The Plague and Syphilis at the Cradle of Modernity

[Evola As He Is]

The Plague and Syphilis at the Cradle of Modernity

A Medical Interpretation of History

Introduction

To truly understand History special attention should be paid to what Julius Evola and others called the third dimension of History, i.e. to consider that actions and events may have hidden causes and consequences, invisible to the unaware observer and the “party historian”, whose historiography is often based, naively, on secondary and uncertain elements. The questions that will be investigated in this essay are the following. Could pathological factors have played a bigger role in the last few centuries than it is commonly assumed? It has been proven that numerous European kings and leaders suffered from a mental illness or a physical affliction, which of course affected their actions to more or less significant extent (1). Could the same have happened to a large part of the European peoples and modify the course of History on a large scale? More generally, from a traditional viewpoint, how have the deadliest diseases impacted Europe’s History? The two major diseases which will be examined are the plague and syphilis. The latter will be examined in greater length because we think that syphilis has been, so to speak, left out of the radar by all historians; and we think that syphilis, in a cycle characterized by the importance of sex and woman, has played a major and unsuspected role. The former has already been examined by a few writers; our text will be a summary but not only as a few new points will be made.

The plague

As we said, the first disease that will be examined is the black plague that spread in Europe during the fourteenth century. It came from Asia and it seems that it is traders who brought it to Europe and not rats as today’s historians pretend. It is the lack of borders and international trade which enabled the transmission. It is easy to notice the similarity with today’s open borders policy and “free trade”, as Europe is flooded with harmful junk coming from third world countries; not only with toxic toys but also defective key industrial components which go in sensitive industrial facilities.

Let us go back to the black plague. Dozens of millions of Europeans died in a few years. Many villages ceased to exist. The dysgenic results were obvious. Hundreds of thousands of old family lines disappeared. And there is ground to think that this epidemic is the root cause of the great acceleration in the racial “denordification” of Europe and the rise of the brachycephalic elements which took place during that time, as explained by race researcher de Lapouge (2), who, however, was unable to explain it. It was all the more catastrophic as a large part of Europe’s best racial stock had disappeared earlier during the “crusades”, fighting vainly in the desert sand; French historian Fernand Braudel has estimated that up to four or five million European men could have been killed in the crusades. Soon after the plague had disappeared, the surviving men and women, perhaps encouraged by the Church, felt that they had to repopulate the Earth and unions were more anarchical than in the past; twins and triplets were common (3).

However, these were not the only consequences of the black plague, as it seems that it sealed the death of medieval civilization and marked the beginning of a new cycle, whose nature was clearly more capitalist and bourgeois. Below are a few points which tend to indicate it.

Due to the great depopulation, serfdom gradually became obsolete and the aristocracy lost economic power and, as a result, a certain form of competition between aristocrats and peasants began. Aristocrats started looking for paid offices in cities while individual peasants could acquire wealth thanks to cheaper land prices and international trade due to the food surplus that could be sold abroad. Also, a large number of surviving individuals got rich through the inheritance that they obtained and indulged in a hedonistic lifestyle. However, even if many became much richer, the general living conditions had become worse, which increased the dysgenic effects. Aside from these socio-economic changes, general mental health of the population was durably affected and superstition increased. For example, because of the plague, up to 800,000 people in Germany and Northern France joined the ranks of the flagellants.

Another point is how the plague could have affected literature and how it was falsified. To take an example, the Valhalla and the Ragnarök concepts could have Christian origins for the following reason. It seems that Iceland (and Norway, too) was precisely the land which was the hardest hit by the plague as almost the whole of its population was destroyed (4). The question is whether this “apocalyptic” event could have had an influence on Nordic writings such as the Edda, which, however, official chronology assumes it was written in the thirteenth century. If it is really from the thirteenth century, could it have been altered to suit the new general mindset that was born out of the catastrophe? On a related subject, the black plague certainly made it easier for Christian evangelists to convert Scandinavia. Finally, it should be mentioned that several “recentists” have sought to reinterpret the black plague to fit their own particular scenario.

Syphilis

The second disease that we wish to examine is syphilis, whose uncertain origins have been generating a heated controversy for centuries. A summary can be found on the internet (5). It should be noted that, from what we have read, the history of syphilis is more complex and nuanced than what is summarized there. However, as this is off the subject, we will not talk much about it. We will simply say that the “Columbian theory” looks very plausible to us, and that the syphilis outbreak in Europe could have happened thanks to sexual relationships between “native Americans” and Colombus’ crew and soldiers. If so, thanks to Colombus, this would be the first American import to Europe.

The goal of this study is not to examine the obvious dysgenic effects and the negative social consequences of syphilis. It will instead examine the more or less hidden mental consequences of the malady and how it participated in triggering the “Renaissance”, as that era came to be called in the “syphilitic” nineteenth century (6).

The epidemics of 1494

Before talking about this, it is necessary to be factual and describe the syphilis epidemics of 1494. Historical research indicates that early syphilis, a few years on after 1494, was frequently deadly and extremely contagious. Historian Sabellicus estimated in 1502 that the twentieth of Europeans had syphilis; however, Albrecht Dürer wrote: “God save me from the French disease. I know of nothing of which I am so afraid… Nearly every man has it and it eats up so many that they die”; Erasmus, himself a late-stage syphilitic whose doctors were afraid to come close to him for fear of contracting the disease, wrote that it was “the disease that killed the most people”; and Leo Africanus estimated that nine tenths of the North Africans were infected. Regarding the Europeans, that is not surprising given their sexual habits, as finely illustrated in Guy Breton’s book “Histoire d’amour de l’histoire de France”. It should be mentioned that, obviously, it is very difficult to come up with a precise estimation of the number of people who were affected.

The malady evolved a lot overtime. It caused millions of deaths only during the first few years after the outbreak of 1494 and became less deadly as the decades passed, although this does not mean contagion ceased. As a contagious, hereditary, lifelong malady, syphilis was almost never cured effectively and consistently before the 1940s when it was found that penicillin worked as a healing drug. The most used form of treatment during the “Renaissance” was mercury; it was seldom effective and often aggravated the patient’s state; and if it was able in some cases to cure secondary syphilis, it did not prevent neurosyphilis according to modern scientists. These are the reasons why it is reasonable to assume that syphilis frequently persisted under hidden forms: "for the most part, after the initial chancre and rash had cleared up, the disease only showed such lesions when it relapsed during the first few years. Other than that, it was invisible and therefore secret, and although the victim was often dreadfully sick much of the time and complained of feeling poisoned, the aches and pains were rarely attributed to syphilis" (7). It was only in the nineteenth century that syphilis was recognized as having the potentiality to cause any disease; as such, it was nicknamed “the Great Imitator”. If syphilis often went undetected as the root cause of harsh physical sufferings, it is sound to assume that its consequences on mental health went undetected even more. They could have been even more invisible as they often may not have resulted in sheer dementia; syphilis does not alter clarity of mind, at least until the last stages of the disease. It is now time to describe what has been called neurosyphilis, which is at the core of the second part of this study.

Neurosyphilis as a mental disease

Neurosyphilis is the last stage of an untreated syphilis. It is likely to happen a few years after the initial infection if the first stages have not been lethal to the subject. The symptoms are diverse: “Prodromal or warning signs, often occurring over as much as a decade, may be obvious to family and friends, who are often shocked and confused when they observe long periods of extreme clarity and typical behavior alternating with episodes of bizarre, uninhibited, even criminal acts, and loss of previously held ethical values. William Osler described ‘a change in character (…) which may astonish the friends and relatives’ and warned to watch for ‘important indications of moral perversions manifested in offenses against decency’. In the final period close to the onset of paresis, mood shifts become more extreme as euphoria, electric excitement, bursts of creative energy, and grandiose self-reflections alternate with severe, often suicidal depression. Delusions of grandeur, paranoia, exaltation, irritability, rages, and irrational, antisocial behavior define the progression toward insanity. The patient may suddenly begin to gamble, go on absurd spending sprees, or imagine owning vast riches. A calm person becomes emotional, a neat person sloppy, a timid one aggressive. Here the condition is often misdiagnosed as paranoid persecutory psychosis or schizophrenia” (8). The same author also writes that “paresis often begins with a dramatic episode characterized by delusions; grandiosity; identification with religious, mythic, or royal figures; and sometimes rage and violent acts”. A medical encyclopedia mentions the following symptoms: “abnormal walk (gait), blindness, confusion, dementia, depression, headache, incontinence, inability to walk, irritability, numbness in the toes, feet, or leg, poor concentration, seizure, stiff neck, tremors, visual disturbances, weakness” (9). Other studies are more evocative and make a direct link between neurosyphilis and “creative, intellectual or philosophical activity” (10). The pathological manifestations that we will pay special attention to are, of course, of a mental nature. More precisely, it is about the influence of syphilis on the brain’s creative capabilities that we are going to examine – but not only however – because the “Renaissance” has been an era characterized by a great efflorescence in a number of areas.

The matter at hand is, firstly, to determine the extent to which neurosyphilis occurred in the sixteenth century and, secondly, the role it played in triggering the great upheavals of that time, namely the “Renaissance” and Protestantism, and, as a consequence, “our” modern world. The first question cannot be answered with certainty as neurosyphilis went undetected; that is the reason why data is unavailable. However, as millions of Europeans died from syphilis in a few decades, and as other hundreds of thousands caught syphilis but did not die, it is safe to assume that a large number of Europeans developed neurosyphilis. The second question is at the core of this essay and it will be discussed at greater length. We would like to say our readers that we do not state that syphilis always had a total influence on a person’s works – whatever these works were. We do not do any facile, simple-minded reductionism. However, we argue that syphilis’ influence should be revised upwards. We will conclude by saying that we hope that our study will not be accused of being “fanciful”; serious illnesses do have consequences on someone’s mental health and relationship to the world. Although the topic of syphilis is little-discussed and even less known by the medical community, a few medical practitioners have written interesting texts; for example, impressionist Edouard Manet, a few years before his death at the age of 51, as he had been eaten away by syphilis for the last 13 years, suddenly chose to paint still lifes and pretty girls, sometimes naked, which he had never done before when he was sound (11). Toulouse-Lautrec, another unfortunate painter, knew a similar fate. Born in 1864, the toll that syphilis had taken on his health became very visible as early as in the early 1890s; he caught it from his model-turned-mistress and, probably, prostitutes as well as it is known that he spent a lot of time studying brothels for his art. It is around that time that he created a series of paintings, called “Elles”, depicting the various occupants of the red light district in a sympathetic and humane way, which shocked the French society.

