#semmelweis — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #semmelweis, aggregated by home.social.
-
Heat-up for doctors & curious minds! Dr. Nancy Malek ties Semmelweis' hand‑washing revolution to modern COVID myths and evidence-based care. A must-watch to help patients and challenge assumptions. #COVID #Medicine #PublicHealth #Semmelweis #EvidenceBased #Science #COVIDIsNotOver #Doctors #English
https://vid.zeroes.ca/videos/watch/a3f35871-fad0-4082-9eca-68006957fb97 -
Hier eine Doku über u.a. Ignaz #Semmelweis, den medizinischen Pionier des… Händewaschens vorm Entbinden. Ja, ihr lest richtig.
Noch nicht gesehen, aber ich gehe mal davon aus, den offensichtlichen Transfer zu #Corona und #Lufthygiene wird die Doku nicht geleistet haben. -
> In the month of March, 1848, the students and professors, including Clinical Assistant Semmelweis, were busy with the military affairs of the revolution, and the deliveries in the first clinic were left almost entirely to chance and the care of the head midwife. Under this policy of non-interference not a single death occurred in that month...
https://archive.org/details/b28978250/page/n1/mode/2up
#Semmelweis #SemmelweisBook #MidWives -
I'm taking a statistics class but keep going back to Data visualization. In a little Japanese book for understanding Statistics and probability there is a small "aside" column that mentions Semmelweis. That's what sparked my interest: Fascinating to think of his story compared to the stories of William Harvey and John Snow. Is it proximity to power(kings?) or information design that saves people that disturb current habits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_mortality_rates_of_puerperal_fever#Yearly_mortality_rates_for_birthgiving_women_1784%E2%80%931849
#Semmelweis #DataVis -
Of course there's an R repo:
> That the doctors didn't wash their hands increased the proportion of deaths by between 6.7 and 10 percentage points, according to a 95% confidence interval.. Semmelweis had solid evidence that handwashing was a simple but highly effective procedure that could save many lives.
> The tragedy is.. The medical community largely rejected his discovery and in 1849 he was forced to leave the Vienna General Hospital for good.
https://rpubs.com/Jennifer_L_Smith/Handwashing_Project
#Semmelweis -
The pandemic saw a ton of mask denialism and a big upswing in an already surging antivax movement. Now there seems to be more and more raw milk madness, and even "raw" (read dirty) water.
My question is what amazing health innovation will people start rejecting next? Will we see an anti handwashing movement soon?
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
A conversation.
“When experts disagree, usually the best thing to do is listen to what the majority of experts say. There’s no guarantee that they’re right, but they’re more likely right than wrong. And if the majority view is overturned, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be done by other experts in the field presenting evidence for the minority view, not by random kibitzers.”
“For the history buffs in here, while most scientific knowledge is advanced incrementally, the true breakthroughs are usually ridiculed by the reigning experts. That is why appeals to authority are the worst kind of logical fallacy for a scientist.”
“That’s the pop-history version of scientific progress. The actual #history of #science is very different. Kind of like the difference between ‘history buffs’ and historians.”
===
Yes, there are examples—a few—of genuine breakthroughs that were ridiculed by the scientific establishment of the day. I bet you know what they are, because everyone does. They laughed at #Semmelweis, they laughed at #Wegner, they laughed at Luis and Walter #Alvarez, they laughed at #Marshall and #Warren. These things happened.
But they did not laugh at #Galileo: indeed, they took his work with deadly seriousness. (And there really wasn’t any such thing as a “scientific establishment” at the time.) They did not laugh at #Newton, or #Watt, or #Darwin, or #Gibbs, or #Pasteur, or #Einstein, or #Curie, or #Heisenberg, or #Fisher, or #Watson and #Crick and poor unacknowledged #Franklin, or #Tharp and #Heezen, or #Ostrom and #Bakker, or #Hansen, or the vast majority of scientists whose work has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
At least if by “they” you mean scientists working in relevant fields, who understood the questions at hand … not, in most cases, scientists from other fields, or those with no scientific experience at all. Nor the religious and political ideologues who muddy the waters by creating fake “controversies” to cast doubt on results they know are true, but cannot accept.
In some cases they disagreed, quite vociferously. There were debates that descended into shouting matches, professional disagreements turned into personal feuds, once-eminent researchers become sad cranks, ruined careers and shortened lives. Yes. These things happened too, and that’s a tragedy.
But most of the time, most researchers in the same fields as the revolutionaries said, “Oh, that makes sense!” Problems that had seemed insoluble suddenly became simple, or at least it was possible to see how there might be an elegant solution. Major discoveries spawned a host of medium-sized ones, each of which in turn spawned endless minor ones—and endless minor papers, academic bread and butter for when you can’t get steak and lobster. Everyone wins.
Those ideologues I mentioned above? They really, really want you to believe the narrative of ridicule. You might want to consider why.
-
> Ignaz Semmelweis was another pioneer of disease transmission who was also initially ignored as having proposed things too radical for the establishment of the time to accept. Working in Vienna in 1847, he showed that handwashing greatly reduced deaths by childbed fever in a maternity clinic
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.13070#ina13070-bib-0003
#IgnazSemmelweis #Semmelweis #HandWashing #ChildBedFever -
> With the installation of 181 public mother wait homes where rural women spend the last two weeks of their pregnancies, maternal mortality has dropped by 67.7% and child mortality by 58.6% in 17 years.
#ChildMortality #MaternalMortality reminded me of #Semmelweis and got me guessing that #PovertyReduction deserves as much attention as Science, Scientific breaktrhoughs, or The Progress of Science, for lowering #MortalityRates ...
-
> Semmelweis was puzzled that puerperal fever was rare among women giving street births. "To me, it appeared logical that patients who experienced street births would become ill at least as frequently as those who delivered in the clinic. [...] What protected those who delivered outside the clinic from these destructive unknown endemic influences?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
#Semmelweis #IgnazSemmelweis #AntisepticPractice #PerperalFever -
Why won’t people wear #N95s despite the evidence? That’s the #Semmelweis effect. Semmelweis was the Hungarian doctor who discovered that if you washed your hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies, infant mortality drops immensely. But this conflicted with popular opinion at the time, and doctors refused to consider that their (in)actions were the cause of deaths. Semmelweis was sent to an insane asylum where he was beaten by the guards and died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
-
CW: Tod im Irrenhaus (nicht lustig)
Immer wenn jemand absolut der Wissenschaft vertraut, gar eine Art Diktat der Wissenschaft fordert, denke ich mit Grauen daran, wie der Erfinder des Händewaschens von seinen Kollegen als Nestbeschmutzer in den frühen Tod gemobbt wurde. (Danke @edithmair1 für die Erinnerung an den Geburtstag von Ignaz #Semmelweis.) https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
-
Semmelweis et la recherche de la cause de la fièvre puerpérale.
Un classique de l'épistémologie que j'essaie de présenter ici de manière synthétique.
https://eyssette.github.io/dialogues-sms/Semmelweis
#Semmelweis
#Épistémologie
#Philosophie
#Philodons
@philosophie