Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
THINK......

...I do, Nats. It's one of my failings.

[Dan Norder]

Sam,

Doctors can be young and well respected, as Openshaw certainly was. He didn't get to be in charge of the London Hospital's pathological collection, where he would have studied and cataloged all the various medical specimens held by that body, if he hadn't already demonstrated his skills. In fact, holding the job that he had would make him one of the better choices to examine organs to determine their origin, as he dealt with such specimens on a daily basis. I also note that the quote you pulled from that website seems almost calculated to leave out all mention of his qualifications in surgery and anatomy before the Ripper murders happened, which are listed right there on that same page. I hope it's just that you only skimmed one paragraph and copied out some text quickly that you thought would support you and not that you read the rest and decided not to mention it.

[Sam Flynn]

I hope it's just that you only skimmed one paragraph and copied out some text quickly that you thought would support you and not that you read the rest and decided not to mention it.

I read the whole thing, Dan, precised the biographical part (without significant elision) and posted a link so that others could read the original for themselves.

My earlier points remain unchanged by the information I found, viz.:

* Openshaw was a 32 year old surgeon in 1888, and thus at the beginning of his career. There is no evidence that he was as renowned in 1888 as one might believe, and which he might later have become;

* He later published mainly on orthopaedics, not anatomy and certainly not on kidneys;

* Whilst I have no doubts that he was a good surgeon and (briefly) a pathological museum curator, he was not, according to any evidence I've found, a pathologist or anatomist by specialism;

* He had been an anatomical demonstrator, but I don't know which aspect(s) of anatomy he majored in demonstrating;

* As a good surgeon, he would have been well aware of the gross anatomy of the kidney - however, it is uncertain whether he was aware to a sufficient degree in the comparative anatomy of pigs' kidneys;

* Some illustrations of the fine structure of human kidneys in anatomical texts were based on pigs' kidneys - without caveats or disclaimers as to cross-species variance in morphology - until the early decades of the 20th Century;

* He cannot be presumed to have been a particular "authority" on the kidney, and there is no evidence of this.

[Sam Flynn]

I also note that the quote you pulled from that website seems almost calculated to leave out all mention of his qualifications in surgery and anatomy.

...missed this. I can assure you it wasn't calculated at all, Dan. I posted that information yesterday in a separate post (this one). Besides, I haven't found any qualifications in anatomy as such. That he was an assistant demonstrator in anatomy in 1888 is one thing, but that doesn't mean that he'd had any more specialist training at that point than his standard medical qualifications had bestowed upon him.

In fact, he'd received a pretty ordinary grade in that training. Durham University's MB BCh listings in the Times of 13th December 1883 show that he had merely "passed" - i.e. he had fallen short of even 2nd Class honours. This is not to disparage him, only to point out that he was a good, honest surgeon. There is no evidence that he was another Vesalius.

[Dan Norder]

So you want others to believe that he was in charge of the pathology collection but had no appreciable experience or knowledge of pathology, was fully certified in surgery and anatomy but didn't know jack about either, and, despite that professional background and one of the world's largest collections of medical specimens under his direct control, he wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on some basic features of a piece of kidney because he never wrote a paper specifically about kidneys.

You know, I'm still frankly surprised sometimes at the kinds of things you'll try to argue just to back up some conclusion you've already made. But I guess with that argument already out there as your criteria for whether someone should be taken seriously or not I would have to ignore you until you write a medical paper about kidneys.

[Sam Flynn]

So you want others to believe that he was in charge of the pathology collection but had no appreciable experience or knowledge of pathology

That does not follow from what I said

was fully certified in surgery and anatomy but didn't know jack about either

Neither does that. Plus, he was no more qualified in anatomy than others who undertook the same training - but that did not make him an anatomical specialist. Neither does being the curator of a pathological museum make him a pathologist - which you said he was.

and, despite that professional background and one of the world's largest collections of medical specimens under his direct control, he wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on some basic features of a piece of kidney because he never wrote a paper specifically about kidneys.

No. I'm saying that it's possible that he did not know much about the comparative anatomy of the pig kidney.

You know, I'm still frankly surprised sometimes at the kinds of things you'll try to argue just to back up some conclusion you've already made.

I've not concluded anything. I'm keeping the option that this might have been a pig kidney open, because I see no reason to believe that Openshaw, or any other ordinarily-qualified surgeon of his day, would have definitely known the difference between the two, as it seems not to have been a burning topic of research until the next century. Scientific papers posted in the last decade of the 20th Century would seem to back that up, and those I've found I shared in the spirit of collaboration and openness.

But I guess with that argument already out there as your criteria for whether someone should be taken seriously or not I would have to ignore you until you write a medical paper about kidneys.

I never shall, but I did choose to talk on the anatomy and physiology of the kidney when I was interviewed to study medicine at Cambridge. I didn't get in, by the way, but it had nothing to do with that part of the interview I can assure you. I've always been fascinated by the kidney - it's my third favourite organ.

[Cap'n Jack]

I think it worth keeping in mind the strange case of the Bear's leg, which took place right in the middle of the police investigation into the Whitechapel Murders in 1888; where a senior police officer from Scotland Yard was sent down to Surrey to investigate the finding of human remains, supposedly linked to the murders.
This officer returned in triumph, with his human remains, linked to the Whitechapel Murders, only to be told by the London pathologist that what he had was in fact the body parts of a brown bear, which had been grilled up by a member of the local gentry and then tossed away.
Openshaw would have done exactly the same thing.
'It's a pig's ear,' he would have said.
But that is not what he said.
And none of the three examining medics, that's three, Sam, had any doubt about the human origin of the kidney they examined.

[Sam Flynn]

And none of the three examining medics, that's three, Sam, had any doubt about the human origin of the kidney they examined.

