3、盲人瞎馬鑽深巷，蠢賊狂吹大喇叭
（1）“希伯拉自身試驗”之謎
那麼，為什麼說巴西女醫生說的“希伯，特別是通過在自己身上做實驗”是信口胡謅呢？這是因為，希伯不僅在1844年沒有拿疥蟎在自己身上做實驗，他實際上從來就沒有做過那樣的實驗。
據巴西女醫生文章的網上版本，她之所以那麼說，是根據兩個文獻：希伯一本出版於1868年的書【15】，和兩個意大利人1991年的文章【34】；而在印刷版本中，她又增加了一篇彼森在1927年發表的文獻綜述：《疥蟎研究簡史》【21】。但實際上，這三篇文獻都沒有關於希伯曾經做過自身實驗的任何記載：蒙泰蘇和古托尼的文章只有上引的那一段提到希伯；彼森的文章雖然多次提到希伯，但只有一次提到希伯自己的研究：
“希伯在1844年對瘙癢及其寄生蟲發表了一篇精確的文章。他詳細地敘述了試驗結果，其結論是如果沒有疥蟎，就不會有瘙癢。他堅持認為該病情的傳播是由於病人的抓撓，抓撓打開了蟲穴，將疥蟎沾到了指甲上，然後轉移給其他人或者本人身體的其他部位。後來，1868年，同一作者指出，人體上的疥蟎和動物身上的疥蟎屬於同種同屬，也許是相同的動物。”【58】
而在希伯的那本1868年出版的書中所說的1844年的試驗，實際上就是我在前文中介紹過的那個試驗，其目的就是要證明疥瘡只是疥蟎的局部侵染造成的，而治療疥瘡只需要外敷藥，而不需要內服藥：
“他將疥瘡病人分為兩組，對第一組病人用藥膏塗遍全身，但在疥蟎侵染之處則不塗藥膏；對第二組病人則只在疥蟎侵染之處用藥膏塗抹，其餘部位不予處理。結果只 有第二組的病人被徹底治癒。”
事實是，在1844年之前的半個多世紀，已經有多人多次通過自體試驗來證明疥蟎的病原性：1791年，德國醫生魏克曼（Johann Ernst Wichmann, 1740-1802）在一本書中描述了自己的兩個朋友用疥蟎來做自身試驗【59】；1801年，英國醫生亞當斯在自己身上做試驗（已在上文介紹【1】）；1812年，法國一位醫學院學生蓋勒（Jean-Chrysanthe Gales, 1783-1854）宣稱曾用自己分離到的疥蟎做自我試驗【60】； 1834年，法國醫生M. Albin Gras在自己身上多次做試驗【61】。除了上述的自身試驗之外，據里努奇自稱，他早在1815年就曾用疥蟎給一個小孩接種【60】。
也就是說，不要說希伯在1844年根本就沒有“在自己身上做實驗”，就算他真的做了，其意義也不過就是重複試驗而已，憑什麼他的試驗能夠“終結了關於疥瘡的爭論”，而別人的試驗卻一錢不值？
實際上，方舟子對“希伯拉”幾乎一無所知。比如他說的這句話就是一個笑話：
“希伯拉還讚揚了博諾莫和塞斯托尼的開創性研究，他們的名字因此載入史冊。”
事實是，希伯1844年的論文是用德文發表的一篇試驗報告，其中是否真的“讚揚了博諾莫和塞斯托尼的開創性研究”，這個世界上根本就沒有幾個人知道。方舟子之所以那麼說，就是因為巴西女醫生是那麼說的，但他卻沒有注意到巴西女醫生引的文獻是希伯1868年的一本書，而在那時，博諾莫和塞斯托尼的研究在西方醫學界，至少是皮膚病學界，早已盡人皆知了，希伯的讚揚與否根本改變不了這個事實，而博諾莫和塞斯托尼的名字被“載入史冊”更不是什麼“因此”。
不過，一個關鍵的問題是，巴西女醫生秀娃和美國男華僑方舟子為什麼要編造一個“博諾莫和塞斯托尼的發現被埋沒了150年”的瞎話？
（2）“教皇御醫蘭西西”之謎
方舟子和秀娃之所以如此熱衷於“一種寄生蟲引起的爭端”，主要原因就是他們二人都是所謂“衝突學說”的堅定信徒，認為宗教是科學的死對頭，所以，他們編造了一個博諾莫的發現被教皇御醫反對、“因此”這一重大發現被埋沒了一百多年的神話，或曰鬼話。（關於“衝突學說”，見亦明：《以科學的名義行騙》）。這是方舟子的原文：