The impact of neurosyphilis in the “profane” world during the “Renaissance”

As a start to our investigation, the characteristics of the “Renaissance” must be briefly examined first and compared to the pathological phenomenon neurosyphilis induces. As for the various representative figures of that period, it is often not possible, due to the significant unavailability of unequivocal records, to determine whether this or that great figure had syphilis. We have found that the best method to reach some results was to examine their works, deeds and general behaviour. Of course it is not possible in this study to do it in a comprehensive way, as this would imply scrutinizing the biographies of hundreds of “Renaissance” men. That is why it can only be considered introductive (12). We will quote a few more extracts from J. Hayden’s book to illustrate how a retrospective diagnosis should be performed. “Often, having no reason to suspect it (syphilis) and seeing no whisper of it in the literary archive, they (biographers) just miss it. Sometimes it has been covered up or discreetly ignored out of consideration for family members still alive. Some have found it irrelevant. Others have cited it parenthetically, or in a footnote, or at most in paragraph, as if instead of being a life-changing and defining event, infection with syphilis was of no more importance than a passing head cold. And many have found mentioning it to be rude and inappropriate. The reluctance to attribute a shameful disease like syphilis to a great person, the danger that the work will in some way be linked to the disease, an oeuvre tainted and denigrated – all contribute to sparse references to syphilis.” (…) “The syphilologists left lists of questions to ask when interviewing a patient about a suspected syphilitic infection than can be modified for the retrospective biographer digging through a literary archive. First, was there a pattern of infection during youth? Look for indications of high-risk sexual behavior, especially with prostitutes; an admission of having syphilis, perhaps written circumspectly to a friend or close family member; or a diagnosis by a physician, even if revealed only posthumously. Was there at the possible time of infection a severe fever (typhus, typhoid, malaria) accompanied by extreme malaise? At any time were there indications of treatment with mercury or arsenic or, later, potassium iodide? Was there a sudden change from relatively good health to a lifetime of mysterious, painful ailments? Was there unexpected vow chastity? Social withdrawal? Sudden misanthropy, reworking of values, taking on (or casting off) of religion? Next, over the following decades, was the person subject to a wide variety of illnesses, in one part of the body after another, that were suspicion arousers of a developing case of syphilis? Were there episodes of bizarre, uncharacteristic behavior? In the later stages, were there personality changes that warned of approaching neurosyphilis: grandiosity, euphoria, rages, violent or criminal behavior, extreme depression? Or were there sharp and mysterious pains, acute gastrointestinal distress, or an imbalanced gait that warned of tabes dorsalis?” (…) “The following pattern of revelation is often seen when researching a biographical history where syphilis is suspected: 1. Keeping it secret: Although statements are made privately by friends and doctors, syphilis is not publicly acknowledged during a person’s lifetime. 2. Diagnosing it: The first medical biographies, often written with experience in long-term untreated syphilis, accept a diagnosis based on the mental and physical condition of the subject and on the statements of friends and doctors. 3. Ignoring it: Syphilis is then dropped by subsequent biographers, who for decades sideline the question of health in general as being rude or irrelevant. 4. Missing it: The file is reopened and a debate begins in the literature. Specialists not trained to identify syphilis, often harboring mistaken ideas about the disease, tend to look and reject each clue in turn without considering the larger pattern over the lifetime. Medical consensus runs against syphilis.”

As previously said, the main characteristic of the “Renaissance” is a great creative efflorescence in several domains. We will now examine in turns several of those and make inferences. We will begin with the world of the arts, although other areas will necessarily be approached in the meantime. The “Renaissance” – especially from the beginning of the sixteenth century – was characterized by an admiration of classical Antiquity, as it suddenly became worthy of attention and, for example, ancient mythology became respectable and was in some respects considered as prefiguring Christianity. That period came to be looked with envy and a number of “Renaissance” men identified with what they thought was Antiquity. That was not all: there was a will to recreate what was perceived as Antiquity. The result was a confused mix between Greco-Roman Antiquity themes, biblical themes and sixteenth century themes. That sudden exaltation for Greco-Roman Antiquity, which for its most part was previously held as infamous due to the supremacy of Christian theology, could be attributed to a certain extent to neurosyphilis, as it can produce such exaltation and “loss of previously held ethical values”. Also, that identification with mythological, extraordinary, legendary, figures is typical of neurosyphilis. Finally, that will oriented towards grandiosity, to – superficially – imitate Antiquity, and even recreate it, is clearly of a hubris nature generated to some extent by neurosyphilis.

“Renaissance” was also characterized by “humanism”. Let us focus on this word, which is recent, as we know that it was introduced in the French language by Pierre de Nolhac in 1886. Firstly, “humanism” means emancipating from various things. Secondly, it consists in exalting “human genius” and man’s creative power. Thirdly, it implies than every man must do all that he can to develop his own faculties. Historian Braudel wrote that “humanism” was always against something; against the submission to God; against any doctrine which would disregard man; against any system which would reduce man’s responsibility; etc. “Humanism” is always about claiming something; it is the fruit of pride, hubris.

As a result, in the world of the arts during the “Renaissance”, esthetics played a greater role and “profane” works became more numerous. Individual “man” appeared much more, be it in painting, sculpture or literary works. Painters and sculptors strove to reach a “perfect” realism in their works, which, in other words, amounted to recreate reality. That explains why scientific techniques and mathematical calculations were devised at that time by painters to reach “perfection”. The invention of all those techniques indicates that a great intellectual activity took place. And, as we will see further on, syphilitic man often has a great intellectual activity, if not voracity, as he wants to learn and know everything and be “universal”. We take this opportunity to remind that neurosyphilis, far from weakening one’s mental faculties, is likely to strongly increase them; a little-known but well-documented case is that of poet Heinrich Heine, whose neurosyphilis rendered him very prolific (13).

It is interesting to consider whether the Christian cathedrals, whose construction for many of them seems to actually have been started during the “Renaissance”, could be the product of the hubris that we have described, of that will to recreate what was the most visible of Greco-Roman Antiquity, that is the large monuments. For instance, the clergy of Beauvais in Northern France did build a cathedral whose spire was 153 metres high – however, the spire collapsed in 1573, four years after the completion of the works. The “gargoyles” and the other sculptures showing half-human half-animal creatures within cathedrals could be interpreted in the same vein, as the desire to create a new, hybrid being, thus imitating “God” who created humans, according to Christian theology. This general hypothesis is all the more sound since the priests and the prelates, far from being abstinent, suffered from syphilis as much as the rest of the population, if not more; we know well the story of young Cesare Borgia who was so disfigured by syphilis that he had to wear a facial mask.

Let us now focus on Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, three “big shots” of the “Renaissance”, and also “fathers” of modernity in a way, in order to illustrate what we have written. We have chosen these well-known individuals because we can access extensive biographical documents; however, through their individuality, we also wish to provide a general portrait of the time and the reader should considerate that what we are going to describe may have happened in one way or another to hundreds of thousands of people. Of course, we encourage our readers to perform similar investigations on famous or less-famous “Renaissance” characters.

Regarding Leonardo, it has been claimed that his mother may have been an Arab slave (14) and there is evidence that he indulged in homosexual debauchery in his youth (15). But historians have never agreed whether Leonardo was homosexual and whether in his adult life he remained chaste or not. Freud wrote an interesting book on Leonardo, “Eine Kindheitserinnerung des Leonardo da Vinci”, in which he argues that Leonardo was homosexual. In the possible case that Leonardo would have had a dissolute life in his early years and later stopped pursuing relationships altogether, this would be of significant importance because a sudden vow of chastity is, according to J. Hayden, a fact that medical biographers should not hesitate to interpret as the result of a syphilitic infection. Just by looking at Leonardo’s self-portrait we do think that he was syphilitic, as a scholar put it when he compared syphilitic Heinrich Heine to Leonardo: “Bloodshot eyes, violet lips, half-open eyelids gave him the sub-human appearance of a veiled and mysterious da Vinci” (16). It is also noteworthy that Leonardo suffered a progressive paralysis during the last few years of his life, a symptom typical of syphilis. That is not all. There are other elements of a more subtle nature which point to a syphilitic condition. Firstly, Leonardo’s eclecticism – he was, among other things, a painter, a sculptor, a musician, a poet, a philosopher, a writer, a scientist, an engineer, an architect, an inventor, a botanist and an anatomist – is a sign of intense intellectual activity, which could be caused by neurosyphilis. Secondly, as many syphilitic people, he showed in his works a marked, if not manic, interest for sex, although in the case of Leonardo it is more or less hidden. His drawing of the “Vitruvian man”, which has now become very famous and used by a variety of “counter-initiation” forces, is a good example of this tendency; in this drawing, which supposedly shows the analogy between man and the universe, it is the genitals of the crucified man which are at the centre. In passing, could the crucified man be the Christian God? Thirdly, Leonardo had a marked taste for ugliness and strangeness, which is visible in a number of his drawings representing freakish, monstrous faces and bodies, as well as in at least two of his paintings, Mona Lisa and St John, which are likely to represent androgynous persons. Such a taste can of course be correlated to neurosyphilis as this disease is likely to provoke not only severe depression and a constant state of anxiety but also makes the mind gravitate towards inverted, “negative”, if not evil, conceptions. We have mentioned the famous Mona Lisa portrait. We will analyze it, as a final point. The Mona Lisa portrait is known for being very enigmatic. There has been a lot of speculation about the real identity of the person painted – we say “person” because, as we have said, there is ground to assume it is an androgynous being. According to two prevalent theories, it could represent Leonardo himself or his mother. A proof of that would be that Mona Lisa was the work that Leonardo cherished the most. As such, he refused to hand it over to the man who had paid for it. And medical experts have concluded that the person painted was ridden with various diseases, including syphilis (17). As Leonardo was well-versed in anatomy, he could have represented these pathological symptoms without difficulties. Finally, we will mention that a group of scientists has recently sought to exhume Leonardo’s supposed remains in France in order to examine his bones and check any pathological conditions which may have caused his death (18). It seems that syphilis and tuberculosis were on top of their list.

It is generally admitted that Raphael died of syphilis at the age of 37, while his father, coincidentally, died in 1494, the year the epidemics began (19). As most artists of the time and perhaps today, he led a dissolute life and had several mistresses besides his fiancée, who also died of malady, just three months after him. We can trace the influence that syphilis had on Raphael’s works. Firstly, Raphael aspired to grandiosity, in the sense that he was greatly preoccupied by the appearance of his painting style and did not spare any effort to better it, so much that a critic said that he was the first artist to put beauty before thought, thus ending medieval art and beginning modernism (20). We are aware that such an aspiration may have other causes; however, as we have uncovered the powerful influence that syphilis carries, it is worth mentioning. Secondly, as with Manet and Toulouse-Lautrec, there has been a marked change in his paintings which had been so far for most of them of a religious nature and portraits of sovereign figures: three or four years before his death, probably as the physical pain and psychological torment increased, he started painting his mistresses either naked or making a gesture with sexual overtone (21).

The more we look into the lives of the men of the “Renaissance” who have been revered the more we discover how disreputable they actually were. Michelangelo is another shady character, which can be guessed simply by looking at his physiognomy (22); as a note, we will mention that he was involved in faking works of art and pass them off as coming from Antiquity. He was a homosexual and one “lover” of his has been identified; these are facts that historians have tried to hide until recently by arguing that he had no sexual life (23). Thus, there is a possibility that he caught syphilis. We also have a letter from a close friend of Michelangelo in which he celebrates the fact that the artist has been "cured of a malady from which few men recover" (24). To us, this malady can only be syphilis and the “recovery” the disappearance of some physical symptoms. Also, the fact that Michelangelo died at an old age and, it seems, without the physical symptoms that syphilis induces does not constitute a rebuttal to our theory because syphilis may manifest itself either physically or psychologically (25). And we are going to see how Michelangelo presented psychological symptoms typical of syphilis. Firstly, he identified with a god and made himself known as “Il Divino”. Secondly, as in the case of Leonardo, he was eclectic intellectually; he was not only a painter but also a sculptor, an architect and a poet. Thirdly, again as in the case of Leonardo, he had a marked taste for strangeness; his paintings are full of bizarre beings, such as those having a woman’s face and a man’s muscular body. Fourthly, he was asocial and a misanthrope, which can be, according to J. Hayden, caused by neurosyphilis. Finally, he had a marked interest for sexuality; for example, the nudes in his famous Last Judgment caused outrage and underpants were added later. Regarding that specific work, a contemporary of Michelangelo said it should be for “the public baths and the taverns” and not for a church. As for us, what caught our attention about this painting were the fear and the suffering which are present everywhere on it; these are the products of a brain ridden with dread. It is all the more true since Michelangelo was allowed by papal authorities to do as he liked to paint this fresco.

We will now discuss in a similar, synthetic fashion the world of literature during the sixteenth century and the early seventeenth century. We will approach various themes: poetry, theatre play, philosophy, novel, etc.

