Talk:Charles Darwin's illness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

If anyone wishes to do further research I suggest this would be one of the most current sources of information and from a knowledgeable source:

Colp R., To be an invalid, redux. J Hist Biol. 1998 Summer;31(2):211-40 .


An anonymous user is consistently defacing Charles Darwin's illness article with lots of irrelevant material copied directly from creationism sites. I have put a NPOV warning on the article because of this and wil submit it to a vote in the community if he insists. He is turning a previously well-balanced and medical view into a rambling of religion and science which I find that cannot fit well in the article. --R.Sabbatini 20:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


re: the above complaint regarding my research and contribution to this article

I believe I have submitted a substantial amount of peer reviewed material at this board (JAMA, The American Journal of Medicine, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, etc. ) and offered material/studies which I believe offered insight in regards to the etiology of panic disorder. I also submitted historical research from sources like http://www.aboutdarwin.com in order to clear up some historical inaccuracies (For example, Darwin was never a member of the clergy). Lastly, I have no wish to get into a lengthy argument with the above person and barring any new revelations from the above Colp article I cited above and a Lancet article which may offer further illumination, I likely am done with my research at this point. I hope Wikipedia members find my material informative and helpful in gaining understanding in regards to Darwin's illness. 7/21/2005

Important Addendum

I wish to clarify my position vis a vis some medical/science journals. It will help the above reader understand why it is important to know the personal case history of Darwin in regards to the period where he states he has emotional doubt regarding the validity of his evolutionary position and also give some background information in regards to Darwin.


Darwin's sickness as reported in The American Journal of Medicine

According to the article "The Illness of Charles Darwin" by William B. Bean in the September 1978 publication of the American Journal of Medicine rarely did a day go by where Darwin did not have in "many degrees of severity and many combinations" the following medical symptoms: nausea, severe vomiting, flatulence, alimentary canal pain, various forms of eruption of the skin, and nervous exhaustion.

Dr. Bean also noted the following symptoms obtained from a Darwin letter:

"My nervous system began to be so affected so that my hands trembled and my head was often swimming".

Dr. Bean quotes from another Darwin letter the following symptoms:

"involuntary twitching of the muscle...fainting feeling - black spots before the eyes."

Dr. Bean wrote in his article that Darwin suffered from "psychoneurosis provoked and exaggerated by his evolutionary ideas". Dr. Bean also wrote that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facismile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment."

Lastly, some have claimed that Darwin got Chagas disease in South America. Dr. Bean dismisses the diagnosis of Chagras disease for Darwin's illness which has been attributed for Darwin's illness and due to the following reasons: no other member of the Beagle crew had symptoms of Chagras disease, "infection with T cruzi occurs not from a bite but contamination of a bite with excreta" and Darwin had "numerous partial exacerbations and remissions that would be unusual in the case of Chagras disease".


Darwin's illness and a Royal Society Article

The Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the UK. It should be noted that in the abstract for the January 1997 article, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, D. A. B. Young, "Darwin's illness and systemic lupus erythematosus" (for the full article see: Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 1997 Jan;51(1):77-86) it states that today the psychogenic view of Darwin's sickness "holds the field" . Also, the abstract stated that D. A. B. Young noted subsequent to AW Woodruff's work showing that Darwin did not likely have chagas disease, the chagas view finds little support. Even the leading proponent of Chagas disease, Dr. Saul Adler, stated that Darwin may have suffered both from chagas diseas and from "an innate or acquired neurosis" (see subsequent discussion of Chagas disease).


