnivorous, but live upon the juices of living
flesh, as lice, fleas, and bugs, produce nits from sexual intercourse ;
from these nits nothing else is formed. Of these insects the fleas
originate in very small portions of corrupted matter, for they are
always collected togetherwhere there is any dry dung. Bugs proceed from
the moisture which collects on the bodies of animals : lice from the
flesh of other creatures; for before they appear, they exist in little
pimples which do not contain matter : and if these are pricked, the lice
escape from them.” Aristotle. History of animals. Translated by Richard Cresswell. George Bell & Sons, London. 1887. p.134.）
【15】Hebra F. On the diseases of the skin, including the exanthemata. New Sydenham Society, London. 1868. pp.167-168.
【16】Busvine, JR. Insects, Hygiene and History. Athlone Press, London. 1976. p.208.（英文：“This animacule can be removed with the point of a needle. If placed on the nail and exposed to the heat of the sun or fire, it moves. If the animacule is crushed between the fingernails, one hears it crack. This type of scabies is most easily cured ... by administering laxatives and the killing of the animals.”）
【17】见【15】，168页。（英文：“There
is formed in their bodies, on the exterior, something which the people
call Soab, and which exists within the skin. If the skin is removed,
there comes out of various parts of it a very small animal, which can
scarcely be seen.” ）
【18】巢元方：《诸病源候论·三十五卷》。
【19】Hoeppli,
R. 1956. Parasitological Reviews: The knowledge of parasites and
parasitic infections from ancient times to the 17th century. Exp.
Parasitology 5:398-419.
【20】见【15】，169-170页。
【21】Beeson, BB. 1927. Acarus scabiei. Study of its history. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 16: 294–307. （英文译文：“The
mites are little animals, always hidden under the skin, there they
crawl and gnaw the skin, little by little, exciting a disagreeable
itching. They can be extracted with pins or needles.” ）
【22】Vocabolario dell'Accademia della Crusca. 2nd Ed. Florence. 1623.（意大利文原文：“Pellicello è un piccolissimo Bacolino, il quale si generá á’ Rognosi in pelle e rodendo cagiona un' acutissimo pizzicore.”）
【23】Tanga, M. 2007. Giacinto Cestoni, i rapporti con Redi e le scienze della vita nel XVII secolo.
Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Facoltà di Lettere e
Filosoia, Dottorato di ricerca in Storia della Scienza. p.93.
【24】见【15】，172页。（英文原文：“The physicians of that age, however, were: far behind the naturalists in scientific investigation.”）
【25】Mouffet, T. Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum. Thomas Cotes for Benjamin Allen, London. 1634. p.266. （拉丁文原文：“Mirum
est quomodo tam pusila bestiola, nullis quasi pedibus incedens, tam
longos sibi cuticulá sulcos peragat. Hoc obiter est observandum, syrones
istos non in ipsis pustulis, sed prope habitare.”）（英文译文见：Packard, FR. Annals of Medical History. P.B.
Hoeber, New York.1937. p.220. “It is strange how such a little animal
with almost no feet can drive such a long burrow under the skin.
Moreover, it is to be noted that these mites do not lie in the pustules
themselves, but near them.” ）
【26】见【15】，173-174页。（英文原文：“The following sentence goes to show that he had himself looked for the acarus scabiei, and had been successful in finding it.”）
【27】方舟子：《虚妄的“人体革命”》，2000年11月1日《中华读书报》。
【28】方舟子：《让安全清洁的核能更安全》，2014年6月6日《新华每日电讯》。
【29】詹希美主编：《人体寄生虫学》，人民卫生出版社20001年第五版250页。
【30】CDC-DPDx. Scabies.（英文原文：“Females are 0.30 to 0.45 mm long and 0.25 to 0.35 mm wide, and males are slightly more than half that size.”）
【31】Wikipedia. Naked eye. [英文原文：“At
a viewing distance of 16" = ~ 400 mm, which is considered a normal
reading distance in the USA, the smallest object resolution will be ~
0.116 mm. For inspection purposes laboratories use a viewing distance of
200–250 mm, which gives the smallest size of the object recognizable to
the naked eye of ~0.058- 0.072 mm(~55-75 micrometer).”]
