Therefore, a prophylactic trial as in the anthrax experiment with 50 sheep was unapproachable, both for practical as well as ethical reasons. However, rabies was quite serious, in that after a bite from a rabid animal, the disease was usually lethal, and the illness and death quite horrible.
This kind of situation, as well as the long incubation interval between the initial bites and the onset of symptoms, which could be several months, lent itself perfectly to a therapeutic intervention, rather than preventative. As background, a veterinarian from Lyon, Pierre-Victoire Galtier had reported in that rabies could be transmitted from dogs to rabbits. Galtier also suggested that the long incubation period of rabies suggested that a therapeutic remedy might be applied after infection, but before the symptoms became manifest Geison, One other important observation that Pasteur and Roux had established in their studies on chicken cholera and anthrax was that the serial passage of a microbe through the same or another animal species could alter its pathogenicity, either increasing or decreasing its virulence Pasteur et al.
Actually, this phenomenon had been utilized in creating the vaccinia virus throughout the nineteenth century, such that the history of the cowpox virus, horsepox virus, smallpox virus, and vaccinia virus became quite convoluted Smith, In this regard the difference between a virus, which must replicate in cells, vs. Therefore, his atmosphere-attenuation method could not be used to make a vaccine for rabies. Accordingly, he turned to his experience of passaging microbes in vivo , from animal to animal.
Thus, this dog-to-dog transfer presumably increased the virulence of the rabies virus. Pasteur immediately assumed that a shortening of the incubation interval happened as a result of a change in the microbe, whereas Koch, who had observed a similar phenomenon, assumed that the serial passage had simply increased the purity of the microbes transferred Geison, Obviously, dosage would be important too, but there was no way that the actual number of transferred organisms could be determined at this time.
Subsequently, over the next few years, Pasteur experimented with methods of serial passage of the rabies virus through different species to ascertain whether he could attenuate its virulence. He then reported in May, that the serial passage of the virus from dogs through monkeys would attenuate it when re-inoculated back into dogs. Subsequently, in the year between this report and July of , when he began treating the boy Joseph Meister who had been badly bitten by a supposedly rabid dog, Pasteur performed many different kinds of experiments on dogs as well as rabbits.
Together with Roux a new method evolved in the lab to try to attenuate the rabies virus. Spinal cords taken from rabbits newly dead of rabies were suspended in flasks open to the air that contained potassium hydroxide as a desiccant, which Pasteur introduced to prevent the cords from putrifying.
This is the mechanism that now Pasteur began to believe was responsible for rendering immunity. It is this thought pattern that led him to experiments using serial inoculations going from fresh spinal cords virulent to successively dried attenuated spinal cords, instead of the other way around to try to generate immunity.
He began his presentation by explaining how he had started experiments in with the inoculation of rabies virus from the spinal cord of a rabid dog into rabbits by trepanation, placing it under the dura matter covering the brain. The spinal cords of these rabbits are rabid throughout their length with a constancy in their virulence. If taking the greatest care possible to maintain purity one removes from these cords sections a few centimeters in length, and then suspends them in dry air, virulence slowly disappears until it finally disappears.
Here, Pasteur assumed that the virus in the desiccated jars remained alive but had lost its virulence, and thus was attenuated. However, obviously Pasteur had no way to identify the rabies organisms, or to tell whether they were alive or dead. Having established these facts, here is the method to render a dog refractory immune to rabies in a relatively short time.
In a series of flasks in which air is maintained in a dry state…each day one suspends a thickness of fresh rabbit spinal tissue taken from a rabbit dead of rabies. Each day as well, one inoculates under the skin of a dog 1 mL of sterilized bouillion, in which has dispersed a small fragment of one of these desiccated spinal pieces, beginning with a piece most distant in time from when it was worked upon, in order to be sure that it is not at all virulent.
On the following days, one performed the same procedure with less old spinal tissue, separated by an interval of two days, until one reaches the last most virulent spinal tissue, that was placed only for a day or two in the flask. In this manner is the dog rendered immune to rabies. One can inject it with rabid virus under the skin or similarly on the brain surface by trepanation without rabies appearing.
By the application of this method, I had made fifty dogs of all ages refractory to rabies without a single failure, when unexpectedly on the 6 th of July last, three persons from Alsace presented themselves to my laboratory.
Joseph Meister, 9 years old…had suffered not less than 14 wounds from a rabid dog two days previously. As the death of this child appeared inevitable, I decided, not without deep and severe unease, as one can well imagine, to try on Joseph Meister the procedure which had consistently worked in dogs. After this presentation, Pasteur gradually withdrew from active experimentation, until his death in at age Therefore, this is one of the first, if not the first, example of a biotech company, and one that was used to support continued academic research.
It has undergone extensive testing in monkeys and has been found to be effective in protecting against pulmonary anthrax after an experimental aerosol challenge. Accordingly, just as in diphtheria and tetanus, the virulence of anthrax can be prevented by vaccination, not against the whole living microbe as imagined by Pasteur, but against the toxins released by the microbe, when denatured and made into toxoids as demonstrated by von Behring and Kitasato , who first demonstrated that immunization results in a host response by the formation of antitoxin activity in the sera.
