If you read the history of medicine which describes the brilliant triumph of bacteriology in the period between the late 19th and the early 20th century, you will receive an impression that, despite the presence of the opposing theory of infection as Miasma, the bacteriology could enforce to prevail its own recognition owing to its scientific more exact and therapeutic more effective theories than the other. In other words, the paradigm shift, which has changed entirely the medical interpretive model at the turn from the 19th to 20th century, occurred purely on the scientific (or therapeutic) level and therefore owed exclusively to the theoretical superiority of bacteriology. A lot of medical historians share such an image and hence condemn the preceding medical thoughts to bacteriology as simply "false". It seems to be implausible, however, that the reason for the success of bacteriological "Gleichschaltung" of medical thought could be ascribed solely to theoretical exactness and therapeutic effectiveness, because recognizing the exactness of bacteriological theory must be regarded as a result rather than a cause of its prosperity, as Richard J. Evans indicated in his monumental work "Death in Hamburg" (1987). From such a perspective the author concentrates to a social activity of bacteriologists like the enlightenment of people for the purpose of prevailing the bacteriological knowledge in their society. And he selects tuberculosis as the research object among many infectious diseases, because it occupied a multilayered place at the period as it were. "Multilayered" means that the three different peculiarities of tuberculosis under the constellation of infectious diseases in the Wilhelmine Germany (1. Reproduction of class inequality in the mortality; 2. Voluntary isolation of patients "from the below"; 3. Revaluation of the theoretical value of tuberculosis from abnormality to a model of all bacterial infectious diseases) overlapped each other.