Pub Date : 2004-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0025727300073567
Tuesday 3rd. Went to the Hop'. du Midi. Saw Ricord apply some strong Hydrochloric Acid to the gums in a case of salivation.3 He stated, that so far /43v/ from considering ptyalism necessary in Vener'. disease, he thot. it generally injurious. The method by which he introduces Mercury into the system is the following he washes the part with a solution of Chloride of Lime & sprinkles Calomel on it. Decomposition takes place, & a mild corrosive sublimate is produced. M. R. remained but a very short time in his men's ward. I therefore left him & went to La Pitie to hear Louis lecture. I do not like him so well as Chomel. At Ribail's had two bandages one for fractured olecranon4 & another for fractr. of Radius the latter Dupuytren's former not of much value. At Sichel's several cases but none particular.
{"title":"February 1835","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s0025727300073567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025727300073567","url":null,"abstract":"Tuesday 3rd. Went to the Hop'. du Midi. Saw Ricord apply some strong Hydrochloric Acid to the gums in a case of salivation.3 He stated, that so far /43v/ from considering ptyalism necessary in Vener'. disease, he thot. it generally injurious. The method by which he introduces Mercury into the system is the following he washes the part with a solution of Chloride of Lime & sprinkles Calomel on it. Decomposition takes place, & a mild corrosive sublimate is produced. M. R. remained but a very short time in his men's ward. I therefore left him & went to La Pitie to hear Louis lecture. I do not like him so well as Chomel. At Ribail's had two bandages one for fractured olecranon4 & another for fractr. of Radius the latter Dupuytren's former not of much value. At Sichel's several cases but none particular.","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":"11 1","pages":"127 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0025727300073567","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57094782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-11-01DOI: 10.1017/S0025727300073865
P. Kandela
The greater coronary heart disease morbidity of sedentary as opposed to physically active workers was demonstrated many years ago by J N Morris and his colleagues in a comparison of London bus drivers and conductors. These two groups of transport workers belonged to the same social class and had similar lifestyles. They differed principally in the amount of physical activity in which they engaged when at work. The drivers were confined to a small enclosed driving compartment which rendered them almost completely immobile, whilst the conductors were continuously active, especially as they constantly had to run up and down the stairs of the doubledecker London buses. During the five-year follow-up the drivers had a CHD incidence almost double that of the conductors. The differences between the two groups became greater as their members grew older (Table IX.1).' The finding of this untoward accompaniment of physical inactivity has been confirmed by the results of the Framingham study2 and a 27 cohort based rigorous meta-analysis reported by Jesse Berlin and Graham Colditz. These authors found a relative risk of death from coronary heart disease of 1.9 (CL 1.6-2.2) for sedentary as opposed to high physical activity groups, and the benefits were shown to be greater in the studies that the authors judged to be methodologically stronger.3 Conversely, in the Whitehall study of British civil servants leisure-time physical activity has been found to have cardiovascular health benefits similar to those apparently conferred on the London bus conductors by their workaday exertions. Vigorous weekend exercise apparently protected the middle-aged men from fatal heart attacks and non-fatal first episodes of coronary heart disease.4 It is probable that a randomized and controlled prospective study of the cardiovascular consequences of prolonged inactivity will never be undertaken. It would be both unethical and impractical to enforce a long-term sedentary lifestyle on a control group. However, the physiological means by which regular exercise has cardioprotective effects are now well defined. Animal studies have shown that the coronary arterial capacity becomes greater relative to the cardiac muscle mass and an increase in coronary artery diameter has been demonstrated angiographically. Capillary growth is induced and increase in coronary blood flow in response to need
多年前，J·N·莫里斯(J N Morris)和他的同事对伦敦公交车司机和售票员进行了比较，发现久坐不动的人患冠心病的几率比经常运动的人高。这两组运输工人属于同一个社会阶层，有着相似的生活方式。他们的主要差异在于工作时从事的体力活动的数量。司机们被限制在一个封闭的小车厢里，这使他们几乎完全不能动，而售票员却一直活跃着，特别是当他们不得不不断地在伦敦双层公共汽车的楼梯上跑来跑去的时候。在5年的随访中，司机的冠心病发病率几乎是售票员的两倍。随着成员年龄的增长，两组之间的差异也越来越大(见表IX.1)。弗雷明汉研究的结果，以及杰西·伯林和格雷厄姆·科尔迪茨对27个队列进行的严格荟萃分析，证实了缺乏运动带来的这种不利影响。这些作者发现，与高体力活动组相比，久坐组死于冠心病的相对风险为1.9 (cl1.6 -2.2)，并且在作者认为方法学上更强的研究中显示出更大的益处相反，白厅对英国公务员进行的一项研究发现，业余时间的体育锻炼对心血管健康的好处与伦敦公交车售票员在工作中所获得的好处相似。周末剧烈运动明显地保护中年男子免受致命性心脏病发作和非致命性冠心病的首次发作长期不运动对心血管影响的随机对照前瞻性研究可能永远不会进行。将长期久坐不动的生活方式强加于对照组是不道德和不切实际的。然而，规律运动对心脏保护作用的生理机制现在已经得到了很好的定义。动物研究表明，冠状动脉容量相对于心肌质量变得更大，冠状动脉直径的增加已被血管造影证实。毛细血管生长被诱导，并根据需要增加冠状动脉血流量
