The worst disease ever in human history

In summary: Brain disease rhetoric is bad for public mental health literacy. People who actually know something about addiction know that addiction is addiction, not a disease that is brought on by sufferers themselves.In summary, addiction is not a disease, but rather a disorder that is brought on by sufferers themselves.
  • #1
Jin S Zhang
20
0
WHat is the worst and formidable disease ever in human history? Why?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
In terms of total integral number killed over history it's probably malaria.
In number killed in one outbreak it's the 1918 Flu epidemic.
 
  • #3
Addiction

As near as I can tell, malaria kills about 1 million people a year; alcohol kills about 1.8 million; tobacco kills about 4 million each year, worldwide.
 
  • #4
1918 influenza


-killed more people in 1 year than black death was able to over 10 years
-killed more people in 1 year than the total amount of people combined to date that have died from AIDS
-infected over 1 billion people
-depressed the average lifespan age in American by something like 10 years
 
  • #5
I'm no expert on this subject but I would say smallpox. It killed 90% of the indigenous people in North and South America after Columbus arrived. Plus many people in Europe, Asia and Africa.
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking said:
Addiction

As near as I can tell, malaria kills about 1 million people a year; alcohol kills about 1.8 million; tobacco kills about 4 million each year, worldwide.

You are so funny.
 
  • #7
What is funny about that? In the US, at least, addiction is considered to be a disease.
 
  • #8
If you limit it to communicable diseases rather than old age or malnutrition then most diseases are fairly modern in evolutionary terms.
Smallpox,TB,measles etc are transferred from animals and only appeared in humans when we started living with herds of domesticated livestock say 10,000 years ago.
Widespread plagues need large concentrations of people living together and long distance trade so only got going 1000 years ago.
For the first 1-2 million years of human history it was only something flying out of the jungle and biting you that really mattered,
 
Last edited:
  • #9
mqb is talking about density-dependent disease transmission. TB is a good example of this. There have been major outbreaks of DD diseases documented way back before Roman times. An excellent work meant for non-scientists is 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond. An old book 'Rats lice and History' by Hans Zinsser raised a lot of the questions in this area of enquiry. And has more epidemiological discussion.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
What is funny about that? In the US, at least, addiction is considered to be a disease.

I suspect the OP is referring to infectious disease (i.e. caused by a pathogen), rather than disorders, which technically aren't disease, but are still medical conditions. In common usage, the two are often used synonymously, but in medicine, disease would mean something different from a disorder. The OP will need to clarify on that point.
 
  • #11
Birth.

It has a 100% fatality rate.
 
  • #12
I don't mind dying of birth.
 
  • #13
I heard the worst diseases are heamorrhoids and ebola.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
lol. There is some serious religion/atheist bashing going on which I personally find quite amusing. I'm not going to get involved in it, since the original question was not "which has killed more people... religion or lack of religion".

With respect to the original question, could genetic diseases/abnormalities not be the largest single killer of humans? I know that they generally only affect a tiny proportion of humans, but given how long they have been around, it may be a contender
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Removed off topic religious discussions.
 
  • #16
Moonbear said:
I suspect the OP is referring to infectious disease (i.e. caused by a pathogen), rather than disorders, which technically aren't disease, but are still medical conditions. In common usage, the two are often used synonymously, but in medicine, disease would mean something different from a disorder. The OP will need to clarify on that point.

I knew that this wasn't just a casual reference so I checked. It seems that the National Institute on Drug Abuse are the ones who promoted the idea that addiction is a disease of the brain - I think along the lines of a genetic disease. But that idea is losing favor.

...As a psychiatrist who treats heroin addicts and a psychologist long interested in the philosophical meaning of disease, we have chafed at the "brain disease" rhetoric since it was first promulgated by NIDA in 1995. Granted, the rationale behind it is well-intentioned. Nevertheless, we believe that the brain disease concept is bad for the public's mental health literacy.[continued]
http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/nav/tap3/

Also, this, which is a reply to the article above:
This clueless pair doesn't argue that the neurochemistry of an addict's brain is no different from that of a non-addict. They can't, because it demonstrably is. Instead, they offer gems of wisdom like this:

"Characterizing addiction as a brain disease misappropriates language more properly used to describe conditions such as multiple sclerosis or schizophrenia—afflictions that are neither brought on by sufferers themselves nor modifiable by their desire to be well."

