Indian cholera is highly unsubstantiated. Also India was in…

Indian cholera is highly unsubstantiated. Also India was in the grip of Brits. How convenient to blame your own motherland. Wah wah!

Indians keen on naming & shaming China need to look up medical history.

They will find that cholera pandemic of 1817 was known as Asiatic Cholera- with Indians being blamed for spreading disease. The "dirty natives" accusation from the Raj came from this. Stop being racist.
— Vidya (@VidyaKrishnan) March 26, 2020

For cholera to be contagious, the population density is important. Susruta mentions about a disease with similar symptoms but clearly there no cholera endemics recorded at his time. The 1st case of an epidemic cholera in India was reported in 1503 by Portugese in Goa.

Portugese Drs observed that Indian vaidyas had a cure for it and they particularly insisted on the personal hygiene. Many H were particular in taking morning bath and following personal hygiene but Pgese neglected that. It is hypothesized that the personal hygiene gave protection

Modern scientific research has confirmed emergence of more virulent strain of cholera from less pathogenic one under favourable conditions, therefore it can be presumed that the unhygienic and unhealthy habits of the Portuguese caused epidemic

Reference for above tweet- Ramamurthy, T. and Nair, G. Balakrish “Evolving identity of epidemic Vibrio cholera: Past and the Present”, Science and Culture, 76 (2010) 153-159

Later when the Portuguese traders commenced trading in Bengal, city became overcrowded with Portuguese sailors and traders from Goa who might have carried cholera germs and polluted the sea and river waters of that region

There is records of a fatal diarrheal disease from Dutch explorers in Hooghly where the Portuguese moved the markets after the Saptagram port was abandoned due to the disease. BTW this was NOT a pandemic, this was before 19th century.

In his book Annals of Cholera Epidemics, John Macpherson had given wonderful and detailed account of the incidence of cholera in the West from the earliest period to the year 1817 (Macpherson 1872, pp. 99-176). In
1527, cholera erupted at Bologna. See next tweet

Pic shows The Virgin of Succor venerated in the Sanctuary in the Borgo San Pietro at Bologna,
appears above the town and was asked by Sts. Peter, Paul, Roch and Sebastian to liberate the town from the cholera of 1527. NOTE the year- 1527!!!

A few years later, in 1538 violent diarrhea ravaged the whole of Europe with such ferocity that scarcely any
state escaped unscathed. Therefore, it seems probable that such epidemics had been somewhat
of choleric nature.

In 1564, an unknown author Riverius wrote, ‘the disease
called cholera was prevalent, killing many within four days but nearly all recovered who sought aid on the first onset of the disease

During 1636 the mortality bill in London included ‘rising of the stomach or vomiting’ as new headings of diseases. In 1643, Belgian physician, van der Heyden provided us with a very lively description of cholera morbus

Another great physician of that time, Morton
spoke of epidemic diarrhea and dysenteries accompanied with awful twitching cramps, as prevailing annually from 1666 to 1672 with a weekly mortality rate of three to five hundred.

Dr. Morton’s account is particularly valuable
as it gives us the connection between cholera and fevers in those days. In 1689, cholera and dysentery were prevalent in Nuremberg. In 1691, London
was hit by intermittent fever accompanied with convulsion or cholera

Reference for above tweet Macpherson 1872, pp. 61-65

In 1750-51, epidemic cholera was witnessed by
Malouin in Paris in the month of July and was successfully treated by opium.

In 1765, there was a choleric form of intermittent at Montpellier (Pic1) From the beginning of the nineteenth century we find the presence of cholera or cholera-like disease in London and in other parts of Great Britain (pic2).

Mr. Hennen at Cephalonia in the years 1816 and 1817 recorded prevalence of a most fatal cholera. Though it did not spread widely but it destroyed three out of four attacked by it. But was definitely more severe than in India

Prior to 1817 cholera is hardly accountable
in the medical history of Bengal. But subsequent annual incidence led many observers to believe that the disease had struck its root in Bengal de novo.

Finally we need to take into account the extremely poor sanitation conditions of London,the largest city in the world in 1800s.A city overwhelmed by waste products of ever-growing population.Overcrowded into stinking slums,poorest citizens were literally living in their own filth

These conditions may have led to the development of a more virulent strain of V. cholerae as exemplified by this letter written by none other than famous physicist- Michael Faraday to The Times on the filthy condition of River Thames

In my opinion, India/Bengal was not responsible for the five pandemics of the 19th century. It was McNamara who coined the term ‘Asiatic cholera’ as he believed that cholera originated from India with hardly any proof. Another case of the Brits denigrating colonial subjects

And ppl like u@VidyaKrishnan hardly read any sources but latch on to any opportunity 2 bash india just so that u prove urloyalty to your Chinese and European Masters. PLEASE NOTE THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISEASE WITH AN INDIAN ORIGIN. EAT IT AND PLEASE LIVE WITH IT. Happy Navarathri🙏

Sorry for the extra long thread, felt it was important to present it

Indian cholera is highly unsubstantiated. Also India was in the grip of Brits. How convenient to blame your own motherland. Wah wah!

More from All

You May Also Like