EXCLUSIVE Woman, 101, details gruesome way doctors treated ear infections when she was young
These days, if someone gets sick they head to the doctor, get a prescription for some medicine, and usually feel better within a few days.
But back in the 1920s, treatment for common ailments was very different.
Anita Astor, who was born in 1924, from the UK, recently opened up about the horrific ordeal that she was put through after she developed an ear infection as a toddler.
She explained in a recent TikTok video shared by her grandson, James Marsh, 42, that she had to get a procedure known as a mastoid operation that involved doctors drilling a hole into her skull to stop it from spreading to her brain.
She explained in the now-viral clip, which was viewed over three million times, that she underwent the surgery, which is done to remove infected tissues from the mastoid bone located behind your ear, once at age two and again at age five.
'In those days, the infection would go into your brain and you'd be finished in a few weeks,' she said in the TikTok.
'So if they wanted to save your life, they had to make a hole - I've got a hole literally in my head.'
While speaking exclusively with the Daily Mail about it, James explained that his grandmother told him that to make matters worse, the anesthetic used during surgery wasn't as strong then as it is now.
'The anesthetic was terrible, it wasn't like you went to sleep and you woke up after you had been operated on,' he shared.
'My grandma said there were lots of whizzing and banging sounds - you were part conscious during operations.
'It was a terrible thing and highly traumatic for her. But this was the norm back then.'
While she was recovering in the hospital James told the Daily Mail that his grandmother said she was treated 'like dirt' because her family was poor.
She recalled her parents being 'interrogated' about 'how much they earned and if they owned a house or a car' to determine how much they've have to pay.
'The pressures on poor people at the time was really intense. Her mother and father were refugees from Russia,' he continued.
'It wasn't just seeing their child sick, it was also the financial stress. If you didn't have money you couldn't get access to medical services.
'She said they treated like dirt, she wasn't treated like a human being at all, but more like a thing.'
Anita told him that during her recovery, the nurses would come in every morning and change the dressing on her surgery site, and she said it was extremely painful.
'The nurses would just rip off the bandage, most didn't care and weren't very kind,' he dished to the Daily Mail.
'They'd give her their fist to bite on [to stop her from screaming] because I imagine there were no painkillers either.'
Despite getting two surgeries, Anita said she spent years struggling with the effects from the ear infection.
But finally, in her 20s, antibiotics became readily available, which she described as a 'miracle.'
'Antibiotics were reserved for soldiers at first, they weren't given out to the general public until the war finished,' James explained.
'Her ear was still giving her trouble in her 20s - she was two and a half when it started and in her 20s she was still having problems from her infected ear.'
But when her doctor finally gave her antibiotics it 'cleared up' within days, and she 'never had any problem again.'
In more TikToks, Anita spoke in detail about other things that differed during her child compared to life now.
She explained that there weren't any diapers back then so they had to use cloth diapers on babies, which had to then be washed by hand every day.
She said laundry machines were extremely different, and involved placing the dirty clothes into a hot boiler.
The boilers left 'soot' over everything in the house, which meant they were forced to clean relentlessly.
'You had to work for everything,' she reflected.
She joked that she 'couldn't get over it' when they released the first dishwasher, branding it as a true 'treasure' and 'one of the most wonderful things' on Earth.
'But I'm always worried something's going to get cracked in there,' she joked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Shop-bought health testing kits 'inaccurate and unsuitable', study says
Home health tests bought by people seeking answers about their conditions could give inaccurate and misleading results and require much greater regulation to ensure they are safe, reliable, and effective, researchers have bowel cancer to the menopause, shop-bought health kits now test for a wide range of conditions and are readily available on high streets and in supermarkets across the two new studies, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), say many of the kits lack crucial information, such as who should use them, how to interpret the results, and what steps to take response, the regulator which oversees medical devices in the UK, MHRA, says it is "overhauling" safety standards. Researchers at the University of Birmingham collected and analysed 30 self-test kits, costing between £1.89 and £39.99, in 2023. These included tests for conditions such as bowel cancer, vitamin deficiencies, thyroid issues, HIV, and the researchers concluded that only 14 of the kits they looked at included any statement about accuracy, and fewer than a quarter gave clear guidance on next steps after receiving a also found that nearly half advised users to consult a healthcare professional regardless of the result, something experts warn could place additional pressure on NHS Jon Deeks, who led the research, said current regulations do not go far enough to protect consumers. "Self-tests have a clear potential to improve public health. However, for them to be beneficial and not harmful, they must be proven to be accurate, easy to use, and supported by clear instructions," he said. Self-testing has been around in the UK for more than 50 years in the form of pregnancy tests, first introduced in 1971. During the Covid lockdown, lateral flow tests for Covid became common. Neither was included in the University of Birmingham research, published by the BMJ. "When integrated appropriately into clinical pathways, self-tests have been shown to increase uptake of testing in underserved groups," say the the BMJ warns that offering self-testing based on the ability to pay, rather than clinical need, risks "widening inequalities and the exploitation of vulnerable population groups". Bernie Croal, President of the Royal College of Pathologists, told the BMJ poor-quality testing could lead to both "false reassurance" and "unnecessary consequences" for the UK self-test market is expected to grow significantly, with revenues forecast to reach £660m by 2030."Direct-to-consumer tests may be appealing to the public, as they can provide diagnostic results quickly, offering privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy over healthcare decisions," says the authors classified 60% of the tests they looked at as "high risk".While most kits carried claims of high accuracy, some above 98%, the researchers say supporting evidence was often not made publicly available. Although manufacturers are not currently required by law to publish clinical performance data, the BMJ calls for greater transparency. The Royal College of General Practitioners has also called for more openness in the Burt, Head of Diagnostics and General Medical Devices at MHRA, said it is examining the research, "We're exploring new transparency measures such as requiring published summaries of clinical evidence."In the meantime, we strongly encourage anyone using a self-test to check for a CE or UKCA mark, read the instructions carefully, and seek medical advice if they're unsure about their result".
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Walking 7,000 steps a day is enough to boost health
Walking 7,000 steps a day may be enough to protect against a number of diseases, a new study suggests. While many people have the goal to get 10,000 steps in their daily routine, some find this target difficult to achieve. But new research suggests 'sizeable' health benefits – including a reduced risk of dementia, heart disease and premature death – can still be seen from fewer daily steps. Even modest step counts of 4,000 steps a day can reap benefits over very low levels of activity, experts found. But experts noted that '10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps' – with the higher step count leading to more health benefits. The new study, led by academics from the University of Sydney in Australia, saw researchers examine data from dozens of studies from around the world, including in the UK, on tens of thousands of adults. People who walked 7,000 steps each day appeared to have a protective effect against a number of diseases including: a 25% lower risk of heart disease; a 14% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes; a 38% lower risk of dementia and 22% reduced risk of depression. The researchers also found that when people walked 7,000 daily steps, compared to walking 2,000 steps, they were 47% less likely to die during the follow-up periods of the studies analysed. And while the number of steps walked did not sway whether or not a person got cancer, people who walked more steps were significantly less likely to die from cancer – with 37% lower odds of cancer death compared to people who walked fewer steps. 'Although 10 000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active, 7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some,' the authors wrote in the journal Lancet Public Health. They added: 'Even modest daily step counts were associated with health benefits. '7,000 steps per day was associated with sizeable risk reductions across most outcomes, compared with the reference of 2,000 steps per day.' Commenting on the study, Dr Daniel Bailey, Reader – Sedentary Behaviour and Health, Brunel University of London, said: 'The finding that doing 5000-7000 steps per day is an important addition to the literature which helps to debunk the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health. 'This study suggested that 5000-7000 steps per day can significantly reduce the risk of many health outcomes, but that does not mean you cannot get benefits if you don't meet this target. 'The study also found that health risks were reduced with each 1000 extra steps per day, up to a maximum of 12,000 steps per day. So just adding more steps from your starting point can have important benefits for health.' Dr Andrew Scott, senior Lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, added: 'In most cases the 10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps, just by decreasing margins of health benefit return. 'More important than the exact number of steps, it demonstrates that overall, more is always better and people should not focus too much on the numbers, particularly on days where activity is limited. 'The steps per day is useful when people's exercise is weight-bearing, however cycling, swimming and rowing are not well-represented by the steps per day model.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
New research suggests that walking 7,000 steps a day can support overall health
A new study suggests that walking 7,000 steps daily can significantly reduce the risk of various serious illnesses, presenting a more attainable goal than the widely publicized 10,000-step target. Led by academics from the University of Sydney, the research examined data from dozens of global studies, including those in the UK, involving tens of thousands of adults. Individuals consistently achieving 7,000 steps daily showed a 25% lower risk of heart disease, a 14% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, a 38% decrease in dementia, and a 22% reduction in depression. The study also found that walking 7,000 steps a day was associated with a 47% lower likelihood of death during follow-up periods compared to 2,000 steps, and a 37% lower chance of cancer death. While 10,000 steps per day still offer greater health advantages, experts noted that even modest step counts provide benefits, with 7,000 steps being a realistic and clinically meaningful target for many.
