Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.lang > #305738 > unrolled thread

Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71)

Back to article view | Back to sci.lang

Contents

  Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb> - 2024-07-08 23:05 -0700
    Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2024-07-09 12:23 +0100
      Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb> - 2024-07-15 11:44 -0700
        Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Tilde <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-30 22:52 -0600
          Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2024-08-31 21:46 +1000
            Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-08-31 15:25 +0200
            Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2024-08-31 18:33 +0100
              Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-01 08:21 +0200
                Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2024-09-01 18:15 +1000
                  Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> - 2024-09-03 12:00 +0200
                    Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-03 18:31 +0200
        Re: Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71) HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb> - 2025-06-26 15:52 -0700

#305738 — Why did Doyle die so young? (Sir A.Conan Doyle died at the age of 71)

           rich men  (and famous, Successful men) usu. live to Old age.


Steve Jobs  (1955–2011)  — an American inventor, entrepreneur and 
co-founder of Apple Inc. — died of complications from pancreatic cancer 
at the age of 56 on Oct. 5, 2011.      Jobs was born on Feb. 24, 1955, 
in San Francisco, California.


            S.Jobs was a freak.   A health-nut.  (A  Nutty Vegetarian)

            Why did Doyle   die   so young?
            He was so rich, and was a Medical Man.


 >>> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died on July 7, 1930 at the age of 71.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#305741

 Ar an t-ochtú lá de mí Iúil, scríobh HenHanna: 

 > [...]      Why did Doyle   die   so young?
 >            He was so rich, and was a Medical Man.
 > 
 > 
 > >>> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died on July 7, 1930 at the age of 71.

Doyle was a smoker who died of a heart attack at 71. This is completely
unremarkable, and still happens today even if patients get on
cholesterol-lowering medication early and have everything managed according to
best medical practice.

-- 
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#305844

On 7/9/2024 4:23 AM, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> 
>   Ar an t-ochtú lá de mí Iúil, scríobh HenHanna:
> 
>   > [...]      Why did Doyle   die   so young?
>   >            He was so rich, and was a Medical Man.
>   >
>   >
>   > >>> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died on July 7, 1930 at the age of 71.
> 
> Doyle was a smoker who died of a heart attack at 71. This is completely
> unremarkable, and still happens today even if patients get on
> cholesterol-lowering medication early and have everything managed according to
> best medical practice.
> 


Thanks.

     i wonder if he noticed any early signs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306225

HenHanna wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 4:23 AM, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>>   Ar an t-ochtú lá de mí Iúil, scríobh HenHanna:
>>
>>   > [...]      Why did Doyle   die   so young?
>>   >            He was so rich, and was a Medical Man.
>>   >
>>   > >>> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died on July 7, 1930 at the age of 71.
>>
>> Doyle was a smoker who died of a heart attack at 71. This is completely
>> unremarkable, and still happens today even if patients get on
>> cholesterol-lowering medication early and have everything managed 
>> according to
>> best medical practice.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>      i wonder if he noticed any early signs.

In those days the connections/correlations of smoking
with disease weren't really known. For example

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22345227/
2013 Jan:22

The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung
cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate
denial, global toll

"Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so
rare that doctors took special notice when
confronted with a case, thinking it a
once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and
mass marketing towards the end of the 19th
century popularised the cigarette habit,
however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic.
Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the
epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s..."


In a google image search with the terms:
poster doctors recommend smoking

You can find all kinds of early advertisements
for smoking featuring doctors. Several here

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/outrageous-vintage-cigarette-ads/3/

has a 1931 Camels cigarette ad with a doctor and
the caption says "Smoke a FRESH cigarette". There's
a couple from the 1890s billed as good for treating
asthma.

So as far as Doyle recognizing symptoms, well, in
those days smoking was not likely to have been
seen as the cause.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306226

On 31/08/24 14:52, Tilde wrote:
>
> "Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so rare that doctors took
> special notice when confronted with a case, thinking it a
> once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and mass marketing towards
> the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit,
> however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were
> recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s..."

I read a lot of science fiction from the 1940s and 1950s, and there one
finds that in the far distant future, in the days of the Galactic
Empire, for example, almost everyone smokes.

That's how the writers of the 1940s saw it. Nonsmokers were rare, and
seen as a bit nonconformist. Nobody seems to have predicted the
situation we have today, where smokers find a need to smoke in secrecy,
and everyone avoids them because they stink. We've had a rapid change in
attitudes.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306227

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I read a lot of science fiction from the 1940s and 1950s, and there one
> finds that in the far distant future, in the days of the Galactic
> Empire, for example, almost everyone smokes.

Neither of my parents smoked - that is my mother used to smoke 25
cigarettes a day before she had children, but then she stopped
completely. When they friends visiting, they would pass around a dish
with cigarettes and small cigars. Everyone - as I remember - smoked then
even if they normally didn't.

A bit strange because my mother warned us against smoking and explained
about the risks. We three brothers smoked at some time as did my father.
My sisters haven't, apart from hash of course. I and my little brother
stopped a long time ago. The middle brother smoked right until he died
from an unhealthy living and pneumonia (aged 75).

