From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: anesthesia of LSU cats.  Was: Hypothetical case
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:07:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: donald.cc.utexas.edu
Summery: this is very long, please read it anyway

In article <C1Jx7K.MAw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

Russ quotes extensively from the 2nd GAO report, the quotes are supposed to
prove that Carey didnt give analgesic to the cats, please read the quotes
carefully for yourself and see if you intrepret them the same way I do?
I'd also be interesting in seeing more quotes from the 1st GAO report, the
one done my neurologists instead of anasthesiologists.

>I've taken the time to keyboard some of the relevant passages 
>from the report published by the General Accounting Office.  As 
>
>   "GAO found that anesthesia doses and the times they were
>    administered were recorded for only 20 to 25% of the animals
>    used in the research.  On the basis of a review of the anesthesia
>    records GAO obtained from LSU researchers, the veterinary
>    anesthesiologists doubted there was comparability in the depth
>    of anesthesia among cats used in the experiment"  

I dont think this means what you seem to say it means.  This seems to say
that the research my not be accurate because it is not clear that all of
the cats recieved the same amout of painkiller.  The author seems to
suggest that the amount of painkiller should be the same in all cats to
ensure accurate results.
>    
>   "Postoperative care for animals allowed to awaken from anesthesia
>    is important in order to interpret physiological and behavioral
>    changes that may be caused by experimental procedures, such as
>    injury, or by anesthesia or pain.

This means that the cats should have been watched when they woke up.  The
reason for this is to interpret changes caused by injury anesthesia or
pain...this seems to indicate that reaction under pain is just as important
as measuring reaction under anesthesia.  This suggests that at least some
of the cats should have been shot without anesthesia to determine the
effects of pain on the system.  It is know that pain can cause shock but
what is the effect of this shock?  Am I out of line by interpreting this as
meaning effect to pain is important to acertain?

>    Further, standardized post-
>    operative care procedures are needed to ensure that research
>    data for all animals used in the research are comparable.  However,
>    the research team did not consider postoperative care factors
>    important to the research.  The veterinary anesthesiologists
>    GAO consulted identified several factors that suggest 
>    deficiencies in postoperative care, such as the lack of detailed
>    records to confirm that uniform care was provided to all 
>    animals.  The veterinary anesthesiologists pointed out that 
>    careful management of the postoperative period (that is,
>    monitoring such factors as body temperature, fluid balance,
>    and reflexes) is important to distinguish between the 
>    recovery of treated and untreated animals to identify effective
>    drug treatments.  GAO was not able to obtain sufficiently
>    detailed records to answer the anesthesiologists questions
>    about postoperative care.  [GAO/HRD-91-30, Army Biomedical 
>    Brain-Wound Research, p 5]

This indicates that the vet group felt that by not keeping post experiment
records, Carey somehow corrupted his research.  In other words they are
accusing him of bad technique.

>   "The veterinary anesthesiologists indicated that it is 
>    extremely important that the general anesthesia be administered
>    in a careful and controlled manner so that the reactions of 
>    study and control animals can be compared.  In this way, any
>    changes that occur will be the result of the trauma rather
>    than the anesthetic.

Doesnt this say that since they are testing for an unknown, all variables
should remain constant except the unknow being tested for...another attack
on the scientific method.

>     Many anesthesiologists have found,
>    one veterinary anesthesiologist explained, that (1) brain 
>    disease, tumors, and trauma modify brain function and blood
>    flow, and (2) the effects of anesthetic agents are 
>    unpredictable.

This suggests that (1) the cats should have been given a "cat scan" to
determine the presence of brain disease or tumores and (2) since anesthetic
agents are unpredictable, they shouldnt have been used at all.

>    Therefore, he continued, in any cerebral
>    trauma model it is important that the depth of anesthesia
>    be precisely controlled so that any changes that occur ---
>    which can be due to changes in cerebral autoregulation,
>    blood flow, or metabolism --- are due to the damage and not
>    to changes in carbon dioxide, anesthetic levels, or body
>    temperature.

Another accustion that other variables than the drug being tested factor in
the healing of the animals.  I thought you said this evidence was supposed
to prove that the cats were not given sufficient painkiller, all this says
is that since the amount was not constant in every cat, the variable could
carry over into the final analysis of the drug.
>
>   "In the documentation they reviewed, the veterinary anesthesiologists
>    saw no evidence that the dose of anesthesia was precisely
>    regulated so that the depth of anesthesia was controlled.  Further,
>    because the anesthetic was administered IP and maintained with
>    bolus IV injections, the depth of anesthesia and the duration
>    could vary during and between experiments.

Quite simply, all the cats did not recieve the same amount of anesthesia.
Perhaps they were given enough to knock them out, similarly to the way it
takes different amounts of laughing gas to put different people out before
a dentist starts his work. 

>   "For the most part, anesthesia records were not kept on individual
>    animals used in the experiments.  LSU did not believe such
>    records were important; it indicated that although specific
>    anesthesia data generally were not recorded, protocols 
>    applicable to the 33 experiments were followed (see app. III
>    for protocols).  We found that when records were kept, however,
>    doses actually given varied significantly and do not agree
>    with the protocols.  [ibid, p 24]

OK this clearly says that different cats were given different degrees of
anesthesia.  Like I said above, perhaps the doctors just gave them enough
to knock them out, that amount would vary between individual cats.
      
>Get the picture, Greg?   I'm sure you'll agree that an uncontrolled
>variable as important as anesthesia is going to have a tremendous
>impact on the reliability of the data.

It makes sense to me, I wonder why the team of neurologist didnt think it
was a big deal...this IS neurological reasearch, not painkiller research.

When you mentioned that the cats were not given proper anesthesia I assumed
that you meant that they were not given enough to kill the pain.  However,
the information you have just posted seems to indicate that they were
giving a "necessasary amount" that varied from animal to animal.


>   "We discussed with veterinary anesthesiologists the issue of
>    postoperative pain.  Two anesthesiologists noted that the wound
>    itself would not cause pain since the brain has no nerve
>    endings.  Yet three anesthesiologists believe that the animals
>    would experience pain from (1) the incisions made to insert
>    various catheters and monitors and to remove the anterior
>    wall of the right frontal sinus and (2) any swelling that might
>    result from the injury.
The incisions to insert monitors would have to be made regardless of the
level of anesthesia used, else it wouldnt be much of an experiment.
This doesnt say that the cats felt pain, it says that 3 said they would
feel pain without anesthesia.

>    Four anesthesiologists stated that
>    the animals used in the research would require postoperative
>    analgesics.  One anesthesiologist commented that a topical
>    anesthetic ointment is insufficient for pain relief since the
>    ointment has poor tissue penetration and provides relief for
>    only 6 to 7 minutes.

Once again, all this says is that painkiller would be needed to avert pain.
Is this contrary to an earlier quote that said it is important to allow
pain in some of the animals to test the effects of pain?  I dont think so
because it doesnt say that the cats were actually in pain.  If they were in
pain, surely the letter-writing-lady would not have admitted that she never
ever heard cries even though she was in the ajacent office.

>   "During our visit to LSU, we interviewed the veterinarian who
>    has cared for the brain-wounded animals in the LSU animal care
>    facility.  Individual records detailing the postoperative care
>    and recovery for each animal were not maintained.  However,
>    the veterinarian told us that he treated them for the pain
>    with butorphanol tartrate, an analgesic drug.  In addition, he
>    stated, the animals receive fluids by subcutaneous injections,
>    but are not force-fed or supported through any other nutritional
>    means.

A separate veterinarian working in the recovery room, was he not a member
of Carey's staff?  He did however administered analgesics.
>
>   "We recounted the meeting with the LSU veterinarian in discussions
>    with research team members.

Ok, so they approached the research team and asked why this caretaking vet
was administrating variable doses of painkillers.

>    They indicated that they were unaware
>    that the animals received analgesics, saying that they had not
>    ordered any and would object to their use.  However, the team did
>    not believe that anything that might have been done in the animal
>    care facility had affected the research results. 

Ok Carey tries to preserve the validity of his research by saying that he
didnt order the analgesics but even though they were administered, it
wouldnt change the results.  He claimed his research was valid.

>    In a meeting with
>    LSU officials 2 months later, we received a signed statement from
>    the LSU veterinarian stating that he had given analgesic to only
>    one animal. [ibid, pp 27-28]

Ok, so the caretaking vet, who was not associated with Carey's group
retracted his statement that he had given painkiller to the cats during the
recovery process after all.


What do you hope to prove by all of this?  That Carey is a bad scientist
because he gave unequal doses of painkiller and didnt allow some cats to go
through without anasthetic to test pain in a control group?  This doesnt
say that only one cat recieved analgesic during the shooting, remember that
notes of the painkiller doses existed for 25% of them and after that the
report just complains of unequal doeses between cats, not absent doses.

I hope everyone reads these quotes closely, Russ wants them to say that the
cats were not given any painkiller by Carey but that is not what these quotes
say, they are merely attack on his scientific method.  

>As you know, a group of ambitious men who have little regard for 
>the truth may stoop to weave any story that suits their 
>convenience if it helps them to get what they want.

Q:
You said it?  Who's asking us to believe quotes say something they dont?

A:
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000



alex the omnivore


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves