 |
|
Reply
| |
The facts are well established, almost everyone agrees. This is true of much of the scientific evidence I read (and I read through a lot of studies and reports). The "facts" are usually beyond question, but I have found a great deal of inconsistencies in the interpretations of the facts obtained. Let's look at the raw numbers from the "Tuskegee experiment," in which 399 poor and mostly illiterate African-American men who were said to have "syphilis" were not "treated" for it:
"By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis." (source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html). Note that 201 apparently healthy men were studied as controls, but I have not found information about how many of them died in that 40 year period (1932-1972), and of them, how many died of syphilic-like problems, if any.
I have also been unable to find evidence about the actual physical condition of the 399 men at the start of the experiment. Assuming that many already had symptoms of ill health, is it surprising that 128 were no longer alive 40 years later? And did others die, but not of "syphilis?" If "syphilis" is so contagious and deadly, why did only 40 of their wives become "infected," and of them, how many were said to have died of "syphilis?"
Using one's reasoning capacity at the most basic level, one has to question what we've been told about "syphilis." When I investigated this "infectious disease," it appeared to me that there is no one "syphilis" (similar to "HIV/AIDS") and that so much about it seems to be more about the problems of applying the scientific method to "disease" than anything else. Others have made this kind of point, some a very long time ago. For example, in 1938, the book, SYPHILIS: Werewolf of medicine: Is it a Mischievous Myth or a Malignant Monster, written by Herbert M. Shelton, was published. Below is a passage that is worth considering in the context of infectious diseases considered deadly or potentially deadly, yet which supposedly take long periods of time to kill the person:
QUOTE: 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. UNQUOTE.
Internet Source: http://www.whale.to/a/shelton_sy.html#Chapter_7.__WHAT_CAUSES_SYPHILIS_
|
|
 First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Now let's take a look at a description of "syphilis" from a major health agency's web site:
QUOTE:
SYMPTOMS
Syphilis is sometimes called "the great imitator" because it has so many possible symptoms, and its symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases. Having HIV infection at the same time can change the symptoms and course of syphilis. Syphilis (other than congenital syphilis) occurs in four stages that sometimes overlap.
Primary Syphilis
The first symptom of primary syphilis is often a small, round, firm ulcer called a chancre ("shanker") at the place where the bacteria entered your body. This place is usually the penis, vulva, or vagina, but chancres can also develop on the cervix, tongue, lips, or other parts of your body. Usually there is only one chancre, but sometimes they are many. Nearby lymph glands are often swollen. (Lymph glands, or nodes, are small bean-shaped organs of your immune system containing cells that help fight off germs. They are found throughout the body.) The chancre usually appears about 3 weeks after you're infected with the bacteria, but it can occur any time from 9 to 90 days after exposure.
Because chancres are usually painless and because a chancre can occur inside your body, you might not notice it. The chancre disappears in about 3 to 6 weeks whether or not you are treated. Thus, you can go through primary syphilis without symptoms or with only brief symptoms that you overlook. If, however, primary syphilis is not treated, the infection moves to the secondary stage.
Secondary syphilis
Most people with secondary syphilis have a non-itchy skin rash. Although the rash is usually on the palms of your hands and soles of your feet, it may cover your whole body or appear only in a few areas. The rash appears 2 to 10 weeks after the chancre, generally when the chancre is healing or already healed. Other common symptoms include sore throat, fatigue, headache, and swollen lymph glands. Less frequent symptoms include fever, aches, weight loss, hair loss, aching joints, or lesions (sores) in the mouth or genital area.
Your symptoms may be mild. The lesions of secondary syphilis contain many syphilis bacteria, and anyone who has contact with them can get syphilis. As with primary syphilis, secondary syphilis will disappear even without treatment. Without treatment, however, the infection will move to the next stages.
You may have recurrences of secondary syphilis.
Latent syphilis
The latent (hidden) stage of syphilis begins when symptoms of secondary syphilis are over.
In early latent syphilis, you may not have symptoms but the infection remains in your body. When you are in this stage, you can infect a sexual partner.
In late latent syphilis, the infection is quiet and the risk infecting a sexual partner is low or absent. If you don't get treated for latent syphilis, you will progress to tertiary syphilis, the most serious stage of the disease.