Poetry followed the same course which was explained a few paragraphs before: sexuality as a poetical theme became prevalent; feelings in general, especially suffering, became a theme worthy of poetry; Antiquity poets were imitated, sometimes in a bombastic way; many new poetical forms, as well as words, were created; the emphasis was put on external beauty; etc. Again, we think that it would not be imprudent to assert that “Renaissance” poetry was the product of syphilis to a large extent. We can reach such a conclusion only by scrutinizing the lives of a few of the poets of the era who, for many of them, had syphilis; we can see then that it was the true driving force which made them write poetry.

It is beyond a doubt – even if numerous biographical texts do not mention it – that the French “prince of poets and poet of princes”, Pierre de Ronsard, had syphilis. He suddenly became deaf in his late teenage years, which made him choose poetry as a “career” course, and, then, had various illnesses throughout his lifetime. This is not surprising as it seemed that he was sexually promiscuous; his notable work “Les Amours” is dedicated to, and mentions, at least a dozen of his female lovers. Ronsard was above all eclectic and showed a great intellectual activity. He strived to imitate Greco-Roman poets and surpass them. A bombastic work of his was “La Franciade”, an epic poem on the history of France mimicking Virgil’s Aenid. This work is typical of the hubris of the time because there simply was no historical reason to write such an epic poem; there was no Augustus who had restored, at least to some extent, France’s former grandiosity. It is also noteworthy that Ronsard and his colleagues of the group “La Pléïade” gave themselves the grandiose task to create a new French language, which was to be more polished than the “barbarian” language of the fifteenth century. How their work influenced the shaping of the ideas of the masses through language modification remains to be investigated.

Ronsard’s colleague, Joachim du Bellay, the “French Ovid”, also had syphilis, as his father perhaps. He also developed numerous pathological conditions throughout his life, which was short; he was eaten away much quicker than Ronsard as he died at the age of 37. His work is full of tales and complaints on his sufferings and his poor destiny, besides the numerous love stories. Or are these really about love? When “Renaissance” writers talk about love and employ words such as “burning”, “fire”, “contagion”, “disease” and “infection”, they may be talking about their own experience of syphilis and not so much about unrequited love. As many “Renaissance” men, he was enamored with what he thought was Greco-Roman Antiquity; following his stay in Rome, he wrote in a few poems how he was deeply disappointed that sixteenth-century Rome had nothing to do with what he thought that it was.

Although that he did not write only poetry, their most famous English counterpart was Shakespeare, the “founder of the English language”, whose syphilis can barely be doubted – if he really existed and authored all those texts, as indeed many critics have put into question Shakespeare’s very existence; others have proponed various original hypotheses, such as Martin Lings who argued that Shakespeare was a Sufi initiate (26); as this is not our subject, we will consider that Shakespeare was as he is described by official history. We do not have much work to do here because Shakespeare’s probable syphilis, as well as its influence on his work, has already been investigated in a 2005 academic paper (27). We will just say that Shakespeare’s disease may have had other, more subtle influences on his work that remain to be investigated; we will not do it as we do not have a thorough knowledge of Shakespeare’s works. We will now quote the abstract of this study: “Shakespeare’s obsessive interest in syphilis, his clinically exact knowledge of its manifestations, the final poems of the sonnets, and contemporary gossip all suggest that he was infected with ‘the infinite malady’. The psychological impact of venereal disease may explain the misogyny and revulsion from sex so prominent in the writings of Shakespeare’s tragic period. This article examines the possibility that Shakespeare received successful treatment for syphilis and advances the following new hypothesis: Shakespeare’s late-life decrease in artistic production, tremor, social withdrawal, and alopecia were due to mercury poisoning from syphilis treatment. He may also have had anasarca due to mercury-related membranous nephropathy. This medical misadventure may have prematurely ended the career of the greatest writer in the English language.” Other interesting passages include the following: “Fabricius concludes that the ‘picture of William Shakespeare is clearly that of a Bohemian and libertine who is the ringleader of an aristocratic jet set specializing in the courtship of beautiful ladies’ and implies that Shakespeare had venereal disease. However, the strongest evidence that Shakespeare had a sexually transmitted disease is that he tells us so himself, in the sonnets” and “Shakespeare’s fellow writers Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe, and George Peele all died young, apparently from syphilis acquired in the London brothels. Is there evidence that Shakespeare’s own lifestyle put him at risk for syphilis?”. The author of this study received criticism for interpreting Shakespeare’s life to some extent in terms of syphilis. The usual accusations of “insufficient evidence” and “extrapolation” were made. However, we are forced to extrapolate to a certain extent given that strictly medical data is often insufficient. This critique rather shows that truthfully analyzing the far-reaching role of syphilis amounts to revisionism; thus an “Establishment” scholar is not free to say how the “Renaissance” was to a certain extent the result of a disease.

Let us now uncover François Rabelais’s relationship with syphilis, which has been censored, ignored or downplayed by most scholars. The latter, however, have been praising Rabelais as one of the great writers and creators of modern European writing. To the best of our knowledge, there is no definite proof indicating that Rabelais had syphilis. However, his life path is telling, aside from his possible homosexuality (28). He suddenly became very interested in medicine, so much that he left his monastery to study medicine. Two years later, he became a medical doctor and in 1532 he chose to work in a public hospital in Lyon so that he could care for syphilitic patients; such a career choice is all the more strange since that, given his proven accomplishments and known connections, he could have pursued a comfortable monastic career, among other possibilities. That is not all. The very fact that he started writing books seems to have been caused by syphilis (29). Indeed, what most scholars have omitted to say about Rabelais’ books is that syphilis and syphilitics are everywhere in them. It is not the place to do a dry literary analysis. We will only say that Rabelais dedicates his books to syphilitics, whom he calls “mes amours”, and talks of them in a large number of passages, mostly to describe them and their sorry fate. Moreover, his books were especially written for them, to be read as an alleviating treatment; this practice was actually not so uncommon at the time; for example pregnant women used to “apply” to themselves the Life of Saint Margaret. Besides this medical side of Rabelais’ books, two elements are noteworthy in respect to the subject of this study. Firstly, the world that Rabelais constructed is particularly bizarre and one can wonder whether it is the product of disease. Secondly, Rabelais, a devout Christian and a former monk, bitterly attacked Christianity in his books, which is clearly a case of loss of previously held values. And, according to Hayden, casting off a religion may be the result of neurosyphilis. As a conclusion, would Rabelais, that “great writer and creator of modern European writing”, have written books if syphilis had not occurred? Probably not. And today’s readers of Rabelais do not know that they are reading medical literature.

Rabelais once wrote to Erasmus, the “Prince of Humanists”, – who popularized the word “syphilis” – that he regarded himself as his “spiritual child”, which is not surprising given their numerous similarities. Erasmus had a large number of mistresses and, as a consequence, had syphilis, as we said. However, we will not go into the detail of his life. We will only say that it is highly probable that neurosyphilis affected his life path: a former monk, he showed a great intellectual activity – as well as a great, disease-caused vanity and self-complacency – which he employed to attack the Church; he became the leader of a reactionary movement; he thought that reviving letters meant reviving Ancient Greece; he was obsessed with the salvation of the souls, going against scholasticism of the time which was busier having “metaphysical” speculations, etc.

We will stop here analyzing particular individuals who have shaped the worlds of arts and philosophy. However, what we have done could be repeated for many other notable individuals of the “Renaissance”. As two final examples, we could mention Montesquieu who alluded to his syphilis in his – raving – writings (30) and Machiavelli who felt the need to leave us the account of one of his numerous couplings with a prostitute: “His work accomplished, Cesare took to the streets. Machiavelli, his contemporary and a man with a wit as unflinching as his politics, has left a chilling account of his coupling with a prostitute who, when he lights a lamp afterwards, is revealed as a bald, toothless hag so hideous that he promptly throws up over her” (31). Machiavelli also left us a well-known description of how he spent his evenings and wrote “The Prince”: “On the coming of evening, I return to my house and enter my study; and at the door I take off the day's clothing, covered with mud and dust, and put on garments regal and courtly; and reclothed appropriately, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men, where, received by them with affection, I feed on that food which only is mine and which I was born for, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them the reason for their actions; and they in their kindness answer me; and for four hours of time I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not dread poverty, I am not frightened by death; entirely I give myself over to them. And because Dante says it does not produce knowledge when we hear but do not remember, I have noted everything in their conversation which has profited me, and have composed a little work On Princedoms, where I go as deeply as I can into considerations on this subject, debating what a princedom is, of what kinds they are, how they are gained, how they are kept, why they are lost.” Scholars and biographers alike have considered this passage only as being full of imagery. However, there may be a literal meaning behind these words given the pathological mental conditions Machiavelli probably endured. We also know that Machiavelli strongly identified with Polybius, while Erasmus chose Latin author Lucian, as did Rabelais and Bonaventure des Périers. Could Machiavelli have considered Polybius as his personal daemon, in a similar fashion to the daemon of Socrates? Moreover, the extent to which the humanists altered and falsified, to fit their own views, the writings of ancient authors remains to be ascertained.

We have chosen not analyze the pathological lives of the various European kings of the “Renaissance” even though their actions may have been strongly influenced by syphilis. This choice was explained by the simple fact that the actions of these sovereigns have not had an influence as durable as that of “philosophers” and “artists” who have strongly contributed to shape the forma mentis of the future generations. Hence our decision to examine only characters coming from the world of ideas.

The impact of neurosyphilis in the “sacred” world during the “Renaissance”

As was hinted at a few paragraphs up, we believe that neurosyphilis played a role in the creation of what came to be called Protestantism, which is, after all, only another form of “humanism”. It is probable that the founder of Protestantism, Luther, had syphilis even if, again, there is no definite proof. Several Luther biographers such as Denifle, Grisar and O’Hare (32) argued that he was syphilitic whereas others argued the contrary. The life of Luther must be analyzed carefully given the bias present in both Catholic and Protestant writings about him. However, in the case of his possible syphilis, the matter seems to be substantiated. O’Hare wrote the following: “By his own admission Luther made no scruple of drinking deeply in order to drive away temptations and melancholy, and whilst his enemies may have gone too far in charging him with gross immorality, there is, however, much in this direction which cannot be ignored or excused. His ghastly utterances, his bubbling over with obscenity, his boiling spring of sensuality were known to all, and it could not be wondered at if men thought that these defects could only be explained and partially defended on the ground of an abnormal sexual condition which was supposed to have been heightened by licentious irregularities. In the "Analecta Lutherana" by Theodore Kolde, there is a medical letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Magenbuch, Luther's physician, dated June II, 1523, taken from the Hamburg Town Library, which is of a character to make one wonder on reading it whether Luther did not at one period suffer from syphilis, at any rate in a mild form” (33).

There is more. A number of Luther’s acts and decisions, which historians have not explained in a satisfying manner, may have been the direct result of syphilis. We will not dwell on traits typical of neurosyphilis that he had his whole post-adolescent life: melancholy, despair, depression and frequent mood swings from cheerfulness to gloom. Overall, he was of a violent, despotic and uncontrolled nature. He had a titanic pride but he was also a tireless worker, a forceful writer and a great orator.

The first element of Luther’s life which will be examined is his becoming a monk. Nothing at all predisposed him to be a monk as, according to his father’s will, he was to work in the field of law. Luther’s behavioural dispositions were definitely not those expected of a monk, as his friends told him when they tried to dissuade him from entering the monastery during an unusual “farewell to the world” supper that he gave. However, despite everything, he suddenly chose to become a monk at the age of 22 (34). There are two reasons which are commonly given to explain this decision – that he was gradually attracted to theology though the study of philosophy and that during a thunderstorm a lightning bolt struck near him, which he saw as a divine call to the monastic life – but they bear little historical truth because Luther himself explained later in one of his letters why he took such a vow: “When I was over-stricken and overwhelmed by the fear of impending death, I made an involuntary and forced vow”. We propose that this fear of death – and thus his becoming a monk to seek a refuge and salvation eventually – was due to syphilis that he had contracted a few months or years before.

