12 ms·
To take a devil's advocate to that, there's not a lot of evidence that much of modern medicine is that helpful. I read about a study where people were given hea
by Houshalter 11y ago
To take a devil's advocate to that, there's not a lot of evidence that much of modern medicine is that helpful. I read about a study where people were given health insurance didn't do better than those without it, even though they went to the doctor far more, got better treatments earlier, etc. Another study that most surgeries weren't better than placebo surgeries. And we don't even test surgical placebos yet. And then another study that a significant portion of deaths were due to hospital errors.
Of course that's ignoring that there is a lot of medicine that obviously does work and is great. No one is going to dispute that antibiotics are literally the greatest thing ever, or that insulin saves tons of diabetics, or that cancer treatment has saved a lot of lives. On the other hand some things we do are quite horrible, like keeping old people alive long past the point it's worth it. Or not cryogenically preserving everyone because it's "weird".
- scottlocklin 11y agoGreat book on the history of pre-antibiotic medicine is "Devils, Drugs and Doctors" by Howard Haggard, available online here: http://www.unz.org/Pub/HaggardHoward-1929 http://www.unz.org/Pub/HaggardHoward-1929 As I recall, you could boil down medical progress up to the publication date as "discovery of germs" as in "washing hands," "cleaning things," "vaccination," "isolate people with plague from the well" and "don't drink water you pooped in" -and the discovery of anesthesia, which made complex surgery possible. I'd say antibiotics is the main further improvement.