There probably isn't a single person in the area former Union, who has never used or even heard of Vishnevsky ointment. If we talk about the war years, doctors say that Vishnevsky’s ointment saved many not only their health, but also their lives.
Alexander Vishnevsky was born on September 4, 1874 in the Dagestan village of Novoaleksandrovka, now the village of Nizhny Chiryurt, Kizilyurt district of Dagestan, in the family of a staff captain of an infantry regiment, whose company was then stationed there.
Sasha Vishnevsky received his secondary education at the Astrakhan gymnasium. And after graduation he entered the Imperial Kazan University.
During his student years, Vishnevsky lived very hard financially; in order to somehow make ends meet, he gave lessons. In his third year, due to “extreme poverty,” he was exempted from tuition fees. But Vishnevsky graduated from the university with honors in 1899 and received a doctor’s diploma.
After which he worked for a year as a supernumerary resident in the surgical department of the Alexander Hospital of Kazan in the village hospital of the village of Krutinka near Omsk. But then he returned to the medical faculty in Kazan.
Initially, in 1900-1901, Vishnevsky was a supernumerary pathologist at the Department of Operative Surgery with topographic anatomy, and then in 1901–1904 – pathologist at the Department of Normal Anatomy.
In November 1903, Alexander Vishnevsky defended his doctoral dissertation “On the issue of peripheral innervation of the rectum” and was a private assistant professor at the department of topographic anatomy from 1904 to 1911.
In 1905 he was sent abroad to study modern methods of urology.
In 1908 - 1909, Vishnevsky was sent on a second trip abroad to study genitourinary system and brain surgery. He worked in the clinics of the most famous German surgeons of that time: Wier, Kerte and Hildebrand, and in Paris, where he studied neurosurgery in the clinics of Doyen and Gosset.
In Paris, in parallel with his work at the Vishnevsky surgical clinic in Ilya’s laboratory at the Pasteur Institute, he carried out two scientific studies.
In 1910, he began working as a consultant surgeon at the Clinic of Nervous Diseases of Kazan University, headed by the outstanding neuropathologist L.O. Darkshevich.
In 1910 A.V. Vishnevsky together with V.L. Bogolyubov taught a course in general surgical pathology and therapy, and since 1911 he already taught this course alone.
In April 1912, Vishnevsky was elected extraordinary professor of the department of surgical pathology.
Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky is considered the founder of domestic neurosurgery.
During the First World War, A.V. Vishnevsky taught, practically without assistants, two surgical courses - surgical pathology and a hospital clinic, and was at the same time a senior doctor at the hospital of the Kazan department of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, a consulting doctor at the hospitals of the Kazan exchange and merchant society, and a doctor at the infirmary Kazan educational district.
Since 1916, Professor Vishnevsky became the head of the department of hospital surgery.
Vishnevsky has always been distinguished by perseverance and great hard work, combining scientific, pedagogical and social activities.
After the revolution in 1918, Vishnevsky became a senior doctor at the first Soviet hospital; in 1918-1926 he headed the regional hospital of Tatarstan, and from 1926 to 1934 he headed the faculty surgical clinic.
Having no prior experience in administrative work, Vishnevsky turned out to be a successful organizer. Under his leadership, the clinic became a leading surgical center where the most complex operations were performed.
During the time he was in charge of the clinic, Vishnevsky did not leave scientific work and published more than 30 works.
He conducted experimental physical research and a large number of original works on surgery of the biliary tract, urinary system, thoracic cavity, neurosurgery, surgery of military injuries and purulent processes.
After Wisniewski first demonstrated his method of pain relief in the United States in 1929, he became a world-renowned neurosurgeon and scientist.
In 1932, his monograph “Local anesthesia using the creeping infiltration method” was published.
The Vishnevsky method of anesthesia became one of the leading ones in the operational activities of Soviet surgeons and was used not only in large medical centers, but also in rural hospitals.
Observing the effect of novocaine on pathological processes, Vishnevsky found out that this drug not only relieves pain, but also accelerates wound healing. Novocaine blockade is used as local anesthesia.
In 1927, Vishnevsky invented an oil-balsamic dressing for the treatment of wounds.
Vishnevsky ointment is still used to treat wounds of various origins.
On April 27, 1934, for scientific merits, Vishnevsky was awarded the honorary title of Honored Worker of Science of the RSFSR.
At the end of 1934, Vishnevsky moved to Moscow. His many students remained in Kazan. Only professors from the school A.V. 18 people came out of Vishnevsky.
Three of the four surgical departments of KSMI were occupied by his students - Professor N.V. Sokolov, I.V. Domrachev, S.M. Alekseev.
Five more equally talented Kazan students of Vishnevsky - V.I. Pshenichnikov, A.N. Ryzhikh, G.M. Novikov, A.G. Gelman, S.A. Flerov - headed surgical departments in other cities.
It is believed that one of Alexander Vasilyevich’s best students was his own son, surgeon Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky.
In Moscow in 1934, Alexander Vishnevsky was appointed director of the surgical clinic of the Central Institute for Advanced Medical Studies and the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine.
In the fall of 1941, Vishnevsky, together with the VIEM surgical clinic, was evacuated to Kazan.
It is generally accepted that Vishnevsky’s methods and drugs played a huge role in the quality of pain relief and treatment during the Great Patriotic War. They literally saved the lives of a large number of wounded.
On April 11, 1942, Vishnevsky became a laureate of the USSR State Prize.
In 1943, Alexander Vasilyevich was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and in 1944 - the Order of Lenin.
In Moscow, Vishnevsky headed the surgical clinic of the VIEM, which, with the organization of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, was included in the academy in 1944.
In 1946, Vishnevsky became director of the Institute of Surgery of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences.
In 1947, on the basis of the clinic, A.V. Vishnevsky founded the Moscow Institute of Experimental and Clinical Surgery. In the same year he was elected a full member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences.
Alexander Vishnevsky died in Moscow on November 13, 1948. He continued to work until the last days of his life, and was full of scientific plans.
After the death of his father, the institute was headed by Alexander Aleksandrovich Vishnevsky and turned it into the largest research institution developing current problems of modern clinical surgery.
Since 1948, the institute has been named after A.V. Vishnevsky.
The surgical clinic of the Kazan Medical University has been named after the scientist since 1936, and a memorial room has been created in the clinic.
A bas-relief of Alexander Vasilyevich is installed on the building of the 6th city clinical hospital.
On the corner of Tolstoy and Butlerov streets, next to the clinic that bears his name, there is a bust of the surgeon Vishnevsky by sculptor V.I. Rogozhin and architect A.A. Sporius.
A bust of Vishnevsky by S. Konenkov was also installed in Moscow in front of the institute named after him.
Streets are named after Vishnevsky in the cities of Kazan, Kizilyurt, Khasavyurt, Novorossiysk, and in the villages of Nizhny Chiryurt, Zubutli-Miatli, Aknada, Komsomolskoye of the Kizilyurt district of Dagestan.
Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky laid the foundation for a whole dynasty of famous doctors.
Both his son, Alexander Alexandrovich and grandson Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky Jr., made a huge contribution to domestic science and medicine.
Vishnevsky ointment was created at the beginning of the twentieth century. Since then, the number of products that have a similar effect has increased significantly. However, the ointment still enjoys continued success. True, some consider this invention almost a scam. What is the secret of this ointment? What does it consist of? And what arguments do its opponents put forward?
What is Vishnevsky ointment?
Vishnevsky ointment consists of three components, which are very well selected and effectively enhance each other’s effect.
Castor oil
Castor oil in Vishnevsky's ointment serves as the basis of the ointment. Castor oil is produced from vegetable raw materials. The internal use of this component of Vishnevsky's ointment to combat constipation is better known. But castor oil is no less widely used externally. Castor oil softens the skin very well. Therefore, calluses are treated with castor oil to remove them. In addition, castor oil is used to treat hemorrhoids; castor oil is an excellent treatment and colds(they rub their chest and back). Castor oil warms and helps the other components of Vishnevsky's ointment penetrate the skin better.
Treatment with Vishnevsky ointment. What diseases does Vishnevsky ointment help with?
So, all these wonderful ingredients, when mixed, can give a useful result. But opponents of Vishnevsky’s ointment believe that Vishnevsky’s ointment is a rather mediocre product, which received such a wide popularity only because its creator at one time held very significant positions medical posts. Some doctors believe that Vishnevsky's ointment is good only for accelerating and ulcers, since it has almost only a warming effect. As for the use of Vishnevsky ointment to treat wounds, then, according to some doctors, this is a very harmful practice. After all, Vishnevsky’s ointment creates a dense fatty film on the surface of the wound, which does not at all help speed up healing. On the contrary, it promotes the development of microorganisms in the wound that live without access to oxygen. There are a lot of such microbes and they can cause serious complications. Such skeptics also express doubts about the antimicrobial properties of Vishnevsky’s ointment, since the only component of the ointment that has the ability to destroy microbes is xeroform. But this is far from the best remedy. Whether or not to use Vishnevsky ointment to treat any ailments is up to you. Today, Vishnevsky’s ointment is not in great demand, including because this drug has a rather specific smell, which is not liked by many. But, one way or another, this drug still has many fans who would not exchange their Vishnevsky ointment for any modern drugs.
Who created this ointment?
Alexander Vasilievich Vishnevsky (1874-1948) - Russian and Soviet military surgeon, creator of the famous medicinal ointment; founder of a dynasty of doctors, full member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (1947). Vishnevsky was born on August 23, 1874 in the Dagestan village of Novoaleksandrovka (now the village of Nizhny Chiryurt, Kizilyurt district of Dagestan). In 1899 he graduated from the medical faculty of Kazan University. In November 1903 he defended his doctoral dissertation. From 1914 to 1925 he headed the hospital surgical clinic, and from 1926 to 1934 - the faculty surgical clinic in Kazan. In 1934, Alexander Vishnevsky was appointed director of the surgical clinic of the Central Institute for Advanced Medical Studies and the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine in Moscow. In 1946, he became director of the Institute of Surgery of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences. Vishnevsky conducted research in the field of surgery of the biliary tract, urinary system, chest cavity, as well as neurosurgery, surgery of military injuries and purulent processes. He developed the most famous method of pain relief - novocaine blockade, a local anesthesia method. A year before his death, A.V. Vishnevsky founded the Moscow Institute of Surgery of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (since 1948 it bears his name).
Many people have heard about the “Doctors' Plea,” which merged into a more general campaign to “fight rootless cosmopolitanism,” and in fact, the Trotskyists. This struggle was interrupted by the death of Stalin. This article reveals some details of the sabotage of the top officials of the USSR Ministry of Health.
Now, so that you understand the whole meaning of military field assistance and the importance of correct treatment of wounds, I will tell you about the sabotage activities of the chief surgeons of the USSR throughout almost the entire Soviet era - the Vishnevsky family: father, son and grandson - famous surname typical Soviet crypto-Jews.
Father - the founder of Soviet surgery Alexander Vasilievich Vishnevsky- before Moscow he worked in Kazan, and from 1934, as director of Surgery of the Central Institute for Advanced Medical Studies, and then director of the Institute of Surgery named after himself, he headed Soviet surgery. The years of his life were 1874-1948. Academician of Medical Sciences. The encyclopedia says that he developed methods of local anesthesia with novocaine and introduced into practice an oil-balsamic dressing - Vishnevsky ointment.
It would be more correct to say - bears responsibility. Vishnevsky's ointment specifically concerns wound management.
Now, having learned the stages of wound healing, you can see for yourself what the result will be from using Vishnevsky ointment.
Vishnevsky ointment
What are the components of Vishnevsky ointment?
