Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: YarSmirnov on 11/01/2018 10:38:30
-
There was an Epidemia in Gallia at 580 year, described by Gregory de Tour:
"A very grievous plague followed these prodigies for while the kings were quarreling and again preparing for civil war, dysentery seized upon nearly the whole of the Gauls. The sufferers had a high feverh with vomiting and excessive pain in the kidneys; the head and neck were heavy. Their expectorations were of a saffron color or at least green. It was asserted by many that it was a secret poison. The common people called it internal pimples and this is not incredible, seeing that when cupping glasses were placed on the shoulders or legs mattery places formed and broke and the corrupted blood ran out and many were cured. Moreover herbs that are used to cure poisons were drunk and helped a good many. This sickness began in the month of August and seized upon the little ones and laid them on their beds. We lost dear sweet children whom we nursed on our knees or carried in our arms and nourished with attentive care, feeding them with our own hand. But wiping away our tears we say with the blessed Job: "The Lord has given; the Lord has taken away; the Lord's will has been done. Blessed be his name through the ages."
One of historians said, that it was Anthrax. I very doubt in it. What is your opinion - what was infection agent of it?
-
Original Latin text:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi12.pixs.ru%2Fstorage%2F6%2F2%2F9%2FScreenshot_3230713_28957629.png&hash=6513ab216ffb591a8672c40f4ef503ee)
-
Sounds like a bad influenza maybe.
-
Sounds like a bad influenza maybe.
Influenza at August?
-
It's entirely possible that several diseases were running riot at the same time.
They said " herbs that are used to cure poisons were drunk and helped a good many. " but realistically, there are no herbs that reliably treat poisoning, so you can't draw any conclusion from that.
-
It's entirely possible that several diseases were running riot at the same time.
They said " herbs that are used to cure poisons were drunk and helped a good many. " but realistically, there are no herbs that reliably treat poisoning, so you can't draw any conclusion from that.
I don't know what herbs exactly were used there, but usually it were:
Hypericum (activator of CYP-enzimes), Melissa officinalis (anti-spastic), Chamaemelon romana, Achilléa, Plantago (Anti-hemorrhagic and antiseptic), Inula (antiseptic and analgetic).
-
It's entirely possible that several diseases were running riot at the same time.
They said " herbs that are used to cure poisons were drunk and helped a good many. " but realistically, there are no herbs that reliably treat poisoning, so you can't draw any conclusion from that.
I don't know what herbs exactly were used there, but usually it were:
Hypericum (activator of CYP-enzimes), Melissa officinalis (anti-spastic), Chamaemelon romana, Achilléa, Plantago (Anti-hemorrhagic and antiseptic), Inula (antiseptic and analgetic).
Yes, but they are of (at best) very limited efficacy.
Most of the "healing" attributed to the herbs was actually the body's defences- notably the liver in terms of destroying toxins) and the placebo effect.
So, what they are saying is
" a bunch of herbs that were marginal in terms of treating toxicity were also marginal in therms of this plague".
You can't read a lot into that in terms of diagnosis.
If they had said "there was a plague of aching swollen feet, and Autumn Crocus did wonders for it then it would be reasonable to deduce that they might have had a plague of gout. but the talk of "herbs" is just too non-specific.
-
[quote author=YarSmirnov
So, what they are saying is
" a bunch of herbs that were marginal in terms of treating toxicity were also marginal in therms of this plague".
You can't read a lot into that in terms of diagnosis.
I think, we can read it as argument "contra" for versions of the Justinian Plague and Anthrax.
If they had said "there was a plague of aching swollen feet, and Autumn Crocus did wonders for it then it would be reasonable to deduce that they might have had a plague of gout. but the talk of "herbs" is just too non-specific.
Sure. But if they had so, there was no need in the discussion. Only what we can say that there was less or more effective herbal treatment of this disease, so it was not intestinal form of Anthrax.
-
I think, we can read it as argument "contra" for versions of the Justinian Plague and Anthrax.
I don't (though I don't think it was anthrax)
If the herbs really do little or nothing for the conditions they are "prescribed" for, but people think they do then those same people will think the herbs helped whatever the plague is- whether they help or not.
At the risk of starting an entirely different argument, it's like saying
"We offered the prayers we use for poisoning, and the patients got better so it must have been poison".
