1915 Journal of the American Medical Association  
unpleasant symptoms, and this form of treatment is not popular in this institution. Objective symptoms yield to this treatment, but such symptoms yield far more rapidly to the salvarsan treatment, and any belief that the effect of the salvar¬ san treatment is prolonged aided or reenforced by the mercury salicylate is certainly no longer tena¬ ble. In the light of our experience it seems improba¬ ble that the salicylate alone and unaided possesses any real curative value in this disease. + +
more » ... is disease. + + 4-4i ; who have had treatment before coming to us. The sali¬ cylate does not influence the serum reaction in these cases any more than it does in the cases here reported. In the table it will be noted that the serum reactions of some cases have varied from the double plus to the plus minus or minus, and later returned to the double plus while the treatment was in progress. It is our opinion that these variations in the serum reactions are due to other causes than the treatment.2 For if they were brought about by the treatment, then why should the double plus reaction again appear when the treatment was being vigorously carried on? We hesitate to say that we consider the unaided mercury salicylate treatment of syphilis to be without value, but feel that its value is so slight as to make it unworthy of the time spent in its administration. If we accept the Wassermann reaction as an indication of the presence of syphilis and of value as a guide in the control of the disease by treatment then it is certainly fair to believe that mercury salicylate used hypodermically in full doses over many weeks of time has little if any real influence on the disease. In the table will be seen Cases 17 and 24, giving two and three negative serum reactions. In both cases the men obtained clemency and were discharged from the prison at this period of treatment and we were unable to follow them further. It is our belief that a continued record in these two cases would undoubtedly have shown a positive reaction later in the treatment. Had they failed to do so they would have been the first to so record this treatment, for just this thing did occur in Cases 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 20, 25, 37 and 39. This also clearly establishes the value of more than one serum reaction and the error that would arise from the acceptance of a single negative reaction as final.
doi:10.1001/jama.1915.02580220046015 fatcat:g5dwk6lxpzeahlv6voafw47q6y