Vishnevskaya ointment is very smelly, and consists of three parts: birch tar, xeroform and castor oil.
Birch tar black in color, in Rus' they were used to treat cart axles, boots for waterproofing and horse collars so that they would not crack in the cold.
Xeroform is a chemical substance with some disinfectant effect. The chemical name of the xeroform is bismuth tribromophenolate.
Castor oil- This is an oil with an irritating effect on living tissue, as a result of which it is used mainly as a laxative.
All these components of Vishnevsky’s ointment are very cheap. The main effect of Vishnevsky ointment, due to the presence of tar and castor oil- it is warming, preventing the access of oxygen, such as a compress, and, therefore, contributing to the occurrence of inflammation and, in particular, anaerobic inflammation.
Xeroform has some disinfecting effect - so as not to notice that wounds in the USSR are smeared with only tar and a laxative.
Knowing the stages of wound healing, you can imagine that Vishnevsky ointment effectively blocks the access of oxygen to the wound and contributes to the occurrence of anaerobic infection. And I will repeat this again, that the most important thing for a wound is breathing, while fatty ointments block oxygen for wounds, effectively turning off cellular respiration and therefore should not be used, including Vishnevsky’s tar-laxative ointment. Because if you apply Vishnevsky’s warming tar-laxative ointment to a contaminated gunshot wound, this is a guarantee of gangrene, since the oil base of the ointment deprives the wound of oxygen and provides the best conditions for the development of anaerobic, oxygen-free, gangrene infection.
When old Vishnevsky died, then his ointment began to be used to increase inflammation, because it was obvious to everyone that it caused only harm. Namely: Vishnevsky ointment began to be used for the maturation of purulent boils. This in itself was an indicative change in the use of Vishnevsky ointment.
Furuncle- This is an abscess located inside the skin. The boil is reliably limited by the thickness of the skin from the subcutaneous tissue, and therefore boils are always local, intradermal abscesses and never turn into spreading purulent phlegmons.
For boils, warming ointments can be used, since due to the anatomical location of the boil inside the skin, we are not afraid of the spread of the purulent process.
The use of Vishnevsky ointment for boils gives a warming effect and the so-called “ripening” effect, that is, the rapid suppuration of the boil. And since the boil suppurates faster, it is expelled faster, that is, it goes away completely, since the boil never turns into a widespread purulent process. Therefore, the use of Vishnevsky’s warming ointment for boils leads to rapid suppuration, purulence and recovery from intradermal abscess. To ripen boils with the same effect as Vishnevsky’s ointment, use a warming agent that has the same effect ichthyol ointment- a product of distillation of shale tar.
The use of Vishnevsky ointment at all stages of the wound process
Academician Vishnevsky was a despot in Soviet medicine. They feared him like fire, they knew that he loved only his methods to be used, and therefore during his life and for a long time after, under his son, and especially during the Great Patriotic War, Vishnevsky ointment was used on wounds in all periods of the wound process, and including in the first and second acute periods of the wound process. In Soviet military hospitals, Vishnevsky ointment was applied to all wounds at once, during the initial cleaning and treatment of the wound. Therefore, the wounds of Soviet soldiers often ended in gangrene. You all know very well that the return of a Soviet soldier to his unit is a little celebrated event in Soviet fiction and memoirs. Whereas gangrene is a frequently encountered word in Soviet military fiction and memoirs. Don’t remember the famous “Ballad of Gangrene” in the novel by the classics of Jewish black humor Ilf and Petrov - “The Twelve Chairs”?
The Germans only had to hit a Soviet soldier, wound him, then Vishnevsky’s ointment and the rest of the “lotions” of medical treatment of the wounded in Soviet medicine would finish him off.
During the same war, however, the Americans had no trace of gangrene, and this word does not appear in American military memoirs. The secret is simple - the Americans never treated wounds with warming ointments like Vishnevsky’s ointment, and it never occurred to them to export this “wonderful ointment”, laxative-tar, but in Soviet literature falsely called “Vishnevsky’s Balm” from the Russian allies. The Americans never used any ointments at all - only surgical debridement, cleaning, washing the wound with an antiseptic, wide excision of dead tissue, antibiotics and that's it. This approach provided a 96% cure rate against almost 90% of deaths in “outstanding Soviet surgery,” where outstanding surgeons like the father and son Vishnevsky and their accomplices worked “selflessly.” In American military medicine, purulent complications are extremely rare and have never been a problem.
Before the war, Academician A.V. Vishnevsky stood as a wall in the way of the use of antibiotics, the shortage of which was acutely felt back in the 80s, because everyone knew that Soviet medicine did not need any antibiotics if it had such a wonderful Vishnevsky ointment! How many wounded in the war died from such voluntarism? And who was to blame for this again? Is Stalin to blame again? Why in World War II the number of dead American soldiers was 400 thousand people, and the number of dead Soviet soldiers was 11 million? Only without demagogic explanations. Because in fact, the Soviet and American armies were approximately equal in size, and they fought for the same length of time. The American army fought from December 8, 1941 to September 1945 and fought not with anyone, but, as we now know, with kamikazes and black belts in karate.
The Vishnevsky family and their associates and accomplices, in the full sense of the word, were a Holocaust for the Soviet people. Their name is associated with the medical genocide of the Soviet people. The lives of millions of Soviet wounded during the Great Patriotic War and after war time- this is the result of the sabotage activities of the crypto-Jew Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky and his accomplices.
It is doubtful that they only smeared the goyim with their “Vishnevsky Balm,” but as they say, if such a drunkenness is going on, cut the last cucumber,” “if you beat the goyim, do not spare the Jews.”
Only in the sixties were Soviet surgeons able to recklessly refuse to use Vishnevsky ointment in acute period wound management
But the epidemic of gangrene caused by Vishnevsky’s ointment was not the only type of sabotage that the sabotage doctor Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky launched.
Complete ban on general anesthesia
Another type of sabotage, and hidden method mass genocide, which caused enormous damage not only to the soldiers of the Soviet army, but also to the entire Soviet people, there was a complete ban on the use general anesthesia in Soviet medicine and military field surgery.
Around the beginning of the thirties, Academician Vishnevsky introduced the total use of local anesthesia with novocaine into practice, and in connection with this, he generally banned the use of general anesthesia in surgery in the USSR, declaring that his method of local novocaine injections was the best anesthesia in the world. Over the next 30 years, all operations in the USSR will be performed only under local anesthesia, regardless of the severity of the operation.
The use of local anesthesia for local operations: opening a boil, straightening a dislocation or pulling out a tooth is quite normal. However, Academician Vishnevsky forced all Soviet medicine to perform heavy abdominal operations such as removal of the stomach, lung, craniotomy, under local anesthesia. All amputations of limbs and abdominal operations for penetrating wounds of the chest and abdominal cavity during the war were carried out, at best, under local anesthesia with novocaine, or even generally, as people darkly joked, “under Kricaine.” Many wounded died from painful shock.
At this time, in American medicine, the use of general anesthesia had reached perfection, and the wounded did not feel anything during operations, and did not die from painful shock, like the Soviet wounded.
While studying at a medical institute, the author of these lines heard a true story from an anesthesiology teacher, whom I will mention later, that in the late 50s, during the first American exhibition, a delegation of American doctors visited Moscow. The Americans carried out several demonstration operations. In response to this, Soviet surgeons, who were then under the leadership of Alexander Aleksandrovich Vishnevsky (son), showed “the high degree of development of Soviet surgery” by demonstrating to the Americans the removal of a lung under local anesthesia, that is, in a patient who was in full and clear consciousness. Looking at this, American surgeons expressed their undisguised admiration. They said: “Only a real communist can endure such an operation under local anesthesia! Bravissimo and Viva to the patient’s courage!”
Only from the beginning of the 60s did general anesthesia begin to slowly return to Soviet clinical practice.
Activities of son A.V. Vishnevsky
The son of the pest surgeon Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky - Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky(1906-1975) was the chief surgeon of the USSR from the death of his father, that is, from 1948 until 1975, and all these years the practice of dominance of Vishnevsky ointment and local anesthesia continued to dominate Soviet surgery.
Here is the official certificate about A.A. Vishnevsky (son) from the Internet:
Vishnevsky Alexander Alexandrovich, Soviet surgeon, Colonel General of the medical service (1963), academician of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (1957), Hero Socialist Labor(1966). In the Soviet Army in 1931-1933, 1939-40 and from 1941. He graduated from the Faculty of Medicine of Kazan University (1929), taught first there, and in 1931-33 at the Military Medical Academy of the Red Army, then in scientific and clinical work. From 1939 he headed the surgical department of the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine. During the battles on the river. Khalkhin Gol in 1939 consultant surgeon of the 1st Army Group. During the Great Patriotic War, he was an army surgeon and the chief surgeon of a number of fronts. Developed and implemented effective methods for treating gunshot wounds. After the war, chief surgeon of the Primorsky Military District, then the Moscow Military District. Since 1948, director of the Institute of Surgery named after. A.V. Vishnevsky, at the same time since 1956, chief surgeon of the USSR Ministry of Defense. In 1953, for the first time in the world, V. performed heart surgery under local anesthesia, and in 1957, a successful operation on “ open heart"using the homeland, the apparatus of the arts, and blood circulation. He was involved in the treatment of burns, remote diagnostics and prognosis using a computer. Author of more than 200 works. Lenin Prize (1960), USSR State Prize (1970). Laureate of the International Prize named after. R. Leriche (1955). Chairman of the All-Russian Society of Surgeons, member of the International Association of Surgeons, honorary member of many Soviet and foreign scientific surgical and medical societies. V. was awarded 3 Orders of Lenin, 4 Orders of the Red Banner, 2 Orders of the Patriotic War 1st class, 2 Orders of the Red Star, Order “For Service to the Motherland in the Armed Forces of the USSR” 3rd class, medals, as well as foreign orders. |
As you can see, foreign colleagues appreciated Vishnevsky’s sabotage activities. From 1948, from the death of his father, to 1975, the year of his death, A.A. Vishnevsky reigned supreme in Soviet surgery for 30 years. Please note that the official record states that he even performed heart surgery under local anesthesia. This is outright sadism. What happened to the patient? Why is he sick?! But the encyclopedia now writes: “In 1953, for the first time in the world, V. performed heart surgery under local anesthesia”, that is, on a patient who is in clear consciousness. It's the same as quartering under local anesthesia. Were all his patients goyim?
Murder of Sergei Korolev
What role did A. A. Vishnevsky personally play, as well as the lack of equipment and general anesthesia skills until the 60s, in the murder of the chief designer of Soviet missiles during an operation? Sergei Korolev, I will now give you the authentic story of an eyewitness-anesthesiologist. Please note in the excerpts from Yaroslav Golovanov’s book that Korolev’s operating surgeon, Minister Petrovsky, called the chief surgeon of the USSR A. A. Vishnevsky for the operation. He did this to cover himself with another authority, in whom he was confident that he would say the right thing.
First, I will give you an interview with an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda on November 4, 2004 about the filming of the film “Moscow Saga”. This film shows the murder during the operation of the People's Commissar of Defense with the non-Russian surname Frunze, a Jew who was usually passed off as a “Moldavian.” Naturally, this is shown as the work of Stalin, forgetting to mention that it was Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin who removed the first People's Commissar of Defense, Trotsky, from this post of People's Commissar of Defense; and it was Trotsky and the Trotskyists who wanted to regain control of the army by killing Frunze, since Frunze was a man of the then Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin troika, and Stalin had no reason to remove his man. There were no Russians at all in the environment in which the struggle for power was taking place at that time. But that’s not what we’re talking about now.
