It is but another reminder that every generation forgets what happened in the past or perhaps thinks this time it will be different because we now have a new class of drugs.
But, while I hold this thought firmly in my head, I also hold onto the thought that there have been other tremendous improvements in medicine, like knee replacements or treatments for breast cancer (my mom lived another 35 years after having a mastectomy), clean water, and so on.
That said, I do think we are often too quick to think that new drugs are going to fix all of our problems.
Thank you again for your dedicated research based upon real intelligence and insight. I do not think I will ever get over how so many 'doctors' of the modern era have been just so wrong. They are part of what Lewis Mumford called the Megamachine: society organised as if it were a machine mainly aiming to enable the power-elites to remain poer-elites. Interestingly, Mumford postulates that organising other humans as cogs in a machine preceded the invention of machines as we know them since the birth of civilisations(i.e. not just tools, or small mechanisms like a trap)
When you say respiratory virus infections, do you include measles, rubella and others that infect the body through the respiratory tract? I think that you need to include other factors than just the virus and an immune naive population, before you can say whether it was the disease that killed &/or the “treatment”. Without knowing anything about life in Imperial Russia in the 19th century it’s difficult to establish what happened before, during and after. However, the 1918 epi/pandemic is a little easier to understand. Although it’s been called Spanish flu, there’s a suggestion that it originated in the USA in 1916-17. When America joined the allies against Germany they brought the virus with them. After three years of fighting and living in squalid conditions in the trenches, if you’ve ever visited Ypres or other battle sites you’ll appreciate that, with exposure to other pathogens and probably undernourished those soldiers of all nationalities would be very susceptible to a new variant of any pathological virus. Also, following the use of various gases on the battlefield would have left a significant number with damage to their respiratory tract, even with gas mask use. Thus there’s a significant reservoir of virus developing in 1918, which would reach the homelands of the combatants when they were demobbed between armistice in 1918 and the peace treaty in 1919. They would return to their crowded homes. You need to look at the social situation here in the U.K. at the time, for example it wasn’t until 1919 that the legislation that forced councils to provide social housing was enacted.
Certainly there are records of the social conditions in the immediate post WWI period. The rate of rickets would show any vitamin D deficiency for example. It would be interesting to review death certificates from that period, if available of course, whether flu was the prime cause of death or whether it was secondary bacterial infections and where they lived. I think there were maps made of the deprivation in different areas of London completed by the Rowntree foundation. The situation in Russia would be more difficult to determine as records may have been lost in the 1917 revolution.
All I’m really saying is that context is everything and that it should be taken into consideration when postulating a situation that appears to be solely from a modern perspective. I am not saying that Clare is right or wrong in what she’s said, but it should be considered within the broader situation.
So interesting!
It is but another reminder that every generation forgets what happened in the past or perhaps thinks this time it will be different because we now have a new class of drugs.
But, while I hold this thought firmly in my head, I also hold onto the thought that there have been other tremendous improvements in medicine, like knee replacements or treatments for breast cancer (my mom lived another 35 years after having a mastectomy), clean water, and so on.
That said, I do think we are often too quick to think that new drugs are going to fix all of our problems.
Did you ever read the story of Rene Caisse and her Essiac tea.
She reportedly had such success with her cancer treatment, that her town built her a hospital.
I suspect that her story has been somewhat romanticised, but there seems to be much anecdotal evidence of her positive results.
Also, Edward G Griffins documentary on Laetrile is worth a watch, though it also shows the power of censorship.
Really ironic that the Wellcome Foundation...that bastion of the truth as far as matters pharmacological are concerned...(sarc)...owns the picture...
Sir Jeremy Farrar being regularly vilified by Dr Meryl Nass warms the cockles of my heart...
Thank you again for your dedicated research based upon real intelligence and insight. I do not think I will ever get over how so many 'doctors' of the modern era have been just so wrong. They are part of what Lewis Mumford called the Megamachine: society organised as if it were a machine mainly aiming to enable the power-elites to remain poer-elites. Interestingly, Mumford postulates that organising other humans as cogs in a machine preceded the invention of machines as we know them since the birth of civilisations(i.e. not just tools, or small mechanisms like a trap)
When you say respiratory virus infections, do you include measles, rubella and others that infect the body through the respiratory tract? I think that you need to include other factors than just the virus and an immune naive population, before you can say whether it was the disease that killed &/or the “treatment”. Without knowing anything about life in Imperial Russia in the 19th century it’s difficult to establish what happened before, during and after. However, the 1918 epi/pandemic is a little easier to understand. Although it’s been called Spanish flu, there’s a suggestion that it originated in the USA in 1916-17. When America joined the allies against Germany they brought the virus with them. After three years of fighting and living in squalid conditions in the trenches, if you’ve ever visited Ypres or other battle sites you’ll appreciate that, with exposure to other pathogens and probably undernourished those soldiers of all nationalities would be very susceptible to a new variant of any pathological virus. Also, following the use of various gases on the battlefield would have left a significant number with damage to their respiratory tract, even with gas mask use. Thus there’s a significant reservoir of virus developing in 1918, which would reach the homelands of the combatants when they were demobbed between armistice in 1918 and the peace treaty in 1919. They would return to their crowded homes. You need to look at the social situation here in the U.K. at the time, for example it wasn’t until 1919 that the legislation that forced councils to provide social housing was enacted.
Perhaps you should write your own article covering the 'gaps' you criticise Clare for 'leaving out'.
That said, how can 'the gaps' be analysed when there is scant information or papers from which to make an informed conclusion.
Certainly there are records of the social conditions in the immediate post WWI period. The rate of rickets would show any vitamin D deficiency for example. It would be interesting to review death certificates from that period, if available of course, whether flu was the prime cause of death or whether it was secondary bacterial infections and where they lived. I think there were maps made of the deprivation in different areas of London completed by the Rowntree foundation. The situation in Russia would be more difficult to determine as records may have been lost in the 1917 revolution.
All I’m really saying is that context is everything and that it should be taken into consideration when postulating a situation that appears to be solely from a modern perspective. I am not saying that Clare is right or wrong in what she’s said, but it should be considered within the broader situation.
Read the article and look at the references.
I am not postulating from a modern perspective. It was called out at the time!
Well John... do it yourself so we can critique every nuance and sentence too.