Hygiene Before Germ Theory

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well you definitely have a chip on your shoulder but I'm not arguing there's a deficit in women's history. But if you'd like I can send you my brother's essay on Florence Nightingale. Keep in mind it was made for his freshman high school class. You don't have a monopoly on all children's educational curriculum so you don't need to waste your time with cursory google searches to make a point that we aren't even arguing against ( skeptics denying that women get shafted when it comes to historical contributions). If you want to, go ahead and make a poll thread with the question "As skeptics, do you think that women history does not have significant deficits: Yes/No". That would be a more honest way of acting right now, otherwise this is childish.

You edited so I'll edit to the last two paragraph-ish things. To both, I have no idea. Medical policies move REALLY SLOWLY and with a lot of fighting back and forth. It's not like these things happen quickly. It took a decade after the AID's epidemic to get mandatory glove use policies past the ADA if that might demonstrate it. Consider the midwives to be innovators, but innovation to early adoption all the way to common use is a bumpy road. Always has been.

It's not a chip on my shoulder. It's common sense. Read history. It's friggin history. I'm not going to use the term herstory, people can't get past the terminology. But the reality of the Universe is, women are left out of history, and we need affirmative action. Too bad you don't recognize it or like. But it's a fact. An easily verifiable, overwhelming evidence supported FACT!

Yes, the medical community was slow when it came to adopting evidence based medicine. Dr John Snow was ignored the same way Semmelweis was ignored. But nurses adopted hygiene earlier than the medical establishment and yet history credits men.

 

[jimbob]

^^ You have a point about women's history - but the etymology of the word is nothing to do with gender, that's just silly.

It isn't even spelled that way.

"Hisstory" might be a different case

I was wondering about it being about the stories of greetings, "Hi-story" or male patrons of UK conservatives, "His-tory" but thought those were a couple of steps too far.

 

[Lowpro]

It's not a chip on my shoulder. It's common sense. Read history. It's friggin history. I'm not going to use the term herstory, people can't get past the terminology. But the reality of the Universe is, women are left out of history, and we need affirmative action. Too bad you don't recognize it or like. But it's a fact. An easily verifiable, overwhelming evidence supported FACT!

Yes, the medical community was slow when it came to adopting evidence based medicine. Dr John Snow was ignored the same way Semmelweis was ignored. But nurses adopted hygiene earlier than the medical establishment and yet history credits men.

You're not getting it. You think I am not recognizing the fact women get left out of history. You're wrong. Again if you would just do the simplest and most honest thing and ask for what I think about whether women get left out of history or not then I wouldn't be here questioning your integrity. Of course women get left out of history; having ovaries was its own kind of caste system rank (in some areas it still is). Have I made myself clear to you on my position with women and history? Will you now work under the pretense that I do not ignore the contributions of every raindrop in the flood, ovaries or otherwise?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Uh, I think a lot of kids learn that now, I know my brother did because I helped him write his report XD. But maybe education has adopted that recently. Times they are a'changing!

Historians are always looking for a new angle and forgotten stories of women and their role in the history of science seem to be being emphasized in popular science documentaries and radio programs. We hear a lot about the Lise Meitners, Émilie du Châtelets, Rosalind Franklins and Sophie Germains, sometimes to the point where you start to feel an over compensation occurring.

 

[ddt]

^^ You have a point about women's history - but the etymology of the word is nothing to do with gender, that's just silly.

It isn't even spelled that way.

"Hisstory" might be a different case

I was wondering about it being about the stories of greetings, "Hi-story" or male patrons of UK conservatives, "His-tory" but thought those were a couple of steps too far.

The word "history" is from Greek and goes back at least as far as Herodotus, the Father of History (or father of lies according to others because he here and there seems to gullible to record a tall tale).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History:

History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study of the past, specifically how it relates to humans.

 

[mike3]

^^ You have a point about women's history - but the etymology of the word is nothing to do with gender, that's just silly.

It isn't even spelled that way.

"Hisstory" might be a different case

I was wondering about it being about the stories of greetings, "Hi-story" or male patrons of UK conservatives, "His-tory" but thought those were a couple of steps too far.

I didn't think they were trying to say that was really the etymology of the word; rather, they were using the apparent appearance of "his" in the word to make a point about biases in it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Ask your kids if they know Nightingale was a scientist and a statistician.

They couldn't tell you if Edison was a scientist or statistician, but they could tell you he was a prolific inventor. That is, they know his legacy, not his procedures. Likewise with Nightingale.

Times are changing. The full story is being taught in many places. That takes nothing from the push to get it out there more, but undercuts the "never credited" line. If they were never credited you would have no idea.

It reminds me of the line from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Man in Jail: The Black Pearl? I've heard stories. She's been preying on ships and settlements for near ten years. Never leaves any survivors.

Jack Sparrow: No survivors? Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

^^ You have a point about women's history - but the etymology of the word is nothing to do with gender, that's just silly.

It isn't even spelled that way.

"Hisstory" might be a different case

I was wondering about it being about the stories of greetings, "Hi-story" or male patrons of UK conservatives, "His-tory" but thought those were a couple of steps too far.

I was just being facetious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's fine to ask, then how do you know? But it's something else to imply that because a few people know, history must be fair and balanced when it comes to women.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's fine to ask, then how do you know? But it's something else to imply that because a few people know, history must be fair and balanced when it comes to women.