The article gives an interview with the daughter of another crypto-Jew, Marshal Syoma Budyonny, Nina Semyonovna Budyonny - as I understand it, the ex-wife of the artist Mikhail Derzhavin. Here's what she says, by the way:
The film is interesting... But I don’t believe that Frunze was killed. Frunze did not wake up from anesthesia, but neither did Korolev, for example, who was given anesthesia in our time by the excellent professor-anesthesiologist Sergei Efuni, my friend. He is now in America. He was terribly worried. He told me that the effect of anesthesia depends on the length of the trachea - Korolev had a short neck... Another thing is that Frunze could not have had the operation - this is true. Dad (Syoma Budyonny) told me that before the operation he visited Frunze, who felt great, gave him clothes: “Let’s get ready, there’s no need for you to lie here.” Frunze had already put on his trousers, but realized that the decision regarding the operation was made by the Politburo. If I leave, they will say that I was chickening out... Dad thought that something bad had happened. |
This interview is about how false versions and myths are created.
And now you will read how, with the help of medicine, those same sabotage doctors, about whom they say that they do not exist, physically eliminated Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, the main brain trust of Soviet missile power.
I will tell you what I know from an old anesthesiologist who was my anesthesiology teacher at the institute. He was a Jew, and his last name was Nadtochy - almost like Budyonny, if you think that there are no Jews with such last names. Nadtochy was present in the operating room during the entire operation. He was then still a young anesthesiologist at the Kremlin Hospital, and this was a very interesting case for him. He himself was not the official anesthesiologist for the operation, but simply went out of curiosity to watch the operation on such a large man. Nadtochiy went there and became an errand boy there, and was present and helped carry and bring until Korolev’s death, thus observing all the vicissitudes of the operation.
Sergei Korolev also did not have to undergo surgery. Korolev recklessly thought that Soviet medicine had the same successes as Soviet rocketry, which was far ahead of the American one. But in medicine, thanks to the activities of Academician Vishnevsky and his accomplices, there was a gap of fifty years behind the Americans, which has not decreased even now, because it was not a matter of lag, but of deliberate sabotage.
As is usually done, when in the USA they want to remove the entire rectum, they perform the operation in two stages.
Usually, first an operation is performed to remove the colon to the anterior surface of the abdominal wall, and the rectum, due to the severity of the operation, is not yet touched at all. They wait for complete healing of the removed colon and only after a month or two do they remove the rectum itself, this way avoiding surgery in one sitting. This is how the operation is still performed in the United States and throughout the world. Why do Americans do this? Because all world medicine knows that due to the severity of radical removal of the rectum and large blood loss, the colon during a radical operation often does not acclimate to the wall of the abdominal cavity, and falls into the abdominal cavity, the entire contents of the intestine flow inward, and this is 100% death. These data were generally known for about a hundred years of the practice of removing the rectum for rectal cancer, and were also known to the Jewish surgeons who operated on Korolev. Why Jewish?
Because Korolev’s operating surgeons were Jews: Minister of Health Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky and our anti-hero - Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky (son). I emphasize - son. Because there is also the grandson of Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky, that is, the son of Alexander Alexandrovich - who is also Alexander Alexandrovich, and he is also a professor at the Institute of Surgery named after his grandfather, although he is no longer outstanding and not an academician.
By the way, in the above article in Komsomolskaya Pravda about the film “Moscow Saga” and in connection with the operation with which the People’s Commissar of Defense Frunze did not rise, an interview is taken with this very grandson - Professor Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky, who at the time of the interview was 65 years old. From the context of this interview it follows that the interview about the film is being conducted with the grandson of Academician Vishnevsky due to the fact that Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky (grandfather) was the operating surgeon, or one of the operating surgeons, on Frunze’s operation. It turns out that there is a continuity of generations: if Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky participated in the murder of People's Commissar Frunze, then his son Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky participated in the murder of General Designer Korolev. Moreover, both of them, Frunze, and even quite possibly Korolev, as you will see later, were Jews.
Why can we say for sure that it is surgeons, and not anesthesiologists, who are responsible for the death of the patient? Because according to medical rules The head of the operating room is the operating surgeon, not the anesthesiologist. If the anesthesiologist has difficulty initiating anesthesia during a planned operation, the surgeon can and should cancel the operation.
Now I am telling you what the anesthesiology teacher Nadtochiy, who was at the operation from the beginning of the operation, told us, the students.
Difficulties began even before the operation began. The anesthesiologist was unable to insert a breathing tube into Korolev’s trachea for artificial respiration to perform general anesthesia. The anesthesiologist called another anesthesiologist, and he also could not insert the tube. Then they called some Jewish professor of anesthesiology, I don’t remember the name Nadtochiy called, but this was not the only Jewish professor of anesthesiology who was called then. He also couldn’t put the phone down. The surgeons are waiting, they don't even start. All these attempts to insert the tube - at this time the patient himself does not breathe, and they breathe artificially with a mask for him, which is not entirely effective, and in patients with mask breathing, it slowly begins oxygen starvation. Jewish professors and consultants were called from other clinics. We waited until they arrived, and all this time they kept Korolev breathing with a mask, and this was several hours. It is unknown how many professors of anesthesiology they called, but Nadtochiy recalled that the operating room was full. He said that it was in vain to try to call professors; it would be better, they say, to give it to a simple anesthesiologist from the next operating room - they would quickly put the phone in, since they do this every day. He said that this professor last held a pipe in his hands ten years ago. But this professorship, Nadtochiy said, “was afraid for their asses,” and, covering them up, insisted only on “luminaries” so that in the “wet matter” they would not turn out to be the biggest “luminary”, and at least share responsibility. Nadtochy said that then, after much clarification and phone calls, the surgeons decided to operate under mask anesthesia. All this time they did not bring the patient to consciousness, and all the time they were breathing for him with a mask, which, I repeat, is not effective breathing and can only be used for a short time, until a breathing tube is installed in the trachea. This is considered a gross anesthesiological mistake - such a delay in breathing only on the mask, but they breathed on the mask throughout the entire operation.
Nadtochiy said that it was a conscious decision to kill the patient, because this operation requires achieving deep anesthesia, during which the tongue sinks, the entrance of air into the windpipe is closed, as a result of which the patient dies from asphyxia, that is, from suffocation. This whole pandemonium in the operating room to insert a tube into Korolev’s windpipe lasted a long time, several hours. Then they began to cut under mask anesthesia, although they should have stopped torturing the patient, brought him to consciousness and moved the operation at least a day or two ahead, and prepared for it more carefully. There was no need to start elective surgery on a patient they couldn't keep breathing. However, everything shows that they, as the Odessa joke says, had to “forge iron without leaving the cash register.” Nadtochiy further said that “Korolev’s body was powerful, and that he was a stocky man and apparently healthy by nature, and he held out for a long time; someone else in his place would have cut it quickly.” However, he said, Korolev’s heart could not withstand such abuse, and against the background of signs of deep and prolonged oxygen deficiency, the heart stopped, which was not surprising to any of the doctors present. It was a purely “English” murder. Nadtochiy said that although the relatives were told that the immediate cause of death during the operation was bleeding, the real cause of death was hypoxia, that is, the inability to provide adequate breathing to the patient, that is, suffocation.
The whole country mourned Korolev, and state mourning was declared. The whole country buried him at the Kremlin wall, and no one knew that he, like Stalin and many others, was killed by a bunch of Jewish saboteur doctors. Although more than ten years had passed since Stalin’s death, we were assured that Stalin had “slandered” the Jewish doctors.
A doctor can kill a patient by the thousands different ways, and no one will even sharpen their nose. Therefore, doctors should not be allowed to become people who in the mass consider themselves chosen people, and the rest - cattle without a soul. The situation is especially dangerous when the patient is treated by a professor, and especially a Jewish professor. Because the medical professor actually has a “license to kill.”
The murder of Korolev was a conspiracy - in the sense that it was the work of many people. Jewish writer Yaroslav Golovanov wrote a study about Korolev, in which he cites even more obvious facts, from which it follows that Korolev’s operation was a deliberate murder, and the Minister of Health - crypto-Jew Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky played the role of the main executor in it. We can only guess about the customers. The book is called “Korolev. Facts and myths." 1994. In this book different people remember Korolev. I will give excerpts from the book related to diagnosis and surgery.
“His intestinal bleeding worries him no less than heart ailments. It started a long time ago, back in the summer of 1962 - immediately after the flight of Nikolaev and Popovich, with a terrible night attack of gastrointestinal pain, when an ambulance took him to the hospital. The next day, the famous professor Mayat examined him, kneaded his stomach, and kept asking: “Does it hurt here?” And here? And here? “It doesn’t hurt anywhere,” Sergei Pavlovich answered timidly.” “Tests carried out in December showed a bleeding polyp in the rectum. Now we were talking about removing the polyp - a stressful operation, but it could hardly be called serious. Sergei Pavlovich was calm, confidently pushing all meetings and business to the second half of January. Nina Ivanovna came to the hospital every day and talked with the doctors - no worries. On January 11, the Minister of Health of the USSR himself, academician Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky, performed a histological analysis - he pinched off a tiny piece of the polyp. Was heavy bleeding, they barely stopped.” “The next day, when Nina Ivanovna (Korolev’s wife) was sitting with Sergei Pavlovich, anesthesiologist Yuri Ilyich Savinov came into the room. (Judging by the patronymic, he is Jewish). Nina Ivanovna recalls: I remember that whole scene very well... Sergei Pavlovich was sitting on the bed, with his hands under his knees, in pajamas, black socks with triangles... Savinov says: “Don’t give me away, I don’t have the right to show this to you, but congratulations, the analysis is good: this is a polyp...” 23 years after this conversation, Yuri Ilyich told me: Nina Ivanovna is confused about something. I had nothing to do with histology. I was an anesthesiologist for this operation... But when you went for the operation, Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky should have told you what kind of operation was to be performed. He wanted to take a biopsy again... But, as I understand it, this does not require general anesthesia... Sergei Pavlovich himself insisted on general anesthesia... If the biopsy on January 11 did not satisfy Boris Vasilyevich (which is quite acceptable), why is he starting the operation? Surely it was possible to take an analysis without cutting anything? I don’t know... I have guests... And in general, this is a question for Boris Vasilyevich. Why such a nervous conversation?.. Anatoly Ivanovich Strukov, academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Hero of Socialist Labor, our most famous pathologist: I don't remember the analysis. Petrovsky and Vishnevsky called me for an operation when Korolev was alive, so that I could testify that the tumor was malignant, which I did... Anatoly Ivanovich, excuse me, but why do they call a pathologist to a living person? I am a pathologist and understand tumors. Korolev had rectal sarcoma... Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky told me about all these events somewhat differently. The biopsy actually showed a polyp in the rectum, and I scheduled an operation to rid Sergei Pavlovich of this polyp. Previously, an attempt was made under anesthesia with the help of an endoscope to take the tissue again for analysis, but severe bleeding began, and the need for surgery became obvious... I don’t remember Strukov, I didn’t call him, perhaps his help was needed by the Kremlin histologists who carried out the analysis tumors." Petrovsky says the same in his book: “Laparotomy (opening the abdominal cavity) showed the presence of a fixed malignant tumor growing into the rectum and pelvic wall. With great difficulty, we managed to isolate the tumor using an electric knife and take a biopsy, which confirmed the presence of the most malignant tumor - angiosarcoma.” The surgeon and life. M.: Medicine, 1989. P. 155. Seven years after Korolev’s death, the Washington Post newspaper published an article by a doctor who emigrated from the USSR, who claimed that there was no sarcoma, there was a polyp, and Korolev died as a result of a medical error. The same version was supported by the famous surgeon, academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences F. G. Uglov, who published a kind of memoir essay in which there are no names of either Petrovsky or Korolev, but the fact that we are talking about them is clear even without the names. From my point of view, such a memoir technique is somewhat unscrupulous: it seems to accuse, but you can always hide from criticism behind the impersonality of the events described. I don’t presume to judge how well-founded all these accusations are. But I can’t forget another conversation that took place in Leningrad at the end of the 60s. Andrei Mikhailovich Ganichkin, an oncologist professor with whom we happened to talk about the death of Sergei Pavlovich, said, looking down: You see, rectal sarcoma is practically not described in the medical literature... However, the Minister of Health knows better... Academician A.I. Strukov confirmed: yes, the disease is extremely rare. I asked Petrovsky directly: does such a disease even exist? Boris Vasilyevich was not embarrassed by my question: Yes, rectal sarcoma is a very rare disease; of all possible types of malignant tumors of the rectum, it makes up less than one percent. This was noted in his works by such a leading oncologist as Nikolai Nikolaevich Petrov. Korolev had angiosarcoma of the rectum... How much longer could he live without any surgical intervention? A few months. Most likely, he would have died from constant bleeding, simply bled to death. An even more terrible option: the tumor, growing, would put pressure on the rectum, which would lead to obstruction. It would have been necessary to draw a conclusion on the side, but this painful operation still did not solve anything. Sergei Pavlovich was doomed... I often heard later: why did Korolev allow the minister to operate on him?! Although, it must be admitted that even Boris Vasilyevich’s ill-wishers admitted that he was a master, a virtuoso surgeon with golden hands. And yet, perhaps it would have been better if the operation had been performed not by an academician, but by an intelligent young candidate of medical sciences, who performs similar operations almost every day... And I also directly asked Petrovsky about this. It is difficult for me to talk about my professional qualifications. I can only say that in the 60s I operated a lot. I became a minister in 1965, five months before Sergei Pavlovich’s operation. And throughout these five months he also operated. I performed operations on the rectum both before and after this, so I had experience... Moreover, no one would have allowed a hypothetical, daily operating candidate of sciences to visit Korolev, even if Sergei Pavlovich had insisted on it. The Soviet “table of ranks” already worked here: if you are a member of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, twice Hero of Socialist Labor, the most secret Chief Designer, then, of course, only a life physician’s knife is worthy of your stomach, and Boris Vasilyevich was a natural life physician. And Petrovsky himself would not have allowed any super-experienced surgeon near Korolev. The victory promised to be easy, because we were talking about a polyp. But easy surgery or difficult - this is clear to specialists. But the fact would remain a fact: who operated on Korolev? Petrovsky! But let's return to the ward of the Kremlin hospital. Calmed by the conversation with Savinov, Nina Ivanovna went home with a light heart. Without delving into purely medical issues, but only organizational ones, you involuntarily come to the conclusion that the operation was not prepared in the best way. Petrovsky himself admits: “On that difficult day, neither the chief surgeon V.S. Mayat nor his deputies were in the Kremlin hospital. Consultant A. A. Vishnevsky was also absent.” Why? After all, there were no holidays or days off. − January 14th fell on a Friday. It is known that Korolev had a naturally short neck, but it was only on the operating table that it became clear that the endotracheal (breathing) tube did not enter through the mouth, although everything could have been tried on and figured out in advance. Why wasn't this done? Korolev hid the fact that he had a short neck,” Petrovsky explained to me. (???!!!) And most importantly, he hid (???!!!) that his jaws were broken and he could not open his mouth wide. While operating on people who went through the horrors of the repressions of the 1930s, I came across this phenomenon quite often. I have no doubt that during interrogations in 1938, the Queen’s jaws were broken. This circumstance forced us to give him a tracheotomy - an incision in his throat to insert a tube... There is, however, one more participant in this operation. Boris Vasilyevich remembered three anesthesiologists, but named two: Savinov and Efuni. The third was Georgy Yakovlevich Gebel from the team of Gleb Mikhailovich Solovyov, Petrovsky’s right hand. According to him, it was necessary to immediately administer anesthesia with a mask, but there was a Ministry of Health ban on this method. The Vtorotek device was already used for anesthesiology, but it was not in the operating room. No one could say how the patient’s heart would react to general anesthesia: Korolev was never given an ECG at the hospital. Initially, anesthesia was given with nitrous oxide, which does not relax the muscles. According to Gebel, it was possible to give ether, but the apparatus was so ancient that it did not have an ether evaporator. Petrovsky made the absolutely correct decision: laparotomy - autopsy. But there was not enough anesthesia for such an operation. There were no large oxygen cylinders; we made do with small ones, which were enough for twenty minutes. All this increased the already high tension of all people in the operating room. It was here that Savinov called Gebel, who immediately administered relaxants to Sergei Pavlovich - drugs that relieve muscle tension, but at the same time seem to turn off spontaneous breathing. Now we had to breathe for Korolev. How? Masks are prohibited. The endotracheal tube did not enter: short neck. The only option left was a tracheotomy - an incision in the throat and insertion of a tube into the trachea. Gebel finally put on the mask and now “breathed” for Korolev. When they started talking about tracheotomy, he objected: But when changing cans, it was not oxygen that was sucked in by hand, but air. So, after all, a tracheotomy... Of course, there was nothing terrible about the tracheotomy itself. But it was not foreseen in advance, and everyone knows that any surprise in any business introduces some nervousness into the work. But the main surprise was the tumor. “Big, bigger than my fist,” Petrovsky pointed out. “The tumor was very large, like two fists,” clarified Valentina Fominichna Grek, nurse who saw her. Now Boris Vasilyevich realized that there would be no easy victory. And whether there will be a victory at all is not clear. Boris Vasilyevich urgently sends doctor Praskovya Nikolaevna Moshentseva for help: to find and immediately bring Vishnevsky. Malinovsky? - Alexander Alexandrovich asked sharply, getting into the car: the chief surgeon of the army was worried about the poor health of the Minister of Defense. No, Korolev... So two academicians, two of the country’s most famous surgeons, met at the operating table. There is hardly a person who would dare to say that they loved each other, but, being undeniably smart people, they paid tribute to each other’s skill and experience. Sergei Naumovich Efuni, a student of Petrovsky, an anesthesiologist, did not take direct part in the operation, he arrived at the end of it. He told me: When the operation was completed, the surgeons were happy: “Borya! Sasha! Everything turned out well!” Cardiac arrest occurred thirty minutes after the end of the operation... But on the operating table? Yes... On the table... Nina Ivanovna was sitting in the room next to the operating room all this time. Irina Vladimirovna Rudneva, the wife of Konstantin Nikolaevich, happened to be here, and she calmed Nina Ivanovna as best she could. The operation took too long, and she was now afraid that Sergei Pavlovich would have his rectum removed to the side - most of all, he himself was afraid of such an outcome, which would turn him into a disabled person. Therefore, when Petrovsky came out of the operating room to Nina Ivanovna, her first question was: What? With a conclusion? Yes, with a conclusion,” Boris Vasilyevich answered sluggishly. Temporarily? Unfortunately, for life. Then, together with Vishnevsky, they went to the staff room, drank tea with bagels... When they stitched him up, Sergei Pavlovich began to breathe, wrinkled his face, and began to stretch painfully - this often happens after anesthesia. Goebel was standing with his back to the operating table, filling a syringe, when he felt as if someone had pushed him in the back. He turned around. Korolev's pupils slowly crawled up. The pulse rose. In the operating room - Gebel and Korolev, no one else. Georgy Yakovlevich ran to the staff room; Nina Ivanovna was horrified to see Petrovsky and Vishnevsky running into the operating room... Vishnevsky and Gebel began to inject adrenaline into the heart. You can't get in! - Vishnevsky whispered hotly. It's you who can't get in! - Gebel called an academician “you” for the first time. The heart was silent... A few hours later, at the autopsy, the pathologist will say: It’s really unclear how he walked around with such a heart... Gebel states: Petrovsky’s conscience as a surgeon is absolutely clear. So be it... Somewhere something flapped and rang, and Nina Ivanovna acutely felt with her whole being that something terrible was approaching. The entire space surrounding her began to deform into a kind of sucking funnel, and time twisted in her into a tight and dense cord of inseparable minutes. Then Petrovsky: Take heart, it's over... Yura Gagarin spent the first night after the death of Sergei Pavlovich in the Ostankino house. In the morning he said: I won’t be Gagarin if I don’t deliver the Korolev’s ashes to the moon! |
End of excerpts from Golovanov’s book about Korolev’s death.
(Very little time will pass and those who sent Korolev to the next world will sabotage Yuri Gagarin’s plane.)
But Yaroslav Golovanov, in his other book entitled “Notes of your contemporary” Volume 2. Moscow 2001, reports another interesting detail:
In the tail cabin: Kerimov 2, Ponomarev 1, the already tough Mishin (Chief Designer), Barmin 3, generals Shcheulov (Ministry of Defense) and Pushkin (cosmonaut rescue service). Everyone congratulates me and treats Borya and me to dry wine. I took the opportunity and approached Barmin and asked for a meeting so that he could tell me about Korolev. Well, of course you know that Korolev is a Jew? - asks Barmin. I was taken aback. I begin, like a fool, to explain that Korolev’s father studied at the Mogilev Theological Seminary, his mother was from the Zaporozhye Cossacks, so he is unlikely to be a Jew. Then I realized: Lord, what am I talking about?! What difference does it make whether he is a Jew, an Armenian, or a Spaniard? He is a KING! Yes, of course,” Barmin responded. - However, I don’t know much... You ask Valentin Petrovich 4 about this, he knows... |
1 Ponomarev Alexander Nikolaevich Colonel General-Engineer, Deputy Commander of the Air Force.
2 Kerimov Kerim Alievich - Deputy Minister of General Engineering, Chairman of the State Commission.
3 Vladimir Pavlovich Barmin (1909-1993) - academician, Hero of Socialist Labor, chief designer of launch complexes.
4 Glushko Valentin Petrovich (1908-1989) - academician, twice Hero of Socialist Labor, chief designer of liquid rocket engines, laureate of Lenin and State Prizes.
I’m going to St. Petersburg with Ignatenko and Rost to campaign for KP. In addition to promotional events, he met with military submariners with whom Korolev sailed in 1955, testing the naval version of his R-11FM missile. Then submarine missile carriers were born. The next day, Ignatenko begged us to visit the parents of his friends: professor-oncologist Andrei Mikhailovich Ganichkin and his wife, the dear Ita Naumovna, who showed us her unique collection of cognacs, and then fed us such a dinner that we fell off our chairs. I had a conversation with Andrei Mikhailovich about the death of Korolev. He said sarcastically: The Minister of Health, of course, knows better, but the fact is that such a disease as rectal sarcoma, which Minister Petrovsky found in Korolev, is not described in the medical literature... In November 1989, I talked with Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky, who operated on and killed Korolev, and told him about it. He replied that rectal sarcoma is an extremely rare disease, accounting for less than 1% of rectal malignant tumors. But it is described, for example, in the manual of our largest oncologist Nikolai Nikolaevich Petrov. I have no evidence, but I suspect that such a diagnosis was made in order to show that Korolev was doomed regardless of the outcome of the operation. |
Thus, from the material presented by Yaroslav Golovanov, thanks to him for this, it is clear that suspicions that Korolev was killed during the operation arose among many competent specialists.
