[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
December 10, 1932


Author Affiliations


JAMA. 1932;99(24):2050. doi:10.1001/jama.1932.02740760060029

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:  —All students of syphilis are interested in "Wassermann fast," arsenic, mercury and bismuth resistant syphilis and the relation of such "resistance" both to inadequate, insufficient or inefficient treatment and to the drugs used with particular reference to their therapeutic activity. It is a well known but often forgotten fact that not only do bismuth and mercury preparations as obtained on the open market actually vary in their effectiveness irrespective of time intervals between treatments but so do the organic arsenicals — at present considered the most valuable of the antisyphilitic remedies. The following case in point came under my observation in February and could be placed in the same category as case 2 in the query on page 1447 of The Journal, October 22, and thus be considered by the uninitiated as "Wassermann fast" syphilis when in reality it may have been the poor therapeutic activity of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview