The unimportant news thread

[Ken B]

Exodus 30:17ff is the start of it.

That's not about pre-prandial ablutions though. That's ritual cleanliness (only) when entering into places of worship. And the only food mentioned is food the washers won't eat. No rebuttal to Coyne at all.

[kishnevi]

That's not about pre-prandial ablutions though. That's ritual cleanliness (only) when entering into places of worship. And the only food mentioned is food the washers won't eat. No rebuttal to Coyne at all.

Actually, the Kohenim ate sacrificial meat all the time.

[Florestan]

When Ignaz Semmelweiss urged gynecologists to wash their hands before delivering the baby because this is the most effective way to avoid puerperal fever, he was derided and scorned by most of his colleagues who were the then luminaries of the medical sciences. They continued to deliver without washing their hands right after dissecting cadavers, thus literally killing hundreds of thousands of newborns by inducing PF in them. Semmelweiss himself eventually had a nervous breakdown and died in an asylum, another victim of their shortsighted and holier-than-thou attitude. What do you make of that, Ken?

[North Star]

Before Pasteur, people really didn't really have that good ideas about the origins of diseases, although some sanitation & hygiene regulations were rather well understood in the times of the old testament, and the Romans, of course.

[Ken B]

When Ignaz Semmelweiss urged gynecologists to wash their hands before delivering the baby because this is the most effective way to avoid puerperal fever, he was derided and scorned by most of his colleagues who were the then luminaries of the medical sciences. They continued to deliver without washing their hands right after dissecting cadavers, thus literally killing hundreds of thousands of newborns by inducing PF in them. Semmelweiss himself eventually had a nervous breakdown and died in an asylum, another victim of their shortsighted and holier-than-thou attitude. What do you make of that, Ken?

That relying on ancient texts rather than observation and experiment is dangerous.

[Florestan]

That relying on ancient texts rather than observation and experiment is dangerous.

Greatest non-sequitur I´ve ever encountered. Not even non-sequitur, actually: like asking "what time is it?" and receiving the answer "Monday".

[Ken B]

Greatest non-sequitur I´ve ever encountered. Not even non-sequitur, actually: like asking "what time is it?" and receiving the answer "Monday".

Nonsense. The doctors of that time was still full influenced by Galenic humors. The germ theory came later. Semmelweis was rejected because he disagreed with the received wisdom of ancient texts and had only observation and experiment on his side. 

[kishnevi]

Nonsense. The doctors of that time was still full influenced by Galenic humors. The germ theory came later. Semmelweis was rejected because he disagreed with the received wisdom of ancient texts and had only observation and experiment on his side.

Actually he was rejected because he could propose no valid explanation of  why hand washing worked and what puerperal fever was.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

[North Star]

Actually he was rejected because he could propose no valid explanation of  why hand washing worked and what puerperal fever was.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success.

Remarkable resemblance to what Ken (and I) already said.

[kishnevi]

Summaries, such as the one you quote, can often mislead.  The details are not so favorable to your interpretation (as given in the article proper).

One of the first to respond to Semmelweis's 1848 communications was James Young Simpson, who wrote a stinging letter. Simpson surmised that the British obstetrical literature must be totally unknown in Vienna, or Semmelweis would have known that the British had long regarded childbed fever as contagious and would have employed chlorine washing to protect against it.[6]:174

Semmelweis's views were much more favorably received in the United Kingdom than on the continent, but he was more often cited than understood. The British consistently regarded Semmelweis as having supported their theory of contagion. A typical example was W. Tyler Smith, who claimed that Semmelweis "made out very conclusively" that "miasms derived from the dissecting room will excite puerperal disease."[6]:176*[13]:504

In 1856, Semmelweis's assistant Josef Fleischer reported the successful results of handwashings at St. Rochus and Pest maternity institutions in the Viennese Medical Weekly (Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift).[8]:69 The editor remarked sarcastically that it was time people stopped being misled about the theory of chlorine washings.[6]:24[14]:536

In 1858, Semmelweis finally published his own account of his work in an essay entitled, "The Etiology of Childbed Fever".[Note 8] Two years later, he published a second essay, "The Difference in Opinion between Myself and the English Physicians regarding Childbed Fever".[Note 9] In 1861, Semmelweis finally published his main work Die Ätiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers (German for "The Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever").

