Living and Raw Foods web site.  Educating the world about the power of living and raw plant based diet.  This site has the most resources online including articles, recipes, chat, information, personals and more!
 

Click this banner to check it out!
Click here to find out more!

TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Posted by: John Rose ()
Date: September 19, 2021 10:36AM

When it comes to the Powers that Be using doctors to control the masses, it seems that nothing ever changes. Check out the similarities between the PCR Test or any other test that is used to claim a Virus exists to the Wassermann Test in "Syphilis - Is it a Mischievous Myth or a Malignant Monster" by Herbert M. Shelton

[soilandhealth.org]
TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Chapter VI


In 1906 the medical world manifested great enthusiasm over the announcement by Erick Wassermann, [s/b August von Wassermann] of the discovery of a test for "syphilis." Before the invention of the test, they were never sure whether or not a patient had "syphilis;" since its invention, they are equally uncertain. Indeed, they do not yet know what the test reveals. How do they know that the test reveals "syphilis" unless they know that there is such a disease as "syphilis?" How do they know what the blood condition is that gives a positive test?

The presence of "syphilitic infection" is supposed to result in changes in the biochemical properties of the blood serum and the tests are supposed to reveal, not the germ, but the blood changes. Since the germ gives off no toxin, the blood changes are not likely to exist. However, if they do exist, they should be present in greatest quantity when the germs are most prevalent. The test should not be positive one day and negative the next.

It was early recognized that the test was not fully reliable. Noguchi, whom Parran calls great, pointed out that the same "syphilitic" serum will give all kinds of Wassermann ' reactions from completely negative to strongly positive, depending on how the test is made.

A lady in New York City went to a physician who suspected her of having syphilis. He took a blood sample to have a Wassermann test made. This he sent to a private laboratory. The lady on the same day had another physician send a blood sample to the Board of Health laboratory for a test. When the reports were received, the Board of Health test gave a negative reaction, that of the private laboratory a strongly positive reaction.

One shudders when he contemplates the potential power for damage of a test like this. Interpret this anyway you please, it is not encouraging. Say that somebody's technic was faulty. Say that the doctor and the private laboratory were working together in the interest of each other and not in the interest of the patient. Say that somebody did not know how to make the test. Say that a few hours difference between the time the two blood samples were taken were sufficient to account for the differences in the reaction. Explain it as you will, the fact still stands out that one may have syphilis at the same time that he or she does not have it, so far as the test is concerned. This does not bring up a very pleasant picture in one's mind.

Drs. Lydston and Stillians of Chicago, Krauss and Kahn of Memphis, and Dock of St. Louis, are among those, who, more than once, have pointed out the shortcomings and undependability of the Wassermann test. Kahn says, "it is evident *** that in every syphilitic stage isolated cases are found which will not respond to the Wassermann test." Stillians asserts that "the blood of a healthy baby less than two weeks old will give a positive Wassermann." There are some who are said to get the "Wassermann habit." They show a Wassermann plus throughout life, "even though the syphilis has been brought under control. "These cases are said to be "Wassermann fixed." In his Race Decadence. Wm. S. Sadler, M.D. admits that "the Wassermann test is not infallible."

It is known that many conditions other than "syphilis" give a positive Wassermann. The Revue de Medicine, Paris, (Dec. 1920) carries an exhaustive article by the Chief of the Faculty Clinic, A. Touraine, entitled "La Reaction de Wassermann en de la Syphilis" (Wassermann Reaction outside of Syphilis), in which he says: "Almost all the maladies which respond to the positive Wassermann are characterized by a rapid and intense deglobulization. This deglobulization is most marked in diseases due to parasites which live in the blood. A number of tropical diseases have been found to give positive reactions. Positive reactions were also found in sleeping sickness by Hallock, Jakimoff, Schilling and others. Eichelberg obtained ten positives out of 25 cases of Scarlatina. Laederlich found positive reactions in measles. Ravout found positives in starch poisoning. In the study of pneumonia Weill obtained 23 positives of 23 cases.

"Bacillary diseases, especially pulmonary tuberculosis, offer a truly extraordinary collection of positives.

"Positive reactions are sometimes found in diabetes, alcholism and morphinomania.

"Nanta and Joltrain obtained three positive Wassermanns out of four cases of lymphatic leukemia. Ten out of eleven cases of myeloid leukemia were obtained by Bruck, Nanta and Joltrain."

Besides yaws or frambesia, Dr. Becker says "very strongly positive blood tests occasionally are seen in patients who are seriously ill with pneumonia, scarlet fever, malignant endocarditis (a heart infection), leprosy, various diseases of the blood, and generalized cancer."

The April 1926 issue of Southwestern Medicine says of the Wassermann test: "It is not specific, *** fever at times will give a positive test, and when repeated after the fever is gone will yield a negative reaction; constipation will give a positive test; jaundice at times gives confusing reactions. Tuberculosis may give a positive reaction." To add to this J. DeQuer, M.D. of Los Angeles, tells us that he obtained a positive Wassermann in 400 cases of constipation, and that after the constipation was corrected by diet, etc., 364 of these cases gave a negative reaction.

If starch poisoning gives a positive reaction in 40% of cases, and almost everybody is starch poisoned (a condition that exists today), one may readily see the enormous number of cases of "syphilis" this test would reveal in our population. This may help to account for the great number of Wassermann positives found among the starch-fed negroes of the South.

That diet influences the test has long been recognized. For years Dr. Tilden of Denver, has said "If the advocates of the Wassermann test would like, I will obligate myself to prepare any number of syphilis-free cases to show a Wassermann positive test, and then immediately after cause the same subjects to show negative reactions; and the preparation of both conditions will be made with food."

John R. Williams, of Rochester, N. Y. writing in the American Journal of Syphilis, for April, 1912, under the title, "A Study of the Wassermann Reaction in a large group of supposedly non-syphilitic individuals, including large groups of diabetics and nephritics," says in part: "As the nutrition of these cases was improved by proper dietetic measures, there was a coincidental improvement in the Wassermann test." Thus in each instance where a positive Wassermann test was obtained the diabetes was very severe. He adds:

"The more plausible explanation is the one which has already been suggested. It would seem that there is a relationship between the nutritional states of these individuals and the variation in the Wassermann reaction. It was observed that the positive and partial reactions occurred when the patients for a long time had been on a diet far below the point of minimal basal metabolism and were suffering severely from imperfect nutrition."

R. B. Pearson, of Chicago, says in his Drugless Cures, "Oscar Jones, M.D., of Indianapolis, tells me that the Wassermann test only indicates the condition of toxicity of the body, and there is no relation between a positive Wassermann and the presence or absence of syphilis whatever. Further, he says, any one who eats meat to excess may get a positive Wassermann at any time; or cut out meat entirely, cleanse the meat toxin from the intestines with frequent enemas and eat sugar to excess before the test, for a negative Wassermann."

In going over the reports of tests carried out on negroes in different sections, one thing struck me rather forcibly: namely, more so-called "syphilis" was revealed by the Wassermann dragnet in the economically most depressed negroes than in those who have better food and care. Starch-feeding groups show more positive Wassermans in their investigations. The relation of poor nutrition to so-called "syphilis" is amply demonstrated by its so-called prevalence among the pellagrous-diet fed negroes of the South.

Alterations in the body's defense mechanism change the test. Prof. McDonagh, of Loch Hospital, London, recognizes this fact and says: "I now practically never do a Wassermann in this stage (after the 4th year) for the simple reason that a positive reaction may only mean that the patient's protective mechanism is working well and retires no stimulus." He adds that malaria and "other diseases" also produce a positive Wassermann reaction.