{"title":"Exercise","authors":"P. Kandela","doi":"10.1017/S0025727300073865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300073865","url":null,"abstract":"The greater coronary heart disease morbidity of sedentary as opposed to physically active workers was demonstrated many years ago by J N Morris and his colleagues in a comparison of London bus drivers and conductors. These two groups of transport workers belonged to the same social class and had similar lifestyles. They differed principally in the amount of physical activity in which they engaged when at work. The drivers were confined to a small enclosed driving compartment which rendered them almost completely immobile, whilst the conductors were continuously active, especially as they constantly had to run up and down the stairs of the doubledecker London buses. During the five-year follow-up the drivers had a CHD incidence almost double that of the conductors. The differences between the two groups became greater as their members grew older (Table IX.1).' The finding of this untoward accompaniment of physical inactivity has been confirmed by the results of the Framingham study2 and a 27 cohort based rigorous meta-analysis reported by Jesse Berlin and Graham Colditz. These authors found a relative risk of death from coronary heart disease of 1.9 (CL 1.6-2.2) for sedentary as opposed to high physical activity groups, and the benefits were shown to be greater in the studies that the authors judged to be methodologically stronger.3 Conversely, in the Whitehall study of British civil servants leisure-time physical activity has been found to have cardiovascular health benefits similar to those apparently conferred on the London bus conductors by their workaday exertions. Vigorous weekend exercise apparently protected the middle-aged men from fatal heart attacks and non-fatal first episodes of coronary heart disease.4 It is probable that a randomized and controlled prospective study of the cardiovascular consequences of prolonged inactivity will never be undertaken. It would be both unethical and impractical to enforce a long-term sedentary lifestyle on a control group. However, the physiological means by which regular exercise has cardioprotective effects are now well defined. Animal studies have shown that the coronary arterial capacity becomes greater relative to the cardiac muscle mass and an increase in coronary artery diameter has been demonstrated angiographically. Capillary growth is induced and increase in coronary blood flow in response to need","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":"1 1","pages":"137 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0025727300073865","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57094978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Eighteenth-Century Origins of Angina Pectoris: Predisposing Causes, Recognition and Aftermath","authors":"Ruth Morley, Leon Michaels","doi":"10.2307/40111504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40111504","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":"5 1","pages":"141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40111504","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68795182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Aubrey Lewis, Edward Mapother and the Maudsley.","authors":"Edgar Jones","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":" 22","pages":"3-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2531006/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40931003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Defining psychiatry: Aubrey Lewis's 1938 report and the Rockefeller Foundation.","authors":"Katherine Angel","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":" 22","pages":"39-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2531005/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40931004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Aubrey Lewis's report on his visits to psychiatric centres in Europe in 1937.","authors":"Aubrey Lewis","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":" 22","pages":"64-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2531004/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41008260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0025727300073439
A. Lewis
At the suggestion and with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation I visited in 1937 all the European countries except the Balkans, Spain and Portugal, and Germany. As I had already seen something of the psychiatric work in Spain before the Civil War, and had studied in Germany some years ago, when the level of medical work there was higher than it is at present, these omissions did not appreciably affect the purpose of my journey, which was to learn what is being done in neuropsychiatry and related fields. The net was cast fairly wide, in that I was provided by the foundation with letters of introduction not only to those active in teaching and research in neurology or psychiatry, but also to the physiologists, psychologists, geneticists, and others who were pursuing in these fundamental sciences studies which would throw light on our clinical problems and methods of investigation; I was also able to see administrators who controlled organization and development. Such a round of visits (formidable in many respects, and quite impracticable if one had not already from the literature and from personal contacts some knowledge of the work being done) was a reminder of the enormous field psychiatry now straddles over or touches; from social legislation, psychotherapy, or statistics, to neurology, internal medicine, and the minutiae of laboratory research. I have put down in order the men and places I visited, and stated at the beginning some general impressions. It would be possible to avoid so bald a catalogue of an immensely informative and stimulating journey by giving a much more detailed account, which would be to a large extent technical, and by expressing freely the opinions I formed about what I saw in each place, but these, in the circumstances, might sound patronising when appreciative, and hasty or ill-mannered when critical. Moreover, it was impossible not to see the close influence which the political and social situation in each country had upon psychiatry, whether as a branch of public health, medical practice, or research (this, however, goes rather beyond what were my immediate "terms of reference"). It was evident-perhaps as a by-product of this state of affairs-that in many places where Germany had long been regarded as the European seat of authority and progress in medical, and especially psychiatric, matters, its place was being taken by England and USA. Many people, I found, were eager to turn …
