Talk:Syphilis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia CD Selection Syphilis is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Limerick

The limerick is amusing, but what's its copyright status? I found it on this web page dated 1997, but there's no indication of permission to re-use it. -- Ortonmc 03:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the limerick is amusing (and horrible) but it doesn't belong here in the encyclopdia. Instead there should be a "dry" summary of short and long term symptoms for men and women. Andries 11:52, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind the limerick. It shows how much this disease has to do with the culture of the time. Ksheka 11:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is claimed to be Victorian in origin (see http://www.simegen.com/pipermail/simegen-l/Week-of-Mon-20010409/002145.html ), which, if true, puts it in the public domain. -- The Anome 13:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This limerick is mentioned twice in the article. I removed the first section on it, since it seems excessively detailed for something so tangential to the topic. It also makes sense to note it under Art and Literature, rather than its own heading. However, it got replaced and I recieved a nastygram about removing it. So if anyone else agrees with me, they can remove it.

[edit] The photo

Can we link to this photo instead of displaying it? RickK 22:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I feel this photo would be better off with a link. Ditto with any other non-work-safe photos. Samboy 08:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about what people at work think about you, then why are you viewing an article about syphilis at work? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I, for one, view it in biology classes. It is then not very appropriate for close-ups of human genitalia to be displayed on my monitor, when one is discussing the biological properties of a disease. Ergo, put it in a link.--TVPR 08:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why? If you don't like vaginas there are plenty of other syphilis photos where it came from, but since syphilis is a STD I found a vagina more appropriate. Also this is an illness and showing the effects of such things are bound to show things that are not very nice looking. --Dittaeva 22:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How, exactly, is a vagina more appropriate than a penis to show the effects of an STD? Are you, perhaps, assuming that women are unclean? You sure as bloody hell sound like it, if I may say so. Respectfully, --TVPR 08:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The point is that we want to offer the reader the opportunity to look at "not very nice looking" things without depriving the reader of the opportunity not to look at "not very nice looking things". The best way to do this is to show a link rather than the "not very nice looking" thing itself on the initial page. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh's talk]] 23:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That is a point that applies to all articles with images that might be deemed "not very nice looking". I do not think the image looks so awful that it needs to be merely linked. Syphilis is a medical subject and an STD, and this is how many medical pictures look like. The reader does also have a choice not to read articles concerning STDs. Removing the picture will reduce its visibility and likely audience, and in my opinion will reduce the value and quality of the article. --Dittaeva 08:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I'd still like to know what kind of problems you have with the image, because, as I have already stated there are alternatives out there. Do you not want any "not very nice looking" images inline in articles on medical subjects? --Dittaeva 08:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's the point. We can use the photo by linking to it, instead of putting it directly onto the page where people who don't want to be grossed out don't have to look at it. RickK 19:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
And you think this should be done for all medical articles concerning subjects (and images) that people might be "grossed out" by? I understand verz well what you want to do, but let me ask you some direct and clear questions since you haven't answered my more general ones until now: 1. What exactly is it about the current picture that makes you want it linked and not inline? 2. Would you be willing to accept a non-genital syphilis picture inline? 3. Do you think it should be policy to link (instead of including inline) pictures that you think will "gross out" people in all articles? I am trying to work with you here, but until now you have just been repeating yourselves. I still do not think it is necessary to merely link this picture that might "gross out" people in an article that should have the potential to "gross out" people without the picture. --Dittaeva 22:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should be sensitive to our readers. [1] as you were the first to point out, it's not very nice looking (hereinafter referred to as repulsive). [2] not if it's not "gross". And I would oppose you removing a link to the current one. [3] It already is more or less the policy. The problem is defining the level of 'grossness' at which it takes effect. Beheading" videotapes seems to be agreed to be over that level, as are "beheading" photographs. A woman spreading her labia to reveal her clitoris with nail polish on is also over that level, while the same woman spreading her labia to reveal her clitoris with the nail polish Photoshopped out is below that level. I think the present photograph of condylomata lata falls above that level, and that inline inclusion makes people more likely to click away rather than continue to read it. Gross pictures are appropriate for medical texts, and less appropriate for encyclopedias. I'm also uncomfortable with the moralistic overtones of "wanting" to put repulsive photos into STD articles: we're trying to make an encyclopedia, not an army training film: we're here to disseminate knowledge about STDs, not scare people away from sex. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So I suppose it boils down to whether one find it above or under "the level", I find it is under, you and RickK think it is above. The moralistic overtones that you find in me "wanting" what you call repulsive photos probably comes from the excitement of opposing you guys, it is certainly not part of my POV. Anyhow, as I have said before, the archive where I found this picture have many other syphilis pictures, why don't you head over and try to find some that fits under "the level". BTW: I am aware that we are writing an encyclopedia. It would be nice if you linked the above mentioned examples.--Dittaeva 22:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's spread about in talk pages and their associated histories: Talk:Nick Berg for the beheading discussion, Talk:Clitoris (and the Village Pump and the English Wikipedia Mailing List) for the clitoris. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't really understand why do people oppose to linking the image : a link allows people who want to look at it to look at it, and people who don't want to see it just won't follow the link, whereas putting the image directly in the article forces them to see it. For me, giving the choice is obviously better, since it doesn't prevent people from seeing the image. Linking would give the choice instead of imposing the picture. → SeeSchloß 00:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I've listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. RickK 23:39, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

