Does it count if I bit the inside of my cheek by mistake?
Would you let me taste the blood from the wound? A caress against a cheek exploring tracing a wandering wondering path a single finger tip of a hovering hand, seeking the slight flinch seen in the eyes. Lips to lips, a probing tongue finds the point, a bit of flesh away the fingertip found. A bit more salt and iron, a bit more.
Is this an R that I’m not N-ing or are you just being really weird?
I think i’ve heard that.
And what is the value of knowing that? Most scientific knowledge has intrinsic value, but this is different for obvious reasons.
And it seems scientifically compromised as well as morally compromised.
We can’t verify it, and it’s created by nazis.
How representative is the test population ?
I don’t think it would give any deep insight into the functioning of the human body. I don’t think it would be of much health benefit. At best, It is just a curiosity.
Well the article I read they’d interviewed a doctor who was researching how to treat hypothermia. That has intrinsic value.
IANAD, but it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to think that having a deep understanding of hypothermia’s affects on the body would lead to a better understanding of the best way to treat it.
I imagine it’s also somewhat useful when conducting a search & rescue mission in dangerous conditions to have some understanding of when you’re no longer realistically searching for survivors but are instead searching for remains. Rescuers would probably take less risks when it gets to the point where you can be pretty confident that’s the situation.
I don’t exactly know about that last paragraph… that’s something that I made up that seems like it would probably be true.
Oh and my recollection was that yeah, the data is chock full of holes. They put people outside, I think some with wool coats and some without, and they noted the weather conditions (temperature, wind, precipitation) and their body temperatures every so often and recorded when they died.
I don’t think they came close to capturing every possible variable (age and size and health being material big ones) in every possible range of conditions.
But since that missing data will [hopefully] never, ever be collected other than a few by pure tragic chance (these 7 skiers got lost on the side of the mountain and when rescuers got to them 16 hours later those 3 had died and these other 4 were still alive and in such-and-such condition) it is basically all there is to go on.
And doctors and scientists can use what is there and make reasonable inferences. Is it perfect? Not even close. But it can still provide meaningful insight.
I believe that what exists is considered accurate. The Nazis committed many atrocities, of course, and I hesitate to say anything even faintly positive about them. But my understanding is that they were, in fact, pretty good at record-keeping.
that is what makes holocaust deniers so absurd, the nazis and Germans never denied it and have the proof
I think this is important. It’s not nearly to clear to me this is true. But i don’t know that much about it. I agree that depending on the answer to this, using the data might be the right thing. That is a good example.
I really don’t know a lot about the arguments made by Holocaust deniers.
Are they saying the whole thing was a hoax made up by the Allied Powers or are they conceding that it happened but on a much smaller scale (not 11 million dead but perhaps only a few thousand who legitimately were prisoners / criminals) or are they saying that it happened but it wasn’t the Nazis?
Or something else?
Any of those arguments are absurd… just wondering which one they’re advancing.
I thought it was generally accepted in life, including in medicine, that having a deeper understanding of the problem leads to better insight into how to reduce or eliminate the problem.
It seems like a better source of data for this would be how people have responded to treatments.
I don’t necessarily see how knowing the time it takes for a person to freeze to death gives insight into treatment, unless that treatment is getting them out of the cold.
Some of the “research” done was just sadists exercising their power. Some was real research with useful results, that couldn’t have been done if they gave a shit about the people – especially from Japan. The question isn’t, “should we bend over backwards to use this information?” The question is, to the extent the data from immoral experiments IS useful, should we use it, or should we ignore it due to its source?
I think that people contract hypothermia at a slow enough rate that using historical data has uses.
And while it’s certainly useful to see how people respond to treatments, when you’re trying to brainstorm a new and different treatment, it’s probably good to have a good understanding of what it is that you’re treating.
You know cancer researchers study cancer before randomly injecting drugs into people and seeing how they respond. AIDS researchers study AIDS. etc.
If you disagree then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Do we have an reason to believe nazi scientists did bad science? Scientists are scientists imo. If anything, I’d think nazi scientists were top-notch since they were encouraged to innovate and make discoveries. North Korea scientists are probably just as legit as any other scientists, I mean, they haven’t detonated a nuclear bomb on themselves yet.
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume everyone is doing great stuff. There is loads of bad “science” that gets published.
I don’t so much disagree as i’m skeptical of it. But i do appreciate your comments.
Maybe. Honesty is critical for science. Scientific research is deeply personal and human, even if evaluation of it’s results must be impersonal and objective. And these particular scientists, who did not simply happen to be German, were clearly personally compromised given the experiments they did.