【32】Legge, GE. and Bigelow, CA. 2011. Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of Vision 11(5):8, 1–22.
【33】WebMD. Scabies Slideshow: Symptoms, Cause, and Treatments; Scabies Pictures Slideshow: Stop the Itch Mite; Michigan Department of Community Health. Scabies Prevention and Control Manual.
【34】Montesu, MA., and Cottoni F. 1991. G.C. Bonomo and D. Cestoni. Discoverers of the parasitic origin of scabies. American Journal of Dermatopathology 13:425-7.
【35】见【7】。 （英文原文：“Giovan
Cosimo Bonomo, in collaboration with Diacinto Cestoni, discovered the
etiologic agent, stated that it reproduced through the union of a male
and a female, affirmed it laid eggs (Bonomo actually saw the mite laying
an egg), suggested its transmission by clothes and fomites, and
speculated about the reasons some local treatments were effective and
some systemic were not. That was in 1687,2 three hundred and
10 years ago; and their study, even though not immediately recognized,
marked the first notice of the parasitic theory of infectious diseases;
demonstrating for the first time that a microscopic organism could be
the cause of a disease. It may even be said without doubt that Bonomo's
and Cestoni's discovery initiated a new era in Medicine.6”）
【36】见：Anonymous. 1932. Contributo alla storia della scabbia. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 26:592. （英文原文：“……as
the proofs that would better permit us to ascertain the truth are
wanting, the discovery of the parasite nature of the itch must be
attributed to Bonmo and Cestoni together.”）
【37】Heukelbach J. and Feldmeier H. 2006. Scabies. Lancet 367:1767-1774. （英文原文：“In
1687, the Italian physician Giovan Cosimo Bonomo and the apothecary
Diacinto Cestoni described the causal relation between the scabies mite
and the typical skin lesions seen after infestation. They showed for the
first time that a disease can be caused by a microorganism.” ）
【38】Currier RW. et al. 2011. Scabies in animals and humans: history, evolutionary perspectives, and modern clinical management. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1230:E50-60. （英文原文：“In the 17th
century, Hauptman produced imperfect drawings of the mite, followed by
Giovanni Cosimo Bonomo, an Italian naval physician, who with Diacinto
Cestoni, a pharmacist, studied the condition in sailors and provided a
more accurate drawing of the acarus mite in 1687, thus discovering and
establishing the parasitic nature of scabies as well as its treatment.” ）
【39】见【7】。（英文原文：“Faucci3
states that probably the naturalistic study of the acarus is due to
Cestoni, a very clever researcher, while Bonomo, a very keen naval
physician, is responsible for the observations regarding to the external
cure of scabies.”）
【40】见【23】，150页。（意大利文原文：“La
figura che emersa è quella di un uomo di grande intuizione, di tenacia
incrollabile, di pazienza inesauribile, di semplicità e linearità di
ragionamento, di amorevole dedizione alla conoscenza e ai benefici che
può portare agli uomini.”）
【41】见：GIACINTO CESTONI。（意大利文原文：“Egli è un speziale; ma ne sa di più di 40 medici.”）
【42】见【23】， 84页。
【43】见【23】，103页。（意大利文原文：“Ho
avuto caro quanto mai dir si possa che V.S. abbia osservata la figura
de’ pellicelli. V.S. è stato il primo ad osservarla. Prego V.S. a
mandarmene la figura di uno disegnata.”）
【44】见【23】，87-90页。
【45】Mead
R. 1703. An Abstract of Part of a Letter from Dr. Bonomo to Sigmor
Redi, containing some Observations concerning the Worms of Humane
bodies. Philosophical Trans. 23:1296-1299.
【46】Anonymous.1788. An
Account of the Infection found in the itch. From a Work lately
published, in German, on the Etiology of that Discase, by J. E.
Wichmann, M. D. Phyfician to His Majesty at Hanover, and Member of the
Royal Society of Sciences at Goetiingen.The London Medical Journal
9:28-43. （英文原文：“Dr. Mead, by
omitting the beginning of Bonomo's letter to Redi, has not fully stated
the circumftanccs that led to the discovery of the insect in question,
and has given to Bonomo the credit of observations for which we find
Bonomo acknowledging himself indebted to one of his friends, whom he
names.” ）
【47】Adams, J. Observations on Morbid Poisons, Acute and Chronic. J. Callow, London, 1807. pp.293-310.