As can be seen in the above medical literature citations the psychogenic aspect of Darwin's illness is considered to be a extremely prominent factor. As can be seen in Dr. Bean's diagnosis some in the medical community believe Darwin's illness may be purely psychogenic in nature. I documented via Darwin's words that he had emotional doubts. Clearly emotional doubts are relevant to psychosomatic, psychogenenic, and psychobiological illness. To sweep Darwin's emotional doubts under the rug is not following good medical practice in regards to forensic diagnosis. A good diagnostic approach is to look at the total evidence including emotional doubt. Darwin's illness as demonstrated by my JAMA, and American Medical Journal, and other citations clearly shows there is a heavy psychological component of Darwin's illness and the causes of this should not be minimized or obscured. Lastly, I believe Darwin's illness is some aspect is extremely likely to be purely psychogenically caused. The eruptions of facial eczema that Dr. Colp refers to are not related to panic disorder. Dr. Colp noted that Darwin had facial eczema that often was caused by controversies over his evolutionist ideas. Also, Dr. Colp stated from what he understands, facial eczema is not one of the complaints that are among the many somatic complaints of panic disorder.

I realize that some people are ardent admirers of Mr. Darwin. I do believe, however, that it is not a valid approach to obscure relevant personal history if valid commentary is to be given in regards to a diagnosis. In short, the principle of total evidence is a sound principle when one is engaged in problem solving in relation to complex issues which Darwin's illness certainly is.

Contents

[edit] Revamp

The conciseness and clarity of this article was suffering from repeated and surplus text, and excessive POV. I've revamped it and will recommend removal of the VfD notice...dave souza 18:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 04:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove NPOV template

I've edited the article to remove or balance POV statements, and now propose to remove the NPOV dispute template...dave souza 13:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prestigious New England Journal of Medicine weighs in

Article Title: Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, By Adrian Desmond and James Moore

Purpose: To review the book

Author: Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138

Citation info: New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 328:816 March 18, 1993 Number 11

Quote: "The authors deserve special praise for abstaining from rehashing long-refuted speculations, such as the theory that Darwin had Chagas' disease (although he was indeed bitten by the triatoma bugs in Argentina) or the psychoanalysts' claim that his symptoms were due to a conflict with his father."

taken from: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/328/11/816

ken 15:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Are References to Creationists POV?

As someone whose work has been - for some unknown reason - labeled "creationism" (it isn't), I would like to ask the question: Why are only ALLEGEDLY creationist comments and views identified as coming from a particular ideology?
In my personal view the idea that Darwin suffered remorse for his sinfulness is indeed a "non-starter". But why do I need to be told that this is a supposedly "creationist" claim (as if it didn't speak for itself)?
Are other comments and claims labeled according to whether they come from agnostics, atheists, humanists, Latter Day Leninist Trotskyites, etc?
My own observations on Darwin, and the primary filter through which I have tended to assess the potential usefulness of evidence is that of someone trained first as a social psychologist and later as a hypnotherapist. Since these areas of study have undoubtedly had a significant influence on my views, if comments by creationists are to be labeled as such, shouldn't my contributions be marked "shrink", or some similarly deprecating label?

And are we to suppose that people who find their way to this article are so ignorant and/or stupid that they need to have it pointed out to them when anything POSSIBLY from a creationist source appears on the page?

I submit that this highly discriminatory practice is neither NPOV, nor even useful, no matter how irritating some people may find views which do not coincide with their own. On the contrary, I suggest that it is fairly patronising, not to say arrogant, to suppose that readers aren't capable of figuring this out for themselves, and that people cannot think clearly on some subject just because they adhere to some branch of organised religion.
In a truly rational discussion one deals with the IDEAS presented, and evaluates them on their own merits rather than trying to influence the outcome by sticking labels on the source of the idea.

BTW, since completing my website I have received a number of e-mails from academics who wouldn't touch creationism with a barge pole, yet who feel that they are being seriously discriminated against just because they refuse to agree that Darwin's ideas are absolutely the last word on all things evolutionary. One very good reason NOT to assume that someone is coming from a "creationist" background unless there is solid, independent evidence to support that hypothesis.

For a genuinely NPOV article I suggest that ALL references to writers' idealogical/religious preferences, real or imagined, should be removed except where a quote or comment is referenced as coming from a specific source which can be unambiguously identified as having such a POV (e.g. a recognized creationist organization or publication).

For this reason, whilst leaving all of the external links intact, I have removed the division between "external links" and "creationist links". I honestly think readers, if they check the links at all, and if they give a hoot, will be able to figure out for themselves which ones are the creationists.
Andy Bradbury 18:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your articles re-spout arguments about Darwin's priority issues which are usually seen in creationist screeds; it is not hard to see why someone might have considered it to be in the same category. In any case I've restored the subhead though moved your article out of it. (In the end, I should note, I don't think that historical questions about Darwin have anything much to do with whether or not Darwinism as a whole is or is not correct.)
As for the bigger question, identifying potential biases in sources in articles of a controversial nature is very much in line with our NPOV policy. It is not POV to point out that a source is coming from a fringe and ideological point of view. Neutrality requires attribution of views, and there are some instances where lump attribution makes sense when categorizing sources. People can draw their own conclusions just the same; knowing that the author is a creationist, though, can give important clues about whether or not they are reliable, whether they use sources well, and whether or not they should accept their argument as intellectually honest. All of the other links in that category are clearly self-identified as creationist; I don't think our adding that label as a form of categorization changes much. --Fastfission 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As someone who apparently wrote the article referred to, Andy, you seem a bit careless about the question mark emphasised in the website. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources as policy requires great care in using such websites, though there is an argument for using them to illustrate a particular viewpoint. Your use of language such as "evolutionists already know that simple "natural selection", no matter whose idea it was, does not explain how full-blown macro-evolution can occur." is very much aligned with Creationist usage: accepting that you may be taking some other position, I've modified the subhead. ...dave souza, talk 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission:
Wow!
You write: "I don't think our adding that label as a form of categorization changes much."
In which case, why are you arguing that it should be left in?

Actually the lack of clear thinking in these comments is evident right from the opening words, specifically in regard to the phrase "your articles re-spout". If one wished to be objective and rational, as opposed to emotional, insulting and steeped in your own personal biases, why would one use a perjorative term like "spout"? And what's the point of "usually seen"? Are such ideas ONLY seen on creationist sites? Of course not. It is purely personal bias which leads one to make the assumption that if a comment resembles something on a creationist website then this author, too, must be a creationist. What kind of sloppy thinking is THAT?

Or again, what is meant by "a fringe and ideological point of view"? From one POV or another, EVERY viewpoint is questionable.
Are we to take this to mean that argument depends on the argument that the majority are always right (a well-known logical fallacy)? Is this a serious suggestion that some people have NO ideological/religious views as far as this subject area is concerned? Surely it is clear that being opposed to either creationism or evolutionism is just as much a religious/ideological standpoint as being in agreement with creationism or evolutionism?
(BTW, in the UK English dictionary "evolutionism" means nothing more than believing that the theory of evolution is correct.)

I would also point out that if anyone who has indeed read my site will be aware that it is HEAVILY referenced, and that the starting point for my investigation was a book by a thoroughly reputable scientist - Professor Loren Eiseley. (Whether anyone else chooses to agree with the conclusions drawn by Prof. Eiseley and/or myself regarding Darwin is something else again.) Professor Eiseley was most certainly NOT a creationist, nor even a doubter of evolution.
As top what someone might or might not have "considered", that would depend on whether they evaluate ideas on their own merits, or simply think in headlines and slogans. An unfortunate symptom of falling educational standards in both the US and the UK. (My website on the Scopes Trial of 1925 details a growing list of examples of flawed research/deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of that event by a string of US academics, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and even a publication of the American Congress.)

As to whether Darwinism as a whole is or is not correct, are we to suppose that our understanding of evolution has not advanced one whit since 1859? Surely not.
My article is about whether it still makes sense to refer to Darwin as though he were the font of all wisdom on the subject of evolution - or whether he has been used by certain people as an excuse to prevent genuine advances in that field of investigation.

That, too, is made quite plain in m article. Though I agree one would have had to read it all the way through to know that.

Finally, we find the claim: "I don't think that historical questions about Darwin have anything much to do with whether or not Darwinism as a whole is or is not correct."

And the point is?
The Wiki page we are discussing has to do with Darwin's health/ill-health - NOT with Darwinism.
Again, there appears to be a tendency in these comments to lump things together and oversimplify everything, instead of identifying individual ideas and evaluate each in its own right.
This looks, to me, like a clear case of "dumbing down"?

Dave: Careless about the question mark?
Considering that it was me who added the question mark into the reference on this page I find the meaning of this comment utterly obscure. My site presents evidence and draws a conclusion BUT I make it clear that this is my PERSONAL interpretation of the evidence and that readers should draw their own conclusions.

As to the quote: "evolutionists already know that simple "natural selection", no matter whose idea it was, does not explain how full-blown macro-evolution can occur." - I should point out that this was based, at least in part, on the work of Professor Brian Goodwin, a convinced evolutionist and one of the earliest proponents of the now widely used organizing system known as cladistics. Professor Goodwin's book "How the Leopard Changed His Spots" (now published by Princeton Science Library, BTW) is devoted to this subject.
Again, whether anyone chooses to agree with Professor Goodwin's views, or not, the point is that they have NOTHING to do with supporting creationism.
Like Fastfission's comments, this appears to be an example of bias which seeks to pigeon-hole everything that isn't ideologically acceptable, instead of evaluating ideas in their own right.

My question still stands - why is it NPOV to label creationist comments as being from that source (even if the link is purely the fruit of sloppy thinking) - yet no one else's comments/claims/statements are labeled according to relevant influence(s)?
Andy Bradbury 08:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you'd then be content if the other sources are labelled "Mainstream science". I'd have no objection to that. Your website has an analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position (see WP:NOR) which you object to being described as creationist, but just happens to match a common creationist position and is clearly not mainstream science. .. dave souza, talk 08:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coeliac?

I'm no expert. But the vagueness and multiplicity of the symptoms - malaise, vertigo, dizziness, muscle spasms and tremors, vomiting, cramps and colics, bloating depression etc.- is similar to that described by celiac disease sufferers. With celiac it is usually difficult for sufferers to establish a causal relationship because of the ubiquity of the offending grains in the diet (I imagine this could also be the case in Darwin's time) and it may take several years of misdiagnosis -hypochondria, depression, lyme etc to arrive at the correct one. Gomez3000adams 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an interesting speculation but of course we can't add original research to the article, and would need a verifiable source directly relating the diagnosis to Darwin. Ta again, .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) correction09:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course, this probably isn't the correct forum to post such speculation. I'm merely shooting in the wind hoping some more astute researcher might explore the angle Gomez3000adams 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion is relevant?

The section on Darwin's religious views makes no mention of how religion might have caused his disease, so I don't see why it should be in this article. While interesting, there is already an article on Darwin's religious views. Unless serious objections are voiced, I'm inclined to remove that section. OcciMoron 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that Gomez3000adams (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's experiences with Dr. James Manby Gully

Friends, the information in this article at present on Darwin's experiences with Dr. Gully deserve more detail. As you will see, I have gathered [WP:RS]] and [[WP:V] information. I hope that others will work with me to integrate this information within the article.

Although Charles Darwin was only 39 years old in November, 1848, he was so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral. In March, 1849, Darwin himself acknowledged that he was unable to work one day in every three, and further, he felt that he was dying. He said this specifically, "I was not able to do anything one day out of three, & was altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh." [1]

Darwin’s cousin, [William Fox], recommended that Darwin seek out the care of Dr. [James Manby Gully], an author of a popular book on water-cure. Although Darwin knew that Dr. Gully also prescribed homeopathic medicines, he was skeptical of homeopathy. On March 19, 1849, Darwin wrote, “I grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.”[2] It is uncertain if water-cure and/or homeopathic medicines had a powerful effect, but something did. On March 28, 1849, he had not have any vomiting for 10 days (a rare experience for him). By April 19, 1849, Darwin wrote, “I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for 30 days, which is thrice as long an interval, as I have had for last year; & yesterday in 4 walks I managed seven miles! I am turning into a mere walking and eating machine.”[3]

