Much water has flowed under the bridge since the first edition of this book came from the press. The practice of medicine soon thereafter entered upon a period of discovery of spectacular, sensational and miraculous near panaceas. Indeed, with the "fever cure" and snake venom therapy, both of which promised.to be near cure-alls, they had already entered this period at the time the first edition of this book was published. There followed in rapid succession the sulfa drugs, frozen sleep, penicillin and the -other antibiotics, ACTH and Cortisone, and a few minor seven day wonders. The practice of medicine not only became increasingly spectacular, but it also became more and more commercialized until, today, the physician is nothing more than a peddler of doubtful goods, hawking his wares in the market place. He has not abandoned the pretense that medicine is a science and he is a scientist; he has not surrendered his claim that he is a public benefactor and he still strikes an altruistic pose, but all of this has worn so thin that it has become transparent to almost everybody.

   Through the years I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that cures may come and cures may go but the curing goes on forever. Although the profession has never met my challenge to provide us with acceptable evidence that there is now or ever has been in any part of the world in any age of the world a single case of.a disease called "syphilis", they have continued to cure this fiction and to seek for newer and more effective cures. Shortly after this book was first published, sensational cures for "syphilis" came thick and fast. We had a five-day cure and a one-day cure both announced with all the fanfare of a returning triumphant Army. These cures amounted to new techniques of administering the older drugs, especially the arsenicals, and in giving them in larger doses. Their vogue was short lived, as, with the discovery that one dose of penicillin will cure syphilis, there was no longer any need to resort to the older failures. Although the older drugs have not been completely abandoned, penicillin is now the ranking cure for "syphilis".

   It took the medical profession nearly four hundred years to erect the present superstructure of fallacy about a disease they call "syphilis" and it takes but one dose of the wonder drug penicillin to consign it to the oblivion in which it rested before the medical practitioners of the sixteenth century conjured it into existence. A remarkable poison that destroys a "disease" that had defied all the older drugs of the profession for nearly four hundred years and yet fails to provide such spectacular results in its destruction of other and less formidable "diseases"! But "medicine" was always noted for its paradoxes.

   Let us take the paradox that "syphilis" not only imitates every other known disease, so that no man, in the absence of reliable serologic tests, can possibly diagnose the "disease" from its symptoms and pathology alone (a fact that makes it difficult to understand how physicians of the past ever discovered that there is such a disease), but also imitates health: -- Becker, a leading medical authority in this field, says that "countless numbers of persons have been infected with syphilis all their lives without knowing it. Many persons infected with the disease for years die from other causes without ever having known they were syphilitic . . . " "If all syphilitic individuals could be lined up, the reader would be surprised to see what a healthy-looking group they actually were and also how many of his or her friends were among them".

   If it is possible to have the disease for so long a time and never know that you are sick, but appear and feel so healthy that both you and your friends as well as your physician think you are healthy, it would seem that the "disease" is not as serious as we have been led to believe. This is in line with my contention in the body of this book that'," the real evils of "syphilis" are the drugs with which the patients are poisoned. I think that so long as the profession can be made to believe that one dose of penicillin will cure "syphilis", the patients will suffer far less than under the older methods of treatment and the results may finally lead physicians to realize that for nearly four hundred years they have been fighting a phantom of their own creation and producing, with their poisons, the very symptoms they were assigning to the "disease". Penicillin may force them to realize that "syphilis" is a myth.

   The war came and it was re-discovered that there is a marked similarity, if not a genuine identity, between the so-called first stage of "syphilis" and smallpox vaccination. It was discovered that smallpox vaccination will give a positive Wasserman reaction—the so-called false positive. The question will not down: How do they know it is a false positive? What is a "false positive"? How is a "false positive" to be distinguished from a true positive? How do they know that the forcible infection of a man or woman with cow-pox pus is not identical with the infection that gives rise to a chancre? The resulting sores in each case are so nearly identical at every stage of their evolution that they cannot be differentiated.

