1/ in XVII century then-modern medicine made childbirth a medical procedure, performed at hospital in standardized manner.
this made systematic one of the risks to the mother - death from "puerperal fever", a bacterial infection that thrived in the serially performed procedure.
2/ the form of the procedure & other hospital work, and the risks to the mother were back then broadly accepted by the medical community.
the risk to the mother was very high by today's standards:
3/ a hungarian doctor proposed in 1847 *washing hands* of the practitioners with an early form of antiseptic as practical way of reducing the risks of mortality to below 1%.
this was supported by his subsequent scientific work, and by observation of the results in the hospital.
4/ the medical community rejected the proposal and the findings, describing the doctor's findings and theories as "unscientific".
Virchow, an established authority of the day, lambasted the doctor.
5/ the whole thing reads as obvious to us... and yet the establishment reacted the way it reacted. they wanted to preserve the efficient, mass applied procedure and dreaded any findings the perceived as a "challenge" to it.
6/ the doctor, hounded and rejected as "bad science man", suffered and died prematurely at 47 years of age.
7/ only after Pasteur gave independent confirmation that germs are, in fact, a thing
the medical community turned slowly around and accepted the risk they themselves perpetuated through the procedure, reported for decades but hitherto ignored.
8/ what is the take-away?
be careful with the establishment in the medicine. they see a challenge in anything new that bubbles up. they also tend to believe everything *new* to be wrong until confirmed in triplicate.
correction of typo: in XVIII* century
PS/
correction of typo in the opening tweet:
in XVIII* (18) century then-modern medicine made childbirth a medical procedure, performed at hospital in standardized manner.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ rise of experts as symptom of breakdown of societal structures.
for subjects too large, or too long running for one person to reasonably observe, we used to have societal structures to hold memory and form opinions.
now that's offloaded onto experts for hire.
2/ we end up nonsense such as certain draconian measures in the pandemic, varying climate change predictions that always point to one and same solution, and topsy-turvy energy sector policy.
and we are told "only experts can form opinions on those".
3/ note that forcing whole society to act, expeditiously and laboriously, on plans that the society is not convinced to, is immoral and evil.
both directly, and also as creating structures & cultural norms for further such evils.
2/ we were told of dystopian future "corporations will oppress you in myriad ways". we were baited into giving governments extraordinary powers over corporations
every single thing came to pass - and it's the governments & their NGOs doing it. le pikachu shock face. and no neons
1/ in which @MrPrudentialist documents a particularly nasty example of
the progs baiting a new civil war
2/ the title: 100%
the progs won't stop until you follow their ever-changing rules to the T.
a good point about *language manipulation*, and dripping contempt
worth noting how calls for unity by the ruling elite are calls to *obey*.
3/ let's disagree a bit why my esteemed colleague:
>there's been a growing sentiments
>for some kind of national separation
with the blue tribe having a death grip on the comms and on the narrative-making, i surmise the sentiment is being *pumped* rather than grown organically.
1/ consider 4 right-wing powers:
- building a successful organization for your family and your tribe
- getting rich, passing that on
- leading people
- teaching & raising the next generation
those have been deeply undermined through progressive legislation and cultural artifacts
2/ in particular legislation that mandates you have to include blue-tribe people in your organization
- you can't simply pick anybody.
and the blue-tribe members get gov aid in dismantling (suing) your organization according to their own sensibilities (tilted playing field).
3/ you can't amass money for your own family & tribe, the gov redistributes it to *competing* others.