Pasteur had an apartment in the building, where he spent much of his time until his death. However, ironically, live , but replication-deficient rabies virus vaccines are in development now, and they provide the hope that single-dose human live rabies vaccines will replace the current inactivated vaccines, with their associated toxicity and complicated repetitive dosing regimens.
In France, one can be an anarchist, a communist or a nihilist, but not an anti-Pastorian. A simple question of science has been made into a question of patriotism. The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.
Journal List Front Immunol v. Front Immunol. Published online Apr Prepublished online Mar 4. Kendall A. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This article was submitted to Frontiers in Immunological Memory, a specialty of Frontiers in Immunology. Received Feb 5; Accepted Mar This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License , which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Louis Pasteur is traditionally considered as the progenitor of modern immunology because of his studies in the late nineteenth century that popularized the germ theory of disease, and that introduced the hope that all infectious diseases could be prevented by prophylactic vaccination, as well as also treated by therapeutic vaccination, if applied soon enough after infection.
Keywords: Louis Pasteur, microbe, vaccination, chicken cholera, anthrax, rabies, immunity, attenuation. The microscope or the telescope, which of the two has the grander view? After the passage of the Treason Act , several other offences were deemed to comprise high treason by Act of Parliament.
Numerous new offences—including intending to kill the Sovereign even without an overt act demonstrating such intent and killing an ambassador—were declared treasonable. In Poynings' Law extended English law to cover Ireland. From the reign of Henry IV onwards, several new offences were made treasons; most legislation on the subject was passed during the reign of Henry VIII. It became high treason to deface money; to escape from prison whilst detained for committing treason, or to aid in an escape of a person detained for treason; to commit arson to extort money; to refer to the Sovereign offensively in public writing; to counterfeit the Sovereign's sign manual , signet or privy seal ; to refuse to abjure the authority of the Pope ; to marry any of the Sovereign's children, sisters, aunts, nephews or nieces without royal permission; to marry the Sovereign without disclosing prior sexual relationships; attempting to enter into a sexual relationship out of marriage with the Queen or a Princess; denying the Sovereign's official styles and titles; and refusing to acknowledge the Sovereign as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
Some offences, whose complexion was entirely different from traitorous actions, were nevertheless made treasons; thus, it was high treason for a Welshman to steal cattle , to commit murder by poisoning , or for an assembly of twelve or more rioters to refuse to disperse when so commanded. All new forms of high treason introduced since the Treason Act , except those to do with forgery and counterfeiting, were abrogated by the Treason Act , which was passed at the beginning of the reign of Edward VI.
When Mary I became queen in , she passed an Act abolishing all treasons whatsoever which had been created since Thus, it became high treason to counterfeit such foreign money, or to import counterfeit foreign money and actually attempt to use it to make a payment. But importing any counterfeit English money remained high treason, even if no attempt were made to use it in payment.
Mary also made it high treason to kill Philip II of Spain , her king consort , or to try to deprive him of his title. William III made it high treason to manufacture, buy, sell or possess instruments whose sole purpose is to coin money. He also made adding any inscription normally found on a coin to any piece of metal that may resemble a coin high treason.
George II made it high treason to mark or colour a silver coin so as to make it resemble a gold one. Aside from laws relating to counterfeiting and succession, very few acts concerning the definition of high treason were passed. Under laws passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, it was high treason for an individual to attempt to defend the jurisdiction of the Pope over the English Church for a third time a first offence being a misdemeanour and a second offence a felony ,  or for a Roman Catholic priest to enter the realm and refuse to conform to the English Church,  or to purport to release a subject of his allegiance to the Crown or the Church of England and to reconcile him or her with a foreign power.
Although this law was abolished in the United Kingdom in , it still continues to apply in some Commonwealth countries. Under laws passed after James II was deposed, it became treasonable to correspond with the Jacobite claimants main article , or to hinder succession to the Throne under the Act of Settlement , or to publish that anyone other than the individual specified by the Act of Settlement had the right to inherit the Crown. The English offences of high treason and misprision of treason but not petty treason were extended to Scotland, and the treasonable offences then existing in Scotland were abolished.
These were: "theft in Landed Men", murder in breach of trust, fire-raising, "firing coalheughs" and assassination.
In general, treason law in Scotland remained the same as in England, except that when in England the offence of counterfeiting the Great Seal of the United Kingdom etc. Between and it was treason to kill the Prince Regent. The charge against him was that he tried to encourage Irish soldiers in the British Army to mutiny and fight for Germany.
Casement argued that, as an Irishman, he could not be tried in an English court and should instead be tried in Ireland. This argument failed because he had worked as a diplomat for the British Government for almost all of his adult life and had accepted a knighthood and a pension from the Crown on retirement in He was hanged in Pentonville Prison on 3 August , and is now often considered a martyr by the Irish Republican movement.
The Titles Deprivation Act authorised the king to deprive peers of their peerage if they had assisted the enemy during the war, or voluntarily resided in enemy territory. This was mainly in response to the closeness of the British royal family with some German thrones, leading to the loss of British titles from the dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Brunswick , the Crown Prince of Hanover , and the Viscount Taaffe.
Whilst the act allowed for their descendants to petition for the restoration of these titles, as of [update] no descendant has done so. John Amery was executed in after pleading guilty to eight charges of treason for efforts to recruit British prisoners of war into the British Free Corps and for making propaganda broadcasts for Nazi Germany. The last execution for treason in the United Kingdom was held in He was awarded a personal commendation by Adolf Hitler in for his contribution to the German war effort.