【48】见【16】，211页。（英文原文：“……he changes from the plural to the first person singular.”）
【49】见【15】，176页。（英文原文：“We
soon, therefore, found the patient required; who, when asked where he
felt the most severe and intense itching, showed me a number of small
vesicles, ……. We did not content ourselves with this one observation,
and afterwards examined many cases of scabies, in patients of various
ages and constitutions, of different sexes, and at all seasons of the
year.. We always found the same little animals, which existed in almost
all the vesicles.”）
【50】Lane JE. 1928. Bonomo's letter to Redi - an important document in the history of scabies. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 18:1-25.
【51】Rayer, P. Treatise on Diseases of the Skin: Founded on New Researches in Pathological Anatomy and Physiology. Translated by W. B. Dickinson. John Churchill, London. 1833. p.381.
【52】见【15】，186页。（英文原文：“Diacinto
Cestoni •••• assured me (says Bonomo) that he had again and again seen a
‘something’ (un non so che) extracted by old women with the point of a
needle from the skin of their little children when affected with
scabies. This ‘something’ was found in the smallest vesicles, before
they were quite ripe. It was then placed on the nail of the left thumb,
and cracked with that of the right thumb, so as to produce a slight
sound. He had also seen the prisoners and slaves in the galleys of
Leghom do the same thing for each other.
“He went on to say that
he did not know for certain that the mite thus removed was a living
animal, but that all doubt might soon be set at rest by anyone who would
(as I had suggested to him) make a series of experiments on a patient
affected with scabies, so as to determine finally whether it was, or was
not, the case.”）
【53】见【45】。（英文原文：“Having
frequently observed that the poor women when their children are
troubled with the itch, do with the point of a pin pull out of the
scabby skin little bladders of water, and crack them like fleas upon
their nails; and that the scabby slaves in the Bagno at Leghorn do often
practice this mutual kindness upon one another; it came into my mind
to examine what these bladders might, really be.”）
【54】见：沈静文、郑丹炜：《对话方舟子：不认为老婆之假值得打》，中国广播网2014-02-09 17:19 。
【55】见【34】。（英文原文：“Partly
because of the difficulty of isolating the acarus, Bonomo's discovery
was completely forgotten in the years that followed. But in 1834, a
young student named Francois Simon Renucci, who had learned how to
extract the acarus from the poor women of his native Corsica, proved its
existence in Paris and reestablished the fact that the acarus was the
cause of scabies (3,7).
“A period of intensive clinical and experimental research on scabies by numerous investigators
throughout Europe followed on Renucci's rediscovery of the Acarus scabiei.
No one, however, did more to settle, once and for all, the various
problems of scabies than Ferdinand Hebra (1816-80), who published his
views on the diagnosis, etiology, and treatment of this disease in 1844
(15).
“In 1925, Alberto Rezzauti came across Bonomo's signed
letter which had been preserved in the Fraternita de Laici of Arezzo.