It's a skeptic forum, you're a skeptic ginger, surely you know that absolute statements will receive this sort of poking, no matter their nature. "The sky is blue" and "the earth is round" will lead to many times the number of corrections. That's the forum you posted in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a skeptic forum, you're a skeptic ginger, surely you know that absolute statements will receive this sort of poking, no matter their nature. "The sky is blue" and "the earth is round" will lead to many times the number of corrections. That's the forum you posted in.

So we wasted a couple pages over how I worded my post?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So we wasted a couple pages over how I worded my post?

Well it is jref after all. What did you expect?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well it is jref after all. What did you expect?

I dunno, maybe with 42K posts people know me better than that.

OTOH, come to think of it, there's a lot of BS judgement of people here over the last few years.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So we wasted a couple pages over how I worded my post?

Either that or someone made an offhand comment about how you worded your post, you thought it was about something else, others stepped into clarify, you kept making your valid but unresponsive point, more attempts to politely let you know that no one actually disagrees with you, more support of your still valid and still unresponsive point, more direct posts letting you know that we get it and agree with your still valid point but that's not waht we are talking about, and yeah, that's two pages worth.

We are generally polite pedants. Not a disagreeable sort, it's just the internet after all.

Well it is jref after all. What did you expect?

Exactly.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I dunno, maybe with 42K posts people know me better than that.

Not really. I don't think anyone here really knows me better than that.

OTOH, come to think of it, there's a lot of BS judgement of people here over the last few years.

That will have been my entire time here, so . . . um, yeah. Coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[RationalVetMed]

Huh, funny thing is I recently found a reason to grab my copy of the book to recommend to someone and now I saw it here. i should have grabbed my copy earlier XD

It looks a good book, I'm definitely going to pinch it to read at some stage.

Cheers,

Yuri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you look up the history of handwashing in medicine, nurses are listed as an observation and Semmelweis^WP is credited for the discovery. It took years more before his ideas were accepted, all the while the nurses kept washing their hands and doctors kept killing their patients.

Maybe you think that's correct, nurses were no more than an observation, but I think it reflects typical male distorted history.

I am saying nurses must have been credited to some degree for you to become aware of it. Here assuming you are not speaking from independent research but from the ideas of at least one historian.

You keep saying this, but the fact that you know it seems to tell a different story. Unless you are much, much, older than I assume. In which case, I should warn you that I always carry garlic....

You're not getting it. You think I am not recognizing the fact women get left out of history. You're wrong. Again if you would just do the simplest and most honest thing and ask for what I think about whether women get left out of history or not then I wouldn't be here questioning your integrity. Of course women get left out of history; having ovaries was its own kind of caste system rank (in some areas it still is). Have I made myself clear to you on my position with women and history? Will you now work under the pretense that I do not ignore the contributions of every raindrop in the flood, ovaries or otherwise?

It's fine to ask, then how do you know? But it's something else to imply that because a few people know, history must be fair and balanced when it comes to women.

It's a skeptic forum, you're a skeptic ginger, surely you know that absolute statements will receive this sort of poking, no matter their nature. "The sky is blue" and "the earth is round" will lead to many times the number of corrections. That's the forum you posted in.

So we wasted a couple pages over how I worded my post?

Either that or someone made an offhand comment about how you worded your post, you thought it was about something else, others stepped into clarify, you kept making your valid but unresponsive point, more attempts to politely let you know that no one actually disagrees with you, more support of your still valid and still unresponsive point, more direct posts letting you know that we get it and agree with your still valid point but that's not waht we are talking about, and yeah, that's two pages worth.

We are generally polite pedants. Not a disagreeable sort, it's just the internet after all.
Exactly.

I don't think I've been impolite. And what absolute statement did I make that was proven incorrect? It's been suggested Semmelweis only noted the autopsy source of hand contamination. But it's not clear from the links posted so far if the midwives also knew the importance of hygiene.

Nightingale recognized the importance. Later midwives noted the importance, it was part of their formal curriculum by the late 1800s.

I'm trying to find a copy of this book, Jane Sharp; The Midwives Book; 1671 to see whether there is any discussion of the importance of hygiene, not for this thread but because it interests me.

And reviewing this exchange I don't agree with you that I mistook any offhand comment. The comment was clear: because I knew about the nurses, the historical record must be clear.

Women have been shortchanged in the historical record and nurses have been particularly short changed. You admit it but you don't seem to like the fact I said something about it.

 

[EHocking]

Was that before or after he looked at his own live sperm?

He gets some sort of historical credit for this?
Practically every male on the planet has done this at some point in his life.

 

[babycondor]

This is interesting - Neonatal Tetanus in St Kilda

Until a few years ago, the explanation for the high death rate there was that the midwife smeared Fulmar oil on the umbilical cord.

It now looks more complicated than that. Still due to poor hygiene.


PDF link.

http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/journal/issue/journal_38_1/stride.pdf

Thanks for that...fascinating story! Brief mention of the traditional midwifery practice of passing the knife through a flame before cutting the umbilical cord, I wonder when/how they figured that one out?

 

[EHocking]

Thanks for that...fascinating story! Brief mention of the traditional midwifery practice of passing the knife through a flame before cutting the umbilical cord, I wonder when/how they figured that one out?

Well, cauterisation has a long medical history (back to the Greeks?) so this is probably the foundation for that.

It was believed that cauterising a wound prevented infection, whereas it probably increases the probability of infection. I'd suspect that this belief (rather than a scientific knowledge) was the basis for this - they just didn't go so far as cauterising the umbilical.

If there was a disinfecting benefit from this practice, it was more from luck than science, if the belief was based on the practice of cauterising a wound.