The article is categorized on "Infectious diseases", and this warns enough for the unadvised readers. Nobody is forced to read about syphilis. The article is clearly about biology (science), describing the symptoms of a very ugly disease. "The sore, called a chancre, is a firm, painless skin ulceration localized at the point of initial exposure to the bacterium, often on the penis, vagina or rectum." The readers interested in knowing more about this disease will appreciate the complementary images. A good encyclopedic article should be comprehesive and an image is worth 1000 words. I agree that removing the picture will reduce the quality of this article. --Vasile 01:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[1] Not all Infectious diseases articles will have repulsive pictures: one does not follow from the other [2] one learns what classification a pages is by viewing it...too late if you're basing your opinion to visit or not on its classification. [3] No one is talking about removing any images. They will all be there for those who wish to see them to view. They'll have to click their mouse button. - Nunh-huh
The content of the article is mainly medical. I suppose the esthetic principles aplies in science apart of the art. Those images are not art. --Vasile 12:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you think that someone looking for info on "Syphilis in art and literature" should expect to see such pictures ? And should be forced to see them ? I don't agree. → SeeSchloß 21:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We discuss about the article "Syphilis". Those pictures are related with chapter 2-"Stages of syphilis". Those pictures are very good in describing different stages of syphilis -the subject of this medical article. In a medical article about syphilis such pictures should be expected. Nobody could be forced to read this or any other article. --Vasile 02:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is not a "medical" text, and this is not simply a "medical" article. Among those pages from which syphilis is one click away are: Al Capone, Bacterium, Edgar Allen Poe, Edward VI of England, Howard Hughes, July 17, Jane Eyre, Honeysuckle, Pastoral, Recluse spider, and Magic bullet. - Nunh-huh 04:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully, this article may be extended becoming a simple medical article. --Vasile 02:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully not. In fact, not even a "medical" article would be complete without a historical overview, and not even in medical textbooks would such a section be omitted when discussing syphilis. Of course, a medical textbook wouldn't make mistakes like claiming a penis has primary syphilis or a vagina has secondary syphilis (a person may have primary or secondary syphilis, a penis can have a chancre, a lesion of primary syphilis, and a vagina (actually in this photograph I believe it's labia) can demonstrate condylomata lata, a lesion of secondary syphilis, but genitalia do not "have" either primary or secondary syphilis. Nor would your typical medical text illustrate the usual (one chancre per customer) with a photograph of the unusual (three chancres on one penis). - Nunh-huh 03:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative resolution

I am a bit disappointed at you guys, since it seems to me you do not want to resolve this, you'd rather have it your way. So since you are not trying to resolve this any other way than "the link way" I have come up with two other options:

1. Replace image with other image less repulsive: I have found Image:Penis_syphilis.png at PHIL which you might find less repulsive. I'd rather use that image anyhow because it depicts a penis which is more approriate since more men than women have syphilis.