Its publication that year proved that in fact the discovery of the
acarian origin of scabies preceded its official scientific recognition
by 150 years.”）
【56】见【7】。（英文原文：“It
was only in 1834, almost two centuries later, that Renucci, a young
student, reestablished the fact that the acarus was the cause of
scabies.15 After this, a period of intense investigations on
scabies began, and Ferdinand Hebra (1816-80), by particular
self-experiments, was the one that did the most to settle once and for
all the problem of scabies. He published his views on diagnosis,
etiology, and treatment of this disease in 1844 and made an eulogy of
Bonomo's and Cestoni's work.16”
“It was Cumston, in 1924, who credited Bonomo for the discovery and first description of Sarcoptes scabiei,5
and, finally in 1927, Razzauti came across Bonomo's signed letter which
had been preserved in the Library of Fraternità di S. Maria of Arezzo.14
Its publication that year proved that, in fact, the discovery of the
acarian origin of scabies preceded Renucci's paper and its official
scientific recognition by 150 years.3”）
【57】见【7】。（英文原文：“Hebra
also stated that Giovanni Cinelli Calvoli, in 1689, claimed to have
seen the acarus ten years before Cestoni. Calvoli declared that a
certain Protasio Felice Salvetti, whom he had employed to make drawings,
had revealed his researches to Bonomo and Cestoni. Despite his claims
to priority in the discovery of the itch mite, Calvoli, it is said, did
not regard it as the cause of scabies. It is also claimed that, before
Bonomo and Cestoni, Scaliger, in 1557, Joubertus, in 1577, Fallopius, in
1584, Rondelet, in 1592, Vidius, in 1586, and Schenck, in 1600, knew
and wrote about acarus. Some of these authors however confused it with
lice, which was not an uncommon error at that time or even later.5
Favarielle, in a thesis on scabies, written in Paris in 1805, still
affirmed it was produced by a syphilitic or a scorbutic infection of the
humors and by a degeneration of the transpiration.5）
【58】见【21】。（英文原文：“Hebra
contributed an accurate article on the itch and its parasite in 1844.
He described the gallery in detail, and concluded that if there was no
Acarus, there was no itch. He maintained that the disorder was
transmitted by the scratching of the patient, thus opening up the
burrows and transferring the mites on the finger-nails, either to
another person or to a different portion of his own body. Later (1868),
the same author stated that the mite found on human beings as well as
those found on animals all belonged to the same genus and species and
are probably examples of the same animal.” ）
【59】见【16】， 214页。
【60】Ghesquier, D. 1999. A Gallic affair: the case of the missing itch-mite in French medicine in the early nineteenth century. Medical History 43:26-54.
【61】Wilson, E. On Diseases of the Skin.
John Churchill, London. 1847. pp.293-294; Piogey, MG. 1850. ON THE
DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF SCARlES; OF ITS NON-TRANSMISSION FROM THE
LOWER ANIMALS TO MAN, AND VICE VERSA. London Medical Examiner Monthly
Review 1:199-202; Anonymous. 1905. The History of the Discovery of the Acarus of Scabies. The Lancet 1:510-511.
【62】见【7】。（英文原文：“Immediately after the letter of Bonomo and publication of Redi's book,2
the Pope's chief physician, Giovanni Maria Lancisi (1654-1720) began a
dispute with Bonomo. Lancisi thought scabies had a humoral origin that
preceded the proliferation of the acarus, and, although he recognized
the presence of the parasite, he discarded it as the single cause of the
disease. In the course of this dispute, because of Lancisi's position
as the Pope's chief physician, the fact that he invoked the Scriptures,
and the fate of previous scientists as Galileo; Bonomo was persuaded not
to continue the debate. His discovery was then completely forgotten.6……
“Raspail
stated that Cestoni, a pharmacist of Livorno, Italy, wrote a letter to
the celebrated Italian naturalist, Francesco Redi, in 1687, under the
pseudonym of Giovan Cosimo Bonomo because he feared persecution, since
his ideas related to scabies were opposed to the spontaneous generation
theories.5 In January 15, 1710, thus twenty three years after Bonomo had
written his experiences to Redi, Cestoni wrote a letter to Antonio
Vallisnieri, repudiating the original one and claiming the entire credit
for the discovery of acarus, which appeared just under Bonomo's name,
for himself.13”）
【63】见【34】。（英文原文：“Immediately
afterward, a dispute broke out between Bonomo and Giovanni Maria
Lancisi (1654-1720). Lancisi, the pope's chief physician, recognized the
presence of the acarus but excluded it as the sole cause of scabies.
According to Lancisi, scabies had a humoral origin that preceded the
proliferation of the acarus. Lancisi availed himself of his
authoritative standing and in the course of the dispute invoked the
Scriptures (13.14). Mindful of the fate of Galileo, Bonomo was persuaded
not to continue the debate.
“Partly because of the difficulty of
isolating the acarus, Bonomo's discovery was completely forgotten in the
years that followed.……”）
【64】Srinivas SK., et al. Lancisi Sign. BMJ Case Rep. 2003.
【65】Di Ieva, A., et al. 2007. Lancisi's nerves and the seat of the soul. Neurosurgery 60:563-568.
