# How Did People Discovery Remedies for Ailments Before the Scientific Method? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810 "2011-06-09T01:17:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/21 "2011-06-09T14:32:26Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Three words: Cupping and bleeding. > > Useless, dangerous, fatal or extremely detrimental to the patient in an obvious or immediate way. Practiced for millennia. We could also add the concepts of promoting infection to produce beneficial pus and numerous other examples. > > Quite clearly treatments that were obviously dangerous and non-beneficial didn’t die out. Natural selection simply does not work on tradition unless there is competition, and there was no competition for these treatments. Fair data point. But I could counter that e.g. trepanning died out, presumably because of the danger of mortality of the patient. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/22 "2011-06-09T15:03:38Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Fair data point. But I could counter that e.g. trepanning died out, presumably because of the danger of mortality of the patient. I suspect it it went the same way as tattooing, ritual scarring, tooth extraction, circumcision and many other useless and obviously dangerous traditional “treatments”. IOW it simply fell out of favour in our society. Many other societies continued to practice all those things until quite recently, and many still do. Meanwhile in our society we replaced trephaning as a cure for mental illness with such techniques as beating madmen, starving them, straightjackets, excorsims, cupping and bleeding and a whole range of other techniques that were posed at least as high a risk of mortality and that were precisely as effective. These violent and dangerous treatments only fell out of favour in the past 200 years. And it wasn’t because doctors realised they were dangerous. It was because society advanced to the point that the public became aware of them and disgusted by it. I really can’t see any evidence that trephaning was abandonded for practical rather than cultural reasons. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/23 "2011-06-09T15:36:35Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > On what basis do you make this claim? Have you done the research? > > It seems to be [bordering on common knowledge](http://www.google.com/search?q=ancient+egypt+bread+penicillin+site:.edu&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns&ei=lFzwTbjSAYKkvgPKte23BA&start=0&sa=N&biw=1657&bih=868) that this was a practice of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. Penicillin is not used topically for wound treatment. I have found some records which show mouldy bread was used- but as **Blake** pointed out- along with other things. For example, your cite " \*_It also centered on the remedies used to fight the infection in his broken leg. According to a specialist in ancient Egyptian medicine on the show, they would have spread honey on the wound and then placed moldy bread similar to pita on top (like penicillin). Bacteria and other harmful things cannot grow in honey so that would have prevented or treated most of the infection; depending on the availability of honey this could have either been easy or difficult to obtain. The moldy bread would have been easy to acquire as long as they had access to bread_" \*The honey actually works, in some cases, but it would have completely blocked any possibility of the chance penicillin mold getting into the wound. And, altho _Penicillium_ is a common mold, only a couple versions of it have any use as a antibiotic, and those are very rare. There are millions of molds, the chance of getting a useful strain of Penicillium is unlikely, and the chance of a topical apllication doing much is even more unlikely. Of course, other molds do have antibiotic effects. Oddly bread is not a good place to find _Penicillium chrysogenum_. The strain that was first found to be effective was discoved on a cantalope. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/24 "2011-06-10T00:49:34Z")
I can’t find it, but IIRC there was a fairly recent thread about a study evaluating some large number of traditional herbal remedies and not one was found to work. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/25 "2011-06-10T03:10:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Can you provide any evidence for this claim? How did you determine that it is too common to be a few lucky hits? > > What percentage of plants contain potentially beneficial bioactive compounds without being overtly toxic (I guess around 90%). “It is estimated that today, plant materials are present in, or have provided the models for 50% Western drugs (Robbers 1996).” [Evidence.](http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1999/v4-457.html) > [@Blake](#): > > What percentage were used to treat illness? (I guess around 100%). > > What percentage were used to treat multiple illnesses? (I guess around 100%). There are over 320,000 _known_ species of plants, and most biologists think quite a few have gone extinct since before they started keeping track, and that countless others still remain undiscovered. Based on those numbers I think both of your guesses above are wildly inaccurate. Since you are asking me to provide evidence for my basically common-knowledge assertion that many drugs have their origins in plants I would ask the same of you. Please provide some evidence that all 321,000 known species of plants have been used in attempted treatments