   No man lives who knows the real meaning of a positive serologic reaction. He cannot say, with finality, that it does or does not mean "syphilis". No man lives who knows the meaning of a negative serologic reaction. When a patient gives a negative reaction, he knows no more about the condition of the patient than when a positive reaction is returned. Although the original Wassermann test is no longer used, more than eighty-five other serologic tests having been devised and used since Wassermann's original was devised, not one of them is a reliable test and the meaning of the serologic reaction with each test is not known.. John H. Stokes, M. D., a leading medical syphilologist, says in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec. 5, . 1951:

   "The past five years, the era of the Wassermann barbecue and the wholesale application of serologic tests to large groups of the well, have now shown the positive test, no matter by what methods or how rigorously performed, to have a margin of nonspecificity of disturbing proportions. The presence of syphilitic reagin in normal persons; its rise and fall under drugs, diseases and unexplored factors; the uncertainty as to its whereabouts, mode of generation and actual nature; its absence in undoubted syphilis with characteristic manifestations; the anxious attempts to define by such methods as verification tests, so-called; by quantitative procedure; by spirochetal antigens, including even the Relter strain, whose superior specificity approaches the ludicrous when men of the experience and caliber of Kolmer suspect it at being Treponema macrodentium, a mouth spirocheie, and not treponema pallidum at all; all these considerations and many more have given the thoughtful observer a real case of serojitters. . . . "

   Can any of my readers think it just for the state to require of young men and women planning marriage to stake their chances of marriage upon the outcome of a test that is as doubtful as Stokes' statements indicate the various serologic tests prove to be? Have not the lawmakers gotten ahead of the advance of science in their haste to saddle the people with this farcial test? Is it not time that all such laws be repealed in the interest of public health and sanity?

   Let us take a further look at this statement of Stokes. He tells us that:

   1. "Syphilitic reagin" is present in normal persons.

   2. "Syphilitic reagin" is absent in "undoubted syphilis with characteristic manifestations".

   The question now arises: What is "syphilitic reagin"? If it is present in health, is it really "syphilitic"? If it is absent in "undoubted syphilis", what is its real relation to "syphilis"? Why does it accompany health and fail to accompany "syphilis"? What is it that gives a positive reaction and what is its meaning? What provides a negative reaction and what is its meaning? Is there any such thing as "syphilitic reagin"?

   Stokes says that there is "uncertainty about" its "actual nature", its "mode of generation", and its "whereabouts". More than this, he indicates that the best men in the profession, men with vast experience and of high caliber, are not always able to distinguish between the spirochete that is the supposed cause of "syphilis" and a spirochete that is regarded as absolutely harmless. A bacteriologic diagnosis of "syphilis" becomes, therefore, as difficult and uncertain as a serologic diagnosis, But the confusion and uncertainty is worse than this indicates. Stokes says that the "syphilitic reagin" "rises and falls under drugs", it "rises and falls under. . . . disease" and it "rises and falls under. . . .unexplored factors".

   So great was the uncertainty that an international Evaluation Committee was established to evaluate the serologic findings and to assay the reliability of the different serologic tests. This Committee worked and met and, like the mountain that labored and brought forth a mouse, came forth with a report of findings that left matters about where they were. No committee of men, however great, can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear—they cannot transmute a fallacy into truth; a fraud into a genuine product. It has long been obvious that the serologic tests are thoroughly unreliable.

   How; then, is "syphilis", to be diagnosed? What is "undoubted syphilis"? What are the "characteristic symptoms," of a disease that imitates every disease in the nosology? If anything from cold sores to cancer, from pimples to heart disease; from a skin rash to insanity can be diagnosed as "syphilis", what are its "characteristic symptoms"? Who can tell when a patient has "syphilis" and when he does not have it?

   Hans Zinnser, M.D. , one of the professions' outstanding authorities on bacteriology, immunology and serology, says that "by proper titration of the reagents, your boots can be given a positive Wassermann reaction". It should be obvious, even to the least informed of my readers, that when boots give a positive Wassermann reaction, the trouble is with the test, not with the boots. No wonder Parran wrote in his Shadow on the Land that;

   "After thirty years of using serodiagnostic tests, they are still purely empirical. We do not know that a negative test in a person who has had syphilis does not mean that the disease is cured. We are not sure that a persistently positive test means that organisms ' persist. We think it does, but positive blood tests for other diseases—typhoid and diphtheria for example—persist after the living organisms have been killed off. There, is no way to determine accurately the time when the syphilis organism has been exterminated from the body". Zinnser would probably remind him that by their tests, they cannot tell when the last "syphilitic" organism has been destroyed in the boot.

   A few years ago Walter Winchell told of a prospective groom who received a notice that his blood was "positive". This meant that he would be denied a license to marry. He was now a branded man. He committed suicide. Several days after his suicide the laboratory forwarded a corrected "negative" report with an apology for the error it had made. Those who are always in such a rush to force the passing views and practices of the medical profession upon the people by law should ponder well this case and other cases like it. While few of them led to suicide, they prohibited healthy men and women from marrying. They might also ask what these young people do when they are denied the right to marry. I have not heard of any great rush of these young people into convents and monasteries. It is certain that most of them do not become celibates or sublimate their sexual drives in poetry and painting.

   The great uncertainty of the tests led to the practice of making "verification tests", or "check tests". Two tests, each of them of a slightly different character, are made from the same blood sample. But as neither test, singly, is reliable, their use together does not increase their reliability. Let me recount a case of a young woman in my own practice, who.underwent a series of serologic tests prior to the time when she was married. The first laboratory used the Kolmer test and employed as a check, the Kahn test. The Kolmer was positive, the Kahn negative. She went to a second laboratory. This time the Kolmer was negative, the Kahn positive. At a third laboratory, both tests were negative. All of this testing with its confusing results took place within a single week.

   So much for her tests; what of the woman herself? She was a young and beautiful woman, with a beautiful figure, except that she was slightly overweight. She had a clear skin, a peaches and cream complexion, bright sparkling eyes, good teeth, abundant vigor, and no history of any so-called "syphilitic infection". She was a clean, wholesome young woman who had been in excellent health for years and she remained in good health thereafter.

   Let me recite another case. This time in a married woman whose behavior was not exemplary. Her husband was a sailor and was away from home much of the time. A sore developed on her lip and refused to heal. After a time, she went to a physician. He suspected "syphilis". A test was made and it proved positive. She was supposed to have received the "infection" from some of her male friends with whom she indulged in promiscuous kissing. She refused medical treatment, but came to the HEALTH SCHOOL instead. A fast of three weeks resulted in the healing of the sore. She had no other symptoms of ill health. A week after her fast was broken, the city of San Antonio announced that it had made arrangements with the laboratories of the city to make serologic tests for "syphilis" during the week for a dollar. She wanted to have a test made. I advised against it, saying that she had not been eating long enough to affect the test. I had found, since the first edition of this book was published, that a fast has little or no effect upon the test, but that two or three weeks of proper feeding will reverse it. The test was made against my advice. It was positive. Three weeks later another test was made; it was negative. Five years afterwards I saw the woman again—there had been in this time, no recurrence of any symptoms of any nature.

   Charles W. Barnett, M.D., Stanford University Professor of Internal medicine, was director of the Stanford Medical School's "syphilis" clinic for twenty years. Speaking before the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association of Life Insurance Examiners of America, in the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif., October 23, 1952, Barnett told the assembled physicians that nearly half the people who were once diagnosed as "syphilitic" don't have the disease and never did have it. He told them that the "widely-used Wassermann test has been proved highly inaccurate". He added that "the new TIP (trepinoma pallidum immobilization) test, which is specific for syphilis, shows that at least 40 per cent of the patients with a positive Wassermann are entirely free of the disease".

   Think on this statement for a minute. The old tests were unreliable. Patients were treated for long periods with poisonous drugs for a "disease" they did not have because tests that were, even then, known to be unreliable, showed that they did have it. Why could not the physicians who treated these patients determine that they did not have "syphilis"? Why did they rely upon the test? Why did they accept the positive reactions of the test as diagnostic? Because no one can diagnose "syphilis" from its symptoms. Only the men of nearly four, hundred years ago, when the disease was first described, possessed sufficient diagnostic ability to diagnose the disease from its symptoms. Present-day physicians either never had such ability, as they admit, or they lost it.

   His statement means that untold thousands have been treated for a disease they did not have as a result of a positive Wassermann. It means that thousands of mothers have been treated for syphilis who did not have it; that great numbers of young people have been denied a marriage license when a positive test, that was thoroughly unreliable, was returned. It means that our law makers in passing, the compulsory test laws of mothers and people who applied for a marriage license acted hastily and unwisely under the influence of the frenzy and panic that had been created by the syphilophobic minds of the Rockefeller-financed agent designed to sell more drugs manufactured by Rockefeller. It should reveal to everybody the folly of forcing medical measures upon the people by law.

   But suppose we assume that the physicians who first described a disease to which the name syphilis has been given also lacked diagnostic ability to differentiate "syphilis" from the four hundred other diseases that it can imitate. Suppose they could not tell "syphilis" by its symptoms from other disease. Suppose, also, that they had no reliable test, and we know they did not have such" a test. How, then, did the existence of a disease called "syphilis" come to be recognized? "If the physicians of the time of Columbus could not detect "syphilis". and if modern ideas concerning the disease are correct, they certainly could not do so, how did they manage to create, this protean monster and saddle us with it?

   The fact is, as I have pointed out in the text of this book, the original "syphilis" and what is called "syphilis" today are not the same symptom-complex at all. Originally an acute disease in which patients often died within twenty-four hours, it is now a chronic disease that may persist throughout a long and useful life, the "victim" dying of an automobile accident at eighty or beyond. The evolution of the "syphilis" myth forms one of the most amazing stories in all medical history, a history which is replete with myths, such as the myths of rabies, the wolf disease, influenza, chronic appendicitis and the myths of cures and immunizers.

   Inasmuch as "syphilis" cannot be diagnosed from its symptoms alone and none of the older tests are reliable, how was it ever determined that there is such a disease as "syphilis"? If there is not a sure way of discovering "syphilis", except by a strictly accurate test, how can it be known that the test discloses "syphilis"? The disease called "syphilis" was created in the days when there were no blood tests of any kind and when far less was known of pathology than is known today. It was, in other words, conjured into existence in the days of grossest ignorance. What warrant is there for continuing to believe that such a disease exists? The point I want the reader to get firmly in mind is this: Today, after nearly four hundred years of intensive farming of the idea that there is a disease called "syphilis", the best physician living cannot diagnose the disease without the aid of a serologic test; physicians of the past, who had no such tests and were equally unable to diagnose the disease, created the disease for us. They drew it out of their imagination—what they did not produce with their heroic drugging. Because it is a complex tissue of fallacy, no physician has ever dared to accept my challenge to prove that the disease exists.

   Barnett went further in his talk and stated that, despite the development of the useful new diagnostic test and the "successful" use of penicillin, the world is far from the complete wiping out of "syphilis". He asserted that "no disease has ever been eradicated by treatment. Immunization and preventative measures are the only ways which have thus, far been successful". He does not seem to have named the "diseases" that have been "wiped out" by these means, but he did say that, despite years, of research, no "Immunization" against "syphilis" has ever been developed.

   Finally, he told the insurance examiners that "latent syphilis", which "produces no symptoms", is not sufficiently dangerous to be regarded as a life insurance risk. This "latent syphilis" is the type that imitates health. It was created by the Wassermann test. This is to say, a test was made of an apparently healthy man who had not and did not subsequently develop any symptoms that they would regard as evidence of syphilis, but the test was positive. The explanation was that he had "latent syphilis". It is part of the tissue of fallacy that Is "syphilis" and that makes a nightmare of the life of symphiomaniacal physicians and their syphilophobic patients.

Herbert M. Shelton,
San Antonio, Texas.
August 10, 1962.

   Today we are faced with a new crusade, the knights of which promise us everything short of the millineum itself, if we will but adopt their program and supply them with the billions of dollars needed to put it into effect and carry it on. Yes, they have launched a crusade, a crusade motivated by the highest ideals and the purest altruism, but they do ask for money and, long-time jobs at good salaries. It is amazing how much altruism a man is capable of when he sees an opportunity to reap a golden harvest out of it.

   They ask us for billions of dollars and for autocratic authority over us. They ask us to pay them well to make us do what they, in their infallible wisdom, want us to do. Give us your purse and your life, they demand, and let us spend the one and control the other as we decide best.

   The anti-venereal campaign is presented to the public as a defense measure. "Gonorrhea and syphilis constitute a menace to national defense" and the anti-venereal fight now proposed would be "a distinct measure of national preparedness."

   Indeed the ghouls who fathered this crusade have not missed a single appeal to the public, and our legislators. Their members have been present at every legislative hearing on bills providing for appropriation of millions of public funds to be put into, the empty purses of a dying profession, reminding us of the biblical statement that, "where the carcass is there will the buzzards be gathered together."

   With the plea that it will cost us less money to hire these men to free us forever from venereal disease than to go on as we are, they seek to get their hands into the public purse and to gain a firmer hold on the lives of the people. Indeed they have already attained a measure of success.

   Several cities have established and maintain, at the tax payers expense, clinics for the detection and treatment of veneral disease. Several stales have passed laws providing for compulsory testing and compulsory treating of certain groups. The Federal government has appropriated a huge sum of money to finance a long-term fight against "syphilis."

   Many industrial organizations have been induced to require a Wassermann test of all their employees and to require out reporting to the police. This makes it difficult for the medical profession to hound their victims. He complains about the difficulties that have been met in the effort to "establish the same control as prevailed in Europe." He especially likes the European method which he thus describes: "If a patient fails to appear for treatment, a government agency is notified and the missing syphilitic is located no matter to what part of the country he may have gone." He also approves of Denmark's laws which require treatment of "all infected persons" and which "under certain conditions" force "infectious patients" with "syphilis" to enter hospitals. He finds in the people of Denmark "respect for and obedience to authority."

   It cannot have escaped the notice of discriminating readers that this anti-venereal campaign was launched and is carried on by those who expect to reap financial rewards from the discovery and treatment of venereal disease. The doctors are clamoring loudest for the appropriation of millions of dollars and the creation of legal powers to enable them to "wipe out" the venereal diseases. That they have help from other sources, some interested, others disinterested and well-meaning, though misguided, goes without saying.

   Becker says that "the people of the United States again are syphilis conscious," while Parran speaks of a "curt popular mandate to stamp out syphilis." Of course no such popular mandate has ever been given and the "syphilis consciousness" of Americans was created by a flood of propaganda, largely financed by the hoarded loot of buccaneer, Rockefeller. A group of scare-mongers, whose scaremongering almost equals that employed in 1916-17 to get us into war, is responsible for any mass fear of "syphilis" that exists.

   These men who expect to profit from the search for and treatment of "syphilis" have deliberately lied to the public about the prevalence and evils of "syphilis," in what de Kruif describes as "a fight that will be pretty rough on its victims." The statistics they issue are false and unreliable, but effective in creating mass fear, therefore useful. De Kruif says that doctors and "health experts" don't know how much "syphilis" there is, and that "all statistics are guesses, nothing more." They tell us there are a half-million new cases of "syphilis" each year. The figure is a mere guess and is placed high for effectiveness in producing fear and panic. Those of us who went through the propaganda that got us into war know the power of lies to create mass hysteria and cause the people to give up both their money and their liberties. Doctors who traffic in Hell's Commerce run the same kind of lie-factory the Allies did.

   Statistics are made up of diagnoses and are subject to the whims, caprices, hobbies, prejudices, misconceptions, mistakes and studied deceptions of the doctors making the diagnoses. There is nothing reliable in these.

   In Chicago, efforts were made to get a "popular mandate to wipe out syphilis." After a strenuous campaign the matter was brought to a vote and the alleged results were published. The truth about this historic ballot on the blood test has never been published. Somebody is lying about the outcome of the ballot.

   None-the-less the Chicago campaign of ballyhoo led by Wenger and that ill-famed tool of the candy companies, Bundesen, gave the doctors of Chicago a real taste of prosperity. Then Wenger, the leader of it all, had to give up because his own heart went bad — it is not reported whether from "syphilis," or from tobacco or alcohol. He is only fifty-two but the great medical scientist, who would save others, but cannot save himself, is out for the count.

   They suspect that "chronic carriers" may be a factor in "the spread of syphilis." Here is ground for the creation of more Typhoid Marys, and the life-long persecution of healthy men and women. "Soon," says Dr. Alsaker, "it will be proven that there are but two classes of people so far as the doctor is concerned; namely, one class that carries germs and is well, and another that carries germs and is sick. Soon one class will be in the hospitals and the other in quarantine."

   Becker tells of an "enthusiastic public health nurse of a Chicago Welfare clinic" who "keeps the number (of untested expectant mothers) in her field of work at a minimum by making periodic back door calls to ascertain what women are pregnant, so that the women may be taken to the clinic for the blood test." He seems to favor this snooping and spying and there can be no doubt that the adoption of the medical program would usher in another era of snooping such as we had during the prohibition period.

   He also recommends the use of "scouts" to seek out "syphilitic" patients and to induce those "who have allowed their treatment to lapse to return to the clinic." He says the "medical social worker is indispensable to the management of syphilis clinics," because they are "well trained in follow-up work" and do not "possess the physicians scruples against seeking out" patients. "The code of medical ethics forbids solicitation of patients, and some doctors maintain that a follow-up of any patient, syphilitic or otherwise, is a violation of the code," hence the need of "scouts" camouflaged as "social workers." He would also use the "social workers" as salesmen to sell the treatment to the "syphilitic."