【66】见【23】，107-111页。
【67】见【15】，181-182页。（英文原文：“Although
I will not deny that worms really exist in the pustules of the itch,
yet their presence is no proof that they are to be regarded as its
cause. It is quite as probable that they are in some way or other
generated by the disease; for we find worms in ulcers and wounds, and
yet no one would assert that these worms give rise to the ulcers.”）
【68】方舟子：《相关与因果》，2010年4月21日《中国青年报》。
【69】Pernet, G. 1925. Historical notes on scabies, with remarks on the Palaeonology of the Acarus. British Journal of Dermatology 37:312–316.
【70】见【21】。（英文原文：“Despite
Hebra's eulogy of their work, Bonomo and Cestoni were guilty of several
errors: first, in saying that Acarus is present in watery pustules, and
second, in confusing the adult and larval forms.” ）
【71】Viviani, U. Un errore del gran medico aretino G. M. Lancisi. in Curiosità storiche e letterarie aretine. Arezzo, 1921. pp.118-122.
【72】见【15】，179页。（英文原文：“Lucas
Tozzius, Lanzoni, and Richard Mead remain to be mentioned as having
translated, and commented on, the works of Cestoni and Bonomo, and as
having thereby aided in diffusing more widely a knowledge of the
important facts contained in their writings.”）
【73】见【46】。亦见：Küchenmeister,
F. On animal and vegetable parasites of the human body, a manual of
their natural history, diagnosis, and treatment. Vol. II. Translated by
E. Lankester. The Sydenham Society, London. 1857. p.22.
【74】Mead, R. Medical precepts and cautions. J. Brindley, London. 1751. pp.238-242.
【75】Pringle, J. Observations on the diseases of the army in Camp and Garrison. A. Millar, London. 1753. pp.301-302.
【76】The Works of John Hunter. Volume 1. Ed. By Palmer, JF. Longman, London. 1835. p.617.
【77】见【47】。（英文原文：“Bonomo was tolerably exact in his description.”）
【78】见【69】。（英文原文：“a
cutaneous disease extremely contagious, which overspreads the body with
small pustules filled with thin serum, and raised, as microscopes have
discovered, by a small animal. It is cured by sulphur.” ）
【79】见【46】。（英文原文：“THAT
the itch is simply a local affection of the skin, occasioned by
animalcula, has been a pretty general opinion in this country, since the
description given by the late Dr. Mead of the insect found in this
disease by Bonomo.” ）
【80】见【15】，180页。（拉丁文原文：Acarus exulcerans pedibus longissimis setaceis, anticis duobus, habitat in scabie ferina, cujus causa est.）
【81】见【16】，214页。（英文译文：“I
hope I have now thoroughly explained and proved the etiology of
scabies, or at least rendered it both plausible and logical that it is a
simple skin disease caused by mites.”）
【82】见【15】，182页。（英文原文：“……his
knowledge of the disease was so complete, that in this respect he has
been surpassed by none of his predecessors, and by few even of those who
have followed him. He was perfectly acquainted with the burrows made by
the itch-mite, and with the papules (Efflorescenzen) near which young
acari are to be found; and he describes exactly how to extract the
animal from these different places with the point of a needle or
penknife.”）
【83】见【16】，218-221页。
【84】Wichmann, JE. Aetiologie der Krätze. Helwing, Hannover. 1786.
【85】见【16】，221页。
【86】见【72】。（英文原文：“……his figures require a good deal of imagination to recognize in them the familiar acarus.”）
【87】见亦明：《方舟子2013年十大要闻》第三章《妒夫醋潭，同类相残》，中国学术评价网2013年12月31日。
附录：《新华每日电讯》专栏作家方舟子抄袭巴西女医生秀娃的具体证据
【注：方舟子的《一种寄生虫引起的争端》一文来自《新华每日电讯》网站，全文照录如下；疑似抄袭部分下面列出相应抄袭来源。方舟子这篇文章的主要抄袭来源是巴西女医生Ramos-e-Silva的文章，GIOVAN COSIMO BONOMO (1663-1696): Discoverer of the etiology of scabies，该文有网络和印刷两种版本，二者略有不同。本文选用的是网络版，因为它最可能是方舟子的抄袭来源。除了Ramos-e-Silva的文章之外，方文第五段抄自他本人的旧文《科学大争论——生命能否自发产生？》，该文抄自澳大利亚学者的一篇网文（红色标记）。详见亦明：《方舟子在2009年抄袭澳大利亚生物学家John S. Wilkins》。】 |
《一种寄生虫引起的争端》 | GIOVAN COSIMO BONOMO (1663-1696): Discoverer of the etiology of scabies |
第 1 段 | 近日由于对署名韩寒的作品是否别人代笔的争议，一种有传染性的皮肤病传遍了微博和网上论坛。韩寒在1999年提交首届新概念作文大赛的文章之一《求医》据称是根据他当时在学校被传染上疥疮，到医院看病的经历写成，但是许多医生看了这篇文章之后，一致认为根据文中对疾病症状的描述，写的不是疥疮。疥疮是由于疥虫寄生在人体引起的，疥虫钻入皮肤，在皮肤中间穿行打隧道、产卵，引起过敏反应，导致皮疹、瘙痒。疥疮的瘙痒局限于手、腕、腹部、阴部等特定部位，痒处会有皮损，包括皮疹、小水疱或结痂。所以要指出哪里痒，是很容易的，而不是像文中所述无法向医生指出痒在何处，而一痒起来又是全身无处不痒。《求医》描述的是其他因素(例如肝炎)引起的皮肤瘙痒。 |
|
第 2 段 | 疥疮这种病当然是古已有之，中外古代医学文献都有记载。但是古人并不知道它是由寄生虫引起的，而认为是身体自身因素导致的。中国传统医学认为疥疮是由皮肤受风邪热气所致，而西方传统医学则认为疥疮是因为体液失衡、血液败坏或体液发酵导致。 | Galen
(129-200) attributed it to 'melancholic juices'; Avicenna (980-1037)
to 'corrupt blood'; and Velamonte to 'pungent ferment'. |
古代西方医生有的已认识到这是一种传染病，但也认为是由于患者体液或发酵的蒸发物传染所致。 | Those who recognized its contagiousness explained it as the effect of the humors and ferments evaporating from the body.6 |
第 3 段 | 疥虫非常小，体长不到1毫米，肉眼几乎看不到，但是某些细致的古代医生还是能在疥疮患者的水疱里看到细小的虫子。但是他们并没有顺理成章地推测这些小虫子就是疥疮的病因，反而认为是先生了疥疮，再从腐烂的皮肤生出虫子。 | In
the twelfth century, Saint Hildegard (1098-1179), Abbess of the
Rupertsberg Convent, near Bingen, wrote a book named 'Physika' which
includes the first actual reference to the Acarus scabiei, and
Avenzoar (1091-1162), a Moorish physician practicing in Spain,
described what would seem to be the mite but did not relate it to the
itch.5,6 Although
the mite was known long before Bonomo described it, as is widely
documented, it was not considered the cause of the disease; which was
believed to be of humoral nature. |
第 4 段 | 这是因为在古代人们普遍相信虫子这种小生物是从腐败的东西自然而然生出来的，也就是所谓自发发生说。例如，腐烂的肉会变出苍蝇和蛆，朽木会自己长出蛀虫，汗会生出虱子，海底的烂泥会生出鱼，地里的烂泥会生出青蛙和老鼠…… | During
this period there was no doubt about the doctrine of spontaneous
generation. It was accepted, since the time of Aristotle, that lice
originated from meat, fleas from filth, and moths from wool, and that
the presence of the acarus on the skin of scabies patients was
considered a proof of the corruption of the flesh and blood caused by
internal ailment.3,6 |
第 5 段 | 不仅一般人这么想，科学家也这么认为。17世纪西方某位化学家就这么指导人们怎么造出老鼠:把汗湿透了的内衣和麦子一起放到罐中，不加盖放三七二十一天，等汗发酵了，恶臭渗透进了麦子，麦子就会变成老鼠! | The last great proponent, as experimentation began to transform science, was Jan Baptist van Helmont (1580–1644). ……His
notes also describe a recipe for mice (a piece of soiled cloth plus
wheat for 21 days) and scorpions (basil, placed between two bricks and
left in sunlight). His notes suggest he may even have done these
things. |
到了1668年，意大利医生雷第才开始想到要做个实验看看肉是否能自发变成蛆。他的实验很简单，把肉放在开口的罐子里，过一段时间就会长出蛆，要是把罐口用纱布罩上，外面的苍蝇没法进去产卵，肉再怎么烂也长不出蛆来。 | Francisco
Redi (c1626-1697) demonstrated in 1668 that maggots did not, contrary
to Aristotle, arise spontaneously, but from eggs laid by adult flies.
