ABSTRACT
In 1915 the Rockefeller Foundation took its hookworm eradication campaign to Suriname, but was soon disappointed because of opposition from its main target group: the Javanese. Moreover, authorities and planters objected to the construction of latrines because of the costs and their belief that the Javanese were “unhygienic”. In describing the labor migration from Java to Suriname, I show that this “lack of hygiene” was closely related to the system’s organization. I argue that uncleanliness was the consequence of harmful socio-economic and ecological conditions. Secondly I suggest that even though the Foundation did not manage to cleanse Suriname of hookworm, its educational efforts, its emphasis on prevention, and its training of local health workers probably had more impact than Rockefeller officials thought.
Em 1915, a Fundação Rockefeller levou sua campanha de erradicação da ancilostomíase ao Suriname, logo sofrendo a oposição de seu principal alvo, os javaneses. Autoridades e proprietários rurais também reagiram à instalação de latrinas devido aos custos implicados e à crença de que os javaneses eram “anti-higiênicos”. Ao descrever a migração de trabalhadores de Java para o Suriname, mostro que a “falta de higiene” ligava-se à organização do sistema. Argumento que a sujeira era consequência de condições ecológicas e socioeconômicas danosas. Sugiro ainda que, embora a Fundação não tenha livrado o Suriname da anciolostomíase, seus esforços educacionais, sua ênfase na prevenção e o treinamento de profissionais de saúde locais tiveram maior impacto do que o imaginado pelos funcionários da agência norte-americana.
Subject(s)
Animals , Male , Mice , Rats , Analgesics/pharmacology , Dimaprit/analogs & derivatives , Enzyme Inhibitors/pharmacology , Folic Acid Antagonists/pharmacology , Histamine Agonists/pharmacology , Histamine N-Methyltransferase/antagonists & inhibitors , Pyrimidines/pharmacology , Analgesics/administration & dosage , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Dimaprit/administration & dosage , Dimaprit/pharmacology , Enzyme Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Folic Acid Antagonists/administration & dosage , Histamine Agonists/administration & dosage , Injections, Intraventricular , Methylhistamines/pharmacology , Muscle Contraction/drug effects , Pain Measurement/drug effects , Postural Balance/drug effects , Psychomotor Performance/drug effects , Pyrimidines/administration & dosage , Pyrimidines/antagonists & inhibitors , Rats, WistarABSTRACT
Histamine and 2-methyl histamine caused dose-dependent aggregation of melanophores in toad B. melanostictus. The effects were effectively antagonised by mepyramine, a specific H1 histamine receptor antagonist, and metiamide a specific H2 receptor antagonist. On the other, hand 4-methyl histamine, a specific H2 receptor agonist dispersed the melanophores. The results suggest that adult Bufo melanophores have H1 histamine receptors which mediate melanophore aggregation, however, dispersion of melanophores may be controlled by undifferentiated histamine receptors of H2 type.
Subject(s)
Animals , Bufonidae , Cell Aggregation/drug effects , Histamine/pharmacology , Histamine Agents/pharmacology , Melanophores/drug effects , Methylhistamines/pharmacology , Metiamide/pharmacology , Pyrilamine/pharmacologyABSTRACT
Spasmogenic action of histamine, 2-(2-aminoethyl) pyridine (H1 receptor agonist) and 4 methyl-histamine (H2 receptor agonist), have been studied in guinea pig isolated urinary bladder in the presence of mepyramine (H1 antagonist) and metiamide (H2 antagonist) to identify the presence of H1 and H2 receptors. The study suggested the presence of H1 as well as H2 receptors in this preparation.