(and, just to avoid the pointless argument- it doesn't matter if God intercedes or not in this case)
-
I don't (though I don't think it was anthrax)
Ok.
If the herbs really do little or nothing for the conditions they are "prescribed" for, but people think they do then those same people will think the herbs helped whatever the plague is- whether they help or not.
At the risk of starting an entirely different argument, it's like saying
"We offered the prayers we use for poisoning, and the patients got better so it must have been poison".
Actually many Medieval sources wrote that neither herbs nor prayers were effective against Anthrax or the Plague.
Another moment is that some herbs (like Antropa Belladonna) can be very effective against poisoning with organophosphorus compound's (like Vx-gases) or amatoxins from "death cap".
-
There's little support for most herbs as a remedy for anything and as far as I understand it, no reason to think belladonna will help you if you eat death caps.
There are some specific cases- belladonna might be of use against something. like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physostigma_venenosum
But the idea of a plant that's "generally good against poisons" doesn't make much sense- not even via activation of the cytochrome enzymes because those tend to be activated by most poisons anyway.
Unfortunately, I don't think the written records from the time are going to tell us what this contagion was.
-
There's little support for most herbs as a remedy for anything and as far as I understand it, no reason to think belladonna will help you if you eat death caps.
Athropa Belladonna contains athropin and athropin is antidote against Organophosphorus compaunds and Amatoxins from "death cap".
But the idea of a plant that's "generally good against poisons" doesn't make much sense- not even via activation of the cytochrome enzymes because those tend to be activated by most poisons anyway.
Of course, it's depends from kind of poison. But non-specific detoxic therapy also can be provided (when you have nothing better).
Unfortunately, I don't think the written records from the time are going to tell us what this contagion was.
May be. May be not. Let's wait for other opinions. Anyway - thanks for interesting discussion.
-
There was a time when belladonna- or more reliably, atropine was suggested as an antidote to fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) poisoning.
However
(1) it contains a bunch of other toxins rather than Amatoxins an
(2) it's no longer recommended therapy for fly agaric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria#Treatment
There is a suggestion that milk thistle might work against death cap poisoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amatoxin#Treatment
but I suspect that's just "we are desperate- try anything- it can't do any harm".
-
Sounds like a bad influenza maybe.
Influenza at August?
Actually, yes, although northern countries like Europe or southern countries like Australia have flu seasons which correspond to winter, in the tropics, where they don't really have winter, flu tends to circulate year around.
So alas! You can't escape flu by simply going somewhere hot and sunny!
Influenza doesn't rigidly bother with a fixed schedule, and nobody knows why it usually follows these schedules.
Incidentally, i shouldn't necessarily get too hung up about the 'herbs were given'. It's fantastically unlikely that they did proper double blind tests and it's easy to get false positives on thinking something worked.
-
Actually, yes, although northern countries like Europe or southern countries like Australia have flu seasons which correspond to winter, in the tropics, where they don't really have winter, flu tends to circulate year around.
Gallia is not tropical country.
So alas! You can't escape flu by simply going somewhere hot and sunny!
But we can escape flu with low density of population and it's low mobility. As it was in Medieval times. BTW, when was first recorded epidemia of the flu?
Incidentally, i shouldn't necessarily get too hung up about the 'herbs were given'. It's fantastically unlikely that they did proper double blind tests and it's easy to get false positives on thinking something worked.
There are no need in proper double blind test in case of highly effective or highly ineffective treatment.
-
But we can escape flu with low density of population and it's low mobility. As it was in Medieval times.
Population density in Medieval times was low on an absolute measure, but large areas of the country were unoccupied or extremely low density whereas the majority of the population lived in fairly dense hamlets and village communities in extremely insanitary conditions.
There was also much more local and overseas trade than people realise. The Black Death travelled from Asia via the major trade route - silk road - to Europe, albeit slowly.
-
There are no need in proper double blind test in case of highly effective or highly ineffective treatment.
You are half right.
A really successful treatment doesn't need double blind testing.
But the world is littered with totally ineffective, or even dangerous, ones like prayer, homeopathy blood letting an so on.
The fact is that the sick people will have been treated with "the usual herbs", prayer, Aunt Elsie's chicken soup (it never fails), Uncle George's "lucky" rabbits foot and anything else they could think of.
The pathogen will have remained blissfully unaware of, and unaffected by, all of these.