2. Use very small thumbnail: This should grab more attention than a link, and look less repulsive.

I have just as well implemented the changes. I do not object to replacing the vaginal image with a link or removing it completely. --Dittaeva 21:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you seen any non-genital pictures of syphilis sores? --ssd 06:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there are many extragenital images where the two others came from, maybe we should find one more to include? --Dittaeva 13:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From RfC

I agree with Rick, Andries and company. The more grotesque elements of this article, including the pictures and the limerick, should be linked to with warning. No thumbnails. I agree with the general policy that non-work-safe images should not be placed on Wikipedia regardless of the article they belong to. –Floorsheim 05:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you and Samboy wrote an article on work-safe internet.

Okay. Looks like as per Vulva, Clitoris, and Penis, there's general agreement among the community in support of the inclusion of clinical photos. Is it possible to get one that's not quite so hideous as the vagina one, though? My opinion on the limerick remains unchanged. It's crude and has no place in an encyclopedia. Floorsheim 12:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can search for syphilis at the source of the vagina image, but I have tried and did not find any "less hideous" and equally illustrative.--Dittaeva 12:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I vote for a link. This looses nothing and gives people choice. Interestingly, I still have concerns about the photo of my newborn son I posted on caesarian section comments welcome on its talk page! best wishes Erich 21:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

actually change my mind, those tiny thumbs are fine, although the penis file size is ridiculously big - it should be JPEG not a PNG! but the limerick should go. completely innapropriate Erich 21:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The picture is PNG and big because I wanted to provide the loss-less original for anyone to use as they see fit, in one place. I agree that it is not very practical, but since its PD one might as well provide the best original available. I have also tried to solve the problem by including a fast-loading thumbnail, but since its on the bottom along with the description one has to kind of discover it. I don't think its necessary to do anything about it now, but I will request that the software display pictures underneath their description and not over. I think the limerick should stay. And BTW: PNG is more in line with the GNU FDL and the FOSS nature of Wikipedia.--Dittaeva 21:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've just re-read JPEG and the licencing concerns don't outway that the disadvantage of that huge file! surely? (btw thanks for the comments on the other photo) Erich 01:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No I don't think JPEG is a problem, but PNG is still better, but the reason I did what I did was that I wanted everyone to have access to the best version available without uploading several different versions. I have put up an enhancement "bug" at MediaZilla to address the issue in the software, if you'd like you can sign up and vote for it. --Dittaeva 16:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have a PNG original and JPG thumbnail? or is the size of the thumbnail a non-issue? --ssd 06:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the thumb could display in JPG I don't find that a problem, but is it doable without uploading a new JPEG version? (Another feature request?). If you are talking about uploading a new JPEG version I don't think its worth it.--Dittaeva 09:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Erich; I think the thumbnail works well... draws attention to it without being exposed in its full glory -- so to speak -- to people who'd be repulsed (and yes, I find that picture nauseating, but useful). Mindspillage 01:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dittaeva, let's hear why you think the limerick should stay. –Floorsheim 23:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ksheka, and I think removing it would reduce the quality of the article and reduce the information given. The Limerick gives a very good picture of how it could be have have syphilis at the time. But: I kind of agree with Andries too.
Conclusion if you:
  1. Copy the limerick to WikiSource."dry" summary of short and long term symptoms for men and women.
  2. Write "a "dry" summary of short and long term symptoms for men and women".
then I think you can replace the limerick with a link to it, but please, the above mentioned points should be carried out before replacing the limerick. --Dittaeva 16:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would be alright with something to that effect. Why don't you work on putting that together? For now, I'm going to go ahead and snip the limerick. I think the information currently in the main body of the article is extensive enough that we can afford to go without the limerick for now. –Floorsheim 11:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A limerick on syphilis

Quite a good description of how one might have suffered from syphilis back in the days before modern antibiotics. It starts out with him having a chancre; he goes on to develop secondary syphilis, losing his hair to secondary syphilis; following which he has all the common complications of tertiary syphilis before he ends up mad from neurosyphilis. The limerick also mentions his wife catching it from him and then passing it on to his children.

There was a young man of Back Bay, 
Who thought syphilis just went away,  
   And felt that a chancre,  
   Was merely a canker,  
Acquired in lascivious play.  
  