Meat covered so that the flies could not reach it was free of
maggots, while meat that flies could reach developed them. Using
the empirical method, Francesco Redi (1626-1698) antagonized the
spontaneous generation theory by demonstrating that flies only appear
on putrid flesh if other flies had previously deposited their eggs. |
第 6 段 | 雷第的实验首次挑战了自发发生说。受他的影响，医生博诺莫和药剂师塞斯托尼从一个新的角度研究疥疮的病因。1687年，博诺莫写信向雷第报告他在塞斯托尼的帮助下做出的发现。 | Redi
was the chief physician of Grand Duke Cosimo III and leader of one of
the schools of thought of that time. He and Giovan Cosimo Bonomo, a
young naval physician, were regular visitors of Diacinto Cestoni's
pharmacy, in Livorno, a meeting place for men of letters and science.6 Brumpt,
in his book published in 1936, states that the etiology of scabies
seems to have been discovered by Redi in 1687 and that its pathogenic
role was evident after the studies of Renucci, in 1834.9 Nevertheless, it is most likely that the real discoverer of the
parasitic nature of scabies was Dr. Giovan Cosimo Bonomo with the
collaboration of the apothecary and naturalist Diacinto Cestoni; both
of them Francesco Redi's disciples.3 |
博诺莫从几名疥疮患者的患处剥下皮肤，用显微镜观察，看到了疥虫。 | Not
satisfied with the first discovery, I repeated the search in several
itchy persons, of different age, complexion and sex, and at different
seasons of the year, and in all found the same animals; and that in
most of the watery pustules, for now and then in some few, I could not
see any. |
更重要的是，有一次他还在显微镜下看到了有一只母疥虫正在产卵，由此知道了疥虫卵是什么样子，之后就经常在疥疮病人身上发现虫卵。那么结论就很显然了，疥虫不是从腐败的皮肤自发生出的，而是从虫卵生出的，而且经由雌雄交配才会产卵，虽然博诺莫承认，他没法分辨疥虫的性别。 | From
what Bonomo wrote in these two last paragraphs he actually saw a
female laying an egg and stated that reproduction was carried out by
the mating of a male and a female, although he could not see their
sexual differences. He was much ahead of his time because spontaneous
generation was the prevailing theory. |
第 7 段 | 博诺莫进而指出，此前关于疥疮是由于体液腐败、发酵等因素导致的说法是错误的，而是由于寄生虫入侵皮肤引起疥疮。 | At
this point Bonomo disagreed with the humoral and spontaneous
generation theory accepted at that time and stated that the passage
and biting of the skin by the acarus was the cause of the pruritus. |
博诺莫还注意到，疥虫很容易附着在床单、毛巾、手套等物体上，而且能在体外生存两、三天，由此又推测疥疮是通过疥虫传染的。 | In
his letter Bonomo stated that Sarcoptes scabiei could be transmitted
by direct contact, and that it sticked to almost everything, so
transmission also occur through clothes and other fomites. In his
experiments he also observed that the mite could live out of the body
for some days. |
最后，博诺莫建议疥疮要用外涂硫黄等药物的方法治疗，而且要涂上两、三天才能保证把新从虫卵生出的疥虫也都杀死。至于口服药物，博诺莫认为没有效果。 | To
finish his so complete and exciting observations Bonomo suggested
that the cure of the itch could be accomplished by the use of local
therapy, as sulphur, which is used until now. He stated that internal
drugs were not effective and local treatment had to go on for two or
three more days after the cure of the itch. This time would be
necessary to prevent relapses because of the presence of eggs that,
after hatching, could then start a new biological cycle of the
parasite. |
