Shemp's "Modern Medicine Rant"

shemp

a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
shemp
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
69,792
Location
The U.S., a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
I am so f*cking sick and tired of all these clowns who want to turn to "traditional medicine"! Every day we hear of idiots pushing all sorts of herbal crap, and trashing modern medicine.

Do they ever stop to think about this: Hundreds to thousands of years ago, people used whatever herbal medicines they could get their hands on. Usually, they died. The average human lived to about 25 years of age. Even as recently as a hundred years ago, the average lifespan in the U.S. was about 50 years.

In the last hundred years, the average lifespan in this country has increased by over 25 years! Even in many poor countries, lifespan has increased significantly, in some cases doubled! A lot of this is due to improved medical practices. It is not due to people taking stupid herbal crap for their illnesses!

If idiots want to reject modern medicine and take trash medicines, that is their right to do so. They are only helping to reduce the human population for the rest of us!

Thank you for your time.
 
Here ya go Shemp, this oughtta add some fuel to the fire. Not only are they pushing useless herbs, they quite often aren't even including what they say they do in the bottle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3466919.stm

Waste O money. That's all these ridiculous "herbal" remedies are.

Oh, and Shemp [sarcasm] you MUST be forgetting that cancer is at an all time high, and more humans die in hospitals in this country than anywhere else. Modern medicine is just horrible [/sarcasm]
 
Modern medicine is soooooo last year, I'll take my witch doctor over any OTC of fantabulous "technology" anyday...

Modern Medicine, what a crock...
 
I'm sure you guys have heard this before, I always get a chuckle out of it:

200 AD: Here, eat this root
1300 AD: Discard that root, tis heathen! Say this prayer
1850 AD: That prayer is nonsense, here take this snake oil
1970 AD: That snake oil is bogus, here try this antibiotic
2000 AD: That antibiotic is unnatural! Here, eat this root
Click to expand...
 
A good bit of the increase in average lifespan over the centuries is due to reduction in infant mortality. So, I say we continue giving infants real medicine, but switch adults over to cheaper alternatives. The adults will die off, but it won't affect average lifespan too much.

I'm all for optimizing costs versus death and stuff.

~~ Paul
 
psst. Don't tell the woo-woos, but modern medicine does overstate its case on the extension of longevity bit. Safe food, clean water and better hygiene were big factors. I've never seen a way to estimate the specific longevity benefits given to us by modern medicine because it arose in parallel with those other environmental factors.

Some of this is coincidental some of it has a direct relationship e.g. the people who controlled the famous 19thC cholera outbreaks in London had a microbial theory of disease. On the other hand, the key step was identification of clusters around water pumps in the street, and although we know this is because cholera is a waterborne bacterium, microbial theory was not necessary to spot that connection. If they'd had a theory that some water carried 'bad spirits' they would probably have taken the same action.

Anyone able to expand this?
 
True, the advent of improved hygiene, safer food, etc, does improve quality of life and quantity of life. To an extent. But even the healthiest societies struggled with outbreaks of measles, polio, etc. Reduced infant mortality rate helps too.
 
We know that untill the advent of modern medcine there had bee no simular jump in life expectancy even in other advanced cultures.
 
I don't know exactly when the Psalms were written, but it was a long time ago. 3000 years? Psalm 90, verse 10. "For the days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years...."

Translated, approximately, most people live to about 70, some hardy souls make it to 80. Now that isn't so far off base even for today.

I think there are two main factors here. First, I suspect that it has never really been the case that "most people" live to about 70 - however, it was obviously common enough back in the time of the psalmist for him to see it as "the norm". Average life expectancy would have been a fair bit lower, but these would still have been viewed to some extent as premature deaths, much as they are today. Second, I suspect they didn't even take infant mortality into the equation at all.

I think the years following the Industrial Revolution caused a big dip in lifespan achievement, with the insanitary living conditions in the cities and the fertile ground for epidemics and so on. So the improvement of the 20th century is exaggerated because it comes from a particularly low starting point.

If you wander round old graveyards, or read books where the birth and death dates of people quoted are given, it's obvious that even in the 16th century there were a fair number of people living to 70 and 80+. Just like in the time of the Psalms. I think a lot more people are making it now - especially if you look at the huge reduction in infant mortality. But using this data to imply that the upper limit of the human lifespan is changing is a lot more dubious.

Rolfe.
 
Agreed, just don't be hard with all herbs, many of them are good for a variety of ailments and pharmaceutical companies already market a lot of them like any other synthetic drug.
 
Rolfe said:
I think there are two main factors here. First, I suspect that it has never really been the case that "most people" live to about 70 - however, it was obviously common enough back in the time of the psalmist for him to see it as "the norm". Average life expectancy would have been a fair bit lower, but these would still have been viewed to some extent as premature deaths, much as they are today. Second, I suspect they didn't even take infant mortality into the equation at all.
Click to expand...