This presumes that there's no underlying neurological basis that predisposes someone to addiction. Those who actually know something about it know this is a false presumption. Addiction, as Satel and Lilienfeld have somehow failed to learn, is not simply the behavior of abusing drugs—if it were, then all of the college students who drink too much would be alcoholics. Most aren't; they grow out of it.

Addiction is actually a disorder in which the brain's reward system is conditioned to value the reward of getting high over pretty much anything else. It's a disorder, in other words, in which the brain is malfunctioning. [continued]
http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2007/07/addiction_is_not_a_disease.html

In the end it seems that this is a political issue as much as a medical one.

Again, from the first link:
A new bill sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., would change the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction and change the name of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health. Called the Recognizing Addiction As a Disease Act of 2007, it explains, "The pejorative term 'abuse' used in connection with diseases of addiction has the adverse effect of increasing social stigma and personal shame, both of which are so often barriers to an individual's decision to seek treatment." Addiction should be known as a brain disease, the bill proclaims, "because drugs change the brain's structure and manner in which it functions. These brain changes can be long lasting, and can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs."

Is diabetes a disease or a disorder?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
If we are to limit ourselves only to those lethal pandemics that political correctness has allowed to define as such, tuberculosis is as far as I know of still the major killer.

But mental diseases are far more prevalent, and cause numerous deaths every year.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Ivan Seeking said:
I knew that this wasn't just a casual reference so I checked. It seems that the National Institute on Drug Abuse are the ones who promoted the idea that addiction is a disease of the brain - I think along the lines of a genetic disease. But that idea is losing favor.


http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/nav/tap3/

Also, this, which is a reply to the article above:

http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2007/07/addiction_is_not_a_disease.html

In the end it seems that this is a political issue as much as a medical one.

Again, from the first link:


Is diabetes a disease or a disorder?

While NIDA may have influenced this official recognition, alcoholism, has long been considered a disease in many quarters and research based on this assumption has produced some very interesting findings, not the least of which that it is subject to greater genetic influence than say, most cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Addiction is one of the few illnesses I know of where victims are so often incapable of seeling and/or using treatment to their advantage. Certainly, not the only one as heart disease, diabetes, obesity and many forms of psychiatric illness seem to share in common this odd inability to modify behavior for ones benefit.

In terms of the morbidity and mortality, it does rank near the top, to say nothing of lost productivity and the damage done to others, both directly (1/2 of all violent crimes inclusding homicide I believe are committed under the influence) and indirectly. Curiously the amount of money spent on treatment and resesrch pales in comparison to more glamorous diseases such as cardiovascular--when I last taught medical students on the subject, the outlays were something like 50:1 in favor of the latter.

Despite the destigmatization that has occurred over the last 20 or so years, there is still a belief, both among the general public as well as health care professionals that the illness is self-inflicted. Yet in all my years of treating addicts I have not met one who chose to become one.
 
  • #19
Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.
Stupid.
The top 3 killers worldwide are

1.) heart disease
2.) stroke
3.) lung cancer.

Smoking contributes to ALL 3 of the top 3 killers worldwide.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
According to the WHO - top 10 causes of death:

Developed countries:
Ischaemic heart disease 3,512,000
Stroke 3,346,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1,829,000
Lower respiratory infections 1,180,000
Lung cancer 938,000
Car accident 669,000
Stomach cancer 657,000
High blood pressure 635,000
Tuberculosis 571,000
Suicide 499,000


3rd world:
HIV-AIDS 2,678,000
Lower respiratory infections 2,643,000
Ischaemic heart disease 2,484,000
Diarrhea 1,793,000
Cerebrovascular disease 1,381,000
Childhood diseases 1,217,000
Malaria 1,103,000
Tuberculosis 1,021,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 748,000
Measles 674,000