I wouldn't necessarily expect them to have done, AP. Morphological similarity, lack of detailed research on comparative biology, etc etc...

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, your efforts to make us believe that medics of the time period would not have been able to make a distinction between a human and porcine kidney - and that they didn't have the science available to them until recent times - is somewhat negated by the fact that a French medic transplanted a porcine kidney into a woman in 1906, and she lived for an hour.
He knew it was a porcine kidney.
How did he know that?
I'd say because it came from a pig.
He knew that as well.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, your efforts to make us believe that medics of the time period would not have been able to make a distinction between a human and porcine kidney - and that they didn't have the science available to them until recent times - is somewhat negated by the fact that a French medic transplanted a porcine kidney into a woman in 1906, and she lived for an hour.
He knew it was a porcine kidney.
How did he know that?

Evidently because they knew where they got it from, AP. I can't imagine that they'd have gone ahead with the procedure had the organ arrived in an anonymous cardboard box, with the plumbing trimmed up and all.

[Cap'n Jack]

And do you not think, Sam, that the reason the good surgeon opted for a pig's kidney was that human kidney's were very rare to find?
A dead pig doesn't require a police investigation or an inquest.
This kidney did.

[Sam Flynn]

And do you not think, Sam, that the reason the good surgeon opted for a pig's kidney was that human kidney's were very rare to find?

Human kidneys aren't rare in hospitals, AP, where this French medic presumably carried out the procedure. Cross-species transplants (between animals and humans) had been carried out as early as the 1900s, and the concept had been mooted before then. In fact, such experiments as these on the transplantation of animal organs predated the first human to human kidney transplants. Whatever their reasons were for doing so, I doubt that it would have been due to a shortage of humans.

[Victor]

And do you not think, Sam, that the reason the good surgeon opted for a pig's kidney was that human kidney's were very rare to find?
A dead pig doesn't require a police investigation or an inquest.
This kidney did.

No AP, the reason they opted for a pig's kidney is BECAUSE they are so morphologically similar! They'd never have tried it if they weren't so similar.

In other words, they look the same, they feel the same, this transplant was to see if they worked the same.

Slice a kidney, mount it on a slide, put it under microscope.
One minute?

Did you never do this at school? If you wanted to get an image good enough to tell the difference between a human and porcine kidney you'd have to be pretty accurate in getting that very thin slice, and not just wildly slashing round with a knife without a care for collateral damage.

[Investigator]

Seems the discussion is becoming a bit bogged down on belief systems so I thought I'd butt in again.
The interest in body part transplants has generated a lot of research as to the possibility of using the pig kidney in humans but for immunological reasons a cross-species transplant is as yet not possible. Functional differences may also preclude such a transfer to humans, like blood pressure and osmotic characteristics of the glomular apparatus. There are distinct morphological differences between the pig and human and a number of functional and biochemical differences. The use of pigs for modern anatomical training is a cheaper alternative to human cadavers.
Two references from PubMed relating to comparative differences indicate that Openshaw would have had no difficulty in seeing that the portion of kidney was not otherwise human, he didn't need to have an in-depth knowledge of the pig.
His relative youth in the field of anatomy is a distinct advantage since his training would have been on the scientific model of medicine rather than the myths of phlogistic theory using blood letting and bat piss. We shouldn't underestimate the capability of yesteryears medical people, even todays light microscope has only marginally improved since 1887. In fact the use of modern technology has eroded some basic understanding of practical concepts.
(1) Comparative Anatomy of the Pig. Professor M. Michael Swindle, Department of Comparative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2002 available at www.sinclairresearch.com
(2) Proportional analysis of pig kidney arterial segments: differences from the human kidney. Pereira-Sampaio M,et al. Department of Morphology, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, Brazil.J Endourol. 2007 Jul;21(7):784-8. PMID: 17705772 (PubMed)
(3). The pig kidney as an endourologic model: anatomic contribution.
Sampaio FJ, Pereira-Sampaio MA, Favorito LA. Urogenital Research Unit, Biomedical Center, State University of Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
J Endourol. 1998 Feb;12(1):45-50

Brief conclusions quoted are:
“Also different from humans, in pigs, we found only angles smaller than 90 degrees between the caudal (lower) infundibulum and the renal pelvis. Except for the length, the means of the other morphometric measurements of the pig kidney are smaller than those of humans.” (probably an adaptation because the pig is an all-fours animal while primates tend to be upright)

“The distribution and size of the renal-arterial segments in pigs are not similar to those of the human kidneys.”

As for the alcohol question. Ethyl alcohol (95%) was legislatively controlled and permits were, and still are required to ration its use. Cadavers and mortuary work used methylated spirit that contained methyl alcohol or in those days wood naphtha - a distillate of wood containing pyridines and noxious substances to prevent drinking. It also has a rotten fish smell.
The licencing of ethyl alcohol restricts its use to distillatories, "Methylators" liquor manufacture, apothecary, medical, hospital, laboratory and perfumaries and such like. That is not to say that there were no opportunities for pilfering or private distillation. Absolute ethyl alcohol is 99.8% and requires special treatment to remove the water so is not usually needed outside of laboratories. Guess the devil is in the detail.
Hope this is may help to clear up a few points, Regards G.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Investigator, for that useful summary. Forgive me if I remain open-minded to the possibility that Openshaw may have been confused, as I've yet to see any sources on comparative anatomy that pre-date the second half of the 20th Century. The points of interest given in your summary of that research hang largely upon subtle differences in spatial parameters or angles of very specific renal regions. If these had not been measured and documented until a mere few decades ago, then I see no reason to believe that the significance of such nuances would have been appreciated a hundred years or more previously.

Thank you, once again, for sharing the information.