[Bored chemist]

Sometimes bleeding helps

When?

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

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 [nofollow]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

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.

[wolfekeeper]

Anyway, back to the original question, there's lots of things this could be, Cholera, Salmonela, Typhoid are some of the more common causes.

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

And Newcomen too got his inspiration from those before him, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Somerset,_2nd_Marquess_of_Worcester [nofollow]
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 [nofollow]
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".

[Bored chemist]

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

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

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 [nofollow]

Modern herbalists usually are crooks, degenerates and pseudo-traditionalists. But sometimes it's a only way to have treatment.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[YarSmirnov (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mrsmith2211]

Did some research, it correlates with a smallpox outbreak, so my guess smallpox.

[Bored chemist]

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.