5 ms·

Medicine: Radium Drinks (1932)

18 points by dgudkov 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago
...And this is why people should be wary of unconsolidated novelties. That of radium drinks (and toothpaste etc.) is one of the examples some use against the idea of embracing lightly what we do not fully know.
09bjb 5y ago
Neomania is dangerous. New things are usually not fully understood, and what we understand about them is usually asymmetric: the upsides are generally obvious and occur in the near term, and the downsides are generally poorly understood and take a while to become apparent. The history of science is absolutely littered with examples of this in nearly every applied field.
- ars 5y ago
  Next time the kids don't eat their vegetables or some new dish you cooked, we'll point them to this comment and tell them it's perfectly appropriate and safe to behave that way. :)
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Yes, even cooking requires competence and tradition - food and nutritional science exist for a reason. Scott Adams joked about "a diet entirely made of cheese". If the kids don't trust your dish, get the feedback and work on building trust. (Consolidated vegetables are not neomania.)
- PKop 5y ago
  This is exactly the argument against blindly trusting an experimental vaccine that hasn't gone through long term testing, whose possible long term downsides are unknown, especially for those whose risk from Covid are so minuscule (young, not overweight or other comorbities). But this prudent and nuanced view is drowned out by the neomania to trust the science...
  - frazbin 5y ago
    yeah I can understand that-- mRNA vaccines are really cool, and my inclination at the moment is to think that they're safer than traditional vaccines, but they are new. I can respect not wanting to use a new therapy-- but it seems to me that that's no reason to remain unvaccinated: vaccine therapies for covid-19 that rely on tried-and-true technology are available. Seems worthwhile to make use of them, same way we make use of the flu shot, shingles vaccine, chicken pox shot, tetanus, pertussis, polio.. did you know that most people who get polio don't get particularly sick? It only paralyzes a small fraction of those infected. Folks went ahead and got vaccinated though.
  - atleta 5y ago
    It's not experimental and it's not 100% unknown or new. Scientists do know a lot about long term effects of vaccines in general, though of course, not about these specific COVID vaccines. The thing a lot of people overlook is that we also don't have knowledge about the long term downsides of the virus infection. (And there is some overlap between what's in the virus and what's in the vaccine...) Also, the size of the group for whom the risk is miniscule (less than the expected risks from the vaccine, even the estimated but unknown long term ones) is not that big. The covid vaccines are by no means an example of "neomania". The experts are well aware of the trade offs and the uncertainties. But you have to compare the probabilities of the two choices that you have. (Most people aren't aware that they are basically making a choice of getting vaccinated or contracting the desease. Yes, you can get infected if you are vaccinated too.)
    - PKop 5y ago
      >it's not 100% unknown What does this mean? Can you quantify how much of the long term effects are unknown? >though of course, not about these specific COVID vaccines These specific Covid vaccines are of course what I'm talking about, so reference to other things that aren't these is a non sequitur. I think we have a pretty good idea at this point (if you pay attention to the declining effectiveness of the vaccine to immunize against Covid as time goes on, thus "boosters") that Covid is something everyone is eventually going to get. That natural immunity, if any, is the end-game. And so in this context, the upside of the vaccine is even smaller, while the unknown downside remains. Whatever you want to say about the size of the cohort that has no comorbidity risk and are in, say, 40s and below age brackets, the point is, especially if they are maintaining good fitness levels and lower body fat levels (which should have been advised for everyone if we really wanted to be honest about the threat and mitigations) they have a perfectly legitimate risk/reward reason to avoid the vaccine.
- atleta 5y ago
  Well, let's add that in this case there was nothing scientific behind this 'therapy'. The quack medication was produced by a medical school dropout (and then the poor patient over consumed the otherwise dangerous and poisonous substance) [1] The history of science may be littered with similar examples, but we see less and less of them. And also let's not forget what your other option is. Sometimes it's simple, you just don't use the new thing and lose little. You don't have to use the newest cell phone or car. Sometimes you have to make a compromise. E.g. when talking about medications to potentially life limiting conditions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > we see less and less of them Can you justify this statement?
chefkoch 5y ago
NSFW link of the story showing Byers with his jaw fallen off. https://historyofyesterday.com/eben-byers-the-man-who-drank-radioactive-water-until-his-jaw-fell-off-d2634336b504 https://historyofyesterday.com/eben-byers-the-man-who-drank-...
- jrlocke 5y ago
  Let me just say that if you think you may not want to view the image, you don't want to view the image.