A bit arguable, since diarrhea is a symptom not a disease and it's a bit arbitrary how you split heart disease.
In the developed world it would seem that if you stay away from cigs, fast-food and SUVs you will be OK.
Many of these disease are newcomers or are a result of a more modern lifestyle. Evidence from the number of mutations in the genome to counter it suggests that throughout human evolution malaria has been the big one, upto a couple of hundred years ago it was still one of the biggest killers in Europe. Some estimates suggest that half of all humans who ever lived contracted it!
 
Last edited:
  • #21
mgb_phys said:
According to the WHO - top 10 causes of death:

Developed countries:
Ischaemic heart disease 3,512,000
Stroke 3,346,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1,829,000
Lower respiratory infections 1,180,000
Lung cancer 938,000

Car accident 669,000
Stomach cancer 657,000
High blood pressure 635,000
Tuberculosis 571,000
Suicide 499,000


3rd world:
HIV-AIDS 2,678,000
Lower respiratory infections 2,643,000
Ischaemic heart disease 2,484,000

Diarrhea 1,793,000
Cerebrovascular disease 1,381,000
Childhood diseases 1,217,000
Malaria 1,103,000
Tuberculosis 1,021,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 748,000
Measles 674,000



And all of those have an extremely good chance of having smoking as their hidden cause.
 
  • #22
gravenewworld said:
Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.



Stupid.



The top 3 killers worldwide are

1.) heart disease
2.) stroke
3.) lung cancer.

Smoking contributes to ALL 3 of the top 3 killers worldwide.

What is the problem with this.. We are running into some critical overpopulation problems now, what's the problem?
 
  • #23
henxan said:
What is the problem with this.. We are running into some critical overpopulation problems now, what's the problem?

PREVENTABLE death. It costs everyone money when it shouldn't.
 
  • #24
gravenewworld said:
Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.

I don't know about that obesity thing.
I read a comment in a research article that being 10lbs overweight was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in terms of health risk.

Last I checked the insurance companies docked you 5 years off your life expectancy.
So in terms of years of life lost it doesn't seem to be a big deal compared to something like malaria where children tend to be the victim.
 
  • #25
NoTime said:
I don't know about that obesity thing.
I read a comment in a research article that being 10lbs overweight was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in terms of health risk.

Last I checked the insurance companies docked you 5 years off your life expectancy.
So in terms of years of life lost it doesn't seem to be a big deal compared to something like malaria where children tend to be the victim.

There are numerous sources out there that claim smoking is the #1 leading cause of preventable death in the world. You can simply search google to find a ton. Here in the US, obesity is approaching #1 status as the leading killer because Americans in general smoke less than a lot of countries in the world per capita wise. However, consider places like Japan where obesity isn't that much of a problem. Almost 2/3 of Japanese men smoke :bugeye:. In China it is estimated that 350 million people smoke :bugeye:. Smoking rates have dramatically risen in Asian countries. By 2020 WHO predicts that smoking will kill 10 million people per year world wide. Obesity is a problem among industrialized nations, however, you will find smokers EVERYWHERE. Smoking is still king when it comes to killing and will remain in the top spot for years to come.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
gravenewworld said:
PREVENTABLE death. It costs everyone money when it shouldn't.

It costs everyone a lot of money? What is this, youre a greedy bastard?

Well, firstly, I would like to point out that you have what could be misinterpreted arrogant attitude. Then what I am going to say probably will please you!

Actually Poland did a research on this subject, and wouldn't you know it, its actually good for the economy! People die earlier, ergo less expenses for treatment the elderly. This actually by a great deal outweighs the negative consequences you mentioned. Another extremely positive factor is the relative high taxes being put on tobacco sales. This depends on the individual countries, but for instance for Norway, which I come from, have put taxes in the range of several hundreds of percent on the tobacco.

Therefore, as a conclusion, there is no economic negative aspect to tobacco. If one is to state a reason for banning tobacco, it would be on a basis of telling people of how they should live their life. Like in a communistic system. Is that ok?
 
