Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

moreisdifferent.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#81

Post by drcwpl »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #80
drcwpl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had forgotten about the Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, great reminder, thank you. Humans are adaptive learners, shaped by both individual experience and cultural memory. The rise of anti-vax sentiments might be better explained by psychological and sociological factors. Like mistrust of institutions, the amplification of fringe views via social media, or the cognitive biases that prioritize visible risks over abstra…

Those sociological factors aren't complex, and don't require an explanation of any real depth. The entire problem is this: Fifty four percent of Americans read below the 6th grade level, which means that the simple majority of Americans don't understand the world they live in and never will.

That is a terrifying statistic "Fifty four percent of Americans read below the 6th grade level" ... just found the research.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#82

Post by delton137 »

revel wrote: post #49

> Now, imagine the uproar that might ensue from some corners today if a textbook made this sort of direct comparison between two groups, with one group happening to be white and the other black. Some social justice warriors would no doubt raise an outcry. The book would be branded as Eurocentric, racist, and white supremacist, since it doesn’t give equal space to describing the intellectual achievements of the Zulu o…

Hi.. original post author here.

Interesting point RE the Snopes trial. You are right, evolution is not mentioned in the book as far as I can tell. Even though it is foundational to understanding the human body (in particular some weird features it have which any half-good creator would never design that way.)

The SJWs / woke cult are a bit of a personal hobby horse for me. I think it is important to mention, since woke ideology comes from academics at top universities, as well as journalists at top media outlets -- people who have a lot of power to shape the public discourse and influence public policy. The power of Christian fundamentalists over society and culture, on the other hand, has been waning, if one looks over the past few decades. Yes, they are in the ascendancy at the moment with the 2024 election and whatnot, but overall their influence is waning. Of course, both anti-science from the left and from the right are issues we should worry about -- I'm just giving an argument why we might want to be a bit more worried about anti-science from the left. How much either issue is discussed probably greatly depends on what circles you run in.

Note I did mention how there is no discussion of sexual health or women's health in the book. That is an issue with health textbooks that has been improved a lot but still exists to some extent today due to Christian conservatives.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

niceice wrote: post #46
Lutger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, in the pandemic we saw extreme versions of this. Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. If vaccination would be alternative medicine and ivermection government mandated, we might see the reverse. So I don't think its vaccination perse, at least not on its own, but vaccines have various things going against them. Like someone else in this thread said, government…

[flagged]

Other items on the "essential medicine" list include propofol, morphine, and fentanyl. Each can very easily kill if incorrectly used, and each has serious dangers if used for the wrong conditions.

Ivermectin is specifically listed in the "anthelminthics" section, i.e. for worms. It's an essential medicine because it's good at killing worms, which widely affect billions of people in developing nations.

It didn't win the Nobel prize and hasn't been used for decades to treat COVID-19.

Water is essential, too, but that doesn't mean a tsunami is good for you. Hydrating a sick person can save a life; waterboarding them can be a war crime. Context matters.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#84

Post by ceejayoz »

TheFreim wrote: post #55
Lutger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, in the pandemic we saw extreme versions of this. Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. If vaccination would be alternative medicine and ivermection government mandated, we might see the reverse. So I don't think its vaccination perse, at least not on its own, but vaccines have various things going against them. Like someone else in this thread said, government…

> Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. This sort of language makes problems worse and even further decreases trust. Casting a wide net and calling ivermectin a "risy drug" when a quick search engine query will show it is used safely in humans as an antiparasite drug. When someone who is skeptical about vaccines reads these sorts of blatant falsehoods why in the world wo…

> a quick search engine query will show it is used safely in humans as an antiparasite drug

That just means it's safer than being infested with untreated parasites.

It doesn't mean someone without worms should take it for funsies.

