Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Cap'n Jack]

What had it been soaked in, Sam?

[Cap'n Jack]

Just how old is your computer, Sam?

'History of Nephrology 2: Reports from the First Congress of the ... - Google Books Resultby International Association for the History of ... - 1997 - Medical - 198 pages
... to be the result of the interaction between the air in the environment and several constituents of the urine, such as urates and kiestein [17]. ...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=3805564996... '

That's 1997, Sam.
Catch a ball, old bean.

[Sam Flynn]

What had it been soaked in, Sam?

Spirits of wine, aka absolute alcohol.

Anyhow, AP, kiestein - whatever that was once thought to be - was said to form in the urine of women, rather than out of the flesh of their kidneys. According to one ancient text available on the Web, one had to obtain a sample of urine and let it stand for some time, before the cheesy substance would float to the surface. Come to think of it, AP, I'm sure my wee would do the same if I left it long enough. Too bad that the Lusk kidney, then as now, had had the piss taken out of it.

Here's the text in question:

"On the signs and diseases of pregnancy", by Thomas Hawkes Tanner, 1860

About thirty years ago the British and foreign medical journals published accounts of a peculiar product named, by M. Nauche, kiestein; which was supposed to exist in the urine of women during uterogestation. This substance is said to become visible in the urine of pregnant women, when the secretion is allowed to repose in a cylindrical glass, protected from the dust. The kiestein begins to make its appearance at a period varying rom one day to six or seven, after the discharge of the fluid; signs of its gradual development being distinguishable, in the majority of cases, before the end of the second day.

[...]

Taken alone, the presence of kiestein in the urine can scarcely be said to be sufficiently diagnostic of pregancy to enable us to form an opinion of much value; but when corroborative of other early signs, it is a useful aid in assisting the practitioner to a correct conclusion.

It must be borne in mind, however, that many physicians and chemists entertain an opposite view. Thus, Dr Veit, who conducted a series of experiments to determine the value to be attached to this product, came to the same conclusion as Hoefle and Lehmann; viz., that the so-called pellice of kiestein is no peculiar matter at all, and is not of the slightest value as a sign of pregnancy.

[Sam Flynn]

Just how old is your computer, Sam?

'History of Nephrology 2: Reports from the First Congress of the ... - Google Books

That's 1997, Sam.
Catch a ball, old bean.

Read the book, AP. There's a hint in the title: "History of Nephrology". The context is a section giving the history of 5th Century Byzantine medicine. It discusses oily urine, which "sounds strange in a modern nephrological ward", but which "as late as the 19th Century appeared in medical textbooks as pellicle, and was considered to be the result of the interaction between the air in the environment and constituents of urine such as urates or kiestein".

[joelhall]

Sam, you are being rather difficult here, if you don't mind me saying so.
This is all about understanding and exploration.
My understanding leads me to believe that Dr Openshaw could have told the sexual origin of that kidney by just smelling it, as Kiestien left a remarkably pungent odour; and as I've already stated Kiestien is detectable in intact young women, so pregnancy is only one of many viable options, in that a woman who has conceived may have more Kiestien than one who hasn't.
It is linked to the mammary glands, so the 'mood' of the woman may play an influence in the secretion and production of the substance.
Interestingly Dr William Gull was an expert in this regard, and there is a letter written by him in 1850, to Dr Bird, which is useful.

no.

kiestein was originally thought to be a urinary pellicle found during utero-gestation, containing various elements, when viewed microscopically. there were differing opinions not only of its value in determining pregnancy.

in fact according to 'treatise on medical jurisprudence' (wharton, stillé& stillé, kay & brother 1860, section 291 kiesteins p.8)

'among the later observations are those of doctor veit, who comes to the conclusion that the so-called pellicle of kiestein is no perculiar matter at all, and is not of the slightest value as a sign of pregnancy. in urine of both non-pregnant and pregnant women, pellicles are formed, containing vibriones and frequently the triple-phosphate; the chief difference between the respective urines being, that in that of the pregnant women, alkaline, and in that of the non-pregnant women, acid reaction more commonly manifests itself. this may depend, perhaps, upon the greater concentration of the urine in pregnancy and the larger proportion of mucus mixed with it.'

however, in another writing first published in the lancet by dr. h. hassell 'on the development and signification of vibrio lineala, bodo urinarius, and on other fungal products, etc in urine', published the lancet, november 1859, ii2, he cites...

'under this head may also be mentioned the so-called kiestein, which was thought to be present in the urine of women only during pregnancy, and therefore regarded as a sign of pregnancy. this name was applied to a pellicle, which appeared on the surface of urine, that had stood for several days. the microscope shows us that the pellicle in fact consists of various elements and for the most part of a large mass of vibrios with fungi, of crystals of ammonio-phosphate of magnesia, of fatty particles, etc. this pellicle, however, is not found exclusively in the urine of pregnant women; it is met with in women not pregnant, and also in men, and is therefore of no diagnostic value.

joel

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah well, boys, I said I was chancing my arm here... I just never like to say 'never'.
It's a discipline you boys should try.

[joelhall]

Ah well, boys, I said I was chancing my arm here... I just never like to say 'never'.
It's a discipline you boys should try.

surely discipline would be not doing it

joel

[joelhall]

having said that i do it alot playing devils advocate, and reckon im down to 2 toes and half an ear now

[Cap'n Jack]

You are lucky, Joel, I got no legs left.
I'm not so sure I want to roll over and play dead anyway, as I said never say never.
Reading through the experiments that Dr Elisha Kent Kane conducted - in the early part of his fabled career - it seems to me that he regarded 'Kyestein' as a renal secretion firstly; and as such would be found in a kidney that had abruptly stopped secreting due to sudden death.
Sam's contention that soaking the kidney in some form of alcohol would blind or ruin the secretion is I think false. For my impression is that such marinating would actually increase the olfactory response of the substance.
The fact of the matter is that we do not know what experiments Openshaw carried out on the kidney he was presented with, but it is entirely possible that by using a microscope he was able to determine reliable markers of the time which allowed him to make a reasonable choice as to the sexual origin of that kidney.
To speculate otherwise is just sheer nonsense.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam's contention that soaking the kidney in some form of alcohol would blind or ruin the secretion is I think false. For my impression is that such marinating would actually increase the olfactory response of the substance.

We're talking about cheesy piss, AP, not foie gras.

Besides - as I posted yesterday - it's not a secretion to be savoured by holding a freshly-split (un-pickled) kidney up to one's nose, but a deposit that was alleged to be found floating on top of a jar of urine that had been left standing for a day or longer. As Joel's post indicated, kiestein seems to have become regarded as a bit of a will'o'the wisp even by the 1860s. It certainly doesn't appear in any medical textbook that I own, and it's not in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

The fact of the matter is that we do not know what experiments Openshaw carried out on the kidney he was presented with, but it is entirely possible that by using a microscope he was able to determine reliable markers of the time which allowed him to make a reasonable choice as to the sexual origin of that kidney.

There ARE no tests that could reveal the sexual origin of a kidney, short of karyotyping it and looking for an XX or XY chromosome pair - and that knowledge, never mind the techniques to support it, was NOT AVAILABLE at the time Openshaw examined the kidney, and would not be available for some decades afterwards.

To speculate otherwise is just sheer nonsense.

I'm glad you agree.

[joelhall]

in response to both of you...

i am unable to find any modern references to kiestein/kyestein as yet.

luckily the education can make some deductions here...

i would imagine that was once discovered and thought to be a specific compound, is more likely a description of a build up of waste products, with low surface adhesion. the fact there are properties such as the fatty desposits, and referring to dr. hassells work, suggested to me this is due to a mix of dairy digestion bi-products, and excreted mineral salts (though im not adept in urinary compounds yet, nor am i going to specialise in renal medicine haha).

neither have i found any reference to this as a renal deposit (could you provide the source for this please id like to read through it).

id also imagine that alcohol preservation would have a negative effect on its preservation, most likely leaving the surface residue in the spirits (though its beyond me if this would be in the same state).

im quite interested in this now though, and thankfully ancestors of mine were in the medical profession and some of their books, so ill have a look for old copies of blacks, etc see if anything comes up

one last thing... structuraly, both sexes will have identical kidneys, though for someone used to seeing them, there would no doubt be 'cosmetic' differences, based on the gender of the person (such as due to different size and shape of the pelvis, location of sexual organs). as theres no records mentioned so i doubt any tests were carried out more than visual. he would have made his medical opinion based on experience, noting the size, shape, etc of the kidney to explain gender, as he would obviously be expected to give this information at the least.

any qualified doctors here?

joel

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joel,

he would have made his medical opinion based on experience, noting the size, shape, etc of the kidney to explain gender

...and, as we've seen, there is a large variation in the size and weight of the kidneys of males and females, furthermore the statistical distributions show a large amount of overlap. The upshot is that the gross anatomy of the kidney is a poor indicator of the sex of the person to whom the organ once belonged. The shape is no differentiator either, because the human kidney is practically - if not exactly - the same shape in both sexes. Indeed the human kidney is very similar, in a gross morphological sense, to that of a pig - although I believe the renal pyramids are slightly smaller in pigs than in humans.

Let us not forget that Openshaw was not presented with a whole organ anyway, but half of one kidney - and even that may have been "trimmed up", if Dr Gordon Brown's refutation was accurately reported.

[joelhall]

like i said opinion based on experience.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joel,

like i said opinion based on experience

Which might have led him to mistake a small man's, a child's, or even a pig's, kidney for the few grams of trimmed-up and alcohol soaked half-organ he had before him. I'd equate it to giving a chip-fryer a scrubbed, par-boiled potato fritter and asking him to judge, on general shape and weight alone, whether it came from a Maris Piper or a Maris Pier.

[joelhall]

Hi Joel,Which might have led him to mistake a small man's, a child's, or even a pig's, kidney for the few grams of trimmed-up and alcohol soaked half-organ he had before him. I'd equate it to giving a chip-fryer a scrubbed, par-boiled potato fritter and asking him to judge, on general shape and weight alone, whether it came from a Maris Piper or a Maris Pier.

precisely. though what else is he supposed to do when presented with the kidney, and asked for his opinion. though in fairness an experience doctor in this field would see the difference between an adult and immature kidneys.