   Becker wants laws passed "requiring physicians and midwives to take a blood test on every pregnant woman at her first visit." "Every pregnancy means that a Wassermann test is necessary," says Dr. Parran. He also says: "Certainly one place where there should be complete agreement as to the need for universal Wassermann tests, is in connection with applicants for marriage licenses." He adds, "Twenty-eight states now forbid marriage when either man or woman is infected with a venereal disease." He neglects to tell what people do after they are forbidden marriage. We seem not to have learned from the bootleg era — 1920-1933 — that prohibitions foster the bootlegging spirit. In an appeal for such a law in New York, Elsie Bond stated that New York state was "being flooded by diseased people who can't comply with Connecticut regulations." She wants every state in the Union to pass a law such as that in Connecticut. She too failed to say what those will do who are refused the right to marry upon the strength of a positive Wassermann, when there is no longer a free state for them to go to. The Connecticut experience shows that they will marry — legally or otherwise.

   Morris Fishbein, the great mouthpiece of the American Medical Association, issued a propaganda book under the title, Syphilis, the Next Great Plague to Go. He, like Becker and others, attempts to impress his readers with the "fact" that one out of every ten Americans have "syphilis" and need medical care. This callous, conscienceless, irresponsible promoter of medical interests says: "every woman who has ever had syphilis should have extensive anti-syphilitic treatment throughout every pregnancy. This should be done whether or not her blood reaction during the pregnancy is positive or negative or whether her infection is recent or has existed for a long time.

   "It has been found that the treatment for syphilis during pregnancy is not harmful to the mother."

   Depending on these unreliable tests is" going to result in many pregnant women being treated for a disease they do not have and in many young people being denied marriage license when there is really no reason why they should not be allowed to marry. Doctors and Medical journals admit this, but the campaign goes on.

   Dr. Parran seems to place chief reliance in Wassermann tests. Becker says that the "requirements of certain states that prospective husbands and wives have blood tests before marriage is not quite sufficient, since a single negative blood test, as explained in an earlier chapter, does not always mean freedom from syphilis". If one test is not reliable, will any number of repetitions of the test increase its reliability? A positive reaction is no more dependable than a negative one.

   They are after the child also and want to test all the children of the country. Parran insists that if a married person comes with "syphilis" the marital partner must also be examined. If "late syphilis" is found, not only the marital partner, but the children must also be examined.

   Other means of coercion are advocated. For instance, Parran wants life insurance companies to require a Wassermann test of every applicant for a policy, for "self-protection." He does not say in what manner the test will prevent "infection" subsequent to the test.

   They also want employers of labor to require tests of their employees. "After all," says Becker, "it is merely good business for a company to refuse to employ new employees known to be infected with syphilis." Parran and all other crusaders approve of this form of coercion. Business "for its own sake" says Parran, "must look for syphilis among its employees." By claiming that the "syphilitic" under treatment is safe, they hope to both prevent loss of jobs and to provide another means of coercing men and women who might, otherwise, reject their treatment. Palm wants every company to adopt and publicize a policy that a worker's job will not be jeopardized by reason of a venereal infection, provided the disease is treated by a legitimate physician." By "legitimate physician" he means an allopath. Thus the medical racket slowly unfolds itself — patronize us, or lose your job.

   The reader may be curious about the reason for all this effort to enslave the people of America. Why do they seek the passage of laws to compel everybody to submit to the will of the medical profession? Why do they seek the establishment of a dictatorship of the medicos?

   Power is always used to enrich those who wield it. Power always masks itself with a pretense of altruism. All tyranny is for the public good. All of this cry for compulsory treatment is motivated by a desire to control the public in the interest of a sordid profession. Let us look at a little of their own testimony.

   Parran says: "Carl Warner recently given honorable mention by the Pulitzer Award Committee for his graphic series of articles on venereal diseases in the New York Daily News," sent "a surge of new patients to the physicians and clinics." Private physicians in Chicago reported that the campaign there brought them seventeen per cent more cases of "early syphilis."

   Discussing the practice-building effect of the "sex" movies that are used as part of their devilish program, Parran says, "Certainly it works; at least in the beginning. The health officer of Oklahoma told me last week that in a small town in his state he had shown a moving picture depicting the dangers of syphilis. Shortly afterward he checked up with the 11 doctors of the town to see if they had any new patients as a result of the showing. They reported from 4 to 10 apiece." Here is a man in the pay of the public, employing public time and money to drum up trade for the medical profession, and going back later to check up on the effectiveness of his advertising campaign. It is "unethical" for doctors to advertise only when they, themselves, have to pay for the advertising.

   Parran, who is Surgeon General of the U. S. Public Health " Service, says he is "willing to go all the way to work out an American (sic) method with the whole American Medical profession." He means an "American Method" of compelling free men and women to patronize an obsolescent medical system. Decker insists that "the practitioner of medicine must not be left out of any program" of venereal control. He asks for legislative action to compel "syphilitics" to patronize the medical profession if "appeals" fail to maintain regularity of attendance for treatment. He says: "There just is no remedy available for self-treatment of syphilis. The patient must go to a physician, a clinic or a hospital." He means, to an allopathic physician, clinic or hospital.

   Besides compulsory treatment these men want to "obtain public funds which assure adequate treatment for all infected persons." They want to dip their hands into the public treasury. They want to tax all the people to support a dying profession. Becker, who wants more public money, is very guarded in promising results. Certain cities have already requested WPA funds to cany on an anti-"syphilitic" campaign.

   Of all the schools of medicine or "healing" in America, only one, the self-styled scientific school, that is the "old" or allopathic school — miscalled "orthodox medicine" — is back of these compulsory medical laws. This school of "medicine" (school of poisoning, blistering, serum-squirting, electrocuting, baking and carving) is married to the state and seeks to have all of its superstitions, dogmas and mistakes fastened upon the whole populace by law. The doctors of this school organized as the American Medical Association, "fight physicians of other medical schools with a ferocious savagery and vindicativeness rarely seen outside the jungle," as Bruce Calvert says in The Open Road, May, 1938. He adds, "They are pressing at every point and in every state for legislation preventing the other doctors from the free exercise of their chosen profession."

   Approximately half the population of America patronizes these other schools of healing, and do not patronize the Allopathic school. The present anti-"syphilis" drive is intended to compel all to patronize this school and to prevent them from receiving the care they desire. As Mr. Calvert has it: "Only one school of doctors, the strongest medico-religious church, will profit by giving the Wassermanns and Salvarsan treatments. *** Whether you like it or not you will be compelled to take the tests and swallow the holy water (medicines) of the one particular medical church in power. *** All others are taboo, spurius, anathema, expergatorious, spurlos versenkt! — he might have added, verboten!

   They want the Emperor to issue a decree that "no one shall get well of syphilis who has not felt the divine touch of King Allopathy." They want the laws of Nature and those of the land altered to favor medical bigotry and absolutism. In all such sumtuary enactments as the pre-natal and premarital laws requiring tests and treatment, there is seen the entering wedge of a union of medicine and state, for our salvation, of course, that will prove to be much more dangerous than the state religion against which we have so long struggled and only recently rid ourselves of.

   We should not think for a minute that they intend to stop with venereal diseases. Indeed they have already in-dictated that they are going to wage war on cancer, tuberculosis, rheumatism, and other diseases. The shibboleth here is the same as with syphilis—it costs the public less money to cure these diseases in their early stages than to support their victims after they have been made into helpless invalids. They are going to save the tax payers money by giving themselves fat jobs.

   Already a campaign has been launched against rheumatism, which is held responsible for much heart trouble and helpless invalidism. Rheumatism is claimed to be due to germs which find entrance into the body through the sinuses, tonsils, gall bladder, appendix, ovaries and seminal vesicles.

   Invalids cost the tax-payer money. Rheumatism causes invalidism. Prevent rheumatism and you save the tax-payer money. How prevent rheumatism? Easy! cut out the tonsils, remove the gall bladder, excise the appendix, extirpate the ovaries, chisel out the sinuses, and take out the seminal vesicles. Suppose the people don't respond to the appeal of the surgeons to have themselves dismembered; what then? The answer is, "legislative action that will enable us to force people to submit to examinations and operations."

   Where can this program logically stop? If we recognize the validity of the principal of state medicine and compulsory treatment, to save our money, as state religion saved our souls, there is no logical stopping place short of the universalization of the program. Thus, if they have their way, we are to have salvation forced upon us. We are to be placed under the autocratic control of one small group and their unstable and everchanging theories and damaging practices are to be forced upon all.

   More than once in the world's history infant dragons have been mistaken for harmless lizards. If the American people don't awake and defend their liberties they will wake up some morning and find themselves the victims of a Medical Inquisition that will make the Spanish Inquisition look like a Sunday School picnic.