of illness. > [@Blake](#): > > Based on those figures wouldn’t you expect quite a few botanicals to have some beneficial effect on the diseases they were prescribed for by random chance? Based on wildly inaccurate guesses I might expect anything. If you have evidence that the figures in your guesses are even remotely accurate then please provide it and I will take another look at the question. > [@Blake](#): > > Again, I would like to see some evidence that this is true. Animals eat all sorts of things all the time. I don’t even know how you would go about determining that animals eat things in response to their disease. For example, do animals without the disease never eat the material in question? Someone used the example of dogs eating grass, but my dogs eat grass all the time, an they are almost never ill when they do so. I mentioned that dogs are commonly known (again commonly to a majority of dog owners - your own experience notwithstanding) to seek out specific grass, and / or plants when they specifically have indigestion, to the exclusion of other grasses and plants. I also provided cites for monkeys who have learned to eat charcoal to cure indigestion from cyanide poisoning, and a tree in Tanzania that both chimpanzees and humans eat the leaves from to cure parasitic infections. That is evidence. There are of course many, many more examples but I will leave that to you as an exercise of your own to google and read them. I consider this to be common knowledge to the extent that cites shouldn’t even really be needed for us to accept the basic premise of the OP; that enough old remedies and plant based medicines did pan out to be effective under modern science that it poses an interesting question: how did they zero in on them without modern science? I don’t want to derail the thread in a protracted debate about whether or not they did. The OP believes they did, I do too, there is abundant evidence that they did. I added to the discussion that animals are still doing the same thing today guided by what basically could only be described as instinct. Citing examples of 100 failed ideas doesn’t change that basic assertion - but it does cut the OP off at the knees and prevent it from ever getting the discussion some might think it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/26 "2011-06-10T03:26:13Z")
I am a highly experienced dog owner. I say dogs eating grass to cure digestive problems is bunk. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/27 "2011-06-10T03:52:44Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I am a highly experienced dog owner. I say dogs eating grass to cure digestive problems is bunk. The statement isn’t ‘dogs eat grass because they have digestive problems’ the statement is ‘dogs seek out specific grass or plants when they have indigestion’. Specifically, they seem to pick a plant or grass that will make them throw up. If you as an experienced dog owner have never witnessed this I am surprised. But I don’t want to belabor that point when it has little bearing on the overall subject. Monkeys crush leaves and rub them on their fur to repel parasites, elephants trek dozens of miles out of their way to reach a specific type of clay that cures their belly aches. As I mentioned, monkeys that have too much cyanide in their diet from leaves and seeds turn to charcoal (as did emergency room doctors and poison control centers). There is no lack of evidence on the subject in general with simple google searches. So splitting hairs about the dog/grass example is a waste of time. I’m sorry I mentioned it and I retract the statement that it is ‘common knowledge’ among dog owners even though it is pretty simple to google for it and find many discussions, including here, on the subject where many would beg to differ. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/28 "2011-06-10T04:08:45Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > “It is estimated that today, plant materials are present in, or have provided the models for 50% Western drugs (Robbers 1996).” [Evidence.](http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1999/v4-457.html) Umm, I may disagree with **Blake** from time to time, but he really know his shit here. There is a HUGE difference between "_present in, or have provided the models for"_ and actually usable as a medicinal herb as is. Willow bark is the example I mentioned upstream- indeed it is the origin of aspirin. But Willow bark is pretty damn useless as a medicinal herb due to _severe_ side effects, ones worse than the cure. Many plant medicines are like that- there is a active ingrediant that is useful, but not in the native form, nor can primitive technologies have hoped to get anything useful. No amount of tinkering in a alchemical lab would have helped with Willow bark, no way to get usable acetylsalicylic acid from Willow bark as is. There were a few of course=quinine from the cinchona, morphine & codeine from the poppy, and digoxin from the foxglove. There’s a number of others but in general, the amount of “medical herbs” known from pre-modern medicine days that are actually useful (without horrible side effects) are small. No doubt we have found thousands of plants that do have some uses- but only after we have removed the toxins, or concentrated the active ingriedants so you don’t have to eat a bushel to get any benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/29 "2011-06-10T04:19:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Umm, I may disagree with **Blake** from time to time, but he really know his shit