THE CONTEMPORARY STATE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 12, 2011
• Sequence Number: 96
• Publication Date: May 17, 1950
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
CLASSIFICATION SECRET $ECILT
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY REPORT NO
INFORMATION FROM
FOREIGN DOCUMENTS OR RADIO BROADCASTS CD NO.
COUNTRY USSR
SUBJECT Ideology
HOW
PUBLISHED Weekly newspaper
WHERE
PUBLISHED Moscow
DATE
PUBLISHED 16 Feb 1950
LANGUAGE Russian
TN IS DOCUMENT CONTAINS IM FORMATION AFFECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPIONAGE ACT BT
U. 'ITS . SI AND 33. AS AMENDED ITS TRANSMISSION OR THE REVELATION
OF ITS CONTENTS IN ANT MANNER TO AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON 15 PRO
HIEITED IT LAW REPRODUCTION OF THIS FOP. IS PROHIBITED.
Meditsinskiy Rabotnik No 7, 1950.
DATE OF
INFORMATION 1950
DATE DIST. i1 May 1950
NO. OF PAGES 5
SUPPLEMENT TO
REPORT NO.
THIS IS UNEVALUATED INFORMATION
The Soviet attempt to "purify" science is constantly meeting new obsta-
cles. Recently, it was discovered that the science of general pathology --
the very foundation of medical science -- embraces two conflicting ideologies.
One group supports Virkhov's theories with respect to cytopathology and ac-
cepts all the metaphysical and antievolutionary Ideas, while the other group
has adopted the theories of pure evolution. This latter group is in direct
concurrence with the views expressed by the Soviet state, and has participated
in discovering a new field of study on the importance of the nervous system
as the central agency in the formation and development of the most diverse of
pathologic processes.
It is hardly necessary to point out that the ideological-methodological
fundamentals of Virkhov's theories are so completely metaphysical that they
are absolutely contradictory to the true biological and medical sciences, to
the materialistic concept of the origin of the animal world which is today ac-
cepted in the USSR, and to the relationship between the organism and its en-
vironment. The metaphysical nature of Virkhov's pathology is expressed by its
separate treatment of the animal and its environment, of a denial of the true
evolution of the animal world, and finally a denial of the fact that disease
develops as an actual independent process.
Virkhov's theory on cellular pathology embraces studies of infection, im-
munity, and chemotherapy. In addition, it has been adopted in the so-called
"classic" teachings of Pasteur, Koch, and Ehrlich. The reliance of Pasteur
and Koch on the accuracy of the fundamentals of Virkhov's pathology, with re-
spect to the mechanisms of the development of a disease, was so great that they
failed to study these problems objectively, and blindly accepted Virkhov's con-
cepts.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
SECRET
Pasteur and Koch -onsidered the study -?'' infection and immunity a very
limited field. They proceeded on the theory that it was merely necessary to
identify the characteristics of n, pathogenic agent, to establish the "port
of entry" Into the animal organism, to determine its course of circulation
and the cause and effect of nidus formation. They also attempted to larify
the phenomenon in those cellular areas of the animal which, so to speak, come
into direct contact with the pathogenic agent.
Ehrlich's studies on immunity and chemotherapy were founded on the prin-
ciples of Virkhov's cellular pathology. It is indicative that Ehrlich once
wrote, "After Virkhov had postulats::i his ingenious theories, all efforts were
directed toward studying the phencro non of localization and causation of dis-
eases, and there is no doa't that these factors have had great significance
in the field of therapy."
Actually, according to Ehrlich's teachings the action of any substance
on an organ or on a microbe depends upon direct contact. It was on these ob-
vious Virkhov principles that Ehrlich based his studies on immunity and chemo-
therapy, thus giving rise to the mechanical theories of the development of
pathologic processes, immunity, and therapeutic principles. These theories
were gradually accepted and r~maincd unchallenged for a number of years.
Some of these theories are:
1. A, pathogenic agent (microb', toxin, virus, etc.) is the sole respon-
sible agent for the dev_loprert of a disease at any of its stages -- from the
onset.of the disease until complete cure or even death. Thus, it can be said
that neutralization or isolation of the pathogenic agent will inhibit patho-
genic p,?n:;esses.
2. An analysis and evaluation of the mechanisms in tho development of
any infectious or infectious-toxic process is p:;marily based on the determina-
tion of the port of entry of the pathogenic agent into the animal body, the
channels through which it spreads in the body, and an isolation of that site
or cellular area which is being directly and selectively infected %, a specific
pathogenic agent. It is also necessary to establish the character of those
changes in the cells and orga7's whin happen to come into direct contact with
the pathogenic agent.
3. The genera'. "pathr -enic process" is a sum of all local processes. Lo-
cal processes become general processes, not as a result of progress in the de-
'iopment of the process, but due to the spread of the pathogenic agent and its
direct contact with, and the resultant infection of, other cell areas.
1+. The r.unsusceptibi].ity of the animal is due to either the natural or
induced resistance of the individual cells to, infection.