Now first he got acne vulgaris, 
The kind that is rampant in Paris,  
   It covered his skin,  
   From forehead to shin,  
And now people ask where his hair is.  
  
With symptoms increasing in number,  
His aorta's in need of a plumber,  
   His heart is cavorting,  
   His wife is aborting,  
And now he's acquired a gumma.  
  
Consider his terrible plight, 
His eyes won't react to the light,  
   His hands are apraxic,  
   His gait is ataxic,  
He's developing gun-barrel sight.  
  
His passions are strong, as before,  
But his penis is flaccid, and sore,  
   His wife now has tabes  
   And sabre-shinned babies, 
She's really worse off than a whore.  
  
There are pains in his belly and knees,  
His sphincters have gone by degrees,  
   Paroxysmal incontinence,  
   With all its concomitants,  
Brings on quite unpredictable pees.  
  
Though treated in every known way,  
His spirochetes grow day by day,  
   He's developed paresis,  
   Converses with Jesus,  
And thinks he's the Queen of the May.


[edit] Inconsistant information

The article on Friedrich Nietzsche referred to in this article points out that the insanity that Nietzsche suffered is not consistant with syphilis infection, and that the accusation that he was a syphilis sufferer is probably a canard perpetrated by his detractors.

From that article...

"While the story of syphilis indeed became generally accepted in the twentieth century, recent research in the Journal of Medical Biography shows that syphilis is not consistent with Nietzsche's symptoms, and that the contention that he had the disease originated in anti-Nietzschean tracts."

Perhaps the cross reference should be removed, or at least amended to indicate the questionable nature of the inference of syphilis?

Shokaman

I'd go ahead and do what you suggested (remove nietzsche reference), but you should probably check the validity of what you just quoted first. --Dittaeva 14:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You must consider that Nietzche's own sister did a major coverup of whatever was wrong with him after his death so that she could use his writings for her own pollitical agenda. I think it would be wrong to remove any reference for or against syphilis in his case until you had gotten multiple MODERN confirmations. And no, a single author on either side is not good enough. References to collected evidence should go on Talk:List of notable people identified as probably syphilitic. --ssd 05:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of images

I have reverted User:GenerlaPattons last edits because they were in complete disregard of the discussion that has been held here. The edits also crippled the article as links with image captions in the beginning of paragraphs is just unusable. Please add your conserns/objections/replies to the discussion first if you'd want to revert. --Dittaeva 21:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, i've got no reason to revert as i've started this policy discussion Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images that i hope will give us guidelines on how to deal with such issues in the future. I hope you, and others, join in the discussion. GeneralPatton 23:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to a header announcing that it contains these pictures? I think it's really not obvious that the article would contain such images—especially for those who, like myself, were previously unaware of how syphilis affects in the body.

It's an article about a sexually transmitted disease, so I think most readers would expect drawings or photos of genitalia. thx1138 12:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If there is support for such a header, how about the type of solution I crafted for Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse? Basically, we can make a version of the article with images suppressed by using the main article as a template. This does not duplicate the article, but creates a version without potentially offensive pictures. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not against having the images ... but I think their presence should be mentioned at the beginning of the article. I wasn't expecting to see them, myself... and it was kind of a shock 69.142.21.24

[edit] Syphilis in bones

I saw this picture [1] and i tried to think of how this disease affected the bones. I am somehow at a loss. Did it cut calcium intake? Would someone medically knowledgable include a more explicit sentence or two one how the bactaria affected bones please? That would make the article far more rich that most of the other writings out there

One of syphilis's major mechanisms of damage is through the formation of squishy painful lumps. (I seem to recall these are labeled tabes but I can't find a refernece for that.) These nodules can form anywhere -- on the surface of the skin, in nerve tissue (esp. the spine -- tabes dorsalis), in the heart muscle, and even in bones. The result of them in bones and joints is a painful arthritis. --ssd 04:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's more than one way for syphilis to produce bony manifestations, but the predominant one is the "gumma" or "gummatous lesion", which is a tumor-like inflammatory reaction provoked in direct response to the causative organism, the spirochete. If you look at a gumma under the microscope, you'll see dead cells (necrosis), epithelioid cells, and multinucleated giant cells, but you generally won't find the spirochete. Gummas in the knee were fairly common signs of advanced untreated syphilis. ("Tabes dorsalis" is a neurological manifestation of tertiary syphilis, but isn't itself related to any bony changes). - Nunh-huh 04:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I think gumma was what I was thinking. --ssd 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The reference at the beginning of this section has unlinked.