Firstly, what follows from the story of Korolev’s wife is that he did not even know that his rectum would be removed. The wife said clearly that the discussion was at most about removing the polyp, and that’s it, one second and it’s done, but not about radical removal of the rectum along with everything that is around it. And this failure to inform the patient and his wife of what will be done to him is already a criminal offense. The patient must know about the operation he is undergoing and must give a written signature - or, if the patient is unable, he or his relatives must.
You try to tell the West that the doctors told the General Designer of Space Rocket in the USSR that they would remove a polyp, but they did a radical removal of the rectum without his consent, during which he died???!!! What will they say? Try asking! Why hasn't anyone asked for 40 years? In Russia there have always been a lot of hunters to report everything to the West. Why, in this case, are these people in no hurry to make such a report? Or maybe the West ordered Korolev, losing the space competition with the USSR on all counts?
Secondly, you see that there were only Jews in the operating room. They did not know that some of the small fry, such as the young doctor anesthesiologist Nadtochy, now also deceased, would pass on their memories of this operation to their students.
Everything that Minister Petrovsky says is clear to the doctor that he is coming up with any justification for his criminal actions, even the most implausible ones, such as the non-existent disease “Rectal Sarcoma”. Even if he had intestinal sarcoma, as I already said, operations for a malignant tumor of the rectum all over the world are performed in two stages. But here the matter is worse - here the matter is that Korolev's operation was expanded to a lethal maximum without his consent. All he and his family knew was that he had a benign polyp that would quickly be removed under general anesthesia.
Okay, let’s say Korolev had cancer, and not a fantastic sarcoma, which is also quite serious, but still, people with rectal cancer live for years, because it is not lung or liver cancer.
But now I’ll tell you one technical detail that only specialists know. Have you noticed that Korolev’s wife says that before the operation Korolev was visited by his anesthesiologist Yuri Ilyich Savinov, judging by his middle name, a Jew, as befits all doctors who work in the Kremlin hospital.
Right. Part of the anesthesiologist's job, for which he is paid, is to see the patient one day before surgery. Why does an anesthesiologist see a patient the day before surgery? To look at his medical history, find out his other illnesses to see if his heart and lungs can handle it? If the anesthesiologist believes that the patient is in a condition that he cannot undergo surgery, he should suggest that the surgeons postpone the operation and better prepare the patient. And most importantly, the anesthesiologist examines the oral cavity and its respiratory tract precisely for this purpose - determination possible difficulties when placing a tube into the trachea for artificial respiration for the patient. This examination is done before the operation of any patient - even a homeless person, not to mention the operation of the General Designer. There is a special four-grade classification of airway difficulty for placement of a breathing tube. The fourth degree is the most difficult. However, already at the third degree, the anesthesiologist must notify his anesthesiological superiors that the patient has difficult airways, the mouth does not open wide, and so on. The chief of anesthesiology is obliged to take additional measures, of which there are many, and to notify the operating surgeon in advance.
Thus, when in the above conversation the operating surgeon Petrovsky says that “Korolyov hid that he had a short neck” - we, experts, know for sure that Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky is telling a blatant lie. Because the chief of anesthesiology definitely reported this to him in advance, and also that Korolev’s mouth does not open wide due to a broken jaw in the past. And if Petrovsky lied to the patient that he was only taking him to remove the polyp, and he himself began to do radical removal; if he lied to his colleagues that the patient had a non-natural rectal sarcoma, and as the Minister of Health forced his subordinates to bear false witness; if he lied that he did not know that Korolev’s patient had a short neck and his mouth did not open, then he lied about everything else, and this clearly indicates his personal interest in the negative outcome of the operation.
Petrovsky may well have lied that the surgeons made a hole in his throat for better breathing - Nadtochiy told absolutely exactly that the anesthesiologists ventilated him only with a mask, and the patient’s heart stopped during mask ventilation. I will again give you an excerpt from the book:
It was here that Savinov called Gebel, who immediately administered relaxants to Sergei Pavlovich - drugs that relieve muscle tension, but at the same time seem to turn off spontaneous breathing. Now we had to breathe for Korolev. How? Masks are prohibited. The endotracheal tube did not enter: short neck. The only option left was a tracheotomy - an incision in the throat and insertion of a tube into the trachea. Gebel finally put on the mask and now “breathed” for Korolev. When they started talking about tracheotomy, he objected: It’s not necessary yet, it fits well on the hand... |
These were the words of the anesthesiologist Gebel. Comparing it with Nadtochy’s story, it turns out that Petrovsky is lying again, they didn’t make any hole in the throat, but ventilated it on the mask all the time, and that it was Gebel who sent Korolev to the next world in this way. Goebel did not have the right to ventilate the patient with a mask for the entire duration of such an operation - if it was impossible to insert a tube, Goebel had to restore the patient’s consciousness, inform the operating surgeon about the impossibility of providing adequate artificial respiration for the patient and stop trying to give the patient anesthesia. If he didn’t do this, then he was following Petrovsky’s lead and had an intention to give anesthesia at any cost. Note another saying of Gebel from Golovanov’s book: “Gebel asserts: Petrovsky’s conscience as a surgeon is absolutely clear.”
But Gebel himself does not have a clear conscience. One criminal protects another. You might think they are saving the life of a person caught under a train. No, under the guise of medicine, they en masse kill a man on whom they could not have performed an operation at all, and who, and his wife, did not even know that instead of a half-hour polyp removal, he would undergo a radical removal of the rectum! In this case, the “train” was the operating team itself. Nadtochiy also spoke about this - anesthesiologists ventilated Korolev through a mask, and through a mask ventilation can only be provided during shallow anesthesia, and during deep anesthesia death from suffocation occurs. And I repeat that Nadtochiy said that the anesthesiologists ventilated the entire operation with a mask, and Korolev died on the mask. And this means that Petrovsky is lying again, that they made a hole in the windpipe. Nadtochy did not even mention any hole in the trachea, and this is an important detail that he, as an anesthesiologist, could not miss. Moreover, I know many students who studied with Nadtochy, and he told everyone this story, and he told everyone that the anesthesiologists ventilated Korolev on a mask throughout the entire operation, and it was on the mask that, with all the signs of prolonged hypoxia, that is, oxygen deficiency, he stopped Korolev's heart. He said that long time Before the stop, Korolev was simply blue from oxygen deficiency.
Petrovsky lies about everything. Why? Because if Petrovsky needed this operation so much, then in the presence of such difficult airways, he personally had to make a hole in Korolev’s trachea ahead of time, and do this as a separate operation. Wait three to four weeks for this hole to form, and only then take the patient for surgery and give anesthesia through this hole in the trachea. Then there would be no problems with ventilation. But this hole in the trachea had to be done - the operation was not urgent.
But the patient, as we know, did not even know that he would be given such major surgery. Korolev thought that he would be taken to remove a polyp, and this would be a bloodless operation for half an hour - no more.
Do you understand that Academician Petrovsky is a criminal and a murderer, at least of Korolev? But usually such people, if they are capable of such crimes, have many, many times more victims. And I don’t think it was just goyim.
We noticed that in the given story in Golovanov’s book, the doctors themselves say that they did not have normal anesthesiological equipment. And this was the result of the entire life of the father of one of the surgeons operating on Korolev - A. A. Vishnevsky.
I, as a doctor, understand that the essence of what happened in the operating room was correctly noted by anesthesiologist Nadtochi. He was one of the strangers in the operating room and watched from the sidelines. He did not have any responsibility and therefore he does not have a concerned approach. Nadtochiy was not guilty of anything, was not interested in shielding anyone, and yet long years he talked about what actually happened in the operating room then to his students, although confidentially, but completely freely.
Petrovsky, of course, wanted to kill the patient through the operation itself. He did not know that the task would be even simpler than he thought, and the patient would die simply from lack of oxygen during the operation due to the fact that he was not provided with artificial respiration for the most difficult abdominal operation.
Petrovsky had to cancel the operation. Having started the operation, Petrovsky showed that he deliberately wanted to kill the patient, and I, as a doctor with 30 years of experience and experience in surgical clinics in Moscow and New York, declare that Academician Korolev was killed by medical means. And we don’t need to know everything in seconds - what we already know is more than enough to make such a conclusion.
It is interesting that Korolev’s daughter, Natalya Koroleva, became a surgeon specializing in lung operations. She is a professor at the Department of Surgery at the 2nd Medical Institute in Moscow. However, in her memories of her father, she does not touch upon the circumstances of her father’s death at all and accepts the official version. It should be noted that Natalya Koroleva is a student of the famous Jewish pulmonary surgeon Perelman. In her memoirs about her father, she develops only the details of her father’s life in the 30s and the time when her father was also in the camp. In her memoirs, she presents her father as one of those repressed by the “terrible Stalinist system” along with the rest of the “innocent” Trotskyists. Throughout her book, one feels that in Perelman’s clinic she was surrounded only by Jews, and from them she received a Jewish perception of reality. In this respect, she is an exact copy of Svetlana Alliluyeva, who, being herself an immoral mediocrity, was also completely formed in a Jewish environment. These Trotskyists, emerging from the prisons where Stalin had isolated them, killed Korolev’s father and destroyed our country, again thrusting us into that terrible slavery from which Comrade Stalin freed us. It is thanks to such mediocrities as Natalya Koroleva that our country was destroyed, and we are again being destroyed by Jewish oligarchs, who during her father’s youth were called “old Bolsheviks.”
And please note that Golovanov provides a dialogue in which it is said that Academician Valentin Petrovich Glushko knew that Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was a crypto-Jew.
If this is so, then this is another confirmation that Jews working for the international kahal kill their own Jews, but they work for the good of the country in which they live.
Koroleva’s crypto-Jewishness also explains that his daughter Natalya Koroleva got along well in Perelman’s Jewish clinic, and she never had any suspicion about the official Jewish version of her father’s death.
Patients A.A. Vishnevsky
The characteristic outcome of A. A. Vishnevsky’s patients is also tracked in the diaries of the head of the Cosmonaut Detachment, General N. P. Kamanin, “Hidden Space.” 2001.
| Cosmonaut Pavel Belyaev fell ill: surgeon Vishnevsky cut out two-thirds of his stomach, part of the duodenum and appendix. The operation was successful, but Belyaev’s condition is still very serious (he had never complained about his stomach before). (And Vishnevsky removed his appendix “for company.”) 1970 January 3 The holidays for me were overshadowed by worries about Belyaev: he had a second operation, and the doctors reported to me every three hours about the patient’s condition. There was nothing comforting in the reports; something irreparable could happen at any moment. A. A. Vishnevsky personally examined Belyaev every day and held consultations with specialists. There was also a consultation today at 1 p.m. The patient's condition is very serious, he is delirious and does not recognize visitors. A positive outcome of the disease, according to doctors, is unlikely. January 8 January 11 AND… |
Comments, as they say, are already unnecessary.
But this, too, was not the only type of sabotage and hidden genocide, which was introduced by the father and son Vishnevsky into the practice of Soviet not only military field, but also surgery in general, and which sent even more patients to death than the first two, since this This type of sabotage continues in Russia today.
Surgical diseases of the abdominal cavity
We are talking about surgical operations for surgical diseases of the abdominal cavity. You will quickly understand what's going on.
The most dangerous complication of abdominal surgery is diffuse purulent peritonitis. Why is he dangerous? Because the total area of the abdominal mucosa, covering 12 meters of intestines, is equal to the area of a small living room. Therefore, if the purulent process spreads over the entire vast area of the abdominal cavity, this is the end. With all processes in the abdominal cavity, the body first of all strives to limit inflammation in the abdominal cavity to only a small area. The body does this by releasing a substance called fibrin when any area of the abdominal cavity becomes inflamed, which hermetically seals off the inflamed area of the abdominal cavity, preventing inflammation from spreading throughout the abdominal cavity.
In the USA, all abdominal operations are accompanied by strong preoperative preparation with antibiotics. Antibiotics are given a couple of days before surgery, either intramuscularly or in tablet form, to disinfect the intestinal contents. In addition, before the operation, the patient is given 4 liters of a special hypertonic saline solution called “Gowlightly” to drink and cleansing solutions are made to completely cleanse the intestines both above and below. In the USA, operations on the abdominal cavity always ended and end with suturing tightly, and no tubes are left in the stomach, and especially nothing is poured into the stomach through holes in the stomach. Working in many hospitals in the USA, I have never seen diffuse purulent peritonitis, which in the USSR and Russia ends not only with appendicitis, but also, as it does not seem probable, with craniotomy. In US surgery, diffuse peritonitis is extremely rare. Having personally worked in several American hospitals, I had never even heard of such a complication. In the USSR, as well as in present-day Russia and Ukraine, diffuse purulent peritonitis is a scourge from which at least tens of millions have died surgical patients. This genocide of the population continues to this day. The method of medical genocide of the population through the development of purulent peritonitis was developed under the leadership of Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky by his students, including his son Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky and Jewish professor Vasily Yakovlevich Shlapobersky, author of the monograph “Acute purulent peritonitis.” Medgiz. 1958
They have developed a technique for abdominal surgery, which they complete by leaving rubber tubes in the abdominal cavity. They leave about 12 tubes - they call it “making a hedgehog”, through which a sterile aqueous solution is supplied into the abdominal cavity, which washes out all the fibrin from the abdominal cavity, effectively turning any local inflammation of the abdominal cavity into diffuse purulent peritonitis.
Genocide in "progress"
The author of these lines, working in the late 70s and 80s in surgical clinics in Moscow, observed this genocide in “progress” with his own eyes. It is impossible to object to the Jewish medical authorities - they were the authorities, they were “experts”. All the chief surgeons of that time, namely the Minister of Health Petrovsky and the chief surgeon of the Fourth Directorate Mayat, were Jews, and it seems that they quite consciously “protected” the conduct of abdominal operations using sabotage methods. How many times have I noticed that treatment of other clinical conditions in the USSR was carried out using methods that gave precisely the worst results. When I got to the USA and got acquainted with the methods used there, I was simply stunned - why is everything there: treatment, operations, done according to the mind, but in the USSR - everything is in the worst form? I could not understand this even more, because in both the USSR and the USA, 90 percent of doctors and surgeons were Soviet and, accordingly, American Jews. Why did the same Jews in the USA do everything sensibly, but in the USSR - in the worst possible way?
And I can’t find any other explanation other than the fact that in the USA they charge crazy amounts of money for everything, and they don’t need to sabotage their results, while in the USSR medicine was free, and this freeness infuriated the Jews so much that they sabotaged all the free medicine as soon as possible.
Free healthcare was contrary to Jewish nature.
I will say objectively, not all Soviet Jewish doctors were engaged in sabotage of free medicine; there were also honest workers who were offended by what was happening. But they also could not understand the reasons for the obvious sabotage medical care in USSR. But those Jews who themselves were not involved in hidden sabotage could not prevent this sabotage in any way, and they had no choice but to cooperate with the saboteurs, which, in fact, continues to this day. The highest policy in Soviet medicine has always been carried out precisely by Jewish pest doctors, who were, are and will always be, because looting is the most effective method of making a profit: taking from a sick person - taking from a deceased person, taking from a corpse.
Application of saline solution
And this again is not the entire list of “services” provided by the Vishnevsky family to the Soviet people and military field surgery. Even before the war, the work of the English physiologist Walter Cannon substantiated and introduced in the West the treatment of blood loss and traumatic shock by intravenous transfusion of a lightly salted aqueous solution, called “saline solution.” Until now, this “saline solution” or its modification called “Ringer’s solution” is the most effective solution, which is still administered in US clinics in 99% of all cases that are administered intravenously. Already during the Second World War, Americans always had on hand saline solution and disposable sterile systems for intravenous transfusion of saline solution, which was no more expensive than ordinary water. With the only exception of fatal bleeding, virtually all of the American wounded were saved.
It was not at all like that in the USSR.
Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky effectively blocked the use of saline solution in the Soviet Army and medicine in such a way that back in the 80s of the 20th century, even 40 years after the war, disposable sterile systems for intravenous infusion were mostly absent. As for the Patriotic War, due to the lack of disposable systems for transfusion of saline solution, which even then, even with slight blood loss, were necessarily used by the Americans, the majority of Soviet soldiers died even before getting to the hospital. And those wounded who did survive to reach the Soviet hospital had little chance of surviving the “treatment” there. Even from films about the Great Patriotic War, you can remember that no IVs were used in Soviet medicine during the war. In the USA, IVs were the standard of treatment back in the 30s, and I will show you the relevant documents in the attachment.
Mortality in American hospitals
And this is data from the American website “Military Medics of the Second World War” “Combat Medics WWII Combat Medic”.
“During the Civil War, 50 percent or more of the men admitted to hospitals died, during World War I, it was 8 percent, World War II, 4 percent.”
It is written here:
“During the American Civil War (mid-19th century), the mortality rate among wounded in hospitals was 50%. In World War I, the mortality rate in hospitals fell to 8%. During World War II, the mortality rate in American hospitals in the United States was only 4%.”
In the book of the American Arturo Castiglioni “A History of medicine”. New York 1947. Arturo Castiglioni “History of Medicine” in the section “Military Medicine” on page 1079 writes about American wounded:
Of every 100 wounded, 97% survived, and 70% returned to their unit to their previous duties. This excellent result was achieved thanks to the widespread introduction into practice of intravenous transfusion of saline and blood as early as possible, pressure bandages for burns, wide excision of necrotic tissue during primary surgical treatment of wounds, early administration of antibiotics: penicillin and sulfonamide drugs, the use of X-rays in field hospitals and even often directly behind the battlefield, as well as the practice of rapid evacuation, often by plane. Of the heaviest contingent - among those wounded in the stomach, 75% of those wounded with open wounds of the abdominal cavity were saved, while less than half were saved in the First World War. Head and chest wounds have also shown a corresponding decrease in mortality since the First World War (According to Kirk from 15% to 50%). Transected nerves, after rapid suturing, healed in the vast majority of cases without any loss of function. Severance of genitals from booby traps was a new type of injury. A large contingent of the wounded were burn wounded and blast wounded. Much attention was paid to physiotherapeutic rehabilitation of the wounded. Specialists in orthopedics (restoration of limb function) were located in all hospitals. The scourge of the First World War was “shell shock” (that is, mental shock, or “combat shock”), manifested on the battlefield by a mental state close to madness - its serious consequences were prevented by psychotherapy in a semi-anesthetized state, such that the majority of shell-shocked, that is, those in in a state of mental shock they quickly returned to active service. The military medical service of the American army included 50 thousand doctors, 90 thousand nurses and about 400 thousand volunteer orderlies. Each soldier had an individual emergency package, which contained: dry rations, a pack of sulfonamide (an antibiotic), a syringe with morphine (an anesthetic drug) ... Particularly indicative were the statistics of the British military medical service in the Second World War, which showed a decrease in mortality and physical defects in compared to the First World War from 12 to 60%, depending on the nature of the injuries. |
The above paragraph summarizes the whole essence of military field treatment of a wounded person, which even now in Russia is not at the level at which it was in the American army during the Second World War. Now let’s compare the official figures for losses in the US Army and the USSR Army.
But first, I want to ask only one question to everyone interested in that war: why did the Soviet and American troops, having defeated the enemy and met on the Elbe, fight two different wars?
The USA fought the Second World War, and the USSR fought the Great Patriotic War? It turns out that someone really didn’t want to emphasize the fact that the USSR was an ally of the USA and England and the striking force of the American coalition on the Eastern Front, in exactly the same way that now Ukraine, Poland and Bulgaria are part of the American coalition in aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan .
Comparison of American and Soviet army losses from 1941 to September 2, 1945
The Wikipedia Encyclopedia has the following figures for the United States: 16 million Americans were drafted into the army and about 400 thousand died. (Over 16 million served (about 13% of the population), and over 400,000 were killed during the war)
How many losses are there in the Soviet Army? The Wikipedia Encyclopedia provides the following figures: of the 23 million victims in the USSR, 12 million were civilians. But this leaves us with 11 million dead Soviet soldiers and officers of the Soviet army. “The Union suffered by far the largest Soviet death toll of any nation in the war; perhaps 23 million Soviets died in total, of which more than 12 million were civilians."
This discrepancy in the losses of two armies of approximately equal size over approximately same time military operations - 22 times - this does not fit into any reasonable explanation.
The huge discrepancy in losses - more than 22 times, should not be attributed to any German snipers, nor to the superiority of German weapons, nor to the mythical, propaganda “atrocities of the Nazi occupiers” on the territory of the country. If we discard propaganda cases, accurate data shows that the Germans did not fight the civilian population of the USSR. Let's leave the chatter to non-specialists. There is also no need to repeat the nonsense that the Americans have fought only since 1944 - this is a lie.
The United States officially entered the war on December 8, 1941, and for the first two years American troops fought fierce, bloody battles with the Japanese, and in Europe they landed in Italy as early as 1943. One can just as easily blame the USSR for the fact that until 1945 the USSR did not open a Second Front with Japan in the East. The Americans fought until September 1945. The Americans also had their own complications with the Japanese - just remember the famous and effective Japanese “kamikazes”. Let's leave all propaganda tricks for the field of demagoguery. After so many years, we can and should analyze the numbers impartially. At the same time, it was the Anglo-American troops who carried out a particularly vulnerable and dangerous in terms of losses landing operation from the sea on the French coast, when there was a danger that they would all be killed during the landing. And only the betrayal of Hitler’s own generals allowed the Anglo-Americans to land in France. If General Rommel's plan of a massive attack on the Anglo-American troops during their landing had been put into action, rather than the traitorous plan of the traitor General Gerd von Rundstedt to dig in far from the coast, then the Anglo-American troops would have been destroyed still at sea.
So why, at the same time from 1941 to 1945, did the American army lose 400 thousand people, and the Soviet army lose 11 million people?
And now, so that you are truly “amazed,” I will give you figures from the textbook of Military Field Surgery by the general of the medical service - the chief surgeon of several fronts, the Jew Nikolai Nikolaevich Elansky:
Thus, the Soviet percentage of casualties was as follows: 20% of the wounded died right on the battlefield. Then they were transported, and subsequently another 60-70% of the wounded died, which is 80-90% of all wounded. Even if we understand Elansky’s figures in the sense that only 60-70% died, then this, as you saw from the above figures, exceeds the percentage of losses of American wounded back during their Civil War in the mid-19th century. That's right, it was a time, the middle of the 19th century, when in medicine there were no concepts of sterilization and sterility in surgery. That is, the use of Vishnevsky’s ointment and other “outstanding methods” of “selfless” Soviet killers in white coats had an effect even worse than the lack of sterilization and sterility in surgery of the 19th century.
To camouflage the obvious sabotage after the war, a huge exculpatory “work” was published in the USSR - “The Experience of Soviet Medicine during the Great Patriotic War”, in as many as 35 volumes. These 35 volumes are a list of particularly significant cases, medical histories of individual wounded people and long rants on the organization of the deployment of military hospitals, but not at all on how to provide medical care correctly. This huge collection of volumes had the sole purpose - to be evidence of the “immense achievements of Soviet medicine during the Great Patriotic War” and to cover up those crimes, the genocide that was committed against the Soviet wounded by Jewish medical guidance Soviet military medicine.
