Talk:Paul Ehrlich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / People C‑class
WikiProject iconPaul Ehrlich has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People (Scientists). If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


This Man was a Jewish Boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Jewish to his last day. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The word even makes absolutely no sense (Line one of the Life section)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19 November 2005

This page needs to be moved, and replaced with a disambig. There are 3 very well-known Paul Ehrlich's with the ecologist probably having the widest name recognition today.

Wolfman 02:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely there should be a disambig. Anybody know how to do this -- does it require a shard of Jimbo's cockring or something? For some reason, Paul Erlich also redirects here. beefman (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That would be fine; there is already a disambiguation page @ Ehrlich. Perhaps the generic "Paul Ehrlich" could redirect to that page, with all the same named folks in a well marked subsection.

Courtland 23:12, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

It's appears to me as some kind of nationalism that the "minors" (i.e. #1&3) have much more detailed CVs on Wiki than the important one. Apparently this is a kind of general rule (and is, for good reason, an argument against the quality of Wiki in general). Did (e.g.) any surgeon general ever won a Nobel prize?

BTW: there -is- an article about Metschnikov (although short) even in the anglosaxon Wiki. Please repair the link. (german globalist)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:24, 9 October 2005

No, we've just been waiting for you to fill it in - so the lack of coverage is really your fault! Stan 21:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monoclonal Antibodies were not 'invented'... correct? Wedgeoli 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Having recently been told I am a grand (times a few) nephew of Dr Ehrlich, I am curious to know if there is a family tree available for him. Several google searches have found nothing. Bstone 02:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why all the hype?[edit]

Salvarsan did not even work at curing syphilis so why give credit to Paul Ehrlich for developing a drug that did not work(and actually he did not even discover salvarsan his student did). Also saying that the discovery of salvarsan stimulated research into other drugs is incorrect. Alot of doctors and chemists were already stimulated to finding new drugs for treating disease well before salvarsan was invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One, Salvarsan did work, not universally but it was a much-sought after cure in its time, two, he worked with his student to create Salvarsan, and the majority of work and research that led to its creation was done by Ehrlich, three, his work with staining and particularly Salvarsan paved the way for the rest of selective staining of microbes. (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film 'The Magic Bullet' (1945) credits Ehrlich's wife with the serendipitous event of lighting the wood burning stove, on which the stained slides were resting and drying. It was this act of kindness (to warm Ehrlich's shed, as Ehrlich was coughing badly(unknowingly having contracted TB)which melted the waxy Mycobacterial coat and allowed the dye to adhere to the Mycobacterial wall causing staining to be successful. Koch then shook the youthful hand of Ehrlich, as Koch had spent most of his life trying to staining the TB bacterium but with no success. The film states that Ehrlich sprang to fame through the one act. There are many examples of advances in scientific knowledge having come about by serendipity from: MacConkey agar being made by Southern Group Laboratories without salt, so inhibiting Proteus growth (the last line on the page of agar contents, had been worn away, so it was not transcribed into the new version (the salt was omitted accidentally);to - Helicobacter was successfully finally grown from stomach biopsies, only because of the Easter Bank holiday enabling the then standard 24 hour bacterial culture to be extended from Thursday to the Tuesday i.e a 5 day incubation period, winning Dr Warren and Dr Marshall a Nobel prize; to having chosen 30'C which revealed Staphylococcus aureus resistance to methicillin, which was not revealed at 37'C in the case of Dr M P Jevons of Beecham Research Laboratories in 1960.Zelenyj (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


doi:10.1258/jmb.2008.008006 is worth trying. JFW | T@lk 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing information: "The Population Bomb" etc[edit]

The article says nothing about what Ehrlich is most known for on issues of population control and The Population Time Bomb etc... he has written some newer books also... I mgiht even insert a banner int he article as im not impressed with this lack of and missing information. Please help improve it! 08:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong One. Paul R. Ehrlich Dingsuntil (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This guy must have got jobs very easily.

Somebody please explain the rationale for redirecting Paul Erlich to this page[edit]

This outta be good... beefman (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

salvarsan did not cure syphilis[edit]

I added that salvarsan was not effective at curing syphilis as stated in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment article. There is no evidence that salvarsan actually worked on anyone and no sources are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Salvarsan was the first drug developed to treat a micro infectious disease, it wasn't a cure for syphilis. Alexander Fleming developed the cure for syphilis - penicillin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You know, it's probably wise to either remove or qualify the bit about "chemotherapy". When Ehrlich coined the term he defined it as "therapy with chemicals to cure disease". He wasn't thinking about cancer, which is of course what "chemotherapy" has come to mean today.

The way the article reads at the moment. Someone might assume that Ehrlich was in fact the first person to start fighting cancer. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Ehrlich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Hatnotes to Paul Ehrlich (disambiguation) are currently in use to distinguish these figures, but it seems that more specific hatnotes could be useful given this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– Two confusable individuals should not be distinguished only by a middle initial that is not commonly used in sources. Unfortunately, both men have a claim to the "biologist" disambiguator, and using "medical doctor" as a dismabiguator for the older Ehrlich would make him potentially confusable with S. Paul Ehrlich Jr. Disambiguating by birth year is also possible, but would be as unwieldy as it always is. The proposed disambiguation terms are not perfect either, but the elder Ehrlich is indeed known for work in immunology, and the younger for work in population science. There is unfortunately not a compact term for the latter field. (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC) -->Reply[reply]

Support Changed my mind. Both individuals are comparable notable and have a comparable number of pageviews. Grimes2 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a diffence between Paul Erlich and Paul Ehrlich. (A hint: the h) Grimes2 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pageviews Paul Ehrlich vs. Paul R. Ehrlich Grimes2 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this comment relevant to the proposal? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," per WP:AT. For the medical researcher, see here and here. For the population guy, see here and here. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Disambiguation by middle initial is feeble, and the primarytopic for Paul Ehrlich is not the obscure old Nobel Prize winner, but rather the famous population bomb guy, if anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The proper and compact term for "population science" is demography; but Ehrlich has no expertise nor credibility a demographer -- just as a demagogue. Ehrlich may write about population, but he can hardly be called a population scientist. Science involves acknowledging your errors and promulgating the correct information once it has been determined. The scientific consensus is that world population will start falling from natural causes (unrelated to anti-population activism), likely before 2100 (see Population#Predicted_growth_and_decline); all developed countries' populations are already falling today except for in-migration. Ehrlich continues to insist that he was right in predicting things like widespread famine and the extinction of England "but he just got his timing wrong", or that "it was because of such warnings" that the his predicted disasters did not occur. He has no evidence of such causality. His actual scientific expertise is in the biology of butterflies; his writings about population are activism that is not based in science, but in emotion. I would only support renaming the page to "Paul Ehrlich (demagogue)". Gnuish (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm open to alternative suggestions about the exact terms that should be used; my main concern is that the current disambiguation scheme doesn't really disambiguate these two men. I understand feeling strongly about the moral dimension of the latter Ehrlich's views, but article titles do have to be as neutral as possible. (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given he holds a named chair of population studies at a highly reputable university, I don't really think your comment conforms to WP:NPOV! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wife Hedwig Pinkus[edit]

It's disappointing that there is not even one sentence that his wife (and kids) had to flee from NAZI-germany, was expropriated and died 1948 in New York City.