5. 1 successful diagnosis and treatment of a disease is based on the iden-
tification of its specific cause or its "reflected image," in other words its
"antibody" or antibiotic.
6. It is the task of therapeutic medicine to isolate or neutralize the
pathogenic agent by surgery, chemotherapy, antibiotics, or specific sera.
Today, the propor:ents of the principles of cyt^pathology will not openly
admit the above-listed theories. Nevertheless, they will not change their po-
sitions. Attempts to discredit the old dogmaa have progressed slowly, with the
result that many supporters of the old view;, are still practicing them.
SECRET
SECRET
I-
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
SECRET
Today's enlightened Soviet sciences of biology, physiology, and clinical
medicine have shown themselves to be diametrically opposed to the views ex-
pressed by the theorists of cytopathology. The principles of the latter fac-
tion find no foothold in contemporary biology as expressed by Timiryazev, Mi-
churin, and Lysenko; in physiology as taught by Sechenov, Pavlov, Vvedenskiy,
and Ukhtomskiy; and in the schools of modern clinical medicine founded by Bot-
kin and Ostroumov.
Today, the students of Virkhov's cytopathology are neither concerned nor
perplexed about this apparent rift in medical theory. They calmly maintain
their position and continue to support the principles of idealistic "biology"
as expressed by Weismann-Mendel-Morgan; idealistic physiology as preached by
Mueller, Fervorn, Gel'mgol'tts, Dubois-Reymond, Fulton; and the proponents of
organo-localization trends in clinical medicine.
A good question at this point might be, Is there any instance where Vir-
khov's cytopathology or Ehrlich's chemotherapy has served any practical pur-
pose in clinical medicine? There is only one definite answer: There is no
known record of any practical achievement for which the medical profession can
thank the studies of Virkhov or Ehrlich or, for that matter, any of their fol-
lowers. On the contrary, the doctrine of cytopathology during the several dec-
ades of its existence has never contributed much medical knowledge.
This theory of cytopathology, similar to Ehrlich's chemotherapeutical fan-
tasies, has always emphasized the "chance" approach to medicine. Much ado is
made about the value of seronrophylaxis, serotherapy, and the wonderful results
obtained with chemotherapeutic and antibiotic preparations, but a factual study
will reveal that none of these practical achievements owes anything to the prin-
ciples initiated by Virkhov or Ehrlich.
An objective review will show that the majority of modern pathologists who
adhere to the cytopathologic principles not only fail to explain the mode of
action of a given class of preparations, but also prevent any advance. They
retard the progress of those students who claim that pathologic processes ini-
tially act on the nervous system of the animal organism.
Mention must be made of the fact that the scientific research work in the
field of clinical medicine and in the training of new medical personnel still
places much emphasis on the erroneous cytopathologic theories. In this resit
Soviet medical education might be likened to a construction project which L. es
old or overhauled parts. it is therefore easy to see that the development of
the medical field at present seems to emphasize the empirical outlook toward
therapeutic preparations, which, similar to the "magic bullet" which one hears
about so often in fairy tales, must themselves locate their target -- that is
to say, the malignant microbe, the toxin, the cell, etc. Ridiculous as it might
sound this is the theory on which today's chemotherapists operate.
This general theme has invaded many .uvieL texts and manuals. Writings
which deal with various aspects of pathology invariably remind one of a catalogue
listing various hypotheses, interpretations, and derivative theories. Conse-
quently, the training of medical personnel involves absorbing useless metaphys-
ical and antievolutionary concepts of cytopathology, whose apostles still main-
tain a solid front in the fields of teaching and research.
A
In foreign countries, the medical science of cytopathology with all its mod-
ifications, together with Ehrlich's studies, is not only the fundamental, but ac-
tually the only trend in medical science. The reason for this is obvious: the
methodological fundamentals of thi" trend are in complete concurrence with, and
are indivisibly connected to, bouige)is ideology. Bourgeois science, which has
the support of capitalism, has had co divorce itself from all true sciences,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
SECRET
among them true pathology and medicine, and the Marxist-Leninist theories of
evolution. It is understandable, therefore, that there is continued support
of antievolutionary principles and Virkhov's conceptions of cytopathology.
What then are the principles which have permitted this reactionary and
antiscientific school to flourish for so many years? The answer is simple.
A hundred years ago all problems in pathology were solved by establishing the
material substrata of the disease. This was based on an accumulation of fac-
tual rr.ter:.al which permitted the differentiation of individual forms of path-
ologic processes. !Tie study of pathology was to gain knowledge by means of
experiments, to y.. rs,rtize and classify pathologic processes, and to local-
ize, or as st%.t!:, by Virkhov, to determine the pathologic site in the animal.
The best e,c:usple of thin was the suppression of the unproductive natural phil-
osophical conclusions regarding the "essence" of a disease. The final solu-
tion of this problem requires the livi.,-ion of an animal into separate parts
and these parts were ntuuieA irdivi-iually. Thus, pathologic processes came
to be studied as independent processe?;.