Please note that the book by the Jew N.N. Elansky was written under the editorship of two more Jews: ed. Lieutenant General honey. services of S.S. Girgolav, and Major General Med. services prof. V. S. Levit. Please note that all authors on military field surgery (like the vast majority of authors in other areas of medicine) are Jews, such as the same Boris Vasilyevich Petrovsky: “Selected lectures on military surgery (military field and military city surgery)” . Petrovsky B.V. Medicine. 1998.
And here is the manual from Vishnevsky himself: Vishnevsky A. A., Shreiber M. I., Military field surgery, 2nd ed., M., 1968.
A book on the history of military field surgery during the war was also written by two Jews: “Military field surgery during the Great Patriotic War” by I. V. Aleksanyan, M. Sh. Knopov Publishing house - Medicine. year 2000.
Nikolay Nilovich Burdenko
The chief surgeon of the Soviet Army during the Great Patriotic War was the crypto-Jew Nikolai Nilovich Burdenko. And the main therapist was another Jew - Efim Ivanovich Smirnov, Colonel General of the medical service, head of the Main Military Sanitary Directorate of the SA and Navy, who after the war became the Minister of Health of the USSR. Wrote a book of Memoirs: “War and Military Medicine. Thoughts and Memories." 1939-1945. Moscow. Medicine. 1976.
Nikolay Nilovich Burdenko was one of the famous public commission to prove that Polish officers in Katyn were shot by the Germans. Moreover, Burdenko, since he was also the President of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, and a person in such a position could not possibly be Russian, was also the head of this commission, designed to cover up the traces of the genocide of the Poles. Unofficially, this commission was called the “Burdenko Commission”. An interesting fact from Burdenko’s biography is that after school he entered a theological seminary, then ended up at Tomsk University, from which he was quickly expelled for, as they would now say, terrorist activities.
Look at the official material from Wikipedia about the evidence of the execution of 15 thousand Polish officers by the Beria NKVD.
And now, in light of this, evaluate Burdenko at least as a person who was well aware that some corpses from the Katyn Forest were transported by car to Moscow, to the Institute of Forensic Medicine. This institute was then located in a building demolished before the Olympics on the Garden Ring near the Mayakovskaya metro station. And so that no one would spy, right there, on the floor, they were shot from German machine guns. This fact was personally told to me by a member of the “old Bolshevik” family, who did not work there himself, but it was no secret among the Moscow elite of that time. Half of the Katyn Commission consisted of foreign figures: the daughter of the American ambassador, the Jew Harriman, a correspondent for the Jewish newspaper "New York Times", a writer-opportunist and crypto-Jew Alexey Tolstoy, Metropolitan Nikolai of Kiev and Galicia, People's Commissar of Education Potemkin, and many other odious persons, including our Chief Surgeon of the Soviet Army Nikolai Nilovich Burdenko, who, as it says in this book of memoirs:
“Professor Burdenko, wearing a green border guard’s cap, was busily dissecting corpses and, waving a piece of fetid liver attached to the tip of his scalpel, said: “Look how fresh it is!” - that is, he tried to prove that the Poles were shot by the Germans who had just retreated.
It was this contingent of Jewish sabotage doctors who supervised “dedicated medical care for wounded Soviet soldiers and officers,” but in reality, outright sabotage, sabotage and medical genocide of the population of the USSR, expressed in the enormous discrepancy between American and Soviet losses among the wounded. And after the murder of Stalin, they still proved that there were no Jewish doctors who were saboteurs, although even at Bukharin’s trial, Jewish doctors who were saboteurs themselves, in the presence of foreign correspondents, admitted that they existed.
Among the factors that caused the disproportionate losses of Soviet soldiers among the wounded, there was no doubt the medical policy of the main leaders of Soviet surgery at that time: the chief surgeon of the USSR, academician A.V. Vishnevsky and his son A.A. Vishnevsky, the chief surgeon of the fronts, who proclaimed that treatment according to Vishnevsky is the best in the world, namely: administration of novocaine treats any blood loss and any shock, Vishnevsky ointment replaces any antibiotic, and the same novocaine injections are better than general anesthesia.
First aid on the battlefield
If you open this website, you will see that an American soldier is receiving medical care from his own comrades, fellow soldiers. Pay attention to the photo on the first page of the site, two ordinary American soldiers applying a disposable IV, while there were no IVs in Soviet hospitals until the 60s. And on another website, look at photographs and a complete model of the functioning of a regular American army hospital. Please note that they even had X-ray machines in the tent hospital.
All American soldiers were, and are, trained to provide medical care on the battlefield. Soviet soldiers were never taught this. The author of these lines knows this well, since part of his service served as a medical instructor in a motorized rifle regiment in the early 1970s. In the Russian army, soldiers are not even trained to provide medical care. At the same time, every American soldier is automatically trained to do to his wounded comrade right on the battlefield: intramuscular injection morphine for pain relief, intramuscular injection anti-tetanus serum, knows how to put in a single-dose drip, fills the wound antiseptic solution and bandages the wound, in case of a fracture, applies a splint and ensures the evacuation of the wounded, and also gives an antibiotic injection.
Now let's look at the provision of medical care in the American army directly on the battlefield, described on the same website.
At a distance of only 300-400 meters from the battle line there is a medical aid station. It does not contain any beds. It is just a transit point. As soon as a message is received from the battle line, a stretcher is immediately sent. At this time, the wounded person has already been given morphine, antibiotics, a bandage has been applied and the bleeding has stopped. Then the stretcher arrives, and the stretcher is pulled away to a distance where a jeep can drive up without being hit. Usually this is a distance of 10 meters to a kilometer, and at this distance there is already a medical aid station with a doctor. The doctor removes the primary dressing. He makes a diagnosis, administers morphine and sets up an intravenous infusion system, and then takes the necessary measures to make the wounded more calm and comfortable, that is, puts him in order: warms him up, or applies ice, gives him something to drink, coffee, tea. An ambulance then arrives and takes the wounded man to the operating room location. This place is located further in the rear, well equipped and equipped with everything necessary, including an X-ray machine. An operation is performed here, and then the wounded person is evacuated to a rear hospital. At this stage, the wounded are also not lying, they are only lying in the rear hospital. At the stage of the primary station, behind the battlefield and at the location of the operating room, patients are only in transit. |
Is everything clear, how is medical care organized on the battlefield of the American army? All. There are no questions, everything is clear and understandable - one paragraph. And in the appendix I will give you the most confusing instructions for providing military field medical care in today's Russian army, in which you in general, and even me, and no one can understand anything.
Conclusion
Thus, the Vishnevsky medical family, which also included the grandson of Alexander Vishnevsky, a professor at the Institute of Surgery named after. Vishnevsky, for a long time blocked all methods that ensure the salvation of the wounded. These are methods such as: the use of anesthesia and antibiotics, intravenous infusion of saline as a blood substitute, as well as general anesthesia, which were immediately adopted by the American army and medicine, and turned out to be the basis proper treatment patients and wounded, ensuring 96% recovery of the wounded.
How can you imagine such a huge difference in the losses of two armies of approximately equal strength, fighting at the same time against the same enemy? 400 thousand killed American soldiers, and 11 million killed Soviet soldiers - this is a colossal difference in losses, which cannot be explained by anything other than the deliberate sabotage of medical care by the Soviet wounded and medical genocide of the Soviet people.
The question remains open: how many millions of lives of Soviet soldiers could be saved if, with 60-90% of losses of the wounded according to N. N. Elansky, it was possible to get away with 4% of the losses of the total number of wounded as in the American army?
Why were all these deadly “treatments” forcedly introduced and maintained for decades, despite all the evidence of their murderous practices? Thousands of Soviet doctors, including Jews, were silenced and lost their jobs for expressing doubts about the use, to put it mildly, of methods that gave obvious negative results.
I emphasize this so that the Jews themselves will notice that when medical practice such medical methods of total destruction of people are launched, then there is no way to protect the Jews themselves from them as the chosen race. Of course, corresponding to the smaller proportion of Jews among the total population of the USSR, the majority of those killed are non-Jews. However, a certain percentage of Jews also have to be sacrificed, since Jews experience the same deadly consequences of using on themselves the sophisticated methods of exterminating the goyim, used by their especially sophisticated fellow tribesmen. How many times have I had to announce to Jewish close relatives that their loved ones died during or after surgery. I couldn't tell them what I can now put on paper.
T. Kamergersky: Military field medicine for partisans and medical genocide in the USSR
Some current data:
From our judicial practice on obstetric problems: decision of the Russian courts - to recover in favor of the plaintiffs - 308,000 rubles for the death of an infant, in a milder case - for the removal of a woman’s uterus and a severe delay in PMR in a child, the court decided to recover 63,000 rubles.
In the USA, for improper management of the birth of twins, which led to severe, but not fatal, consequences for the second child, An American jury ordered payment of $61,662,500.
For unsuccessful removal of an ovarian cyst - the payment by a US jury was $1.2 million in damages to health "in the amount of 10% due to perforation of the left ureter, leading to pain when urinating, as well as neuropathy of the femoral nerve, causing permanent numbness and weakness in left leg."
Almost every third diagnosis is made incorrectly by domestic doctors. For comparison, in the USA the percentage of medical errors is 3-4%, in the UK - 5%, in France - 3%. Due to incorrect or untimely diagnosis, 12% of patients with pneumonia die in our country. Among developed countries, Russia ranks first in the number of strokes, because medical control of the course of arterial hypertension is poorly established. (Data from the speech of Academician A.G. Chuchalin on November 1, 2006 at the I National Congress of Therapists “New Deal: Consolidating Efforts to Protect the Health of the Nation,” Moscow).
An autopsy of the corpses of patients in four large hospitals in Moscow showed that in 21.6% of cases the diagnosis established during life was incorrect, and in each of the five cases pneumonia was not established, and errors in the diagnosis of malignant neoplasms amounted to 30-40%. (Akopov V.I., Maslov E.N. Law in medicine. Moscow. Priority-standard. 2002, p. 128)
The chief pathologist of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Academician D. Sarkisov, points out that according to data from hospitals in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the discrepancy in diagnoses is 20%, i.e. in every fifth case, the diagnosis made in the hospital turns out to be wrong. (Akopov V.I., Maslov E.N. Law in medicine. Moscow. Priority-standard. 2002, p. 128)
Signs of improper provision of medical care during commission forensic medical examinations are identified on average in 51.8% of patients. (Sergeev Yu.D., Erofeev S.V. Unfavorable outcome of medical care. Moscow. Ivanovskaya Gazeta. 2001, p. 268.)
40 percent of deaths in Russia occur due to poor quality of medical care. (From the message of the All-Russian State and Radio Broadcasting Company /directorate of St. Petersburg/ dated October 26, 2006 about the opening of the “Medicine for Quality of Life” forum in St. Petersburg.)
Every year in the Novosibirsk region 5-10 criminal cases are initiated against doctors. But even experts don’t remember anyone going to jail. (Medical error // State Internet channel “Russia” 10.31.05)
In 2005, Roszdravnadzor received about 5,940 letters. 23.1% of all received letters contained complaints about the quality of medical and social assistance. (White negligence // Economic weekly “Kommersant DENGI” No. 17-18 (573-574) dated 05/08/2006)
According to official data published on the Roszdravnadzor website, since January of this year, 3,037 patients have complained about poor-quality medical services, which is 16% more than the same period last year. (The patient is always right // KOMMERSANT No. 176 (No. 3507) dated 09/21/2006)
According to the Moscow Department of Health, the number of discrepancies between clinical and pathological diagnoses since 1994 has been around 20%. And errors in the diagnosis of malignant neoplasms amount to 30-40%, that is, on average, almost every fourth diagnosis in Russia is made incorrectly. (National newspaper “Russia” dated 02/03/07)
Note: there are no statistics on the number of cases of inadequate medical care in the Russian Federation.
