Talk:Andrew Taylor Still/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This man was a quack

The article forgets that, this man was a quack.I agree that in his times, medicine was almost useless, but the fact remains:Andrew Taylor Still was a quack.Agre22 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

The man was not a quack! He was a physician with some hard to swallow ideas which may or may not have been correct but he certainly was not a quack! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.106.82 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"May or may not have been correct" ? They weren't correct. It is not correct to believe that you can cure a child of whooping cough by choking them. Look up what quackery is some time, friend. --70.131.88.175 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're personal attacks against Still are completely unwarranted. Dumaka (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish, we can look up every single physician who lived in the 19th century and find a reason to call them likewise. Most of modern medicine as we know it was discovered in the last few decades. Before that, it was arsenic and blood-letting. If Still was a quack, he was among his kind with everyone else in the profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.204.168 (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately above mine. The traditions of medicine, mainstream or otherwise during Still's era, are all methods that would not be accepted in modern medicine today. Keep in mind this was over a hundred years ago and I fail to see how Still was a quack for exploring new avenues of treatment when techniques at the time produced rather poor results. I am sure many would be surprised what mainstream medicine believed to be good medicine in the day. I could go into more detail but I think that Still, in a time of arsenic, blood-letting, and countless other false beliefs not based on rational science, was not a quack. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)