We have seen how the popularity of mercury waxed and waned and how many other substances were used in an effort to cure "syphilis." Mercury treatment remained the treatment of choice until 1843 when it was combined with potassium iodide, which was given by mouth. This combination held sway until 1910, when 606 came into use. Due to the failure of arsphenamine "physicians adopted the plan of giving mercury and iodides in conjunction with arsphenamine. For twelve years," says Becker, "this combined treatment was adhered to, then bismuth was introduced and found to be superior to mercury, though inferior to arsphenamine. Bismuth, therefore, was given in conjunction with arsphenamine. Today, the world over, syphilis is treated largely with arsphenamine and bismuth. Mercury still is used, but to a much smaller extent than before."

   Dr. Parran tells us that improvements in treatment since 1926 have been relatively minor, and expresses the hope that someday a serum will be found to cure "syphilis." The serum, he calls a "biologic method."

   We have previously shown the damaging character of this treatment but will add this testimony of Becker: "Mercury in early days often was used in such overdosage that patients developed mercurial poisoning, so that the drug was in disfavor for some time. When more rational doses were given, however, (severe) poisoning was prevented and the patients improved." Arsphenamine is "a yellow dye containing arsenic, a definite poison, which must be given with caution." The volume on Dermatology and Urology, of the Practical Medicine Series, 1924, from which I have quoted frequently in these pages, says: "The failure of the arsenicals to provide, in conjunction with mercury and the iodides, an ideal method of treatment is evidenced by the search for new drugs or new measures to replace the arsenicals or to enhance their effects. With mercury, iodides, old, neo and sulpharsphenamine, bismuth, foreign protein therapy (milk and vaccine injections, induced malaria and so forth,) the physician has access to a variety of agents and possibility of numerous combinations."

   It is also stated that there is "very little to guide" the physician "in the consideration of the relative merits and the particular indications for the use of one drug in preference to another," and that, "frequently the health of the patient" begins to "suffer as a direct result of the *** strain imposed by the continuous effort to combat the invasion." It is then asserted that when this point is reached, "the hope of affecting a complete sterilization (killing of all the supposed germs of "syphilis" in the patient's body), is greatly diminished." It is also asserted that mercury has little germicidal action upon the supposed germs of "syphilis".

   This book was written by medical men for the use of medical men. The facts it contains were never intended to reach their present and future victims. The victims are being told and will be told that "syphilis" is cured by the very means that are asserted, by their standard authors and greatest specialists, not to cure the disease.

   They are still attempting to cure the disease by the very drugs that cause it. This is homeopathy with a vengeance, although these men are allopaths. Think of it! They admit, among themselves, that there is little hope of curing you, after their drugs have wrecked your health. And yet four to eight weeks is enough time to get well of the "primary" and "secondary" stages of so-called "syphilis," if no drugs are employed.

   While Parran says "the consensus of expert opinion is that about 18 months of continuous treatment is necessary for maximum safety to the patient with early syphilis," Becker says that "the duration of treatment varies from three years to life, depending on the age of the patient, the severity of the disease, and the parts of the body affected. It is seldom that a patient is discharged as cured. More often he is placed under lifetime observation."

   Becker also tells us that in "late syphilis" the "treatment is started rather mildly *** and numerous short rest periods are advisable to allow the patient to recuperate from time to time from the effects of the treatment." This would indicate that the treatment is worse than the disease, else there should be no let-up in the "cure," until the enemy has been driven out of the body.

   Parran admits that the treatment "frequently is not comfortable," while de Kruif describes what he calls the "long drastic arsenic and bismuth treatment." as "that grueling once-or-twice-a-week treatment that takes nearly two years to finish." In telling of cases treated by machine-fever he says "arsenic and bismuth had poisoned them plenty, failed to cure them, all but killed them."

