Skeptics are the bane of health and stand in the way of progress

May 28, 2026

1 View 0

SaveSavedRemoved 0

The high toll of deaths due to skeptics.

Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) was a Hungarian physician known as the “father of hand hygiene” who discovered in 1847 that mandatory handwashing with a chlorinated lime solution significantly reduced maternal mortality from child-bed fever. By forcing doctors to wash their hands after autopsies and before examining patients at the Vienna General Hospital, he dropped mortality rates from nearly 18% to under 2%.

Semmelweis observed in 1846, that the First Obstetrical Clinic (staffed by medical students) had a much higher mortality rate than the Second Clinic (staffed by midwives), and he hypothesized that medical staff carried “cadaverous particles” from autopsy rooms to mothers, causing fatal infections, because midwives did not perform autopsies. As a result, in May 1847, he instituted a policy requiring staff to wash their hands in a chlorinated lime solution to remove the putrid smell and the suspected “poison”. As a result, mortality rates in the first clinic fell by 90% (e.g., from 18.3% in April 1847 to 2.2% in June). Despite the evidence, his findings were met with hostility because they implied doctors were causing deaths. He was eventually ostracized and his findings were largely ignored. He later died in a mental asylum. His work is recognized as a pioneering, pre-germ-theory proof that antiseptic procedures can save lives.

Doctors were skeptical and refused to admit that they could be a major contributor to the death toll. They basically refused to accept the evidence because of their bias.

Semmelweis, however was not the first to practice hand washing as this was well known among midwifes and nurses as a routine. Florence Nightingale helped move the practice of handwashing forward as she intuitively improved hygiene in military hospitals during the Crimean war between 1853 and 1856 and after returning to the UK, set about revolutionizing nursing. It is reported that Nightingale influenced a new interest in household cleanliness as a goal that a good wife and mother needs to instill in her family,

Religious handwashing rituals have been around for thousands of years in Jewish, Islamic, and other cultures. Perhaps they knew something that doctors did not know or understand.

Then In 1857, while Semmelweis’s mental health declined, Louis Pasteur, of pasteurization fame, raised awareness of pathogens, and how to kill them with heat.

Twelve years after the trials run by Semmelweis and about 8 years after Florence Nightingale’s efforts in the Crimean war, and even 4 years after Pasteur exposure of pathogens, the US civil war started and approximately two-thirds of all U.S. Civil War deaths—roughly 400,000 to 500,000 men—were caused by infectious diseases exacerbated by poor hygiene and the lack of handwashing due to skepticism and refusal to accept responsibility. This was a result of massive skepticism of the medical profession and resistance to change by the medical profession.

Immediately following the US Civil War (1861–1865), American medical doctors largely did not practice routine hand washing between patients due to belief in miasmas over the possibilities of doctor to patient contact. This was the extended result of skepticism. but attitudes shifted rapidly toward acceptance of the practice during the 1870s and 1880s, however, handwashing by US doctors did not become a standard practice until the 1890’s.

This history presents a major reason why skeptics should never be trusted and only if they actually present substantial evidence to the contrary should their proposals be considered.

During and following this period, there was another medical event that also may have cause unnecessary deaths and suffering.

From THE MEDICAL BATTERY (1870-1930)

In contrast to electric belts and brushes, which were popular but shunned by the medical profession, the medical battery was regularly used by physicians who practiced electrotherapy. Early versions of the medical battery were hand-constructed by individual instrument makers in the 1850s and 1860s, largely in Boston and New York.

The medical battery—which came encased in a variety of nondescript oak, mahogany, walnut, and cherry wood boxes—was rather understated in appearance. Inside the wooden box, a battery was connected to a wire that was wrapped around an iron core, and a second wire—not connected to the battery or the first wire—was also wrapped around the iron core. When the battery was turned on, a direct current was produced in the first wire, thereby magnetizing the iron core. A variety of methods were used to pulse the direct current—causing rapid changes in the magnetic flux of the iron core, thereby inducing an alternating current in the second wire. Most medical batteries—which it should be emphasized, refer not just to the physical battery itself but the entire apparatus—provided the primary, direct current (which was referred to as “galvanic” current and came in pulses), the secondary, alternating current (often referred to as “faradic” current), or a combination of both. Even though most batteries provided both direct and alternating current, they were sometimes referred to as “faradic batteries.

The resulting signal was a pulse with a sharp leading edge rather than the true square wave of existing similar devices built using modern electronics the frequency and shape of which could be modified by controls on the unit.

A number of developments catapulted the medical battery into popularity in the 1880s and 1890s. First, methods of mass production allowed for the product to be cheaply produced en masse instead of being hand-built by instrument makers. Second, the advent of mail order catalogues facilitated the sale of medical batteries to consumers and physicians living in both urban and rural areas. Third, technological innovations helped make the medical battery a more appealing product: up until the 1890s, most medical batteries were of the wet-cell variety, which required the user to add a conductive fluid. By the early 1890s, medical battery manufacturers began to use dry cells that consisted of a paste rather than a wet solution—making the product more attractive, as there was less of a possibility of spilling or corrosion.

There was counted over 150 companies that sold their own brand of medical battery in the United States between 1870 and 1920, as well as over a hundred additional retailers that distributed these brands.

In the 1930’s, the medical industry took exception that these devices were being sold to the general public rather than only to the medical profession and it was not appreciated that this removed the power of doctors. As a result, manufactures were threatened with being charged with “Unlawful sale of medical devices without a license”. As medical purchases could not support even a single manufacturer, all companies stopped selling, including mail order catalogs, Rexall drug stores, Sears and Roebuck, Montgomery wards, and many others. There had even been a American Electrotherapeutic Association (AEA). The AEA created committees to test and review electrotherapeutic devices (such as medical batteries) and their components. Prior to each “test,” companies with credibility in the eyes of the committees were invited to submit their products for review. This testing gave credence to these devices but membership in the AEA declined to a new low by 1915, and by 1929 the organization been subsumed under the American Physical Therapy Association.

Some of this is from: “The Medical Battery in The United States (1870–1920): Electrotherapy at Home and in the Clinic by ANNA WEXLER”

The medical Electric Battery was a historical precursor to the “Hulda Clark Zapper” that was re-introduced in the early 1990’s, having the same purpose of improving health through the use of electric pulses although the zapper did produce a much cleaner square wave with a better harmonic representation.

This is a case today where skeptics are trying to deny a once accepted practice with verification of efficacy through a professional association that has never been proven wrong or shown as inaccurate. The only thing is that it stands in the way of medical profits.

Be sure to read this book on Cancer Alternatives and Nutrition to help you find the truth about cancer alternatives: