A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929 • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 6:58 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #89

ceejayoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publi…

> Bodily autonomy for free adults of sound mind is absolute.

There's no jurisdiction on the planet in which this is true. Certainly not the USA.

> let's not distort the discussion by inventing fake rights that appear nowhere in the US Constitution

The Constitution itself openly and clearly shoots down this idea in the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

George Washington himself instituted a vaccine mandate. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/smallpox-inoculation-revolu...

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

#92

Post by nradov » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 6:58 PM UTC

liontwist wrote: post #78

goatlover wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually they do. That's why most people want access to those things. What is the "real thing" they are substitutes for?

A safe place to live, meaningful work, good health, experiences with family and friends, feelings of contribution and importance.

If you live in the USA or other developed countries then your opportunity to have all of those things is greater than at any other time or place in human history. Of course, not everyone chooses to seize that opportunity. Some people would rather complain or blame others rather than grinding and delaying gratification to improve their circumstances.

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

#93

Post by thrance » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:05 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #2

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. I think there's a certain amount of cherry-picking going on with th…

I really don't like how often I have to read/hear "Humans are built to X" type arguments.

I don't think the lack of a challenge is the root cause of science denialism. It's a cultural thing, coming from a lack of confidence in the elites. Elites are distraught when inequality become larger and things get tougher for the poorest.

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

#94

Post by animal_spirits » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:06 PM UTC

2099miles wrote: post #36

yyuugg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author might be wrong. It can actually be racist in ways beyond "African people are genetically inferior." I didn't find the author to be particularly deeply invested, they seemed to want to score some points over "social justice warriors" and then backed off pretty quickly with an "it's complicated" footnote.

When I read that part I also thought they were just trying to pwn the libs, but the rest of the article was so good, and what they said isn’t inaccurate, so now I think I was just projecting that. Not being super invested and having it just be a small part of the article actually seems right to me so idk. I’ve hit my fair share, but this article alone in no way makes me think this person is one.

I’m not pushing one ideo or another - I just don’t get why it’s flagged. We aren’t making generalizations, just talking about the article

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

#95

Post by Eumenes » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

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.

So where do we have vaccine mandates today? I understand some employers mandate it, esp in government or healthcare settings, but I've never worked at a place that has. I didn't get the covid vaccine and nothing changed with my life - I was still able to go to restaurants, movies, and fly internationally. Nobody asks me for my immunizations from the 1980s when I was in k-12.

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

#96

Post by TheFreim » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:13 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #85

TheFreim wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree, which is why someone should say "unsafe dosages of ivermectin" or "ivermectin in formulations unsafe for human consumption" instead of speaking of a widely used drug as per itself "unsafe" without qualification. Making over-generalized statements will lead to people rightly reject what you're saying, leaving room for them to be misinformed about the actual reality of the situation.

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

#97

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:14 PM UTC

Eumenes wrote: post #95

ceejayoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So where do we have vaccine mandates today? I understand some employers mandate it, esp in government or healthcare settings, but I've never worked at a place that has. I didn't get the covid vaccine and nothing changed with my life - I was still able to go to restaurants, movies, and fly internationally. Nobody asks me for my immunizations from the 1980s when I was in k-12.

> So where do we have vaccine mandates today?

https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-non-medical-exemptions-fro...

"All 50 states and Washington D.C. have laws requiring certain vaccines for students to attend school."

Employers, as a result, tend not to have their own requirements, for the same reasons they don't ask you to demonstrate you can count to ten if you have a high school diploma.

(And don't worry, they've got folks from other countries who might not have gone through our school system covered; https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...)

> Nobody asks me for my immunizations from the 1980s when I was in k-12.

Because you are virtually guaranteed to have had them. They will also not ask you if you're potty trained.

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

#98

Post by TheFreim » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:17 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #84

TheFreim wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 potentia…

I'm not promoting the consumption of ivermectin without a good reason. I've never had it myself, nor have I encouraged anyone else to take it for "funsies".

Tylenol overdoses are relatively common and can even be deadly, but it would be a gross over-generalization to classify Tylenol as a "risky" drug. If you want people to take a drug in a proper setting, in proper amounts, to treat the relevant disease you should /just say that/ instead of trying to get people to think a generally safe drug isn't generally safe.

If someone has a serious bacterial infection and thinks they just need Tylenol, I wouldn't tell them that "You shouldn't take Tylenol! It's risky!" instead I'd tell them that Tylenol won't help treat their disease.

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

#99

Post by pksebben » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:18 PM UTC

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.

I'd agree with this, but it's missing something;

why is this the case? From what I know, it's a lot tougher to tease out the cause of this malfunction in our society. Do we have an undereducated populace because of poverty? Lack of school funding? (if so, why do we underfund schools? is it because we don't have the money? greed? is there a concerted effort to suppress an educated populace for political reasons?) Is there a cultural reticence built into us that resists scientific thought?

My kneejerk analysis boils down to "it's the economy, stupid" and that a substantial portion of our population lives below the poverty line (which itself isn't defined particularly well and probably misses a bunch of folks who ought to qualify for 'living under distressed economic conditions'). It's tough to care about education when you struggle to keep a roof overhead.

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

#100

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 7:23 PM UTC

TheFreim wrote: post #98

ceejayoz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 potentia…

I'm not promoting the consumption of ivermectin without a good reason. I've never had it myself, nor have I encouraged anyone else to take it for "funsies". Tylenol overdoses are relatively common and can even be deadly, but it would be a gross over-generalization to classify Tylenol as a "risky" drug. If you want people to take a drug in a proper setting, in proper amounts, to treat the relevant disease you should /…

Tylenol is absolutely a risky drug.

https://www.propublica.org/article/tylenol-mcneil-fda-use-on...

> But the FDA says acetaminophen carries a special risk. About a quarter of Americans routinely take more over-the-counter pain relief pills of all kinds than they are supposed to, surveys show. That behavior is "particularly troublesome" for acetaminophen, an FDA report said, because the drug's narrow safety margin places "a large fraction of users close to a toxic dose in the ordinary course of use.”

> Taken over several days, as little as 25 percent above the maximum daily dose – or just two additional extra strength pills a day – has been reported to cause liver damage, according to the agency. Taken all at once, a little less than four times the maximum daily dose can cause death. A comparable figure doesn't exist for ibuprofen, because so few people have died from overdosing on that drug.

> From 2001 to 2010, annual acetaminophen-related deaths amounted to about twice the number attributed to all other over-the-counter pain relievers combined, according to the poison control data.

> Acetaminophen overdose sends as many as 78,000 Americans to the emergency room annually and results in 33,000 hospitalizations a year, federal data shows. Acetaminophen is also the nation’s leading cause of acute liver failure, according to data from an ongoing study funded by the National Institutes for Health.

> In fact, the FDA has still not completed the review of the drug that began back in the 1970s, as part of the agency’s larger mandate to assess the safety and efficacy of older medicines.

> As the panel’s work was going on, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals weighed in on acetaminophen. The London-based Lancet declared in a 1975 editorial that if the drug “were discovered today it would not be approved” by British regulators. “It would certainly never be freely available without prescription.”