Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[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]

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

[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".

[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.

[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.

[Cap'n Jack]

What had it been soaked in, Sam?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, you are being rather difficult here, if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm not - you are, at least in the context of the fairy tale of the Lusk kidney, that is. In terms of your enlightening me about 19th century ideas of the biochemistry of women of birthing age it has been most interesting, even if I can't seem to find any reference to the phlogiston-like substance called "Kiestein" after the 1850s.

As to Openshaw detecting the Kiestein by smell, remember that any trace of whatever fragrance the kidney might once have possessed would have been compromised, if not completely obliterated, by the absolute alcohol in which it had been soaked.

[Cap'n Jack]

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.

[joelhall]

AP seems to think that the kidney was pregnant, at least. If it wasn't Eddowes' kidney then, if the press reports and AP's theory are to be believed, then we must look for another London woman, whose kidneys had been implausibly damaged by gin, and who died - 45 years old and implausibly pregnant - around the same time as the murder in Mitre Square.

ok im a few years off qualifying, but im sure looking for kiestein would not tell us this. nor would it be a definite sign that the kidney was female.

[Sam Flynn]

i fail to see what point youre trying to make here.

are you arguing that eddowes was pregnant?

AP seems to think that the kidney was pregnant, at least. If it wasn't Eddowes' kidney then, if the press reports and AP's theory are to be believed, then we must look for another London woman, whose kidneys had been implausibly damaged by gin, and who died - 45 years old and implausibly pregnant - around the same time as the murder in Mitre Square.

[Sam Flynn]

Personally I cannot imagine that Dr Openshaw would not have tested the kidney he examined for traces of Kiestein.

He looked at it, AP - that's all we know. You'd think that the Press Agency would have told the world about "Kiestein" if that's what Openshaw had found - or at least, that they'd have come up with something with more of a basis in science than the lame "ginny kidney".

[joelhall]

Oh, I do enjoy it when I'm scolded for pursuing a simple little truth, and everyone yawns and tells me I'm becoming far too tiresome and boring, just like in the 'truncheon-holder' discussion where I was shown to be absolutely right, and the likes of Stewart Evans had to admit I was; and since then I have discovered Old Bailey statements confirming my argument in full. But hey, I don't crow.
I do note that the main detractors have withdrawn since I mentioned the term 'Kiestein', which of course is a substance only produced by the female of the species, and found in the kidneys of such females, and never in a male kidney; and was easily detectable by doctors as early as the 1830's.
Personally I cannot imagine that Dr Openshaw would not have tested the kidney he examined for traces of Kiestein, as it had been a standard test for over fifty years before 1888.
Kiestein is a unique biological substance, directly linked to the female of the species, commonly found in the kidneys of pregnant women, but also often found in the urinary tract and kidneys of virgins... but as yet has never been found in a male kidney.
I would have thought that this would have been the first test Openshaw conducted on his unknown kidney.

i fail to see what point youre trying to make here.

are you arguing that eddowes was pregnant?

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh, I do enjoy it when I'm scolded for pursuing a simple little truth, and everyone yawns and tells me I'm becoming far too tiresome and boring, just like in the 'truncheon-holder' discussion where I was shown to be absolutely right, and the likes of Stewart Evans had to admit I was; and since then I have discovered Old Bailey statements confirming my argument in full. But hey, I don't crow.
I do note that the main detractors have withdrawn since I mentioned the term 'Kiestein', which of course is a substance only produced by the female of the species, and found in the kidneys of such females, and never in a male kidney; and was easily detectable by doctors as early as the 1830's.
Personally I cannot imagine that Dr Openshaw would not have tested the kidney he examined for traces of Kiestein, as it had been a standard test for over fifty years before 1888.
Kiestein is a unique biological substance, directly linked to the female of the species, commonly found in the kidneys of pregnant women, but also often found in the urinary tract and kidneys of virgins... but as yet has never been found in a male kidney.
I would have thought that this would have been the first test Openshaw conducted on his unknown kidney.

[Supe]

AP,

Could ...
Could ...
And could ...
And could ....

And can a young girl from a small mining town in the west find lover and happiness in the big city?

You sound like the soap operas my gransmother listemed to--only not so belevable. I suppose (shades of old Maybrick threads) anything could have happened, but based on what we know none of what you suggest is likely.

Don.

[Dan Norder]

And could Openshaw have been absolutely right?

Comes as it is at the end of a very speculative chain of what-ifs, that's a bit disingenuous. You don't know what Openshaw did or did not do, and certainly this whole line of thought is at odds with what he is on record of having actually said.