第 8 段 | 雷第将博诺莫的信印成小册子发表，立即引起了争议。主要的反对者是教皇的御医兰西西。兰西西虽然承认疥虫的存在，但是不相信它是疥疮的病因，而是引经据典地指出体液因素才是疥疮的病因。既然教皇的御医开了金口，而且还引用基督教《圣经》作为依据(《旧约·利未记》曾提到疥疮)，为了避免像布鲁诺、伽利略那样受到宗教迫害，博诺莫就没有争论下去。 | Immediately after the letter of Bonomo and publication of Redi's book,2
the Pope's chief physician, Giovanni Maria Lancisi (1654-1720) began a
dispute with Bonomo. Lancisi thought scabies had a humoral origin
that preceded the proliferation of the acarus, and, although he
recognized the presence of the parasite, he discarded it as the single
cause of the disease. In the course of this dispute, because of
Lancisi's position as the Pope's chief physician, the fact that he
invoked the Scriptures, and the fate of previous scientists as
Galileo; Bonomo was persuaded not to continue the debate. His
discovery was then completely forgotten.6 As Ernest Besnier and Adrian
Doyon said later and very pertinently, it was a time when the medical
brain was not yet prepared to accept this discovery.12 |
第 9 段 | 23年后，到了1710年，博诺莫和雷第都已去世，塞斯托尼在一封信中才重提对疥虫的发现，但是把这个发现归于自己的名下，没有提及博诺莫，以致有人怀疑博诺莫其实是塞斯托尼为了免受宗教迫害用的化名。 | It is difficult to establish with precision and certainty how much is owed to Bonomo and Cestoni.3
Usually their names are referred to as two distinct persons who
worked together, but there are some authors, as Raspail and Devergie,
that claim they are the same person. Raspail stated that Cestoni, a
pharmacist of Livorno, Italy, wrote a letter to the celebrated Italian
naturalist, Francesco Redi, in 1687, under the pseudonym of Giovan
Cosimo Bonomo because he feared persecution, since his ideas related
to scabies were opposed to the spontaneous generation theories.5
In January 15, 1710, thus twenty three years after Bonomo had written
his experiences to Redi, Cestoni wrote a letter to Antonio
Vallisnieri, repudiating the original one and claiming the entire
credit for the discovery of acarus, which appeared just under Bonomo's
name, for himself.13 |
第 10 段 | 从那以后，这个发现就没人提及，被人遗忘。医生们仍然相信疥疮是体液因素导致的。直到1834，一名叫里努奇的学生重新发现了疥虫是疥疮的病因，才引起了医学界对此的兴趣。1844年，希伯拉通过在自己身上做实验，详细地阐明了疥疮的病因、症状和治疗方法，终结了关于疥疮的争论。希伯拉还赞扬了博诺莫和塞斯托尼的开创性研究，他们的名字因此载入史册。 | It
was only in 1834, almost two centuries later, that Renucci, a young
student, re-established the fact that the acarus was the cause of
scabies.15 After this, a period of intense investigations
on scabies began, and Ferdinand Hebra (1816-80), by particular
self-experiments, was the one that did the most to settle once and for
all the problem of scabies. He published his views on diagnosis,
etiology, and treatment of this disease in 1844 and made an eulogy of
Bonomo's and Cestoni's work.16 |
博诺莫被认为是人类医学史上首次确定一种疾病的正确病因的第一人，此时距离他的伟大发现已经过了150多年。 | It was Cumston, in 1924, who credited Bonomo for the discovery and first description of Sarcoptes scabiei,5
and, finally in 1927, Razzauti came across Bonomo's signed letter
which had been preserved in the Library of Fraternità di S. Maria of
Arezzo.14 Its publication that year proved that, in fact,
the discovery of the acarian origin of scabies preceded Renucci's paper
and its official scientific recognition by 150 years.3 |
第 11 段 | 要改变人们的传统思想是很难的。如此简单明了的一个科学发现尚且要过了这么长的时间才能获得人们的认可，何况其他更为复杂难解的争端。 |
|