Darwin's symptoms of nausea and vomiting returned, and he suffered with varying degrees of intensity from this indigestion throughout his life, though after leaving Gully's clinic, he no longer complained about fainting spells, spots before his eyes, or the degree of fatigue that he had previously experienced. DanaUllmanTalk 06:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this, the section could do with considerable filling out. However, as we've discussed elsewhere, your presentation is based on primary sources and breaches WP:NOR in synthesising the argument that homeopathy was particularly significant. This seems unsupported in the light of the similar success of treatment at Dr. Lane's hydrotherapy, and the failure of Dr. Gully's treatment in 1863. The letter when he was 56 cited here seems to contradict your assertion about him no longer complaining about certain symptoms. I've got some relevant secondary sources bookmarked, and hope to return to this subject shortly. ... dave souza, talk 09:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for the thanx...and for also realizing that we need to fill out info on Darwin and Gully. My links to Darwin's letters are straight-forward, verified, and certainly reliable. I wrote above that he was still a sick "cookie" and not "cured" of his indigestion by Gully, though he never again wrote that he was so sick that he couldn't work one day in every three (as he did earllier). Darwin did re-visit Gully clinic in 1863, though didn't he see Dr. James Smith Ayerst (another homeopathic physician) who took over Gully's practice? In any case, I'm glad to work with you on this. DanaUllmanTalk 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this article until today. I look forward to working with others to provide both primary and secondary sources here. First, however, I would like to get some clarity about biographical material and OR. If I am quoting from the person about which this article is focussed, is this really OR? DanaUllmanTalk 06:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position . . dave souza, talk 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dave...you've been editing various Darwin articles for a while, so I respect your opinion on my new question: Why is it that there are so many references allowed to Darwin's letters, and yet, when I posted something in the past with a reference to one of his letters, it was deleted for OR? Something is funny here. DanaUllmanTalk 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is the way you add quotes - like by adding them with a lot of editorializing or OR etcetc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.144.193 (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Edmund Smith

The reference given to support the description of Dr Edmund Smith as "a homeopathic physician" does not do this. The letter on the page of The correspondence of Charles Darwin referred to is Letter 2502 on the Darwin Correspondence Project[4] (wouldn't it be better to refer to the online version of the same text so that others can more easily check it for themselves?), and says, "Dr Smith, I think, is sensible, but he is a Homœopathist!! & as far as I can judge does not personally look much after patients or anything else." We do not know whether, by "he is a Homœopathist!!" Darwin means he practices as a homoeopathic doctor, uses homoeopathy as an adjunct to the "Water Cure", or is merely a supporter of homoeopathy. The description of Smith as "a homeopathic physician" is not supported - this looks like OR or SYN. A footnote to the letter says that several hydropathic doctors, such as J.M. Gully, also used homoeopathy; not that they were also "homeopathic physicians". Darwin, by the way, seems not to have had a very high opinion of Smith. In another letter[5] he says, "I doubt whether Dr Smith would have suited you: they all say he is very careful in bad illness; but he constantly gives me impression, as if he cared very much for the Fee & very little for the patient." Is it worth mentioning Darwin's opinion of Smith in the article? Brunton (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also question whether, in the absence of any evidence that he acted as a homoeopath for Darwin, Smith's status as a homeopath is relevant in an article about Charles Darwin's illness and treatment. If there is a consensus to reinstate this, I would also question the use of the term "homeopathic physician" rather than simply "homeopath". This is hardly current usage, and the word "physician" is redundant as the article has already established that Smith was a doctor. The current descrition of Smith as a "surgeon and hydropathic doctor" is derived from a RS. Brunton (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)