Tertiary syphilis
Even without treatment, only a minority of infected people develops the dreaded complications known as tertiary, or late, syphilis. In this stage, the bacteria will damage your heart, eyes, brain, nervous system, bones, joints, or almost any other part of your body. This damage can happen years or even decades after the primary stage. Late syphilis can result in mental illness, blindness, deafness, memory loss or other neurological problems, heart disease, and death. Late neurosyphilis (brain or spinal cord damage) is one of the most severe signs of this stage. UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdsyph.htm
|
|
Reply
| |
While I was talking to a friend about "syphilis" and "HIV/AIDS," he remarked that these kinds of conditions should be called "scumbagitis." I pointed out to him that some people, including children, are afflicted by these kinds of conditions without having willingly lived an unhealthy life. I also pointed out that I became afflicted with a nearly deadly disorder while trying to live the healthiest life possible. Moreover, the body can handle certain stressors better than others, so this kind of derogatory generalization is just not consistent with the evidence. However, my fear is that people who go to see doctors because they are in ill health are told that they need to take "medicines" that do more harm than good (in some cases, this is especially true if the drugs are taken for long periods of time). Why not explain to people that certain things they are doing should be stopped, while things that are avoided should be done? In my case, I wish someone would have told me that my diet was very low in salt, and that such a situation can lead to major problems in the long term.
It seems that in the case of "HIV/AIDS" and "syphilis," scientists had difficulty thinking outside the "germ theory" box when trying to determine causation. The Tuskegee experiment was certainly unethical, but is ignoring basic human reason also unethical, at least in this context? Isn't it obvious, just by looking at the Tuskegee numbers, that the "germ theory" explanation of "syphilis" cannot be correct? Of course, the NIH's description of "syphilis" is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. For instance, if it can remain "latent," and then it only "progresses" to the horrible "tertiary stage" in a small number of those "infected," it's clear that other factors are at work. Thus, the obvious question is (even if you believe in the NIH's claims), why not determine what leads to reactivation and progression to the tertiary stage? To my knowledge, no scientist has attempted this endeavor. How is this possible? Something is undeniably very wrong in the thought processes being employed in these matters. |
|
Reply
| |
Hans-
I agree with this all pretty much. When I had syphillis, and neurosyphillis both were said to be asymptomatic. I would have never thought to take a test for syphillis if I had not had a positive lyme disease test as well.
When the people from the health department called me they asked me if I had ever had any symptoms, including syphillitic ulcers, rashes, neurological problems, discharges, etc. I told them "no".
The only reason I got treated for syphillis and neurosyphillis were because I saw no reason not to, and I was warned about what could be one day in the future. There was no reason not to get treated, so I did.
Anywho, in addition to what you have written. Wasn't syphillis once treated with Mercury? I am almost positive that syphillis was once treated with Mercury. Couldn't that have caused some of the neurological problems they were documenting? Couldn't Mercury have caused almost any of the symptoms they were documenting? I realise during the Tunksgee study they did not provide treatment, but in the past such as the 1800s? |
|
Reply
| |
| Arsenic was the big "cure" for it in the early 1900s. Depending upon what problem the patient actually had, it might have been a cure. However, so much more is known now, down to the molecular level, that there is no reason to experiment with dangerous substances, seeking a magic pill of some sort. For example, and older relative of mine hasn't looked very healthy over the last couple of years, and recently broke her hip. The surgeon said that her bone was not healthy in general (not just the part that broke off). It was obvious to me that there was unhealthy biochemistry in her body for a while, and that often leads to bone problems, among other things. A rule of thumb is, if the biochemistry is healthy, germs are not an issue, or if they are, you will be very sick very quickly. This is why "syphilis" and "HIV/AIDS" demonstrate a lack of basic understanding. Something like Alzheimer's is understood as a long term process, though the plaque gets blamed. The plaque may be causing mental lapses, but the plaque forms for a reason, and I am interested in what the reason is, and if it can be prevented. Otherwise, you are at the mercy of "medicines" that usually have nasty side effects, might not work, or might not work for long, and even if they do work with minimal side effects, you may have sustained damage that was irreversible and needless. |
|
Reply
| |
There was an episode of the PBS TV series, "Frontline," entitled "The Lost Children of Rockland County, which was an account of a supposed syphilis epidemic among teenagers in an affluent, new suburb of Atlanta. I found an interesting commentary on this show, and I'll quote part of it below:
QUOTE: In 1999 the network broadcast an episode of Frontline that became legendary. Called "The Lost Children of Rockdale County," it centered on a teen syphilis outbreak in Conyers, Georgia, an exurb of Atlanta where vast acres of farmland have been converted into subdivisions of large, handsome houses, and where the three local high schools, flush with tax dollars, are among the best in the state. The show became a sensation, was repeatedly rebroadcast, and was featured on Oprah, where it was called a "must see for all parents."
"The Lost Children of Rockdale County" is a bizarre program that takes isolated teen depravity, anxious adult voyeurism, and an ever important dash of venereal disease and blends them into a vividly yellow piece of public-service journalism—one that typically exaggerates the what, and in so doing just as typically overlooks the why behind a less sensational but far more pervasive concern. The tale is told largely by middle-aged women who are at turns clinically matter-of-fact about and pruriently fascinated by what happened in Conyers. A small group of white girls from stupendously troubled families (the kids are described as "cherubic" for maximum effect) began meeting in one of the girls' houses after school—and sometimes in a motel room—to do drugs and service two groups of rough trade, one of local white boys, the other of African-American boys (a recent prison inmate among them) who commuted from a different part of the county to avail themselves of the girls. Oral sex wasn't the half of it—what these kids allegedly engaged in combined the degeneracy of a satanic cult with the agility of a Cirque du Soleil troupe. We are told that a common after-school activity in Conyers was "the sandwich," in which a girl would be simultaneously penetrated by as many as four boys (the fourth, apparently a Johnny-come-lately, would somehow shoehorn himself into an orifice already occupied by one of his pals). With the kids in Conyers exploiting virtually every known opening for sexual transmission, an outbreak was not unlikely. It spread to seventeen kids, who were treated and who recovered fully.
Four months after the Frontline documentary aired, Talk magazine published an essay called "The Sex Lives of Your Children." Its author, Lucinda Franks, described an upper-middle-class white world in which oral sex began at age twelve, and said—in perhaps the first published use of the term—that train parties abounded. For the sake of journalistic accuracy she reported a twelve-year-old girl's description of the taste of sperm, and during an NPR radio interview about her essay she referred to the Conyers incident in the wildly inaccurate way in which the episode had quickly passed into the national consciousness: in Rockdale County, Georgia, "a whole town—the kids came down with syphilis..."
In 2003 Oprah addressed the topic again: in an article in O magazine that she also featured on her television show. "Parents, brace yourselves," Oprah said. Teenagers are leading "double lives"—and we all need to get hip to the code words they use. The journalist who wrote the article got right to the point: A "tossed salad," for example, was "oral sex to the anus." A "dirty" girl was a diseased one. And a "rainbow party" was a blowjob party where the girls wore different-colored lipstick. UNQUOTE.
http://humanitiespolicy.unt.edu/blogs/index.php?blog=5&m=2006
My guess is that whatever "syphilis" was in this particular case, if it's even possible to talk of one "disease" entity amongst these teenagers, it involved an inflammatory response to exposure to a great deal of "foreign" substances, which can produce rashes on the skin, obviously. If a "germ" was the cause, then these kinds of instances should be much, much more common, and there should have been many of these "outbreaks" since then (more than 12 years ago now). Rather, these particular children stressed their bodies "beyond the breaking point" and symptoms developed. If they continued such behavior, I would not be surprised if "AIDS"-like conditions occurred, along with symptoms deemed to be those of "advanced syphilis," but "germs" are not the issue in these kinds of conditions. "Germs" can change if biochemical conditions are very stressful, and this can provoke an inflammatory response, but the underlying cause is the stress, not the "germs," which are ubiquitous in these kinds of "infectious diseases."
|
|
Reply
| | From:  gos2u | Sent: 1/2/2008 6:21 PM |
Jamie is correct. Syphilis was once treated with mercury, as well as arsenic. Indeed, the two toxins were often administered together as a cocktail. If I'm not mistaken, the syphilis medication Salvarsan included both active ingredients. --- Gos "Nobody here but us heretics..." |
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General