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306228

 Ar an t-aonú lá is triochad de mí Lúnasa, scríobh Peter Moylan: 

 > [...] I read a lot of science fiction from the 1940s and 1950s, and there
 > one finds that in the far distant future, in the days of the Galactic
 > Empire, for example, almost everyone smokes.
 > 
 > That's how the writers of the 1940s saw it. Nonsmokers were rare, and
 > seen as a bit nonconformist. Nobody seems to have predicted the
 > situation we have today, where smokers find a need to smoke in secrecy,
 > and everyone avoids them because they stink. We've had a rapid change in
 > attitudes.

Nicotine is a fascinating molecule. It is a mild stimulant that improves
cognition and problem-solving, and I think it’s plausible that its effect was
part of the pace of economic development and raising GDP per capita in the 20th
century. I note 50% of Chinese men smoked in 2022, vs. 15% of Irish men, and
China’s rate of GDP per capita growth is has been much healthier for decades.

I do not endorse smoking, it is bad for you. I am not intrinsically negative
about nicotine replacement therapy or vaping.

-- 
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306238

Aidan Kehoe wrote:

> Nicotine is a fascinating molecule. It is a mild stimulant that improves
> cognition and problem-solving, and I think it’s plausible that its effect was
> part of the pace of economic development and raising GDP per capita in the 20th
> century.

Back then the tobacco was 'cleaner' than it is today.

> I do not endorse smoking, it is bad for you. I am not intrinsically negative
> about nicotine replacement therapy or vaping.

I am negative about nicotine replacement therapy or vaping - about
nicotine as such but also about the uncontrolled additives the products
come with. If the nicotine was clean, it would be less harmful than
cigarettes.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306239

On 01/09/24 16:21, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>
>> Nicotine is a fascinating molecule. It is a mild stimulant that
>> improves cognition and problem-solving, and I think it’s plausible
>> that its effect was part of the pace of economic development and
>> raising GDP per capita in the 20th century.
>
> Back then the tobacco was 'cleaner' than it is today.
>
>> I do not endorse smoking, it is bad for you. I am not intrinsically
>> negative about nicotine replacement therapy or vaping.
>
> I am negative about nicotine replacement therapy or vaping - about
> nicotine as such but also about the uncontrolled additives the
> products come with. If the nicotine was clean, it would be less
> harmful than cigarettes.

I managed to shake tobacco addiction, after years of trying, with the
aid of nicotine patches, so I approve of that sort of replacement.

Vaping is a different matter. It sounded initially as a good form of
replacement, but the people I know who have tried it ended up more badly
addicted. There's definitely a problem with uncontrolled additives. In
particular, I gather that "non-nicotine" vapes often contain a high
concentration of nicotine.

Vapes are the tobacco industry's new method of sucking children into
addiction.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306285

On 9/1/2024 10:15 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> 
> Vaping is a different matter. It sounded initially as a good form of
> replacement, but the people I know who have tried it ended up more badly
> addicted. There's definitely a problem with uncontrolled additives. In
> particular, I gather that "non-nicotine" vapes often contain a high
> concentration of nicotine.
> 
> Vapes are the tobacco industry's new method of sucking children into
> addiction.
> 

not sure if it's the additives. it was marketed as less harmful for 
quite a while, so I think people just used it heavier because it didn't 
matter.

I was kind of shocked when one of my colleagues during nightshift just 
vaped indoors. She didn't even have to go out for a smoke, because the 
smoke at least didn't trigger the smoke alarms, but she also plain 
didn't stop using it for the whole night.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306290

Kyonshi wrote:

>> Vapes are the tobacco industry's new method of sucking children into
>> addiction.
>> 
> 
> not sure if it's the additives. it was marketed as less harmful for 
> quite a while, so I think people just used it heavier because it didn't 
> matter.

I think that it was less harmful for a while. The additives only came
later.

> I was kind of shocked when one of my colleagues during nightshift just 
> vaped indoors.

Yes, many vapers thought/think that nicotine is not unhealthy or at
least isn't harmful for others. They are wrong.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#307721

On 7/15/2024 11:44 AM, HenHanna wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/9/2024 4:23 AM, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>>
>>   Ar an t-ochtú lá de mí Iúil, scríobh HenHanna:
>>
>>   > [...]      Why did Doyle   die   so young?
>>   >            He was so rich, and was a Medical Man.
>>   >
>>   >
>>   > >>> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died on July 7, 1930 at the age of 71.
>>
>> Doyle was a smoker who died of a heart attack at 71. This is completely
>> unremarkable, and still happens today even if patients get on
>> cholesterol-lowering medication early and have everything managed 
>> according to best medical practice.
>>
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>      i wonder if he noticed any early signs.
> 
> 

We don't know much about Doyle's  wives, do we?  esp the Louise.


           Jean Elizabeth Leckie, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s second wife, 
was indeed a trained vocalist—she was accomplished as a singer and had 
studied music. While she was not primarily known as a writer, she was 
described as an intellectual and was deeply involved in her husband’s 
life, including his spiritualist endeavors. After their marriage in 
1907, she became known as Lady Conan Doyle and was recognized as a 
spiritualist, sharing her husband’s beliefs and experiences in that field.

           We know quite a bit about her personal life: she was 
athletic, passionate, and devoted to her family, raising three children 
with Conan Doyle. She was also known for her strong personality and was 
remembered as a central figure in Conan Doyle’s later years, fully 
supporting his public and private pursuits. However, she did not achieve 
independent literary or artistic fame outside of her association with 
her husband and the spiritualist community.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.lang

csiph-web