{"title":"Aubrey Lewis's introduction to his report.","authors":"A. Lewis","doi":"10.1017/S0025727300073439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300073439","url":null,"abstract":"At the suggestion and with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation I visited in 1937 all the European countries except the Balkans, Spain and Portugal, and Germany. As I had already seen something of the psychiatric work in Spain before the Civil War, and had studied in Germany some years ago, when the level of medical work there was higher than it is at present, these omissions did not appreciably affect the purpose of my journey, which was to learn what is being done in neuropsychiatry and related fields. The net was cast fairly wide, in that I was provided by the foundation with letters of introduction not only to those active in teaching and research in neurology or psychiatry, but also to the physiologists, psychologists, geneticists, and others who were pursuing in these fundamental sciences studies which would throw light on our clinical problems and methods of investigation; I was also able to see administrators who controlled organization and development. Such a round of visits (formidable in many respects, and quite impracticable if one had not already from the literature and from personal contacts some knowledge of the work being done) was a reminder of the enormous field psychiatry now straddles over or touches; from social legislation, psychotherapy, or statistics, to neurology, internal medicine, and the minutiae of laboratory research. I have put down in order the men and places I visited, and stated at the beginning some general impressions. It would be possible to avoid so bald a catalogue of an immensely informative and stimulating journey by giving a much more detailed account, which would be to a large extent technical, and by expressing freely the opinions I formed about what I saw in each place, but these, in the circumstances, might sound patronising when appreciative, and hasty or ill-mannered when critical. Moreover, it was impossible not to see the close influence which the political and social situation in each country had upon psychiatry, whether as a branch of public health, medical practice, or research (this, however, goes rather beyond what were my immediate \"terms of reference\"). It was evident-perhaps as a by-product of this state of affairs-that in many places where Germany had long been regarded as the European seat of authority and progress in medical, and especially psychiatric, matters, its place was being taken by England and USA. Many people, I found, were eager to turn …","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":"1 1","pages":"57 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0025727300073439","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57094644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0025727300073427
Katherine Angel
Aubrey Lewis finished his report on psychiatry in Europe in 1938, having travelled to centres of psychiatry and allied fields on the Continent between March and September 1937. He had been at the Maudsley Hospital for nine years, with five years as a consultant and one as clinical director. While Lewis stated that the aim of the trip to the Continent was "to learn what is being done in neuropsychiatry and related fields", saying that it was "at the suggestion and with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation",1 it is worth dwelling on the question of the wider aims it may have served. The trip can be located in the context of Edward Mapother's desire to create an outstanding institution which would foster research, raise teaching and training standards, and thereby raise the quality and status of psychiatry in England.2 Mapother, keen to groom individuals who would pursue the same goals of institutional, disciplinary and scientific excellence which he admired in American psychiatry, and having Lewis in
{"title":"Defining psychiatry: Aubrey Lewis's 1938 report and the Rockefeller Foundation.","authors":"Katherine Angel","doi":"10.1017/S0025727300073427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300073427","url":null,"abstract":"Aubrey Lewis finished his report on psychiatry in Europe in 1938, having travelled to centres of psychiatry and allied fields on the Continent between March and September 1937. He had been at the Maudsley Hospital for nine years, with five years as a consultant and one as clinical director. While Lewis stated that the aim of the trip to the Continent was \"to learn what is being done in neuropsychiatry and related fields\", saying that it was \"at the suggestion and with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation\",1 it is worth dwelling on the question of the wider aims it may have served. The trip can be located in the context of Edward Mapother's desire to create an outstanding institution which would foster research, raise teaching and training standards, and thereby raise the quality and status of psychiatry in England.2 Mapother, keen to groom individuals who would pursue the same goals of institutional, disciplinary and scientific excellence which he admired in American psychiatry, and having Lewis in","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":"1 1","pages":"39 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0025727300073427","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57094637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Aubrey Lewis's introduction to his report.","authors":"Aubrey Lewis","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":" 22","pages":"57-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2531003/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40931005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：