The second element that we wish to examine is his outlook towards himself and man in general, which of course durably affected Protestantism later. Luther himself admitted that he was driven into a religious career by despair (“I entered the monastery and renounced the world because I despaired of myself all the while”). He saw nothing in himself but sin and in the Christian God nothing but anger and revenge. He created his own mortification methods, which were very harsh, because, being original and self-opinionated and stubborn-minded, he disregarded the usual remedies which were encouraged in the monasteries. Eventually, as the disease was evolving on the mental plane, he developed his own religious conceptions – based to a large extent on the question of “salvation” – which necessarily reflected the opinion that he had of himself. He held that man was fundamentally of a corrupt nature; he wrote the following: “Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins even in his mother’s womb, when, as yet, a mere fetus, an impure mass of matter, before it becomes a human creature, it commits iniquity and incurs damnation. As he grows the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin, ‘Thou art my father’, and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms, ‘You are my brothers’, and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a dung-hill and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath.” Such a view can only have stemmed from a deep pathological state. As a consequence, “all action whatever, even that which is directed towards good, being an emanation from our corrupt nature, is, in the sight of God, nothing more or less than deadly sin: therefore our actions have no influence on our salvation; we are saved by faith alone without good works”. Predestination – that is the idea that man cannot shape his destiny – is the next step.

To sum up, we propose that Luther’s pessimistic and passive conception of man was the consequence of his syphilitic state.

The final element that we will examine is Luther’s rebellion against the established order, thus launching what later came to be called “Protestantism”. It is necessary first to remind that Luther created his own religious conceptions because he saw the Christian ones as ineffective and unable to “save” him. He eventually came to despise a large part of Christian theology, its doctrine of salvation particularly. He chose to strike it openly in 1517, after being a monk for twelve years. We propose that it is not by chance that Luther attacked first the indulgences, as they were closely linked to Luther’s obsession – salvation –, which were being sold in Germany by a papal commissioner. We also contend that “Protestantism” made progress not only because a large part of the people had had enough of Church abuse but also because at that time syphilis was hitting will full force every class of the people. Luther in a way allowed a greater propagation of the disease by insisting on the importance of faith alone – without the “good works” (35). In short, pleasure was given more space through “Protestantism”, which is perhaps one of the reasons why sex historically has been playing a greater role in certain Anglo-Saxon peoples, namely the English and the Americans, both in a repressive way – in Puritanism for example – and a favouring way – in modern American “culture” for example.

Syphilis in the next centuries

The ravage caused by syphilis of course continued in the next centuries but they will not be investigated in this study. We will only mention that neurosyphilis has played a role in certain decisive currents and events. The “French Revolution” – as well as other long-lasting revolutionary currents – is a striking example (36). The whole Romantic Movement – as well as other cultural phenomena such as the development of “classical music” – is another. As a final word, we would like to remind that History is shaped by only a few individualities whose mental health is of tremendous importance as it will affect their actions and, thus, the course of History. And, however, that is precisely the reason why one must remain cautious when the accusation of syphilis is launched against someone; it is used as a smear or a device to sell books. A notable example is Adolf Hitler who has been made a syphilitic by some historians, although there is no proof at all that it was so: “Morell (Hitler’s physician) routinely performed on Hitler both the Wassermann and Meinecke tests, which are tests for syphilis, and they came up negative in 1940. There is not the slightest hint of syphilis in Morell's diaries or in his medical notes on the man who was his patient from 1937 to 1945” (37).

Notes and references

1. Two books in French dealing with the subject extensively have been identified:
-http://archive.org/details/lhrditdesstigma00boucgoog
-http://archive.org/details/pathologiemental00brac
However, they contain a few inevitable mistakes; for example, the well-known prognathism of the Habsburg family should not be regarded as the consequence of a disease or “consanguinity” but of race mixing with non-European elements.
2. G. de Lapouge, Race et milieu social: évolution anthropologique de la population de la France, 1909.
« Le Moyen-Age a été une époque très belliqueuse: cependant le grand accroissement de la richesse et de la population jusqu'à la veille de la guerre de Cent ans montre que les pertes étaient promptement et amplement réparées. Certes l'état des choses n'était pas parfait, mais jamais, même sous la paix romaine, le pays n'avait connu une pareille prospérité et de si rapides progrès. L'émigration était faible, l'immigration purement individuelle et presque négligeable. L'institution du servage limitait beaucoup les déplacements intérieurs de population. Il ne semble pas y avoir jamais eu un temps où la population ait été plus stable. C'est cependant à cette époque que commence la plus remarquable transformation que l'on connaisse. L'élément brachycéphale qui, pour des raisons inconnues, commence à se multiplier dans des proportions si grandes, est notre Alpinus contemporain ».
3. A. Philippe, Histoire de la peste noire (1346-1350) d’après des documents inédits, 1853.
4. A. Philippe, ibid.
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis.
6. It is well understood from the author of this study that other, non pathological, factors allowed the “Renaissance” to happen; we do not claim that syphilis is the sole initiating factor of the “Renaissance”.
7. D. Hayden, Pox: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilis, 2003.
8. D. Hayden, ibid.
9. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001722/.
10. For example: www.academia.edu/1362620/Sex_Syphilis_Psychiatry_part_1.
11. peintresetsante.blogspot.com/2012/08/la-syphilis-dedouard-manet-1832-1883.html.
12. D. Hayden, in her book, proposes a method to determine whether a famous figure of the past had syphilis; however, she considers mostly individuals of the nineteenth century for whom detailed biographical documents are extant.
13. europepmc.org/articles/PMC1815551/pdf/procrsmed00307-0057.pdf.
14. www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/apr/12/art.italy.
15. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci's_personal_life#Leonardo.27s_sexuality.
16. europepmc.org/articles/PMC1815551/pdf/procrsmed00307-0057.pdf.
17. www.scientistsofamerica.com/?texte=26.
18. www.landrucimetieres.fr/spip/spip.php?article2430.
19. It seems that debauchery in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was even more prevalent in Italy than in France, especially among the well-off and the “artists”.
20. J. Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, National Library Association, 1853.
21. The sexual gesture is the right hand on the heart or on the breast, depending on how one interprets it. That gesture could also express a pathological condition.
22. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo-Buonarroti1.jpg.
23. They were not the only one to do it; a descendant of Michelangelo in the seventeenth century falsified his poetry, which was of homoerotic nature.
24. R. King, Michelangelo and Pope’s Ceiling, Pimlico, 2003, p. 185.
25. Painter Titian (1488-1576) knew a similar fate; he had syphilis but died old. We know from a visitor to his studio that he was exhausted from sleeping with his models and that, perhaps as payment for a cure, he painted the portrait of Girolamo Fracastoro, the doctor who coined the name for the sexually transmitted disease syphilis in his 1530 poem.
26. archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10805.
27. J. Ross, Shakespeare’s Chancre: Did the Bard Have Syphilis?, CID 2005:40 (1 February); cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/399.long.
28. www.academia.edu/3647301/Queer_Rabelais.
29. L. Randall, Representations of syphilis in sixteenth-century French literature, The University of Arizona, 1999, arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/284029.
30. R. Cottrell, Montaigne Studies - An Interdisciplany Forum (Vol. III), Ohio State University, 1991, p. 11.
31. www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/17/syphilis-sex-fear-borgias.
32. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/07/martin-luthers-syphilis-vs-syphilis-of.html.
33. P. F. O’Hare, The Facts about Luther, Frederick Pustet Inc., 1916.
Historian Grisar says the following:
The new material furnished by Theodore Kolde in his "Analecta Lutherana" consists of a medical letter of Wolfgang Rychardus to Johann Magenbuch dated June 11, 1523, taken from the Hamburg Town Library, and is of a character to make one wonder whether Luther did not at one period suffer from syphilis, at any rate in a mild form.
The circumstances of the letter are as follows: Luther was recovering from a serious attack of illness which he himself believed to be due to a bath. We learn from Melanchthon that this indisposition was accompanied by high fever. On May 24, however, the patient was able to report that he was better, but that he "was over-burdened with distracting labours." At that time a certain Apriolus, a renegade Franciscan and zealous disciple of Luther's (his real name was Johann Eberlin), was staying with Luther at Wittenberg. He forwarded detailed accounts of Luther's illness to a physician with whom he was intimate, Wolfgang Rychardus, at Ulm. Rychardus was also a great admirer of the Wittenberg professor and at the same time, as it would appear, a devoted friend of Melanchthon's. In consequence of Apriolus's reports he wrote the medical letter now in question to another physician then studying at Wittenberg, Johann Magenbuch of Blaubeuren, who also was intimate with the Wittenberg Reformers, had helped Melanchthon in his Greek lexicon with regard to the medical side, and was then in attendance on Luther. It was Magenbuch who had first brought Rychardus into touch with Luther, and both had already exchanged letters concerning him. Rychardus remained Luther's friend at a later date.
Rychardus wrote to the physician attending Luther, that he had heard of the illness of the new "Elias " (Luther), but now rejoices to learn he is convalescent. It was evident that God was preserving him. In the meantime, out of pity [in a letter not extant], Apriolus had given him various particulars concerning Luther's illness and his sleeplessness. He points out that it was not sufficient that Luther should only enjoy some sleep every second night, though, of course, his mental exertion explained his sleeplessness, hence, as a careful physician, he recommends his friend Magenbuch to give the patient a certain sleeping-draught, which he also describes, and with which Magenbuch ("qui medicum agis") must already be acquainted. "But if,' he says, "the pains of the French sickness disturb his sleep" these must be alleviated by means of a certain plaster, the mysterious components of which, comprising wine, quicksilver ("vinum sublimatum"), and other ingredients he fully describes; this would induce sleep which was absolutely essential for the restoration of health. "For God's sake take good care of Luther," he concludes, and adds greetings to Apriolus his informant.
Divergent interpretations have naturally been placed upon this letter by Luther's friends and enemies. It might have sufficed to detail the circumstances and the contents of the letter, did not the somewhat violent objections raised against the view, that, owing to the information given him by Apriolus, Rychardus took Luther to be suffering from the French sickness, render some further remarks necessary. It has been said that Luther was not ill at all at the time Rychardus wrote, but had recovered his health long before. It is true that in June, 1523, his life was no longer in danger, since Rychardus had heard from Giengerius, who came from the fair at Leipzig, that Elias had recovered ("convaluisse Helium"); but then his friend Apriolus forwarded the above disquieting accounts ("multa de valetudine adscripsit") which led Rychardus to write his letter, which in turn is an echo of his informant's letter. The circumstance that Luther was on the whole much better is therefore, as a matter of fact, of no importance.
It has also been said that "Rychardus can be understood as speaking in general terms without any reference to Luther." According to this view of the matter the physician's meaning would amount to this: "Luther must be made to sleep by means of the remedy well known to you [and which he describes], but if along with it ('cum hoc') the pains of the French sickness should disturb anyone's sleep, they must be allayed by a plaster," etc. It is surely all too evident that such an explanation is untenable.
Again, the word "if" has been emphasised; Rychardus does not say that Luther has syphilis, but that if he has it. But, as a matter of fact, he does not write "if he be suffering from it," but, "if this malady disturbs his sleep"; taken in connection with the account of the illness, supplied by Apriolus, the most natural (we do not, however, say necessary)interpretation to be placed on his words is that he was aware the patient was suffering from this malady, perhaps only slightly, yet sufficiently to endanger his sleep. "But if, when use is made of the sleeping-draught indicated, syphilis should prevent his sleeping," is surely a proviso which no physician would make in the case of a patient in whom syphilitic symptoms were not actually present; Rychardus would never have spoken of the "new Elias" in this way unless he had reason to believe in the existence of the malady. It would have been far-fetched to introduce the subject of so disgusting a complaint, and much more natural to speak of other commoner causes which might disturb sleep.
It must, however, be allowed, that, both before and after this letter was written, no trace of such an illness occurs in any of the documents concerning Luther. The "molestice " twice mentioned previously, which by some have been taken to refer to this malady, have, as a matter of fact, an altogether different meaning, which is clear from the context.
34. Luther would only start the “Reformation” in 1517, which means that he was a monk for more than twelve years – that must not be forgotten.
35. Luther also gained protection by favouring the lust of the higher classes; for instance he gave a dispensation to Philip of Hesse to commit bigamy.
36. New levels of sheer atrocity were reached during the “French Revolution” with, for example, “butchers” cutting and selling “aristocrat meat”. To what extent such actions were the result of pathological conditions?
37. www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/medical/Syphilis3.html

T. L., 2013

[Deleted]

In response to evolaasheis.proboards.com/thread/3/plague-syphilis-cradle-modernity:

Syphilis is a mythological disease which was created by medical science through centuries of painstaking effort. Its origin dates back to the latter part of the fifteenth century. Most authorities claim that Columbus and his fellow sailors caught it from the Indians. Then when they returned to Europe, they are said to have spread the disease among the members of that continent until it reached epidemic proportions. As the years rolled by new and more horrible stories were spread about syphilis. Eventually syphilis became a veritable nightmare, developing later into something like a mad man's dream with resulting hysterical mania, turning both doctors and their patients into Syphilimaniacs.