18 points by dgudkov 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago

...And this is why people should be wary of unconsolidated novelties. That of radium drinks (and toothpaste etc.) is one of the examples some use against the idea of embracing lightly what we do not fully know.

09bjb 5y ago

Neomania is dangerous. New things are usually not fully understood, and what we understand about them is usually asymmetric: the upsides are generally obvious and occur in the near term, and the downsides are generally poorly understood and take a while to become apparent. The history of science is absolutely littered with examples of this in nearly every applied field.

ars 5y ago
Next time the kids don't eat their vegetables or some new dish you cooked, we'll point them to this comment and tell them it's perfectly appropriate and safe to behave that way. :)
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Yes, even cooking requires competence and tradition - food and nutritional science exist for a reason. Scott Adams joked about "a diet entirely made of cheese". If the kids don't trust your dish, get the feedback and work on building trust. (Consolidated vegetables are not neomania.)
PKop 5y ago
This is exactly the argument against blindly trusting an experimental vaccine that hasn't gone through long term testing, whose possible long term downsides are unknown, especially for those whose risk from Covid are so minuscule (young, not overweight or other comorbities). But this prudent and nuanced view is drowned out by the neomania to trust the science...
- frazbin 5y ago
  yeah I can understand that-- mRNA vaccines are really cool, and my inclination at the moment is to think that they're safer than traditional vaccines, but they are new. I can respect not wanting to use a new therapy-- but it seems to me that that's no reason to remain unvaccinated: vaccine therapies for covid-19 that rely on tried-and-true technology are available. Seems worthwhile to make use of them, same way we make use of the flu shot, shingles vaccine, chicken pox shot, tetanus, pertussis, polio.. did you know that most people who get polio don't get particularly sick? It only paralyzes a small fraction of those infected. Folks went ahead and got vaccinated though.
- atleta 5y ago
  It's not experimental and it's not 100% unknown or new. Scientists do know a lot about long term effects of vaccines in general, though of course, not about these specific COVID vaccines. The thing a lot of people overlook is that we also don't have knowledge about the long term downsides of the virus infection. (And there is some overlap between what's in the virus and what's in the vaccine...) Also, the size of the group for whom the risk is miniscule (less than the expected risks from the vaccine, even the estimated but unknown long term ones) is not that big. The covid vaccines are by no means an example of "neomania". The experts are well aware of the trade offs and the uncertainties. But you have to compare the probabilities of the two choices that you have. (Most people aren't aware that they are basically making a choice of getting vaccinated or contracting the desease. Yes, you can get infected if you are vaccinated too.)
  - PKop 5y ago
    >it's not 100% unknown What does this mean? Can you quantify how much of the long term effects are unknown? >though of course, not about these specific COVID vaccines These specific Covid vaccines are of course what I'm talking about, so reference to other things that aren't these is a non sequitur. I think we have a pretty good idea at this point (if you pay attention to the declining effectiveness of the vaccine to immunize against Covid as time goes on, thus "boosters") that Covid is something everyone is eventually going to get. That natural immunity, if any, is the end-game. And so in this context, the upside of the vaccine is even smaller, while the unknown downside remains. Whatever you want to say about the size of the cohort that has no comorbidity risk and are in, say, 40s and below age brackets, the point is, especially if they are maintaining good fitness levels and lower body fat levels (which should have been advised for everyone if we really wanted to be honest about the threat and mitigations) they have a perfectly legitimate risk/reward reason to avoid the vaccine.
atleta 5y ago
Well, let's add that in this case there was nothing scientific behind this 'therapy'. The quack medication was produced by a medical school dropout (and then the poor patient over consumed the otherwise dangerous and poisonous substance) [1] The history of science may be littered with similar examples, but we see less and less of them. And also let's not forget what your other option is. Sometimes it's simple, you just don't use the new thing and lose little. You don't have to use the newest cell phone or car. Sometimes you have to make a compromise. E.g. when talking about medications to potentially life limiting conditions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > we see less and less of them Can you justify this statement?

chefkoch 5y ago

NSFW link of the story showing Byers with his jaw fallen off. https://historyofyesterday.com/eben-byers-the-man-who-drank-radioactive-water-until-his-jaw-fell-off-d2634336b504 https://historyofyesterday.com/eben-byers-the-man-who-drank-...

jrlocke 5y ago
Let me just say that if you think you may not want to view the image, you don't want to view the image.