   Drs. Bovion and Pierre say in the July, 1924 issue of the Annals of Clinical Medicine: "At no time should the patient be disregarded, and it is imperative that nothing should be done that would render the patient less capable of combating the disease if treatment should be discontinued before the infection has been eradicated. Hence, what the patient is able to do on his own account and the influence that therapeutic agents may have on the resistance of the patient are factors of no little importance *** . In the first place it may be stated as a general principle that all therapeutic agents that cause an abrupt cessation of the reaction on the part of the patient, but fail to destroy the infecting organisms, operate to the disadvantage of the patient and predispose to the subsequent occurrence of more severe manifestations of the disease. All of the highly active parasiticidal agents appear to possess this disadvantage to a greater or less degree, and as a rule this feature of their action is proportional to the difference between the direct spirocheticidal action of the drug and its ability to induce resolution of lesions. Moreover in instances of this kind the earlier the treatment is undertaken the more serious are the consequences of a failure on account of interference with immunological reactions. If treatment is instituted at a time prior to the development of an immunity that is sufficient to bring the infection under control, the progress of immunological reactions is interrupted and resistance promptly returns to an essentially normal level, or may even become sub-normal for a time. If, however, the course of events is not interfered with until later, the resistance that has been acquired is more stable and tends to persist for some time even after the withdrawal of the stimulus to reaction."

   This hardly calls for extended comment. It is plainly stated that the treatment employed to kill the. supposed germs of "syphilis" tends to kill the patient while interfering greatly with the body's own self-curing powers and processes, and that the earlier in the disease this treatment is employed the more damage it does. The sensible man or woman, upon learning these facts, will studiously avoid a plan of treatment that renders one "less capable of combating disease." That all drugs lower the body's powers of resistance admits of no doubt. In this they are in striking contrast with the truly natural methods which raise resistance.

   In a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association, a physician in Alabama describes a case of "syphilis" in which "his first Kahn test was found positive after a very thorough examination in which no physical defects of note were discovered." This man was treated uninterruptedly for three years by several physicians, with such harmless remedies as "neoarsphenamine," bismuth, arsphenamine sulphanate, mapharsen, yellow mercurous iodide, mercuric salicilate, mercury by inunction, potassium iodide by mouth potassium bismuth tartrate, iodobismtol and hyperpyrexia (fever) treatment."

   After three years of such abuse his Kahn and Wasserrnann reactions remain positive. The young man, age 26, wants to get married and the physician asks what course should be taken. The doctor was told that the young man should not be allowed to marry and that further tests should be made.

   This thing would be funny if it were not so tragic. This man had no symptoms of any trouble. The diagnosis of "syphilis" was made solely upon the result of a Kahn test. The test is known to every physician to be unreliable. The man has gone through three years of torture and abuse and, so far as the tests reveal, is as far from cured today as the day he commenced treatment. On the basis of such frauds and fallacies he is denied marriage and more of the same kind of treatment is advised.

   Dr. Joseph Earle Moore, famous syphilographer says: "It must be recognized that even given more clinics, better clinics, and free clinics the control of syphilis by present day treatment methods is still far from satisfactory. Treatment is too prolonged, too painful, too dangerous, and too expensive."

   In his The Human Body, Dr. Logan Clendening takes the position that "syphilis" is not half so bad as it has been pictured and says that only the sensational cases come to the attention of the public and produce the prevailing erroneous impressions of "the disease." Dr. Clendening seems to be unaware that the "sensational cases" are creations of "medical science" and of nothing else. I am sure, however, that he will readily agree with the assertion of Dr. Richard C. Cabot that "we certainly can overtreat a patient; the drugs we give are poisonous and it is perfectly possible for a person to suffer as much from the treatment as from the disease. It is not best, therefore, to have a patient go on indefinitely with this treatment."

   The particularly damaging character of the medical treatment of "syphilis" is made apparent by the following words of Becker: "The co-existence of other diseases complicates the treatment of syphilis and often greatly increases the difficulty of controlling the infection. Tuberculosis, especially, is made worse by some medicines used in the treatment of syphilis. Disease of the kidneys, which prevents the employment of some of these drugs, also complicates the situation. Anything that undermines the general health of the patient makes treatment more difficult. Inability to tolerate the drug is a factor which is often met. Some individuals are so sensitive to arsphenamine that even minute doses produce severe reactions of various types, so that other and less efficacious methods must be substituted, and the chances of cure are correspondingly lessened."

   Various alibis are offered by the "anti-syphilis" crusaders for the failure of physicians to cure their "syphilitic" patients. Commonly, they say the patients do not continue treatment long enough. De Kruif says, however, that the grimmer reason that so many fail to complete the "chemical ordeal" they are run through by the poison'em and kill'em school of medicine, is that "the drugs are poisons. The margin between the amount of them you've got to use to kill the syphilis microbe and the amount that may be deadly for the microbe's victim — is perilously narrow. There is no published record of the number the powerful arsenicals have killed."

   The intelligent person would expect the profession to abandon such dangerous measures, especially, when they all admit that these powerful drugs do not cure "syphilis." But they do not cease their use. Perhaps Dr. Tilden supplies the reason for their persistence in such deadly practices when he says: "The average medical intellect is awed into a worshipful attitude by Ehrlich's infinite wisdom and patience in working out 606 and on to 914, and on to the devil only knows how many more specifics for syphilis. For the average F.R.C.P.L. and A.M.A. to question Ehrlich's premise is a sacrilege." "There is not a drug used in the treatment of syphilis that is not a rank poison. All the synthetic remedies of Ehrlich must be administered with as much care as the great man of Germany used in preparing them. Such technique is required that, if results are not favorable — the disease is not cured — it is because of 'faulty technique.' The sun, moon and stars may vary in their courses, but Paul Ehrlich's remedies cannot fail, unless the technique is blunderingly carried out! And the great medical profession falls for this palpable fraud — this Germanic medical camouflage!"

   All agree, to use Becker's words, that "not every physician is qualified to diagnose and treat syphilis," and all the crusaders warn their readers to beware of "that vast army . of medical charlatans who claim to be able to cure syphilis easily and quickly and frequently by secret methods." Palm feels it necessary to warn against those who use fasting, but he is either too ignorant of the method or else too dishonest to tell the truth about it.

   Medical treatment is not only severe, it is also expensive, and long-drawn-out. De Kruif describes it as "too long, too painful, too poisonous." Doctors are fond of telling their victims of the great expense involved in producing the drugs they use and how they are imported from Germany. This is done to justify their five-and-six dollar fees. The plain fact is that they are not imported from Germany; while the ordinary dose of neosalvarsan costs forty-three cents, and a dose of bismuth costs three cents. Parran says some doctors demand high prices for treating "syphilis", although the state supplies them with their drugs free of cost. Someday the profession will be compelled to admit that the whole thing is a racket.

   Do medical methods ever cure "syphilis"? The propaganda says they do; but is the propaganda true? Before we submit to wholesale arsenical poisoning, before we give up our liberties and pour out the contents of the public purse, is it not well that we first determine what we are to receive in return for our sacrifices?

   A few years ago, replying to the question, "can syphilis be cured?", Dr. Richard C. Cabot wrote: "I do not think anybody is in a position to give an absolute answer to the question. Syphilis certainly can be made to disappear for a considerable period of years, *** Today we feel that when a patient has had a negative Wassermann and no external or internal evidence of syphilis for one year, we are ready to say that he may marry and that he does not just then need treatment, although we cannot say that he is cured."

   Becker says, "only little more than a generation ago syphilis was termed an incurable disease;" also "in prearsphenamine days there never was any certainty of cure." In his efforts to answer the question "can syphilis be cured?" he says: "Modern practices have not been in effect long enough to present a complete picture of the treatment of syphilis, backed by unassailable statistics, *** can *** syphilis actually be cured, or can it be, perhaps only arrested, as is the case with tuberculosis? *** The situation is comparable with that in tuberculosis. It is appreciated generally by the layman that tuberculosis patients are not cured, that all germs are not actually eradicated from the body. The patients spend a certain time resting in sanitariums or at home, and to a great extent regain their former health. *** The situation in regard to syphilis is quite similar. A patient takes the requisite amount of treatment, is placed under life-time observation, but the blood test may still be very strongly positive. There may be many spirochetes in relatively unimportant parts of the body, such as the spleen, so entrenched behind scar tissue that the medication reaches them only with difficulty. These germs, protected from attack by scar tissue, produce the positive blood test, but cause the patient no particular harm if he is carefully watched.

   "It is especially difficult, at times, to induce the blood test of patients with prenatal syphilis to revert to negative. This is one of many reasons for prolongation of treatment of these individuals."

   This talk about "hidden germs" is all guess work, but it furnishes a convenient way of retreat and the profession never fails to provide itself with a means of escape. It will be noticed by the discriminating reader, also, that treatment is directed not to the restoration of health, but to the production of a negative Wassermann. They actually treat the test.