Medical works name local ulcers, swollen lymph glands, fever blisters, cold sores, tonsillitis, skin rash, fever, headaches, indigestion, loss of hair, partial or complete blindness, heart disease, locomotor ataxia, tumors, vague constitutional pains, rheumatism, enlarged liver, abdominal rheumatism, abdominal dropsy, apoplexy, Bright's disease and leukoplakia as the most common symptoms of syphilis, though others may also be present. In fact, the symptoms of syphilis are really the symptoms of every known disease. Sir William Osier called syphilis "the great imitator" because of its ability to imitate practically all diseases. Indeed, syphilis is a pathological mocking bird. Virtually all-pathological symptoms have at one time or another been ascribed to it. It has no specific symptoms which belong to it alone. Thus it cannot be defined or diagnosed on the basis of any symptoms which may happen to be present. In this sense it differs from all known disease; it is in a class by itself.

Tiny corkscrew bacteria known as spirochetes are referred to as the cause of syphilis. However, as Dr. Becker remarks in his 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." Syphilis then cannot be diagnosed on the basis of spirochete invasion. These bacteria may or may not be present. They cannot be a specific cause of syphilis.

In 1906 August von Wassermann and colleagues, Bruck and Neisser, announced to the medical world that they had discovered an accurate method of diagnosing syphilis. This method was known as the Wassermann blood test. It was supposed to reveal the blood changes which were assumed to follow "syphilitic infection." At first there was a good deal of enthusiasm over the Wasserman test, but now it is openly admitted that a positive reaction does not necessarily mean that a person has syphilis; nor is a negative reaction sufficient proof in itself that one is not syphilitic. A positive reaction to the Wassermann test is said to mean syphilis only if other evidence of syphilis are present. These other evidences include the presence of spirochetes as revealed in a dark field examination, a history of syphilis in the family, and the presence of abnormally large numbers of white blood cells in the spinal fluid. These evidences likewise denote syphilis only if each of the other evidences is present. Thus by putting together a group of uncertainties we are expected to arrive at a certainty. This is an impossibility in the field of science. A group of uncertainties simply creates more uncertainty, there is obviously no accurate method of diagnosing syphilis. No one can be sure he has syphilis and no one can be sure he hasn't. In fact, as a disease, syphilis cannot be defined. There are no specific symptoms which belong to it and no methods of diagnosis which indicate its presence. All is guesswork. Syphilis can only be called a fantasy; a product of the imagination.

Medical efforts to cure syphilis are directed at the destruction of spirochetes and towards changing the blood reaction to negative. A variety of drugs are used, including bismuth, inorganic potassium, inorganic iodine, inorganic arsenic compounds (chief in which is arsphenamine), mercury and penicillin. The most common toxic effects of bismuth are mental disease, skin diseases, ear diseases, glandular atrophy, indigestion, nervousness and inflamed membranes; those of mercury are irritation and degeneration of the kidneys; those of arsphenamine are severe skin inflammation, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, heart disease, difficult breathing, malignant growth, degeneration of the liver, atrophy of the optic nerve, jaundice, paralysis, insanity and inflammation of the kidneys. The toxic effects of penicillin will no doubt become better known as the drug comes into general use. Many of the symptoms of so-called "late" syphilis are nothing more than the toxic effects of the drugs used to treat syphilis in its early stages. The effects of these drugs will be felt on a national scale when the medical attempts to make tests and treatments for syphilis compulsory succeed. With compulsory treatment will come mass murder. Millions will lose their health and thousands will die either as direct or indirect result of drug poisoning.

There is no hygienic treatment of syphilis. Treating conditions which cannot be defined or diagnosed as diseases belongs to the world of the occult only. Blood tests should be forgotten; no one need worry if his blood serum gives a positive reaction and no effort need be made to kill spirochetes. The symptoms which may be associated with syphilitic diagnosis should, of course, be treated hygienically, as they would if syphilis did not exist. Build health and permit the body to eliminate disease symptoms, if any exist by giving it the best hygienic care. That is as far as anyone who has been diagnosed as syphilitic need go. Don't let a positive Wasserman test turn your life into a nightmare. Remember that syphilis is a figment of the mind which has no real existence. It is a clever fabrication which has deluded even its fabricators. It belongs to the category of the fairy, the devil and the werewolf.

www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Salubrious_Living.pdf

Note: the term 'hygienic' here refers to the principles of orthopathy (natural hygiene).

[Evola As He Is]

A number of elements of great importance were unknown to the author of this text, as well as, when it was published in French translation at elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/la-peste-et-la-syphilis-au-berceau-de-la-modernite/, to me, in order to fully identify the problem, about which I knew nothing, which, moreover, did not interest me particularly, and which came to my attention, thanks to our forum member revolvere, at the beginning of the ongoing experiment in simulated reality, that threatens to become, just as the revolution according to Marx, permanent.

I will limit myself here to two or three (see infra) references : the Swiss medical anthropologist Jean-Dominique Michel (see jdmichel.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2020/03/24/covid-19-the-game-is-over-305275.html and www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MqArCjrkmI – I believe English subtitles may be activated one way or another) and Virus Mania, a presentation of which is available at www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/download/virus-mania-aboutthebook-en.pdf. Here is the first chapter of the book (without notes and illustrations):



Medicine Presents a Distorted Picture of Microbes



"The gods are innocent of man's suffering. Our diseases and physical pains are the products of excess!" Pythagoras (570 - 510 B.C.)



"The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything

Pasteur



'Where there is life, there are germs."

Robinson Verner



"Diet clearly has a major influence on many diseases and modulates the complex internal community of microorganisms. These microorganisms, weighing up to 1 kg in a normal adult human, may total lOO trillion cells."

Jeremy Nicholson Professor of Biochemistry


Microbes: Branded as Scapegoats People are very susceptible to the idea that certain microbes act like predators, stalking our communities for victims and causing the most serious illnesses like SARS (pulmonary infection) or hepatitis C (liver damage) . Such an idea is thoroughly simple, perhaps too simple. As psychology and social science have discovered, humans have a propensity for simplistic solutions, particularly in a world that seems to be growing increasingly complicated.4 It also allows for a concept of the "enemy at the gates" allowing individuals to shift responsibility for their illnesses to a fungus, a bacteria or a virus. "Man prefers to perish rather than change his habits !" the author Leo Tolstoy once said.

But this scapegoat thinking has often led humanity astray, be it in personal life, in science or in politics. Fishermen and politicians both earnestly assert that seals and dolphins contribute to the depletion of ocean fish stocks. So, each year in Canada, one hundred thousand seals-often just a few days old-are battered to death, 5 while every autumn in Japan, thousands of dolphins are hacked apart while still alive.

But in their blind hate for the animals, the slaughterers completely overlook the fact that it is their own species-Homo sapiens-is responsible for the state of our oceans and that through massive overexploitation and high-technology catchmethods, we have plundered the world's fish stocks. A German-Canadian study that appeared in Nature in 2003, found that industrialized fishing has dramatically reduced the stocks of predators like tuna and swordfishes, marlins, cod, halibut, ray and flounder in the world's oceans since the beginning of commercial fishing in the 1950s-by no less than 90%.

Our modern concept of the lethal microbes similarly avoids the big picture issues. Some can be harmful; nevertheless, it is negligent to ignore the role individual behaviors (nutrition, drug consumption, etc.) play instead of simply pointing a finger at these microorganisms. "Whether the method of treatment affects the animal predators in the wilderness or the bacteria in the gut, it is always risky to tamper with the natural balance of forces in nature," writes microbiologist and Pulitzer Prize winner Rene Dubos.

Medical and biological realities, like social ones, are just not that simple. Renowned immunology and biology professor Edward Golub's rule of thumb is that, "if you can fit the solution to a complex problem on a bumper sticker, it is wrong! I tried to condense my book The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure to fit onto a bumper sticker and couldn't."

The complexities of the world-and above all, the living world-might seem too difficult for any one individual to grasp with even approximate comprehension. Informing ourselves on economics, culture, politics and medical science seems incredibly daunting. Man "is not an Aristotelian god that encompasses all existence; he is a creature with a development who can only comprehend a fraction of reality," writes social psychologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. Supposed experts are no exception. Most doctors themselves, for instance, have hardly more than a lay understanding of the concepts that loom on the horizons of molecular biology, including research into microbes and their role in the onset of diseases. Correspondingly, if you asked most doctors to define the unmistakable characteristics of retroviruses (HIV, for example, is claimed to be one), they'd most likely shrug their shoulders or throw out a bewildering cryptic response. Another challenge for many doctors would be a description of how the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) functions, even though it developed into a key technology in molecular biology in the 1990s, and is brought up again and again in connection with the alleged discovery of the so-called avian flu virus HSNl (on PCR, see chapter 3, about the "miracle weapons" of the epidemic inventors).

Ignorance and the desire for oversimplification are root problems in medical science. As early as 1916, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein remarked in his diary: "Humanity has always searched for a science in which simplex sigillum veri ist," essentially meaning, "simplicity is a mark of truth." And microbe theory fits exactly into this scheme: one disease, one agent as cause-and ultimately, one miracle pill or vaccine as a solution.

But this oversimplification belies the goings-on in the "invisible" micro-world of cells and molecules. The living world-on both a small and large scale-is just much more complicated than medical science and the media lets on. For this reason, as biochemist Erwin Chargaff points out, "The attempt to find symmetry and simplicity in the world's Jiving tissue has often led to false conclusions." There are even a few people who believe that what is now called 'molecular biology' encompasses all life sciences. But that is not the case, except on a superficial level: everything we can see in our world is somehow made up of molecules. But is that all? Can we describe music by saying that all instruments are made of wood, brass, and so on, and that because of that they produce their sounds?"

Biology-the science of life-isn't even capable of defining its own object of research: life. "We do not have a scientific definition of life," as Erwin Chargaff states. And "indeed, the most precise tests are carried out on dead cells and tissues." This phenomenon is particularly virulent in bacterial and viral research (and in the whole pharmaceutical development of medicines altogether) where laboratory experiments on tissue samples which are tormented with a variety of often highly reactive chemicals allow few conclusions about reality. And yet, conclusions are constantly drawn-and then passed straight on to the production of medications and vaccines.



Fungi: As in the Forest, So in the Human Body



It's ultimately impossible to find out exactly everything that microbes get up to on a cellular and molecular level in living people or animals. To do this, you would have to chase every single microbe around with mini-cameras. And even if it were possible, you'd merely have little pieces of a puzzle, not an intricate blueprint of the body in its entirety. By focusing on microbes and accusing them of being the primary and lone triggers of disease, we overlook how various factors are linked together, causing illness, such as environmental toxins, the side effects of medications, psychological issues like depression and anxiety and poor nutrition.

If over a longer period of time, for instance, you eat far too little fresh fruits and vegetables, and instead consume far too much fast food, sweets, coffee, soft drinks, or alcohol (and along with them, all sorts of toxins such as pesticides or preservatives) , and maybe smoke a lot or even take drugs like cocaine or heroin, your health will eventually be ruined. Drug-addicted and malnourished junkies aren't the only members of society who make this point clear to us. It was also tangibly presented in the 2004 film Super Size Me, in which American Morgan Spurlock-the film's director and guinea pig rolled into one-consumed only fast food from McDonald's for 30 days. The result: Spurlock gained 12 kg, his liver fat values were equivalent to those of an alcoholic, his cholesterol increased, he became depressed, suffered from severe headaches and erectile dysfunction.

Despite its drastic effects, people still become addicted to this protein and fatcontaining and simultaneously nutrient-deficient fooqstuff. Certainly that has something to do with the fact that fast-food corporations with an annual advertising budget of over $1.4 billion, purposefully and successfully target the smallest consumers (while the US government provides an advertising budget of merely $2 million for their campaign "Fruit and Vegetables-five times a day"). As laboratory studies on rats and mice show, the contents of hamburgers and French fries can cause reactions in the body that are similar to that of heroin addiction, 17 which has been proven to have a destructive effect upon the immune system.18 Significant components in the onset of addiction, according to researchers, are processed ingredients. "A diet containing salt, sugar and fats caused the animals to become addicted to these foodstuffs," says Ann Kelley, a neurologist at the Wisconsin Medical School who observed alterations in brain chemistry in long-term test series that were similar to long-term use of morphine or heroin.

Sugar "is in a position to be a 'gateway' to other drugs, legal or illegal," according to Thomas Kroiss, president of the Austrian Society for holistic medicine. Sugar robs vitamins from the body, which influences mood as well. Although it is popular in Western cultures it doesn't exist at all in nature, and causes an imbalance when regularly consumed.

This prompted the journal New Scientist to write that fast foods, like cigarettes, should carry a health advisory warning. But instead of providing more information and carrying out more research (not least into the influence of animal proteins on health not just those found in burgers) on the many dangers of fast foods, McDonald's continues luring children with "Happy Meals" and even promotes the brand by sponsoring large sporting events.

One such event was the Football World Cup 2006 in Germany, which was supposed to be all about sport-and by extension health. To to push its image as a promoter of health, the fast food giant has founded a children's aid program, "McDonald's Kinderhilfe"-for sick children who, according to the fast food giant, "need one thing above all: love and security." Super-celebrities such as athletes Michael Ballack, Henry Maske, Miroslav Klose and Katarina Witt, as well as supermodel Heidi Klum and the world-famous vocal trio Destiny's Child functioned as brand-pushers.

Corporate groups also receive political support. In late 2005, the EU commission announced that they wanted to loosen TV advertising regulations, making even more and more specifically targeted advertising possible, such as direct product placement during programs. If these measures had been carried out, European cultures would undoubtedly have found themselves closer to US standards-and the consumer would be even more heavily bombarded with advertising messages from the food, pharmaceutical and other multi-national industries. Such partisan politics certainly have nothing to do with targeted health precautions, although that kind of public service is so urgently needed.

Preventive health care is generally neglected by the very government-sponsored groups charged with protecting the health of citizens. A good and symbolically appropriate example of this is that these bloated bureaucracies pay little attention to intestinal function and health. Even organizations like the generally esteemed Stiftung Warentest, a German consumer protection organization still earnestly holds to the message that ''poor nutrition or a lifestyle that leads to constipation generally has nothing to do with intestinal bacteria; candida fungi, for instance, can be found in every healthy intestine." And in general, "shifts in the composition of the intestine's microbes are merely symptoms [that is, consequences] of infections, inflammations or antibiotic treatments, but not their causes. Under normal patterns of life, the intestinal flora regulates itself on its own as soon as the cause of the disturbance has been eliminated," the researchers say.

Stiftung Warentest cannot, however, furnish concrete studies that prove this. And there is also no reason to assume that their statements are well founded. Beyond the allegedly sole causes (infections, inflammations) of a shift in the intestinal flora, of course there are many factors to consider. A large proportion of the population suffers from intestinal problems like constipation or abnormally high candida fungus, so, it's absurd to assume that toxins and antibiotics should pass by the intestinal flora's composition without leaving a trace.

We don't even know precisely what a "normal intestinal flora" is. We've yet to become acquainted with all the microbes in the intestinal ecosystem, and it has also been observed that different people have very different intestinal flora. How, then, could we possibly know what "normal" intestinal flora looks like? Or how it constantly regulates itself toward a "normal" level? The individual microbe composition might be very stable, as studies suggest, but "stable" but doesn't automatically mean "normal" or even "healthy."

It is certain that "artificial sugar, for example, constitutes a terrain for the wrong fungi and bacteria," says physician Thomas Kroiss. Additionally, studies document that a diet with little to no fresh (raw) food is unsuitable for maintaining a properly functioning intestinal flora. Individual behavior (nutrition, activity, stress, etc.) also influences intestinal flora, and can also lead to pathogenic candida fungi.

In this context, it would also be interesting to discover what kind of effect an overly acidic diet has on the intestinal flora and on the health of an individual. After all, studies on animals in factory farms show that the acids ingested with food, which are said to speed up growth in pigs or poultry, affect intestinal flora negatively. But, how does it affect the human body?

The human body is like a forest with a buffer system of lungs, kidneys and sweat glands, by way of which superfluous acids can be released. The German Nutrition Society (DGE, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Emahrung) claims that an "excessively basic diet brings no provable advantages to your health. Too much acid in the body is nothing to fear in a healthy individual, since buffer systems keep the acid-base level in blood and tissue constant." Still, the DGE cannot deliver any evidence for its claim, and it is difficult to imagine that a "normal" diet, that only consists of acidgenerating foods like meat, fish, eggs, cheese, bread, butter, refined sugar and pills and few to no base-producing foods like fruit and vegetables can leave no trace in the body.

Even if the buffer systems in a so-called healthy person (whatever that means !) keeps the acid-base level in the blood constant, it cannot be ruled out that tissue may be stressed or even damaged. Many experts, such as the American nutritionist Gary Tunsky are of the opinion that "the fight for health is decided by the pH values." It is worth noting that cancer tissue, for instance, is extremely acidic, and it would be easy to investigate how various basic or acidic diets affect the course of the cancer-but unfortunately this doesn't happen. The influence that nutrition has on the skeletal system, on the other hand, has been well investigated; even osteoporosis tablet manufacturers expressly indicate that one should try to avoid "phosphate and foods containing oxalic acids, in other words [calcium robbers like] meat, sausages, soft drinks, cocoa or chocolate."

"The intestinal flora is among the numerous factors that could take part in the onset and triggering of an illness," states Wolfgang Kruis, intestinal expert and professor of medicine in Cologne. And his colleague, researcher Francisco Guamer, adds that "the intestinal flora is very significant to an individual's health, something that has been well documented." Among other things, it is essential in providing nutrients for the development of epithelial cells. And if the intestine is disturbed, this can affect the absorption and processing of important nutrients and vital substances, which in tum can trigger a chain reaction of problems, such as the contamination of body tissue, which then helps certain fungi and bacteria to move in. Medicine Presents a Distorted Picture of Microbes.

An article in the German Arzte Zeitung (Doctor's Newspaper) described how a healthy intestinal flora improves overall health by reporting "four out of five patients had normal and pain free bowel movements again." According to the article, this resounding success could be traced back to a preparation containing Escherichia coli or E. coli bacteria. In contrast to classic laxatives, bothersome flatulence and intestinal rumbling, abdominal cramps and nausea seldom appeared after the 8- week-long bacterial cure. Admittedly, there are still very few solid studies to indicate that probiotics (tablets containing live bacterial cultures) and prebiotics (nutrients which are supposed to stimulate certain "good" bacteria already found in the intestines) are of some use to health.

The primary objective should be to study exactly how certain foodstuffs, specific diets, drug consumption, toxins (pesticides, automobile exhaust, etc.), and stress effect the composition of the intestinal flora-and how this in turn influences human health (researchers are practically unanimous in that the intestinal flora influences health, but they continue to puzzle over how this happens). But, evidently, this research work is neglected. Neither the EU (which financially facilitates studies of intestinal flora), nor the German Institute of Human Nutrition (Institut fiir Ernahrungsforschung) in Potsdam were willing to indicate to what extent they are active in this area. Instead the impression is given that here as well, the development of marketable products like "functional food ingredients," "specifically designed bacterial strains," or "probiotics and prebiotics" are the primary research targets.

This shows, once again, that the medical industry has little interest in real preventive research. The sale and application of antifungal preparations (just like antibiotics, antiviral medicines, vaccines, probiotics, etc.) makes a lot of money; the advice to eliminate, avoid, or reduce coffee, refined sugar or drugs, on the other hand, does not make any at all. And who really wants (or is able) to give up beloved habits? Many people would rather hope for a magic potion that makes all the aches and pains go away fast. · Regretfully, this has led to the formation of a medical structure which ultimately only supports concepts that pass through the market's needle eye, and lets company profits and experts' salaries swell. The various hazards of this paradigm are shut out of the public conversation, and, so, we drift further and further from the possibilities of truly effective preventive health. ·

We must not ignore the fact that people are experiencing higher rates of fungal infections. It's certainly not because fungi have become more aggressive, since they have hardly changed in the past millions of years. But what has changed is our behavior and with it our physical environment as well. We only have to glance at other areas of nature, where fungi can't tell the difference between a human body and, for example, a forest. Everywhere, balance is at play: Excess substances are continuously generated, and must somehow be diminished again. If this were not the case, the earth would suffocate in the chaos of these excessively produced substances. This is where over 100,000 species of fungi come in and form their own kingdom next to animals and plants, acting like garbage collectors, eating up leaves, dead twigs, branches, tree stumps or pinecones in the forest, and bringing the nutrients back into the life cycle of the plants as re-utilizable humus.

Everything in nature-cells, our bodies, the land-occurs in a balance, which is why "fungal illnesses in compact, healthy plants do not have a chance," as stated in a botany textbook. Yet if "a plant is infested by a fungus, then something must be wrong with the plant's living conditions." This would be the case, for instance, if the plant's soil were overly acidic, something which causes fungi to thrive.



Bacteria: At the Beginning of All Life



For billions of years, nature has functioned as a whole with unsurpassed precision. Microbes, just like humans, are a part of this cosmological and ecological system. If humanity wants to live in harmony with technology and nature, we are bound to understand the supporting evolutionary principles ever better and to apply them properly to our own lives. Whenever we don't do this, we create many ostensibly insolvable environmental and health problems of our time. These are thoughts which RudolfVirchow (1821 - 1902), a well-known doctor from Berlin, had when he required in 1875 that "the doctor should never forget to interpret the patient as a whole being." The doctor will hardly understand the patient, then, if he or she does not see that person in the context of a larger environment. Without the appearance of bacteria, human life would be inconceivable, as bacteria were right at the beginning of the development towards human life:



Progenotes (precursors to bacteria; ca. 3.5 billion years ago)

Prokaryotes

Anaerobic bacteria (anaerobe)

Anaerobic photosynthetic bacteria

Photosynthetic cyano-bacteria - Oxygen-rich atmosphere

Aerobic breathing

Aerobic prokaryotes

Eukaryotes (1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago) ­

Many-celled plants and animals

Mammals

Humans.