Other things than diet affect the test. In an article on "The Interpretation of the Wassermann," In the New York Journal and Record, 1922, page 514, Dr. Sydney Wallenstein, of Baltimore, Md., says, "Contaminated blood may give falsely positive reactions." "The injection of alcohol previous to taking blood tests will render reaction negative." Even the very drugs used to treat "syphilis" alter the reactions. Accurate tests show that iodine, arsenic and mercury, drugs used in treating the supposed disease, affect the test. Ether and chloroform narcosis gives a positive Wassermann. Food, alcohol, drugs, disease, the state of nutrition, and so many other things affect this supposed test, that it is absolutely unreliable, even if there were really such a disease as "syphilis", a thing I positively deny.

Variations in the test also affect the outcome. Thomas and Ivy, two standard medical authors, say, Applied Immunology. Page 101:

"1. the marked discrepancies between the results of the Wassermann test and the clinical findings in many cases are causing skeptical clinicians to lose confidence in the value of the reaction, and thus they are being deprived of an important diagnostic agent.

"2. A great many unfortunate persons are being treated for syphilis who have not and never had syphilis, as the result of weakly positive and doubtful reports of workers using these antigens."

They also say: "Schamberg, Kolmer, and others report that they obtained positive Wassermann reactions, in using the cholesterinized antigens in over 28 percent of twenty-two cases of psoriasis (itch), in a great many of which syphilis could almost certainly be excluded, thus providing evidence that weak reactions do not necessarily mean syphilis, and that a diagnosis of syphilis cannot be based on weak and medium inhibitions when they are employed. We hold that weakly positive reactions with syphilitic liver-extract mean nothing but syphilis. Even though it were true that the cholesterinized antigens give a more 'delicate' reaction and may furnish positive results in cases of syphilis that are negative to the syphilitic liver-extract, it is a very much less serious error to overlook an occasional case of syphilis than to saddle a diagnosis of the disease with all it entails on a patient who does not have the disease."

The meaning of this last paragraph is simply that:

1. Cholesterinized antigens frequently disclose syphilis where none exists; and

2. Syphilitic liver-extract frequently fails to reveal syphilis where it does exist

A positive reaction with cholesterinized antigens does not necessarily mean "syphilis" and a negative reaction with syphilitic liver-extract does not necessarily mean the absence of the disease. Surely the reader is ready to give up all faith he may have had in the test. Much more interesting data of a similar import could be given from these authorities but it is hardly necessary to multiply testimony at this time.

Dr. W. A. Evans, whose How to Keep Well column appears in many daily papers, wrote, in answer to questions (Sunday News. New York, May 25, 1922): "In the competition between laboratories there is some tendency to advertise such claims as 'We get a larger proportion of positive Wassermanns than other laboratories.' This claim is not untruthful necessarily. By varying the methods one way or the other the test can be made more sensitive and the result may be as advertised.

"But there is this to be said: The Wassermann test is not specific for syphilis. It is most dependable when it is just so sensitive, (How sensitive? — Author). If, on the other hand, it becomes too sensitive, it loses value, just as it loses it when it is not sensitive enough.

"What is the final conclusion? Shall we pay no attention to the Wassermann reactions? Shall we quit having them. made? I know of no one (using them — Author) in favor of that. With all its shortcomings, the Wassermann test is a standard procedure and should be continued."

It is valueless, but since it is a "standard procedure" keep up the fallacy. It fools both the doctor and the patient, but the deception is standardized. Let's keep it up.

In an address at the Conference on Venereal Disease Control Work, Washington, D. C., Dec. 28-30, 1936, Published in Supplement No. 3, to Venereal Disease Information, issued by the U. S. Public Health Service, Dr. Parran said: "We have learned from many check tests that many state and private laboratories are inaccurate in their examinations. The examinations for syphilis are so insensitive in some laboratories that cases of syphilis are missed. In others they are so hypersensitive that certain persons who are not suffering from the disease are labeled as syphilitic."

How can it be known that the test is just right, that it is neither too sensitive nor under sensitive? How can they ever be sure what this reveals? It is obvious that they can never be sure what the reaction means.

The various stages of "syphilis" give a varying percentage of positive and negative reactions. No reliance can be placed upon it in the primary stage, according to the best known medical authorities. In the second stage a positive reaction occurs in not more than 85 percent of cases. In the so-called tertiary stage only 70 percent give a positive result. Some authorities report even lesser percentages than these. A positive reaction occurs in scarlatina, pellegra, Hodgkin's disease, malaria, jaundice, diabetes, pregnancy, and a number of other diseases. Yaws, a tropical disease, gives a positive Wassermann. So, also, does nodular leprosy.

The Department of Health, of the city of New York, maintains a laboratory where various laboratory tests are made without cost to the doctor or his patient. Glass containers are supplied to the physician in which to send blood samples to the laboratory. Around these containers are wrapped blanks to be filled out by the physician and which, after being properly filled, are sent along with the blood sample to the laboratory. On the blank that is filled out when a Wassermann test is desired, the physician is asked: "If result of examination is negative do you wish the department to consider the case as one of syphilis?"

What can a question of this kind mean. Does it mean that the test is not reliable? Does it mean that one may have syphilis and the test show him not to have it? Does it mean that the profession and the Boards of Health, themselves, do not trust the competency of the test? If it means any of these things and, as I shall show, it means all this and more, the patient cannot reasonably be asked to place his trust in the test.

In a paper on "The Skin and Syphilis," read before the Academy of Medicine, on Jan. 15, 1926, Dr. Howard Fox, of New York City, said: "The tendency to place undue emphasis on the Wassermann test is unwise. It should be given due consideration but not relied upon to the exclusion of clinical evidence. If leprosy can be eliminated, a strongly positive test indicates syphilis. A negative test, however, by no means excludes a syphilitic infection, as is frequently shown in the case of typical gummas of the skin. Examination of the spinal fluid may show a positive Wassermann test in cases where the blood examination is negative. Even the spinal examination may be negative."

Dr. Richard C. Cabot of Harvard University and the Massachussetts General Hospital, says: "The Wassermann test has about it a great deal that we do not know. We do not know for certain that a person with a persistently negative Wassermann reaction does not have syphilis. In a few cases of syphilis we have positive evidence of syphilis on the surface of the body despite a negative Wassermann." This statement is made only a few paragraphs after he says "syphilis can imitate any kind of skin disease, and it is not worth while even to try to recognize it."

Now you see it and now you don't. We can't tell whether it is syphilis or blackheads without a Wassermann test, but we know that it is syphilis even if the Wassermann does say no. If Dr. Cabot knows any more jokes he ought to tell them.

Parran says "one should always remember that there is a possibility of error in so delicate and complicated a procedure. In the absence of a history of syphilis and without symptoms and physical signs, no person should be labeled a syphilitic on the basis of a single laboratory test." But if we cannot rely upon one test how may we rely upon two or three? Do we reach certainty by the multiplication of uncertainty? Can we arrive at fact by multiplying error? Is not Dr. Tilden right when he declares: "But it is too childish to be taken seriously; for it is like a game of blind-man's buff — now you see it and again you don't. This week, this month, this year it is Wassermann positive; next week, next month, next year, negative. Now you have it, and now you don't; proving that the specific cures for today, for next week, for next year; but the cure does not stay putl Once syphilitic, always syphilitic — at times I Why not all the time, or none of the time after being cured?"

JR Comment: The Wassermann Test sounds just like the PCR Test with all of its False Positives.