“雷第將博諾莫的信印成小冊子發表，立即引起了爭議。主要的反對者是教皇的御醫蘭西西。蘭西西雖然承認疥蟲的存在，但是不相信它是疥瘡的病因，而是引經據典地指出體液因素才是疥瘡的病因。既然教皇的御醫開了金口，而且還引用基督教《聖經》作為依據(《舊約·利未記》曾提到疥瘡)，為了避免像布魯諾、伽利略那樣受到宗教迫害，博諾莫就沒有爭論下去。
“23年後，到了1710年，博諾莫和雷第都已去世，塞斯托尼在一封信中才重提對疥蟲的發現，但是把這個發現歸於自己的名下，沒有提及博諾莫，以致有人懷疑博諾莫其實是塞斯托尼為了免受宗教迫害用的化名。
“從那以後，這個發現就沒人提及，被人遺忘。醫生們仍然相信疥瘡是體液因素導致的。……”
它們來自秀娃下面的話：
“在博諾莫的信和雷迪的書發表之後，教皇的首席醫師蘭西西立即開始了與博諾莫的爭論。蘭西西認為，疥瘡的原因是體液，而疥蟎的生長繁殖是在體液失調之後。雖然他承認疥蟎的存在，但他不認為那是造成疥瘡的唯一原因。由於蘭西西是教皇的首席醫師、他在爭論之中引用了《聖經》、以及先前科學家伽利略、布魯諾的命運，博諾莫被勸說不要繼續爭論下去。他的發現於是完全被遺忘。……
“拉斯柏說，塞斯托尼，意大利里窩那的一個藥劑師，在1687年給著名的博物學家雷迪寫了一封信，因為自己關於疥瘡的觀點與自生理論相左而害怕受到迫害，他署的是假名博諾莫。1710年1月15日，也就是在博諾莫將自己的發現寫信給雷迪的23年之後，塞斯托尼給安東尼奧·瓦利斯納里寫了一封信，否認了前一封信，將發現疥蟎的全部功勞──以前劃在博諾莫的名下──收歸己有。”【62】
而秀娃的前一段文字又是抄自蒙泰蘇和古托尼下面的話：
“在那之後，一場論戰在博諾莫和蘭西西之間爆發。蘭西西是教皇的首席醫師，他承認疥蟎的存在，但不承認它是導致疥瘡的唯一原因。蘭西西認為，疥瘡起源於體液，這個原因在疥蟎的生長繁殖之前。因為他的權威地位以及在爭論中引用了《聖經》，蘭西西處於優勢。對伽利略的命運心有餘悸，博諾莫被勸說不要繼續爭論下去。
“部分是由於分離疥蟎的困難，博諾莫的發現在那之後被完全遺忘。……”【63】
事實是，方舟子所說的“教皇的御醫蘭西西”並不是一個不學無術、冥頑不化的天主教徒，而是一個極有成就的科學家和醫生。預兆心臟病的“蘭奇西氏病徵”（Lancisi sign, 亦見【64】）和大腦中的“蘭奇西氏神經”（longitudinal striae of Lancisi, 或striae lancisi, 或 nerves of Lancisi, 亦見【65】），就是以他的名字命名的。蘭奇西（Giovanni Maria Lancisi, 1654-1720）還是最早注意到蚊子和瘧疾之間相關關係之人。方舟子這個“生物醫學出身”竟然將這麼有名的“生物醫學”前輩譯成“蘭西西”，這就像是一個號稱“美國歷史出身”的人，把Washington譯成“渥星頓”一樣，凸顯其無知。
其實，“爭端”也好，“爭議”也罷，它們都是博諾莫──極可能是在塞斯托尼的指使下── “引起”的：博諾莫在1687年8月4日給“蘭西西”寫信，要求羅馬醫學會（Congresso Medico Romano）討論他們的發現，四天后又寫信催問。而該學會及“蘭西西”本人對這個發現的保留意見又引起博諾莫和塞斯托尼的極度不滿。通觀那場“爭端”，“蘭西西”的回應都非常禮貌、節制、專業，並沒有以勢壓人、以教會壓人的跡象【66】。
那麼，“蘭西西”等人為什麼對博諾莫的發現持保留意見呢？他們的理由主要有以下三點：第一，博諾莫及塞斯托尼並沒有在所有的水疱中都發現疥蟎；第二，疥蟎不可能是導致所有瘙癢的唯一原因（就像中醫的所謂“疥瘡”包括很多不同的瘙癢病一樣，拉丁文scabies和意大利文pellicelli也可泛指多種皮膚瘙癢病）；第三，不能用一兩個人一兩年的試驗結果來否定其他人在成百上千年中積累下來的知識。
“蘭西西”的這些理由至今能夠站得住腳。別的不說，第一條理由就非常正當。因為根據十九世紀確立的柯赫法則（Koch's postulates），確定一個微生物的病原性，必須完成四個步驟：