With the term progenotes, bacteriologists denote a "pre-preliminary stage," a life form from which prokaryotes (cells without nuclei) arise. Bacteria are known not to have cell nuclei, but they do have deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), the carriers of genetic material. Anaerobic bacteria, as the word "anaerobic" indicates, can get by without oxygen. Only after the earth was supplied with oxygen could aerobic bacteria live; bacteria that formed the foundation for the lives of plants, animals, and humans

Through this it becomes obvious that bacteria could very well exist without humans; humans, however, could not Jive without bacteria! It also becomes unimaginable that these mini-creatures, whose life-purpose and task for almost infinite time has been to build up life, are supposed to be the great primary or singular causes of disease and death. Yet, the prevailing allopathic medical philosophy has convinced us of this since the late 19th century, when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch became heroes. Just a few hours after birth, all of a newborn baby's mucous membrane has already been colonized by bacteria, which perform important protective functions. Without these colonies of billions of germs, the infant, just like the adult, could not survive. And, only an estimated one percent of our bacteria have even been discovered.

"The majority of cells in the human body are anything but human: foreign bacteria have long had the upper hand," reported a research team from Imperial College in London under the leadership of Jeremy Nicholson in the journal Nature Biotechnology in 2004. In the human digestive tract alone, researchers came upon around 100 trillion microorganisms, which together have a weight of up to one kilogram. "This means that the 1,000-plus known species of symbionts probably contain more than 100 times as many genes as exist in the host," as Nicholson states. It makes you wonder how much of the human body is "human" and how much is "foreign"?

Nicholson calls us "human super-organisms"-as our own ecosystems are reigned by microorganisms. "It is widely accepted," writes the Professor of Biochemistry, "that most major disease classes have significant environmental and genetic components and that the incidence of disease in a population or individual is a complex product of the conditional probabilities of certain gene components interacting with a diverse range of environmental triggers." Above all, nutrition has a significant influence on many diseases, in that it modulates complex communication between the 100 trillion microorganisms in the intestines ! "The microbes are part of our extended symbiotic genome and as such are in many ways just as important as our genes," says Nicholson.

How easily this bacterial balance can be decisively influenced can be seen with babies: if they are nursed with mother's milk, their intestinal flora almost exclusively contains a certain bacterium (Lactobacillus bifidus), which is very different from the bacterium most prevalent when they are fed a diet including cow's milk. "The bacterium lactobacillus bifidus lends the breast-fed child a much stronger resistance to intestinal infections, for instance," writes microbiologist Dubos.

This is just one of countless examples of the positive interaction between bacteria and humans. "But unfortunately, the knowledge that microorganisms can also do a lot of good for humans never enjoyed much popularity," Dubos points out. "Humanity has made it a rule to take better care of the dangers that threaten life than to take interest in the biological powers upon which human existence is so decisively dependent. The history of war has always fascinated people more than descriptions of peaceful coexistence. And so it comes that no one has ever created a successful story out of the useful role that bacteria play in stomach and intestines. Alone the production of a large part of the food that lands on our plates is dependent on bacterial activity."

However, haven't antibiotics helped or even saved the lives of many people? Without a doubt. But, we must note that as recently as 12 February 1941, the first patient was treated with an antibiotic, specifically penicillin. So, antibiotics have nothing to do with the increase in life expectancy, which really took hold in the middle of the 19'h century (in industrialized countries), almost a century before the development of antibiotics. And, plenty of substances, including innumerable bacteria essential to life are destroyed through the administration of antibiotics, which directly translated from the Greek, means, "against life." In the USA alone, millions of antibiotics are now unnecessarily administered. This has profound consequences, as antibiotics are held responsible for nearly a fifth of the more than 100,000 annual deaths that are traced back to side effects of medicines in the United States alone.

The over-use of antibiotics is also causing more bacteria to become resistant. Today, 70% of microbes held responsible for lung illnesses no longer respond to medications. The increase in resistance prompts the pharmaceutical sector to conduct more intensive research for new antibiotics. But the discovery of such molecules is a long, difficult and costly process (about $600 million per molecule). For many years, no important new antibiotic has come onto the market. At the same time, increasingly stronger preparations are being introduced, which only leads to the bacteria becoming even more resistant and excreting even more toxins.

A key question, such as the causes of pulmonary or middle-ear infection, cannot be answered by simply branding the microbes as lethal enemies and wiping them out. And yet people stick to vilifying the microbes because they are caught in their concept of the enemy and their tunnel vision is directed only at germs.

This is a perception that actually began with Louis Pasteur, who as an acclaimed researcher spread the opinion that bacteria lingered everywhere in the air. And so, the idea was born that bacteria (like fungi and viruses) would fatefully descend upon human and animal like swarms of locusts. For about ten years, doctors have speculated that even heart attacks are an infectious disease, triggered by the Chlamydia pneumoniae bacterium. Because of this some patients were treated with antibiotics-but recently a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine stated quite plainly that there is no benefit from this.

Another issue when considering reports that E. coli bacteria have been detected in drinking water, is the false notion that somehow on their forays these germs discovered a stream and then contaminated it. In fact, E. coli gets into drinking water through human or animal excrement, which serves as food for the bacteria.

Bacteria do not live isolated in an open atmosphere. Rather, they always exist together with cells and tissue parts. Just like a fungal culture, a bacterial culture does not simply consist of bacteria or fungi; rather, a terrain always exists as well. And depending on the (toxicity of a) terrain, there are different (toxic) germs. Let's recall a well-known phrase from Claude Bernard (1813 - 1878), one of the bestknown representatives of a holistic approach to health: "The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything."

If we ask bacteriologists which comes first: the terrain or the bacteria, the answer is always that it is the environment (the terrain) that allows the microbes to thrive. The germs, then, do not directly produce the disease. So, it is evident that the crisis produced by the body causes the bacteria to multiply by creating the proper conditions for actually harmless bacteria to mutate into poisonous pus-producing microorganisms.

"Under close observation of disease progression, particularly in infective processes, damage to the organism occurs at the beginning of the disease-and only afterwards the bacterial activity begins," says general practitioner Johann Loibner. "Everyone can observe this in himself. If we put dirt into a fresh wound, other bacteria appear as well. After the penetration of a foreign body, very specific germs appear which, after removal or release, go away on their own and do not continue to populate us. If we damage our respiratory mucous membrane through hypothermia, then those bacteria accordingly appear which, depending on the hypothermia's acuteness and length, and the affected individual's condition, can break down the affected cells and lead to expulsion, catarrh."

This would also explain what the dominant medical thought pattern can't comprehend: why so many different microorganisms are in our bodies (among them such "highly dangerous" ones as the tuberculosis bacillus, the Streptococcus or the Staphylococcus bacterium) without bringing about any recognizable damage. They only become harmful when they have enough of the right kind of food. Depending on the type of bacterium this food could be toxins, metabolic end products, improperly digested food and much more.

Even surgery makes use of this principle, using little sacks of maggots to clean wounds that are particularly difficult to sanitize. The maggots eat only the dead or "broken" material. They do not touch healthy, living flesh. No surgeon in the world can cleanse such a wound so precisely and safely as these maggots. And when everything is clean, the feast is over; the maggots don't eat you up, because then they wouldn't have anything more to eat.

Pasteur finally became aware of all of this, quoting Bernard's dictum-"the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything"-on his deathbed. But Paul Ehrlich (1854 - 1915), known as the father of chemotherapy, adhered to the interpretation that Robert Koch (just like Pasteur in his "best days") preached: that microbes were the actual causes of disease. For this reason, Ehrlich, whom his competitors called "Dr. Fantasy," dreamed of "chemically aiming" at bacteria, and decisively contributed to helping the "magic bullets" doctrine become accepted, by treating very specific illnesses successfully with very specific chemical-pharmaceutical preparations. This doctrine was a gold rush for the rising pharmaceutical industry with their wonder-pill production. "But the promise of the magic bullet has never been fulfilled," writes Allan Brandt, a medical historian at Harvard Medical School.



Viruses: Lethal Mini-Monsters?



This distorted understanding of bacteria and fungi and their functions in abnormal processes shaped attitudes toward viruses. At the end of the 19th century, as microbe theory rose to become the definitive medical teaching, no one could actually detect viruses. Viruses measure only 20 - 450 nanometers (billionths of a meter) across and are thus very much smaller than bacteria or fungi-so tiny, that one can only see them under an electron microscope. And the first electron microscope was not built until 1931. Bacteria and fungi, in contrast, can be observed through a simple light microscope. The first of these was constructed as early as the I7th century by Dutch researcher Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723).

"Pasteurians" were already using the expression "virus" in the 19th century, but this is ascribed to the Latin term "virus" (which just means poison) to describe organic structures that could not be classified as bacteria. It was a perfect fit with the concept of the enemy: if no bacteria can be found, then some other single cause must is responsible for the disease. In this case, a quote by Goethe's Mephistopheles comes to mind: "For just where no ideas are, the proper word is never far."

The number of inconsistencies that arise from the theory of death-bringing viruses is illustrated by the smallpox epidemic, which even today people like to draw upon to stir up epidemic panic. But was smallpox really a viral epidemic that was successfully overpowered by vaccines? "Medical historians doubt this," writes journalist Neil Miller in his book Vaccines: Are They Really Safe & Effective? "Not only were there no vaccines for scarlet fever or the Black Plague, and these diseases disappeared all the same."

For example, in England, prior to the introduction of mandatory vaccinations in 1953, there were two smallpox deaths per 10,000 inhabitants per year. But at the beginning of the 1870s, nearly 20 years after the introduction of mandatory vaccinations, which had led to a 98% vaccination rate, England suffered 10 smallpox deaths per 10,000 inhabitants annually; five times as many as before. "The smallpox epidemic reached its peak after vaccinations had been introduced," summarizes William Farr, who was responsible for compiling statistics in London.

From an orthodox view, the picture on the Philippines was no less contradictory: the islands experienced their worst smallpox epidemic at the beginning of the 20'h century, even though the vaccination rate was at almost 100%. And in 1928, a paper was finally published in the British Medical Journal that disclosed that the risk of dying from smallpox was five times higher for those who had been vaccinated than for those who had not.

In Germany statistics of smallpox mortalities have been collected since 1816. There were around 6,000 smallpox deaths per year until the end of the 1860s. In the years 1870 - 71, the number of victims suddenly jumped 14-fold to nearly 85,000 deaths. What had happened? The Franco-Prussian War was raging, and French prisoners of war were held in German camp under the most miserable conditions with extremely bad nutrition. As a result, the number of smallpox cases in the camps increased exponentially, even though all French and German soldiers had been vaccinated against smallpox. Germans (themselves suffering from the war) were likewise affected by the smallpox, although some of them had also been vaccinated.

When the camps were dissolved directly after the war, the number of smallpox deaths also markedly declined. Three years later, in 1874, there were only 3,345 smallpox deaths in Germany per year. Prevailing medicine says that this reduction was due to the Reichsimpfgesetz, a law that among other things stipulated that a child had to be vaccinated "before the end of the calendar year following his year of birth." But in fact, this law first came into effect in 1875, when the smallpox scare was long past. "Improvements in hygiene, technology, and civilization much had occurred at that time, which led to the reduction in illnesses and deaths," says physician Gerhard Buchwald.

Irrespective of this, mainstream viral research and medicine exclusively assumes that viruses are "infectious" pathogenic germs, which actively spread out in the cells in a parasitic way (with the assistance of enzymes and other cellular components) and multiply-ultimately attacking and sometimes killing cells. Or as a well-known German daily newspaper puts it, in the typical sensationalized manner: "Viruses are the earth's wiliest infectious agents: they attack animals and humans to enslave their cells."

As thrilling as this may sound, no scientific backing is provided for this statement. To accept this, the existence of these so-called "killer viruses" must first be proven. And this is where the trouble begins. Consequential, scientifically-sound evidence has never been provided, even though it's as easy as taking a sample of patient blood and isolating one of these viruses, in a purified form with its complete genetic material (genome) and virus shell, directly from it, and then imaging it with an electron microscope. But these critical initial steps have never been done with HSNl (avian flu), the so-called hepatitis C virus, HIV, and numerous other particles that are officially called viruses and depicted as attack-crazy beasts.

At this point, we encourage our readers to verify dominant virus theories independently-as many people have done, among them Nobel laureates, top microbiologists and researchers from other fields, serious journalists and Jay people alike. We've asked for evidence from important institutions like World Health Organization (WHO), the American Centers for Disease Control (CDC), or its German counterpart, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in Berlin. In the summer of 2005, for example, we contacted the RKI and requested the following information:



1. Please name the studies that indisputably show that the SARS, hepatitis C, Ebola, smallpox and polio viruses and the BSE causative agent have been proven to exist (complete purification, isolation and definition of biochemical properties plus electron micrographs).

2. Please name studies that indisputably show that the viruses named above cause disease (and also that other factors like malnutrition, toxins, etc. do not at least co-determine the course of disease).

3. Please name at least two studies that indisputably show that vaccinations are effective and active.



Unfortunately, to date we have not (despite repeated questioning) yet had a single study named to us.

Readers may wonder how it can be continually claimed that this or that virus exists and has potential to trigger diseases through contagion. An important aspect in this context is that some time ago, mainstream virus-science left the road of direct observation of nature, and decided instead to go with so-called indirect "proof" with procedures such as antibody and PCR tests.

In this book, we will often stray from the well-traveled road, but at this point we must point out that these methods lead to results which have little to no meaning. Antibody tests just prove the existence of antibodies-and not the virus or particle itself to which the antibody tests react. That means: as long as the virus or cell particle (antigen) has not been precisely defined, no one can say what these antibody tests are reacting to; they are thus "unspecific" in medical lingo.

It is no different with PCR (polymerase chain reaction), which is used to track down genetic sequences, little genetic snippets, and then replicate them a millionfold. As with antibody tests, PCR probably has significance because it displays a sort of immune reaction (as it is called in technical terms) in the body; or, to put it more neutrally, some sort of disturbance or activity on a cellular level. But a virus with indeterminate characteristics cannot be proven by PCR any more than it can be determined by a little antibody test. Again, this is because the exact virus determination has not been carried out.

In terms of genetics, these short pieces that are found using the PCR are not complete and do not even satisfy the definition of a gene (of which humans are said to have 20,000 to 25,000). In spite of this, it is suggested that "pasted together" they would depict the whole genetic material of a given virus. But nobody has presented a paper that shows an electron micrograph of this so-called reproduced virus.

Even if scientists assume that the particles discovered in the laboratory (antigens and gene snippets) are the viruses mentioned, this is a long way from proving that the viruses are the causes of the diseases in question, particularly when the patients or animals who have been tested are not even sick, which, often enough is the case. Another important question must be raised: even when a supposed virus does kill cells in the test-tube (in vitro), or lets embryos in a chicken egg culture die, can we safely conclude that these findings can be carried over to a living organism (in vivo)? Many issues contradict this theory, such as that the particles termed viruses stem from cell cultures (in vitro) whose particles could be genetically degenerate because they have been bombarded with chemical additives like growth factors or strongly oxidizing substances.

In 1995, the German news magazine Der Spiegel delved into this problem (something that is worth noting, when one considers that this news magazine usually runs only orthodox virus coverage), quoting researcher Martin Markowitz from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York: "The scientist [Markovitz] mauls his virus-infected cell cultures with these poisons in all conceivable combinations to test which of them kill the virus off most effectively. 'Of course, we don't know how far these cross-checks in a test-tube will bring us,' says Markowitz. Medicine Presents a Distorted Picture of Microbes 'What ultimately counts is the patient.' His clinical experience has taught him the difference between test-tube and sick bed. He is more aware than most AIDS researchers of how little the behavior of cultured virus stems in incubator cells has to do with those that grow naturally in a network of hormones, antibodies, scavenger and T cells of the immune system of a living person." Andreas Meyerhans, from the Institut Pasteur in Paris uses the phrase: "To culture is to disturb," which basically means that the results obtained in vitro only confuse.

"Unfortunately, the decade is characterized by climbing death rates, caused by lung cancer, heart disease, traffic accidents and the indirect consequences of alcoholism and ·drug addiction," wrote Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, in his 1971 book Genes Dreams, and Realities: "The real challenge of the present day is to find remedies for these diseases of civilization. But nothing that comes out of the labs seems to be significant in this context; laboratory research's contribution has practically come to an end. For someone who is well on the way to a career as a lab researcher in infectious disease and immunology, these are not comforting words."

To biomedical scientists and the readers of their papers, Burnet continued, it may be exciting to hold forth on "the detail of a chemical structure from a phage's [viruses from simple organisms; see below] RNA, or the production of antibody tests, which are typical of today's biological research. But modem fundamental research in medicine hardly has a direct significance to the prevention of disease or the improvement of medical precautions."

But mainstream medicine avoids this theory like the devil does holy water. Instead, one tries to demonstrate the pathogenicity (ability to cause disease) of these particles through experiments that could hardly be more arcane. For instance, test substrates were injected directly into the brains of lab animals. This was the procedure with BSE and polio, for example; and even the famous Louis Pasteur had applied this method in his rabies experiments, in which he injected diseased brain tissue into the heads of dogs (Pasteur became famous through these experiments, and only years after his death were these studies found to be pure put-on). The industry now says that "direct injections into the brain" are unrealistic, and thus ultimately provide no evidence of pathogenic effects.

Why not suppose that a virus, or what we term a virus, is a symptom-i.e. a result-of a disease? Medical teaching is entrenched in Pasteur and Koch's picture of the enemy, and has neglected to pursue the thought that the body's cells could produce a virus on its own accord, for instance as a reaction to stress factors. The experts discovered this a long time ago, and speak of "endogenous viruses"-particles that form inside the body by the cells themselves.

In this context, the research work of geneticist Barbara McClintock is a milestone. In her Nobel Prize paper from 1983, she reports that the genetic material of living beings can constantly alter, by being hit by "shocks." These shocks can be toxins, but also other materials that produced stress in the test-tube. This in turn can lead to the formation of new genetic sequences, which were unverifiable (in vivo and in vitro) before.

Long ago, scientists observed that toxins in the body could produce physiological reactions, yet current medicine sees this only from the perspective of exogenous viruses. In 1954, the scientist Ralph Scobey reported in the journal Archives of Pediatrics, that herpes simplex had developed after the injection of vaccines, the drinking of milk or the ingestion of certain foodstuffs; while herpes zoster (shingles) arose after ingestion or injection of heavy metals like arsenic and bismuth or alcohol.

It is also conceivable that toxic drugs like poppers, recreational drugs commonly used by homosexuals, or immunosuppressive medications like antibiotics and antivirals could trigger what is called oxidative stress. This means that the blood's ability to transport oxygen, so important for the life and survival of cells, is compromised. Simultaneously, nitric oxides are produced, which can severely damage cells. As a result, antibody production is "stirred up," which in turn causes the antibody tests to come out positive. Also, new genetic sequences are generated through this, which are then picked up by the PCR tests - all this, mind you, without a pathogenic virus that attacks from outside.

But prevailing medicine condemns such thoughts as heresy. Just as the orthodoxy fought against McClintock's concept of ''jumping genes" for decades, because they did not want to let go of their own model of a completely stable genetic framework. Here, they had not merely ignored McClintock, but even became downright "hostile," according to McClintock. "Looking back, it is painful to see how extremely fixated many scientists are on the dominant assumptions, on which they have tacitly agreed," McClintock wrote in 1973, shortly after the medical establishment admitted, finally, that she had been right. "One simply has to wait for the right time for a change in conception." However, McClintock had no time to brace herself against the prevailing HN = AIDS dogma. She did voice criticism that it has never been proven AIDS is triggered by a contagious virus. But the Nobel Prize winner died in 1992, shortly after increased numbers of critics of the HN = AIDS dogma had come into the game.

Whether Nobel laureate or layperson, ask yourself this simple question: how is it actually imaginable that killer viruses stalk the world bumping off one human cell after another? Viruses-as opposed to bacteria and fungi-do not even have their own metabolisms. By definition, viruses have completely given their metabolisms to the cells. They are composed of only one nucleic acid strand (DNA or RNA ·genes) and one protein capsule, so are missing the decisive attributes of living beings. Strictly speaking, they do not count among "microbes," which comes from the Greek: "micro" = small, "bios" = life. How can viruses, like bacteria, be in a position to become active and aggressive of their own accord? Remember, it is said that viruses may have existed for three billion years. And exactly like bacteria and fungi, viruses are also said to be ubiquitous from the deep sea to the polar ice caps. A 2006 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that there are more than 20,000 species of bacteria in a liter of seawater-the researchers had expected to find only 1,000 to 3,000 species.

"Just as scientists have discovered through ever more powerful telescopes that stars number in the billions, we are learning that the number of marine organisms invisible to the eye exceeds all expectations and their diversity is much greater than we could have imagined," says lead author Mitchell Sogin, director of the Massachusetts-based Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) Center for Comparative and Molecular Biology and Evolution. "This study shows we have barely scratched the surface. The number of different kinds of bacteria in the oceans could eclipse five to 10 million." Furthermore, one liter of sea water is said to contain no less than 10 billion viruses of very simple organisms, like single-celled algae, called (bacterio)phages; umpteen times as many viruses (phages) as bacteria. Both of these discoveries-the long development time and their universal existence-argue clearly that nature, which constantly strives for balance, lives in symbiosis with these viruses.

Luckily, the phages' omnipresence has flown below the radar of prevailing medical viral research-otherwise there would probably be regulations against bathing in the sea without full-body condoms or epidemic-protection suits, and only under the condition that we first take prophylactic antiviral medications. Or, why not try to disinfect large surfaces of seawater. We are already well on the way to this kind of thinking, since phages are already being presented as super villains that ''work using wily tricks." But there is no real proof here either.

We'd be wise to remember times in which the ruling dogma of viral killers was (freely and openly) sharply attacked and dismissed as pure "belief." Indeed, there were many prominent microbiologists who insisted that bacteriophages just aren't viruses, but rather products "endogenously" produced, i.e. by bacteria. Robert Doerr, editor of the Handbook of Virology, published by Springer in 1938, even held the idea that not only phages, but also other "viruses" were the product of cells.

Let's look at one of their arguments : bacteriophages cannot be living entities that become active independently, since phages themselves cannot be destroyed by temperatures as high as 120 degrees. "And it would probably be of use to recall the history of this decade-long dispute," says Dutch microbiologist Ton van Helvoort, "for controversies and finding consensus are at the heart of scientific research."



In addition,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLjqne2CEU and

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBFLou1hAHA are worth listening to, despite the more "conservative" approach to the virus taken there.

[Evola As He Is]

www.brighteon.com/37482318-9b03-400d-96c8-dad2d56ffdf5/ gives a very insightful account of the current hoax.

[Evola As He Is]

Watch, on the subject of the obligation to wear a mask as part of the first wave of massive poisoning of the populations via the current viral hoax, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jwdoAF1kxo and www.bitchute.com/video/9cdCuJdz8jR7/. The second wave will be mass vaccination.



"America's Frontline Doctors" at tprod.fr/encore-une-video-censuree-partout-sur-internet/ is also commendable.