In the Cincinnati Journal of Medicine. Vol. IX, 1923, page 144, Dr. C. J. Broeman says: "A positive Wassermann does not always mean syphilis." "The blind dependence which so many physicians are now placing upon this blood test is a very dangerous state of mind, and efforts should be made to correct it."

In Feb. 1928, The Journal of the American Medical Association published a report of 331 autopsies performed by Dr. Douglas Symmers, Assistant Director of the Bellevue Hospital Laboratories; Dr. Chas. G. Darlington, and Helen Bittman, assistant in the Bellevue Laboratories, in which these investigators state that they have reached the conclusions that:

"The Wassermann test gives a negative reaction in from thirty-one to fifty-six percent of cases in which characteristic anatomic signs of the disease ("syphilis"winking smiley are shown by autopsy; *** the Wassermann reaction is positive in at least thirty percent of cases in which it is not possible to demonstrate the anatomic lesions of the malady by autopsy. *** It (the Wassermann reaction) is not a specific action, but occurs in conditions other than syphilis, and it does not always occur in syphilis. *** the generation that holds the responsibility of the future is being inoculated with an almost reverential respect for artificial methods that neither clinician nor pathologist can explain or control."

The test, let me add, is frequently alternately positive and negative in the same individual; is, also, often negative when the blood test is employed and positive when a spinal test is made, or vice versa.

Now, since the clinician cannot determine with any degree of certainty whether you do or do not have the disease, as I have shown in a previous chapter, and since the laboratory ex-spurt and his tests are as unreliable as a weather forecast, the only way you can be sure you have the disease is to die and let them find out at the necropsy. But suppose there is no such thing as "syphilis" — what then are these "characteristic anatomic signs"? They are not. They are not "characteristic". No disease presents either a symptomatology or a pathology that is clean-cut and characteristic.

Parran says, "Positive blood Wassermann tests are not a complete index of the amount of syphilis. One-third of patients with beginning nervous system involvement show a negative test." He further says: "After 30 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, diptheria, for example — persist after the living organisms have been killed off. There is no way of determining accurately the time when the last syphilis organism has been exterminated from the body."

Yet these men want every man, woman and child in the land tested for "syphilis" by this same unreliable test, tomorrow. They would deny marriage to the purest young woman in the whole land until she has subjected herself to a test for this medical nightmare, "syphilis". They would compel her to stake her all upon a test that is not nearly as reliable as a weather forecast. Becker would repeat the test every year or two throughout life, for, he thinks the repetition of "the routine blood tests" can alone prevent large numbers from becoming "hopelessly crippled by syphilis before" they are "aware of its presence".

The Wassermann test is of no earthly value, except as a means of perpetuating a delusion. It can be used to scare the wits out of you, and blacken your life for the rest of your days, if you do not commit suicide as many do. If the test shows positive, you will be declared to be "syphilitic". If it shows negative, the physician will not be sure whether you have the disease or not.

In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 23, 1926, James Herbert Mitchell, M. D., calls attention to the unreliability of a weakly positive Wassermann reaction and states that much of his present work consists in trying to convince patients that they do not have the disease. He says: "The value of the various 'serums' and blood tests has been extolled to the point at which the uneducated or the unthinking layman is led to believe that a blood test is infallible. Add to this the fear of venereal disease implanted in his mind by the anti-venereal propaganda, and we have a combination of circumstances with the greatest possibilities of harm. The time has come, I believe, when steps should be taken to give the layman and the general practitioner a word of caution."

Then coming to the mental effects of the pronouncement of "syphilis" he tells us: "One patient of mine, as a result of a slightly positive Wassermann reaction ten years ago, has wandered from coast to coast, begging physicians to treat him. As many of the reputable men have refused to do so, he has been obliged to step down the scale in order to find men who would treat him. He carries about with him his own favorite type of spinal puncture needle, and when last seen had had twenty spinal punctures done by men in various parts of the country. The reports on his spinal fluid have been uniformly negative, but the one slightly positive blood Wassermann reaction ten years ago was sufficient to upset his whole life.

"In no class of patients does the slightly positive Wassermann reaction cause so much harm as in the candidate for marriage. The very laudable movement for such examinations set on foot by various agencies, insisted on by some eminent divines of the Episcopal Church and enacted into law in some states, has undoubtedly produced good results; but when a slightly positive Wassermann reaction is returned a day or two before the ceremony is to take place, the situation may be nothing short of tragic. In the last year I have struggled with five such cases . . . . ."

This article by Dr. Mitchell evoked an editorial comment from the Medical Journal and Record (New York), Sept. 21, 1927, in which the question is raised as to whether the Wassermann test has not done more harm than good. The Record says, in part:

"Dr. J. H. Mitchell, in a paper before the Section on Pathology of the American Medical Association in April, 1926, wisely remarked that many laymen have the impression that the practice of medicine has kept pace with the mechanical developments in other fields of endeavor and that diagnoses are now made with mechanical, if not mathematical, precision, thanks to the various tests employed. He might have added that a great body of physicians seem of the same mind or they would use much better judgement in interpreting or even in using these tests. The routine examinations through which so many patients are run nowadays, if they do not give them this impression must give them the opposite one that they are being imposed upon, and where their faith is stronger they may even end most disastrously. *** On the whole we wonder whether the Wassermann has done more harm than good, for a negative reaction following treatment of an undoubted case does not mean that the patient is really cured, though unfortunately he usually interprets it in that fashion.

"Dr. Mitchell gives other illustrations that would confirm our questioning as to whether humanity might not be as well off if the complicated and variable ingredients for the Wassermann test were dumped into the ocean along with the bulk of the Pharmacopoeia, as suggested by Dr. Holmes, though this would be mixing the elements considerably. We see no reason why it is not more important that one innocent person should be saved from mischief by so doing than that evidence of real infection should be given some confirmation. The medical profession cannot be responsible now for the advertising given this test outside their own offices, but they can be more judicious in using this and any other test indiscriminately and without due consciousness of its nature. "Many patients undergoing a so-called routine or thorough examination object to (and all must find it anything but pleasant) the taking of blood. In so doing they show good sense beyond that of those who insist on this performance without the best of reason."

As before pointed out the unreliability of the Wassermann test was early recognized. Various experimenters made efforts to "improve" the test. Many modifications of the test have been made, one of the first of these being the Nogouchi test. At the present time many pathological laboratories never make the original Wassermann test. Let us give a little attention to some of these "improved" tests.

Becker says of the original Wassermann, that "it soon was found that the test was not only nonspecific in that conditions other than syphilis resulted in a positive test, but that it often was negative in the presence of the disease. The original test has been modified by many workers, with improvement in sensitivity and specificity. Another type of the test, the precipitation test, has been introduced more recently and has gained favor on account of its simplicity and economy. At present there is no particular choice between the complement fixation and the precipitation reaction, but a combination of the two performed on each serum from the blood gives more information than either alone. Good laboratories perform a representative of each of the two types on each serum. If there is any doubt as to the significance of the test it should be repeated. The two forms of test theoretically should not disagree, but occasionally they do. That is why both often are made." So they can disagree, I suppose.