1， 在每一病例中都發現了相同的微生物，並且，在健康者體內不存在這種微生物；
2，能夠從感病寄主中分離出這種微生物，並且能夠得到它的“純培養”；
3，用這種微生物的純培養接種健康的寄主，會導致同樣的疾病；
4，從試驗發病的寄主中能再度分離出這種微生物。
雖然柯赫法則主要針對病原微生物，但也適用於包括疥蟎在內的寄生蟲病原物：除了不需要第二步“純培養”之外（因為可以獲得單獨的疥蟎，而它們本身就是“純”的），試驗者必須完成其餘步驟才能夠取信於人。但實際上，博諾莫和塞斯托尼連第一步都沒有完成：博諾莫在給雷迪的信中承認，他們並不是在所有的水疱中都能夠找到疥蟎；他們甚至沒能證明殺死疥蟎能夠治癒疥瘡（或者相反，疥瘡患者痊癒後身上不再有疥蟎）。在這樣的前提下，如何讓人相信疥蟎是導致疥瘡的唯一原因呢？
也就是說，博諾莫和塞斯托尼的證據最多只能證明疥蟎和疥瘡之間存在某種相關關係，而遠遠不能證明這種關係是因果關係。1779年，在萊比錫出版的一本書中，作者對於自己拒絕接受“疥蟎是疥瘡的病原”這一理論，給出了如下理由：
“雖然我不否認在疥瘡的水疱中確實存在蟲子，但是，它們的存在卻不能被當作它們是病原的證據。它們完全可能是因為某種方式由這種疾病所產生的。因為我們經常看到在潰瘍和傷口處長蟲子，但沒有人會斷言這些蟲子導致了潰瘍。”【67】
這個理由難道不是相當合理嗎？實際上，為了否定有人聲稱的地震與耳鳴的因果關係，方舟子曾特意撰寫了一篇文章，如此這般地教訓中國國家地震局的專家：
“相關性是因果關係的前提，但是不等於因果關係。要證明兩個相關的事件存在因果關係，還必須找到作用機理，解釋因是如何導致果的。一個說法越是驚人，需要的證據就必須越充分。”【68】
可是，到了科唬疥瘡病原之時，這樣的道理對方舟子卻行不通了。按照方舟子，既然在（部分）水疱中發現了“疥蟲”，那就應該“順理成章地推測這些小蟲子就是疥瘡的病因”，否則就是愚蠢、愚昧、就是“相信……所謂自發發生說”。天知道方舟子的“理”到底是什麼“理”，他的“章”又是什麼“章”。
實際上，博諾莫和塞斯托尼的發現之所以沒有得到醫學界的接受，不僅在於他們的證據證明不了他們所下的結論，更在於其他人根本重複不出來他們的試驗結果：在水疱中根本就找不到疥蟎。英國醫生亞當斯就說，自己按照博諾莫的描述去尋找疥蟎，但卻找不到。後來，在一個老婦的幫助下，他才在水疱之外找到了疥蟎【47】。1812年，法國人蓋勒宣稱自己從疥瘡水疱中找到了疥蟎，並且用疥蟎做了自身接種試驗。但他後來被人懷疑造假，唯一原因就是其他人按照他描述的方法從疥瘡患者的水疱中找不到疥蟎。二十二年後，另一位法國醫學院學生里努奇根據家鄉農婦專門從不起眼的疥蟎巢穴針挑疥蟎的經驗，以及自己和他人的接種試驗，才最後將疥蟎的病原性確定。但是，蓋勒造假案仍舊懸而未決【60】。也就是因為如此，再加上博諾莫托人繪製的疥蟎圖含有錯誤，在疥蟎的病原性已經得到確認的二十世紀，還有人說，博諾莫或塞斯托尼像是個江湖騙子（This Cestoni (or Bonomo) appears to have been a bit of a quack……）【69】。而彼森則說：
“儘管希伯對他們的工作予以稱讚，但博諾莫和塞斯托尼仍舊犯下了幾個錯誤：第一，他們說疥蟎存在於水疱中；第二，他們把幼蟲誤當作成蟲。”【70】
事實是，意大利人蒙泰蘇和古托尼的文章在介紹了博諾莫與“蘭西西”的爭論之後，只是這麼說：
“部分是由於分離疥蟎的困難，博諾莫的發現在那之後被完全遺忘。”
而巴西女醫生秀娃則把這句話的前半句話給刪了，但卻將後半句話接到了自己上一段文字的末尾，給人的印象就是這個“被完全遺忘”是由於宗教勢力的反對造成的。而方舟子則把這個錯誤“完全地”繼承了過來。