[edit] Bacteria ID

A recent anonymous changed the bacterium name for yaws in this article. I have no criteria to judge which is accurate and have no sources to hand. Any microbiologists out there??

Yaws (also Frambesia tropica, thymosis, polypapilloma tropicum or pian) is a tropical infection of the skin, bones and joints caused by the spirochete bacterium Treponema pertenue. Other treponematosis diseases are pinta (Treponema carateum) and syphilis (Treponema pallidum). - from the Yaws article.

WBardwin 03:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd fixed that one, but it didn't seem to "take": I've done it again now - taking the chance to remove tangential, though related, diseases out of the first paragraph. Treponema pertenue and Treponema pallidum pertenue indicate the same organism. - Nunh-huh 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

[edit] historically called lues?

Someone put "historically called lues" in the heading. Anyone have documentation of this, i havn't run into this term in the course of some pretty extensive research. If it was histoeically called lues, this wasn't an importnat term. If someone can argue this I will leave it, otherwise I will get rid of it soon.--Notenderwiggin 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lues is certainly one of the names Syphilis has gone by. As you probably know, there is quite a long list names that have been used. Lues is one of them. I'm not sure how it ranks as far as which is the most common, however. Hope that answers your question. sph.md
i've removed the reference to lues from the first sentance of the article. In my fairly extensive research on syphilis, lues doesn't strike me as a common name, "french pox or pox" was significantly more common in enlgish. I put it in the alternate name section - unsigned, by Notenderwiggin.
The name "lues" is far more significant than, say, "Miss Siff" which you left in the first sentence. I've replaced "lues" in its appropriately prominent section. I find it hard to believe anyone could pursue "extensive research" without encountering the word "lues". One place to start your research would have been a dictionary. "Lues" entered the English language in 1634; "syphilis" in 1718. "Lues" was the preferred term for centuries.- Nunh-huh 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
can you try to be less insulting? "miss siff" was not in the sentance when i did the edit, nor is it now. The current positioing of the term lues is fine, when I removed it the first line of the artilce was "syphilis, also called Lues". Although I am sure "lues" was a term used, it seems to be much less common that the term "the pox" or "french pox" in English. If you want a bibliography I can provide one, actually come to think of it I did provide several references. One of the characterstics of syphilis is a multiplicity of names, of which "lues" was only one and not the most important. Try working with people instead of insulting them. - (unsigned, by Notenderwiggin)
Lues is certainly one of the most important historical synonyms for syphilis. I'm glad you have no objection to the current article. - Nunh-huh 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I changed the history of Syphilis. Whoever posted the old history wrote that the columbian theory is weak and unsupported, wheras in reality is is probably more prevalent in scholarship today. I tried to be balanced in presenting both theories. User:Notenderwiggin

