I was first put on to the claim that jews claimed to have discovered the cause of gonorrhoea by the citation of it in Arnold Zweig’s book ‘Insulted and Exiled’.
Where he writes as follows lauding ‘jewish achievement’:
‘Rosenbach was the first to recognise the tetanus bacillus, Fraenkel the pneumococcus, and Neisser the gonococcus.’ (1)
Now as we have already seen the idea that Rosenbach discovered Clostridium tetani (aka ‘the tetanus bacillus’ of Zweig) (2) and Fraenkel’s discovered Streptococcus pneumoniae (aka pneumococcus) are complete and utter nonsense. (3)
But what about gonococcus (aka the bacterial cause of gonorrhoea)?
Well, the case for Albert Neisser is superficially strong in that bacterium is named ‘Neisseria gonorrhoeae’ in his honour after all, but this only occurred circa fifty years after the fact in 1933 and over a decade after Neisser had died in 1916. (4)
The interesting fact is that while Neisser is widely credited with discovering the gonococcus in 1879 the wording employed – for example by Lee Ligon in 2005 – is very specific: ‘discovered the gonococcus in 1879’. (5)
Lee Ligon also points out that the fact that gonorrhoea was probably caused by some kind of bacteria well-known before 1879 and that the exact bacteria was being actively searched for. (6) The interesting thing is a lot of the literature on the gonococcus claims that Neisser discovered the gonococcus in 1879 in his article ‘On a Form of Micrococcus Peculiar to Gonorrhea’ and he was indeed seemingly the first to find the gonococcus, but not to understand or isolate what it was.
Further Neisser singularly failed to provide evidence of his claim that he had cultivated the gonococcus as he could neither valid nor replicate his claim only produce ‘eminent witnesses’ to ‘validate’ that they ‘had seen it’ but not how they knew what Neisser claimed it was; was indeed what it was.
As Oriel writes:
‘He went on to claim that he had successfully cultivated the microbe on a meat extract – gelatin medium, and produced some eminent witnesses, Cohnheim, Koch and Ehrlich, to agree that his cultures were pure growths of gonococci. However, human and animal inoculations failed, and there is some doubt about whether his claim was justified. Successful culture of “Neisser’s gonococcus” proved to be elusive.’ (7)
In other words: all that Neisser could actually claim was that he had first observed the gonococcus.
Nothing more.
As Oriel then goes on to explain:
‘Leistikow, an assistant in the clinic for syphilis in the Berlin Charite Hospital, where there was abundant clinical material, was probably the first to culture the gonococcus. In 1880 he reported that he and Loffler had successfully grown it on a blood serum – gelatin medium. Multiple animal inoculation had been unsuccessful.’ (8)
Indeed, the gonococcus was first isolated as a bacterium by the Germans Leistikow and Loffler in 1882 not by Neisser in 1879 who merely first observed it – (9) despite Neisser’s increasing desperation to try and claim otherwise by 1882 – (10) while the first successful inoculation and production of gonorrhoea was by the German doctor Max Bockhart in 1883 (and thus the scientific validation of the link between the bacterium and the medical condition). (11)
Now if we remember that Neisser engaged in attempted systematic intellectual theft from the Norwegian doctor Gerhard Hansen for the credit as well as priority for the discovery of Mycobacterium leprae (leprosy bacteria) at just this time: 1879 to 1880. (12)
It makes sense of what occurred here in that Neisser stole Hansen’s work in 1879 around the time he ‘discovered the gonococcus’ and was then involved in a vitriolic priority dispute with the Norwegian government and Hansen over this from 1880 onwards. When something he was the first to observe – the gonococcus – in the same year (1879) was then cultured and isolated by others (1880 and 1882 respectively) after his claims to have not only first observed it but to have successfully cultured it remained purely anecdotal and unevidenced – and we may suspect given his awful behaviour with Hansen – out and out lies.
Then Neisser desperately tried to claim in 1882 that he had established ‘the link’ between the gonococcus and gonorrhoea which was false (13) as this was only done by Bockhart in 1883 as well seen.
Thus, we can see that Neisser yet again was attempting to engage in systematic credit and priority theft from non-jewish doctors with the gonococcus much as he did Mycobacterium leprae at almost the same time.
The truth is then that Neisser did technically ‘discover’ – as in first observe – the gonococcus but the truth is that everything else from the culturing, isolation and proof of the link between the gonococcus and gonorrhoea was entirely the work of non-jews who Neisser tried to steal the credit and priority for the discovery from.
Put another way: a jew did first observe the gonococcus but that’s about it. They didn’t do anything else other than that and such it is difficult to credit them (or Neisser) with its discovery at all.
References
(1) Arnold Zweig, 1937, ‘Insulted and Exiled: The Truth about the German Jews’, 1st Edition, John Miles: London, p. 152
(2) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-the-discovery
(3) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-the-discovery-a07
(4) Niels Elbert, Jan van Gijn, Joost Gijselhart, 2013, ‘Neisser en de druiper’, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, Vol. 157, No. 2, A6252
(5) B. Lee Ligon, 2005, ‘Albert Ludwig Sigesmund Neisser: Discoverer of the Cause of Gonorrhea’, Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 336
(6) Ibid., pp. 337-339
(7) J. D. Oriel, 1994, ‘The Scars of Venus: A History of Venereology’, 1st Edition, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, p. 133
(8) Ibid.
(9) David Wood, 1975, ‘Transformation of Neisseria Gonorrhoeae with Gonococcal and Meningococcal DNA’, Publisher Masters Thesis: Medical College of Georgia, p. 1; also Anon., 1995, ‘Albert Neisser and the Gonococcus’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 45, No. 1, p. 95
(10) Oriel, Op. Cit., p. 133
(11) Ibid., pp. 133-134
(12) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-the-discovery-ce3
(13) Oriel, Op. Cit., p. 133