那麼，“蘭西西……還引用基督教《聖經》作為依據”到底是怎麼回事呢？原來，教皇御醫為了說服初出茅廬的博諾莫，真的是苦口婆心，誨人不倦。他通過大量事例證明，造成瘙癢的原因不可能只是疥蟎一種，而他舉的例證包括，羅馬人注意到某種水或者飲料會導致瘙癢，西方第一部皮膚病學專著的作者麥克亞利曾經觀察到海鮮等食物會加劇瘙癢（即中醫所謂“發”），《聖經》對豬肉的禁食，以及埃及人吃豬肉與麻風病的流行，等等【71】。也就是說，“蘭西西”援引《聖經》，並不是像方舟子所想象並且暗示的那樣，是要用它來證明“自生說”和“體液說”的正統與正確，進而壓服博諾莫；而是要證明，造成瘙癢的因素可能有很多種，比如飲食。
實際上，在《聖經》中，對豬肉的禁食存在於諸多篇章中，如《申命記》和《以賽亞書》，並不限於《利未》一篇。可笑方舟子看到巴西女醫生說 “蘭西西……在爭論之中引用了《聖經》”，但又不知道“蘭西西”引用的是哪篇哪章哪節《聖經》，於是故作博學地加上了“《舊約·利未記》曾提到疥瘡”這麼幾個字，結果弄巧成拙，自曝其陋。
（3）“偉大發現被遺忘”之謎
我們下一個要回答的問題是：博諾莫和塞斯托尼的發現真的如巴西醫生女秀娃和美國華僑男方舟子所說的那樣──“從那以後，這個發現就沒人提及，被人遺忘”──了嗎？答案當然是否定的。
實際上，從1687年到1834年這147年間，儘管博諾莫和塞斯托尼的“疥蟎是疥瘡的唯一病原”這一理論沒有被醫學界普遍接受，但是它卻一直薪火相傳，生生不息，並且直接導致法國人里努奇在1834年的一錘定音。這是希伯說的：
“還要再次提到魯卡斯·道修斯、蘭宗尼、理查德·米德三人對塞斯托尼和博諾莫發現的翻譯和評論。他們的工作有助於這項重要知識的廣泛傳播。”【72】
希伯提到的魯卡斯·道修斯是教皇Innocent IX的御醫，他對博諾莫的發現具體做了些什麼，我們不得而知。但我們知道，蘭宗尼在1691或1692年將博諾莫的信譯成了拉丁文【73】。
前面提到，米德在1703年將博諾莫的那封信節譯成了英文。雖然那篇譯文存在某種不足，但不容否認的事實卻是，它對傳播博諾莫的發現功勞最大。這是因為，米德本人就是一位著名醫生，他在1703年被選為皇家學會會員，1727年成為喬治二世的御醫。不僅如此，米德本人也相信博諾莫的觀點是正確的。在1751年出版的一本書中，米德將博諾莫和塞斯托尼的發現又完整地介紹了一遍【74】。1752年，有“軍醫之父”之稱的英國軍醫約翰·普靈格爾（Sir John Pringle, 1707-1782）的名著《軍旅疾病觀察》出版。在當時，普靈格爾對疥瘡的病原一無所知。但到了該書第二年再版時，他特意加了一個注釋，說自己在初版之後發現了米德翻譯的博諾莫致雷迪函。並且，他完全接受了博諾莫的觀點【75】。
最有趣的是，有一位名叫韓特 （John Hunter, 1728-1793）的英國著名醫生，雖然他本人並不相信疥瘡是疥蟎導致的，因為他沒有在疥瘡患者的水疱中發現疥蟎，但他卻說，有人告訴他另一位叫Teigh的醫生曾經在疥瘡患者的水疱附近找到了疥蟎【76】。儘管韓特沒有提到米德或博諾莫，但這個故事足以證明“疥蟎導致疥瘡”這一理論絕非“沒人提及，被人遺忘”。
前面提到，英國著名醫生亞當斯在1801年用疥蟎在自身接種做試驗，他不僅知道博諾莫和塞斯托尼的發現，而且知道他們的發現來源於秕糠學會的詞典。這是他對這個發現的直接評價：“博諾莫（對疥蟎）的描述其準確性是可以容忍的。”【77】
不僅英國醫學界在十八世紀就已經對“疥蟎是疥瘡的病原”這一理論有所了解，連普羅大眾都是如此。1755年出版的《英語詞典》（A Dictionary of the English Language） 就是這麼定義“itch”（瘙癢）的：
“一種傳染性極強的皮膚病，充滿血清的小疱遍及全身。顯微鏡觀察發現，它由一種小動物引起。可以被硫磺治癒。”【78】
難怪《倫敦醫學雜誌》在1788年就宣稱，