On his capture at the end of the war, Parliament rushed through the Treason Act  to facilitate a trial that would have the same procedure as a trial for murder. Before the Act, a trial for treason short of regicide involved an elaborate and lengthy medieval procedure. Although Joyce was born in the United States to an Irish father and an English mother, he had moved to Britain in his teens and applied for a British passport in which was still valid when he defected to Germany and so under the law he owed allegiance to Britain.
He appealed against his conviction to the House of Lords on the grounds he had lied about his country of birth on the passport application and did not owe allegiance to any country at the beginning of the war.
The appeal was not upheld and he was executed at Wandsworth Prison on 3 January It is thought the strength of public feeling against Joyce as a perceived traitor was the driving force behind his prosecution. Until treason had its own rules of evidence and procedure which made it difficult to prosecute accused traitors, such as the need for two witnesses to the same offence. Consequently, in the Second World War it was perceived that there was a need for a new offence with which to deal with traitors more expediently.
The Treachery Act was passed creating a felony called treachery, to punish disloyalty and espionage. It was a capital offence. But our causes happen physically in time and don't make things appear out of nothing. His divine "cause" happens outside of time but cause is a temporal action - it occurs necessarily in time, so already the analogy is broke , non-physically and makes things out of nothing. It's a broke analogy, and arguments from analogy are only ever as strong as the similarities to begin with, and at micro and macro scales our universe has shown itself to be non-intuitive enough that it appears to me it's only theistic bias that is carrying the analogy through.
It's untrue that causation presupposes time or space. William Lane Craig, one of today's foremost experts on the philosophy of time, explains why here:. The whole argument that Dr. Kreeft is presenting is from analogy and hence the analogy has got to fit to be even remotely valid. I point out three key elements of causality - is temporal, spatial and physical, and the analogy breaks on all three of them.
It is not a robust analogy, and we have no good way of knowing about divine causality because it's just something that theologists invented and we have no way of actually investigating it so analogy is all we have I'm not interested in WLC for numerous reasons.
Invoking him is not a good move when you're discussing these issues with knowledgeable atheists. Actually, according to philosopher friends of mine David Mellor is one of today's foremost experts on the philosophy of time.
His book on the subject is a set text in a number of universities. William Lane Craig took the first few points of Aquinas' eight hundred year old Summa and turned them into an atheist killer that has stood unrefuted in his debates, and also on this site.
The "set of all real things," as you're using that term, is what's called a being of reason , a logical construct, and as such, exists only in the mind. What the term refers to , however, is a real thing. The totality of all things. This point is a non-starter. So then you deny that we can meaningfully refer to the universe as an existing being, understood as a collection of all that exists? Cosmologists might be upset at this single-handed dynamite blast that you've planted at the feet of their scientific endeavors.
I don't get it. Does the universe exist? If so, then it is , and has an act of being. If there is no such thing as the universe, as you've asserted repeatedly in your conflation of logical concepts with real things, then there is nothing at all That which is, in any way, has an act of being.
This applies across the board, to physical objects, abstract logical entities such as your sets, concepts like infinity, etc. How about, as I've made it abundantly clear above, something that exists and is? To be is to be in act as per Aristotle.
Not sure why that's so difficult? Because "act of being" is not a term we normally use and you obviously have a specific meaning in mind that you're failing to adequately articulate. You say the set of all real things by which I suspect you mean physical things is not a thing.
But then is, say, a cat - the set of certain things particles and such that interact in a certain way that appears catlike - a thing? If so, why is the physical universe not a thing? That is, you say "divine creation isn't like the causes we do" to which I reply "so what?
Then, if you reject this first cause, explain how the non-existence of a first cause does not lead to the non-existence of everything.
We can only access divine causality through analogy and that analogy is multiply broken. We don't know about causality as applied to universes, so the argument and your point 4 is based on lack of knowledge. I really don't know why there's a universe or not, and it would be wrong of me to invent an explanation, because, quite frankly, that's exactly what I'm accusing the theist who uses this argument of doing.
The set of cats is not a cat, but it does contain certain properties of catness such as a lot of hair and annoying noises. You still haven't shown that this is an issue. You can have sets of sets, and sets of sets of sets, and while a set of sets is clearly not the same set as a set of numbers, it is still a set and has many of the same properties thereof.
You don't have to be able to understand it to know that it's there if you can prove that it's absence implies a falsehood. It doesn't do so in the same way that a 4 year old proves to me that he has an apple by holding it in front of me, but this is immaterial. In differential equations for example, it is common to prove that a solution must exist without ever bothering to find out what it is.
Likewise, I can say that any always decreasing bounded sequence must converge to a limit without having any idea what that limit is. The fact that the first cause argument doesn't point to something that we already know about and that it does not by itself give lots of details is pretty irrelevant.
The set itself doesn't possess catness. The premise of a first cause argument is that the universe is contingent. The argument is also based on an every-day notion of causality that has not been demonstrated to apply to the things the argument intends it to apply to, namely universes and Gods.
