transmission of the disease, those who do these things are in direct
danger, and should be warned accordingly.

+Modern Methods of Identifying an Early Syphilitic Infection.+--The
practice of tampering with sores, chafes, etc., which are open to
suspicion, whether done by the patient himself or by the doctor before
reaching a decision as to the nature of the trouble, is unwise. An
attempt to "burn it out" with caustic or otherwise, which is the first
impulse of the layman with a half-way knowledge and even of some
doctors, promptly makes impossible a real decision as to whether or not
syphilis is present. Even a salve, a wash, or a powder may spoil the
best efforts to find out what the matter is. A patient seeking advice
should go to his doctor _at once_, and absolutely _untreated_. Then,
again, irritating treatment applied unwisely to even a harmless sore may
make a mere chafe look like a hard chancre, and result in the patient's
being treated for months or longer for syphilis. Nowadays our first
effort after studying the appearance of the suspected lesion is to try
to find the germs, with the dark-field microscope or a stain. Having
found them, the question is largely settled, although we also take a
blood test. If we fail to find the germs, it is no proof that syphilis
is absent, and we reëxamine and take blood tests at intervals for some
months to come, to be sure that the infection has not escaped our
vigilance, as it sometimes does if we relax our precautions. In
recognizing syphilis, the wise layman is the one who knows he does not
know. The clever one who is familiar with everything "they say" about
the disease, and has read about the matter in medical books into the
bargain, is the best sort of target for trouble. Such men are about as
well armed as the man who attacks a lion with a toothpick. He may stop
him with his eye, but it is a safer bet he will be eaten.