Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 20, 2016 at 22:16 comment added Richard Stanzak Unless others have a more convincing proof, I consider this translated account by Pasteur himself as evidence there was no heroic self administration of rabies vaccine in response to accidental inocculation pasteurbrewing.com/pasteurs-communications-on-rabies-no-6 I really believe the story is a myth as Pasteur even records the very time of each vaccination in this article and unless he had a reason not to reveal the events I think the whole story is a fabrication.
Dec 20, 2016 at 20:43 comment added Richard Stanzak Multiple historical documents are very detailed in regards to the time of injection, the muscles used, who was in attendance, how the vaccine was made yet NONE speak of an accidental self inoculation let alone subsequent vaccination of the good doctors. What am I to believe? books.google.com/… mmcneuro.wordpress.com/tag/rabies jnnp.bmj.com/content/73/1/82.full
Dec 20, 2016 at 20:19 comment added DavePhD @RichardStanzak Maybe this would have something about how credible Adrien Loir is or isn't. jstor.org/stable/23614547?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Otherwise, try to get a copy of Loir's account and decide how credible you think it is amazon.fr/Adrien-Loir-lombre-Pasteur-personnels/dp/B0017XXNEO
Dec 20, 2016 at 20:07 comment added Richard Stanzak The Journal of the Royal Society also gave a VERY detailed accounting of the development of the rabies vaccination with no mention of any accidental self inoculation ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1292256/pdf/… I am becoming less certain this accidental self injection occurred. It isn't like acclaimed scientists to boast of their involvement in history, especially something this huge
Dec 20, 2016 at 20:01 comment added DavePhD @RichardStanzak well "Vaccinations: a History: From Lady Montagu to Jenner and genetic engineering" (original French version in answer) cites to Adrien Loir and says "This incident is probably true, although the precision of the details can not be ascertained". books.google.com/…
Dec 20, 2016 at 19:55 comment added Richard Stanzak science historians would work for me. I wouldn't be asking this question except there are inconsistencies with the reports. I am writing an article referencing this event and it is my scientific nature to verify information with appropriate citations. Anyone can claim anything in a book, peer review can of course also be bogus BMJ wrote a eulogy about him with no mention of this event books.google.com/…
Dec 20, 2016 at 19:36 comment added DavePhD @RichardStanzak If you aren't going to believe Pasteur's nephew Adrien Loir, why would you believe a "site"?
Dec 20, 2016 at 19:34 history edited DavePhD CC BY-SA 3.0
added 513 characters in body
Dec 20, 2016 at 19:34 comment added jamesqf @Richard Stanzak: Why should there be an official report? What exactly would 'official' imply in this context? Indeed, why would an account on a web site be considered more accurate than one in a book, and what criteria would a site have to meet to be a "valid science history site"?
Dec 20, 2016 at 19:22 comment added Richard Stanzak it is bothering me a lot that all the reports of Dr Granger infecting himself come from books. Where are the official reports from valid science history sites?
Dec 20, 2016 at 19:21 history edited DavePhD CC BY-SA 3.0
added 740 characters in body
Dec 20, 2016 at 18:47 comment added Richard Stanzak as a former scientist I have found few legends hold up very long under scrutiny: cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=5069.0 I often marvel how few assistants or technicians are ever mentioned in official biographies, Great scientists may be great but they are still human
Dec 20, 2016 at 18:32 history answered DavePhD CC BY-SA 3.0