This sounds almost like the special pleading you mentioned earlier. An electron is a thing. A proton is a thing. An electron going around a proton is a thing we call a hydrogen atom, but is in fact a set of things. A cat is also a particular collection of fundamental particles, and yet we call it a thing. Why is the set of all cats not a thing? Not a cat, certainly, but not a thing? It has, by the argument itself.
Otherwise there would be no universe. Not all reasoning is empirical. For example, it is clearly true that there are an infinite number of primes. This is a result of reason. Yet no one has produced an infinite number of primes, only a large number of them. Does this mean that there are not in fact an infinite number of primes? Further, many people say they have had empirical evidence which you presumably just reject. But you must realize that a failure to provide empirical evidence that you personally accept is irrelevant to the argument.
The premises do not include "and this one particular person must physically see touch or smell something that convinces him that the argument is true.
The set of all cats is a thing, but it's not the same kind of thing as a cat. Is God a thing? Existence is what you must have to have properties. If the argument is valid it says that if such and such a thing exists, it has these properties. Existence cannot be one of those properties as existence is not a property. This is exactly the same kind of problem you get with ontological arguments. In other words, unless something exists it cannot have properties, but showing something has properties doesn't show existence.
Existence is something that must be independently demonstrated. The argument relies upon at least an error of composition, and at least an "every day" understanding of causality which has not been demonstrated to apply to the universe other than by poor analogy, and that God is exempted from. The set is not hairy. But the property of the set "has members in x location" is certainly affected by the fact that the members have hair, as there are some climates in which that is not suitable.
The set of cats is clearly not a cat, but it makes no sense to say that its properties are entirely independent of cat influence either. Why does that apply to atoms in the configuration of a cat, but not to atoms in the configuration of a multitude of cats spread far apart? The answer not at all in the same way that we are, more correctly, God is "to be a thing. Whether we count existence as a property and say "x has the property of existence" or whether we say "x is" is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
It is true that existence must be independently demonstrated, but this is exactly what the argument does, by showing that lack of existence implies a falsehood. Ironically, your beef with the argument seems to be a special pleading sort of point that the universe is not a thing, based on an argument that some collections of things are things and others aren't, with no clear reason for why this is. One way around this issue for you is to demonstrate that the universe is contingent without reference to it's component elements.
I call them poetry. I have shown this is an error of composition the set of all things is not the same type of thing as it's elements. We have a perception of causality, but we don't know if there is really any causality or what rules it may actually obey. We do know that our general notion of causality breaks down at the quantum level, thus rendering any argument based on a general notion of causality rather suspect.
The argument attempts to show that the stopping point for the chain of causality must be something that exists necessarily, and this is where existence gets treated as a property rather than as something which allows us to say that something actually has properties.
Below I think. Not without reference to the members, of course, since a universe without members would be hard to talk about. Or in. Googling God's essence is Existence might do it. The ability to have properties is a property. Everything about anything is a property. The fact that one property enables a thing to have other properties might make it an important property, but it doesn't make it not a property. Further, you continually ignore the fact that the First Cause is a solution to a problem.
It is the only explanation as to why the universe can and does exist. If you successfully argued that there was no first cause because of some fiddle word game or another, then you fail to solve the problem: devoid of a first cause, whether such a one exists or not, the universe cannot exist. Yet it clearly does. Ergo, you're wrong. And yet further, it is absolutely false that you must know that something exists before you can talk about it.
That is in fact often how you determine that things don't exist: If x existed, then it would have to have property A and not A, so x does not exist. Given that the argument attempts to show "God exists", if "exists" doesn't mean the same thing that it means for you and I to exist, I fail to see the point any more Theists think that causality has an exception in the case of their God.
I know from physics of the ultra-small that there's exceptions to a general perception of causality. I'm saying you can talk about such things that you don't know whether they exist or not and theorize about them. That's fine. But you can't use properties of them to prove they exist for without existence they don't really have those properties. So by arguing from properties you can perhaps show that should such a thing be proven to exist, that it will have those properties, but not the other way around.
The premise is that the universe is contingent. Therefore that premise is false. Hence, "If there is no uncaused-cause there is no universe" is a proof of its existence. And a quite valid one at that. It always makes me smile when atheists have to deny causality to deny God.
I guess that's where our basic assumptions will part. On the contrary it is the theist who denies causality, but only for their God, making their position on causality rather inconsistent and self-serving. On the other hand, we're well aware that what might be "intuitive" at a human-scale is often incorrect at a very large or very small scale relativity and quantum physics for instance and the concept of causality used in these arguments is very human-scale, and could very well be better put as our perception of causality rather than us actually having any true understanding of what actually may be occurring in the universe.
One of the first thing one learns when studying quantum mechanics or relativity is that phenomena we accept as logical and intuitive at the middle scale we've evolved to experience can bear little relationship to what happens at the realm of the very small or the very large. It's quite eye opening and humbling.
And lets face it-- you don't just believe in a hypothetical uncaused cause-- you believe this uncaused cause was an invisible 3-in-1 male made of nothing who poofed everything from his nothingness because, although he was perfect, he thought that things could be perfecter if he created imperfect people and a hell to put them in after they died unless they believed that god became his own son and temporarily died for them.