here. > > There is a HUGE difference between "_present in, or have provided the models for"_ and actually usable as a medicinal herb as is. Willow bark is the example I mentioned upstream- indeed it is the origin of aspirin. But Willow bark is pretty damn useless as a medicinal herb due to _severe_ side effects, ones worse than the cure. Many plant medicines are like that- there is a active ingrediant that is useful, but not in the native form, nor can primitive technologies have hoped to get anything useful. No amount of tinkering in a alchemical lab would have helped with Willow bark, no way to get usable acetylsalicylic acid from Willow bark as is. That isn’t completely correct. Willow bark was not AS effective as purified aspirin but the fact that people discovered that chewing it cures fever and inflammation and aches and pains is exactly what the OP is asking about. How did those people, who have been chewing willow bark to cure their fevers since a known time of 400 BC, know to try willow bark? It was real medicine for real ailments. And there are 321,000 species of plants out there. Dumb luck? Trial and Error? Maybe instinct. That is the question at hand. Listing a thousand other stupid medical practices through the ages that turned out to be stupid doesn’t offer a legitimate counter argument to the assertion in the OP. People who were chewing willow bark when they had a headache and wanted it to go away existed and there were a lot of plants to choose from. I don’t claim to have the answer I merely argue that it is in fact a legitimate question. > [@DrDeth](#): > > There were a few of course=quinine from the cinchona, morphine & codeine from the poppy, and digoxin from the foxglove. There’s a number of others but in general, the amount of “medical herbs” known from pre-modern medicine days that are actually useful (without horrible side effects) are small. No doubt we have found thousands of plants that do have some uses- but only after we have removed the toxins, or concentrated the active ingriedants so you don’t have to eat a bushel to get any benefit. But those compounds and the willow bark, etc. led to the isolation of the pure and far more useful extracts because crude and less-effective though they might have been, people and animals WERE already gnawing on the barks and chewing the leaves, of those plants specifically, to cure the very symptoms that the refined versions are used for today. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/30 "2011-06-10T04:27:06Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > That isn’t completely correct. Willow bark was not AS effective as purified aspirin but the fact that people discovered that chewing it cures fever and inflammation and aches and pains is exactly what the OP is asking about. How did those people, who have been chewing willow bark to cure their fevers since a known time of 400 BC, know to try willow bark? It was real medicine for real ailments. I never said willow bark did not help cure headaches, I said it tore up your gut so bad that the cure was worse than the problem. In other words, the side effects were so bad it was more or less useless as is. Nor did willow bark actually lead to aspirin. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/31 "2011-06-10T04:43:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I never said willow bark did not help cure headaches, I said it tore up your gut so bad that the cure was worse than the problem. In other words, the side effects were so bad it was more or less useless as is. Nor did willow bark actually lead to aspirin. From [The Science Behind Aspirin](http://www.creatingtechnology.org/biomed/aspirin.htm) > [@](#): > > Willow bark made its way into scientific literature in 1763 through the work of English vicar Edmund Stone. It had been among folk remedies of rural workers. Stone decided to pick it out for study because he believed that remedies came in the vicinity of ailments and observed that both willows and fevers occurred commonly in swampy areas. [snip] In 1828, German pharmacologists isolated from willow bark a yellow bitter crystal, which they called salicin. Swiss pharmacologists isolated a similar substance from meadowsweet. Ten years later, French chemists synthesized salicylic acid. Physicians administered the two compounds to patients, whose symptoms they observed and whose urine they analyzed. They found that taking both compounds reduced rheumatic fever, and salicin was transformed in the body to salicylic acid. Based on the observations, they identified salicylic acid as the active medicinal ingredient responsible for willow bark’s efficacy in relieving pain and fever. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/32 "2011-06-10T05:28:18Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > “It is estimated that today, plant materials are present in, or have provided the models for 50% Western drugs (Robbers 1996).” Which goes no way at all towards answering the question I asked. I asked what percentage of plants contain potentially beneficial bioactive compounds without being overtly toxic. I did not ask what percentage of drugs use plant materials. The two concepts are utterly unrelated. If just 1% of plants contained bioactive compounds it is still possible that 50% of drugs would be botanically based. Conversely if 100% of plants contain bioactive compounds it is possible that only none of them would be used in medicine So you have managed to totally evade the question asked. > [@](#): > > There are over 320,000 _known_ species of plants, and most biologists think quite a few have gone extinct since before they started keeping track, and that countless others still remain undiscovered. Based on those numbers I think both of your guesses above are wildly inaccurate. What relevance do those numbers have to the question I asked? I asked what percentage of those plants that contain bioactive compounds have been used to treat illness. I did not ask how many species of plants there are. > [@](#): > > Since you are asking me to provide evidence for my basically common-knowledge assertion that many drugs have their origins in plants I never asked you that at all. I asked you to provide evidence for you assertion that the medicinal effectiveness of quack cures is is too common to be a few lucky hits. You have been unable to provide any evidence at all for that assertion, and so we can dismiss it as ignorant nonsense. At no stage in this thread have I or anyone else contested that many drugs have their origins in plants. Your claim to the contrary is a blatant strawman. But it does highlight how ignorant your position is. > [@](#): > > Please provide some evidence that all 321,000 known species of plants have been used in attempted treatments of illness. Since I never made any such claim, I can;t quite see why I should provide evidence for it. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I mentioned that dogs are commonly known (again commonly to a majority of dog owners - your own experience notwithstanding) to seek out specific grass, and / or plants when they specifically have indigestion, to the exclusion of other grasses and plants. Let’s start with the basics here. Please provide evidence that this is “commonly known”. > [@](#): > > I also provided cites for monkeys who have learned to eat charcoal to cure indigestion from cyanide poisoning, and a tree in Tanzania that both chimpanzees and humans eat the leaves from to cure parasitic infections. That is evidence. No, it isn’t. Monkeys also eat dirt, carrion, birds eggs and several thousand other species of plants. When you have some evidence that monkeys without parasites do not eat that particular plant, then you will have some evidence. Until then all you have is new age woo-woo.00 > [@](#): > > There are of course many, many more examples but I will leave that to you as an exercise of your own to google and read them. There is evidence, but we have to find it ourselves. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I consider this to be common knowledge to the extent that cites shouldn’t even really be needed… Let’s assume it is “common klnowldge”. It is common knowledge that the moon landing was faked and that crystals heal injuries. Should we also believe those things? Or do you now begin to understand why “common knowledge” worthless in evaluating the truth of a belief? > [@](#): > > I don’t want to derail the thread in a protracted debate about whether or not they did. So you want us to explain why the Kennedy administration faked the moon landings, and you don’t want to derail the thread in a protracted debate about whether or not they did. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The OP believes they did, I do too, there is abundant evidence that they did. Then show us any of this evidence. Any at all. Not evidence that many of the plants people eat have bioactive ingredients. Actual evidence that they work any better than random cures. > [@](#): > > I added to the discussion that animals are still doing the same thing today guided by what basically could only be described as instinct. You,made that claim, with no evidence to support it. > [@](#): > > Citing examples of 100 failed ideas doesn’t change that basic assertion Yes, it does. > [@](#): > > - but it does cut the OP off at the knees and prevent it from ever getting the discussion some might think it deserves. This is the forum for factual answer supported by evidence. If you want to discuss fantasy concepts without being bothered by pesky requests for evidence, go to IMHO. No need for facts over there. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/33 "2011-06-10T05:31:08Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > From [The Science Behind Aspirin](http://www.creatingtechnology.org/biomed/aspirin.htm) Which in no way addresses the point Dr Deth was making. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/34 "2011-06-10T05:47:20Z")
There is no strawman here. Although I do detect a basic misunderstanding. You quoted me as saying: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Crazyhorse** > quite a few modern medicines do have their origins in plant based compounds that were discovered because people and/or animals, using absolutely no scientific method or controlled studies, had already been self-medicating themselves with them since before written history and finding success. And it is far too common to be realistically considered a few lucky hits. and to that you replied: > [@Blake](#): > > Can you provide any evidence for this claim? How did you determine that it is too common to be a few lucky hits? > > What percentage of plants contain potentially beneficial bioactive compounds without being overtly toxic (I guess around 90%). > > What percentage were used to treat illness? (I guess around 100%). > > What percentage were used to treat multiple illnesses? (I guess around 100%). I took your request for evidence to be directed to my quoted statement “quite a few modern medicines do have their origins in plant based compounds” and not the second-half about it being too many to just be dumb luck. When you said “What percentage were used to treat illness? (I guess around 100%).