More Pages: Moore Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100


Why the physical, tangible, real world is the way it is.

Let the Secret Out

The Blind Beekeeper is a keeper for sure!

The First TransfusionsIt is important to realize that the approach of looking for evidence to support theories was something quite new when (especially) the English philosopher Francis Bacon advocated it in the early seventeenth century. There were centuries of precedent, supported by the church, of sticking to Aristotle, who did not have much of a record as an experimentalist. The experiments described here involved infusing animals with the blood of other animals, often of different species. Denis was the first one to try transfusion on humans. In 1667, having transfused a couple of patients with sheep's blood, he was called in to see a madman named Mauroy, and it was suspected that his impure blood could be replaced by pure calf's blood and the calf's placidity would overtake the patient's madness. Mauroy died. Denis said he died before he could begin the transfusion, while Mrs. Mauroy said it was soon after the transfusion began. The Parisian faculty of physicians distrusted novelty, and didn't like an upstart making the sort of talk that Denis's successes had won, and arranged to ensure that Denis was tried for murder. Convenient evidence came up that Mrs. Mauroy had used arsenic on her husband; whether or not she was a murderer, Denis certainly wasn't, and he went free. He had hoped that his name would be made by his blood work, but he tended to stick to math and astronomy thereafter. The Catholic Church banned transfusions in 1675.
Transfusion is a good idea, but all those centuries ago, science had not developed sufficiently to make it a good idea. Moore's book is good at setting scenes, and explaining the rationale of the experiments of the time. It is a good instruction on experimentation done just for the sake of seeing what happens, without any real theory as guidance. It is also good in comparing the feelings of the seventeenth century public, who were fearful or enthusiastic about the new treatment, with the feelings of the twenty-first century public, who have fear and enthusiasm for, say, genetically engineered corn, or for cloning. The old worries of "Who has the right to play God?" were present then and now, and representations in the popular press were and are often less than helpful. It is thus that this weird episode of bloodletting has a contemporary resonance.


BLOOD: Hemostasis, Transfusion, and Alternatives

Be a legionnaire in the armies of the Restless Dead

Riviting and engaging reading at its best!

Good!

Wonderful!

A Nostalgic Book to take you back in timeJohn Moore takes you back to a pre war small rural English village and introduces you to the inhabitants in such a way that you feel you are part of the community. The writing flows and it easy to follow. The book once read, need re-reading every couple of years. It is like visiting old friends. The Colonel, Mr Chorlton, the Hermit, the inhabitants of the pubs etc etc. Of all the books John Moore has written on English country life this is the best.
It is like an old friend to me.