J
JONJONAUG
Or just look at it or something, I don't know.
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?zjtz2nq3hz1
Or alternatively, tl;dr giant block of text below. I'm a simple Computer Science undergrad guy, so please jump on any major inaccuracies I may make here. You can also find a "review" of the cited work (read: a lot of sarcastic remarks by some dudes at Harvard in 1830) Here
Ignorance and Paranoia Regarding Medicine in Previous Centuries and How It Compares to Current Ideologies in the Modern World
One of the greatest problems facing the advancement of modern science has always been those who mistrust it for various reasons. This would not be a problem by itself, as history has shown that science will always progress despite fears that whatever new advancement is being made is harmful to humanity and that the people who are highly educated in their fields that are pushing for these advancements or practicing them are irresponsibly harming or killing innocent people. However, such mistrust often slows or can even temporarily reverse progress made. While this is true in many fields, this paper will focus on how advancements in the field of medicine are slowed by people who do not understand the science and as a result fear it and claim that it is harmful. This will be achieved by examining a paper by Samuel Thomson, a famous herbalist in the early 19th century, and then comparing his viewpoints to those held by modern trains of thought that are against common medicinal practice.
Samuel Thomson’s paper starts by advancing the idea that physicians are keeping knowledge of medicine from commoners for profit, comparing this to hereditary aristocracy and the practice of keeping religious scriptures in dead languages so only the leaders of that religion could read from them. He calls medicine “deadly poison” and advocates his own herbal remedies given to him by a “God of nature”. Reading this from a modern standpoint, or even likely from the viewpoint of a reader in 1822, Thomson comes across as a paranoid fear-mongerer, despite the fact that some of his issues with 19th century medicine may be warranted from a modern standpoint (for instance, the practice of bloodletting was still remarkably common during this time period, as were many other forms of medicine that will be described later). He proceeds to state that a human is composed “of the four elements Earth, Water, Air, and Fire” and gives a very long-winded description of his own method of treatment. To put it simply, he states that staying warm and well fed is good for a person’s health. While this is certainly good medical advice, his description of the human body being composed of four elements implies a willful ignorance of what was known about the chemical and physical makeup of a human body at the time period (even more so when his claims that he knows and can describe how his herbal remedies work are taken into account). Overall, he shows that he has little anatomical knowledge of the human body. The end of his paper lists several items such as mercury, arsenic, or opium that were used in 19th century medicine, and again calls the medicine of his age poison. While this is certainly true (there were several medicines prescribed throughout the 19th century where mercury was the main ingredient, opiates are highly addictive with many negative side effects, arsenic was used for centuries before antibiotics were discovered, etc) when taken in context with the rest of the paper it proves he is no less ignorant of the inner workings of the human body than any 19th century physician. Despite his correct viewpoint that some aspects of the medicine of his time can do more harm than good, his overall stance is comparable to a person who would forgo psychological and medicinal treatment for a mental disorder or chemotherapy for cancer in the 21st century.
While Thomson may seem like an odd quack by today’s standards, this certainly does not mean that similar trains of thought are not held in modern society. Organizations such as the Church of Scientology advocate against the use of drugs to treat psychological conditions, and in fact maintain a state of disbelief in the entire branch of medicine. The idea that vaccinations can cause autism was put forward ten years ago and despite many studies to the contrary this viewpoint still persists among parents who are afraid of being unable to understand their children and blame vaccinations containing a mercury compound because of the correlation of when vaccinations are traditionally given and when symptoms of autism first appear (between six months and three years of age for both).
In conclusion, Samuel Thompson does indeed raise several good points about the state of medicine in the 19th century that are even more apparent from the viewpoint of someone living in the 21st century. However, his thoughts on the entire science of medicine are the paranoid, arrogant rantings of a person who is ignorant of even some of the most basic knowledge concerning the human body available to anyone in his time. While it is always a good thing to question whether or not something can be harmful, simply dismissing the entire science out of hand is incredibly dangerous and ignorant, especially when done by people with little to no understanding of the science in the first place. What is even more dangerous is when people with such viewpoints gain a large following and are ultimately harmful to the entire public. Such patterns in history have happened before the 19th century, are present today, and will likely continue into the far future.
Works Cited
Thomson, Samuel. New Guide to Health; Or, Botanic Family Physician.
Boston: E. G. House, 1822. 183-186, 202-203.
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?zjtz2nq3hz1
Or alternatively, tl;dr giant block of text below. I'm a simple Computer Science undergrad guy, so please jump on any major inaccuracies I may make here. You can also find a "review" of the cited work (read: a lot of sarcastic remarks by some dudes at Harvard in 1830) Here
Ignorance and Paranoia Regarding Medicine in Previous Centuries and How It Compares to Current Ideologies in the Modern World
One of the greatest problems facing the advancement of modern science has always been those who mistrust it for various reasons. This would not be a problem by itself, as history has shown that science will always progress despite fears that whatever new advancement is being made is harmful to humanity and that the people who are highly educated in their fields that are pushing for these advancements or practicing them are irresponsibly harming or killing innocent people. However, such mistrust often slows or can even temporarily reverse progress made. While this is true in many fields, this paper will focus on how advancements in the field of medicine are slowed by people who do not understand the science and as a result fear it and claim that it is harmful. This will be achieved by examining a paper by Samuel Thomson, a famous herbalist in the early 19th century, and then comparing his viewpoints to those held by modern trains of thought that are against common medicinal practice.
Samuel Thomson’s paper starts by advancing the idea that physicians are keeping knowledge of medicine from commoners for profit, comparing this to hereditary aristocracy and the practice of keeping religious scriptures in dead languages so only the leaders of that religion could read from them. He calls medicine “deadly poison” and advocates his own herbal remedies given to him by a “God of nature”. Reading this from a modern standpoint, or even likely from the viewpoint of a reader in 1822, Thomson comes across as a paranoid fear-mongerer, despite the fact that some of his issues with 19th century medicine may be warranted from a modern standpoint (for instance, the practice of bloodletting was still remarkably common during this time period, as were many other forms of medicine that will be described later). He proceeds to state that a human is composed “of the four elements Earth, Water, Air, and Fire” and gives a very long-winded description of his own method of treatment. To put it simply, he states that staying warm and well fed is good for a person’s health. While this is certainly good medical advice, his description of the human body being composed of four elements implies a willful ignorance of what was known about the chemical and physical makeup of a human body at the time period (even more so when his claims that he knows and can describe how his herbal remedies work are taken into account). Overall, he shows that he has little anatomical knowledge of the human body. The end of his paper lists several items such as mercury, arsenic, or opium that were used in 19th century medicine, and again calls the medicine of his age poison. While this is certainly true (there were several medicines prescribed throughout the 19th century where mercury was the main ingredient, opiates are highly addictive with many negative side effects, arsenic was used for centuries before antibiotics were discovered, etc) when taken in context with the rest of the paper it proves he is no less ignorant of the inner workings of the human body than any 19th century physician. Despite his correct viewpoint that some aspects of the medicine of his time can do more harm than good, his overall stance is comparable to a person who would forgo psychological and medicinal treatment for a mental disorder or chemotherapy for cancer in the 21st century.
While Thomson may seem like an odd quack by today’s standards, this certainly does not mean that similar trains of thought are not held in modern society. Organizations such as the Church of Scientology advocate against the use of drugs to treat psychological conditions, and in fact maintain a state of disbelief in the entire branch of medicine. The idea that vaccinations can cause autism was put forward ten years ago and despite many studies to the contrary this viewpoint still persists among parents who are afraid of being unable to understand their children and blame vaccinations containing a mercury compound because of the correlation of when vaccinations are traditionally given and when symptoms of autism first appear (between six months and three years of age for both).
In conclusion, Samuel Thompson does indeed raise several good points about the state of medicine in the 19th century that are even more apparent from the viewpoint of someone living in the 21st century. However, his thoughts on the entire science of medicine are the paranoid, arrogant rantings of a person who is ignorant of even some of the most basic knowledge concerning the human body available to anyone in his time. While it is always a good thing to question whether or not something can be harmful, simply dismissing the entire science out of hand is incredibly dangerous and ignorant, especially when done by people with little to no understanding of the science in the first place. What is even more dangerous is when people with such viewpoints gain a large following and are ultimately harmful to the entire public. Such patterns in history have happened before the 19th century, are present today, and will likely continue into the far future.
Works Cited
Thomson, Samuel. New Guide to Health; Or, Botanic Family Physician.
Boston: E. G. House, 1822. 183-186, 202-203.