In his 1861 book, Semmelweis lamented the slow adoption of his ideas: "Most medical lecture halls continue to resound with lectures on epidemic childbed fever and with discourses against my theories. [...] The medical literature for the last twelve years continues to swell with reports of puerperal epidemics, and in 1854 in Vienna, the birthplace of my theory, 400 maternity patients died from childbed fever. In published medical works my teachings are either ignored or attacked. The medical faculty at Würzburg awarded a prize to a monograph written in 1859 in which my teachings were rejected".[6]:169[Note 10]

In Berlin, the professor of obstetrics, Joseph Hermann Schmidt, approved of obstetrical students having ready access to morgues in which they could spend time while waiting for the labor process.[6]:34[16]:501

In a textbook, Carl Braun, Semmelweis's successor as assistant in the first clinic, identified 30 causes of childbed fever; only the 28th of these was cadaverous infection. Other causes included conception and pregnancy, uremia, pressure exerted on adjacent organs by the shrinking uterus, emotional traumata, mistakes in diet, chilling, and atmospheric epidemic influences.[17][Note 11] The impact of Braun's views are clearly visible in the rising mortality rates in the 1850s.

Ede Flórián Birly, Semmelweis's predecessor as Professor of Obstetrics at the University of Pest, never accepted Semmelweis's teachings; he continued to believe that puerperal fever was due to uncleanliness of the bowel.[6]:4*

August Breisky, an obstetrician in Prague, rejected Semmelweis's book as "naive" and he referred to it as "the Koran of puerperal theology". Breisky objected that Semmelweis had not proved that puerperal fever and pyemia are identical, and he insisted that other factors beyond decaying organic matter certainly had to be included in the etiology of the disease.[6]:41[18]:1

Carl Edvard Marius Levy, head of the Copenhagen maternity hospital and an outspoken critic of Semmelweis's ideas, had reservations concerning the unspecific nature of cadaverous particles and that the supposed quantities were unreasonably small. "If Dr. Semmelweis had limited his opinion regarding infections from corpses to puerperal corpses, I would have been less disposed to denial than I am. [...] And, with due respect for the cleanliness of the Viennese students, it seems improbable that enough infective matter or vapor could be secluded around the fingernails to kill a patient."[6]:180–181[19] In fact, Robert Koch later used precisely this fact to prove that various infecting materials contained living organisms which could reproduce in the human body, i.e. since the poison could be neither chemical nor physical in operation, it must be biological.[6]:183*

At a conference of German physicians and natural scientists, most of the speakers rejected his doctrine, including the celebrated Rudolf Virchow, who was a scientist of the highest authority of his time. Virchow's great authority in medical circles contributed potently to the lack of recognition of the Semmelweis doctrine for a long time.[15]

It has been contended that Semmelweis could have had an even greater impact if he had managed to communicate his findings more effectively and avoid antagonising the medical establishment, even given the opposition from entrenched viewpoints.[20]

[Ken B]

Remarkable resemblance to what Ken (and I) already said.

Indeed. Thank you for noticing! 

I think this is the third time I have pointed out Semmelweis had only observation and experiment on his side, and was rejected because that was not deemed sufficient to overrule received opinion based on old books.

[Florestan]

Nonsense. The doctors of that time was still full influenced by Galenic humors. The germ theory came later. Semmelweis was rejected because he disagreed with the received wisdom of ancient texts and had only observation and experiment on his side.

Say what? One of the most vocal opponents of Semmelweiss was Rudolf Virchow, the leading medical authority of his time, famous precisely for striking devastating blows to the ancient theory of humors.

[Ken B]

Summaries, such as the one you quote, can often mislead.  The details are not so favorable to your interpretation (as given in the article proper).

This article, which I read earlier today, does exactly bolster what I (and Karlo) say.

Ken B: it's dangerous to rely on old books instead of observation and experiment.

Jeffery Smith and Wiki: Semmelweiss was rejected because he had no theory to contrast to the well worked theories based on humors and miasmas and fermentation and other old received ideas. All he had were his observations and his experiments.

I dunno guys. Everything you quote indicates that Semmelweiss failed to convince his contemporaries because observations and facts were not deemed sufficient. Which is exactly my point.

[Ken B]

Say what? One of the most vocal opponents of Semmelweiss was Rudolf Virchow, the leading medical authority of his time, famous precisely for striking devastating blows to the ancient theory of humors.

Virchow blamed the weather. Look it up.
What matters here is that Semmelweiss had experiment proving his case, and Virchow did not consider that sufficient. 

[North Star]

Virchow blamed the weather. Look it up.
What matters here is that Semmelweiss had experiment proving his case, and Virchow did not consider that sufficient. 

Exactly.

Einstein said that God doesn't play dice. Quantum mechanics seems to be doing fine, despite of Einstein's disapproval.

[kishnevi]

Indeed. Thank you for noticing! 

I think this is the third time I have pointed out Semmelweis had only observation and experiment on his side, and was rejected because that was not deemed sufficient to overrule received opinion based on old books.

No.  Go back and read the full article again.
He was rejected because, the theory of germs being then completely unknown, he could give no explanation of how or why cleanliness was important, and no way to show puerpal fever was transmitted. 

Observations and facts were not deemed sufficient without an explanation, which is also how science works today.  Unless like in some areas of science you propose the explanation and then look to see if data confirm it.

His explanation did not conflict with received opinion because he had no sensible explanation to give.  That had to wait for Pasteur.  He had data, but no theory to explain the data.

[Ken B]

No.  Go back and read the full article again.
He was rejected because, the theory of germs being then completely unknown, he could give no explanation of how or why cleanliness was important, and no way to show puerpal fever was transmitted. 

Observations and facts were not deemed sufficient without an explanation, which is also how science works today.  Unless like in some areas of science you propose the explanation and then look to see if data confirm it.

His explanation did not conflict with received opinion because he had no sensible explanation to give.  That had to wait for Pasteur.  He had data, but no theory to explain the data.

It wasn't just "Observations and facts". It was observations and experiments.
And Semmelweiss is a famous example pretty much precisely because he would win the scientific debate today. It would be no contest. Experiment rules. Science is full of stuff for which no-one has a good theory but only good experiments. It was proven that smoking causes cancer long before anyone had worked out a mechanism or theory of how, as one example.

[Ken B]

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard Feynman, disagreeing with Jeffrey about how science works now.

[North Star]

 

As we know, the essence of Semmelweis' findings was that "puerperal fever is caused by cadaveric particles adhering to the hands of the physician who examines the childbed patients; thus it is of utmost importance that he should clean his hands properly before a visit, for which purpose [he advised] the chlorine solution." (7) He also realized that the identical pathological symptoms found in the cadavers of the mothers and in their newborn infants must have identical causes, and therefore childbed fever cannot be considered the specific disease of childbed patients. Besides statistical evidence, his belief that there must be some connection between physicians' examining childbed patients after dissections and puerperal fever itself got strong confirmation when he was faced with the unfortunate death of a good friend of his, Jakob Kolletschka, professor of forensic medicine in Vienna, who died in 1847 after his finger had been cut by a medical student's knife: on autopsy, the cadaver showed identical symptoms of those who died of puerperal fever. Thus, Semmelweis inferred that puerperal fever is also caused by a septic wound and is just another kind of pyemia, brought about by contact with an infectious agent, specifically by some putrid particle (cadaverous particles or any putrid exudates of the living organism) introduced into the genital organs by the hand of the examining physician and entering into the blood stream.

Almost immediately after his discovery made in 1847, Semmelweis made it compulsory for all physicians and medical students performing dissections to disinfect their hands before examination of patients, even though this was met with some protest from those concerned and a certain degree of skepticism by his chief, Professor Klein. Semmelweis did not and could not know at the time that the chlorine handwash destroyed not only the smell otherwise retained after simple soap washings but also the bacteria clinging to the skin. Nevertheless, the chlorine handwash inaugurated obstetric antisepsis. As a result, mortality rates were greatly reduced with the introduction of the chlorinated lime handwash.
...
Rudolf Karl Ludwig Virchow, professor of pathological anatomy, a scientist of the highest authority of his age, did not support his views either, stating that only one type of puerperal fever might be caused by local infection but that it did not exclude the existence of the puerperal epidemic. (7) He named in the etiology of the disease such factors as atmospheric conditions, disturbances in milk secretion, excited state of the nervous system, and concomitant diseases such as erysipelas and purulent inflammations. His attitude against Semmelweis' discovery of a causal relationship between autopsies followed by obstetrical examinations and puerperal fever was of special interest since, as a pathologist, Virchow represented a medical specialty the development of which became closely bound with one of the biggest iatrogenic catastrophes of the 19th century. In addition, his father-in-law was the president of the Obstetrical Society of Berlin, and he was known for being in good relationship with Franz Kiwisch von Rotterau, predecessor of Scanzoni at the obstetrical department in Würzburg. Whichever cause dominated in structuring his views, Virchow's great authority in medical circles potently contributed to the fact that his error prevented the recognition of the Semmelweis doctrine for a long time.

[ibanezmonster]

I like pie.