  • #27
henxan said:
It costs everyone a lot of money? What is this, youre a greedy bastard?

LOL, so what is better spending tons of filthy lucre on treating PREVENTABLE DISEASES or spending all of that money on AIDS research?

Well, firstly, I would like to point out that you have what could be misinterpreted arrogant attitude.
So I have been told.

ctually Poland did a research on this subject, and wouldn't you know it, its actually good for the economy! People die earlier, ergo less expenses for treatment the elderly. This actually by a great deal outweighs the negative consequences you mentioned. Another extremely positive factor is the relative high taxes being put on tobacco sales. This depends on the individual countries, but for instance for Norway, which I come from, have put taxes in the range of several hundreds of percent on the tobacco.
You know what is also good for the economy? Consuming as much as possible. I guess we should continue to consume as much as possible regardless of the disastrous effects it may have on the environment.

Also please link to the Polish study. From what you have described the Polish study seems to have only examined costs of treating smoking illnesses vs. cost of elderly care. If you are going to talk economics then start thinking like an economist. Smoking also has costs from lost productivity. You can not simply ignore that HUGE point and must factor it into how much smoking really economically costs.

Therefore, as a conclusion, there is no economic negative aspect to tobacco. If one is to state a reason for banning tobacco, it would be on a basis of telling people of how they should live their life. Like in a communistic system. Is that ok?
Where did I ever mention the word 'ban' ? Get a friggin clue dude.
 
  • #28
Cars is apparently the correct answer. (In the good old USofA at least)
Most of the modern diseases affect mostly older people who would not have been alive at their age a couple of hundred years ago. So healthcare, media, and general societal hysteria might come in as a good second, third and fourth as most deadly diseases.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

Odd. The music playing in the background where I'm at is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFObRusJt24"

I always knock on wood when I hear that song.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
gravenewworld said:
LOL, so what is better spending tons of filthy lucre on treating PREVENTABLE DISEASES or spending all of that money on AIDS research?

Lol. Preventable?
You could eliminate AIDS if everyone stopped having sex.
As an added benefit this would solve all enviromental problems in about 60 years.

You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.

PS: While I don't have any handy links I've seen other studies that indicate smokers die cheaper.
 
  • #30
OmCheeto said:
Most of the modern diseases affect mostly older people who would not have been alive at their age a couple of hundred years ago.

You don't have to go back that far. IIRC the life expectancy in the USA in 1900 was 45 and probably remains in that neighborhood for a lot of the world currently.

Personally I'd pick poverty.
 
  • #31
NoTime said:
Lol. Preventable?
You could eliminate AIDS if everyone stopped having sex.
As an added benefit this would solve all enviromental problems in about 60 years.

You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.
No AIDS is still transferable from non sexual contact.
PS: While I don't have any handy links I've seen other studies that indicate smokers die cheaper.
You should read this book then that was published by MIT
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4...oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

There are 100s of studies out there that have tried to determine the net cost of smoking to society, however, most of them only concentrate on one thing such as medical costs vs. savings in shorter lifespan while ignoring many other costs attributed with smoking like lost productivity.

In that book Sloan (Duke Economist) conducted one of the most recent and comprehensive studies of the net cost of smoking and concludes that even if you factor in the shorter lifespans of smokers, smoking still places an economic burden on the rest of society. Sure smokers pay cigarette taxes, but they earn less over their lifetime (because of the more time they need off etc.) thus leading to less taxes paid into things like income taxes.

Read the book.

You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.
Even though Malaria in the US is rare (and considered to be eradicated in the US) there are still reported cases of Malaria infections from people who didn't even travel outside of the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/features/surveillance.htm [Broken]

Also moving 4 billion people from tropical climates or sub saharan Africa in order to avoid malaria IS NOT REALISTIC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
In case people have forgotten, please click on the link to https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374". You are also welcome to use the REPORT button if you believe a post is out of line. If you choose to IGNORE all that, then a bunch of you will be forced to go find a life elsewhere away from PF.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Zz has it exactly. You guys are arguing ad hominem - not critiquing data or data gathering procedures. That is a fast path to getting a horizontal line thru your username.
 