Perhaps I missed it but I don't believe Dr. However, it makes sense to me that the ground of the cosmos and of all human sapience would necessarily need to be itself. I have never seen God described by Kreeft as non-sapient. Regarding sapience, we know from biology that sapience is a feature that not all of our ancestors had.
Not all of our ancestors had brains even! It was a result of natural selection and genetic drift. Octavo, you say "I have never seen God described by Kreeft as non-sapient"? Nowhere in this article does Kreeft refer to the First Cause's sapience. I'm not sure it's relevant to the logical proof of a "transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being. What I'm asking is, why do you think that the first cause is a complicated process sapient, immortal being and not just a simple, mundane process, such as an vacuum fluctuation or a singularity?
Octavo - And considering vacuum fluctuations have been well known and accepted in modern physics for some time, it's not a huge leap. Octavo, well first I don't think the First Cause is a "process" at all since that would imply change.
And the First Cause must be, by logical necessity, unchanged. Second, this is a different question as to whether the First Cause is sapient. Sapient means "acutely insightful and wise", not necessarily complicated. I wouldn't argue that the First Cause must be complicated.
Finally, the problem with either a "vacuum fluctuation" or a "singularity" is that neither is a necessary entity--both require explanation since both are processes. It sounds like you're trying to solve the problem by defining it out of existence. To anyone who studies minds, minds are indeed made up of many processes.
However, I expect you will define God as eternal, immortal, transcendent wisdom with infinite sapience made up of no processes and no moving parts. Octavo, I'm not trying to solve the problem by defining it out of existence. I see no problem. Anything that is a process necessarily involves change.
I agree with you that minds are indeed made up of many processes. All this means is that the mind cannot explain itself, that there must be some other cause of the mind and its changes.
Wow, so "random mutation" can organize? I like to see that one! I don't think you're that smart. To generate purposeful and unified action, the brain first brings information from sense organs together at a central location.
It then processes this raw data to extract information about the structure of the environment. Next it combines the processed sensory information with information about the current needs of an animal and with memory of past circumstances. Finally, on the basis of the results, it generates motor response patterns that are suited to maximize the welfare of the animal.
These signal-processing tasks require intricate interplay between a variety of functional subsystems. So random mutation can process tasks requiring "intricate interplay between a variety of functional subsystems. Pretty rude of you. Also, you display a complete lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology.
I recommend that you read the following book by Carl Zimmer to bring you up to speed. You'll find that a great deal of "go read this, then talk to me" gets thrown around here, by both "sides".
I guess I could explain basic evolution to a random person on the internet. However, I am at work, and I'm entirely uninterested in teaching. That's more my spouse's thing. What did Darwin achieve? He could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others.
He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based. Lima-de Faria, Esevier Science publishing Co. Darwin's "theory" has been confirmed by DNA.
The only people who have problems with it are those who imagine themselves saved so long as they believe a certain creation story or damned for accepting evolution primarily fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. Your off topic foray into creationism is not the topic of this page, and it's rude to preach your brand of fundamentalism here.
That is so stupid. Show me your stupid proof of Darwin's theory being confirmed by DNA. You sent me to scientificamerican with no article citations. Are you some kind of a clown? I'm not preaching I'm pointing out your stupid errors! At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.
Now, you have a beef with me? Why is this out-of-context? You can't get all the articles for free you know, you have to subscribe to the different Journals. Didn't they teach you that in college?
Because the rest of the article goes on to deal with the issues you raised re: transitional species and evidence. It took me less than 5min on Google to find the full text.
Did they not teach you how to use search engines in college? Oh big deal Bravo, you found 1 article! That was a Major achievement in your life! Hey freaky, I was in college in the early 90's the internet was just starting. Your life is now complete, Master Yoda. Why is it out of context? Some one mentioned about evolution so I picked up on it, what is your beef?
The information is still true. A gap of 30 years isn't always problematic. However, many things, especially scientific knowledge, have a tendency to change over time. For example, 30 years prior to the article you cited, the structure of DNA had yet to be determined. Sometimes, the changes over a year span are even greater. For example, Madonna used to be quite fetching Madonna is a clown, now I'm done with you! If you're still into Madonna then forget you!
However, do explain the mystery of the force, Master Yoda. I think Andre's point was that this is meaningless. What does it tell us? That somebody said it? During the Age of Exploration between and , it has been estimated that scurvy killed at least two million sailors. In , Admiral Sir Richard Hawkins advocated drinking orange and lemon juice as a means of preventing scurvy. He repeated the experience of mariners that the cure for scurvy was fresh food or, if not available, oranges, lemons, limes, and tamarinds.
Even on dry land, in Europe, until the late middle ages, scurvy was common in late winter, when few green vegetables, fruits and root vegetables were available. This gradually improved with the introduction from the Americas of potatoes; by , scurvy was virtually unheard of in Scotland, where it had previously been endemic.
A handwritten book by Mrs. Ebot Mitchell, discovered in a house in Hasfield, Gloucestershire , contains a "Recp.
In , the Leiden -based physician Johann Bachstrom published a book on scurvy in which he stated, "scurvy is solely owing to a total abstinence from fresh vegetable food, and greens; which is alone the primary cause of the disease", and urged the use of fresh fruit and vegetables as a cure.