   He tells us that: "unfortunately, there is no method of determining complete cure of the disease. Before the advent of arsphenamine, post-mortem examinations of patients with syphilis revealed signs of the disease in a high percentage of cases, so that actual cure probably was attained only rarely. A sufficient time has not elapsed since the discovery of arsphenamine in 1909 to determine whether or not the patients really are cured."

   They can't tell after twenty-seven years of continuous use of a "specific remedy" in millions of cases in all "stages" of "the disease" whether or not it "cures," but "it is the belief" of Dr. Beaker "that where patients start treatment early, adhere rigidly to the treatment schedule, and tolerate the various drugs, well over ninety percent can be completely cured." He thinks "the chances of cure in syphilis decreases with the age of the disease. In other words, the earlier in the infection that treatment is started the better the chance for actual cure." He also emphasizes the need for "efficient" treatment, saying: "it is necessary that the early treatment be sufficient, because inadequate early treatment may so upset the protecting mechanism of the body that the disease never can be completely eradicated."

   If "inadequate treatment" has such an impairing effect upon the body's "protecting mechanism", what effect will more treatment — "adequate treatment" — have on the same mechanism? May it not be that the more the patient is treated and his defense mechanism crippled, the less likely he is to recover? Will he not be better off without any treatment? Becker goes on to say that "an element that is of utmost importance is the reaction to the disease on the part of the body itself. It has been noted that a small amount of treatment may result in evident cure in one patient, while a large amount of treatment may fail to halt the spread of the disease in another instance. It is obvious that the body itself has some power of killing off the organisms. This especially is true in women, who handle the disease much better than men. The explanation involves (he and others guess) the chemical changes in the woman's body during the menstrual cycle and, especially, during pregnancy. The infection is controlled better in women who have had multiple pregnancies than in women who have never been pregnant."

   May it not be that "cure" in all cases is the work of the body's own "power of killing off the organisms," and that the upsetting effect of treatment prevents recovery in many cases? Of course, no medical man will accept this conclusion — it would completely wreck his little house of "syphilitic" cards.

   Becker warns us against serious complications that may result from improper care and says, "the serious complications may not be manifest until twenty years after the administering of poor treatment." The only way you can be sure you have had good treatment is to wait. If you develop the complications the treatment was poor; if you do not the treatment was "efficient." It is like the old test for mushrooms: if you eat them and live they were mushrooms, if you die they were toad stools.

   Becker says "The duration of treatment varies from three years to life, depending on the age of the patient, the severity of the disease, and the parts of the body affected. It is seldom that a patient is discharged as cured. More often he is placed under lifetime observation."

   What a racket! Ten to twelve million Americans are said to have "syphilis," with half a million new cases developing every year. What a fertile field for medical exploitation! What a flow of gold this should bring to our public spirited doctors!

   In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 1, 1938, Dr. Paul A. O'Leary, of the Mayo Clinic writes: " *** For a decade following the introduction of arsphenamine, the effort to produce cures by the use of this new specific was so great that the patient's defense mechanism, which is the potent factor in the cure of the disease, was temporarily forgotten. Accordingly, the results of malarial therapy, and the established incompetence of arsphenamine, its numerous modifications, and bismuth and mercury compounds created among syphilologists a receptive mood for a new method of treatment. ***

   " *** Fever therapy is the most popular of the numerous nonspecific measures now in use, but its vogue at present does not necessarily mean that it is the method par excellence, or the one which will eventually be shown to produce the acme of therapeutic results. Perhaps the future will reveal a more effective therapeutic method. *** "

   What then, must we say about the claim so persistently ana clamorously flung at us in magazines, newspapers, books and over the radio, that, "syphilis" can be cured by modem medicine" — "If discovered in time." Only one word can properly characterize this claim. It is a lie. Carlyle, or whoever it was who said there are three kinds of lies — "Lies, d - - -lies and statistics" — would add a fourth if he were now alive — namely; medical lies.

   They pretend to be trying to wipe out a disease which they admit they cannot correctly diagnose and for which they admit they have no cure. They are employing methods of treatment that they know to be worse than the fictitious disease they are trying to wipe out. Will the American people tolerate such an outrage, or will they wipe out "syphilis" by wiping out those who create it?