  • #34
Yeah, I see that I went a bit over the border there.. Well, now I know where the limit is set, and Ill try to refrain from passing it in the future :)..
 
  • #35
Gravenworld:

I must apologize, because the study was not made in Poland, but in the Czech Republic ;).. you know, there's always problems sorting out between those countries.
Another error I made was stating that the study was financed by the State. This is not factual, and came as a result of hearing the news on radio several years ago, and everything did not stick ;)..

Well, here is your link:http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm" [Broken]

Though provisioned by Philip Morris, the data should be easily verified!.. Let me hear back when you get to read through it ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>What is the worst disease ever in human history?</h2><p>The worst disease ever in human history is subjective and can vary depending on different factors such as mortality rate, global impact, and historical significance. Some of the diseases that have been considered the worst in human history include smallpox, the bubonic plague, and the Spanish flu.</p><h2>What caused the worst disease ever in human history?</h2><p>The causes of the worst disease ever in human history also vary depending on the specific disease. For example, smallpox is caused by the variola virus, the bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, and the Spanish flu is caused by the influenza A virus. These diseases were all spread through different means such as direct contact, contaminated objects, and respiratory droplets.</p><h2>How many people were affected by the worst disease ever in human history?</h2><p>The number of people affected by the worst disease ever in human history also varies. The bubonic plague, also known as the Black Death, is estimated to have killed 75-200 million people in the 14th century. The Spanish flu is estimated to have caused 50 million deaths in 1918-1919. Smallpox is estimated to have caused 300-500 million deaths in the 20th century alone.</p><h2>Is the worst disease ever in human history still a threat?</h2><p>Some of the diseases that have been considered the worst in human history, such as smallpox and the bubonic plague, have been eradicated or are no longer as widespread due to advancements in medicine and public health measures. However, there are still diseases that pose a threat to human health, such as Ebola and HIV/AIDS.</p><h2>What can be done to prevent the worst disease ever in human history from happening again?</h2><p>Preventing the worst disease ever in human history from happening again involves a combination of measures such as improving sanitation and hygiene, developing effective vaccines and treatments, and implementing strict public health measures during outbreaks. It is also important to continue researching and monitoring emerging diseases to prevent them from becoming the next worst disease in human history.</p>

What is the worst disease ever in human history?

The worst disease ever in human history is subjective and can vary depending on different factors such as mortality rate, global impact, and historical significance. Some of the diseases that have been considered the worst in human history include smallpox, the bubonic plague, and the Spanish flu.

What caused the worst disease ever in human history?

The causes of the worst disease ever in human history also vary depending on the specific disease. For example, smallpox is caused by the variola virus, the bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, and the Spanish flu is caused by the influenza A virus. These diseases were all spread through different means such as direct contact, contaminated objects, and respiratory droplets.

How many people were affected by the worst disease ever in human history?

The number of people affected by the worst disease ever in human history also varies. The bubonic plague, also known as the Black Death, is estimated to have killed 75-200 million people in the 14th century. The Spanish flu is estimated to have caused 50 million deaths in 1918-1919. Smallpox is estimated to have caused 300-500 million deaths in the 20th century alone.

Is the worst disease ever in human history still a threat?

Some of the diseases that have been considered the worst in human history, such as smallpox and the bubonic plague, have been eradicated or are no longer as widespread due to advancements in medicine and public health measures. However, there are still diseases that pose a threat to human health, such as Ebola and HIV/AIDS.

What can be done to prevent the worst disease ever in human history from happening again?

Preventing the worst disease ever in human history from happening again involves a combination of measures such as improving sanitation and hygiene, developing effective vaccines and treatments, and implementing strict public health measures during outbreaks. It is also important to continue researching and monitoring emerging diseases to prevent them from becoming the next worst disease in human history.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
784
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
648
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top