However, it was not until that James Lind formally demonstrated that scurvy could be treated by supplementing the diet with citrus fruit, in one of the first controlled clinical experiments reported in the history of medicine. In A Treatise on the Scurvy   Lind explained the details of his clinical trial and concluded "the results of all my experiments was, that oranges and lemons were the most effectual remedies for this distemper at sea.
Unfortunately, the experiment and its results occupied only a few paragraphs in a work that was long and complex and had little impact. Lind himself never actively promoted lemon juice as a single 'cure'. He shared medical opinion at the time that scurvy had multiple causes — notably hard work, bad water, and the consumption of salt meat in a damp atmosphere which inhibited healthful perspiration and normal excretion — and therefore required multiple solutions.
Unfortunately this process destroyed the vitamin C and was therefore unsuccessful. During the 18th century, disease killed more British sailors than enemy action. It was mainly by scurvy that George Anson , in his celebrated voyage of —, lost nearly two-thirds of his crew 1, out of 2, within the first 10 months of the voyage. Although throughout this period sailors and naval surgeons were increasingly convinced that citrus fruits could cure scurvy, the classically trained physicians who ran the medical establishment dismissed this evidence as mere anecdote which did not conform to current theories of disease.
Literature championing the cause of citrus juice, therefore, had no practical impact. Medical theory was based on the assumption that scurvy was a disease of internal putrefaction brought on by faulty digestion caused by the hardships of life at sea and the naval diet.
Although this basic idea was given different emphases by successive theorists, the remedies they advocated and which the navy accepted amounted to little more than the consumption of 'fizzy drinks' to activate the digestive system, the most extreme of which was the regular consumption of 'elixir of vitriol' — sulphuric acid taken with spirits and barley water, and laced with spices.
In , a new variant appeared. Advocated by Dr David MacBride and Sir John Pringle , Surgeon General of the Army and later President of the Royal Society, this idea was that scurvy was the result of a lack of 'fixed air' in the tissues which could be prevented by drinking infusions of malt and wort whose fermentation within the body would stimulate digestion and restore the missing gases.
The others were beer, Sauerkraut and Lind's 'rob'. The list did not include lemons. Cook did not lose a single man to scurvy, and his report came down in favour of malt and wort, although it is now clear that the reason for the health of his crews on this and other voyages was Cook's regime of shipboard cleanliness, enforced by strict discipline, as well as frequent replenishment of fresh food and greenstuffs.
In contact with air, the copper formed compounds that prevented the absorption of vitamins by the intestines. The first major long distance expedition that experienced virtually no scurvy was that of the Spanish naval officer Alessandro Malaspina , — Only one outbreak occurred, during a day trip across the open sea.
Five sailors came down with symptoms, one seriously. After three days at Guam all five were healthy again. Spain's large empire and many ports of call made it easier to acquire fresh fruit. Although towards the end of the century MacBride's theories were being challenged, the medical establishment in Britain remained wedded to the notion that scurvy was a disease of internal 'putrefaction' and the Sick and Hurt Board, run by administrators, felt obliged to follow its advice.
Within the Royal Navy, however, opinion — strengthened by first-hand experience of the use of lemon juice at the siege of Gibraltar and during Admiral Rodney's expedition to the Caribbean — had become increasingly convinced of its efficacy. This was reinforced by the writings of experts like Gilbert Blane  and Thomas Trotter  and by the reports of up-and-coming naval commanders.
With the coming of war in , the need to eliminate scurvy acquired a new urgency. But the first initiative came not from the medical establishment but from the admirals.
Ordered to lead an expedition against Mauritius, Rear Admiral Gardner was uninterested in the wort, malt and elixir of vitriol which were still being issued to ships of the Royal Navy, and demanded that he be supplied with lemons, to counteract scurvy on the voyage.
Members of the Sick and Hurt Board, recently augmented by two practical naval surgeons, supported the request, and the Admiralty ordered that it be done. There was, however, a last minute change of plan. The expedition against Mauritius was cancelled. Then in March , came astonishing news. Suffolk had arrived in India after a four-month voyage without a trace of scurvy and with a crew that was healthier than when it set out.
The effect was immediate. Fleet commanders clamoured also to be supplied with lemon juice, and by June the Admiralty acknowledged the groundswell of demand in the navy had agreed to a proposal from the Sick and Hurt Board that lemon juice and sugar should in future be issued as a daily ration to the crews of all warships. It took a few years before the method of distribution to all ships in the fleet had been perfected and the supply of the huge quantities of lemon juice required to be secured, but by , the system was in place and functioning.
This led to a remarkable health improvement among the sailors and consequently played a critical role in gaining the advantage in naval battles against enemies who had yet to introduce the measures. The surgeon-in-chief of Napoleon 's army at the Siege of Alexandria , Baron Dominique-Jean Larrey , wrote in his memoirs that the consumption of horse meat helped the French to curb an epidemic of scurvy. The meat was cooked but was freshly obtained from young horses bought from Arabs, and was nevertheless effective.
This helped to start the 19th-century tradition of horse meat consumption in France. Lauchlin Rose patented a method used to preserve citrus juice without alcohol in , creating a concentrated drink known as Rose's lime juice. The Merchant Shipping Act of required all ships of the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy to provide a daily lime ration of one pound to sailors to prevent scurvy.