“瘙癢是由微型動物對皮膚的局部侵染所造成這一事實，在我國已經成為一種共識，因為米德醫生曾介紹博諾莫從中發現了蟲子。”【79】
在英國之外，博諾莫的發現也被一些著名的學者所接受。例如，大名鼎鼎的林奈（Carl von Linné, 1707-1778）在1734年就將疥蟎劃入為昆蟲綱無翅目。1746年，他又將之命名為“人類皮下蟎”（acaru humanus-subcutaneus），並且明確地認定它是疥瘡的病原【80】。
在整個十八世紀，疥瘡病原學的原創性、突破性的研究發生在德國。1786年，德國著名醫生魏克曼（Johann Ernst Wichmann, 1740-1802）的專著《疥瘡病原學》（Aetiologie der Krätze）在漢諾威出版。在書中，魏克曼不僅參考、比較了博諾莫致雷迪函，他還將之譯成了德文。這是魏克曼對自己工作的總結：
“我希望我已經充分地解釋並且證明了疥瘡的病原，至少證明‘疥瘡是由蟎所導致的一種簡單的皮膚病’這一說法聽上去是可信的，並且是合乎邏輯的。”【81】
希伯對魏克曼的研究評價極高，說：
“他對此病的知識是如此之完整，不但在他之前沒有一人能夠超過他，即使在他之後也沒有幾個人超過他。他對疥蟎打的皮洞非常熟悉，並且知道在水疱附近尋找年幼的疥蟎。他準確地描述了如何用針尖或者鉛筆刀尖在不同部位挑取疥蟎。”【82】
不過，博諾莫和塞斯托尼的發現真正開花結果是在十九世紀的法國。前面提到，法國著名寄生蟲學家雷伊在1827年的書中曾翻譯了博諾莫致雷迪函。但實際上，在他之前，博諾莫的發現就已經為法國醫生們所熟知。比如，法國著名皮膚病醫生、後來曾任路易十八御醫的埃利柏（Jean-Louis-Marc Alibert, 1768-1837）就知曉博諾莫的發現。也正是受這個發現的影響，埃利柏才指導蓋勒進行了這方面的研究，實際上是在重複博諾莫的試驗。蓋勒的研究直接導致里努奇在1834年的試驗【59, 83】。
疥蟎顯微形象的變遷
博諾莫在1687年（左一）【49】、魏克曼在1786年（左二）【84】、里努奇在1834年（右一、二）【85】發表的疥蟎顯微圖。注意在博諾莫的圖中，疥蟎是三對足，並且與真實的疥蟎成蟲不太一樣。有人說，他的圖需要相當的想象力才能夠與疥蟎聯繫到一起【86】。右一為腹視圖（顯示其四對足），其餘為背視圖。
面對着這麼多的事實，方舟子竟然能夠造出“從那以後，這個發現就沒人提及，被人遺忘”這種彌天大謊。這哪裡是什麼“著名科普作家”，簡直就是一個絕無僅有的“謠言大王”。
四、結論
不計標點符號，方舟子的《一種寄生蟲引起的爭端》一文只有1665字。可就是在這麼短的篇幅之內，針對“如此簡單明了的一個科學發現”，方舟子卻有本事犯下這麼多科學常識和科學歷史錯誤，散布這麼多沒有任何根據、甚至連影子都沒有的謠言，製造這麼多低級的笑話。實際上，本文指出的這些錯誤、謠言和笑話遠不是他在這篇文章中所製造的全部──為了節省自己的精力，也是為了不浪費讀者的時間，我放棄了對方舟子文章進行全面分析的打算。令人不解的是，這樣一個史無前例的剽竊慣犯、學術掮客、科學騙子，卻被一家“中央級新銳主流大報”封為“著名科普作家”，讓他連續不斷地向中國社會傾倒學術垃圾、智力毒品。難怪中國農業大學副教授朱毅博士會慨嘆道：“我看着科普兩個字，就噁心。”【87】
