Georg Letham Read Online Free PDF Page A

figure. Or–and here the conflict begins–is he only a tragicomic figure? Was his “scientific result,” which in the best case is hauled for decades or a century through medical journals and scientific periodicals and books under his byline, really worth the trouble? Was it in many instances not even worth the electrical current that flowed through the lamps in his laboratory while he worked? Does it give meaning to meaninglessness? Does it take the horrifying out of the horror? Does it help? Can it be gratifying? Does the investigator’s interest not turn immediately to other problems, precisely like the hand of a cold mechanic? Is his thirst for happiness and inner peace ever appeased? Did the suffering of the sacrificed animals bring the investigator great things? If so, did it bring the nation great things too? Humanity? Did it transform the terrible disorder of nature into order and meaningful structure?
V
    After the war I returned to my wife and immediately reopened the private surgical and gynecological clinic. But human disease could not hold me now. In my earlier zeal, I had made do with trained nurses. Now I brought in an assistant physician.
    Success or failure, recovery with adverse effect or without it: I had seen the cheapness of an individual life too close at hand in combat and in military epidemic hospitals. Previously I had sacrificed animal lives on a vast scale in order to find something that might be of use in restoring even one human being to health. Now it was the opposite. Animal experiments became the main point.
    With great caution, so as not to arouse the suspicions of my wife, Iresumed my bacteriological experiments alongside my work as a physician, and as ill luck would have it, two of my patients at the time perished within a short period “following successful surgery.” There are such strings of bad luck everywhere, in accordance with the law of large numbers, but here there was a connection, as follows. I was concerned at that time with the etiology of scarlet fever. Notoriously, the bacterial cause of this exanthem (like that of numerous other infectious diseases, I mention only lethargic encephalitis and yellow fever among many) is still wrapped in complete mystery. Every known method has been tried without success despite the greatest experimental ingenuity and the keenest determination. No one on earth has seen the “virus” of scarlatina, scarlet fever, in the flesh! And yet it exists. It must be possible to find it. But how?
    Now the matter of scarlet fever is particularly curious. Other pathogenic microorganisms are found as fellow travelers of this disease, identified streptococci readily seen on suitable specimens under the microscope; spherical bacteria arranged in chains can be cultured without difficulty on synthetic growth media. They cause ulcerations, they excrete extremely virulent toxins, they produce, when injected or circulating “naturally” in the bloodstream of the scarlet-fever victim, dangerous effects, beginning with high fever and ending in death.
    The following line of thinking seemed plausible to me. The true pathogen of scarlet fever and yellow fever and so forth must, as has been gathered, be so small that it can traverse even the tiniest pores of the clay filter through which the bacillus cultures have been drawn. But the streptococci involved in scarlet fever, while not as big as potatoes, are of measurable size, even measurable volume and weight–and they never pass through such a small-pored filter, they remain inthe old culture fluid, while the scarlet-fever toxin and pathogen slip through.
    Would it then be conceivable that the unknown scarlet-fever pathogens are tiny freeloaders or parasites living on the much larger bodies of the streptococci, and that they are both being separated by the filter? Some such thing is imaginable, maybe even worth an experiment. Good! I devoted myself to this question, setting up