Trying to work out what that pathogen was on the basis of looking at what ineffectual treatments were given to the lucky ones whose immune system actually killed the bug is just not science.
-
Trying to work out what that pathogen was on the basis of looking at what ineffectual treatments were given to the lucky ones whose immune system actually killed the bug is just not science.
We know, that it was not anything 100% deadly. For example, it was not intestinal form of the Anthrax, because even with a good modern antibiotics and other drugs death rate is more than 50%. Without effective treatment (and there was no effective anti-Anthrax treatment in the Medieval times) death rate was near 100%.
-
There are no need in proper double blind test in case of highly effective or highly ineffective treatment.
That's why you can't buy homeopathic treatments in any pharmacy, and people don't swear by accupuncture, reflexology, and why leaches or bleeding was never used in medieval times for entirely inappropriate conditions.
Oh.. wait.
-
That's why you can't buy homeopathic treatments in any pharmacy, and people don't swear by accupuncture, reflexology, and why leaches or bleeding was never used in medieval times for entirely inappropriate conditions.
Sometimes bleeding helps, sometimes bleeding kills. To understand effecience of bleeding we need medical research.
But opium always kill pain, tea almost always stimulate activity. It is something that we can feel by our self's.
Bleeding, tea, prayer, opium, "decoctum corticis Quercus" - all of this is absolutely ineffective against deep wounds of abdomen, plague, Anthrax or leprosy. And it was also well known in Medieval times.
-
Sometimes bleeding helps
When?
-
When?
For example, at pulmonary edema, heart failure, polycythemia, some other illnesses.
Yes, usually modern drugs or methods of treatment are more effective, but in medieval times bleeding was cheapest and most reliable way to decrease blood pressure.
-
When?
For example, at pulmonary edema, heart failure, polycythemia, some other illnesses.
Yes, usually modern drugs or methods of treatment are more effective, but in medieval times bleeding was cheapest and most reliable way to decrease blood pressure.
And did they restrict the use of bleeding to "pulmonary edema, heart failure, polycythemia, [those] other illnesses. "
No, they didn't.
So, the fact that one thing they used as a treatment was sometimes useful - but usually harmful- shows that they didn't actually know what they were doing.
You do know why they thought blood letting worked, don't you?
It was based on this - which is nonsense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
And a lot of herbal "medicine" was based on the same trash.
-
And did they restrict the use of bleeding to "pulmonary edema, heart failure, polycythemia, [those] other illnesses. "
No, they didn't.
So, the fact that one thing they used as a treatment was sometimes useful - but usually harmful- shows that they didn't actually know what they were doing.
You do know why they thought blood letting worked, don't you?
It was based on this - which is nonsense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
And a lot of herbal "medicine" was based on the same trash.
Sure. And a first steam engines were created based on the "Phlogiston theory". Practical work and a theory are different things.
-
And did they restrict the use of bleeding to "pulmonary edema, heart failure, polycythemia, [those] other illnesses. "
No, they didn't.
So, the fact that one thing they used as a treatment was sometimes useful - but usually harmful- shows that they didn't actually know what they were doing.
You do know why they thought blood letting worked, don't you?
It was based on this - which is nonsense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
And a lot of herbal "medicine" was based on the same trash.
Sure. And a first steam engines were created based on the "Phlogiston theory". Practical work and a theory are different things.
In the very real sense that James Watt looked at his kettle and thought "that's Phlogiston".
There's another issue. The theory was brought in to try to explain actual phenomena.
Whereas the astrological significance of flowering time never explained anything.
-
In the very real sense that James Watt looked at his kettle and thought "that's Phlogiston".
Actually he looked at "fire engine" of Thomas Newcomen.
There's another issue. The theory was brought in to try to explain actual phenomena.
Whereas the astrological significance of flowering time never explained anything.
Sometimes theory can be used for explanations, because even wrong explanations give to us illusion of control. But sometimes, there are no need in explanations - natural calendar can be good enough for hunters and early farmers even without explanations.
-
Anyway, back to the original question, there's lots of things this could be, Cholera, Salmonela, Typhoid are some of the more common causes.
-
Anyway, back to the original question, there's lots of things this could be, Cholera, Salmonela, Typhoid are some of the more common causes.
Ok. In Medieval there were only two types of abdomen illnesses known - diarrhea and dysenteria. All diseases, that have obligatory diarrhea - like Cholera and Salmonela - had no chances to be called as "dysenteria" by educated writer. So, it was not Cholera or Salmonela.
Typhoid is more likely, but in 580-year epidemia vomiting was usual, and in typical Typhoid is unusual. Also, there was "pain in rens" unusual for Typhoid. Another argument (not very strong, of course) "contra" is big territory of sinchoronic outbreak - it was not one river or other source of a water supply.
-
In the very real sense that James Watt looked at his kettle and thought "that's Phlogiston".
Actually he looked at "fire engine" of Thomas Newcomen.
There's another issue. The theory was brought in to try to explain actual phenomena.
Whereas the astrological significance of flowering time never explained anything.
Sometimes theory can be used for explanations, because even wrong explanations give to us illusion of control. But sometimes, there are no need in explanations - natural calendar can be good enough for hunters and early farmers even without explanations.
And Newcomen too got his inspiration from those before him, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Somerset,_2nd_Marquess_of_Worcester
who published a book on steam engines in 1663
And the phlogiston theory was published in 1667
Are you saying they had time travel in the 17th century, or do you accept that the built the engines based on observations of what happened when you boiled water, rather than on some theory that hadn't been invented yet?
Anyway, the point is that the 4 humours theory never really worked for anything, nor did astrology .
If they found a plant that actually achieved something in some disease states it was by luck.
Most of what they did was nonsense- you can still read it today
Stuff like this
http://www.complete-herbal.com/culpepper/comfrey.htm
You can see their ability to observe is just fine- in the description of the plant.
But they lose the plot when it comes to the plant's effect- which they decide, not on the basis of finding out what it actually did but on this " This is an herb of Saturn, and I suppose under the sign Capricorn, cold, dry, and earthy in quality. "
No mention, alas, of the hepatotoxicity.
-
And Newcomen too got his inspiration from those before him, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Somerset,_2nd_Marquess_of_Worcester
who published a book on steam engines in 1663
And the phlogiston theory was published in 1667
Are you saying they had time travel in the 17th century, or do you accept that the built the engines based on observations of what happened when you boiled water, rather than on some theory that hadn't been invented yet?
Sure. Usually practical work is first, and a theory just try to explain facts and help in the discovering future facts. But for the practical work of improving steam engines "flogiston theory" was good enough as "four humours theory" was good enough for practical work of improving medieval medicine (for some period, of course). It gave illusion of control and understanding.
Anyway, the point is that the 4 humours theory never really worked for anything, nor did astrology .
If they found a plant that actually achieved something in some disease states it was by luck.
Sure. First - they search for effective plants, then - try to explain why they are effective. Modern methods, of course, are much more effective, but basis is same - "search-explanation-new search".
Most of what they did was nonsense- you can still read it today
First of all, it was written to be "nonsense" for profanes. C
Stuff like this
http://www.complete-herbal.com/culpepper/comfrey.htm
You can see their ability to observe is just fine- in the description of the plant.
But they lose the plot when it comes to the plant's effect- which they decide, not on the basis of finding out what it actually did but on this " This is an herb of Saturn, and I suppose under the sign Capricorn, cold, dry, and earthy in quality. "
No mention, alas, of the hepatotoxicity.
I'm sure, that at the XXII centure term "hepatotoxity" will be also nonsense. "Real scientist should describe what enzymes are blocked and what structures are affected".
-
as "four humours theory" was good enough for practical work of improving medieval medicine
No.
The improvements happened in spite of the "theory", not because of it.
Sure. First - they search for effective plants, then - try to explain why they are effective.
And then they assume that all plants which meet the criterion of, for example, flowering under the dominion of Saturn will be good for treating the same conditions.
But they are not.
And the problem is that they ignored the evidence of their own eyes, and followed the dogma.
That's what I mean by medicine progressing in spite of the idea, rather than because of it.
"First of all, it was written to be "nonsense" for profanes. C"
It's still nonsense whether you understand it or not. (That's actually quite an unusual state of affairs)
I'm sure, that at the XXII centure term "hepatotoxity" will be also nonsense. "Real scientist should describe what enzymes are blocked and what structures are affected".
I think it's unfair to assume that people in the 22nd century will be too foolish to understand what was meant.
I didn't bother to say (because it's irrelevant detail) that the pyrrolizidine alkaloids present- for examples lasiocarpine and Symphytine are toxic.
