Does it count if I bit the inside of my cheek by mistake?
2 Likes
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.
Uh, what?
Is this an R that Iâm not N-ing or are you just being really weird?
2 Likes
I think iâve 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 canât verify it, and itâs created by nazis.
How representative is the test population ?
I donât think it would give any deep insight into the functioning of the human body. I donât think it would be of much health benefit. At best, It is just a curiosity.
Well the article I read theyâd interviewed a doctor who was researching how to treat hypothermia. That has intrinsic value.
IANAD, but it doesnât seem like too much of a stretch to think that having a deep understanding of hypothermiaâs affects on the body would lead to a better understanding of the best way to treat it.
I imagine itâs also somewhat useful when conducting a search & rescue mission in dangerous conditions to have some understanding of when youâre 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 thatâs the situation.
I donât exactly know about that last paragraph⌠thatâs 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 donât 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
2 Likes
I think this is important. Itâs not nearly to clear to me this is true. But i donât 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 donât 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 wasnât the Nazis?
Or something else?
Any of those arguments are absurd⌠just wondering which one theyâre advancing.
the scale.
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 donât 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 âresearchâ done was just sadists exercising their power. Some was real research with useful results, that couldnât have been done if they gave a shit about the people â especially from Japan. The question isnât, âshould we bend over backwards to use this information?â 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?
2 Likes
I think that people contract hypothermia at a slow enough rate that using historical data has uses.
And while itâs certainly useful to see how people respond to treatments, when youâre trying to brainstorm a new and different treatment, itâs probably good to have a good understanding of what it is that youâre 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 weâll just have to agree to disagree.
Do we have an reason to believe nazi scientists did bad science? Scientists are scientists imo. If anything, Iâd 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 havenât detonated a nuclear bomb on themselves yet.
I wouldnât be so quick to assume everyone is doing great stuff. There is loads of bad âscienceâ that gets published.
I donât so much disagree as iâm 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 itâs 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.