\*\*” \*\*I took that to mean of all plants in general. In other words I thought you were saying you believed that 100% of all plants have been used in attempts to cure illness. Points taken. The points you are presenting still have nothing to do with the OP. Despite everything you have said it is still factual and easily proven that people and animals have found quite a few remedies in plants and other sources and they found them before they had tried out nearly all 321,000 of them. We have already named 5 or 6 here and there are many more to be found with simple searches. That is support for the statement that it seems improbable to have been sheer dumb luck. I back that opinion with the absolute solid evidence of animals finding natural cures for themselves that have proven chemical basis. I never said or indicated that any of your arguments in the matter were ignorant. Just mostly irrelevant to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/35 "2011-06-10T05:50:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Which in no way addresses the point Dr Deth was making. What it addresses, which I guess is an unpopular passtime in this thread, is the OP. Imagine he was asking purely about willow bark and nothing else. How did they know? How did they guess? Did the first guy just walk up and slice of a piece of bark and chew it and noticed his rheumatic fever wasn’t as bad? All I am trying to say, and I apologize if you took unintended offense, is that your arguments about ridiculous medical treatments of the past served little purpose other than to negate the premise of the OP which, I beg to differ with you, is a legitimate question. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/36 "2011-06-10T06:15:07Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > The points you are presenting still have nothing to do with the OP. The points I have been addressing are in fact the central premise of the OP. > [@](#): > > … is still factual and easily proven that people and animals have found quite a few remedies in plants and other sources and they found them before they had tried out nearly all 321,000 of them. Since nobody has suggested that any person or animal even had access to all 321,000 species, this is a blatant strawman. > [@](#): > > We have already named 5 or 6 here and there are many more to be found with simple searches. You have asserted this 5 or 6 times, without providing any evidence to substantiate the claim beyond “it is common knowledge”. And I have asked you 5 or 6 times to provide this evidence. And you have refused 5 or 6 times > [@](#): > > That is support for the statement that it seems improbable to have been sheer dumb luck. No, it does not support that statement at all. Once again: How many cures would these people have found if it had been sheer dumb luck? How many ineffective cures would they have found if it were not pure dumb luck? Are those numbers statistically higher or lower than the numbers that they did find? Please show the working you used to calculate these probabilities If you cannot do that then your assertions are baseless and support nothing. > [@](#): > > I back that opinion with the absolute solid evidence of animals finding natural cures for themselves that have proven chemical basis. For the third time, please provide evidence that animals that have an ailment use these “cures” more frequently than animals that do not. You keep making this claim that they do so, and I keep asking you to show us the evidence, and you keep weaseling away from it. Of course if ailing animals don’t eat these plants any more frequently than healthy animals, then in fact it is not being used as a cure at all. It is simply a normal part of the diet. > [@](#): > > I never said or indicated that any of your arguments in the matter were ignorant. Just mostly irrelevant to the OP. And as I just said, these points are central to the premise of the OP. You are trying to argue the reasons why Kennedy faked the moonlanding, based on the fact that it is commonly known that the moonlandings were faked. We are asking you to provide evidence that the moonlanding were faked at all. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/37 "2011-06-10T06:24:49Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > What it addresses, which I guess is an unpopular passtime in this thread, is the OP. If it is adressing the op, then you are being dishonest by quoting Dr Deth when you make the statement. That implies that it addresses Dr Deth’s point, when you now admit that it does not. Really not acceptable behaviour. > [@](#): > > Imagine he was asking purely about willow bark and nothing else. How did they know? How did they guess? Did the first guy just walk up and slice of a piece of bark and chew it and noticed his rheumatic fever wasn’t as bad? People tried all sorts of remedies. The guy might have tried a boiled frog or the urine from a clerk. In other parts of the world people did use those things as their quack cures. In that part of the world the quack cure happened to be willow bark, by pure dumb luck. And there is no evidence that the use of willow bark does assist in curing rheumatic fever. Purified salicylic acid works, but do you have any evidence at all that willow bark is useful at all? When you can produce evidence that willow bark does provide a cure for rheumatic fever, and when you can provide evidence that the use of willow bark occurs at a higher rate than we would expect by random chance, then you have some basis for discussion. Until then you are trying to answer why Kennedy faked the moon landings without actually establishing that he did fake the moon landings. > [@](#): > > All I am trying to say, and I apologize if you took unintended offense, is that your arguments about ridiculous medical treatments of the past served little purpose other than to negate the premise of the OP which, I beg to differ with you, is a legitimate question. And many people believe that the reasons why Kennedy faked the moon landings is a legitimate question. On this board, dedicated to fighting ignorance, in this forum, for factual answers, negating such questions is the whole point of our participation. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/38 "2011-06-10T06:28:02Z")
The links I have already provided serve the purpose of establishing there is a basis for the OP. This is GQ not Great Debates. The OP acknowledges that many folk remedies did not stand up to the tests of modern science, but that “some did”. For the purposes of the question it doesn’t matter how many “some” is. As long as there is even 1, the question could be discussed in the spirit it was asked. To step in and say “none of them ever did, case closed” is threadshitting. That is cutting the OP off at the knees. I have provided cites in almost all my posts that do provide enough basis to discuss the OP. The OP also never asked about animal remedies. I just added that to the discussion as a possible parallel to how early humans may have done it. The link I provided about the chimpanzees and humans in Tanzania eating the leaves of a particular tree when, and only when, they get intestinal parasites is a cite that you request over and over, yet I have already provided it. The leaves are described as revolting, they are not in either species normal diet, and both seek them out when they get a certain parasite. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/39 "2011-06-10T06:56:13Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > The links I have already provided serve the purpose of establishing there is a basis for the OP. No, they don’t > [@](#): > > For the purposes of the question it doesn’t matter how many “some” is. That is in fact the central point. If “some” is less than random chance, then the phenomenon simply does not exist. > [@](#): > > As long as there is even 1, the question could be discussed in the spirit it was asked. And we are discussing that, by pointing out that the discoveries were the result of random chance and the users did not even know if they worked. That is the answer to the question: pure, dumb luck. > [@](#): > > To step in and say “none of them ever did, case closed” is threadshitting. That is cutting the OP off at the knees. :rolleyes: Yes, just like when someone asked why Kennedy faked the moon landing, and the whoel board stepped in and pointed out that the moon landings were not faked. That was threadshitting too, right? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I have provided cites in almost all my posts that do provide enough basis to discuss the OP. No, you did not. > [@](#): > > The OP also never asked about animal remedies. I just added that to the discussion as a possible parallel to how early humans may have done it. And there is no more evidence for the animal remedies than for the human ones. > [@](#): > > The link I provided about the chimpanzees and humans in Tanzania eating the leaves of a particular tree when, and only when, they get intestinal parasites The link you provided never says that. One person claims that the plant is "is eaten… often in small amounts, by chimps that \*appear \*ill. No evidence is provided to support such a claim, no objective basis for illness is given nor any objective basis that chimps that appear ill are more likely to eat this plant as opposed to any other. Most importantly it does not say that it is eaten by chimps with helminth parasites, merely chimps that appear ill. So I still await the evidence that chimps that are ill eat this at a statistically higher frequency than chimps that are not ill. > [@](#): > > The leaves are described as revolting, they are not in either species normal diet, and both seek them out when they get a certain parasite. Please provide evidence for this claim that chimps “seek them out when they get a certain parasite”. Because the link you provided makes no such claim. It makes a baseless claim that chimps that appear ill may eat them ore frequently, but never links that to any specific cause of illness. Note that the article also states explcitely that “it is not certain that healthy animals never eat the leaves”. So I await the evidence for this claim. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810/40 "2011-06-10T07:01:46Z")
[The adaptive significance of self-medication](http://darwin.biology.utah.edu/pubshtml/PDF-Files/17.pdf) (PDF document) > [@](#): > > Kodiak bears chew the root of Ligusticum, spit the resulting mixture of saliva and juice onto their paws and rub it thoroughly into their fur. This behavior may serve a medicinal function as suggested by the fact that Ligusticum is routinely used by humans against viral and bacterial infections. In fact, Navajo Indians consider it to be among their most important medicinal plants and, according to Navajo legend, it was the bear that taught the Navajos to use the root and informed them of its medicinal powers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-people-discovery-remedies-for-ailments-before-the-scientific-method/584810.md?page=3)