I moved this sentence from the head of the discussion page, placing it in date order and with a discussion topic. Please note significant history sections changes by the author above. Appears to me that too much was taken out of Pre-Columbian side of the controversy, which is hardly as weak today as the author seems to think. Will put some of the information back in. WBardwin 20:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the changes made by Notenderwiggin are very well balanced (and NPOV) and cover current evidence well. Perhaps too much was removed, but I don't think adding it back will make the article more well balanced. My personal feeling on this is that there was a more virulent strain in the new world, and although Christopher Columbus brought it back with him, it had been brought over first by others, but somehow did not reached epidemic levels and stayed local to where it landed previously. Perhaps the others were merely fishermen, where Columbus brought soldiers who traveled further when they came back. Similarly, there may have been cultural barriers to the disease's travel in ancient Greece. --ssd 21:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I left a note with the original author -- a brand new contributer!! -- and asked him to make changes before the rest of us chime in. I personally am on the Pre-Columbian side of the argument as there are too many human remains from historic and prehistoric Old World sites with evidence of congenital syphilis to call the disease new. However, from a biological point of view, some believe that a mutation from yaws produced the syphilis bug and that it has rapidly evolved in various niches worldwide ever since. See the Crosby reference. Having a New World strain collide with the Old World strain does seem a reasonable sequence, which perhaps led to the sudden explosion in Post-Columbian Europe. Consideration has to be made for the historic reporting problems with disease as well, as disease names were used very flexibly in the past. In particular, an accusation of syphilis infection was sometimes used as propoganda or a way of making a political enemy appear degenerate. Let's make these changes at a reasoned pace and try to present both sides of the issue. Comments welcome. WBardwin 23:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the third idea now presented in history -- neither side has the whole picture. I think it is very clear that Columbus brought it back with him and started an epidemic in Europe. It is less clear (though I have been convinced with recent evidence) that it was already in Europe, although perhaps not wide spread or in a virulent form. I have also seen evidence that it was in the new world pre-Columbus, in both a skin and STD form, both of which were virulent. Also, the natives seem to have had ways of keeping it under control (like, with hot baths). As I said, I feel the article is now balanced. It gives about equal space to all three views. I think giving more than that is excessive unless we're going to divote a whole article on the history of syphilis, and talking about any one view more is POV until the experts come to agreement on one of them, which I suspect is not possible without a time machine. --ssd 05:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, for that time machine!. History is full of mysteries like this one -- little dibs and dabs of information but never a real answer. Let's see if our new contributor makes some changes and I'll look for a few more current references on all points. A quote from Crosby article might go well -- as would some archaeological confirmation from earlier European periods. Thanks for the interest. WBardwin 05:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everybody, as noted I am a new Wiki contributer and am not sure of all the conventions yet. I tried to make the contribution balanced, I personally support the Crosby theory that Syphilis is a particular strain of Yaws that was brought back from the New World. If you think more evidence from the pre-columbian side should be put in then feel free to add it, but I think I left enough it there. I don't think we can go into to much more detail without creating a seperate page. If we want to create a new page for the History of Syphilis I could write some of the text, as it is an interest of mine, but I would need help creating a page and linking it properly. I think the really interesting thing is the spread of the epidemic from Naples and how the pathogen mutated so as be less virulent to spread itself better. I don't think we have room for this unless we start a new page though. Notenderwiggin 23:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back. When I get around to tracking down your Crosby reference, I might tack a little more information to this article. I like the idea of a entire category on the History and Impact of Disease. The social impact of plagues and outbreaks was a subspecialty of mine as an undergrad. I've been playing with this in the plague area - with special pages on the three major outbreaks. History of syphilis would also be good, and I would be glad to help too. We might want to look over the Columbian Exchange article. WBardwin 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take issue with the following statememt about the Columbian theory: "Although this evidence has been derided as "weak and circumstantial" ". It is highly misleading as it suggests the Columbian theory is not strongly supported. The literature searches and reading I have done frequently support the Colubmian theory - especially the most recent literature. I'm not suggesting it is or is not correct, I'll leave that to the experts in those fields but to suggest the theroy is weak is just wrong. I'll am removing that statement. -sph.md

The "weak and circumstantial" was from the history section before I rewrote it, whoever wrote it before me was a strong supporter of the pre-columbian hypothesis. I agree that the scientific consensus has moved towards the columbian thesis, but when i orginally re-wrote the section I wanted to include some of what the previous contributer had left. I agree with the deleteion.--Notenderwiggin 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Nietzsche and other Famous Persons who suffered from Syphilis

