GUATEMALA EXPERIMENTS 1946-1948 
II 
SUBJECT PROFILE: CELSO 
Celso was a male patient in the 
Psychiatric Hospital. His age and 
the illness that brought him to the 
hospital are unknown. 
Celso was involved in two syphilis 
experiments in 1947 where an 
emulsion containing syphilis 
was applied to his penis. In 
one experiment he received a 
prophylaxis of penicillin and in the 
other he received no prophylaxis. 
Celso was enrolled in his third 
and final experiment in January 
1948. As part of this experiment, 
Celso’s penis was abraded and then 
syphilis was applied. In March and 
April 1948, Celso exhibited multiple 
clinical symptoms of syphilis. 
In May 1948, Celso was treated 
with penicillin, but subsequent 
examinations in June 1948 
determined his case had developed 
into secondary stage syphilis. There 
is no record of additional treatment. 
In June 1949, Dr. Cutler’s notes 
state Celso died as a result of a 
lobotomy and that an autopsy was 
performed. However, a letter was 
sent to Dr. Cutler in 1952 that said 
Celso was alive and he had no 
clinical symptoms of syphilis. It is 
unclear which record is accurate. 
On September 18, Dr. Cutler wrote Dr. 
Mahoney that the “vast amount of funda- 
mental work to be done in experimental 
syphilis in man and in serology” should 
make it “easy to justify continuation of the 
study even though we are not able to study 
simple prophylaxis as originally planned ” 500 
He emphasized the unusual opportunity 
presented in Guatemala for “pure science”: 
‘With the opportunity offered here to 
study syphilis from the standpoint of 
pure science just as Chesney studied 
it in the rabbit it should be possible 
to justify the project in the event 
of the impossibility of resolution of 
the prophylactic program. But we 
feel that we shall be able to subject 
prophylaxis to a severe trial. Along 
the same line of thought of investi- 
gation in pure science I shall have a 
chance later to do a survey on a small 
group of pure Indians being worked 
[on] by the Carnegie Institution. If 
any interesting findings result it may 
give us new leads for investigation on 
a purely scientific basis.” 501 
Dr. Cutler disregarded his supervisor’s 
objections to scarification and abrasion. He 
argued instead that “we shall be able to study 
prophylaxis by other methods to subject it to 
much more severe tests than those occurring 
normally.” 502 Dr. Cutler wrote in correspondence to Dr. Mahoney that “[t]he 
low incidence of infection following natural exposure indicates that the test to 
which the [prophylaxis] method was submitted is much more drastic than that 
occurring under conditions of normal exposure.” 503 
63 
