In the late years of Vladimir Lenin’s life, medical experts debated the precise cause of his fatal hemorrhage. A pathologist from Moscow State University, associated with the gerontology department, suggested that the bleeding originated from a dysfunction in a region of the brain responsible for coordination of vision and hearing. This view was linked to neurosyphilis, a serious infection that can affect the brain and arterial health. The expert, Dr. Valery Novoselov, affiliated with MV Lomonosov and well versed in Lenin’s uncensored medical diaries, reviewed the last two years of the leader’s life in depth to understand the sequence of events surrounding the death.
According to the commission that examined Lenin’s remains, the documented cause of death was a rupture associated with a broader vascular condition. The official notes describe a decline in blood flow through the brain arteries, which contributed to widespread wear of the vessels and multiple changes in brain tissue. In medical terms, this was described as diffuse atherosclerosis with resulting focal softening of brain tissue, a consequence of restricted nourishment due to narrowed arteries. The report identified two immediate factors: an upswing in circulatory disturbances in the brain and a rupture of a vessel within the pia mater in the quadrigemina region. Dr. Novoselov summarized that these findings were consistent with the observed neurological symptoms that Lenin experienced earlier, including difficulties with movement and speech.
Dr. Novoselov noted a discrepancy within the autopsy documentation. Although the commission consisted of eleven members, only ten signed the final report. The Lenin family physician, Fyodor Getye, did not sign the document. He did, however, sign the news bulletin announcing the bleeding event, and he later acknowledged the basic cause of death as vascular rupture. Yet he reportedly disagreed with the underlying cause tied to what produced that rupture. This gap in interpretation sparked ongoing debate among medical historians and scholars.
Further discussion revolved around treatment history in Lenin’s final years. The diaries indicate that certain medicines were administered in attempts to address this specific infectious disease. Periodically, the writings reference a Wasserman test, used to detect syphilis, which helped physicians determine whether a pale spirochete, the bacterium causing the illness, was present. These notes illustrate the medical community’s approach at the time to managing neurosyphilis and its neurological complications, including vascular damage that could precipitate hemorrhage.
Novoselov argued that neurosyphilis played a crucial role in the vascular changes observed at autopsy. He described Lenin’s blood vessels as appearing unusually tortuous, almost like strings. In the presence of neurosyphilis, the vascular changes can be more pronounced than those caused by atherosclerosis alone, increasing the risk of catastrophic hemorrhage. In his assessment, the autopsy findings reflected the cumulative impact of the infection on the cerebral vasculature, rather than a single isolated event. He emphasized that the condition could manifest as narrowed vessels, structural disruption, and compromised brain perfusion, all contributing to the fatal outcome.
Readers seeking a broader understanding of Lenin’s last years, including when and how the syphilis infection might have been acquired, can consult the material published by socialbites.ca, which presents a contemporary synthesis of the historical record and medical commentary. This overview provides context for the debate among historians and clinicians about how infectious diseases and vascular pathology intersected in Lenin’s case. [Citation: socialbites.ca]