Xeroform and tar have long been known for their antiseptic properties. But can the same be said about an oily ointment containing them? Is it still effective after 90 years of use, or have bacteria long ago become resistant to it, just as they learn to resist many antibiotics?
Employees of the institute named after the creator of the ointment are now skeptical about it. Professor Leonid Blatun from the Department of Purulent Surgery of the A.V. Institute of Surgery Vishnevsky, where especially advanced cases are treated, classifies it among a number of outdated drugs that no longer help in the treatment of trophic ulcers and other dangerous injuries. The specialist points out that many antibacterial agents, widely used in the last century, can help kill only some microorganisms (aerobic, that is, oxygen-requiring bacteria), while others (unicellular fungi, anaerobic bacteria) remain in good health.
In addition, the professor reminds, different types and stages of wounds require different care (and different types medications): in some places the outflow of fluid is more important, in others it is the fight against a specific infection, inflammation or burn, in others it is healing at the final stage. Many “generation-tested” remedies no longer solve these problems, especially because hospital strains of microorganisms (reproducing in hospitals) quickly mutate and learn to defend themselves against antibiotics that were previously lethal to them: they chop the dangerous molecule into pieces, process it, change the processes inside the cells, to eliminate your weak spot.
Not on the lists
Let's see what modern scientific articles say about this ointment. A search in the PubMed database of scientific articles for the components of the drug does not yield any results; you can find only four articles with the phrase “xeroform for external use.”
One of these articles compares the antibacterial effects of bismuth tribromophenolate and clioquinol in vitro(in vitro), showing that the xeroform is somewhat inferior to this substance. True, the article was written in 1982 in a German scientific journal, and its entire text is not available.
Another study (1996, full text unavailable) looked at a single case of pain relief in a 69-year-old woman with a rectal tumor using a cream containing a mixture of local anesthetics and xeroform. Although the size of the tumor increased by two centimeters (from four to six), the pain went away. True, scientists are surprised by this themselves and admit that long-term observations and more patients are needed to test this effect.
Two other scientific articles are more recent: 2013 and 2017. The paper, published in the journal Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, simulates at what point a physician's office would encounter difficulties in the event of a mass influx of burn patients. The mention of xeroform refers to the fact that it can run out in 102 hours, but there is no talk about its effectiveness.
An article in the journal Burns (translated from English as “Burns”, this journal has the highest impact factor of all those considered, equal to 2), on the contrary, focuses on the antimicrobial activity of ointments with xeroform and comes to a strange result: although bismuth tribromophenolate itself kills Pathogens that are common in burns, ointments do not do this. However, they can create an impenetrable layer for pathogens if the wound is already well cleaned. “Sometimes that’s all that’s needed for the wound to heal.”
The wonderful portal warspot.ru, in addition to very interesting military historical materials, sometimes publishes cool materials on the history of military medicine. We have already published two reviews of him, and now we are publishing an excellent biographical article about the legendary military medic Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky, adding a few photographs to it.
At the beginning of a medical career
Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky was born on August 23 (September 4, new style) 1874 in the distant Dagestan village of Chir-Yurt in the family of a staff captain of the 82nd Dagestan Infantry Regiment. His father, Vasily Vasilyevich, came from “the children of clerks” and was originally from Saratov. How did he get to the Dagestan region? At the age of 17, Vasily Vishnevsky in his gymnasium staged a “rebellion” against the school authorities, for which he was exiled as a soldier to the Caucasus.
Alexander moved a lot among soldiers, so he was familiar with military affairs first-hand. He left his father's house early and studied first in Astrakhan and then at Kazan University. Many prominent scientists became Vishnevsky's teachers. He followed the precepts of the father of military field surgery N.I. Pirogov, who said: “There is no medicine without surgery and no surgery without anatomy.” Therefore, Vishnevsky paid great attention to theoretical training and the study of anatomy and physiology.
Fate connected Vishnevsky with Kazan University for a long time. He graduated from this educational institution in 1899, after which he worked there for another 35 years. He combined lecturing at the university with working in several hospitals at once.
Vishnevsky is operating. 1929
The “early” Vishnevsky had to do especially a lot of work during the Civil War, when the typhus epidemic was raging and there were up to 20 people per doctor per day. It was on the initiative of the future that the luminaries of surgery at the Faculty of Medicine of Kazan University began to teach a special course on infectious diseases.
Vishnevsky became a truly famous physician in the 20–40s. In 1935 he became head surgical clinics All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine and Central GIDUV in Moscow and held this position until 1947.
Bath for the nerve
Alexander Vishnevsky is remembered by the general public as the creator of the famous medicinal ointment. However, its use is only part of a completely new method for treating Vishnevsky’s wounds at that time. Alexander Vasilyevich took a completely different look at the practice of surgery itself, which ran counter to established views. Main question concerned methods of pain relief and combating shock, which is especially important in military field surgery, and only then the new approach changed the very principle of treating wounds, where the famous ointment came onto the scene.
In the history of the fight against pain during surgical interventions You can find some pretty unusual examples. In ancient times, healers used mandrake root (in Asia and Africa), wine (in the medical practice of Hippocrates and even many centuries later with N.I. Pirogov) and other alcohol, bloodletting until fainting, pressing the carotid arteries and even "magnetic sleep" caused by hypnosis. Subsequently, ether (for the first time since 1846 for tooth extraction), nitrous oxide (“laughing gas”) and chloroform were used to artificially induce sleep. During the First World War, general anesthesia was almost the only method of pain relief for military surgeons.
Partial anesthesia has also been known since ancient times. For this purpose, crocodile fat was used (in Egypt), crushed marble mixed with vinegar (carbon dioxide was released and cooled the tissue), and circular compression (especially for amputations). Since 1884, they tried to carry out local anesthesia with cocaine, then with its solution. This is how infiltration anesthesia appeared.
Vishnevsky operates
By the 30s of the 20th century, doctors were familiar with at least 20 methods of local anesthesia, and all of them were not ideal. It was believed that in war it was worth using local anesthesia only in 25–35% of cases, but anesthesia in 75–65% of cases. The majority of Soviet surgeons held the same opinion even before the Great Patriotic War. But to carry out the operation under general anesthesia, special assistants are required, and medical personnel are used, which are so scarce in the conditions of a major war. Then the fighter still needs to come out of anesthesia, and this entails worries in the post-anesthesia period, lengthening the time of stay in the hospital, complications could arise.
Vishnevsky instruments
Vishnevsky considered local anesthesia to be the most effective and safe method. He saved the most important thing - time. The teachings of the old school did not come true - during the Second World War, local anesthesia began to be used in almost 70% of cases. It was used for wounds of the limbs, skull, chest and chest cavity. The question remains - what to do with penetrating wounds to the abdomen, which are accompanied by injuries to the abdominal organs? It is worth noting that during the battles at Khalkhin Gol, positive experience was gained in performing operations on those wounded in the abdomen under local anesthesia using the Vishnevsky method. Local anesthesia for prolapsed organs requires, at a minimum, the special skills of a surgeon. As we remember, A.V. Vishnevsky created an entire innovative school of surgeons who had already mastered the method of local anesthesia well, so they were able to carry out professional retraining of surgeons during the war.
The essence of local anesthesia using a special “creeping infiltrate method” is that Vishnevsky tried “not to damage human body away from the operation site." He did not put the person into artificial sleep and did not anesthetize the external tissues with injections, but injected a large amount of warm, weak solution of novocaine into the tissue and blocked the nerve itself that approached the operated area, washing this nerve. For each operation, three liters of novocaine solution were consumed. The son of A.V. Vishnevsky called it a “bath for the nerve.”
Life saving ointment
Even in the middle of the 20th century, the high mortality rate from wounds remained a huge problem both in peacetime and even more so in wartime. People died not only from the damage itself or from blood loss, but from a purulent infection that could quickly spread. Even at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, surgeons did not completely suture the wounds - they remained slightly open, and the bandages were often changed. The surgeon's task was to clear the wound of pus, but it accumulated again.
Vishnevsky proposed something completely different - to completely clean the wound of pus and of all damaged tissue (he cut the wound cavities very deeply), and then ensure a condition in which pus does not form again. Vishnevsky's ointment had a bactericidal effect and had a slight irritating effect inside the wound, which made the nerve endings work. Alexander Vasilyevich even considered any gunshot wound as an infected and then inflammatory focus that must be stopped as soon as possible. It was in the field of purulent surgery that Vishnevsky’s work turned out to be most important; his methods of treating wounds saved the lives of many soldiers.
By the way, at first the surgeon included in his ointment, in addition to xeroform and castor oil, the so-called Peruvian balsam (Balsami Peruviani). This is a folk remedy from South America, used to treat wounds and many other ailments, including even impotence. It has been known in Europe since 1775, it was described by the Swiss physician and scientist A. Haller. But it was based on tropical tree resin - not the most accessible ingredient for the USSR. Then, in 1927, birch tar began to be used instead of Balsami Peruviani. When xeroform was not enough, it was replaced with tincture of iodine. “Balsamic liniment (according to Vishnevsky)” is the full name of this invention. Nowadays, the fight against new generations of bacteria requires different, more modern means, and Vishnevsky ointment is considered obsolete. However, it is still produced.
Presentation of the Order of Lenin to Vishnevsky
In 1942, Vishnevsky received the State Prize, then the Order of Lenin and the Red Banner of Labor. November 12, 1948 famous surgeon spoke at a meeting of the Moscow Surgical Society. There he suffered a heart attack, the next day after which Vishnevsky died.
Stamp dedicated to Vishnevsky
Eighteen professors came from the school of A.V. Vishnevsky. The dynasty of doctors he founded was not lost in the shadow of his honored ancestor. His son Alexander, as a consultant surgeon of the 1st Army Group, took part in the fighting at Khalkhin Gol. In the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-1940, he participated as the chief army surgeon of the 9th Army, and later was the chief surgeon of the Volkhov and Karelian fronts in the Great Patriotic War. Subsequently, he received the position of chief surgeon of the USSR Ministry of Defense.
Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky Sr.
Grandson Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky Jr., Doctor of Medical Sciences, who died the year before last, developed one of the prototypes of a modern surgical mechanical suturing device back in the late 1970s. He also became the first to perform operations to reduce the volume of lung tissue for diffuse pulmonary emphysema and a much less significant for health, but much more popular operation to correct the volume of the mammary gland with silicone implants. He chalked up these achievements while working at the Institute of Surgery, founded by his grandfather.
Alexander Alexandrovich Vishnevsky Jr.
Sources and literature
1. Zakharyan S. T. The creative path of Alexander Vasilyevich Vishnevsky. M.: Medicine, 1973.
2. Rosengarten M. Yu., Albitsky V. Yu. Pages from the life of a surgeon. A.V. Vishnevsky in Kazan. Kazan: Tatar Book Publishing House, 1974.
3. Military field surgery: Textbook / Ed. Prof. E. K. Gumanenko. St. Petersburg: Foliant Publishing House LLC, 2004
4. Sukhomlinov K. Doctors who changed the world. Moscow: Eksmo, 2014
5. Vishnevsky Alexander Vasilievich. // Virtual Museum of the Great Patriotic War of the Republic of Tatarstan
6. Vishnevsky Alexander Alexandrovich (junior) // Medical necropolis
7. Maria Maksimova. The luminary of science. Surgeon Alexander Vishnevsky and his famous discoveries. // Arguments and facts - Kazan, 09/04/2014
You can also follow our blog updates through
