3 ms·

joshstrange says>"We have been using it since 1955 and people take it regularly. The risks are largely known."< This. Actually "we" (the Western World) have b

joshstrange says>"We have been using it since 1955 and people take it regularly. The risks are largely known."< This. Actually "we" (the Western World) have been using it [quinine and variants] since the 17th century! And it is a fascinating story of political and medical intrigue and skill. Without quinine derived from the bark of the Peruvian cinchona tree, the British, Dutch et al could not have built their empires in malaria-infested regions of the world: "The global history of quinine, the world’s first anti-malaria drug": https://medium.com/@tcassauwers/the-global-history-of-the-world-s-first-anti-malaria-drug-d1e11f0ba729 https://medium.com/@tcassauwers/the-global-history-of-the-wo... There's are many books that discuss this history, among them: "The Miraculous Fever-Tree: Malaria, Medicine and the Cure that Changed the World" by Fiammetta Rocco https://www.amazon.com/Miraculous-Fever-Tree-Malaria-Medicine-Changed-ebook/dp/B0084WVECE https://www.amazon.com/Miraculous-Fever-Tree-Malaria-Medicin... "The Fever: How Malaria Has Ruled Humankind for 500,000 Years" by Sonia Shaw https://www.amazon.com/Fever-Malaria-Ruled-Humankind-Years-ebook/dp/B003R0LBT4 https://www.amazon.com/Fever-Malaria-Ruled-Humankind-Years-e... There was apparently as much anguish between rival groups (Roman Catholics vs. reformists) about cinchona bark (from which quinine was first extracted) in days gone by as there is today between Democrats and Republicans on the use of quinine's descendents, the sythetic drugs known as (hydroxy)chloroquines. It has been said that Oliver Cromwell's death of malaria in 1658 was a result of his refusal to take "Jesuit's bark" because of Protestant suspicion of anything associated with Roman Catholics. Similarly today, Democrats may choose to die refusing "the Trump cure" rather than accept the shame of admitting even the possibility that HCQ/CQ might actually work against Covid-19.

joshstrange 7y ago
Wow, that is utterly fascinating, I might have to grab one of those books. It’s not entirely surprising but I had not idea of all the history there. We really are doomed to repeat it. > Similarly today, Democrats may choose to die refusing "the Trump cure" rather than accept the shame of admitting even the possibility that HCQ/CQ might actually work against Covid-19. One of my biggest fears. Trump just latched on to any good news to try and rescue “the economy” but it just so happens it might turn out to be right. The longer they wait the worse the blowback and higher the death count. Swallow your pride and get more studies done on this! <he screamed into the void>
- giardini 7y ago
  Problems that divide people politically and religiously have dominate man's history, often subsuming all topics of discussion and slowing the development of science. Note the reference to "the arrogance of sects [and] the hatred of the parties" in the following paper, titled "Products of the Empire: Cinchona: a short history" (well worth reading) at: https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/royal-commonwealth-society/projects-exhibitions/products-empire-cinchona https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/royal-comm... " Despite “the promptness of its effect and its infallibility” which “made it suspect for such a long time”, according to Ignace Vincent Voullonne writing in the early 18th century, cinchona bark “finally triumphed over the multiple reproaches that were heaped upon it … by ignorance, prejudice, the arrogance of sects [and] the hatred of the parties.” The use of this “Popish powder” had elicited considerable religious prejudice because of its association with the Jesuits. As demand grew, however, lack of experience of the bark, uneven consignments, incorrect identification, and the frequent and deliberate pollution of the product by adding the bark of other trees, all ensured the argument over its value was kept alive well into the 19th century." Does anyone else see significant parallels to today's discussions of what should be done, what is best, who is in charge, who supplies what, etc. in regard to Covid-19 and it's potential cures and treatments? One might think we have made little progress as a society in the intervening centuries!

joshstrange 7y ago

Wow, that is utterly fascinating, I might have to grab one of those books. It’s not entirely surprising but I had not idea of all the history there. We really are doomed to repeat it. > Similarly today, Democrats may choose to die refusing "the Trump cure" rather than accept the shame of admitting even the possibility that HCQ/CQ might actually work against Covid-19. One of my biggest fears. Trump just latched on to any good news to try and rescue “the economy” but it just so happens it might turn out to be right. The longer they wait the worse the blowback and higher the death count. Swallow your pride and get more studies done on this! <he screamed into the void>

giardini 7y ago
Problems that divide people politically and religiously have dominate man's history, often subsuming all topics of discussion and slowing the development of science. Note the reference to "the arrogance of sects [and] the hatred of the parties" in the following paper, titled "Products of the Empire: Cinchona: a short history" (well worth reading) at: https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/royal-commonwealth-society/projects-exhibitions/products-empire-cinchona https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/royal-comm... " Despite “the promptness of its effect and its infallibility” which “made it suspect for such a long time”, according to Ignace Vincent Voullonne writing in the early 18th century, cinchona bark “finally triumphed over the multiple reproaches that were heaped upon it … by ignorance, prejudice, the arrogance of sects [and] the hatred of the parties.” The use of this “Popish powder” had elicited considerable religious prejudice because of its association with the Jesuits. As demand grew, however, lack of experience of the bark, uneven consignments, incorrect identification, and the frequent and deliberate pollution of the product by adding the bark of other trees, all ensured the argument over its value was kept alive well into the 19th century." Does anyone else see significant parallels to today's discussions of what should be done, what is best, who is in charge, who supplies what, etc. in regard to Covid-19 and it's potential cures and treatments? One might think we have made little progress as a society in the intervening centuries!