It has been stated that the relationship of Virkhov's studies to bour-
gec s ideology a,.d bourgeois science is suite evident, although noxious, to
us. However, if the ideological :methodological fundamentals of cytopathology
have shown themselves to be in such flagrant opposition to our socialistic
ideology, to the principles of Michurinian biology, to the Soviet trend in
physiology and pathology, and finally, to fr.cts as revealed in experimental
and clinical pathology, then why is it that Soviet medical men still support
and preach this senile science;
Several reasons might he suggested for this continued support. In the
first plcthere - re many medical men who are still influenced by capital-
istic idercl,. As a result, these "scientists" still adhere to views which are
clearly antievolutionary, antimaterialistic, and idealistic, and are merely
continuing the work started by Virkhov, Ehrlich, Pasteur, Koch, and others.
In the second place, there appears to have been no :,efficiently thorough
indoctrination of ise,ical personnel in the fundamentals Marxist-Leninist
ideology, particulaarly with respect to the Marxist-Leninist studies of phys-
ical development.
In the third place the deep-rooted ideas of past "masters" have created
the general feeling that the :e;; ideas are reactionary and not to be trusted.
Finally, it can be attributed to the formal training which all medical
personnel have received in the principles of Virkhov's cytopathology.
Here, then, cue the reasons why many of the modern pathologists support
the old theories and reject the new.
The new Soviet trenc. in pathology anc medicine is based primarily on the
"unity" of the complex: anlmul organism and its environment. This is in com-
plete agreement with the materialistic concepts of the evolution of the animal
kingdom and does not reject the possibility of later forms of integration. The
latter trend i1 pathology and medicine adopts the Marxist-Leninist ideas of the
dialectic development of any process in nature. It has a common characteristic
with the ideological-methodological fundamentals of Michurinian biology and
with I. P. Pavlov's teachir:gs.
The Soviet trends are antagonistic to the ideological-methodological funda-
mentals of Virkhov's cytopathology, Fervorn't cytophysiology, and all the other
metaphysical and idealistic theories initiated by foreign physiologists from
Ehrlich to Weismann-Mendel and Morgan. Fundamentally, the principles of Virkhov,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1
SECRET
We9.smann-Mendel, and Morgan are related and present a single front. This there-
fore, is the reason why we must speak of the united front which will have to be
presented by the new Soviet concepts in physiology, pathology, and biology.
At this p",int it might be well to raise the question of whether or not any
of the new concepts have been adopted by clinical practice in pathology. For-
tunately, tta new ideology has penetrated somewhat the line presented by the
"old guard." During the Soviet period the new trend in pathology has been sup-
ported b; clinical practice at all stages of its deve'opment and has confirmed
its scientific principles many times.
It was rot a rratter of chance "discoveries," not empirical explorations,
but actually the results of new fundamental concepts which were submitted to us
as a means for establishing ne. methods of therapeutic intervention. These
were not fully supported in clinical practice, tut also explained the very es-
sence of the p:.thclogic process. Thus, it has been suggested that successful
treatment can be brought about in chemotherapy-resistant cases of malaria, sal-
icylic-resistant cases of rheumatism, the treatment of somatic disturbances with
prolonged sleep, treatment of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by basic irritations
of the neuro-receptive apparatus of the lungs, treatment of croupous pneumonia
by subcutaneous novocainization of isolated regions, treatment of ulcerous dis-
eases by novocaine infiltration of the cutaneous zones of hyperalgesia, treat-
ment of some forms of pulmonary tuberculosis by alcoholization of the peripheral
region of the diaphragmnal nerve, and treatment of brucellosis, hypertonia, an'l
many others.
On the basis of these theoretical representations, Prof A. V. Vishnevskiy
developed and put into clinical practice novocaine blockade and its modifica-
tions. With the no,., trend of science, it was also possible to re-evaluate the
mechc.nisn.; of action of nany old forms of intervention.
This new theory will be the first in the history of Soviet science to es-
tablish atringlu theory in medicine. It will permit a comparative evaluation
of the mechanisms of infection, healing, and treatment even in the most diverse
of pathologic processes.
The most important tasks of Soviet medical science today are to coordinate
all efforts of physiology, biology, and pathology along a single front toward
successful adoption of the new trends in Soviet pathology. It is absolutely
necessary that the reactionary principles supported by Virkhov and Ehrlich and
their followers be completely eliminated. This elimination must be carried out
within the ranks of medical scientists as well as in the ranks of medical stu-
dents. It is suggested that a series of discussions be instituted to make these
problems known to as l=arge an audience of Soviet medical workers as possible.
Prof ?. A. Sarkisov (Meditsinskiiy Rabotnik, 9 February 1950) made an at-
tempt to form such discussion groups. The movement was not too successful in
view of the fact that the subject matter was limited to information that had
appeared in magazines and the press. The next series of discussions should con-
sider a greater source of material. We must all. strive for a pure Soviet science.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/17: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600310096-1