An anon removed Nietzsche from the syphilus sufferers section. I think it probably should go back in/and so I'm reverting. I've read a couple of books that assert he had the disease. Does anyone have any idea why it was removed or disagree with putting it back? (I admit to questioning whether the article needs the section at all - but that is for another day.) Comments welcome. WBardwin 04:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question is where did these books get that information from. You should see if you can check the original sources. This article claims that Nietzsche probably died of a brain tumor and that the syphilis story was created after the war by Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum. The article summarizes Dr. Sax's claims regarding why he believes Nietzsche's symptoms were inconsistent with syphilis. Also, according to the Nietzsche article: "One of the best arguments against the syphilis theory is summarized by Claudia Crawford in the book To Nietzsche: Dionysus, I Love You! Ariadne." Zensufi 02:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon's contribution starting a list of syphilis sufferers moved here for discussion (see below). (Additional ref: List of notable people identified as probably syphilitic.) I have concerns about such a list in this article, probably for both an emotional and historical research reason. First of all, it smacks of gossip. Accusations of syphilis infection were used to damage reputations and as propaganda throughout the history of the disease. And, consequently, people write about it almost with purient interest. Secondly, such accusations are nearly impossible to prove. Very few individuals were clearly identified by a medical source (iffy though they may have been) as syphilis sufferers during their lifetime. Should we have such a section here? Should we just refer to the above list? Should we build in caveats such as my concerns above? WBardwin 5 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics/Sources

"United States has reported over 32,000 cases of Syphilis in 2002 and the cases were reported from 16 countries and 1 city. The number of cases of syphilis happened 20 to 39 years of age. Female’s highest cases were 20 to 24 years of age. Male’s highest cases were 35 to 39 years of age. The cases of congenital syphilis decreased from 2001 to 2002 in 2001, there were 492 cases of congenital syphilis in the 2002 it became 412 new cases syphilis and for the adolescence including mid adults between the ages of 15 and 34 who are sexually active have the highest rates of syphilis."

Anon. contribution to article moved here. Sources not cited and information needs improvement/clarity. WBardwin 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Natchitoches, LA is the syphilis capitol of the world."

Anon. contribution to article moved here. Probable vandalism as no source or context cited. WBardwin 14:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Syphilis and malaria

Reportedly a dose of malaria was used to cure syphilis at one time. Is this true, and would it have worked?

Rather implausible. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't seem like a good idea now, but it certainly occurred. See From mercury to malaria to penicillin: The history of the treatment of syphilis at the Mayo Clinic, 1916–1955, which is cited in the article. It probably worked better than the equally improbable, yet true, concept of "bleeding" <g>. - Nunh-huh 00:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
And now bleeding is being explored in some controlled experiments, as a treatment for types of hypertension (these days, "blood donation" is the method). And leaches -- are starting to be used to improve blood circulation in reattached limbs, such as fingers. So things come around again!! WBardwin 18:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least the malaria "cure" has some obvious logic to its working - bleeding does not. Are there any other examples of one disease being used to cure another?

See 'TB may have killed off leprosy' at Talk:Tuberculosis and also see the malaria article section 'Sickle cell anemia and other genetic effects' having protection against malaria Petersam 06:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The theory is that malaria causes a very high fever that burns out syphilis. There is evidence also that very hot baths may also reduce the symptoms of syphilis, although they would not eliminate it, as the core body temperature (where the syphilis is living) would have to also go up. As to the other suggestions -- donating blood will certainly (temporarily) reduce blood pressure. Leeches are now used not so much to bleed a person but to increase the blood flow (as noted above), and are very effective at this. --ssd 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syphilis in literature

Maybe the section "Syphilis in art and literature" ought to include a reference to Thomas Mann's Doktor Faustus? The disease is an important theme in the novel and is remarkably explored, with allegorical connotations, in the book's central dialogue.

If we intend to include a complete catalog of literate references, might we also include Darla, who was infected with it when made a vampire in TV's "Angel"? Trekphiler 12:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In Breakfest of Champions, Kurt Vonnegut speaks of syphilitics and how when he was a child he thought they walked like robots.

This might be true; in the "tabes dorsalis" form of late syphilis, sensory messages from the feet don't reach the brain properly, and people may have to slap their feet to "hear themselves" walk. Sfahey 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] External Link

Moved external link from article for discussion, as it is not in English. Appears more appropriate for a sister wikipedia. WBardwin 18:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a few links in this section that go to pages that try and establish a causal link between T. pallidum and AIDS. I would have thought that this is more controversial than is acceptable for an encyclopedia. Could someone have another look at this please? 203.100.246.20 12:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed cities with highest rate

I removed this sentence: "The highest per capita ratio of syphilis in the United States can be found in Auburn, Alabama followed closely by Pahokee, Florida." This looks like vandalism meant to denigrate the two towns mentioned. If this is for real, please cite sources. FreplySpang (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it again just now. There doesn't seem to be anything I could find (through Google) to support this statement. Richard W.M. Jones 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syphilis & Paresis

I've seen the link credited to Krafft-Ebbing; his page doesn't mention it. Can anyone confirm? Trekphiler

[edit] Reference..

