Anatomy for Beginners

I think this was more an anatomical mistake as opposed to any kind of procedural one.

Bodyworlds? I went to that, it was awesome - they had a giraffe.

My favourite exhibit was this bizarre construction where (somehow) they had got just all of the blood vessels from a rabbit, but had them in the same position as they would be in a rabbit, it was unbelievably cool.

This is shown in the second episode - "Circulation" at 25 mins.

Apparently, they inject some kind of polymer and then use enzymes to destroy the normal tissues after curing the polymer. Pretty clever.

This is shown in the second episode - "Circulation" at 25 mins.

Apparently, they inject some kind of polymer and then use enzymes to destroy the normal tissues after curing the polymer. Pretty clever.

Am i odd for finding it all really disgusting and making me quesy just thinking about it.

I've never been able to watch one of his episodes all the way through without having to turn it off and head to toilet!!!

I see, thanks. I had no idea it would be important enough to be explained in this.

I was thinking that they might use some kind of resin to harden and preserve the vessels before destroying the rest of it. Clever stuff though.

A picture if anyone is interested in what I've been talking about:

I seem to be able to handle watching it without too much queasiness, but if I were in the position of that German anatomist, I'm not too sure I could handle it!

I suppose they become habituated to it. Having said this, learning about anatomy is one of the things I look forward to.


They were just illustrating the vast structure that the heart must pump blood through. And I'm not sure if the process is as simple as that - the man just explained it very briskly.

There's talk of controversy of this guy around these parts, this is what our own Prof Ellis has to say about it all:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-anatomists/articles/professor-harold-ellis-on-gunter-von-hagens

Interesting points I think, but make of it what you will.

That seems a bizarre article to me. He acknowledges that he hasn't seen the exhibit personally, but then goes on to talk about it off the back of an edited TV show, which doesn't exactly present him in the most informed opinion. And as for paragraphs like:



It strikes me as incredibly peculiar that such an obviously clever and important person would be willing to cast doubt and aspersions, and do so in such a confrontational manner, without any clear evidence.

It's very bizarre I think, perhaps he's just 'old fashioned' in some of his teaching views etc. I do wonder why he'd make such strong statements, perhaps there is more to it than he's mentioned. I should have taken the opportunity to ask him personally in dissection sessions, as he's definitely not afraid to share his opinions!

I think if there was any more to it than just his suspicions the exhibition would have been shut down pretty quickly by now!