3 Responses

  1. Lucia
    Lucia March 24, 2013 at 1:33 am | | Reply

    Good for you for posting this and trying to bring this information to light!! I agree. I think it should be called reactive arthritis.

  2. egarza70
    egarza70 December 5, 2019 at 2:13 am | | Reply

    When I was initially diagnosed, they called it Reiter’s Syndrome. It made no difference to me and my symptoms when I discovered the history of Dr. Reiter. And I don’t even consider it a honor or homage to Dr. Reiter. Hypothetically, If he discovered a cure at the expense of lives being experimented on, would it be justified? Does a positive out weigh a negative? (It certainly doesn’t justify the negative but it doesn’t mean we should abandon the positive.) I’m sure there was much research and discovery on the lives of many, and certainly we don’t endorse or condone such actions. But we certainly don’t throw out the findings. I think we get too hung up on being politically correct. White washing history either by Dr. Reiter or us, doesn’t change the outcome of the syndrome. It is what it is and we learn by our history, not change it.
    Personally, me knowing that it was discovered in soldiers or people that had GI bacterial infections in the war made sense to me as I distinctly remember getting food poisoning in my teens and the syndrome popped up at the same time. This ugly history on the Syndrome solidified my understanding of what I have. Maybe in some respects it put a face, or in this case, a name to it. A villain with a name.

  3. Barbara Allan
    Barbara Allan December 16, 2019 at 4:47 pm | | Reply

    Dear Egarza70, thank you for sharing your thoughts on whether it matters whether we call this syndrome Reiter’s Syndrome or not. I agree that the name doesn’t change the reality of what people with this syndrome are experiencing. I am sorry you are have had first hand experience with the the consquences of having it.

Leave a Reply