The Decline and Fall of Materia Medica and the Rise of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in Veterinary Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Materia Medica is a Latin term, relating to the history of pharmacy. It describes the sources (vegetable, animal and mineral), nature, preparation, and properties of substances or mixtures of substances, which were used as remedies for the treatment of diseases. Bourgelat authored the first veterinary Materia Medica book. This review describes the evolution and ultimate downfall of Materia Medica concepts and practices. Its survival for more than two millennia reflected the impact of religion and dogmas on therapy. The consignment of Materia Medica to history was signified by publication of the first modern book of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics by Meyer Jones in 1953. Previously, the dominance of Materia Medica was linked to an hippiatry culture, which was shared with farriers and quacks. The Pasteurian and pharmacological revolutions of the second half of the nineteenth century led to its gradual abandonment. This review explains why the existence of authentically active substances, such as opioid analgesics, cardiotonics and general anesthetics either were not used for those actions or were badly prescribed, in part because of historical precedence and in part from lack of pathophysiological knowledge to justify rational use. The modern concept of dosage, in particular inter-species differences, was not understood. There were also major dogmas, supporting false indications, such as failure to recognize pain as a symptom to be treated, whereas inflammation was only a disease symptom involving excess of activity of the blood system, which had to be vigorously addressed by bleeding and purging. This review covers a well-defined period, ranging from Bourgelat, who wrote the first book of Materia Medica for veterinary studies to the first edition of Meyer Jones textbook in 1953, which marked the end of Materia Medica and the beginning of pharmacology in veterinary medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".