/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14815216
We let maggots nom on necrotizing wounds, for one thing.

>>14815216
If they're outdated that's because they don't work. Practices that were effective in some cases were kept and improved.
Bloodlettings were used as a treatment for literally everything, nowadays a modern version called therapeutic phlebotomy is used to treat some blood disorders.
Another example would be electroconvulsive therapy which is still used today, in a way more modern and safe way, to treat treatment-resistant depressions. Fortunately it's not used to cure 'hysteria' anymore without anesthetic or muscle relaxant like a century ago.

I guess anything anterior to the germ theory of disease would obviously not work since they were targeting bullshit like humours, miasmas or some curses.

Vaccines work

>>14815364
>If they're outdated that's because they don't work
you mean like the covid vax?

>>14815372
>you mean like the covid vax?
No because the covid vax worked. It was very effective for the original strain since it was made for it. It obviously lost its efficacy over time since the virus was continually changing.

>>14815364
>If they're outdated that's because they don't work
Because modern medicine works so well. Aside from antibiotics and some surgical procedures, modern science is just as shitty as it was 200 years ago. They give a patient with CAD a pill, and they die from cancer 5 years later. Success! We prevented him from dying of a heart attack.

>>14815384
Modern medicine*

>>14815384
That’s because people are usually too stubborn to even try changing their diet nowadays. My dad has high cholesterol, still drinks up a storm. So doctor is like “fuck it, hope this works” even though dad also knows the best way to fight it is just changing diet..

>>14815383
> It obviously lost its efficacy over time since the virus was continually changing.
so what you're saying is that the covid vax is outdated since it doesn't work

>>14815384
>Because modern medicine works so well.
Yes it does. Modern medicine if very far from 'as shitty' as it was 200 years ago. Even 20 years ago. You'd have to be really scientifically illiterate to believe that.

>>14815402
>so what you're saying is that the covid vax is outdated since it doesn't work
It still protect against severe cases which is the most important effect it should have so, no, it isn't outdated. But it should be updated to work better against Omicron obviously. And it is updated, right now.

>>14815364
what about that experiment where they sewed an old mouse and young mouse together so they shared blood, and discovered the old mouse got revitalized and became "younger." At first they assumed the young mouse's blood was making the old mouse blood, so the young mouse's blood must have something in it making young. This was incorrect, but it didn't stop the clickbait headlines from suggesting celebrities should buy blood transfusions from the young so they can keep looking beautiful. Anyway, they later found out it's "something" in the old mouses blood that makes them old. Maybe it's ages blood cells, or protein build up, who knows, I'm guessing. But wouldn't blood letting remove these things?? Unironically, this was the very same logic that gave rise to blood letting. That women have longer lifespans, simply due to menstruation. It's possible they saw some anecdotal evidence while they still practiced blood letting, but then the benefits got blown out of proportion, and a combination of excessive blood letting and unhygienic conditions made the procedure not worth the benefit. And in the pursuit of Hippocratic Oath "do no harm" they threw the baby out with the bathwater... so to speak.

>>14815404
>Even 20 years ago.
current life expectancy is lower than it was 20 years ago, this because medical science has been killing increasingly more people "by accident" since then. medical errors are currently the 3rd leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer, at the turn of the century, medical errors weren't even in the top ten.

>>14815418
>At first they assumed the young mouse's blood was making the old mouse younger
typo


Also, plz don't practice blood letting. I'm not suggesting this. If you feel like you MUST experiment, donate blood to red cross. It's safer and you get cookies.

>>14815420
>medical errors
To me those are not a medicine or a 'science' issue but a practitioner issue. Or, more widely, a economical and political issue.

>>14815431
you're unwilling to take responsibility for your mistakes because you are irresponsible, if something goes wrong you will irresponsibly lie about how it isn't your fault and if something goes right you will lie in order to take credit for it.

>>14815441
No but I mean you can't use the increase in medical errors as an argument to say that modern science hasn't improved in 200 years.
A good indicator would be survival rates for a lot of diseases and health conditions.
Dying from cancer 5 years after getting an effective treatment for your heart condition doesn't mean that modern medicine doesn't evolve but that some diseases are harder to treat than others.

>>14815418
It's interesting but practically and ethically I guess it'll be difficult to experiment on that.

>>14815463
>practically and ethically I guess it'll be difficult to experiment on that.

Not really. Just look at medical data for people who regularly donate whole blood. In fact, because some fear that blood donors are shortening their lives by giving away "vital life force" or some BS, it's very likely this has already been explored slightly, tho probably not as in depth enough to explain the results of the experiment with the mice. But enough to warrant more research.

https://sciencenordic.com/body-death-denmark/frequent-blood-donors-live-longer/1425568
>the ‘healthy donor effect’ is still a problem when comparing donors with other donors, as the most frequent blood donors are also likely to be healthier than those who donate less frequently.
Kinda lazy, but 30 seconds of google and found this, which is promising.

Leeches still have a niche use in modern medicine - they are used to prevent venous congestion in cases where fingers and limbs have to be surgically reattached.

Some herbal concoctions may be useful, though you would probably have to sort through a bunch of garbage to find the useful ones. For example, back in the late 1960s, the Chinese army decided they wanted a malaria treatment that did not depend on imports. As part of the project, they tested 2000 or so traditional Chinese remedies for malaria from a bunch of older chinese manuscripts. They found one very useful treatment from the sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua), extracts of which are now a standard malaria treatment, one herb that did help with malaria but had toxicity issues, and a bunch that turned out to be useless.

>>14815383
>the covid vax worked.
lol

We aren't even on the level of egyptian medicine

>>14815491
>the most frequent blood donors are also likely to be healthier than those who donate less frequently.

Until they start having serious issues in their 40-ies and 50-ies.
Oh, this wasn't in the article that from a donor clinic that makes money on human blood?
Color me surprised.

>>14815410
Go back to r/science, and get your booster immediately!

>>14815216
Ect against DSM II 302.1

yes, read ernst lehrs

>>14815216
Listening to Jesus Christ and fasting is good for your health.

>>14815216
>>14815364
Modern menicine is 100% a scam designed as follows:
People are given "health advice" which causes disease when it is followed.
People are offered expensive "treatments" for the diseases caused by following the above.

>>14815366
PROVE IT YOU FUCKING POOF

>>14815418
>But wouldn't blood letting remove these things??
Depends on why there's "something" in the old mouse's blood. Is its aging marrow simply creating bad blood? In that case, any bad blood you remove will simply be replaced with more bad blood.
And it is unwise to make too many assumptions from mouse models. Just about any cancer known to man can be cured in mice, yet almost none of these cures work for human patients.

>>14815463
>>14815959
>It's interesting but practically and ethically I guess it'll be difficult to experiment on that.
We could preliminarily test the hypothesis without recklessly endangering human volunteers and without inviting the blood donor complex to meddle by testing the hypothesis on the very mouse models the hypothesis is based on.

>>14815216
fully testing all medicines on animals before deploying them to the general public.
9000 chimps should be dead from experimenting to find the ld50 before the first human ever gets a dose.

>>14815431
no thats completely false, the medical community is currently killing off it's patients "by accident" at a rate far swifter than was ever experienced during the 20th century, its the doctors doing the killing, they are the ones responsible regardless how hard they try to lie their way out taking responsibility for their own actions.