The Journal of the American Medical Association, July, 10, 1937, says editorially of the "Clinician and the Serologic Test for Syphilis:"

"The ideal serologic test for syphilis is one that is completely specific (which gives no false positive or false doubtful results in known nonsyphilitic persons). There is no such test." Discussing tests they say "the results of the American serologic conferences" show to be satisfactory — "the Kolmer complement fixation test and the Kahn and Kline diagnostic (not the Kahn presumptive or Kline exclusion tests) —" they say: "Even with these named tests the clinician must remember that false positive (or false doubtful) results may be obtained in about one patient out of a hundred tested, and he must be on his guard against diagnosing syphilis when it is not present and instituting treatment that is not needed."
The intelligent reader will readily perceive that a test that is capable of showing syphilis where no syphilis exists is not likely to do so only once in a hundred cases. It may do so ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

The editorial further says: "The ideal serologic test is one that is so sensitive as always to detect syphilis when it is present. There is no such test, *** however, the five tests named in the preceding paragraph — Kolmer, Kahn and Kline diagnostic, Eagle and Hinton — compare favorably with any known tests as to sensitivity in that they are successful in detecting from 70 to 90 percent of positive and doubtful results in known syphilitic population (treated and untreated). The percentage sensitivity in the hands of the originators of these tests is: Kolmer 72.6, Kahn diagnostic 82.3, Eagle 82.6, Kline diagnostic 86 and Hinton 90."

These tests then are as unreliable as a weather forecast. They not only find "syphilis" where none exists, but they also fail to locate it where it does exist. We may not take at their face value, their accurately determined ratios of sensitivity, even to the first decimal point, for they have no dependable means of checking these tests. Indeed if they had such means they would not need the tests.

The editorial further says: "To the clinician moreover, specificity is more important than sensitivity. He must remember that, in the laboratory, sensitivity is usually gained at the expense of specificity; as any test is adjusted to give the highest possible proportion of positive results in known syphilitic patients there is a hand in hand increase in the proportion of false positive results in nonsyphilitic patients."

How is it ever to be definitely known that any particular case is "syphilis" if the test is not dependable? We have previously shown that so-called "syphilis" cannot be diagnosed by the symptoms, nor by the dark-field test.

The editorial makes the matter more confusing by telling us that the same blood sample may give a positive reaction with one test and a negative reaction with another in the same laboratory. It says: "Many laboratories still perform a complement fixation test with several antigens, e.g., plain alcoholic, cholesterinized or acetone insoluble, or check a complement fixation with a flocculation test or one flocculation test with another. While this type of multiple testing is desirable for intralaboratory check, the reporting of such multiple results to the clinician is often confusing. When the blood specimen gives a negative result with, for example, the Kolmer test but a positive result with the Kahn, this signifies only (a) that the patient has but a small quantity of reagin in his blood and (b) that the Kahn test is more sensitive than the Kolmer. The same thing applies to the different antigens in the complement fixation test."

Suppose these diametrically opposite results signify what they say they do; does it mean that the Kahn test is so sensitive that it finds "syphilis" where there is none, or that the Kolmer test is so insensitive that it fails to find "syphilis" where it does exist? How is the clinician to know whether his patient has or does not have "syphilis"? The editorial attempts to answer such questions by saying: "If the history is positive and physical signs are present, a single positive test may be accepted. If these are absent, the positive result must always be verified by a repeat test in the same or a different laboratory before the patient is told of the diagnosis or treatment started."

It should be obvious that if the physical signs are of such a character that the physician can be positive that they are positive, there would be no need for the test. The test came into existence because doctors could not diagnose "syphilis". The same may be said for the "positive" history. The history cannot be positive so long as there is doubt about the real nature and meaning of the past symptoms. What of the repeat test to verify the first test? It is no more dependable than the first.

The editorial says that the repeat test "is in order to guard against the possibility of false positive results in non-syphilitic persons, a chance ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 percent even with the five tests named, and greater with other tests." Doctors are never anything if not accurate. They know their tests are inaccurate and they can't tell when they are right or wrong (if they could they would not need the tests), but they know to the smallest fraction of one percent, just how often their tests are wrong.

The reader's attention is especially directed to the falsehood contained in the next statement of the editorial. It says: "The only other diseases or conditions that give a positive serologic test for syphilis are malaria (rarely), yaws, relapsing fever and leprosy (all frequently). In untreated syphilis the range of positivity of the five tests named is from 90 to 95 percent in all stages of the infection."

We have previously shown that several other diseases besides those named in the editorial as the "only other diseases that are positive," give positive results in the tests and do not deem it worth while to dwell on this here. We pause only long enough to brand the editorial statements as false and to ask: If malaria gives a positive reaction, why does it do so only "rarely"?

The editorial discusses what it calls the "archaic and confusing system of reporting by plus marks" and says, "many nonsyphilitic patients have been treated for syphilis on the basis that a test reported as 'one plus' means positive, when as a matter of fact it may not mean any such thing. For the plus marks the words 'positive,' 'doubtful' and 'negative' should be substituted without qualifying symbols or adjectives. *** Doubtful would mean that there had been a definite result and that the test should be repeated. False doubtful results in nonsyphilitic persons are more frequent than false positive (from 0.1 to 1 percent with the five tests enumerated, greater with others). However, a doubtful result may mean syphilis, especially if the patient has been previously treated.

"If the tests are negative there is a 95 percent chance that the patient does not have syphilis (in the absence of previous treatment), but a negative result does not exclude the diagnosis."

Was there ever such a mad-house? Is there any other field of human activity in which men are so willing to deliberately blind themselves to their own follies? Dr. Tilden says, "I do not believe the profession is conscious of its irregular and guerrilla style of defending its so-called science. It is forced by its confusions to make explanations that do not explain, except to those who are not troubled with thinking." It seems fitting to close this chapter with a quotation from Dr. Logan Clendening. In an article in Plain Talk, April 1930, he says, in discussing the question: Is a patient cured of syphilis?: "About twenty years ago a test known as the Wassermann test was brought forward. *** it was reported that it decided whether a person ever had syphilis, whether the syphilis was cured or whether more treatments were necessary. Therefore it was hailed with great enthusiasm and almost universally carried out in all laboratories and hospitals. I believe that I express the general opinion of clinicians when I say that twenty years of experience with the Wassermann reaction has modified the early enthusiasm very considerably. Many person's who have never had syphilis have positive Wassermann reactions. And no syphilographer on earth would be prepared to say a man was cured on the record of his Wassermann test alone.

"That this may not appear a personal opinion, let me refer to the statement of Dr. Wile, who is Professor of diseases of the skin at the University of Michigan. In discussing this very point of the determination of the curability of syphilis, he said a year or so ago that we must abandon reliance on the Wassermann and must go back to the old rule proposed by Ricord (who was born in 1799): that when a patient has remained free from all signs and symptoms of the disease for seven years, he may be pronounced clinically cured.

"Certainly no one can put forward the supposition that Dr. Wile has not had enough experience. No one is prepared to suggest that the technique used in doing Wassermann reactions at the University of Michigan, where he labors, is faulty."

[soilandhealth.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2021 10:42AM by John Rose.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Posted by: John Rose ()
Date: September 19, 2021 10:40AM

[soilandhealth.org]
SYPHILIS
Is it a
Mischievous Myth
or a
Malignant Monster


By
Herbert M. Shelton
AUTHOR OF
THE HYGIENIC SYSTEM; HUMAN LIFE, ITS PHILOSOPHY
AND LAWS"; HYGIENIC CARE Of CHILDREN; NATURAL
CARE OF CANCER; TONSILS AND ADENOIDS;
FEEDING IN HEALTH AND DISEASE; ETC,

Published 1962
by
Health Research
Mokelumne Hill California



The Medical View

"As a danger to the public health, as a peril to the family, and as a menace to the vitality, health, and physical progress of the race, the venereal diseases are justly regarded as the greatest of modern plagues." -Milton J. Rosenau, M. D.

The Rational View

"The present medical opinion of venereal diseases is an infinitely greater curse to the world than will be all the diseases of mankind when they are understood and treated properly." -J. H. Tilden, M. D.

INDEX
Introduction
Chapter I The Beginning of a Myth
Chapter II The Myth Becomes a Lie
Chapter III A Pathological Mocking Bird
Chapter IV The Myth Becomes a Nightmare
Chapter V The Nightmare Becomes a Mania
Chapter VI Tests That Do Not Test
Chapter VII What Causes "Syphilis"?
Chapter VIII Diagnosing a Protean Monster
Chapter IX The Beginning of Quackery
Chapter X New Evils for Old
Chapter XI The Artificial Fever Cure
Chapter XII What Is "Syphilis"?
Chapter XIII Regular Abuse of the "Syphilitic"
Chapter XIV . The Hygienic Care of the "Syphilitic"
Addendum

Dedication
To the human race, in the sincere hope that the truths it contains may serve to emancipate mankind from the frightful slavery to the syphilis myth and the still more frightful treatment accorded so-called syphilitics, this little book is lovingly dedicated, by H. M. SHELTON

[soilandhealth.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Posted by: John Rose ()
Date: September 19, 2021 11:00AM

[soilandhealth.org]
WHAT CAUSES "SYPHILIS?"
Chapter VII


When Pasteur announced his theory that disease is due to microbes, Dr. Robert Koch, a German scientist, laid down four conditions that must be met before the theory could be regarded as scientifically proven. "Koch's postulates," as these are called, which were incautiously accepted by Pasteur and his subalterns and echoes, as reasonable, are:

1. The germ must be present in every case of the disease.

2. The germ must not be present except in connection with the disease.

3. The germ must be susceptible of cultivation in proper media outside the body, for several generations.

4. The pure culture thus obtained must be susceptible of re-transplantation into the healthy human or animal body, where it must infallibly produce the same disease, and the same microorganism must again be found in the tissues, blood, or secretions of the inoculated animal or man.

There is not a single germ that is held responsible for a single so-called disease that fully meets a single one of these conditions, nor one that ever meets all four of them.

It is claimed that "syphilis" is caused by a germ. Two German investigators, Fritz Schaudinn and Erich Hoffmann, announced the discovery of the germ of "syphilis" in 1905. Because of its spiral form they called it "spirochaeta" and because it was difficult to stain they attached to it the descriptive classification "pallida." Later the "spirochaeta pallida" was identified with a previously discovered organism named "treponema".

Every ten cent mind in the medical profession has accepted this cork-screw shaped germ as the cause of a disease called "syphilis" and the public has been told frightful stories of its ravages by such promoters, with six cent minds, as Parran, de Kruif, Becker, Palm, Wenger, Cox, Pusey, Fishbein, Stokes, Munson, Wile, Moore, Schamberg, O'Leary, and that aggregation of syphilophobes, the American Social Hygiene Association, headed by Dr. Walter Clarke. However, even these men have misgivings about the office of this germ in causing hundreds of pathological conditions which they gather together and label syphilis — indeed, their doubts are so great that they cannot keep them wholly inarticulate.

In a booklet issued by The American Social Hygiene Association, under the title, The Social Hygiene Program — Today and Tomorrow, C.- E. A. Winslow says of the treponema pallidum, "Koch's postulates have never been fulfilled here and we are not certain whether this organism is the sole cause of syphilis, or a symbiont, or a related saprophyte; yet its value as a practical index is quite clear."

To the writer, "its value as a practical index" is not "quite clear." For, Dr. Becker says in Ten Million Americans Have It, "It is not always possible to find spirochetes, even in lesions that are proved to be syphilitic. *** Failure to find the germs on a dark field examination does not necessarily mean that the lesion is not syphilitic."

Here, then, it fails to meet one of Koch's postulates — it is not always present where the disease is.

In his Shadow on the Land, Dr. Parran says: "During 50 years many investigators, among them the late, great Noguchi of Rockefeller Institute, have attempted to cultivate the spirochete outside the human body. Several have reported success with an organism which looks like the syphilis germ. Invariably it has proven nonvirulent. Experimental animals cannot be infected with it, only with human virus. This has led several workers, among them Levaditi, discoverer of the curative value of bismuth, to suggest that the visible spirillum is but one phase in the complicated life cycle of the spirochete, during part of which the organism exists in an ultramicroscopic stage, too small to be seen by the most powerful microscope."

Here, then, it would appear not to meet two more of Koch's postulates — (1) It does not seem to be susceptible of cultivation outside the body; and (2) if it is susceptible of such extra-somatic cultivation, it does not produce the disease it is supposed to cause when inoculated into the body. In all probability it is actually cultivated outside the body. Its non-virulence when inoculated into animals is the thing that causes physicians and bacteriologists to try to doubt that they are cultivating the right organism. They don't want to be forced to admit that their cause is no cause at all.

Dr. Becker tells us that the "syphilis germ" "itself has little tenacity except when well entrenched in the human body. * * * The germ probably never has been grown in virulent form in test tubes, although it is possible to infect certain laboratory animals, such as rabbits, mice, and apes, *** the spirochete of syphilis is not tenacious outside of the body, it dies quickly when it is allowed to dry, *** The germ of syphilis gives off little or no toxin (poison), *** It is no mere repetition of a trite expression to say they live in more or less complete harmony — the germs of the disease and the human body *** In connection with this, let us call attention to the fact that there is some evidence to support the theory that spiral form (spirocheti) is not the only form of the germ. *** It is possible that the germ of syphilis in other than the spiral form some day may be discovered."

There is not the slightest evidence that the spirochete exists in any other than the "cork-screw" form. The assumption that it does is essential to save the theory. No physician who values his professional standing would dare question this fallacy. Well does Dr. Tilden say, "The whole thing is Fool's Paradise. Why doesn't the profession know it? Because it is awed into worshipping authority; and into believing that to question the hallucinations of a moth-eaten laboratory professor is a sacrilege deserving of eternal damnation."

Dr. Becker says: "Already we have pointed out that syphilis is a disease peculiar to human beings. Animals in the natural course of existence do not have syphilis, although it has been found possible to infect certain species with the disease for research purposes. The course of syphilis in these animals is milder than in humans, and the infected animals slowly cure themselves without treatment."

Here is another of Koch's postulates the "infection" does not comply with; when the "human virus" is used to infect an animal, the resulting disease follows an entirely different course, recovers without treatment, as it will always do in a healthy human, and thus fails to provide any evidence of specificity.

The fact that animals, when "infected" with "syphilis" do not develop a virulent form of "the disease," as did sixteenth century Europeans, would suggest that the infection is not devastating in new soil. The absence of such virulent forms in so-called primitives to which "syphilis" has been carried during the past century suggests the same thing. Syphilographers make use of this subterfuge merely because they are hard-put to account for the vast difference between the sixteenth century form of "syphilis" and that of the twentieth.

Sir Wm. Power, British Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, was asked before the Royal Commission on Vivisection what he meant by "a definite specific organ-ism". He replied: "A definite organism which will react always in a certain way to a series of culture tests." He was then asked what diseases are associated with organisms for which such a test has been established. He replied: "I cannot say that we have got to that stage with any one of them."

They certainly have not reached that stage with the spirochete. It meets none of Koch's postulates and "syphilis," as described by medical authorities, never reacts the same in the human body. There is not a physician or a bacteriologist living who can honestly affirm that the spirochete has been definitely proven to cause "syphilis." If there is such a disease as "syphilis," its cause is simply not known.