在揭發、論證方舟子抄襲剽竊的同時，本文更重要的目的是還原疥瘡病原研究歷史的真相。這個真相就是：早在現代科學出現之前，早在西方科學家、醫學家介入之前，東方人，包括中國人和阿拉伯人，以及基督教教會人士，就已經知道疥瘡患者的身上長有疥蟎。疥蟎病原性的最後確認，是在歐洲各國的科學家和醫生經過幾百年的探索之後才取得的。恰如法國科學史學者Daniele Ghesquier所說，這項成就是“集體的建構”（Collective Construction）【60】，而不是某個人的獨家專利。具體地說就是，博諾莫和塞斯托尼在大量、廣泛地吸收和繼承了前人的經驗和知識的基礎之上，根據自己的研究結果，──觀察到疥蟎──，大膽地提出了“疥蟎是疥瘡的唯一病原”這樣的假說，並且根據這個假說提出了外部施藥、通過殺蟎來治疥的治療方案。這個假說的最終證明，至少需要德國科學家魏克曼、英國科學家亞當斯、法國科學家裡努奇、奧地利科學家希伯等人前前後後幾十年、甚至上百年的努力。沒有這些努力，博諾莫和塞斯托尼的最大貢獻就是根據自己的觀察提出了一個待證並且早已存在的假說──僅此而已。那種冒充博學、冒充“主流科學界全權總代理”、動不動就要指定誰誰是“第一人”、哪年哪月是“中國歷史上一個重要的轉折點”之人，譬如方舟子，恰恰就是最無知、最不知道科學研究為何物的學術騙子。
就科學史本身來說，這個由“一種寄生蟲引起的爭端”還有一層更令人深思的意義：不論是意大利人塞斯托尼，還是英國人亞當斯、科西嘉人里努奇，他們都是在下層勞動婦女的幫助和啟發下才最終找到疥蟎的。實際上，因為那些下層勞動婦女是在通過除蟎來治疥，所以，她們應該早就意識到“疥蟎是疥瘡的致病原因”這一事實。可嘆這種經過人類千百年經驗積累所得到的認識，還要再經過幾百年的“爭端”才能夠得到科學界和醫學界的認可。由此可見，所謂的“高貴者最愚蠢，卑賤者最聰明”，並非完全沒有道理。這也說明，經過千百年經驗積累而成的中醫學，肯定還存在着大量的、等待人們去發掘的寶藏。而那些張口閉口不離“科學”的騙子，如方舟子，一面蔑視、踐踏人類的經驗積累，一面把人類經驗的總結拿過來當作打擊私敵、為自己貼金、為自己牟利的武器。這樣的“科學”，已經遠遠不是噁心不噁心的問題了，而是徹頭徹尾的邪惡。
至於《新華每日電訊》這個“中央級新銳主流大報”為什麼要心甘情願地與邪惡為伍，為邪惡提供作惡的平台，則必將“引起”今後幾年、幾十年、甚至上百年的“爭端”，我們不妨將之命名為“一個邪惡引起的爭端”。
五、參考文獻
【1】亦明：《偷盜坑唬騙：方舟子“分析”韓寒〈求醫〉一文的招術》，中國學術評價網2014年5月31日。
【2】見方舟子新浪微博：
《“天才”韓寒作品〈求醫〉分析》，2012年1月27日；
《對“天才”韓寒〈求醫〉的醫學分析》，2012年1月28日；
《三度剖析韓寒〈求醫〉之謎》，2012年1月30日；
《韓寒的就診記錄否證了韓寒〈求醫〉》，2012年2月3日；
《簡評韓寒父親韓仁均〈說說我自己〉》，2012年1月27日；
《點評韓寒及其父親的回應》），2012年1月29日。
【3】 亦明：《給福建省教育廳負責人的一封公開信》，中國學術評價網2012年2月16日。
【4】 汪亞民：《世界上有兩種科學，一種是科學，一種是方氏“科學”》，汪亞民的博客，2012年2月21日。
【5】劉華傑：《網上訪科學/人文兩棲學人方舟子》，2000年2月21日《科學時報》。
【6】亦明：《科學騙子方舟子》，作於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年抄襲澳大利亞生物學家John S. Wilkins》，中國學術評價網2011年4月3日。
【9】方舟子：《玉米花粉的妄想狂笑話》，新語絲2007年12月4日新到資料。
【10】方舟子：《答郝炘〈方舟子這樣寫文章不好〉》，新語絲2011年7月20日新到資料。
【11】方舟子：《郭沫若抄襲錢穆了嗎？》，《書屋》1999年第5期。
【12】方舟子：《多維新聞網剽竊的鐵證》，新語絲2000年4月10日新到資料。
【13】Roncalli,
RA. 1987. The history of scabies in veterinary and human medicine from
biblical to modern times. Veterinary Parasitology 25:193-198.
【14】見：田力苗主編：《亞里士多德全集·第四卷·動物志》，顏一譯，中國人民大學出版社1997年版187-188頁。（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】見【15】，168頁。（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：《諸病源候論·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】見【15】，169-170頁。
【21】Beeson, BB. 1927. Acarus scabiei. Study of its history. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 16: 294–307. （英文譯文：“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】見【15】，172頁。（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.”）（英文譯文見：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】見【15】，173-174頁。（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：《虛妄的“人體革命”》，2000年11月1日《中華讀書報》。
【28】方舟子：《讓安全清潔的核能更安全》，2014年6月6日《新華每日電訊》。
【29】詹希美主編：《人體寄生蟲學》，人民衛生出版社20001年第五版250頁。
【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】見【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】見：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】見【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】見【23】，150頁。（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】見：GIACINTO CESTONI。（意大利文原文：“Egli è un speziale; ma ne sa di più di 40 medici.”）
【42】見【23】， 84頁。
【43】見【23】，103頁。（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】見【23】，87-90頁。
【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】見【16】，211頁。（英文原文：“……he changes from the plural to the first person singular.”）
【49】見【15】，176頁。（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】見【15】，186頁。（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】見【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】見：沈靜文、鄭丹煒：《對話方舟子：不認為老婆之假值得打》，中國廣播網2014-02-09 17:19 。
【55】見【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】見【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】見【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】見【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】見【16】， 214頁。
【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】見【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】見【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】見【23】，107-111頁。
【67】見【15】，181-182頁。（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：《相關與因果》，2010年4月21日《中國青年報》。
【69】Pernet, G. 1925. Historical notes on scabies, with remarks on the Palaeonology of the Acarus. British Journal of Dermatology 37:312–316.
【70】見【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】見【15】，179頁。（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】見【46】。亦見：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】見【47】。（英文原文：“Bonomo was tolerably exact in his description.”）
【78】見【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】見【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】見【15】，180頁。（拉丁文原文：Acarus exulcerans pedibus longissimis setaceis, anticis duobus, habitat in scabie ferina, cujus causa est.）
【81】見【16】，214頁。（英文譯文：“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】見【15】，182頁。（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】見【16】，218-221頁。
【84】Wichmann, JE. Aetiologie der Krätze. Helwing, Hannover. 1786.
【85】見【16】，221頁。
【86】見【72】。（英文原文：“……his figures require a good deal of imagination to recognize in them the familiar acarus.”）
【87】見亦明：《方舟子2013年十大要聞》第三章《妒夫醋潭，同類相殘》，中國學術評價網2013年12月31日。
附錄：《新華每日電訊》專欄作家方舟子抄襲巴西女醫生秀娃的具體證據