Your same Google search will reveal ivermectin carries (as with almost any intervention) potential serious side effects. Doctors prescribing medication balance those risks with the potential benefits; it's why you don't get fentanyl (safe! effective! widely used!) for a papercut, even if it would be very helpful for the pain.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#85

Post by marcosdumay »

TheFreim wrote: post #55
Lutger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, in the pandemic we saw extreme versions of this. Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. If vaccination would be alternative medicine and ivermection government mandated, we might see the reverse. So I don't think its vaccination perse, at least not on its own, but vaccines have various things going against them. Like someone else in this thread said, government…

> Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. This sort of language makes problems worse and even further decreases trust. Casting a wide net and calling ivermectin a "risy drug" when a quick search engine query will show it is used safely in humans as an antiparasite drug. When someone who is skeptical about vaccines reads these sorts of blatant falsehoods why in the world wo…

On the doses people were recommending it's very clearly unsafe, known to have killed a few people, and marked so on the usage instructions.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#86

Post by Aunche »

revel wrote: post #49

> Now, imagine the uproar that might ensue from some corners today if a textbook made this sort of direct comparison between two groups, with one group happening to be white and the other black. Some social justice warriors would no doubt raise an outcry. The book would be branded as Eurocentric, racist, and white supremacist, since it doesn’t give equal space to describing the intellectual achievements of the Zulu o…

What far-end conservatives learned and what sjws are starting to discover is that mainstream exposure is a trap. You can get Walmart to say "Merry Christmas" (instead of happy holidays) or "Black Lives Matter", but that doesn't actually translate to any material church attendance or racial equity. All it does is create the illusion that your side is more of an oppressive force than it actually is, which alienates moderates like the author who can potentially be allies.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#87

Post by dimitrios1 »

atmavatar wrote: post #69
naming_the_user wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our politics has become all about hurting other people, instead of trying to create something positive. We used to go to the polls and say, here’s what I’m voting for. Now we go to the polls to vote against something and we hope it makes others really mad. This feels like a really uncharitable interpretation on what is going on. To me it feels more like you have two sides, the two sides have viewpoints that feel ve…

When one side has a repeatedly-stated policy goal like sending the military against "the enemy within" while specifically calling-out political opponents as belonging to said group, it's difficult to interpret that as a mere clash of worldview, even when assuming it's mere bluster to gin up engagement at rallies.

hard to tell which side you are talking about here TBH, because while one side has talked up a big game about what they may or may not do, the other side has been actively weaponizing our institutions against aforementioned side.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#88

Post by ceejayoz »

lanstin wrote: post #31
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My body my choice? If being pregnant was contagious, we'd treat it as a very different issue.

I would read that short story.

You can watch the film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film)

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#89

Post by nradov »

ceejayoz wrote: post #56
Eumenes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your right to bodily autonomy must always be balanced with your impact on others' rights. You can drink, but you can't drive drunk. You can shoot guns, but not at someone. Example abound in our society.

Bodily autonomy for free adults of sound mind is absolute. There is no "right" to be protected against infectious disease. I am absolutely pro-vaccine and getting vaccinated is the best option for the vast majority of patients but let's not distort the discussion by inventing fake rights that appear nowhere in the US Constitution.

I think a lot of the recent backlash was based on false claims by politicians and public health officials that COVID-19 vaccine mandates were necessary to protect others. But in reality the scientific evidence indicated that the vaccines had little or no benefit for reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. That discrepancy in messaging eroded public trust and made some people believe that authorities had ulterior motives.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#90

Post by kibwen »

phtrivier wrote: post #76
tivert wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. The history of that movement is long. > Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. No, I don't think that's true. Humans are built to learn from e…

Interestingly, the experiences that people are rallying around (for better or worse) are more going _against_ negative effects (perceived or real) of the scientific / technological world: * Climate Change (caused by the tech of "burning lots of fuels") * PFAS, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, etc... * Opiods crisis, nartotics, etc... * Impact of GAFAM on privacy, social discourse, etc... In a sense, the "white coats…

This is mistakenly attributing the destructive consequences of profit-motivated mega-industries to "nerds with glasses", thereby creating more cover for the ruthless profit-maximizers to continue destroying the world while deflecting all blame.
Post reply on HN