[soilandhealth.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Posted by: John Rose ()
Date: September 19, 2021 11:08AM

[soilandhealth.org]
WHAT IS "SYPHILIS?"
Chapter XII


In his discussion of a number of the "unsolved problems" of "syphilis" Parran reveals how little they know and how uncertain is everything connected with "the disease." He and others tell us one "attack" of "syphilis" does not confer immunity against "reinfection." This refers to the absurd medical notion that certain diseases confer immunity to future attacks. There is not an iota of evidence in favor of this ancient superstition and every physician knows this. Yet they all subscribe to it in the case of a few diseases, although they freely confess that most of the "infections" do not confer immunity. The whole of the vaccine and serum practice is based on this insane notion.

There is considerable doubt about just when "the disease" is "infectious" and when it is not. Becker is sure that "late syphilitic lesions, even when ulcerative, are not infectious." Parran feels that, "best bet of all, from the public health point of view, the arsphenamines promptly render the syphilis patient noninfectious". He says, "studies of the Public Health Service, which are as yet incomplete, suggest that the seminal fluid of a syphilitic man is infectious several years after all open lesions have disappeared." Milk from a "syphilitic" woman is "infectious" unless she is under treatment. Everything is chaos.

Certainly nothing can be certain so long as so many hundreds of pathological conditions, developing anywhere in the body, at any age of life, perhaps without any known source of "infection" and no preceding symptoms, or years after the first symptoms have been superseded by what looks like health, and symptoms have been forgotten, are collected together and called "syphilis."

This prompts the question: What is "syphilis"? "Syphilis" is a weaving together of faith in a specific germ (formerly a mysterious poison), and a myriad of symptoms at all ages of life, plus a risk in branding possible children with "the disease" and the danger of infecting a loved one by a kiss, or by the use of comb, hair brush, drinking glass, or cooking utensil. Dr. Tilden says: "These beliefs cause nervous, imaginative people to build a living hell for themselves. To this hell of fear which is desperately enervating and ruinous to digestion and elimination, there is added the cursed drug habit, that cannot do less than further ruin digestion."

He wisely says: "It is attempted to be shown by writers that a hard chancre requires twenty-five days to develop. This is purely arbitrary and fictitious; for the class of men who contract syphilis would have to be sent to jail and a guard set to keep them away from women twenty-five days. To charge a suspicious intercourse, indulged in twenty-five days before a chancre develops, with being the cause of its development, is as far fetched as to single out one of twenty-five drinks, in a drinking bout, as being the one that caused the drunkenness."

Adenitis (swelling of the lymph glands adjacent to the chancre) is not uncommon. Every doctor sees patients with enlarged glands daily. They do not indicate syphilis. They may enlarge from a sore toe or from intestinal decomposition. They are not painful and may persist for months or years without the patient's knowledge. Who, then, asks Tilden, "is willing to say the glands were not enlarged before there was a chancre?" He is not.

In the "second stage" there are said to be such symptoms as skin eruptions, headache, rheumatic pains, falling hair, mucous patches, iritis, etc. Just as there is often no chancre, so, frequently there is no "second stage." The "second stage" never presents all of the above symptoms.

Skin lesions are due to drugs or to autointoxication. Dr. Alsaker says, "the skin and mucous lesions are built by mercury and not by the so-called syphilis." Mucous patches are frequently found in the mouths of people who have no venereal disease. Headache and rheumatoid pains may come from heavy eating and a sluggish portal circulation, or from deranged digestion due to fear and worry. Falling hair may be due to many causes. Alsaker says the falling hair is most often due to the "blood medicines." Iritis is often due to enervation from sexual excesses and to autointoxication. It is sometimes caused by alcohol.

There is not a symptom in the whole group that cannot be had without a preceding chancre, there is not one in the group that always follows, and many times none of them follow, the chancre. Dr. Tilden says, "the worst forms of syphilitic skin diseases are a compound of ignorance, bedrooms without ventilation, dirty beds, filthy underwear, no bathing, and harsh eating, mixed with physical degeneration from sexual debauchery." Again he says "the diseases described as due to syphilis can, everyone, be accounted for when such causes as fear, drugs, errors in eating, overstimulation by coffee, tea, alcoholics and tobacco, and sexual abuse are considered."

Because they persist in obscuring all diseases by drugs, medical men do not have any idea of the influence of sexual excesses, tobacco, alcoholics, food deficiencies, overeating of stimulating foods and other errors of life. Drugs not only mask symptoms, they produce symptoms of their own. Physicians, who day by day drug their patients, obscure the symptoms of disease by developing drug diseases. Much of "syphilis" is doctor made.

Dr. Alsaker says, "doctors have been building pathology for years, and this has resulted in symptoms so numerous and fantastic that they even astonish and confuse those who build them." Because doctors are so expert at building pathology they do not know what "syphilis" is. Dr. Tilden asks: "How many physicians have watched a case of syphilis from its beginning to its end without giving a dose of drugs? Not one! Then what are their opinions worth? The first day a drug is given in any disease, that day the disease is masked — it ceases to be a natural disease — and no physician is wise enough to tell what symptoms are from drugs, what from food, and what symptoms belong to the disease proper. As absurd as this statement makes the situation, the best physicians in the world demand that their opinions be taken on a subject that is masked, and as obscure as the incoherent mutterings of delirium."

"Syphilis" is said to pass through three stages — primary, secondary and tertiary. Between the second and third stages is a quiescent stage, which makes four stages in all. If the disease presents three stages, why do these three stages not develop? Patients cared for by natural methods do not develop any stages. Years ago Dr. Tilden, wrote: "Every one of these symptoms can be built without a chancre." Today the whole profession admits it. Indeed they now assert that the "third stage" may present the first evidence that the person has "syphilis." There is nothing uniform or regular about its development.

Let us look at a few of the "third stage" developments of "syphilis." Gummy tumors seen in this "stage" are due to nutritional perversion and are not confined to "syphilis."

"Syphilis" is accused of responsibility for much heart and arterial disease. Parran says the negro has blood vessels that "are particularly susceptible so that late syphilis brings with it crippling circulatory diseases." They have no means of determining in either whites or blacks when heart disease is due to "syphilis" and when due to other causes. It is all guess work. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 29, 1930, Dr. James B. Herrick tells us that the classification and nomenclature of heart disease "is very unsatisfactory." He adds, "the condition diagnosed aortic regurgitation by one is called by another syphilis of the aorta and aortic valves; by a third aortic leak *** ," etc. The heart and aorta are affected by toxins of many kinds, including alcohol, tobacco, and arsenic, and it is impossible for the physician to tell that "syphilis" is affecting the heart.

In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 2, 1937 (p. 1123), James E. Paullin, M.D., Professor of Clinical Medicine, Atlanta, Ga., says in an article on "Cardiovascular Syphilis," " *** In the detection of syphilitic aortitis, too much reliance must not be placed on the presence of a positive Wassermann reaction or on any other serologic test for syphilis. It is well known that from 10 to 20 percent of persons with latent cardiovascular syphilis will give a negative serologic reaction. *** A patient who has not had rheumatic heart disease, and does not have hypertension, but who does give a history of syphilitic infection and presents any three of the aforementioned symptoms or signs (symptoms that could apply to heart ailment from any cause), even in the absence of a positive Wassermann reaction, should receive the benefits (sic) of anti-syphilitic treatment."

Parran says that "among primitive races, syphilis seems to result in more skin lesions than among present-day white races. Conversely, involvement of the nervous system seems more frequent with us." Again, Paresis is more frequent in the white than in the colored race; more frequent in the male than in the female, ("The whole course of syphilis seems milder in women."winking smiley; more frequent among brain workers than among unskilled workers. On the other hand, Parran says that, due to the great pains to which nature has gone to protect the brain, "even with no treatment, this organism (the spirochete) passes the barrier, I should guess, in less than one case in three."

Dementia paralytica, or general paralysis, also known as paresis and softening of the brain, is said to be due to "syphilis." The discovery of what are called "lesions of tertiary syphilis" in three cases of dementia paralytica led to the belief that "syphilis" is etiologically related to paresis. There followed work by several "investigators," until now, paresis is said to always be due to "syphilis" and never to anything else.

It is true that in many cases there is no history of "syphilis" and in many cases the Wassermann and even the spinal test is negative. For instance, Becker says: "After the disease has been present for several years the blood test becomes negative in thirty percent of the cases, and in patients who have syphilis of the central nervous system up to forty percent of the blood tests are negative, although the spinal fluid may be strongly positive." Parran explains that for a long time after the nervous system becomes involved there may be no symptoms — "asymptomatic neuro-syphilis: found in one-half of the cases with a persistently positive blood Wassermann reaction. Even a negative Wassermann test is no insurance against trouble in the nervous system — nearly one-third of the patients with positive spinal fluid have it." Fox says: "Even the spinal examination may be negative."

It is claimed that the spirochetes are found in the central nervous system of these patients. This is not always true and it has not been definitely shown that the spirochetes cause "syphilis." In addition to this, post-mortems are not made on all the cases. Nonetheless the dogma has gone forth: no syphilis, no paresis.

In the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 6, 1936 (p. 806) an editorial discussion of "Syphilis and the Central Nervous System," says'"The question whether dementia paralytica and tabes are caused by the syphilitic toxin or by the direct action of spirochetes cannot be answered in the present state of our knowledge. There is no constant definite relationship between these neuro-syphilitic manifestations and the presence, number and distribution of the spirochetes in the tissues of the central nervous system."

These facts are alone enough to cast doubts upon the dogma, but few if any medical men ever entertain such doubts. The editorial continues: "Nonne emphatically rejects the idea of specifically neurotropic spirochetes. Patients who develop syphilis from the same source commonly develop different types of the disease. It is not unusual in conjugal syphilis to see one partner develop dementia paralytica and the other tabes."

Medical authorities claim that the incubation period of paresis is seven to ten years — occasionally two years or less. The editorial says that Nonne found "syphilitic areritis in one-third of the "early cases" in his material and that "cerebrospinal syphilis developed in about one half of them within the first three years. Acute syphilitic menengitis may be seen in a few months after the infection." Further on the editorial says: "Early menengitic symptoms are not necessarily an indication of later dementia paralytica or tabes. Brunsgaard states that normal cerebrospinal fluid in the early stage of the disease does not guarantee against later dementia paralytica or tabes. Nonne found that patients who exhibit signs of menengitis did not, as a rule, develop either tabes or dementia paralytica."

The editor adds that "social status, alcoholism, trauma, cultural status and the constitutional type do not seem to play any part as predisposing etiologic factors. He repeats Nonne's guess that "the spirochetes may remain dormant in the organism of patients, both untreated and treated, and that these spirochetes may later become activated, invade the blood and cause lesions of the central nervous system." Neither Nonne, nor anyone else ventures a guess as to what renders them dormant or what activates them. The whole thing is a guess.

The present propaganda emphasizes the need for early discovery and adequate treatment of "syphilis" to avoid the later development of tabes, paresis, etc. This plea is found in all literature intended for public consumption. The editorial above quoted is intended only for doctors and, therefore, does not have to hide the truth about the evil effects of this treatment and its failure to provide the protection they promise against, "neurosyphilis." It says: "Without in the least condemning the modern treatment of syphilis, the fact that it does not guarantee against dementia paralytica and tabes must be admitted on statistical evidence." When will the Parrans, Beckers, de Kruifs, Puseys, etc., develop enough honesty to tell the truth to the public? This editorial not only asserts the failure of "modern" treatment to prevent paresis and tabes, but points out that the treatment itself may help to cause these troubles. It says: "The question has been raised whether the antisyphilitic treatment itself was not a factor in the causation of late complications. A number of investigators state that in countries in which syphilis was treated poorly or not at all, and in which secondary and tertiary manifestations were common, the occurrence of tabes and dementia paralytica was rare."

The comparative absence of such conditions in non-treated or "poorly treated" groups should have aroused suspicions about the correctness of the medical dogma that tabes and paresis are always due to syphilis and never to anything else, as well as to suspicions about the effects of arsenic and bismuth on the nervous system. But the editorial runs away from these suspicions and goes off on a tangent. It adds: "These observations gave rise to the notion that mild syphilis predisposes to tabes and dementia paralytica. In an analysis of 1,278 cases of dementia paralytica and 1,372 cases of tabes seen in the course of fifty years, Nonne finds that in 80 percent there were no secondary symptoms."

Finally, the editorial says, "Brunsgaard reports the unique experience of the dermatologic clinic of the University of Oslo. Between 1891 and 1910, 2,181 patients suffering from primary and secondary syphilis were treated there on a hygienic constitutional regimen from which all available antisyphilitic remedies were excluded. Boeck, chief of the clinic, believed that the antisyphilitic remedies interfered with the regulating forces of the invaded organism and served to alter the course of the disease, thus leading to viscereal and neurosyphilitic complications. The analysis of this material shows that neurosyphilis developed in only 3.4 percent of the cases."

Unless we assume that physicians of Norway know more about hygiene and hygienic care of patients than the physicians of America do, we will be forced to assume that these Norwegian patients received very poor hygienic care and that under a genuinely hygienic program, the results would have been vastly superior to what the report indicates.

Meningo-vascular "syphilis" is a generalized inflammation with involvement of the optic nerve, resulting in loss of vision or blindness; and involvement of the eighth cranial or auditory nerve resulting in deafness. "Syphilis" is said to result in blindness in two chief ways: (1) by producing atrophy of the optic nerve, and (2) by producing in terstitial keratitis, a severe inflammation and subsequent clouding of the cornea. "Syphilis" is said to also often "attack" the iris, retina, motor nerves and ciliary body. "A visual defect occurs in practically every case of congenital syphilis."

So-called "syphilitic blindness" and deafness presents the usual uncertainties — frequent absence of a history of syphilis; frequent negative serologic tests, etc. Keratitis may be caused by many things; optic atrophy is a frequent result of arsenical poisoning.

"Syphilis" is claimed to affect the ears in much the same manner that it does the eyes and is held responsible for many cases of total or partial deafness. Otologists estimate that 80 percent of deafness is due to catarrh. Many things cause the other cases. That "syphilis" causes deafness is without foundation, except in medical imaginations.

The Journal of the American Medical Association. Sept. 4, 1937 (p. 782) prints a discussion on "Syphilis and Blindness, "by Dr. Louis Lehrfeld, of Philadelphia. Dr. Lehrfeld discusses a statistical investigation made on 600 cases of "syphilitic optic atrophy" which had just been completed at the Wells Hospital in Philadelphia. He says: "The most important conclusion of the survey is that the present day treatment of syphilitic patients having optic nerve involvement is entirely unsatisfactory so far as improvement of vision is concerned." Although, he claims the survey showed that the untreated cases became blind in five years while the treated cases became blind in eight, he casts doubts upon this statement by saying: "The preponderance of syphilitic optic atrophy among the white patients compared with the negroes, in whom syphilis is five times more prevalent, may be a basis for suspecting that present methods of treatment may precipitate early optic atrophy, while those who are lax in receiving treatment, particularly negroes, are less likely to develop optic atrophy. *** the present method of using arsenicals must be revised if we wish to reduce the percentage of blindness from syphilitic optic atrophy."

Elsewhere in this book we have presented evidence that arsenic produces optic atrophy. Dr. Lehrfeld's closing statement seems to refer to the same fact. What is needed, however, is not a revised method of using arsenic, but the complete cessation of its use. It is quite obvious that most of the pathology seen in so-called syphilis is doctor-made. Dr. Alsaker truly remarks: "The symptoms and pathology of syphilis described are not necessary, but they show what medical art can accomplish in building disease. If nature unaided produced the text-book pathology we would be forced to believe that chaos reigns supreme when syphilis is at the helm, but as most of the symptoms are protests by nature against meddlesome treatment such conclusions are not justified."

He adds: "It would require great professional skill to develop such a case ideally, and by ideally I mean in a way to conform to text-book descriptions. People who are much broken in health from excesses and improper living can have many marked symptoms without being under medical advice, but it will fail to act as the text-books say it should."

He thinks that: "Surely the medical profession should feel proud of its ability and power in creating so destructive a disease. By the aid of a few drugs they are able to conjure up conditions such as nature alone has never equalled, at least such as competent observers have never seen her equal in devilish grotesqueness when left to herself."

In the same vein, Tilden says: "Since giving up drugs I have learned that all formidable symptoms known as constitutional syphilis are compounds of fear, wrong life and drugs, and are very easy to overcome when I can have the patient's help — when the patient is willing to give up bad habits and learn to live normally and naturally."

"Syphilis" is a medical creation. It is medicine's contribution to civilization. The whole complex of symptoms and pathologies have been arbitrarily and artificially joined together by the syphilomaniacs of medicine and added to by their destructive treatment. "Syphilis" is doctor made and doctor perpetuated.

This being the case, we do not need laws to compel everybody to submit to repeated testings and treatings, but we need laws to restrain syphilophobic physicians from filling our minds with groundless fears and our bodies with deadly drugs. We need a treatment that will cure the profession of its belief in "syphilis;" one that will eliminate syphilophobia from their puny minds. We need a treatment that will cure the profession of its paranoia, of its delusion that it is commissioned by God to care for the race of man. Perhaps the only way to rid the world of "syphilis" is to shoot all the physicians of the world.

The American Journal of Syphilis (July 1929) carried a paper by Wm. C. Stoner, M.D., of St. Luke's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, in which he says: "Syphilis may be present without history of initial lesion or definite clinical manifestation; this is especially true in women. *** A negative Wassermann reaction does not necessarily rule out active syphilis which may include vascular (blood vessel) syphilis, neuro (nerve and brain) syphilis, or any other form of syphilis, therefore the test should be used only as one of the signs of syphilis. *** most so-called soft chancres are hard chancres and that a gonorrheal infection may obscure a coexisting syphilitic infection. *** the tendency in the so-called Wassermann test is to treat the test rather than the patient. *** a negative blood and negative cerebro-spinal fluid do not necessarily rule out cerebro-spinal syphilis."

Dr. Stoner says that "the most astounding thing" that his study of 340 cases representing all walks of life — laborer to big business man, banker, professional man, and the socially elite — was "the presence of syphilis in the supposed truthful individual who has lived well and no history of previous manifestations is obtainable."

If this does not represent a state of hopeless confusion, it is one of those "syphilitic brain storms" that syphilomaniac minds so frequently tell us of. One may have "syphilis" without ever having any clinical symptoms of it. Both the blood test and the spinal test may be negative. They know you have "syphilis" because, at forty you develop paresis or tabes. One may die at sixty or at eighty, of pneumonia, having lived all his life in utter ignorance of the fact that he contracted "syphilis" in his early teens when he innocently kissed the maid while mother was out. It is a mad man's dream — a nightmare, a humbug, a lie, a myth.


There is no history of infection. The tests mean nothing. The cause is uncertain. The clinical symptoms, if present, are not specific. No physician living can tell that his patient has syphilis." I challenge the entire medical world to prove that there ever has been, or is now, in any part of the world, a single case of the disease called "syphilis," as defined and described by "medical science;" I challenge them to prove that the whole thing is not a clever fabrication which has deluded even its fabricators.
[soilandhealth.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2021 11:09AM by John Rose.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Posted by: John Rose ()
Date: September 19, 2021 11:15AM

[soilandhealth.org]
ADDENDUM


"Knowing what excellent results can be obtained without using drugs which impair the health and sometimes blind or even kill the patient, I never now advise their use.

"That many in the profession are dissatisfied with the present drug treatment of syphilis is proved by the fact that less toxic drugs are, from time to time, recommended in medical journals as a cure for the disease.

"Needless to say, such an unreliable test as the Wassermann plays no part in the guidance of my treatment. Marshall and French, in their book, Syphilis and Venereal Diseases, utter a warning against the dangerous tendency at the present day to exalt the value of laboratory diagnosis and neglect that of clinical experience. M'Donagh of the London Lock Hospital has also shown the fallacy of relying upon the test, which is not a specific one. A positive Wassermann denotes an acid condition of the blood, a state which is common to numbers of diseases other than syphilis.

"Present-day treatment and laboratory diagnosis makes for damnable pessimism and degenerative disease of the nervous system. Again, a syphilitic suspect is kept under surveillance so long and tested so often that only the very strong-minded or callous can hope to avoid the depression of syphilophobia and its more or less acid condition of the blood, which so often spells a positive Wassermann.

* * *


"Those who talk learnedly of the incurability of syphilis without drugs base their opinions on what frequently happens in the case of patients feeding in the conventional manner, which, as I have already shown, makes for disease instead of health." — Major Reginal F. E. Austin, R.A.M.C. (Retired), M.R.C.S., Eng., L.R.C.P., Lond.

Formerly Clinical Assistant London Throat Hospital
Laryngologist and Otologist 3rd Lahore Division, India.
Staff Surgeon and Officer-in-Charge Station Family Hospitals, Jutogh, Kasauli and Calcutta
Lecturer on Anatomy and Physiology and the Art of Breathing to the Army
Physical Training Classes for Instructors, Kasauli
Officer Commanding British Station Hospitals, Calcutta
and Rangoon
.
[soilandhealth.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: TESTS THAT DO NOT TEST
Posted by: John Rose ()
Date: September 19, 2021 11:19AM

Here's a snippet from my file on "AIDS, Syphilis & Fasting":

In T. C. Fry's book, "The Great AIDS Hoax" he says, "They (the CDC) dismantled syphilis back in the late 70's and reintroduced it thusly:

1) The first stage of syphilis was introduced as herpes genitalis.
2) The second stage of syphilis which has been medically terme lyphadenopathy, was, after AIDS was already introduced as AIDS-Related Complex.
3) The tertiary stage of syphilis was reintroduced as AIDS in 1981.
4) The quaternary stage of syphilis called neurosyphilis, was reintroduced as AIDS dementia.

In "The Science and Fine Art of Fasting", Vol. lll of Vll, Copyright 1978, Dr. Herbert Shelton on page 358 wrote, "The value of fasting in the conditions labeled "syphilis" is beyond dispute. Nothing is more effective in the so-called primary and secondary stages. It is valuable also in the tertiary stage; but as this stage is due to drugs, its value is often less apparent."

Options: ReplyQuote


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.


Navigate Living and Raw Foods below:

Search Living and Raw Foods below:

Search Amazon.com for:

Eat more raw fruits and vegetables

Living and Raw Foods Button
1998 Living-Foods.com
All Rights Reserved

USE OF THIS SITE SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE DISCLAIMER.

Privacy Policy Statement

Eat more Raw Fruits and Vegetables