Itchy, its kind of academic - like a chicken and egg problem. You can never catch syphilis early enough to prevent it. By the time you detect the bacteria, you're already infected. You can only use antibiotics if there's bacteria. When the antibiotic doesn't work, you say the bacteria got resistant, Etc.Syphillis: a serious sexually transmitted disease caused by the spirally twisted bacterium Treponema pallidum that affects many body organs and parts, including the genitals, brain, skin, and nervous tissue
Ok - strictly speaking, syphilis is a disease, which is caused by a particlar type of bacteria - in the same way AIDS is a disease, caused by the HIV virus.
Kill the Treponema pallidum bacterium, and you get rid of Syphillis.
But yes, bacteria do develop resistances to anti-bacterials quickly - its a serious problem in medicine. I'm just not sure quackery is the answer.
I also think you have cause and effect mixed up. A bacteria infection causes Syphillis, not the other way around (you seem to imply the presence of Syphillis causes the presence of bacteria - this is in reverse to the real world order of things).
Medicine has the same problem with curing scabies. And this mite is not even as small and invisible as bacteria.
The same problem again with the connection between syphilis and HIV - which came first? Did the virus attract the bacteria or vice versa.
Like everyone else I think the microscope is an amazing invention. I enjoyed peering through it too. Fine, lets also do an Aristotelian classification of everything we peer at. But from there, medicine has got the natural order of things wrong. Naming a few parasites and learning to kill them doesn't really change the disease process that began on contact.
We can kill all the mites in our environment, but scabies makes changes from the moment of contact that can't be reversed by killing the parasite. As a scabies sufferer, you probably have experienced the itch without a single parasite on your body, right?