Specifically they cause Hepatic veno-occlusive disease via metabolism to toxic pyrroles which damage both the blood vessels and the hepatocytes (there's no particular enzyme inhibition responsible so I doubt our 22nd C friends would invent one as you have).
Obviously, I could have said all that.
The point is that I'm not saying "Ragwort causes hepatotoxicity because it has yellow flowers and liver damage makes you turn yellow; comfrey flowers are blue so it can't damage the liver". That's the sort of thing the herbalists would have said because they believed this sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_signatures
-
No.
The improvements happened in spite of the "theory", not because of it.
Can you demonstrate example of a better progress in medicine in the countries without this (or other) bad theory?
And then they assume that all plants which meet the criterion of, for example, flowering under the dominion of Saturn will be good for treating the same conditions.
But they are not.
And the problem is that they ignored the evidence of their own eyes, and followed the dogma.
That's what I mean by medicine progressing in spite of the idea, rather than because of it.
Can you demonstrate any examples? I can remember only treatment of "powder poisoning" with boiled oil.
But also I can remember different ways of treatment of firearms wounds in British and American Armies.
Yanks preffer to use intravenouse drips "as soon as possible" to prevent traumatic shock. Brits preffer not to use them until permanent bleeding stop - to preffer increasing of bleeding. Both ways are based on scientific theories, and one of them is wrong.
I think it's unfair to assume that people in the 22nd century will be too foolish to understand what was meant.
Why not? Many of modern men don't know what was "dysenteria" in the Medieval meaning.
I didn't bother to say (because it's irrelevant detail) that the pyrrolizidine alkaloids present- for examples lasiocarpine and Symphytine are toxic.
Specifically they cause Hepatic veno-occlusive disease via metabolism to toxic pyrroles which damage both the blood vessels and the hepatocytes (there's no particular enzyme inhibition responsible so I doubt our 22nd C friends would invent one as you have).
Sure. It can be irrelevant detail right now for the practical needs of treatment. But for XXII century joining lasiocarpine and, for example, C-Cl_4 in one "hepatotoxic" group, will be wierd as joining in one "dysenteria" group appendicitis and colon cancer.
Obviously, I could have said all that.
Sure. But you can not say what is lethal dose of lasiocarpine for John (suffering with hepatitis A) or for the pregnant Marie.
The point is that I'm not saying "Ragwort causes hepatotoxicity because it has yellow flowers and liver damage makes you turn yellow; comfrey flowers are blue so it can't damage the liver". That's the sort of thing the herbalists would have said because they believed this sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_signatures
Modern herbalists usually are crooks, degenerates and pseudo-traditionalists. But sometimes it's a only way to have treatment.
-
Both ways are based on scientific theories,
No.
If it was scientific, someone would have tested the two suggestions and found which was best.
I didn't say medicine had got rid of all the dogma yet.
Why not? Many of modern men don't know what was "dysenteria" in the Medieval meaning.
It only really needs one who does...
"But for XXII century joining lasiocarpine and, for example, C-Cl_4 in one "hepatotoxic" group, will be wierd as joining in one "dysenteria" group appendicitis and colon cancer."
No more so than saying that both the sky and copper sulphate (pentahydrate) are blue. It's a description, not a name.
But you can not say what is lethal dose of lasiocarpine for John (suffering with hepatitis A) or for the pregnant Marie.
How fortunate, then, that nobody asked.
That may be because it's irrelevant to the discussion.
-
No.
If it was scientific, someone would have tested the two suggestions and found which was best.
Both ways were practically tested in all military conflicts since Vietnam war, but both sides think, that their way is right.
How fortunate, then, that nobody asked.
In Medieval times Chemists were, first of all, poisoners.
-
It's like swimming in treacle...
OK
No.
If it was scientific, someone would have tested the two suggestions properly and found which was best.
"In Medieval times Chemists were, first of all, poisoners."
Nope, they were, pretty much definitively trying to make base metals into gold.
Though it's not clear that the word "chemist" got much use until the very end of the medieval period.
It was the doctors and apothecaries who poisoned people. :-)
But it was a nice attempt to draw attention away from your strawman attack.
Sadly it hasn't worked.
-
Did some research, it correlates with a smallpox outbreak, so my guess smallpox.
-
Did some research, it correlates with a smallpox outbreak, so my guess smallpox.
I have a feeling that even the medieval quacks would have noticed the spots.