The plant Cochlearia officinalis , also known as "common scurvygrass", acquired its common name from the observation that it cured scurvy, and it was taken on board ships in dried bundles or distilled extracts. Its very bitter taste was usually disguised with herbs and spices; however, this did not prevent scurvygrass drinks and sandwiches from becoming a popular fad in the UK until the middle of the nineteenth century, when citrus fruits became more readily available.
Although not traditionally regarded as an apotropaic, mirrors have been used to ward off vampires when placed, facing outwards, on a door in some cultures, vampires do not have a reflection and sometimes do not cast a shadow, perhaps as a manifestation of the vampire's lack of a soul. Some traditions also hold that a vampire cannot enter a house unless invited by the owner; after the first invitation they can come and go as they please. Methods of destroying suspected vampires varied, with staking the most commonly cited method, particularly in southern Slavic cultures.
Piercing the skin of the chest was a way of "deflating" the bloated vampire. This is similar to a practice of " anti-vampire burial ": burying sharp objects, such as sickles, with the corpse, so that they may penetrate the skin if the body bloats sufficiently while transforming into a revenant. Decapitation was the preferred method in German and western Slavic areas, with the head buried between the feet, behind the buttocks or away from the body.
The vampire's head, body, or clothes could also be spiked and pinned to the earth to prevent rising. Romani people drove steel or iron needles into a corpse's heart and placed bits of steel in the mouth, over the eyes, ears and between the fingers at the time of burial.
They also placed hawthorn in the corpse's sock or drove a hawthorn stake through the legs. In a 16th-century burial near Venice , a brick forced into the mouth of a female corpse has been interpreted as a vampire-slaying ritual by the archaeologists who discovered it in Further measures included pouring boiling water over the grave or complete incineration of the body.
In the Balkans, a vampire could also be killed by being shot or drowned, by repeating the funeral service, by sprinkling holy water on the body, or by exorcism. In Romania, garlic could be placed in the mouth, and as recently as the 19th century, the precaution of shooting a bullet through the coffin was taken. For resistant cases, the body was dismembered and the pieces burned, mixed with water, and administered to family members as a cure.
In Saxon regions of Germany, a lemon was placed in the mouth of suspected vampires. Tales of supernatural beings consuming the blood or flesh of the living have been found in nearly every culture around the world for many centuries.
Blood drinking and similar activities were attributed to demons or spirits who would eat flesh and drink blood; even the devil was considered synonymous with the vampire.
Almost every nation has associated blood drinking with some kind of revenant or demon, or in some cases a deity. The Persians were one of the first civilizations to have tales of blood-drinking demons: creatures attempting to drink blood from men were depicted on excavated pottery shards. Lilitu was considered a demon and was often depicted as subsisting on the blood of babies,  and estries , female shapeshifting, blood-drinking demons, were said to roam the night among the population, seeking victims.
According to Sefer Hasidim , estries were creatures created in the twilight hours before God rested. An injured estrie could be healed by eating bread and salt given to her by her attacker. Greco-Roman mythology described the Empusae ,  the Lamia ,  and the striges.
Over time the first two terms became general words to describe witches and demons respectively. Empusa was the daughter of the goddess Hecate and was described as a demonic, bronze -footed creature. She feasted on blood by transforming into a young woman and seduced men as they slept before drinking their blood. They were described as having the bodies of crows or birds in general, and were later incorporated into Roman mythology as strix , a kind of nocturnal bird that fed on human flesh and blood.
Many myths surrounding vampires originated during the medieval period. The 12th-century British historians and chroniclers Walter Map and William of Newburgh recorded accounts of revenants,   though records in English legends of vampiric beings after this date are scant. He linked this event to the lack of a shmirah guarding after death as the corpse could be a vessel for evil spirits.
Vampires properly originating in folklore were widely reported from Eastern Europe in the late 17th and 18th centuries. These tales formed the basis of the vampire legend that later entered Germany and England, where they were subsequently embellished and popularized. One of the earliest recordings of vampire activity came from the region of Istria in modern Croatia , in Local villagers claimed he returned from the dead and began drinking blood from the people and sexually harassing his widow.
The village leader ordered a stake to be driven through his heart, but when the method failed to kill him, he was subsequently beheaded with better results. During the 18th century, there was a frenzy of vampire sightings in Eastern Europe, with frequent stakings and grave diggings to identify and kill the potential revenants. Even government officials engaged in the hunting and staking of vampires. Blagojevich was reported to have died at the age of 62, but allegedly returned after his death asking his son for food.
When the son refused, he was found dead the following day. Blagojevich supposedly returned and attacked some neighbours who died from loss of blood. The two incidents were well-documented. Government officials examined the bodies, wrote case reports, and published books throughout Europe. The problem was exacerbated by rural epidemics of so-called vampire attacks, undoubtedly caused by the higher amount of superstition that was present in village communities, with locals digging up bodies and in some cases, staking them.
In , King James wrote a dissertation on witchcraft titled Daemonologie in which he wrote the belief that demons could possess both the living and the dead. Within his classification of demons , he explained the concept through the notion that incubi and succubae could possess the corpse of the deceased and walk the earth. As a devil borrows a dead body, it would seem so visibly and naturally to any man who converses with them and that any substance within the body would remain intolerably cold to others which they abuse.
In the Greek librarian of the Vatican, Leo Allatius , produced the first methodological description of the Balkan beliefs in vampires Greek: vrykolakas in his work De Graecorum hodie quorundam opinationibus "On certain modern opinions among the Greeks".
From , Philippe Rohr devotes an essay to the dead who chew their shrouds in their graves, a subject resumed by Otto in , and then by Michael Ranft in The subject was based on the observation that when digging up graves, it was discovered that some corpses had at some point either devoured the interior fabric of their coffin or their own limbs.
Theologians and clergymen also address the topic. Some theological disputes arose. The non-decay of vampires' bodies could recall the incorruption of the bodies of the saints of the Catholic Church. A paragraph on vampires was included in the second edition of De servorum Dei beatificatione et sanctorum canonizatione , On the beatification of the servants of God and on canonization of the blessed, written by Prospero Lambertini Pope Benedict XIV.
In other words, vampires did not exist. Dom Augustine Calmet , a French theologian and scholar, published a comprehensive treatise in titled Treatise on the Apparitions of Spirits and on Vampires or Revenants which investigated the existence of vampires, demons, and spectres. Calmet conducted extensive research and amassed judicial reports of vampiric incidents and extensively researched theological and mythological accounts as well, using the scientific method in his analysis to come up with methods for determining the validity for cases of this nature.
As he stated in his treatise: . These revenants are called by the name of oupires or vampires, that is to say, leeches ; and such particulars are related of them, so singular, so detailed, and invested with such probable circumstances and such judicial information, that one can hardly refuse to credit the belief which is held in those countries, that these revenants come out of their tombs and produce those effects which are proclaimed of them.
Calmet had numerous readers, including both a critical Voltaire and numerous supportive demonologists who interpreted the treatise as claiming that vampires existed. These vampires were corpses, who went out of their graves at night to suck the blood of the living, either at their throats or stomachs, after which they returned to their cemeteries.
The persons so sucked waned, grew pale, and fell into consumption ; while the sucking corpses grew fat, got rosy, and enjoyed an excellent appetite.
The controversy in Austria only ceased when Empress Maria Theresa of Austria sent her personal physician, Gerard van Swieten , to investigate the claims of vampiric entities. He concluded that vampires did not exist and the Empress passed laws prohibiting the opening of graves and desecration of bodies, sounding the end of the vampire epidemics. Other European countries followed suit. Despite this condemnation, the vampire lived on in artistic works and in local folklore. Classified as vampires, all share the thirst for blood.
Various regions of Africa have folktales featuring beings with vampiric abilities: in West Africa the Ashanti people tell of the iron-toothed and tree-dwelling asanbosam ,  and the Ewe people of the adze , which can take the form of a firefly and hunts children. The Loogaroo is an example of how a vampire belief can result from a combination of beliefs, here a mixture of French and African Vodu or voodoo. The term Loogaroo possibly comes from the French loup-garou meaning "werewolf" and is common in the culture of Mauritius.
During the late 18th and 19th centuries the belief in vampires was widespread in parts of New England , particularly in Rhode Island and eastern Connecticut. There are many documented cases of families disinterring loved ones and removing their hearts in the belief that the deceased was a vampire who was responsible for sickness and death in the family, although the term "vampire" was never used to describe the dead.
The deadly disease tuberculosis , or "consumption" as it was known at the time, was believed to be caused by nightly visitations on the part of a dead family member who had died of consumption themselves. Her father, assisted by the family physician, removed her from her tomb two months after her death, cut out her heart and burned it to ashes.
Vampires have appeared in Japanese cinema since the late s; the folklore behind it is western in origin. There are two main vampiric creatures in the Philippines: the Tagalog Mandurugo "blood-sucker" and the Visayan Manananggal "self-segmenter". The mandurugo is a variety of the aswang that takes the form of an attractive girl by day, and develops wings and a long, hollow, threadlike tongue by night. The tongue is used to suck up blood from a sleeping victim.
They use an elongated proboscislike tongue to suck fetuses from these pregnant women. They also prefer to eat entrails specifically the heart and the liver and the phlegm of sick people.
The Malaysian Penanggalan is a woman who obtained her beauty through the active use of black magic or other unnatural means, and is most commonly described in local folklore to be dark or demonic in nature.
She is able to detach her fanged head which flies around in the night looking for blood, typically from pregnant women. She appeared as an attractive woman with long black hair that covered a hole in the back of her neck, with which she sucked the blood of children. Filling the hole with her hair would drive her off. Corpses had their mouths filled with glass beads, eggs under each armpit, and needles in their palms to prevent them from becoming langsuir.
This description would also fit the Sundel Bolongs. Films like Encounters of the Spooky Kind and Mr. Vampire were released during the jiangshi cinematic boom of the s and s. In modern fiction, the vampire tends to be depicted as a suave, charismatic villain.
Vampire hunting societies still exist, but they are largely formed for social reasons. In early local press spread rumours that a vampire haunted Highgate Cemetery in London.if the subject was the only one with a certain answer in a group, it is very unlikely that he will stick to his guns - he will just conform to what the group says because it is the entire group vs. him, so it causes him to doubt and question himself. it was seen as better to go against one's beliefs if one was being judged as perhaps crazy, and to minimize the conflict. if there is even one.