To take it further if you look at old monistry records they have no shortage of 90 year olds or greater.
the thing that has the biggest impact are child mortality rates. Once you remove thoes life expectancy tends to be pretty good whatever not sure it would be as hogh as 70 and remeber that psalm is almost certianly talking about men (who don't died in childbirth) who didn't get killed in warfare.
 
geni said:
.... and remeber that psalm is almost certianly talking about men (who don't died in childbirth) who didn't get killed in warfare.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed, absolutely. I was really just pointing out that even 3000 years ago, people realised that the human natural lifespan (barring accidents and so on) was 70-80.

I've several times had furious arguments with people who have insisted that since average life expectancy is going up at the rate of x years a decade, it will automatically go on doing that. Something about the difference between medians and modes and means and stuff, possibly. I can't see any evidence that there is much happening to the actual ceiling, just that more people are first getting a shot at it (by not dying in infancy) and second, achieving it (with the help of modern medicine and surgery - and I include public health and hygiene in that category).

Maybe nobody in this thread was guilty of it, but there is often an assumption that until quite recently people were "old" at 40 and expected to die of old age at 45, which simply isn't so.

Rolfe.
 
aw geez... don't tell me... wait. Nevermind.

I was gonna say "aw geez don't tell me people actually believe what folks like Mr. Dead Doctors Don't Lie said about humans living naturally 120 years." But nevermind.
 
I've read some stuff about rats living "unnaturally" long when fed very low-calorie diets - presumably still nutritionally adequate, though. With similar dietary restrictions maybe humans might have a better shot at the 120-year mark? Who can say, I really can't see anyone bothering to try.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe dear, there is a difference between living longer and enjoying it, and living longer and feeling every single moment because you consume an approximate 1200 calorie diet and you're hungry every day.

Dr. Wallach certainly did not advocate a healthy diet with restricted calories to maintain longevity. He said to take his special formula. His "special" formula.

In other news, the older woman in Vermont died a couple days ago. She was 109. Question is, how active was she, and how much did she enjoy her longevity?
 
Suezoled said:
Rolfe dear, there is a difference between living longer and enjoying it, and living longer and feeling every single moment because you consume an approximate 1200 calorie diet and you're hungry every day.
Click to expand...
Suezoled, dear, I thought that's what I was trying to say!

Do you know what the actual verified record for longevity is? I've seen some surprisingly active centenarians on TV (creepy, they're usually mourning their mates who were killed on the Somme aged 17), but these do seem to be the exceptions.

Nighty-night!

Rolfe.
 
Also missing from ancient theories about disease, such as unbalanced "energy", etc, is any useful advice for improving public health practices. Only scientific medicine has provided a framework for substantial improvements in hygiene, water supplies, vaccination, etc. If your theory of medicine blames the sick for their ailments, whether because they lived impiously or their "energy" is out of balance, or whatever, then you can't recommend practices that reduce disease transmission and improve the health of the whole population. No herbal preparation can protect you from infectious disease or improve public hygiene...

In 200 years scientific medicine has done more to improve both individual and public health than all other medical "theories" combined accomplished in thousands of years. There is no comparison...
 
I agree with Shemp. If not for modern medicine, I would be dead by now several times over (I'm almost 50). In fact, I probably would have died at the age of 6 after being run over by a car as I was trying to cross the street. If that didn't get me, a ruptured appendix later would have.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
psst. Don't tell the woo-woos, but modern medicine does overstate its case on the extension of longevity bit. Safe food, clean water and better hygiene were big factors. I've never seen a way to estimate the specific longevity benefits given to us by modern medicine because it arose in parallel with those other environmental factors.

Some of this is coincidental some of it has a direct relationship e.g. the people who controlled the famous 19thC cholera outbreaks in London had a microbial theory of disease. On the other hand, the key step was identification of clusters around water pumps in the street, and although we know this is because cholera is a waterborne bacterium, microbial theory was not necessary to spot that connection. If they'd had a theory that some water carried 'bad spirits' they would probably have taken the same action.

Anyone able to expand this?
Click to expand...

I read that Medical companies spend more on self promotion and advertising than they do on research, their usual justification for charging an arm and a leg for the products. It seems to imply you are right, many people are taking medication not because they actually need it, but because they and their doctors have been pursuaded they need it.

Anecdote. A man on 10 medications, has them reviewed by a new doctor. Many of the medications were there to combate side effects of other medications. Result, man was re-assesed to need just two drugs.

Another anecdote. The Australian government funds an approved list of medications (PBS), which costs a lot of taxpayers dollars. In an attempt to get this cost down, the government brought in a scheme to push the use of the much cheaper generics at the dispensing store (chemist, pharmacy, drug-store). The companies fought back with a campaign to get doctors to stamp prescriptions 'no substitutions' so that this could not occur.

Last anecdote. A medical review is needed to get new drugs on the PBS. One new drug was assessed, but was found to be no more effective than older, cheaper drugs. The drug companies didn't take this lying down, and tried to subvert the review process to get it included.

Moral of the story. Yes, modern medicines do often achieve miracles, but they are not a panacea, and there is a lot of dirty dealing out there to get people to think that they are, to remain loyal to paying more than they need to, and to not question if they are all really necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom