Following on from the developing scandal over autism treatments in Florida, Virology Journal has published a paper which is so ridiculous it makes the autism study seem like a Nobel prize candidate in comparison. The paper reports a case study by three paediatricians from Hong Kong who have discovered (at least in their tiny minds) the first recorded case of the flu. Unfortunately for science it wasn't in some archaeological dig or some previously forgotten tome, it was in the Bible.
The authors analyse the case of a woman laid up with a supposedly febrile illness which is documented in no less than three separate gospels. The authors then proceed to perform a differential diagnosis of the condition from the admittedly flimsy evidence. It's the analysis though that really cracks me up.
The doctors (I use the term very loosely here) open by saying that the analysis is difficult because there is only one symptom and no accurate quantification of the fever (what with the Fahrenheit scale not being invented until 1724). I guess in those days people had no word for "hot".
The first diseases that get knocked off the list are severe acute bacterial infections (i.e. septicaemia, endocarditis, E. Coli etc.). This is because the fever disappeared the moment Jesus placed his hand on the woman's forehead. So, Jesus had the ability to cure flu, leprosy, blindness and even death but not bacterial infections. I guess God didn't want to spoil the surprise of discovering antibiotics.
The next group to go are autoimmune diseases like SLE and sarcoidosis since the Bible doesn't mention a rash. Really? I'm shocked that such a thorough medical text like the Bible would leave out a conclusive list of symptoms and patient history for such an important case of miraculous bullshit.
Cancer is next to go, for the same reason as bacterial infections. Gee, Jesus must have had to do extensive research to figure out which patients he could miraculously heal and those he couldn't.
The paper then goes far out into lunatic country and discounts modern epidemic viruses such as SARS and avian flu based on the lack of details that would have been mentioned if they were present. It's really amazing how three Chinese doctors can divine the mindset of some writer 2000 years ago to identify which details he (or she) would have included or not. That level of mad skill would warrant a paper of its own, at least in this journal.
The final (I can't even bring myself to type disease) "condition" that the authors rule out is demonic possession. The following is the relevant part of the discussion which I have reproduced so we can all bask in the insanity:
One final consideration that one might have is whether the illness was inflicted by a demon or devil. The Bible always tells if an illness is caused by a demon or devil (Matthew 9:18-25, 12:22, 9:32-33; Mark 1:23-26, 5:1-15, 9:17-29; Luke 4:33-35, 8:27-35, 9:38-43, 11:14) [1]. The victims often had what sounded like a convulsion when the demon was cast out. In our index case, demonic influence is not stated, and the woman had no apparent convulsion or residual symptomatology.
Its funny that the authors gloss over the fact that they've just used the words demonic influence in a scientific paper. They seem to think that demonic influence is a perfectly reasonable diagnosis (although not in this case), which I suppose shouldn't surprise anyone given the overall tone of the paper.
All jokes aside, how did this paper get published? My theory is that the editor was either drunk, disgruntled or in a pranskter mood or all of the above, because no sane person could read this paper past the abstract without falling to the floor in fits of laughter (I know I did). If this is the level to which science has descended, then I'm off to burn my degree.
No comments:
Post a Comment