3 ms·
This article reads as irresponsible gaslighting, and the magazine should have known better than to publish it in this snarky voice. The referenced reports that
by lvs 8y ago
This article reads as irresponsible gaslighting, and the magazine should have known better than to publish it in this snarky voice. The referenced reports that raise the possibility of psychosis are maintaining a scientific voice: that one must keep an open mind to alternative explanations for an observation so long as they remain viable and not falsified. The writer was wrong to read psychological illness as the most viable explanation -- and surely wrong to assert to readers that this is the case.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoGiven the currently known evidence, conversion disorder is the most viable explanation. While new evidence could change that, there's nothing wrong with reporting on what currently seems to be correct. The referenced reports do the same thing, state what they find most likely and say that further evidence could change this. They aren't just printing their guess.
- lvs 8y agoThe only team who has published results based on direct examination of patients did not draw that conclusion. You can read the JAMA paper yourself. The rest of the peanut gallery is simply speculating off that single report.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoThat report's stated objective does not include diagnosis, just to describe the neurological manifestations of the people involved. Other teams used that report as evidence to make reports, they don't need more direct examination of the patients.
- zxcvzsdfgsery 8y agoThe sound of someone with something to lose, this comment right here. It's just really obvious, the tone of this comment. You urgently scramble to peg an opinion on this thread. You protest too much.