【註：方舟子的《一種寄生蟲引起的爭端》一文來自《新華每日電訊》網站，全文照錄如下；疑似抄襲部分下面列出相應抄襲來源。方舟子這篇文章的主要抄襲來源是巴西女醫生Ramos-e-Silva的文章，GIOVAN COSIMO BONOMO (1663-1696): Discoverer of the etiology of scabies，該文有網絡和印刷兩種版本，二者略有不同。本文選用的是網絡版，因為它最可能是方舟子的抄襲來源。除了Ramos-e-Silva的文章之外，方文第五段抄自他本人的舊文《科學大爭論——生命能否自發產生？》，該文抄自澳大利亞學者的一篇網文（紅色標記）。詳見亦明：《方舟子在2009年抄襲澳大利亞生物學家John S. Wilkins》。】 |
《一種寄生蟲引起的爭端》 | GIOVAN COSIMO BONOMO (1663-1696): Discoverer of the etiology of scabies |
第 1 段 | 近日由於對署名韓寒的作品是否別人代筆的爭議，一種有傳染性的皮膚病傳遍了微博和網上論壇。韓寒在1999年提交首屆新概念作文大賽的文章之一《求醫》據稱是根據他當時在學校被傳染上疥瘡，到醫院看病的經歷寫成，但是許多醫生看了這篇文章之後，一致認為根據文中對疾病症狀的描述，寫的不是疥瘡。疥瘡是由於疥蟲寄生在人體引起的，疥蟲鑽入皮膚，在皮膚中間穿行打隧道、產卵，引起過敏反應，導致皮疹、瘙癢。疥瘡的瘙癢局限於手、腕、腹部、陰部等特定部位，癢處會有皮損，包括皮疹、小水疱或結痂。所以要指出哪裡癢，是很容易的，而不是像文中所述無法向醫生指出癢在何處，而一癢起來又是全身無處不癢。《求醫》描述的是其他因素(例如肝炎)引起的皮膚瘙癢。 |
|
第 2 段 | 疥瘡這種病當然是古已有之，中外古代醫學文獻都有記載。但是古人並不知道它是由寄生蟲引起的，而認為是身體自身因素導致的。中國傳統醫學認為疥瘡是由皮膚受風邪熱氣所致，而西方傳統醫學則認為疥瘡是因為體液失衡、血液敗壞或體液發酵導致。 | Galen
(129-200) attributed it to 'melancholic juices'; Avicenna (980-1037)
to 'corrupt blood'; and Velamonte to 'pungent ferment'. |
古代西方醫生有的已認識到這是一種傳染病，但也認為是由於患者體液或發酵的蒸發物傳染所致。 | Those who recognized its contagiousness explained it as the effect of the humors and ferments evaporating from the body.6 |
第 3 段 | 疥蟲非常小，體長不到1毫米，肉眼幾乎看不到，但是某些細緻的古代醫生還是能在疥瘡患者的水疱里看到細小的蟲子。但是他們並沒有順理成章地推測這些小蟲子就是疥瘡的病因，反而認為是先生了疥瘡，再從腐爛的皮膚生出蟲子。 | 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 | 這是因為在古代人們普遍相信蟲子這種小生物是從腐敗的東西自然而然生出來的，也就是所謂自發發生說。例如，腐爛的肉會變出蒼蠅和蛆，朽木會自己長出蛀蟲，汗會生出虱子，海底的爛泥會生出魚，地里的爛泥會生出青蛙和老鼠…… | 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 | 不僅一般人這麼想，科學家也這麼認為。17世紀西方某位化學家就這麼指導人們怎麼造出老鼠:把汗濕透了的內衣和麥子一起放到罐中，不加蓋放三七二十一天，等汗發酵了，惡臭滲透進了麥子，麥子就會變成老鼠! | 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，意大利醫生雷第才開始想到要做個實驗看看肉是否能自發變成蛆。他的實驗很簡單，把肉放在開口的罐子裡，過一段時間就會長出蛆，要是把罐口用紗布罩上，外面的蒼蠅沒法進去產卵，肉再怎麼爛也長不出蛆來。 | 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 | 雷第的實驗首次挑戰了自發發生說。受他的影響，醫生博諾莫和藥劑師塞斯托尼從一個新的角度研究疥瘡的病因。1687年，博諾莫寫信向雷第報告他在塞斯托尼的幫助下做出的發現。 | 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 |
博諾莫從幾名疥瘡患者的患處剝下皮膚，用顯微鏡觀察，看到了疥蟲。 | 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，有一次他還在顯微鏡下看到了有一隻母疥蟲正在產卵，由此知道了疥蟲卵是什麼樣子，之後就經常在疥瘡病人身上發現蟲卵。那麼結論就很顯然了，疥蟲不是從腐敗的皮膚自發生出的，而是從蟲卵生出的，而且經由雌雄交配才會產卵，雖然博諾莫承認，他沒法分辨疥蟲的性別。 | 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 | 博諾莫進而指出，此前關於疥瘡是由於體液腐敗、發酵等因素導致的說法是錯誤的，而是由於寄生蟲入侵皮膚引起疥瘡。 | 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. |
博諾莫還注意到，疥蟲很容易附着在床單、毛巾、手套等物體上，而且能在體外生存兩、三天，由此又推測疥瘡是通過疥蟲傳染的。 | 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. |
最後，博諾莫建議疥瘡要用外塗硫黃等藥物的方法治療，而且要塗上兩、三天才能保證把新從蟲卵生出的疥蟲也都殺死。至於口服藥物，博諾莫認為沒有效果。 | 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 | 雷第將博諾莫的信印成小冊子發表，立即引起了爭議。主要的反對者是教皇的御醫蘭西西。蘭西西雖然承認疥蟲的存在，但是不相信它是疥瘡的病因，而是引經據典地指出體液因素才是疥瘡的病因。既然教皇的御醫開了金口，而且還引用基督教《聖經》作為依據(《舊約·利未記》曾提到疥瘡)，為了避免像布魯諾、伽利略那樣受到宗教迫害，博諾莫就沒有爭論下去。 | 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年後，到了1710年，博諾莫和雷第都已去世，塞斯托尼在一封信中才重提對疥蟲的發現，但是把這個發現歸於自己的名下，沒有提及博諾莫，以致有人懷疑博諾莫其實是塞斯托尼為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 | 從那以後，這個發現就沒人提及，被人遺忘。醫生們仍然相信疥瘡是體液因素導致的。直到1834，一名叫里努奇的學生重新發現了疥蟲是疥瘡的病因，才引起了醫學界對此的興趣。1844年，希伯拉通過在自己身上做實驗，詳細地闡明了疥瘡的病因、症狀和治療方法，終結了關於疥瘡的爭論。希伯拉還讚揚了博諾莫和塞斯托尼的開創性研究，他們的名字因此載入史冊。 | 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 |
博諾莫被認為是人類醫學史上首次確定一種疾病的正確病因的第一人，此時距離他的偉大發現已經過了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 | 要改變人們的傳統思想是很難的。如此簡單明了的一個科學發現尚且要過了這麼長的時間才能獲得人們的認可，何況其他更為複雜難解的爭端。 |
|