The second reference is incorrect, i've just been looking it up, and it should be "Baker, Brenda: Armelagos, George. The Origin and Antiquity of Syphilis: Paleopathological Diagnoses and Interpretation. Current Anthropology 29/5 (1988). " Also, i'm not sure if it is standard practice to include issue numbers, but it makes life easier.

nick


[edit] Leonardo di Vinci

"The name "syphilis" was first applied by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1530 from the name of a shepherd in a poem by Leonardo da Vinci."

Later

"In 1530, Girolamo Fracastoro, a physician and poet, wrote a poem from which syphilis derived its name."

...The first sentence is, at the very least, extremely awkwardly worded, and I suspect it to be downright inaccurate. Anyone know what's going on there? Adam Cuerden 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow party

Material moved from anon edit for discussion. I vaguely remember this or a similar incident from a TV news program. But I thought the kids were older. Notable? Verifiable? WBardwin 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In 2005, approximately twenty sixth grade students at Reading Fleming Middle School (now Reading Fleming Intermediate School) in Flemington, New Jersey contracted syphilis after attendeding a "rainbow party".
I don't really see much point in reporting every case of syphilis ever reported.... - Nunh-huh 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. There is no source, it sounds rather urban-legendlike, and a rainbow party is a sure ingredient for those kind of tales. Sure enough, Googling for the string Flemington "rainbow party" syphilis gives 0 hits. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Source from Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersy
http://central.hcrhs.k12.nj.us/bezsylko/discuss/msgReader$281?mode=day
I don't think a teacher would assign that if it wasn't true and, trust me, it is. One of my friend's sister's was one of the girls who contracted it. So, I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse it of being an "urban legend".

This is absolutely not a reliable source, apart from the fact that this received NO media coverage. Please stop reinserting this. When MMWR reports this, we can talk again. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys suck. (remaning unsigned potty mouth language by 205.247.5.97 removed)

Thanks for confirming the unreliability of this information. --ssd 12:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't wish to divulge my name, but I am a teacher at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey. The one who posted the information about the Rainbow Party was a student in my class and I just found out about this today. We were discussing STDs and STIs in class and I assigned a laptop project, so apparantly he felt the need to share this information with you. I ask you not to ban this IP, as it is school wide and you would be banning a good deal of our nearly 3,000 students from your website. In regards to the information he posted, no one in our community knows for certain whether or not this case did occur though I can tell you that there was a case of syphilis at the middle school this past fall. Whether or not it's due to a Rainbow Party remains to be seen, but again I ask you not to punish numerous students due to the actions of one. Thank you.

[edit] Origins. Children's teeth.

I remember seeing a documentary where they found signs of syphilis in children's teeth in Europe before contact with the new world. These signs are caused by women with syphilis giving it to their kids according to the documentary. --Gbleem 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incidence

This article should include information on the incidence of syphilis worldwide and in notable subpopulations.

[edit] Treatment

First of all I don't think any specific treatment regimen should be given here except perhaps for the injectable penicillins, but the mention of 'tetracyclines (100 mg orally twice a day for 14 days)' is outright wrong, as this is the treatment regime for doxycycline ONLY. Basic tetracycline or erythromycin will require 500 mg four times a day. This is a very serious error if someone would be foolish enough to try to self-medicate, or to be forced to do that in extreme circumstances.

[edit] "Sired by the Master"

The character of Darla in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel is a colonial-era prostitute dying of syphilis when she is sired by the Master.

I'm not familiar with the show, but this makes no sense. He sired her (became her father) while she was a prostitute? Ordinary Person 09:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "sired" means "made a vampire", but that's only because I used to play V:TM. It wouldn't make any sense to anyone who isn't informed on the minutiae of modern American pop culture.

[edit] "A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury"

I've found this article at a CDC site which sources the above saying. The source given is:

Rose Palmer 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/y/p/Talk%7ESyphilis_90a2.html"