medicalresearch2

MEDICAL RESEARCH
[continued]

ANTI-SEPSIS and ASPESIS

THE CLAIM:

Joseph Lister, from 1853, published papers on his animal experiments.
His first paper on antisepsis described using carbolic acid. In 1867, he
introduced lint soaked in undiluted carbolic acid. In 1869, he tested
ligatures of silk soaked in carbolic acid on a calf. In 1871, he introduced
a carbolic acid spray as an antisepsis method in operations.

THE REALITY:

Hindus, in 200BC, paid attention to hygiene. Susruta, in 600BC, insisted
on extreme cleanliness in surgery. Hippocrates, in 4thC BC, advocated
avoidance of greasy dressings; and, if wounds had to be irrigated only
pure and boiled water should be used.
John pringle, in 1751, coined the term "antisepsis".
Lister`s first paper on carbolic acid referred to one patient dying and
one having a limb amputated. His lint soaked in carbolic acid proved to
be irritating and caused death of the tissue in patients. His ligatures of
silk soaked in carbolic acid were a clinical failure - but Lister blamed the
practitioner not the method. Lister`s carbolic acid spray soaked the
hands of the surgeon and the patient; the vapour made everyone sick;
and released acrid chlorine gas which affected the nse, throat and eyes
of the surgical staff.

Robert Lawson Tait, in 1880, turned form Lister`s antispesis to the
absolute cleanliness of asepsis. Instead of application of Lister`s
carbolic acid to the surface of the skin at the site of the operation,
Tait throughly cleansed the site with soap and water; instead of Lister`s
method of soaking hands with carbolic acid, Tait washed his hands in
soap and water; instead of Lister`s practice of removing a coat and
pinning on an unsteralised towel, Tait wore a large mackintosh; instead
of Lister`s method of a supply of towels soaked in carbolic acid and
spraying carbolic acid around the operating theatre, the wounds and
surgical instruments, Tait used clean towels, cleaned the operating
area and instruments with soap and water; instead of Lister`s practice
of treating sponges with carbolic acid to mop up blood and fluids, Tait
used a solution of washing sofa; instead of Lister`s carbolinised catgut
ligatures, Tait used silk sutures which had been steralised by boiling in
water; instead of Lister`s carbonised dressings which were applied after
an operation, Tait used clean, dry dressings.

By 1900, many surgeons had changed from antisepsis to aspesis, and by
the 1920s, few held on to the old belief in Lister`s antisepsis.

The examples of MEDICAL RESEARCH have been drawn,
with kind permission, from the
Scientific Anti-Vivisectionism website - see LINKS

DRUGS and MEDICINES

It is not a question of whether or not a treatment has, or has not, been
tested on animals but whether results from such animal experiments
and tests can be applied to humans.

As Dr Melmon pointed out in `Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics`
"British scientists fault themselves on their unwarranted use of animal
models. This usually results from the public`s emotional feeling that
such tests would guarantee safety if and when the drugs were given to
humans. In most cases, the animal tests cannot predict what will happen
when the drug is given to [hu]man[s]"

"LOST TREATMENTS"

No-one knows how many potentially useful treatments have been
discarded because they failed to work in animals.

Medical historian, Walter Sneader, wrote in `Drug Development`
"There is no way of telling how many promising compounds fall by the
wayside during pre-clinical [animal] development, but it must be well
in excess of 90 per cent".

A D Welch, in `Drug Responses in Man` said of pre-clinical animal tests
"many invaluable non-proprietary drugs currently in common use
would not be released if they were now to be introduced for the first
time. Such valuable drugs as chloroform and ether [anaesthtics],
ipecac [emetine], cinchona [quinine and quinidine], and digitalis and
allied cardiac glycosides, almost certainly would not be approved,
while even penicillin could be excluded for its lethal effect on the
guinea pig and golden hamster were disclosed but not explained"

Of cancer drugs, `The Lancet` reported, in 1972
"an agent which is active in the laboratory [animal] may well prove to
be useless clinically. Clinical trials should always cover as many types
of cancer as possible otherwise potentially useful drugs may be lost".

Dr Erik Millstone of the Science Policy Unit, University of Sussex has
explained how tests on animals are interpreted
"If a compound is tested on animals and no adverse effcets are found,
then this is being used to provide grounds for the conclusion that the
compound is acceptably safe. If tests indicate that the compound is
toxic to animals, this is often interpreted as showing only that it would
be unacceptable in animals, but not that its use in humans should be
tightly restricted... In other words, animal studies are believed when
they provide the answer that is required, and ignored when they
indicate an unwanted conclusion"

for MEDICAL DELAYS
click on arrow