We present English translations of two French documents to show that the main reason for the rejection of Semmelweis's theory of the cause of childbed (puerperal) fever was because his proof relied on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and not because Joseph Skoda referred only to cadaveric particles as the cause in his lecture to the Academy of Science on Semmelweis's discovery. Friedrich Wieger (1821-1890), an obstetrician from Strasbourg, published an accurate account of Semmelweis's theory six months before Skoda's lecture, and reported a case in which the causative agent originated from a source other than cadavers. Wieger also presented data showing that chlorine hand disinfection reduced the annual maternal mortality rate from childbed fever (MMR) from more than 7 per cent for the years 1840-1846 to 1.27 per cent in 1848, the first full year in which chlorine hand disinfection was practised. But an editorial in the Gazette médicale de Paris rejected the data as proof of the effectiveness of chlorine hand disinfection, stating that the fact that the MMR fell after chlorine hand disinfection was implemented did not mean that this innovation had caused the MMR to fall. This previously unrecognized objection to Semmelweis's proof was also the reason why Semmelweis's chief rejected Semmelweis's evidence.

中文翻译：

---

为什么 Semmelweis 的学说被拒绝：来自 Friedrich Wieger 首次发表他的结果的证据，以及对结果的社论评论

我们提供两份法语文件的英文翻译，以表明拒绝塞麦尔维斯产褥热病因理论的主要原因是他的证明依赖于事后 ergo propter hoc 谬误，而不是因为约瑟夫斯柯达只提到在他就塞麦尔维斯的发现向科学院发表的演讲中，将尸体粒子作为原因。斯特拉斯堡的产科医生弗里德里希·维格 (Friedrich Wieger，1821-1890 年) 在斯柯达演讲前六个月发表了对塞麦尔维斯理论的准确描述，并报告了一个案例，其中病原体起源于尸体以外的来源。Wieger 还提供了数据，表明氯手消毒使产妇因产褥热 (MMR) 的年死亡率从 1840-1846 年的 7% 以上降低到 1848 年的 1.27%，实施氯手消毒的第一年。但《巴黎医学报》的一篇社论否认了该数据作为氯手消毒有效性的证据，称实施氯手消毒后 MMR 下降的事实并不意味着这一创新导致 MMR 下降。这种先前未被承认的对塞麦尔维斯的证明的反对也是塞麦尔维斯的首领拒绝塞麦尔维斯的证据的原因。