This article, “The History of Medicine is Sown with Remarkable Achievements, But Also of Illusions That Vanished as Sand Castles,” is a compelling piece that critiques the often overhyped promises of medical advancements. It captivates readers from its opening statement to its concluding advice.
The author skillfully uses a series of examples to illustrate the recurring pattern of medical innovations that fail to live up to their initial fanfare. From the ill-fated inhaled insulin, Exubera, to the disappointing results of Alzheimer’s medications and the modest effectiveness of minoxidil, the article highlights how initial enthusiasm can overshadow a more sober assessment of a drug’s true utility. The removal of cerivastatin due to severe side effects and the overblown claims for tamiflu during the 2009 flu pandemic further solidify this point.
The article delves into the psychological and societal reasons behind this phenomenon, suggesting that modern science has acquired an almost religious authority, making its pronouncements seem immune to doubt. The author quotes Paul Valéry to emphasize that science’s power is human, not magical, and that we grant it its authority.
In a timely call to action, the article advocates for a return to the Hippocratic spirit of observation, patience, and a healthy distrust of the new until it has stood the test of time. It warns against the temptations of immediacy, technocracy, and spectacularity in medicine, urging a focus on real utility over mere statistical efficacy. The author stresses that medicine is a discipline of caution, where experiance trumps fleeting trends, and that forgetting this risks turning patients into test subjects and professionals into uncritical disseminators of novelty.
The piece concludes with a powerful reminder that not all that glitters in the pharmaceutical world is gold, and that marketing can frequently enough be disguised by a veneer of scientific authority. The final piece of advice, a regional saying implying resignation when things go wrong, serves as a stark and memorable warning against the potential pitfalls of unchecked enthusiasm in medical innovation.
the article is a thought-provoking and well-supported argument for prudence and critical evaluation in the face of medical progress, leaving the reader with a clear understanding of the ancient context and a strong call for a more grounded approach.
